PK and the pointless Tina Leonard

Barname

Tina was on with Pat again....couldnt find the previous thread but I just heard more useless non-information from the taxpayer funded Tina

If the IMF were serious Quango's such as the ones that line Tina's pockets would have been disbanded already.

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Working_With_You/About_the_NCA/

One would imagine that Tina would prep for these radio gigs, but no! more vague responses....

alastair

Barname wrote: »

One would imagine that Tina would prep for these radio gigs, but no! more vague responses....

One would imagine you'd check some facts before engaging your mouth, but no.
Tina Leonard isn't paid anything by any quango - the NCA included.

Barname

alastair wrote: »

One would imagine you'd check some facts before engaging your mouth, but no.
Tina Leonard isn't paid anything by any quango - the NCA included.

RTE refer to Tina as being from the NCA

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1224/weather_live.html

http://www.rte.ie/tv/fourlive/2010/1012/consumerwithtina017.html

based on that association she would receive app fees from RTE for the PK gig, 4live etc, I also note she has an article in the Indo...

If you are telling me she isnt receiving a penny for her output then thats fair, because her output isnt worth a penny.

NOW! alastair YOU need to PROVE the basis of YOUR bizarre defence of the useless Tina.

alastair

She doesn't work for any quango - despite your claim - why should anyone bother with the rest of your rant?

Barname

alastair wrote: »

She doesn't work for any quango - despite your claim - why should anyone bother with the rest of your rant?

detraction is the name of your game Alastair is it? or may I call you Tina?

You claim to know alot about Tina, so answer me this:

What is Tina's connection with the NCA?

dont spin or bluster, answer the question.

alastair

I'm not Tina, but why stop being wrong now?

Tina Leonard used to head up the ECC - a job she has't held for a number of years now. She's well qualified to speak to the gamut of consumer issues.

mike65

Qualified or not she is hopeless on radio.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65715922

alastair

Matter of opinion - unlike the 'taxpayer funded' nonsense.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

Matter of opinion - unlike the 'taxpayer funded' nonsense.

It's not an opinion that "That's a good question Pat" is a terrible answer to a question. It's a fact.

She is awful, I would give more detailed answers myself and I'm a clueless idiot.

alastair

You're honestly claiming that she only complimented a question and didn't answer it? No-one noticed this oversight? Riiight.

Barname

alastair wrote: »

I'm not Tina, but why stop being wrong now?

Tina Leonard used to head up the ECC - a job she has't held for a number of years now. She's well qualified to speak to the gamut of consumer issues.

rustled alastair, rustled...

1842 Speaking on RTÉ News Tina Leonard of the National Consumer Agency has said that a variety of consumer rights exist for people with flight difficulties.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1224/weather_live.html

If Tina is not from the NCA she needs to clarify that fact the next time RTE state it.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

You're honestly claiming that she only complimented a question and didn't answer it? No-one noticed this oversight? Riiight.

Words came out of her mouth, but most of the time the actual question is never answered and usually wanders off the topic of the question.

Why don't you find some of the podcasts and listen to them

Barname

alastair wrote: »

You're honestly claiming that she only complimented a question and didn't answer it? No-one noticed this oversight? Riiight.

'thats a good question Pat' is Tina's default answer when she DOES NOT have the facts. She NEVER prepares for the radio slots.

care for me to link the podcasts? prepare to fail alastair.

Ms Vague and alastair the attack dog ! what a pairing!

alastair

So the penny drops that she isn't taxpayer funded and never worked for the NCA? Where do RTE say she does?

I'd love to see the transcript where her sole response to a question is to compliment it. Because it sounds like pure BS to me.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

So the penny drops that she isn't taxpayer funded and never worked for the NCA? Where do RTE say she does?

I'd love to see the transcript where her sole response to a question is to compliment it. Because it sounds like pure BS to me.

You were told all ready what she does.

I have no vested interest in lieing about what she does or doesn't do.

Do you?

alastair

None at all, but then I'm not claiming that she doesn't answer a question, but rather compliments it. Nor am I claiming she works for a body that she does
Not.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

None at all, but then I'm not claiming that she doesn't answer a question, but rather compliments it. Nor am I claiming she works for a body that she does
Not.

can you clear up your stance on tina so?

Do you think she gives well researched intelligent answeres to questions put to her on the show?

or?

Barname

alastair wrote: »

None at all, but then I'm not claiming that she doesn't answer a question, but rather compliments it. Nor am I claiming she works for a body that she does
Not.

do you write speeches for brian clowen?

alastair

ntlbell wrote: »

can you clear up your stance on tina so?

Do you think she gives well researched intelligent answeres to questions put to her on the show?

or?

I think she's well informed on consumer matters, having years of experience in the area, and I think she works within the format provided for her - I'm not going to pretend that she doesn't answer a question when it's asked of her. You might like her style or not, and you might not like the answers she gives to questions, but I'd love to see an honest criticism of the accuracy of her feedback - it's normally on the money - and presumably well researched.

I've problems with armchair generals who, despite demonstrably not knowing their arse from their elbow in what they post, feel obliged to pontificate about her employment, relationship with PK, and credentials.

alastair

Barname wrote: »

do you write speeches for brian clowen?

Nah, I just have this fondness for accuracy and facts.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

I think she's well informed on consumer matters, having years of experience in the area, and I think she works within the format provided for her - I'm not going to pretend that she doesn't answer a question when it's asked of her. You might like her style or not, and you might not like the answers she gives to questions, but I'd love to see an honest criticism of the accuracy of her feedback - it's normally on the money - and presumably well researched.

I've problems with armchair generals who, despite demonstrably not knowing their arse from their elbow in what they post, feel obliged to pontificate about her employment, relationship with PK, and credentials.

I didn't question her employment, relationship with PK or anything else.

I'm stating that she doesn't seem to do any preperation for the show and seems unable to answer the vast majority of questions put to her in a clear and concise manner offten avoiding the question or rambling off topic about something that has nothing to do with the question which looks like an attempt to hide her lack of knowledge on the given subject.

she's not the first and won't be the last to do it.

JonathanAnon

Like I've said on here before.. It's like there was a role of "expert" that became vacant and she got the job... She is far from being convincing, and is certainly not on top of her brief...

I've contrasted her before with Ella McSweeney.. Any time Ella comes on you feel that she knows what she is talking about, and delivers the information in a concise and authoritative manner... You also feel as if she has researched the item well, and has a genuine interest.... With Tina, it's as if the topic has just been dropped on her desk at 9 o'clock and she has use of the Internet and a phone to become an expert by 10.30 (when she joins Pat in studio)...

Maybe the brief of "consumer expert" is too broad for one person??

alastair

Years of experience heading up a consumer affairs office might count as expertise for some, but no matter.

mike65

Are you her brother? She could be brilliant at some office in the EU (head up the EEC? Sure was never Jacques Delores!) or she could have been some seat filling spoofer for all we know. All we do know for sure is that in her role as a consumer rights "expert" on the PK show she is a poor presenter of facts and advice. Nothing else to say about her really.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

Years of experience heading up a consumer affairs office might count as expertise for some, but no matter.

Having a position in an agency doesn't make one an expert.

The same way being a financial regulator doesn't mean you can regulate.

alastair

mike65 wrote: »

Are you her brother? She could be brilliant at some office in the EU (head up the EEC? Sure was never Jacques Delores!) or she could have been some seat filling spoofer for all we know. All we do know for sure is that in her role as a consumer rights "expert" on the PK show she is a poor presenter of facts and advice. Nothing else to say about her really.

That's ECC, not EEC.

And no, all we know your opinion - so far unsupported by any actual specifics of poor advice.

alastair

ntlbell wrote: »

Having a position in an agency doesn't make one an expert.

The same way being a financial regulator doesn't mean you can regulate.

Grasping at straws much?

JonathanAnon

alastair wrote: »

Grasping at straws much?

I think ye are getting side tracked lads... Whether she is paid or not, or is party of a quango or not, I think the core point is this... I would not take any of her advice as being gospel, I would feel the need to double check everything that she gives advice on...

On a different point, I think RTE has to be more accountable for the purported "experts" that they have on their broadcasts.... Over 2007/2008, they had a number of property "experts" like Liz O'Kane telling self serving lies, in an attempt to help line their own pockets... Even last week they allowed so called "pop expert" Louis Walsh to tell Mooney's audience to vote for Mary as the judges would not have a hand in the voting... which turned out to be a lie also (and Louis Walsh will have benefited from this lie)...

From a legal point of view, they should have a disclaimer ahead of such items saying that "these are the point of view of said expert and RTE are not responsible".... especially considering their experts can often be vested interests..

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

Grasping at straws much?

Is that not what you were doing when trying to prove her credentials?

I think for the sake of openness you should do the right thing and explain your relationship to Tina

alastair

ntlbell wrote: »

Is that not what you were doing when trying to prove her credentials?

I think for the sake of openness you should do the right thing and explain your relationship to Tina

I've no need to prove her credentials - they're a matter of public record- and available for anyone with an ounce of interest in her actual expertise.

It's worth noting that despite all the bluster and misinformation levelled against her, no-one has managed one instance of erroneous information coming from Tina

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

I've no need to prove her credentials - they're a matter of public record- and available for anyone with an ounce of interest in her actual expertise.

It's worth noting that despite all the bluster and misinformation levelled against her, no-one has managed one instance of erroneous information coming from Tina

You seem to think that a job title = credentials

Since you didn't like my other example let me give you one everyone should be able to easily understand.

Bill Gates founder, chair man, now non ex chairman of microsoft for about 35 years. no one could doubt his credentials right?

You could throw question after question about MS products at Bill that without prior research he wouldn't be able to answer so if he went on to a show unprepared depending on the question he may or may not be able to give a good answer but no one can doubt the man spent those amount of years in various roles in MS right?

Now if the chairman of MS was asked something he hadn't prepared for and didn't know you would hope he would admit he didn't know or he may give some roundabout answer that doesn't mean much and doesn't really answer the question and while doing that probably won't eithier give mis-information.

My problem at least is not with the content of her answers it's the lack of content and the constant veering off the topic of the question. So she may have the "qualification" and the job title of someone who should be able to answer the question very clearly considering her audience but she fails to do so.

I don't know the woman from Anna really and have nothing against her personally I would just prefare to listen to someone who came prepared to the show and answered peoples questions clearly and consisley on our national radio that we pay for it's not too much to ask.

This is the second thread about Tina and her lack of information when answering questions so are you suggesting that the people who post in the threads are just posting as they're VI's and want a slot on PK? or are too stupid to understand her responses?

You seem to be taking this very personally and too personally for me to belive you have no connection to her.

alastair

Her years of experience at the coalface of consumer affairs do nothing but highlight her expertise - all guff about Gates and 'job titles' aside. Quite what you imagine qualifies as better expertise escapes me. Anyone, expert or not, can fail to prepare for an aspect of their job, but no-one has yet pointed to a specific instance of that happening in this case, so we're still in the domain of the notional.

Two (Ill-informed and subjective) threads whinging about Tina on the interweb? Must be case closed then, eh?

ntlbell

Not case closed at all, people are more than welcome as you are to tell us how great the show is and show us all blinding examples of her great advice.

I won't be holding my breath tho.

alastair

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit - I'd stick to the unsubstantiated and wooly moaning - you've talent in that area.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit - I'd stick to the unsubstantiated and wooly moaning - you've talent in that area.

Maybe not, but I see personal insulting remarks is yours.

alastair

Not really - unless unsubstantiated and wooly moaning is the totality of your personality? I'm simply responding to the post.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

Not really - unless unsubstantiated and wooly moaning is the totality of your personality? I'm simply responding to the post.

Happy New Year Tina.

ciao..

alastair

Now that IS sad.

Sir Oxman

JonathanAnon wrote: »

... I would not take any of her advice as being gospel, I would feel the need to double check everything that she gives advice on...

^^This

Have seen her a few times on daytime tv and heard her a few times on radio and have to say she doesn't inspire confidence in what she actually says.
I would have to go research whatever she says is consumer law as she simply doesn't ring true.
Which kind of defeats the purpose of wheeling her out to advise.

alastair

And having done your own research was she right or wrong?

JonathanAnon

alastair wrote: »

And having done your own research was she right or wrong?

I think you are taking this far too personally, as opposed to giving it the cold hard analysis that it deserves..She comes on Pat Kenny's show purportedly to give advice... but I am never convinced by anything she says.. this is because

a) She is far too ambiguous, and gives responses like "you would think that, Pat" and similar... She needs to give absolute answers, not the wishy washy answers that have become her forté.
b) She needs to improve her delivery.. she is far too casual and "girly", much like somebody who is reviewing movies or celeb gossip.. She is talking about serious issues and needs to deliver the information in a more professional and forthright manner..

Professionally speaking, I think she really needs to improve.

ntlbell

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think you are taking this far too personally, as opposed to giving it the cold hard analysis that it deserves..She comes on Pat Kenny's show purportedly to give advice... but I am never convinced by anything she says.. this is because

a) She is far too ambiguous, and gives responses like "you would think that, Pat" and similar... She needs to give absolute answers, not the wishy washy answers that have become her forté.
b) She needs to improve her delivery.. she is far too casual and "girly", much like somebody who is reviewing movies or celeb gossip.. She is talking about serious issues and needs to deliver the information in a more professional and forthright manner..

Professionally speaking, I think she really needs to improve.

Another wooly moaner.

Who knew.

alastair

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Professionally speaking, I think she really needs to improve.

So... That would be a no then - you found nothing wrong with her advice?

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

So... That would be a no then - you found nothing wrong with her advice?

Let me help you out and I'll post what he said again.

Do you see what's wrong here?

christ all mighty.

a) She is far too ambiguous, and gives responses like "you would think that, Pat" and similar... She needs to give absolute answers, not the wishy washy answers that have become her forté.
b) She needs to improve her delivery.. she is far too casual and "girly", much like somebody who is reviewing movies or celeb gossip.. She is talking about serious issues and needs to deliver the information in a more professional and forthright manner..

Let me know if you need it any bigger.

alastair

Still no wrong advice then, eh?

Not all answers are absolutes - a short radio slot can clarify rights, but context can mean that there's no one definitive answer to all cases. You wouldn't want people believing that a solution applied to them if it may well not. Now that would be pretty unprofessional.

ntlbell

alastair wrote: »

Still no wrong advice then, eh?

Not all answers are absolutes - a short radio slot can clarify rights, but context can mean that there's no one definitive answer to all cases. You wouldn't want people believing that a solution applied to them if it may well not. Now that would be pretty unprofessional.

huh?

So if she can't give a definitve answer to a persons question wtf is the point of the slot?

Listen the Money doctor on newstalk.

Quetion - Answer / Advice

Question - Answer / Advice

Tina

Question / mumbling rambling about something not related to the question, no clear concise answer.

See the difference?

If you want examples, listen to the bloody podcasts.

mike65

alastair its time you revealed your relationship with Tina Leonard because no one would spend this much time hitting F5 if they didn't have some sort of connection with the subject matter.

Sir Oxman

alastair wrote: »

And having done your own research was she right or wrong?

I said her 'delivery', for want of a better term, wouldn't convince me.

alastair

gambiaman wrote: »

I said her 'delivery', for want of a better term, wouldn't convince me.

And yet you can't point out anything wrong in the substance of her answers?

alastair

ntlbell wrote: »

Tina

Question / mumbling rambling about something not related to the question, no clear concise answer.

If you want examples, listen to the bloody podcasts.

You seem a bit obsessed with Tina tbh.

I've heard her many times on Pat's show - never heard her give out wrong information. Your focus seems to have nothing to do with the actual answers, but the woman herself.

JonathanAnon

Well if you take the previous thread that we had about Tina.. from earlier in 2010.. similar points are made..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65733451

and you defended her in a similar way.. I think the majority of the comments substantiate my two points...

Posted by tbh:
PK: A pack of peanuts contains the warning "may contain nuts".
20 seconds later TL goes "and of course it would have to....oh yeah".

Posted by Barname:
more wasted airtime with Tina
her favourite phrase:'Its a tricky one'

Posted by todolist:
I thought her favourite phrase was 'That's a good question Pat'.

She has a lack of credibility problem... If she researched the topics better before going on air, and got some media coaching... the situation could be redeemable, but she has a lot of work to do..