Sean Sherlock is currently debating with Tom Murphy (DeVore) and others

strobe

Wibbs wrote: »

I did find interesting the woman's voice from the floor taking Devore to task for overstating the leverage vested interests have and how the public may not be listened to. IMHO either she is terribly naive or a shill. I don't think it too conspiratorial to suggest that Joe and Josephine O'Public have remarkably little say and what say they do have is limited in between general elections. And even then... Mores the point most of the O'Publics out there are damn near proactive in not giving a toss or just complain after the fact.

I thought she made an extremely good point and did very well in taking Dev to task on his comment and how he put it across.

He said (paraphrasing) "Don't be fooled you will not be listened to at all", and her point was simply that that is a pretty ****ty thing to be putting out there. You say yourself "most of the O'Publics out there are damn near proactive in not giving a toss or just complain after the fact." Is telling them that sure they are right not to give a toss as it is pointless in anyway, going to be more likely to worsen or better that attitude?

She was spot on in calling Dev up on that, was a really stupid thing to say in the way he did, fair play to her.

CrazyRabbit

strobe wrote: »

I thought she made an extremely good point and did very well in taking Dev to task on his comment and how he put it across.

He said (paraphrasing) "Don't be fooled you will not be listened to at all", and her point was simply that that is a pretty ****ty thing to be putting out there. You say yourself "most of the O'Publics out there are damn near proactive in not giving a toss or just complain after the fact." Is telling them that sure they are right not to give a toss as it is pointless in anyway, going to be more likely to worsen or better that attitude?

She was spot on in calling Dev up on that, was a really stupid thing to say in the way he did, fair play to her.

A minor slip up really. And he did clarify later that is pessimistic due to past experience/events with this government. And he's right to be pessimistic...this government have a history of not listening to the people...bank bail outs, household tax, etc. As he said, if we do want them to finally start listening, then we have to roar our heads off so that we can't be ignored.

Zab

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

A minor slip up really.

Yeah. I don't know about it being a "really stupid thing to say", but she was right to mention it, even if I suspect that he just misworded what he was trying to say.

statss

I must be the only one that thinks Sherlock did a good job debating....very little ego about him, admit's his faults, and reasons in a logical and non aggressive manner, and rarely interrupts others...

statss

strobe wrote: »

I thought she made an extremely good point and did very well in taking Dev to task on his comment and how he put it across.

He said (paraphrasing) "Don't be fooled you will not be listened to at all", and her point was simply that that is a pretty ****ty thing to be putting out there. You say yourself "most of the O'Publics out there are damn near proactive in not giving a toss or just complain after the fact." Is telling them that sure they are right not to give a toss as it is pointless in anyway, going to be more likely to worsen or better that attitude?

She was spot on in calling Dev up on that, was a really stupid thing to say in the way he did, fair play to her.

The woman in question is Angela Dorgan from First Music Contact, certainly no shill.

Fuhrer

statss wrote: »

I must be the only one that thinks Sherlock did a good job debating....very little ego about him, admit's his faults, and reasons in a logical and non aggressive manner, and rarely interrupts others...

I thought he was infuriating to listen to, refusing to answer any questions, turning them round so he could answer something else entirely

GAAman

statss wrote: »

I must be the only one that thinks Sherlock did a good job debating....very little ego about him, admit's his faults, and reasons in a logical and non aggressive manner, and rarely interrupts others...

You must be, he was condescending and smug in the extreme!

DeVore

I certainly wish I had said what I said later (when I accepted she was right) "You are going to have to shout VERY loud to be heard".

I shouldnt have said "You wont be listened to", that was (as I explained) anger frustration and pessimism from past experience. But I try to be an optimist. I hope that we DO get something that approximates good law but the power of the lobbyists is VERY strong and its constant, they dont get fatigued by a cause or sick of hearing about it, like the public do. They dont need to be "outraged" to be engaged like the public often do.

Stercus Accidit

DeVore wrote: »

I certainly wish I had said what I said later (when I accepted she was right) "You are going to have to shout VERY loud to be heard".

I shouldnt have said "You wont be listened to", that was (as I explained) anger frustration and pessimism from past experience. But I try to be an optimist. I hope that we DO get something that approximates good law but the power of the lobbyists is VERY strong and its constant, they dont get fatigued by a cause or sick of hearing about it, like the public do. They dont need to be "outraged" to be engaged like the public often do.

There are a lot of people who want to oppose this, the problem is that there often isn't a clear way to do it or figure to rally around. I was delighted to hear that you have taken the fore in this issue as you and DRI are entities I want to support. I tried to volunteer my own time and ask 'what can I do to help?' I have written e-mails etc. as many have and wondered if I have had any effect.

Keep it up Tom, you'll find people will start to listen.

Wibbs

strobe wrote: »

He said (paraphrasing) "Don't be fooled you will not be listened to at all", and her point was simply that that is a pretty ****ty thing to be putting out there. You say yourself "most of the O'Publics out there are damn near proactive in not giving a toss or just complain after the fact." Is telling them that sure they are right not to give a toss as it is pointless in anyway, going to be more likely to worsen or better that attitude?

It will actually make little difference. Those who would speak up will speak up anyway and those who don't care won't and the latter vastly outnumber the former when the chips are really down. It would be my opinion and experience in general that very few rock the boat. Any boat. The vast majority are either too busy hanging on to their seat on the boat or clambering to get into it to do any rocking. Cynical? Yep, but sadly I'm more likely to be proven right to be in the long run. I genuinely take no pleasure from saying this either.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

A minor slip up really. And he did clarify later that is pessimistic due to past experience/events with this government. And he's right to be pessimistic...this government have a history of not listening to the people...bank bail outs, household tax, etc. As he said, if we do want them to finally start listening, then we have to roar our heads off so that we can't be ignored.

This.

The proof is in the eating Strobe. I mean this very event shows this. It's at last being publicly debated after the legislation was signed into law. Boards, DeVore and many other highly informed people in the industry were pushing for clarification, meetings, offering alternatives for a long time and what happened? Sherlock stood up for a matter of minutes in a Dail with tumbleweed standing in for TD's, with a couple of lone(Stephen Donnelly stood out) voices asking for clarification. He ignored them with platitudes and signed it into law. So him now having a public meeting is the very definition of "after the horse has bolted". Indeed one could coin the phrase "Doing a Sherlock" for future descriptive purposes.

If now he's had a change of heart, it's too little, too late Mr Sherlock. His statement that he would change the law if he heard good arguments is pretty much a waste of his lungs. Easy to say, but even easier to stick to his guns and simply say he's heard no good arguments. After all he heard no good arguments in his mind before he signed this, so how confident are you that he'll fall off his cart on the road to Damascus now? Personally I can't abide someone pissing down my back and telling me it's raining and I defo feel a few spits of "rain" coming from the minister.

I still feel that vested interests have forced this law through. The minister was merely a mouthpiece. I certainly find it interesting(Dev pointed it out) that 20 years after the X case they haven't changed laws so the unseemly speed of this piece of work was... informative.

Fuhrer wrote: »

I thought he was infuriating to listen to, refusing to answer any questions, turning them round so he could answer something else entirely

F, he's a politician.

Wibbs

DeVore wrote: »

But I try to be an optimist. I hope that we DO get something that approximates good law but the power of the lobbyists is VERY strong and its constant, they dont get fatigued by a cause or sick of hearing about it, like the public do. They dont need to be "outraged" to be engaged like the public often do.

+1. People have short memories as a general rule. Todays headline tomorrow's chip wrapper kinda thing. Often what was once outrage just becomes another irritating background hum in life. It'll be ignored, maybe whinged about the odd time, but so long as the volume is low or it's pointed at someone else they'll carry on.

I envy your optimism D and fair play with it. All too few are comfortable with sticking their heads over the parapet on principle. Fewer still have solutions to shout out when they get there.

Phill Ewinn

Can't stand Sherlocks attitude. Why owuld he debate this matter after the ''instrument'' was passed into law. Recieved two emails from him after he passed the legislation also.

The lad has gotten away with it. It's like he's learned his politicianing from a Fianna Failer. This debate is just him driving the getaway car while giving all of us the fingers.

Paparazzo

Devore said "fúcking" :eek:

stupidusername

Paparazzo wrote: »

Devore said "fúcking" :eek:

I thought he did too, but then it was funny, no?

Owen_S

statss wrote: »

I must be the only one that thinks Sherlock did a good job debating....very little ego about him, admit's his faults, and reasons in a logical and non aggressive manner, and rarely interrupts others...

He talks too much without actually making a point, just like most Irish politicians.

Paparazzo

stupidusername wrote: »

I thought he did too, but then it was funny, no?

Listened again, yeah, i think it's "funny". Makes more sense too.

DeVore

When was this? (I often curse unfortunately, but its in the heat of the moment usually.)

stupidusername

DeVore wrote: »

When was this? (I often curse unfortunately, but its in the heat of the moment usually.)

you were speaking at the standy up thing... i dunno the name of it

Laneyh

statss wrote: »

I must be the only one that thinks Sherlock did a good job debating....very little ego about him, admit's his faults, and reasons in a logical and non aggressive manner, and rarely interrupts others...

I don't think he amended his debating style to suit the platform / environment
Yes there was a panel but the audience was essentially made up of the general public.

With that in mind some of his comments to the members of the audience came across as pretty condescending and a bit glib


Also was he consciously wearing an oversized watch to look at whenever he got under pressure ? As if to say he would answer the questions but didn't want to cause the debate to overrun

I was in the overflow room so missed out on nuances , body language and some of the comments from the audience
There did appear to be times when people were kind of heckling which I found equally annoying

GLaDOS

stupidusername wrote: »

you were speaking at the standy up thing... i dunno the name of it

The podium

stupidusername

ScienceNerd wrote: »

The podium

I was going with podium, but isn't that the whole stage thing included? meh

Zab

Lectern?

DeVore

I said "I wish it wasn't so funny" after the crowd started laughing at one point, somewhat unexpectedly. It was incorrectly transcribed in some reports as "I wish I wasn't so funny" (which sounds arrogant to my ears).

Undercover FBI Agent

I watched the debate and i personally think DeVore came across brilliant and much respect to him for doing so.

Minister Sherlock seemed to be there just for the sake of saying 'I had a debate on it get off my back'

This is a very serious piece of legislation for internet users in Ireland and I think it deservers people that feel passionately about it like DeVore to make a case against it if he feels the need to which he obviously does ( while of course looking after his own business and shareholders etc) firstly.

Perhaps a wider debate is needed between supporters of the legislation and people who are against it but the pessimist in me makes me think otherwise.

It is welcome though I believe that a Minister will take the time to publicly debate matters with business people and the wider public, Something I hope to see continue LONG into the future

Corkfeen

I'm vaguely suspicious of the intentions of the poster above me. Might be his name... :P

Undercover FBI Agent

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm vaguely suspicious of the intentions of the poster above me. Might be his name... :P

Says the guy with Alien overlord under his name? Hmmmmm

:pac::D

Adolf Hipster

Great speaker dev, keep it up.

smcelhinney

Watched the whole thing on Tues night, very interesting. It was debated at a lecture I attended in Trinity last night too.

DeV, all in all, how do you think it went? Do you think it has moved the agenda on, or has it only paid lip service to it?

Mr Benevolent

smcelhinney wrote: »

Watched the whole thing on Tues night, very interesting. It was debated at a lecture I attended in Trinity last night too.

DeV, all in all, how do you think it went? Do you think it has moved the agenda on, or has it only paid lip service to it?

The fact that they agreed to have the debate at all shows that they're beginning to change their minds.

PogMoThoin

Confab wrote: »

The fact that they agreed to have the debate at all shows that they're beginning to change their minds.

To me it looks like Sherlock was trying to save face afetr the torrent of abuse he's already got. He gave the usual political answers, talking around questions and appeared out of his depth at times. I fear once again nothing will come from a debate like this and doubt he'll bother with another. Like I said, this was just to get it over and done with, much like the Dail debate, where he listened to other people then stood up and said "I'm signing it anyway".

The more I see this man, the more I want top punch the snide fcuker in the face

micropig

Showing interviews & debate on RTE news now

oppenheimer1

This guy from horseslips is woeful.

woodoo

Was that tom on there now just.

HUNK

woodoo wrote: »

Was that tom on there now just.

twas

Professey Chin

woodoo wrote: »

Was that tom on there now just.

Not in the studio. In the video beforehand

ixoy

woodoo wrote: »

Was that tom on there now just.

At the very end? No, that was TJ McIntyre, advocate for digital rights. I thought he came across very well: clearly spoken and made some great points.

Dev was in a brief segment earlier on. According to Prime Time, he's furious with this legislation.

Mr. Incognito

I found this fascinating.

It is a excellent highlight of everything that is wrong with our country.

A man is pillored and attacked justly, and shown up for what it is. An unqualified, waffling, flip flop that frankly has no spine hiding behind consultations papers and irrelevant law like E commerce protections that give no protections against copyright infringments. He is actually too stupid and insulated by his ego to say, you know what, I was wrong.

It's obvious that he panicked when EMI sued Ireland.

His condecending: "You are still in business??" Sure do nothing, we'll all be grand. The dude is a moron.

BUT............What does it say about us as a citizenship that we keep electing these self serving incompetent muppets. I wish we would get some qualified people on the ballots. Some real world persons.

Tom was shown for what he is, a person who lives in the real world and has to come up with real world solutions to real world problems.

I thought his points were very articulate.

The two world points are miles apart.

Legally it seems that EMI were happy with the vague wording as when it comes to court Justice goes to those with the deepest pockets and how are small copyright infringers or intermediaries going to stand up to EMI and senior counsel. How did this nonsense even get drafted?

I really hope people go to the end and see the debate as I think a lot of the best points were made in the last ten minutes.

upandcumming

Link: http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1145498
From 18:00.

jblack

One of the comments

Dollywitch: Why is there a representative of boards.ie of all things there? Boards.ie is a disgraceful site with vicious moderators who are held unaccountable for their decisions, generally backed up by the admins no matter what. It has a reputation for being a...
14 days ago Comment

Dempsey

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This guy from horseslips is woeful.

I turned off the tv after 5 seconds, couldnt stand the stuttering!

Morag

jblack wrote: »

One of the comments

Dollywitch: Why is there a representative of boards.ie of all things there? Boards.ie is a disgraceful site with vicious moderators who are held unaccountable for their decisions, generally backed up by the admins no matter what. It has a reputation for being a...
14 days ago Comment

Haters gonna hate.
That one has been at it for years, every chance she gets.
Pretty sure she googles boards.ie every day to find somewhere that isn't here to have a go.

gavmcg92

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

BUT............What does it say about us as a citizenship that we keep electing these self serving incompetent muppets. I wish we would get some qualified people on the ballots. Some real world persons.

Whether we like it or not... Ireland electorally speaking is ultra conservative. Also on a side note, people who are experienced in these important areas like tech and economics just don't want to be in politics in Ireland.

Politics in Ireland is extremely old fashioned It needs to be shaken up.

For me, the reason why these people aren't voted out is for the fact that there is no credible opposition at this point. I have said it time and time again... the only person I could see myself voting for is Stephen Donnelly. However, he is not in my area. So what do I do?

smash

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

BUT............What does it say about us as a citizenship that we keep electing these self serving incompetent muppets.

People never voted for Sean Sherlock to be minister of state for research and innovation. His party did that.

gavmcg92

Just watching the segment on Prime Time now.

I have huge respect for both Tom and TJ McIntyre.

hooradiation

jblack wrote: »

One of the comments

Dollywitch: Why is there a representative of boards.ie of all things there? Boards.ie is a disgraceful site with vicious moderators who are held unaccountable for their decisions, generally backed up by the admins no matter what. It has a reputation for being a...
14 days ago Comment

Boards does indeed have a reputation for being a 14 days old comment.

Professey Chin

smash wrote: »

People never voted for Sean Sherlock to be minister of state for research and innovation. His party did that.

And he got in on his daddys name anyway

Tazium

I've an interest in this area and just watched the video myself. Couple of things are clear from it. Minister Sherlock is in a really difficult position and in fairness, he stuck to it, spoke well, and eventually did answer direct questions. I'd hate to be in his position, this is his job.

That said, I whole heartedly side on the objective. The SI is poor, too ambiguous and will bring headache and tears before the end of this CRC.

gavmcg92

hooradiation wrote: »

Boards does indeed have a reputation for being a 14 days old comment.

Hahah I see what you did there!