Sean O'Rourke Today Show

BarryD

touts wrote: »

Don't enjoy it too much. First item on the agenda of the next cabinet meeting will probably be how to find a way to make the Irish taxpayer pay.

You could be right - but there was an interesting piece about D'OB on last Saturday morning radio. Seemingly Digicel are wont to take on Apple and Google and try and break their strangleholds on payment for ads & content running on Apple and Android phones and devices. Of course, this might just mean more revenue share (feeding in the trough) for the mobile phone operators but longer term it may just result in lower pricing for smartphone content.

foxtrot101

touts wrote: »

Well actually it is the complete opposite. The biggest problem in Irish media including the Today show is that the presenters are all forced to buy into a narrow politically correct left wing view that poor people can't be expected to fend for themselves. So they accept as a given that we throw money at them to keep them locked in a self destructive cycle of dependence. Therefore when something goes wrong in their life the first option the interviewer and interviewee turn to is that the taxpayer failed by not spending enough money on sorting out their lives. In other countries we would have more, or at least some, conservative voices in the media to provide a more balanced set of proposals and options. What was needed today was some balance and discussion on why there are 40 families piled into a single B&B and everyone of them is incapable of doing anything to help themselves as they wait for help from the taxpayer who ran out of money years ago.

Again, your are displaying a complete lack of awareness of what the problem actually is. There's a housing crisis, the demand for houses is outstripping the supply resulting in spiralling rents. The shortage is particularly acute in the lower end of the market, which means people on low incomes or on rent supplement are finding it increasingly difficult to keep the housing they already have or to find new accommodation. Hence the homeless crisis.

There would be many more in those B&Bs if they hadn't move in with their extended families like you suggested your earlier post. From what I read, the vast majority of those families currently homeless did the same thing until it became unsustainable. The only solution here is to increase the supply of houses, be it social or private. Blaming the poor for being poor is irrelevant. It's all very well spouting that guff anonymously on here, but if someone went onto the mainstream media and did the same they would be slaughtered and rightly so.

touts

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Again, your are displaying a complete lack of awareness of what the problem actually is. There's a housing crisis, the demand for houses is outstripping the supply resulting in spiralling rents. The shortage is particularly acute in the lower end of the market, which means people on low incomes or on rent supplement are finding it increasingly difficult to keep the housing they already have or to find new accommodation. Hence the homeless crisis.

There would be many more in those B&Bs if they hadn't move in with their extended families like you suggested your earlier post. From what I read, the vast majority of those families currently homeless did the same thing until it became unsustainable. The only solution here is to increase the supply of houses, be it social or private. Blaming the poor for being poor is irrelevant. It's all very well spouting that guff anonymously on here, but if someone went onto the mainstream media and did the same they would be slaughtered and rightly so.

You can't increase the supply of homes overnight. These things take time to build. The woman interviewed said that all her stuff including the kids toys were at their Granny's. My feeling is a lot of people choose to stay in the most appalling conditions possible because if they move to more suitable accommodation that they arrange for themselves (e.g. move in with a relative) then they lose their place in the queue. They wouldn't put their flat screen TVs and couches in a B&B (they get stored in nice safe places like "granny's") but they are willing to have their kids scarred by spending months or years growing up in a B&B with 40 other families just so come later life the parents will have a nice comfortable taxpayer funded free house. That is the height or irresponsibility bordering on willful neglect and abuse of their children. Interviewers need to start to challenge these people on their assertion that they have no where else to go and need to start to challenge the left wing liberal bleeding hearts as to exactly why the taxpayer has to foot the bill for people who in many if not most cases should first turn to their extended families.

BarryD

There's no doubt that people 'play the system' but that's not confined to people seeking social or public housing. People rightly or wrongly look at the rules and decide best how to take advantage of them. This though is characteristic across all sections of society and business, whether it be the middle class adjusting their incomes to fit certain tax brackets or companies 'grant grazing' and looking for subsidies based on certain fixed criteria etc. You can't get away from it, except by changing the rules. And then you potentially damage real hard cases.

Uncle Ben

touts wrote: »

You can't increase the supply of homes overnight. These things take time to build. The woman interviewed said that all her stuff including the kids toys were at their Granny's. My feeling is a lot of people choose to stay in the most appalling conditions possible because if they move to more suitable accommodation that they arrange for themselves (e.g. move in with a relative) then they lose their place in the queue. They wouldn't put their flat screen TVs and couches in a B&B (they get stored in nice safe places like "granny's") but they are willing to have their kids scarred by spending months or years growing up in a B&B with 40 other families just so come later life the parents will have a nice comfortable taxpayer funded free house. That is the height or irresponsibility bordering on willful neglect and abuse of their children. Interviewers need to start to challenge these people on their assertion that they have no where else to go and need to start to challenge the left wing liberal bleeding hearts as to exactly why the taxpayer has to foot the bill for people who in many if not most cases should first turn to their extended families.

My mother has a 2 bedroom house which is fully occupied.. If I lost my house myself and family would be looking for a B&B.
No one else I could turn to.

foxtrot101

touts wrote: »

You can't increase the supply of homes overnight. These things take time to build. The woman interviewed said that all her stuff including the kids toys were at their Granny's. My feeling is a lot of people choose to stay in the most appalling conditions possible because if they move to more suitable accommodation that they arrange for themselves (e.g. move in with a relative) then they lose their place in the queue. They wouldn't put their flat screen TVs and couches in a B&B (they get stored in nice safe places like "granny's") but they are willing to have their kids scarred by spending months or years growing up in a B&B with 40 other families just so come later life the parents will have a nice comfortable taxpayer funded free house. That is the height or irresponsibility bordering on willful neglect and abuse of their children. Interviewers need to start to challenge these people on their assertion that they have no where else to go and need to start to challenge the left wing liberal bleeding hearts as to exactly why the taxpayer has to foot the bill for people who in many if not most cases should first turn to their extended families.

Who says that haven't turned to extended families first. You are just making sweeping assumptions here based on nothing but your own prejudices. Plus, as Uncle Ben pointed out, this wouldn't even be possible in many cases for any number of reasons.

Callan57

What amazing negativity from that restaurant association guy.
Repeatedly the general public (his customers!) have said they want calorie count on the menu - one would have though he would be on the side of his customers?

PeterTheEighth

It's very odd to hear Michael O'Higgins talking about fictitious people..

Spanish Eyes

Callan57 wrote: »

What amazing negativity from that restaurant association guy.
Repeatedly the general public (his customers!) have said they want calorie count on the menu - one would have though he would be on the side of his customers?

Have you seen any reports/stats to support this?

TBH if I go out for a meal I don't want to be "nanny stated". There is enough of that around at the moment thank you!

Anyway, anyone with half a brain will know that grilled chicken and salad is lower in calories than a deep fried dish with chips.

This is just getting ridiculous now.

HeidiHeidi

Ruth Coppinger sounding more stark staring bonkers than I've ever heard of her.

Can she talk in anything other than clichés and soundbytes?

Katie Hannon showing her up something rotten!

L1011

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Can she talk in anything other than clichés and soundbytes?

Or about anything other than misery?

alaimacerc

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Can she talk in anything other than clichés and soundbytes?

You need to knock off the digital radio, Heids!

alaimacerc

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Have you seen any reports/stats to support this?

The other chap that was on claimed there was some sort of survey evidence, and IIRC quoted some numbers from it. Not at all who they asked, or in what context, but it's a start -- especially compared to the "I have no facts at all, but me no likey!" stuff from the restaurant shop steward.

TBH if I go out for a meal I don't want to be "nanny stated".

Perhaps you might try moving your eyeballs slightly to the left, then, and ignoring the offending information. As far as I know, the proposal is simply to make providing the information to be mandatory. I'm not aware of any scheme to enforce pop quizzes on diners, to check they've read it.

Macy0161

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Have you seen any reports/stats to support this?

TBH if I go out for a meal I don't want to be "nanny stated". There is enough of that around at the moment thank you!

Anyway, anyone with half a brain will know that grilled chicken and salad is lower in calories than a deep fried dish with chips.

This is just getting ridiculous now.

Personally, I see it as just information to allow me to make a judgement, rather than me being "nanny stated". There's no plan to ban the higher calorie option.

Interesting example though, as people may be surprised how high a grilled chicken and salad maybe when when you start adding dressings, croutons, coleslaw etc.. There may be not much difference between the perceived healthy option and what is the "unhealthy" option.

SEPT 23 1989

why is there local opposition do you think?

Callan57

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

why is there local opposition do you think?

Ah now you can't be asking that

Brendan Bendar

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Ruth Coppinger sounding more stark staring bonkers than I've ever heard of her.

Can she talk in anything other than clichés and soundbytes?

Katie Hannon showing her up something rotten!

Can't understand how you are still amazed by that lady.

What she wants, apart from her pensionable teaching job and nice TDs wedge is that Middle Ireland, the ordinary Joe and Joanne, are driven to the wall to ensure that the non- triers, the three card trick men, the nixerators, the welfare cheats, enjoy the best possible conditions,and fuhhrke the poor gombeen who works his/her hoop off to pony up the tax required for this.

Absolute barking mad, in my 'umble opinion.

brooke 2

Callan57 wrote: »

What amazing negativity from that restaurant association guy.
Repeatedly the general public (his customers!) have said they want calorie count on the menu - one would have though he would be on the side of his customers?

I like the idea. But, how can you trust that the number is correct? Had lunch last week in a restaurant which did have the calories printed on the menu. Later, went online to check the menu of that restaurant - the number of calories was different, 100+ more!!

Macy0161

brooke 2 wrote: »

I like the idea. But, how can you trust that the number is correct? Had lunch last week in a restaurant which did have the calories printed on the menu. Later, went online to check the menu of that restaurant - the number of calories was different, 100+ more!!

It's never going to be 100%, but I really don't see the big deal. Surely for cost reasons, restaurants have an idea of how much ingredients they use for how many portions? Give the dishwasher a break and get him on myfitnesspal adding it up.

neris

jaysus woman let the midget minister answer and stop shouting over him maybe give rte a call at 145 you might get "therapy" there

BarryD

Moral seems to be - never underestimate the capacity of people to complain when you give them something!

neris

BarryD wrote: »

Moral seems to be - never underestimate the capacity of people to complain when you give them something!

I think when it comes to the budget people expect excess giving from it to suit their own situations. Personally the budget didnt do much for me yesterday

Callan57

neris wrote: »

jaysus woman let the midget minister answer and stop shouting over him maybe give rte a call at 145 you might get "therapy" there

I thought he should have just let her have her rant rather than trying to interrupt her. Trying to interrupt her only wound her up.

The whole lot of the callers are the same. Rant, rant, rant and don't let Minister answer.

touts

While the ranting was annoying it's what comes from telling people that life is so much better now while they are still sitting in the sh1t. I think the government are overestimating the bounce they will get when people see an extra €15 in their pay in January.

neris

touts wrote: »

While the ranting was annoying it's what comes from telling people that life is so much better now while they are still sitting in the sh1t. I think the government are overestimating the bounce they will get when people see an extra €15 in their pay in January.

i dont think its just telling people things are better. I think alot of people expect too much from the budget to quick to suit their own personal needs and circumstances. that 1st caller was giving out that she only got a fiver extra in child benefit a week. give her a tenner she,ll still give out and then when they dont hike it up again 2016 she,ll still be giving out. Same with the lady giving out about the pension

touts

Compelling interview about the hardship of people in the socialist utopia of North Korea. But jasus could he not stop for a few minutes and give the poor girl a chance to compose herself.

cowboyBuilder

Amazing woman, I missed the start, what is her name ?

sligojoek

touts wrote: »

Compelling interview about the hardship of people in the socialist utopia of North Korea. But jasus could he not stop for a few minutes and give the poor girl a chance to compose herself.

Typical of RTE all the time lately. Tears have to be shed at all costs.

zoobizoo

Interesting read in the Guardian yesterday about North Korean Defectors...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart

zoobizoo

Interesting read in the Guardian yesterday about North Korean Defectors...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart

Jadaol

touts wrote: »

Compelling interview about the hardship of people in the socialist utopia of North Korea. But jasus could he not stop for a few minutes and give the poor girl a chance to compose herself.

it was dreadful
so what happened, you were sold to be married - yes
and how long was that for - one year
and were you raped in that time - yes
how many times????????????????

seriously, dense :mad::mad::mad:

Callan57

... and it wouldn't be anything to do with gambling now would it????????????

touts

zoobizoo wrote: »

Interesting read in the Guardian yesterday about North Korean Defectors...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart

It's the Guardian. The paper of record for Socialism since Pravda went bust. You always know when they are on shaky ground when they resort to the "George W Bush met them so they must be wrong" argument.

Having listened to the lady being interviewed by Sean yesterday and read the article I'm fairly sure who I believe.

my friend

touts wrote: »

It's the Guardian. The paper of record for Socialism since Pravda went bust. You always know when they are on shaky ground when they resort to the "George W Bush met them so they must be wrong" argument.

Having listened to the lady being interviewed by Sean yesterday and read the article I'm fairly sure who I believe.

Careful now, the Guardian is the go to copy and paste source for the Irish Times and RTE

touts

my friend wrote: »

Careful now, the Guardian is the go to copy and paste source for the Irish Times and RTE

As I said. Paper of Record :-)

serfboard

touts wrote: »

Having listened to the lady being interviewed by Sean yesterday and read the article I'm fairly sure who I believe.

Consider this - the media are paying for stories.

The Guardian wrote:

does ... payment change the relation between a researcher and an interviewee, and what effect will it have on the story itself?

The Guardian wrote:

the more exclusive, shocking or emotional, the higher the fee ... the power of the west’s curiosity and the media’s desire for a good story cannot be overestimated ....

North Korean refugees have become well aware of what the interviewer wants to hear. Whether speaking to the UN, US Congress or western media, the questions are the same every time: why did you leave North Korea, and how terrible is it?

... first-person testimonies have become the norm, and have increasingly come to involve younger victims with more tragic, dramatic, visual and emotional accounts.

And finally, North Korea isn't going to sue anyone for defamation, so you could say whatever you like without fear of it being contradicted.

We all know that newspapers will print any old sh1te - the only thing that stops them is the fear of being sued. Take away that fear and ...

Does this mean that everything she said is wrong? No, but it does mean that in listening to her story, we should consider the points raised.

And North Korea is not a "socialist" country - it's a dictatorship.

touts

serfboard wrote: »

Consider this - the media are paying for stories.



And finally, North Korea isn't going to sue anyone for defamation, so you could say whatever you like without fear of it being contradicted.

We all know that newspapers will print any old sh1te - the only thing that stops them is the fear of being sued. Take away that fear and ...

Does this mean that everything she said is wrong? No, but it does mean that in listening to her story, we should consider the points raised.

And North Korea is not a "socialist" country - it's a dictatorship.

Ah go away and listen to that poor woman when Sean foolishly asks her how often she was raped. She didn't sound to me like she was making it up.

Callan57

touts wrote: »

Ah go away and listen to that poor woman when Sean foolishly asks her how often she was raped. She didn't sound to me like she was making it up.

Personally I thought that question was necessary & prurient

Jadaol

Callan57 wrote: »

Personally I thought that question was necessary & prurient

prurient yes
necessary no - but ridiculous - was she supposed to have counted?? :rolleyes:

foxtrot101

A media report this morning claimed that one of Mr Noonan’s advisors warned producers of the Today programme on RTÉ Radio One that Mr Noonan would refuse to go on air unless the questions were vetted first.

http://www.independent.ie/business/budget/news/rte-denies-threat-minister-for-finance-wouldnt-appear-on-sean-orourke-show-unless-he-got-listeners-questions-in-advance-31612292.html

.

Brendan Bendar

foxtrot101 wrote: »

.

And there is something wrong with that, is that your implication?

foxtrot101

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

And there is something wrong with that, is that your implication?

Emm...given questions before hand because of the detailed nature of the some the answers - no. Having a veto over what questions could be asked - yes. It's not totally clear from the article which actually happened. There's a lot of counterclaiming going on.

I didn't hear the show yesterday, I was just interested what others who had thought about it.

Callan57

Jadaol wrote: »

prurient yes
necessary no - but ridiculous - was she supposed to have counted?? :rolleyes:

Of course I meant to say unnecessary

padd b1975

That yearly feature usually made for excellent listening.

Unfortunately in recent years it has been hijacked by hot air merchants who only want to attack and name call.

O'Rourke really needs to take a firm hand on these wind baggers....Ask their question straight away or cut them off, it's that simple.

Callan57

Christ, Paddy O'G really annoys me with this rubbish "he's such a pleasant fellow"
Yea, sure he is ... to quote Hamlet 'smile and smile and be a villain'

SEPT 23 1989

A litre of vodka two E and some sleeping tablets:eek:

neris

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

A litre of vodka two E and some sleeping tablets:eek:

and the ambulance guy didnt give him a smack for been a twat. so when your relative is very sick and in need of an ambulance thats delayed it could be coz of some idiot whos to thick to not know when to stop boozing or poping pills

my friend

neris wrote: »

and the ambulance guy didnt give him a smack for been a twat. so when your relative is very sick and in need of an ambulance thats delayed it could be coz of some idiot whos to thick to not know when to stop boozing or poping pills

Or a night I was in Beaumont A&E and two of our finest non contributors arrived by ambulance both in their early to mid 20s , a girl with a sex toy lost in her *ahem* and her partner who when not allowed in the ambulance transporting her called another ambulance and it carried him to A&E to join her.

I witnessed this and have the date it occurred, this is one observance of the crazy impositions certain welfare lifestyle heads cripple the HSE with. Disgraceful stuff

touts

neris wrote: »

and the ambulance guy didnt give him a smack for been a twat. so when your relative is very sick and in need of an ambulance thats delayed it could be coz of some idiot whos to thick to not know when to stop boozing or poping pills

Yea. Imagine you have an accident but instead of calling an ambulance and taking up their valuable time you manage to drag yourself to A&E, pay €100 to be left in the front door because you don't have a letter from your doctor giving you advance permission to have the accident. You then sit in appalling filth and overcrowded conditions for 12+ hours waiting to be seen by a doctor. And just as you are about to be seen this waste of space is swept straight in ahead of you via the VIP backdoor, is seen immediately, doesn't have to pay the $100 and still gets violent because he hasn't been brought to his preferred hospital. He'll probably arrive hours after you do but swagger out smirking and giving you the figure as he passes through the waiting room. Guys like that should be dumped in a holding cell in a drunk tank at a local Garda station.

It's true what a doctor once told me. You're better off to lie down on the road outside the hospital and call an ambulance than go into A&E.