Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

Jeff2

Today we had liveline and Joe couldn't control the caller who kept talking over people now we have CB not able to tell someone to shout up and sing what she said she would.

brooke 2

Jeff2 wrote: »

Today we had liveline and Joe couldn't control the caller who kept talking over people now we have CB not able to tell someone to shout up and sing what she said she would.

That was painful.

brooke 2

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

RabbleRouser2k

They turned it on here too. It was just tacky tbh.

The thing about the tattoos was stupid and ridiculous. And no, I don't have tattoos-I express myself differently rather than 'put this on my skin'.

Storm 10

sheroman01 wrote: »

Wtf. They went to a break then came back on for 10 seconds just to say g'luck? Must have went to a break because of yer one. Classic Irish TV.

They do that at the end of every show, take a break and come back with the paper headlines however I have only ever seen one paper why can't they show the headline then end the show it's just stupid

RabbleRouser2k

People asking serious questions about Christina Noble's health after that interview. Seemed like she was either drunk, or on meds.
Definitely didn't look well.

NIMAN

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

People asking serious questions about Christina Noble's health after that interview. Seemed like she was either drunk, or on meds.
Definitely didn't look well.

People asking serious questions about Healy Rae's intelligence level after that interview.

RabbleRouser2k

NIMAN wrote: »

People asking serious questions about Healy Rae's intelligence level after that interview.

Sure we know he's an idiot-but this is the country that voted for Charlie, Bertie and a string other incompetents or crazy people. Hell, the Junior health minister thinks vaccines are dangerous. That opinion alone is dangerous.

The Healy-Raes are folks who don't get anything done. Remember the hospital they were supposed to have gotten in South Kerry? It's with the fairies, invisible forever.

If he thinks the alcohol thing will be lessened 'based on being rural....' he's an idiot. Nobody wants that. (I'm rural, I don't).
Get a cab, rent a bus, arrange a pick-up, it's easy.

alan partridge aha

I'm rural and I'd like the limit increased, I'd like to be able to get 2 or 3 pints drive home without fear. Most people who drink in my local would have no issue with that.

It's never going to happen though.

RabbleRouser2k

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I'm rural and I'd like the limit increased, I'd like to be able to get 2 or 3 pints drive home without fear. Most people who drink in my local would have no issue with that.

It's never going to happen though.

Because so much has been done to try and curb the problem, even allowing a slight 'allowance' would easily become problematic, and be abused.

Considering how they messed up the breathalyzers, doing something like this is ridiculous.
My bro is often the designated driver, he'll give people a lift home, easy. But if he wants a night out with friends, he books a cab. He's rural, he has no issue with it. And people in my local plan ways to get home, be it cab or relative. It's not hard-even the loner in my home place has a plan.

Ash.J.Williams

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I'm rural and I'd like the limit increased, I'd like to be able to get 2 or 3 pints drive home without fear. Most people who drink in my local would have no issue with that.

It's never going to happen though.

They should make it illegal not to drink drive from Fri evening till Sunday.

alan partridge aha

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Because so much has been done to try and curb the problem, even allowing a slight 'allowance' would easily become problematic, and be abused.

Considering how they messed up the breathalyzers, doing something like this is ridiculous.
My bro is often the designated driver, he'll give people a lift home, easy. But if he wants a night out with friends, he books a cab. He's rural, he has no issue with it. And people in my local plan ways to get home, be it cab or relative. It's not hard-even the loner in my home place has a plan.

Most regulars in my local who would live more than 1km from the pub would drive after a few pints. It's not an age thing either.

RabbleRouser2k

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Most regulars in my local who would live more than 1km from the pub would drive after a few pints. It's not an age thing either.

As they do in mine-and yes, I know it's not an age thing either.

But when someone is intoxicated, most pubs I know will book a cab for them. But everyone has someone they can ask for a lift home.

alan partridge aha

2 or 3 pints most regulars wouldn't feel they were intoxicated enough not to drive home. Probably with 4 or more they might make alternative arrangements.

RobertKK

Kate O'Connell is annoying to listen to, she is too PC.

AnneFrank

RobertKK wrote: »

Kate O'Connell is annoying to listen to, she is too PC.

Her chemist in rathgar is the most expensive I have ever been in too

RobertKK

All these meat heads die younger.

If you said a footballer or cyclist or gaa player took anabolic steroids you'd call them a dope cheat. Body building ? No it's grand we know what we're doing and there's no tests for us

RobertKK

This program has everything, not necessarily good.

Alan Shatter doing poetry.

FrancieBrady

That was just weird.

EPAndlee

Why do they feel the need to take a break then 30 seconds later the show finishes

Beechwoodspark

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

People asking serious questions about Christina Noble's health after that interview. Seemed like she was either drunk, or on meds.
Definitely didn't look well.

Def was on xanax or Valium something like that.

RabbleRouser2k

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That was just weird.

Starting to feel like this show is Claire Byrne's show is an audition tape for the Late Late Show. Like, it's meant to be political, but it's a bit mental.

Also, can someone clarify-what is sexist about calling a woman 'a lady'. Like, Kate O'Connell called a man a gentleman a few seconds later. Calling a woman a 'gentlewoman' is odder than her haircut. (It ages her, it makes her older than her years). Gentleman's sports are usually reserved to cricket and golf.

AnneFrank

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Starting to feel like this show is Claire Byrne's show is an audition tape for the Late Late Show. Like, it's meant to be political, but it's a bit mental.

Also, can someone clarify-what is sexist about calling a woman 'a lady'. Like, Kate O'Connell called a man a gentleman a few seconds later. Calling a woman a 'gentlewoman' is odder than her haircut. (It ages her, it makes her older than her years). Gentleman's sports are usually reserved to cricket and golf.

yes i really don't get that at all, i mean calling a lady is respectful no ?
Can any ladies/girls/women explain this i'm confused !

horseburger

I'd prefer if there was more time given to each item, rather than having four or five items discussed on the show and only giving around 10 minutes, often less, per item.

Often, because there is less time given to each item discussed, people in the audience who have been invited on, because they have a particular interest in an item for discussion, don't get time to make their observations and they get cut off by the presenter before they have finished making their point.

For example, earlier this year, on the issue of enrolment of students in schools with a religious ethos, and schools with no religious ethos, the school principal from a Catholic school and Susie Hall from the Church of Ireland schools Board of Education, who were in the audience, did not get a chance to fully make their points detailing their enrolment policies, in circumstances where there are not enough places available, to accommodate all the applications.

In this particular episode, the speakers in the audience, from both Catholic and Church of Ireland schools, did not get a chance to fully detail their perspectives on the topic, on the issue of enrolment policies and schools being over subscribed.

Both were making the point that the issue was that successive governments were not making available the resources to build more schools, with no religious ethos, to accommodate parents who didn't want their children attending schools with a religious ethos.

They were interrupted by Claire Byrne, before they had a chance to fully detail how they accept applications for places, in cases where there are more applications than places.

The issue of how schools with no religious ethos prioritize applications, where there is more applications than places, was not discussed.

As an example, a parent in the audience mentioned that her child was enrolled on a waiting list for a place in an Educate Together school, when her child was a few weeks old, and had not been accepted. She said "we never got a place just because our name never got to the top of the list".

She didn't get to finish what she had intended to say fully, either, because time was running out on the show.

The priorities of selection, of applications to Educate Together schools, was not detailed, in situations where there are less places than applications.

I mean, say three neighbouring families apply at the same time. and there aren't enough spaces to accommodate each application, how does an Educate Together school decide which family is accepted.

For example, if two of the families applications are accepted because they have older brothers or sisters in the school, the third family who might not have other children in the school, will be disappointed, for the child, not getting a place in the school.

This third family might also feel excluded, simply because the child they hoped would attend that school, might be their first child to attend school, and through no fault of their own, they don't have older children, already in attendance at that school.

My guess is that any type of prioritization of acceptance of applications, will leave families disappointed, in cases where places are limited, no matter if it's a school with a religious ethos, or one that does not have a religious ethos.

The priorities of enrolment of Educate Together schools, in situations where there are more applications made, than places available, wasn't discussed, even though Paul Rowe of Educate Together, was in the audience.

He said there were far more applications made to Educate Together schools than places available, but he didn't detail how they prioritize applications where there are less places available than applications made.

It would have been interesting to hear details on this. If it is done with regard to how near a family lives from a school, there's still going to be a difficulty deciding who is accepted, if for example, neighbouring families have made applications for their children to attend a school, and there aren't enough places for each family's child.

If, on the show, they had, maybe one, or at most, two items per show, I think they could have a more detailed discussion.

And I think they should forget about the polls, as the questions are usually framed in such a way that don't consider other aspects of the issue, aspects that are related, to the question being asked.

FrancieBrady

AnneFrank wrote: »

yes i really don't get that at all, i mean calling a lady is respectful no ?
Can any ladies/girls/women explain this i'm confused !

https://debuk.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/call-me-woman/

AnneFrank

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://debuk.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/call-me-woman/

Dear god, help !!

CatFromHue

@ Horseburger that's one of the reasons I don't watch the show anymore.

People who did have good points to make were interrupted, by Claire tying to take them on a different tangent which made no sense, or cut off early.

horseburger

CatFromHue wrote: »

@ Horseburger that's one of the reasons I don't watch the show anymore.

People who did have good points to make were interrupted, by Claire tying to take them on a different tangent which made no sense, or cut off early.

I think you are correct, and also about her going off on a tangent.

On the particular show about availability of school places, the real issue was not enough schools being made available for parents who don't want to have their children attending schools with a religious ideology.

But her line of questioning seemed more about calling for the taking away of the religious ethos of existing schools with a religious outlook, with particular focus on schools with a Catholic ideology, despite the fact that many families wish their children to attend schools with a particular religious ethos, including Church or Ireland, Muslim, Jewish, or Catholic.

Calling for such a measure, it could be argued, is discrimination against people who have a religious faith.

I think, it could be argued, that a baptism requirement, or presentation of a baptism certificate, in situations where school places are limited, is no worse a method of prioritization, in accepting enrolment applications, than selecting children, on condition that they have older brothers or sisters at a particular school - which could be seen as discriminating against parents with one child starting school, or could be seen as discriminating against parents whose oldest child is starting school - or only accepting children within a catchment area.

No matter what selection process is used, people will be unsuccessful in their enrolment applications, where there are limited places and more applications made than places available.

The Journal undertook a fact check on the statements made in the show, and found mostly in favour of Maria Steen's statements, regarding the ESRI report to which she referred during the show, regarding backgrounds of students who attend Catholic Schools and schools without a religious ethos.

Paul Rowe, of Educate Together, who endorsed this ESRI report through a quote by him in a press statement at the time of its publication, contested her when she cited the report during the show, but it seems to me, she accurately cited it.

http://www.thejournal.ie/catholic-primary-schools-diversity-divestment-facts-ireland-3252590-Mar2017/

https://www.esri.ie/news/new-report-on-diversity-in-primary-schools-in-ireland/

https://www.esri.ie/publications/school-sector-variation-among-primary-schools-in-ireland/

https://www.educatetogether.ie/sites/default/files/school_sector_variation.pdf

RabbleRouser2k

horseburger wrote: »

I'd prefer if there was more time given to each item, rather than having four or five items discussed on the show and only giving around 10 minutes, often less, per item.

Often, because there is less time given to each item discussed, people in the audience who have been invited on, because they have a particular interest in an item for discussion, don't get time to make their observations and they get cut off by the presenter before they have finished making their point.

For example, earlier this year, on the issue of enrolment of students in schools with a religious ethos, and schools with no religious ethos, the school principal from a Catholic school and Susie Hall from the Church of Ireland schools Board of Education, who were in the audience, did not get a chance to fully make their points detailing their enrolment policies, in circumstances where there are not enough places available, to accommodate all the applications.

In this particular episode, the speakers in the audience, from both Catholic and Church of Ireland schools, did not get a chance to fully detail their perspectives on the topic, on the issue of enrolment policies and schools being over subscribed.

Both were making the point that the issue was that successive governments were not making available the resources to build more schools, with no religious ethos, to accommodate parents who didn't want their children attending schools with a religious ethos.

They were interrupted by Claire Byrne, before they had a chance to fully detail how they accept applications for places, in cases where there are more applications than places.

The issue of how schools with no religious ethos prioritize applications, where there is more applications than places, was not discussed.

As an example, a parent in the audience mentioned that her child was enrolled on a waiting list for a place in an Educate Together school, when her child was a few weeks old, and had not been accepted. She said "we never got a place just because our name never got to the top of the list".

She didn't get to finish what she had intended to say fully, either, because time was running out on the show.

The priorities of selection, of applications to Educate Together schools, was not detailed, in situations where there are less places than applications.

I mean, say three neighbouring families apply at the same time. and there aren't enough spaces to accommodate each application, how does an Educate Together school decide which family is accepted.

For example, if two of the families applications are accepted because they have older brothers or sisters in the school, the third family who might not have other children in the school, will be disappointed, for the child, not getting a place in the school.

This third family might also feel excluded, simply because the child they hoped would attend that school, might be their first child to attend school, and through no fault of their own, they don't have older children, already in attendance at that school.

My guess is that any type of prioritization of acceptance of applications, will leave families disappointed, in cases where places are limited, no matter if it's a school with a religious ethos, or one that does not have a religious ethos.

The priorities of enrolment of Educate Together schools, in situations where there are more applications made, than places available, wasn't discussed, even though Paul Rowe of Educate Together, was in the audience.

He said there were far more applications made to Educate Together schools than places available, but he didn't detail how they prioritize applications where there are less places available than applications made.

It would have been interesting to hear details on this. If it is done with regard to how near a family lives from a school, there's still going to be a difficulty deciding who is accepted, if for example, neighbouring families have made applications for their children to attend a school, and there aren't enough places for each family's child.

If, on the show, they had, maybe one, or at most, two items per show, I think they could have a more detailed discussion.

And forget about the polls, as the questions are usually framed in such a way that don't consider other aspects of the issue related, to the question being asked.

I remember that episode-it was bizarre, to say the least. The speakers were very haphazardly selected. One side, was an actress and parent. The other was a doctor, Maria Steen, and parent. The doctor was prepared, the actress wasn't
When it cut to the people in the audience-one had given a quote that he claimed to not have made, yet if you googled it-it's exactly what he said.
Him trying to row back on it made him look a lot worse. Especially since Maria Steen could cite it.

It felt very unprepared by one side of the discussion, like the actress was speaking from experience, but that's one person's experience, it's not a group. It's not a statistic. On the other hand, the doctor had statistics, she knew what she was talking about, she knew the studies.
That's the biggest problem I have with CB Live-you get a clear disparity between the sides of discussion-like they have no idea of what they're talking about. I may have disagreed, at times, with Maria Steen, but she made her point so well that I was like 'okay, she won the debate'. Seems like Claire Byrne was trying to prevent those who were on opposite sides to Steen from looking foolish.