Liveline thread 12/08/16 to date

The flying mouse

I had to switch of, couldn't listen anymore...

TheHomeService

If that is Yew Ormond sitting at the table, he looks to be enjoying the show as much as I am.

I bet he could tell a few tales about Joe, and "all that carry on", so to speak.

snubbleste

TheHomeService wrote: »

If that is Yew Ormond sitting at the table, he looks to be enjoying the show as much as I am.
I bet he could tell a few tales about Joe, and "all that carry on", so to speak.

It is Hugh Ormond

ButtersSuki

snubbleste wrote: »

It is Hugh Ormond

For dose of us who can't access de video, can one of youz post a pic of Yew?

snubbleste

Hugh writing notes in big letters for Joe to read

snubbleste

ButtersSuki wrote: »

For dose of us who can't access de video, can one of youz post a pic of Yew?

Bottom right with wellies sitting

goose2005

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Some of his comments were bizarre. What was that weird tangent about knowing a woman wasn't a Christian, because her son's name was Andrew, and he saw that name in the Qu'ran?

I think she was claiming that she was being persecuted for naming her son Andrew, but he was saying that the name was an acceptable Muslim name. I can't find any mention of Andrew (or Arabic Andrawus) in the Quran, but it is a Muslim name.

ButtersSuki

snubbleste wrote: »

Hugh writing notes in big letters for Joe to read

U R A CÜNT.

ButtersSuki

snubbleste wrote: »

Bottom right with wellies sitting

10/1 he's asking himself "WTF am I doing here? Has it really come to this?"

ButtersSuki

Joe getting the set-up of that joke completely wrong there. Again.

ButtersSuki

Another BRUTAL impression.

ButtersSuki

Joe said "Go raibh míle maith agat" to the crowd when it should have been "Go raibh míle maith agaibh". That's about as basic as the language gets and he can't even get that right.

Amadán.

ButtersSuki

foggy_lad wrote: »

How much are a thousand taxis to Tulla-Moray?

I'm pretty sure they all came in the same one. It's the thousand receipts we should be worried about.

ButtersSuki

That's the first time I've sat through an entire Funny Fryday. I will say this much, never again.

TheHomeService

Darcy having a dig at "one of Joe's crew".

goose2005

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Most likely because the format of the stories they were hearing from the failed aslyum seekers were of a copy and paste format to begin with.

Exactly, a rejection rate of 99.8% implies that the appeals were frivolous and merely intended to stall for time in the hope of an amnesty or change in the law.

HeidiHeidi

ButtersSuki wrote: »

That's the first time I've sat through an entire Funny Fryday. I will say this much, never again.

You should refer yourself for counselling. Can't be good for you.

snubbleste

ButtersSuki wrote: »

That's the first time I've sat through an entire Funny Fryday. I will say this much, never again.

Technically, today is Thursday

foggy_lad

snubbleste wrote: »

Technically, today is Thursday FFOAT

Fixed that for you:D

HeidiHeidi

foggy_lad wrote: »

Fixed that for you:D

Oi, that's copyright pending :mad:

ButtersSuki

snubbleste wrote: »

Technically, today is Thursday

Yes, but Joe himself calls it "Funny Fryday on a Turrsday" so we're both right so to speak.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Can't sleep so reading the thread.

Asked these questions yesterday in the following post that you didn't answer (perhaps you didn't see it?):

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Felix didn't argue your points however; his view certainly appeared to be that "they got it wrong" when the result wasn't in his favour and that (again) appeared to be the only criteria he was applying to the decision. As a later caller pointed out, some just appeal and appeal until they get the result they want, others "disappear" from the system (a caller was in a relationship with one such man today).

Felix (open to correction on that) was the caller who claimed his country was too dangerous for him, yet left his wife and child there - nice. He came across as a complete chancer and a Spoofer tbh.

It may have been dangerous for him for specific reasons that do not apply to his family. In the same way that a gay man who flees Cameroon need have no specific worries for his family, a political activist in Zimbabwe need not necessarily have any fears for his wife. His activity is being persecuted, there need not necessarily be a national vendetta against his family. These regimes have enough enemies to focus on, without needing to go after relatives. If he is an enemy of the authorities, they're probably content with the fact of his absence. They're not necessarily out for revenge.

Plenty of people leave behind their families and are granted refugee status, protection or LtR here, especially political activists.

The ones that tend to fail are those who claim religious persecution or FGM... because why would you leave your family where there is a general threat?

If the threat is specific to you, as is the case for most political activists and journalists, that's a different story.

The Norwegian example is unfair as they are immeasurably richer than us as a nation.

They're not 'immeasurably richer', they are approximately twice as wealthy, but they accept as valid twenty times as many refugees. This is disproportionate. I also gave the examples of Jordan, Burundi, and Rwanda accepting the stories of more refugees than Ireland.

Our claims process has suffered from a culture of disbelief and at times, a presumption of dishonesty, and after years of exasperated criticism of that culture from the courts, that is now beginning to change.

do you think the system is being abused? Do you think we have false claimants? And if so, what do you think should happen to them?

I think there are plenty of people who do not meet the strict, legal definition of refugees, but many of these deserve subsidiary protection. I am sure there are some people who are 'abusing' the system, just like in any walk of life. Even if these people don't deserve protection, I have no opposition to them staying here if they have been in the system for 2 years or longer.

People who have no valid claim, and who have been given the opportunity to appeal, should be dealt with in under 24 months , and deported. That is perfectly feasible if enough heads are knocked together and the RAT gets more professional.

goose2005 wrote: »

I think she was claiming that she was being persecuted for naming her son Andrew, but he was saying that the name was an acceptable Muslim name. I can't find any mention of Andrew (or Arabic Andrawus) in the Quran, but it is a Muslim name.

That's even more perplexing.

It ignores the fact that Islam has different cultural variations globally. For example, the name A'isha is an Islamic name, having been the name of one of the Prophet Muhammad's wives. But you will never find it in Iran. Never. Why? Because the Shia sect detest A'isha, they call her a whore, a desecrator of Muhammad's memory, and so on. Yet the name is quite common in Saudi Arabia.

If someone tells me that it's very unusual for a Muslim to be named Andrew in northern Nigeria, I could well believe that, because the name has far greater significance to Christianity than to Islam, just like Jesus and Maryam appear the the Qur'an, but you'll very rarely find a Muslim called Jesus.

This is the kind of subtletly that the RAT typically refuses to engage in. Once it discovers a route of refusing a claim, it will pursue it, and that can be infuriating at times, and blatantly unfair.

I hope the 'Andrew' decision was appealed in Judicial Review, if the name was central to the Tribunal's decision. It sounds like a ludicrous decision. I'll do a search for it.

To the mods, whom I suspect are a little suspicious of the relevance of this exchange on the Radio forum, I'm trying to stick to discussing what was specifically said on the programme about Tribunal practices and Direct Provision, and not delving into things that weren't covered on Lahvlahn.

Joe will apparently be returning to the topic tomorrow after the 'funny' thursday interlude so it's all about to be dug-up again anyway.

hullaballoo

Caller Mod:

There isn't any problem with tangents like this. I personally am a fan of allowing organic discussion to develop out of what happens on air or whatever.

It is only if the thread gets taken over by the tangent and is no longer about the show that I would suggest the discussion is moved into its own thread, which could be called something like "Interesting discussion (Split from Liveline)" so to speak.

Dan Jaman

snubbleste wrote: »

I can tell the majority of the audience were bitterly regretting being at the front of the queue. If they'd been last in they could have escaped unnoticed.

Atlantic Dawn

Whoy does he insist in living in that fooking obnoxious red waistcoat at every single live outside broadcast, is it sponsored or what?

Dan Jaman

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Whoy does he insist in living in that fooking obnoxious red waistcoat at every single live outside broadcast, is it sponsored or what?

It hides the dribbles of claret.

Dan Jaman

You know exactly what will happen in twenty, thirty or forty years from now? Some bunch of auld farts will be sitting around gassing on RTE and saying what a great show that was, down at the auld ploughing match and how hugely entertaining the Funny Thursday crew were.
Exactly the same shoite is expressed now by people reminiscing about shows I recall as a young wan, and I can tell you, they were utterly shoyte.

Through the 'follow-up' TV specials, we've already seen a glimpse of the historical revision of Liveline into a 'megaphone' for unfiltered, unedited, listener-driven opinions, and a 'magnificent force for social change'.

I'm not saying Liveline hasn't, at times, been an important vector of change and, especially around the nadir of the Great Recession, it really was a true barometer of public disillusion and anger.

When Joe hangs up his nipple clamps for the final time, the syrupy outpourings of nostalgia, the hystrionic sense of loss, will be cringeworthy. The Goodbye show, whenever it happens, will make the hysterical obsequies for Kim Jong-Un resemble a requiem for a pauper.

On that day, Joe will hold court for the last time before a crimson-waistcoated guard of honour, comprising all the 'Funny Friday' crew, with Fill-in Boucher Hayes MC'ing the event, characteristically sombre and sardonic in all the right places.

'What will you miss most?', Fill-in asks.
'Well the wages, of course', Joe replies immediately. Everbody cracks up. Mr. Duffy is deadpan.

Now for the last time, the camera pans to Duffy, Queen-motherlike, accepting flowers from Childers of the Wurkers, now see him taking his place in the Jag, on the leather-upholstered backseat, fashioned from the foreskins of a dozen rare whales. With a typically vulgar sip from a pint-glass of 1928 Krug, Joe taps his driver with his cane, and the Jag rolls luxuriously down the avenue, and so copper-fastens Joe's phantasmagorical elevation to the hallowed summit of 'Irish broadcasting legends' (mar dhea)

It will be a sad day for this forum, all the same. I don't know what we're all going to talk about. Butters will be inconsolable.

furiousox