RTÉ admits paying Tubridy €345,000 more than declared

It's surprising - and a little bit concerning - to see people so eager to have their bosses or companies have such a tight control over their personal lives.

It would be absolutely disastrous for society as a whole if companies had complete control over what employees (or contractors) did in their free time.

Bakhurst was correct to come down hard on presenters using RTE time (or resources) for unauthorised personal gain, as he did with Doireann Garrihy when she promoted a certain porridge brand in photos taken in her studio. Or when Lottie Ryan filmed a promotion for a car brand in the RTE carpark. But his authority rightly and absolutely stops at the RTE gate.

Ms. Garrihy's promotion of this jewellery establishment may be tacky, but it's not unlawful, doesn't interfere with RTE's commercial interests or reputation, and isn't any of RTE's business.

We should be very careful about how we call on the rights of others to be eroded because of petty gripes we have with individuals that can easily be ignored, and really mean very little in the larger scheme of things. They're our rights too.

Sure why not let all RTÉ presenters push their brand outside of RTÉ?

You are grossly and wildly missing the point. RTE don't have an absolute say.

If that lady wants to share a version of her private life and monetise it, that is exclusively up to here, there is a clear and obvious value to it if your assertion is correct that she is "she's a walking billboard".

RTÉ suggest that their presenters are exclusive to them and that they need to be exclusive so to gain and retain an audience

Do they? Either way they can suggest what they like.

It doesn't trump employment law in this country.

If they want exclusivity in X, Y or Z, they express it contractually and pay for it, the same with every other company.

The idea a company should basically own every facet of someone is as remedial as it is dangerous.

But thankfully absolute preposterous.

Exclusivity in an employment contract means not working for competitors - which would clearly be detrimental for your employer's commercial interests. So she can't work as presenter for Today FM while signed to RTE

That wouldn't be absolute either, she could certainly work for either and do commercial work elsewhere. As does happen.

But the point you raise about directly negative contribution would be valid.

2 referendums coming up in March how about a referendum on RTE....

oh sorry the people are too immature to decide that one.... the government will do it for them.

Again, none of what you think or what may be suggested trumps employment law.

If you want exclusivity on X, Y, Z you express it specifically contractually.

If she is a contractor she is really no different to a plumber.

Is RTE in the constitution?

They can suggest what they want.

If they want something adhered to they put it in a contract which the other party has to agree to.

Contracts are not infallible they also have to adhere to Irish Employment Law.

IF this sort of fluff annoys I suggest you stop reading and sharing the likes of Evoke, it really is gutter tabloid buffoonery.

Pointing out employment law is not defending anyone.

An excellent example of the good use of a glorified survey. Complex questions of corporate governance are, of course, a very different matter.

Look, we all know this is an "internet discussion" - one that has no, and will never have, any bearing on real life. But let's pretend for a minute that there was either the public appetite or political necessity for such a tax-payer funded opinion poll, and that a Government were stupid enough to abide by the result. What would the question be?

Imagine the mess if either side won? If No wins, the Government can claim that they have a mandate for business as usual. If Yes wins, we're left with a black hole in our public service broadcasting duties, and nothing to fill it.

Complicate matters like that should never be put to a simple yes/no vote.

How the Tory party (mis)handled Brexit should be a cautionary tale, not a template for further ineptitude.