RTÉ admits paying Tubridy €345,000 more than declared

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?

So they don't ever suggest what I am suggesting they suggest :/

I'd say they specifically state their highly paid contractors are allowed certain leeway with sponsorship deals.

If she is she might want to go do some plumbing around by TodayFM!

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.

I think RTÉ need a hand with that also. So perhaps you should email them on the issue that they have with SCOPE and the Department of Social Protection.

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.

Talk about complicated! Could you imagine the absolute mess if the result was

1. B
2. A
3. C

I note that you don't think it should happen, and I think you have illustrated why very well.

But this is the issue. You can't just plan for (what you see as) the best possible outcome. You have to take the complexities into account, and the very strong likelihood that it won't go your way. This was exactly David Cameron's failing.

And no, a complicated non-binding plebiscite is a total waste of time and money. I thought the aim of all of this was to be more efficient with public revenue and resources?

But you have to consider the worst option. You really have to, because you really need to be prepared for it to come to pass. I don't want to keep mentioning Brexit, but... Brexit!

And why are you (conceptually) disenfranchising those who want RTE totally abolished? I, like you, are fine with turning a blind eye to such cranks - but could a Government really invoke a poll like this and omit the choice, and still claim any legitimacy?

Look, we both know that this isn't going to happen. It was an off-the cuff comment by another poster, it's not a realistic suggestion. Like the whole thing about Conor McGregor becoming President (he, by the way, was recently promising "votes every week", even though the President has no such power).

There's absolutely no need, and definitely no public appetite, for a referendum - or even a non-binding plebiscite - on RTE. This is an argument about angels dancing on pinheads.

We have a solid mechanism for legislative and policy change already that does not expose us to the dangers of the tyranny of the majority - though the tried and tested method of representative parliamentary democracy. Find the individual or party that has a vision for RTE that you agree with, vote for them in the next General Election, and encourage others to vote for them.

Correct and right, why should some gloamer use their profile on the national broadcaster, paid for by John Q Taxpayer, to top up his or her wedge?

If you want the publicity pay for it yourself, you ligger. Time to take the gloves off here Kev.

Unbelievable Geoff..

One could argue that she is largely in the position to be in promotions through her association with RTE. This is why such work can be prohibited in contracts as the talent is essentially competing with the employer for advertising contracts. If for example she is seen on RTE programming or promotional material wearing the rings RTE is effectively paying for a third parties advertising.

If she was moonlighting as a taxi driver for example, then rte would have no legitimate interest in that. This is different and obviously so.

Here is a good example of how a bill can be sent to check it constitutionality.

AFAIK -

1. Bill is proposed
2. The government checks constitutionality with the AG (Their solicitor), he/she advise it is or isn't constitutional
3. If constitutional the bill proceeds thought the house of the oireachtas, Seanad can make recommendations for changes, and then there is some thing that happens that if the Seanad doesn't take a vote it is deem voted on and it is passed to the president
4. The president has 2 choices, to sign it into law or to send it on to the Supreme Court (He will consult with his Council Of State before doing this)
5. The Supreme court makes a decision on its constitutionality, the agree the president signs off on the bill, otherwise it is sent back to the Oireachtas
6. If sent back to the Oireachtas they decide to rewrite it to meet the constitutional needs or they call for a referendum to change the constitution.

I see George Lee back on the TV, with COP23.

I could be wrong and please correct me if I am: -

I don't remember any of the Correspondents being part RTÉ election coverage. I might understand Paul Reynolds as he might be reporting on Crime.

I don't ever remember George Lee doing an election day report, or Emma O'Kelly or Brian O'Donovan. Even the presenters of Nationwide who are attached to the Newsroom don't seem to be around for this one day event.

I know that the local correspondents will work though out the day and funny I even think The Arts Correspondent did some coverage when she was working with them.

It just seems strange that RTÉ News don't just designate people for these events.

Also when was the last time you saw George Lee, for that matter where is Emma O'Kelly these days?

Casino Royalties

Moonraker Moneyraking it in. <- that one is a bit of a stretch.

No Time to Die No time to pay back the missing 150k

I know you’re just trying to be funny, but it should be noted that Tubridy’s face was used in these types of ads too.

That would have been back when your pal was famous:

• 09:39, 31 Mar 2022Updated11:41, 31 Mar 2022

Regards...jmcc

Apologies, I do not understand?

I hope he gets a few million damages, Google are taking the piss receiving money for these ads and then saying they are not responsible for them. They should have to verify every ad is legit they are making money from.

Tubbs is also used in these adverts and people have fallen for them.

People invested in stock based on tubs alleged insight?😂😂😂😂😂

Anne Doyle has been a recent target of these kinds of ads, even though she retired in 2011.

I don't think the scammers put the kind of thought into the images they appropriate that you think they do. They're just looking for well known faces, and they switch between them.

They used Tubridy's last year, got what they could out of it, he called it out on his show (and it was covered in subsequent print and online media), and they moved on to other targets. That his face isn't currently being used in online scam ads isn't as significant as you make out.