Joe Brolly

[BennyCake]

Brolly, behaving like the jilted lover. Read some of his columns since RTE got rid, and they are petty and childish. He's a sad little man.

[Saffrongael]

He's an attention seeking p***k

[Main Street]

When Joe slags off somebody like heart-throb Marty M or Big Sean he goes out of his way to mention that they are friends now, the slagged off one is suppose to be man enough acccept what passes for a Brolly apology and it's all water under the bridge, part opf life in the limelight. But when some slight happens to Joe the narcissist, it's how dare they do that to me me ME.   I hope Joe gets scorched.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

95% of that article is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He's box office, whether you're for or against him.

[Tubberman]

95% of that article is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He's box office, whether you're for or against him.

Don't know how he can be box office when the only channel he's on is shutting down

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

What a dick

[Dire Ear]

Not a fan of JB at all,  but he's 100% right to pull a national broadcaster in its bias
Hope he wins,  and more importantly opens some peoples eyes

[Captain Obvious]

95% of that article is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He's box office, whether you're for or against him.

Don't know how he can be box office when the only channel he's on is shutting down

🤣

[RedHand88]

Brolly, behaving like the jilted lover. Read some of his columns since RTE got rid, and they are petty and childish. He's a sad little man.

He was right. However, the fundamental rule of debate on a public funded station is you don't slag off someone who isn't there to deny it. BBC the exact same in this regard.

[Lar Naparka]

Not a fan of JB at all,  but he's 100% right to pull a national broadcaster in its bias
Hope he wins,  and more importantly opens some peoples eyes

Claire Byrne cut him short when he began to  criticise Geoffrey who had  just left the studio. She told him that is was unacceptable to personally abuse anyone who wasn't  there to defend himself. She did emphasise however, that he was free to continue participating if he chose to as long as he avoided passing personal derogatory remarks about anyone who wasn't present.
Joe began to remonstrate as Claire repeated her warning and his sound was cut off. Before the camera was switched elsewhere, Joe could be seen waving his hands and obviously shouting.
Claire then explained to the other studio guests, and to her audience, that Joe was quite  welcome to rejoin in the discussion but that it was a breach of RTE 's policy to allow personal abuse of anyone unabnot in a position to defend themselves.
She added that she had personally invited Joe to participate and that she hoped he would do so.
Obviously. he didn't do so.
I believe that Joe took the hump because he was dropped from TSG and this is his way of getting his own back.

[imtommygunn]

With the Sunday game he crossed the line into personal insult territory multiple times, was well out of order and was warned. He has no one to blame but himself there either. He's no victim.  Tbh he should have been removed after the cavanagh stuff.

[trailer]

He a wild hard on for himself.

[Dire Ear]

With the Sunday game he crossed the line into personal insult territory multiple times, was well out of order and was warned. He has no one to blame but himself there either. He's no victim.  Tbh he should have been removed after the cavanagh stuff.

Can't argue with that

[smelmoth]

What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

[RedHand88]

What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

Slander laws prevent stuff like this. Of course you can't do it. See the recent Dr Christian Jessen case. This is why BBC/RTE shut down this sort of stuff all the time in debates ("I'm obliged to say if X was here he/she would categorically deny that"). Its a legal case waiting to happen. It doesn't matter if you believe it to be true, can it be categorically proven in a court of law that the DUP as an organisation are homophobic because of the actions of some of its members?