Rip Off Republic - Episode #2 - review
- Thread starter Debasser
- Start date
MissRibena
Registered User
- Messages
- 350
Singapore sounds lovely. I have no experience myself but friends of mine were there on holiday and raved about it (although they did say it was so perfect that they felt a bit afraid to put a foot wrong).
How are womens' rights in Singapore? Is there true sexual equality and freedom? Is there tolerance of minorities outside of religious tolerance?
Rebecca
How are womens' rights in Singapore? Is there true sexual equality and freedom? Is there tolerance of minorities outside of religious tolerance?
Rebecca
FYI: from RTE website:
18 August 2005
Eddie Hobbs' new show gets record viewers[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
A record number of viewers tuned in to watch 'Rip Off Republic' on Monday 15 August on RTÉ One.
Hosted by personal finance expert Eddie Hobbs, the show attracted cver 667,000 viewers which corresponds to a share of 51.5% of all those watching television at that time
The first programme in the series had already drawn a huge audience of over half a million viewers and the latest programme jumped by one third.
On Monday's show, Eddie took a look at 'rip-off's' in the area of entertainment. Part three will be transmitted on 29 August at 9.30pm on RTÉ One and will take a close look at the area of transport.
The series is filmed in front of a live audience at the Helix in Dublin City University.
Its presenter Eddie Hobbs achieved success last year with his 'Show me the Money' series which helped people to overcome personal debt
[/font]
18 August 2005
Eddie Hobbs' new show gets record viewers[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
A record number of viewers tuned in to watch 'Rip Off Republic' on Monday 15 August on RTÉ One.
Hosted by personal finance expert Eddie Hobbs, the show attracted cver 667,000 viewers which corresponds to a share of 51.5% of all those watching television at that time
The first programme in the series had already drawn a huge audience of over half a million viewers and the latest programme jumped by one third.
On Monday's show, Eddie took a look at 'rip-off's' in the area of entertainment. Part three will be transmitted on 29 August at 9.30pm on RTÉ One and will take a close look at the area of transport.
The series is filmed in front of a live audience at the Helix in Dublin City University.
Its presenter Eddie Hobbs achieved success last year with his 'Show me the Money' series which helped people to overcome personal debt
[/font]
D
daltonr
Guest
That's fantastic news. Like the message or not it's nice to see something other than Reality TV and Soaps get a big viewership.
Does the 51.5% relate only to people watching RTE, or is it RTE, TV3, Foreign Channels etc?
-Rd
Does the 51.5% relate only to people watching RTE, or is it RTE, TV3, Foreign Channels etc?
-Rd
ClubMan said:
Those 'reasons' were 1 day in my life in Ireland! There comes a point, when 1 day, becomes 1 day too many.
I've provided evidence of rip-off in my post... from ONE DAY in my Irish life... prey tell how I am NOT being ripped-off by Ireland? Clubman, you scrutinise two statements in my post, and ignore the evidential stuff... please advise how I (and others), aren't being ripped-off re my post (and what I posted is only a fraction of a bigger picture).
-soc
I have presented my side of the counter argument in detail in this thread which might be of interest to you.soc said:
I haven't seen both episodes completely but saw most of the most recent one.
I like the programme in principle - I think that as a nation in general (waiting for my lambasting for generalising!) we tend to accept prices as they are. We also tend to accept bad service (and then tip for it!).
So I think the value in this programme is that is reminds us to be a bit more critical and not to just accept as is.
But I do find that it is v. one-sided. Eddie is up there like a school-teacher telling all us innocents that we can get better. The whole set-up of the oohing and aah-ing audience with teacher Eddie lecturing us all is irritating. Also is a very pop-pseudo approach to these issues. Could do with some debate and presentation of the other side of the story - not just quotations of one person and then slating that position.
Agree that the comparisons with SA were a bit rediculous.
I like the programme in principle - I think that as a nation in general (waiting for my lambasting for generalising!) we tend to accept prices as they are. We also tend to accept bad service (and then tip for it!).
So I think the value in this programme is that is reminds us to be a bit more critical and not to just accept as is.
But I do find that it is v. one-sided. Eddie is up there like a school-teacher telling all us innocents that we can get better. The whole set-up of the oohing and aah-ing audience with teacher Eddie lecturing us all is irritating. Also is a very pop-pseudo approach to these issues. Could do with some debate and presentation of the other side of the story - not just quotations of one person and then slating that position.
Agree that the comparisons with SA were a bit rediculous.
D
daltonr
Guest
I did find the Audience participation (if you'd call it that) irritating. It was far worse to actually be in the audience than it came accross on TV. I was up in the balcony thank goodness so I could avoid it.
Prime Time did some far more impressive and important shows. It's a credit to Eddie's Team that they managed to find a format that would allow serious issues like this to get to a wide audience.
Hopefully RTE will pick up on this and use the format in the future to tackle other serious issues. I wonder is it Eddie or the Title of the show that's pulling in the crowds.
If the figures keep rising (up over 100,000 from the first show) then that will be seriously impressive.
-Rd
daltonr said:
I think it is a mixture of both the above. I was also in the audience (for the last show) and it was annoying at times but it was also interesting. I think it is impressive that RTE feel they can air a programme that to a large degree attacks the hand that feeds them. It is also impressive that the public are willing to watch, en masse, a current affairs programme - even if it is quite simplistic in its style at times.
Noor77 said:
Unfortunately, having spoken to someone who was in the audience for the last show, I don't think it'll be finishing on a high. They don't rate the last one compared to the first 2.
Though, if the figures keep increasing, that won't really matter much.
With regards to the oohhs and the aaahhhhs, having been in the audience for the first show myself, some of the sound effects were definitely dubbed in afterwards. So, for example, where there is some chatter in the background that implies a reaction, there were at least 3 occasions when there was no actual reaction in the crowd.
MissRibena
Registered User
- Messages
- 350
Am very interested to hear that the next episode is about transport and delighted that the show is getting such a good response. But much and all as I'm interested and much and all as I like Eddie, how am I supposed to give up a double episode of Lost??! How has my life been reduced to this 
Rebecca
Rebecca
MissRibena said:much and all as I like Eddie, how am I supposed to give up a double episode of Lost??! How has my life been reduced to this
Rebecca
I'm in exactly the same boat Miss R!! The last two Rip Offs, I have only watched the first 30 minutes before switching over to get my Lost fix
It's a hard life!
Originally Posted by MissRibena
much and all as I like Eddie, how am I supposed to give up a double episode of Lost??! How has my life been reduced to this
Rebecca
Exactly my sentiments! LOST is my current favourite RTE screened show and up until now used to watch "Silent Witness" on BBC1 but this finished last week so next week will tune into Eddie and thus be able to contribute to the discussion!
D
daltonr
Guest
> But we're really getting off topic now as far as I can see.
Ah! What the heck. There's another Rip-Off Thread running in parallel. And Clubman has made a very interesting point.....
>I would argue that the retention of the death penalty has a generalised and >pervasive brutalising effect on the society of the country in question but obviously it >is hard to quantify this in objective terms.
I would have strongly agreed with you up to about 6 months ago. I have in fact strongly argued against the Death Penalty on this Forum. My reasoning being that it's benefits are questionable and the risk of being wrong is too great for such questionable benefits. I still would be against the Death Penalty, but I would not rule out living in a country that had it.
I'd be interested in an answer to this question. If Ireland introduced a Death Penalty.
(Hypothetical since it won't happen and unless we leave the EU can't happen). But go with me on this.... Would you emigrate? or stay and fight to have it repealed?
In other words is your objection to it so absolute that it would force you to leave, or only strong enough to prevent you moving to a country that has the penalty?
At the moment I'm going through a period of re-examining a few things that I've always taken for granted. Such as....
1. Very Harsh Punishment is not a deterant against crime and can in fact be counter productive.
In the US greater numbers of Police and Longer Prison sentances have actually had an effect, contrary to what I had previously thought. Check out Freakonomics by Stephen Levitt for this and other very interesting insights about crime and other issues.
In Singapore I could not find Grafitti. Including passing a railway yard which is usually the mothership for grafitti. After 3 or 4 days of searching we found a tiny bit.
Talking to the locals they said the harsh punishments are rarely required because people dont commit the crimes. That sounds like an effective deterrant to me. However I think there's more to it than that. The deterrant has to be coupled with effective policing. If you don't believe you'll get caught, the punishment is irrelevant.
Singapore locals believed that on average if you reported someone committing a crime they would be on the seen and the person would be taken away within minutes.
They also said that if a person is found wandering in a residential area the Police WILL ask that person to explain why they are there and if they don't have a good reason they'll be asked to leave. Harsh? Yes. But it would have gotten the guys who smashed my windscreen out of my neighbourhood before they did the deed. And they wouldn't be still there a few hours later and on subsequent nights.
2. Freedom of Speech and other similar rights of the individual are of paramount importance. They are the first thing that need to be guarded in a society.
This is the most troubling one. I would have once accepted this without question, and even now it makes me uneasy to think I'm questioning it. In Asia there seems to be a prioritising of the well being of the community over the rights of the individual.
We think we have this in the west but we don't. Look at the hassle and backlash when we tried to protect the rights of the group bystanders from the passive smoke of the individual. The smokers couldn't understand why their rights were being trampled on. The smoking ban was so out of character that it comsumed the nation for a year and got worldwide coverage.
So what happens if a government creates a Utopian society but can only preserve it by surpressing public dissent. My Western Liberal side bristles at the thought. But if the Society that is being protected is truly better in all other respects then am I imposing a lower quality of life in order to protect some abstract idea of freedom, by living in the West?
E.g. I have the right to park my car outside my house and not have the window kicked in. I have the right to expect such a crime to be investigated properly. In Ireland these rights are not protected, is my right to criticise the government sufficient compensation? I'd have to say no. I'd much prefer to be protected so that I didn't even need a right to critise the government.
I'd have to live in Singapore for a year or two convince myself on this, but it's a sufficiently interesting question to me that it alone would be a reason to move there.
3. It is the governments job to ensure that the least well off in society are protected by a safety net. This is best achieved by taking money from the better off through taxes and distributing it to the least well off through welfare and services.
This might be the most contentious. In Singapore if you are broke or unemployed it is the responsibility of your Family to look after you. This might mean a grown man needing to borrow from his brother to make ends meet. This would very quickly produce a pressure to get up off your ass and at least reduce the amount you need to be subsidused. Even if my brother can't ever make ends meet, I'd feel a lot better helping him out if he was doing everything in his power to make a contribution.
If my brother sat on his ass and watched Big Brother I'd be less inclined to buy him a new Jacket and Shoes.
I'm told the Welfare model does allow for people who genuinely can't rely on others for help. I'd need more info before I'm convinved. But I'm certainly intrigued by such a system.
Of course any suggestion to introduce such a welfare system here would be immediately shot down and would probably end the political career of the person who proposed it.
-Rd
Ah! What the heck. There's another Rip-Off Thread running in parallel. And Clubman has made a very interesting point.....
>I would argue that the retention of the death penalty has a generalised and >pervasive brutalising effect on the society of the country in question but obviously it >is hard to quantify this in objective terms.
I would have strongly agreed with you up to about 6 months ago. I have in fact strongly argued against the Death Penalty on this Forum. My reasoning being that it's benefits are questionable and the risk of being wrong is too great for such questionable benefits. I still would be against the Death Penalty, but I would not rule out living in a country that had it.
I'd be interested in an answer to this question. If Ireland introduced a Death Penalty.
(Hypothetical since it won't happen and unless we leave the EU can't happen). But go with me on this.... Would you emigrate? or stay and fight to have it repealed?
In other words is your objection to it so absolute that it would force you to leave, or only strong enough to prevent you moving to a country that has the penalty?
At the moment I'm going through a period of re-examining a few things that I've always taken for granted. Such as....
1. Very Harsh Punishment is not a deterant against crime and can in fact be counter productive.
In the US greater numbers of Police and Longer Prison sentances have actually had an effect, contrary to what I had previously thought. Check out Freakonomics by Stephen Levitt for this and other very interesting insights about crime and other issues.
In Singapore I could not find Grafitti. Including passing a railway yard which is usually the mothership for grafitti. After 3 or 4 days of searching we found a tiny bit.
Talking to the locals they said the harsh punishments are rarely required because people dont commit the crimes. That sounds like an effective deterrant to me. However I think there's more to it than that. The deterrant has to be coupled with effective policing. If you don't believe you'll get caught, the punishment is irrelevant.
Singapore locals believed that on average if you reported someone committing a crime they would be on the seen and the person would be taken away within minutes.
They also said that if a person is found wandering in a residential area the Police WILL ask that person to explain why they are there and if they don't have a good reason they'll be asked to leave. Harsh? Yes. But it would have gotten the guys who smashed my windscreen out of my neighbourhood before they did the deed. And they wouldn't be still there a few hours later and on subsequent nights.
2. Freedom of Speech and other similar rights of the individual are of paramount importance. They are the first thing that need to be guarded in a society.
This is the most troubling one. I would have once accepted this without question, and even now it makes me uneasy to think I'm questioning it. In Asia there seems to be a prioritising of the well being of the community over the rights of the individual.
We think we have this in the west but we don't. Look at the hassle and backlash when we tried to protect the rights of the group bystanders from the passive smoke of the individual. The smokers couldn't understand why their rights were being trampled on. The smoking ban was so out of character that it comsumed the nation for a year and got worldwide coverage.
So what happens if a government creates a Utopian society but can only preserve it by surpressing public dissent. My Western Liberal side bristles at the thought. But if the Society that is being protected is truly better in all other respects then am I imposing a lower quality of life in order to protect some abstract idea of freedom, by living in the West?
E.g. I have the right to park my car outside my house and not have the window kicked in. I have the right to expect such a crime to be investigated properly. In Ireland these rights are not protected, is my right to criticise the government sufficient compensation? I'd have to say no. I'd much prefer to be protected so that I didn't even need a right to critise the government.
I'd have to live in Singapore for a year or two convince myself on this, but it's a sufficiently interesting question to me that it alone would be a reason to move there.
3. It is the governments job to ensure that the least well off in society are protected by a safety net. This is best achieved by taking money from the better off through taxes and distributing it to the least well off through welfare and services.
This might be the most contentious. In Singapore if you are broke or unemployed it is the responsibility of your Family to look after you. This might mean a grown man needing to borrow from his brother to make ends meet. This would very quickly produce a pressure to get up off your ass and at least reduce the amount you need to be subsidused. Even if my brother can't ever make ends meet, I'd feel a lot better helping him out if he was doing everything in his power to make a contribution.
If my brother sat on his ass and watched Big Brother I'd be less inclined to buy him a new Jacket and Shoes.
I'm told the Welfare model does allow for people who genuinely can't rely on others for help. I'd need more info before I'm convinved. But I'm certainly intrigued by such a system.
Of course any suggestion to introduce such a welfare system here would be immediately shot down and would probably end the political career of the person who proposed it.
-Rd