Niamh Walsh’s Manifesto
All hot and bothered... but why not switch off ?
HELL, it seems, has no fury like Ireland’s puritanical populace defiled. This week RTÉ broadcast the first episodes of Normal People, a sensitively sexy adaptation of the Sally Rooney novel, and while some viewers were full of praise for the series others got very hot and bothered indeed.
Joe Duffy, the nation’s selfanointed pastor for the perplexed and persecuted, saw his radio show seized by apoplectic apocalyptic preachers enraged by what they deemed a seedy, sinful TV drama.
Callers to Joe seized on the series with cataclysmic cautionary tales of the collapse of society.
Priests, parents, and the holierthan-thou brigade were outraged at what they deemed the depraved sexual encounters that are the entire premise for the storyline of Normal People.
The common opinion was essentially to instil fear into those who fornicate outside of the marital bed and if we are to believe some of the contributions, those who dare deviate from the missionary position will be damned. Moralistic
Mary was utterly aghast and said it was like ‘something you would expect to see in a porno movie’.
Dad Tommy was less titillated and more irritated, saying: ‘I wouldn’t like a daughter of mine engaging in sexual promiscuity before she was married.’
Joe’s attempted to tread the line at the sexual sparring battle between the suppressers and the liberators set the airwaves on fire.
Liveline itself descended into a sort of sadomasochistic show, painful at times but pleasurable listening. I especially winced when the ungodly fornicators were warned of punishments if they dared cross the carnal line and indulge in adventurous intercourse. (Spoiler alert: what will the angry brigade say when the plot – and the sex – strays into wilder territory?)
Sexual preferences aside, we are still afforded freedom of choice. And I hasten a guess that Mary, Tommy and Co. were hardly handcuffed and forced into submission to watch a show that was clearly not to their taste.
Did atheist boy get a ‘choice’?
LORD, bless us and save us from vexatious claims, mollycoddled children and their petulant parents. The atheist parents of a boy who was found to have been discriminated against by a Catholic primary school were this week awarded compensation by the Workplace Commission.
The case was taken after the boy came home school ‘crying’ and was by all accounts ‘very upset’ at being assigned homework while classmates who attended a First Communion choir ceremony were given ‘homework passes’.
‘He came out of school crying. He told me the teacher told the class that children who did not participate in the Communion choir would not receive a homework pass,’ his mother said.
‘We are atheist and this is not a choice that is open to him.’
And herein lies the crux. Given the schoolchild is a minor the ‘we’ clearly refers to his parents who, as is their absolute entitlement, have chosen the atheist life. So this naturally begs the question: if any such choice was given to their son to allow him explore faiths?
His parents chose to send him to a Catholic school in the full knowledge that his curriculum would include Catholic teachings and traditions such as Communion and Confirmation.
It was their ‘choice’ that saw their son excluded, although the school has countered that he was in fact invited to the choir practice – and it might behove these parents to have encouraged their son to tag along to choir, explore something new, let him make his own choices or even just let the young lad go along for the sing-song.
I mean, I like to sing along to Bat Out Of Hell but it doesn’t necessitate that I run with the devil.
I also find it distasteful that parents would take money from the coffers of a school that can’t afford a special needs assistant because their life choices caused their son upset.
No end to Meghan vs the UK saga
I AM definitely over-invested in the never-ending saga of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle.
For two people who incessantly bemoan the perceived media intrusion into their lives, they certainly have a way of making their privacy public fodder.
Meghan’s case against the Mail On Sunday was dealt a hammer blow this week when a High Court judge in the UK threw out three parts of her claim.
And it was as if you could almost hear Britain’s duchess of Sussex shriek as her legal counsel delivered the ruling.
The judge’s decision proved if nothing else that what Meghan wants, Meghan doesn’t always get.
Last week, the couple sent a missive to four UK papers informing them they were no longer cooperating with their publications and, of course, this led to even more coverage of the couple.
The public opinion of support and sympathy that still existed for the couple diminished after last week’s letter from LA as UK commoners saw their tantrums as ill-judged, ill-timed and uncaring given the death and economic destruction facing Harry’s countrymen in the face of the coronavirus crisis.
So, while the royals are still cocooning in LA, I wait with bated breath for their next chapter in Meghan Against The Wicked World.
Quit complaining, just stay at home
MORE than 90 people complained to the Garda Ombudsman that they felt unfairly treated by traffic police manning checkpoints.
The complaints ranged from ‘Mr Policeman wasn’t nice to me’ to ‘I was turned back from my [unnecessary] journey’. Well boo-bloodyhoo.
Newsflash, people, if the guards turned you back then they deemed your journey unnecessary.
If they were a bit short with you then you were probably the 100th motorist that day going to buy a trampoline, puppy, paint or pots and pans and other nonessential items.
So, instead of complaining, how about you try being good, lawabiding lockdown citizens and stay at home.