Farewell

Podge_irl

Sleephead wrote: »

People may have issues with him but at least he's not a bland middle of the road, sitting on the fence bore like most pundits.

No, he's an inaccurate, ill-informed, bloviating, narcissistic waste of both airtime and oxygen.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Podge_irl wrote: »

No, he's an inaccurate, ill-informed, bloviating, narcissistic waste of both airtime and oxygen.

that's harsh Podge

Podge_irl

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

that's harsh Podge

Perhaps. Personally I don't think so. He provides nothing - he has no worthwhile knowledge of the modern game, he'll happily acknowledge he doesn't even watch much rugby, he provides zero insight. He just attempts to be a pantomime villain except he's not even funny. He outright lies when people bring up his wildly inaccurate predictions. He shouts over people providing actual, informative discussions. The sooner he is gone the better.

Edit: I actually like his radio show as well. He's perfectly capable of being reasonable which just makes his attitude on the rugby panel all the more annoying.

sydthebeat

hes a reminder of the good old amateur days.....

his knowledge for punditry isn't up to scratch in the professional era.

Teferi

ConFurioso wrote: »

This just needs to be quoted again.

Dare I ask...why was the dildo in dreadlocks?

Wait...I thought everyone dressed their dildos in black wigs?

Teferi

By the way, George is an absolute gentleman and I'll sorely miss The Right Hook when it goes off air. I won't miss him as much from the panel, a good shake up of the panel probably wouldn't go amiss.

CatFromHue

With a different anchorman the RTE panel would be fairly different. McGurk would be my least favourite on the panel.

thomond2006

Michael Corcoran needs to be a television commentator. He is wasted on the radio.

Fireball07

thomond2006 wrote: »

Michael Corcoran needs to be a television commentator. He is wasted on the radio.

I'd disagree... you need better commentators for radio. Have you ever listened to a terrible radio commentary? You might as well just imagine the game... you're not going to learn anything.

thomond2006

Fireball07 wrote: »

I'd disagree... you need better commentators for radio. Have you ever listened to a terrible radio commentary? You might as well just imagine the game... you're not going to learn anything.

I understand what you mean, but in another sense I think it's a waste of resources.

Grimebox

Hook is increasingly becoming the reason why I switch off analysis straight after Ireland matches. Get rid of him

Heroditas

thomond2006 wrote: »

Michael Corcoran needs to be a television commentator. He is wasted on the radio.

He's awful - the Philip Greene of rugby.

Coburger

Hook is pretty terrible, anyway else notice that to justify his place on the show he keeps on mentioning players from generations ago, "I remember watching young bla bla back in the 40s and ..."

While they're at it they should get rid of Brent Pope, not because he's terrible but he tends not to bring all that much to the show, keep Conor O'Shea and Shaggy (but could the producer of the show ever tell him to get to the point).

norrie rugger

Regardless of Hook on the rugby, what he does for his radio listeners with depression (and I mean real depression here) is above and beyond

Larbre34

He's a jovial enough man in person and you'd have good banter with him but he's full of a huge amount of flannel, apart from the rugby stuff where he makes a point of "not being there to be a fan, but to be an critic". So much of what he says is overblown, give me Pope and O'Shea and maybe throw in Mick Bradley or someone when he's gone.

I remember Hook talking on his radio show about a year ago, saying that when he retired he would tell no one, get to the end of a Friday show and just say 'thanks for listening, Im done and gone', but instead he's given us two and a half years of a victory lap. Spoofer.....

jamiedav2011

norrie rugger wrote: »

Regardless of Hook on the rugby, what he does for his radio listeners with depression (and I mean real depression here) is above and beyond

Absolutely, some of his radio is excellent, which, for me anyway, is more the shame that his print and T.V. work is so obviously trolling and mis-informed.

The man is obviously intelligent, but through laziness or choice he often lets himself down when talking about rugby matters for the sake of causing 'controversy'.

I'd rather be an intelligent unknown commentator than a seemingly uninformed, controversy seeking loudmouth, but that's just me, and controversy sells in media these days.

.ak

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Absolutely, some of his radio is excellent, which, for me anyway, is more the shame that his print and T.V. work is so obviously trolling and mis-informed.

The man is obviously intelligent, but through laziness or choice he often lets himself down when talking about rugby matters for the sake of causing 'controversy'.

I'd rather be an intelligent unknown commentator than a seemingly uninformed, controversy seeking loudmouth, but that's just me, and controversy sells in media these days.

This is it. The last line is absolutely true.

Swiwi.

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Absolutely, some of his radio is excellent, which, for me anyway, is more the shame that his print and T.V. work is so obviously trolling and mis-informed.

The man is obviously intelligent, but through laziness or choice he often lets himself down when talking about rugby matters for the sake of causing 'controversy'.

I'd rather be an intelligent unknown commentator than a seemingly uninformed, controversy seeking loudmouth, but that's just me, and controversy sells in media these days.

It's a pure hunch, but I get the impression the RTE panel is "manufactured" and Hook told to take the "grumpy old man" role. Trying to make false controversy, and gets the panellists arguing with each other. Like yourself, I prefer calm and reasoned analysis to shouting over each other like it's a political debate, but that doesn't seem to sell these days.

Aidric

He is a chancer and has been winging it for way too long. To his credit he doesn't try to pretend to be anything other than this. Humility is an endearing characteristic. The punch and judy act with Pope was entertaining for a while but now it has just become contrived and predictable.

Saying all that perhaps we protest too much when comparing to the alternative on BBC. I like Inverdale but Jeremy Guscott is practically a talking scarf.

rgossip30

Swiwi. wrote: »

Time for a poll!

Check out uplift.ie . There are 2 polls a biased one that just asks for him to be fired and no choice and a newer one giving both options .

Dravokivich

rgossip30 wrote: »

Check out uplift.ie . There are 2 polls a biased one that just asks for him to be fired and no choice and a newer one giving both options .

Only took 3 and a half years. :pac:

rgossip30

A poll is running on Politics Cafe . Should George Hook be fired .

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

A poll is running on Politics Cafe . Should George Hook be fired .

The wife was asking me about this on Saturday. I said that I reckoned he'd keep his listeners but that the advertising execs for all his time slot competitors would be onto Newstalks main sponsors to let them know about this and try and win the business.

If they lost a main sponsor and a few people refused to come on the station because of him he'd be gone. So far they've had one person walk and they've lost a primary sponsor. If it stays as is I'd say he's got a 50:50. If there is any further fallout he's gone.

My gut instinct tells me that Newstalk are in talks with him to phase him out fairly sharpish but would rather it wasn't a public spat and would rather they've got a replacement lined up. Eitherway I don't think there will be dramatics from Newstalk unless there are dramatics forced on them but I do think that Hook will be permanently off the air by Christmas.

thomond2006

Hooky suspended.

I don't know what I think at this stage. He apologised and was rightly panned for his comments. Shouldn't that be an end to it?

Newstalk say process is ongoing so I suppose they had to suspend him for now.

vienne86

thomond2006 wrote: »

Hooky suspended.

I don't know what I think at this stage. He apologised and was rightly panned for his comments. Shouldn't that be an end to it?

Newstalk say process is ongoing so I suppose they had to suspend him for now.

Well he's annoyed the hell out of me for years, though I sometimes enjoyed the banter with Brent Pope. However, it would be a sad way to end his broadcasting career.

irishbucsfan

Someone was threatening not to do their show tomorrow. Maybe that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

Hooky suspended.

I don't know what I think at this stage. He apologised and was rightly panned for his comments. Shouldn't that be an end to it?

Newstalk say process is ongoing so I suppose they had to suspend him for now.

I don't really see why it should be the end of it. These were remarks he'd obviously thought out and planned because they were part of his monologue at the beginning of the show. He's a dinosaur. Why should NT be obliged to give him a platform for ****e like that?

rgossip30

Elijah Long Hermit wrote: »

I don't really see why it should be the end of it. These were remarks he'd obviously thought out and planned because they were part of his monologue at the beginning of the show. He's a dinosaur. Why should NT be obliged to give him a platform for ****e like that?

Because he is popular for being outspoken something that is sadly dying .

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

Because he is popular for being outspoken something that is sadly dying .

He could have remained popular for being outspoken if he'd limited said outspoken-ness to not partially blaming a rape victim for getting raped.

Podge_irl

thomond2006 wrote: »

Hooky suspended.

I don't know what I think at this stage. He apologised and was rightly panned for his comments. Shouldn't that be an end to it?

Newstalk say process is ongoing so I suppose they had to suspend him for now.

In one respect yes.

However, I think he deserved to be put in a soundproof box where noone could hear a single word he said about 15 years ago so I'm not about to shed any tears.

molloyjh

thomond2006 wrote: »

He apologised and was rightly panned for his comments. Shouldn't that be an end to it?

First time, yes. Second time, no. He clearly didn't learn his lesson on the first go around so more needs to be done to ensure he does.

Guy:Incognito

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Someone was threatening not to do their show tomorrow. Maybe that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Dil wikrenasingah? (sp?)

That show is painfull to listen to. News talk should have taken it as a chance to get rid of it.


The whole thing is way out of proportion. If someone said you need to be careful to secure your house because there are scumbags around that will rob you if you leave the door open that'd be seen as sage advice. The reality is there are bad people around that will rape someone they fine in a vulnerable position. Warning people not to put themselves in vulnerable positions isn't condoning rape anymore than saying you could be robbed if you leave you door open .

connemara man

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Dil wikrenasingah? (sp?)

That show is painfull to listen to. News talk should have taken it as a chance to get rid of it.


The whole thing is way out of proportion. If someone said you need to be careful to secure your house because there are scumbags around that will rob you if you leave the door open that'd be seen as sage advice. The reality is there are bad people around that will rape someone they fine in a vulnerable position. Warning people not to put themselves in vulnerable positions isn't condoning rape anymore than saying you could be robbed if you leave you door open .

The problem with his comments is he didn't stop there to use your analogy. If I warn you about how to protect your house like you have said and you forget or do not fully heed that advice and then subsequently robbed you are in no way responsible for the actions of the robber.

Podge_irl

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The whole thing is way out of proportion. If someone said you need to be careful to secure your house because there are scumbags around that will rob you if you leave the door open that'd be seen as sage advice. The reality is there are bad people around that will rape someone they fine in a vulnerable position. Warning people not to put themselves in vulnerable positions isn't condoning rape anymore than saying you could be robbed if you leave you door open .

I don't actually disagree with that logic and it's something that irritates me as well.

Context is important though and I got the impression Hook was on more of a moral tirade though. I will freely admit I have no intention of giving him the benefit of the doubt to be honest.

irishbucsfan

connemara man wrote: »

The problem with his comments is he didn't stop there to use your analogy. If I warn you about how to protect your house like you have said and you forget or do not fully heed that advice and then subsequently robbed you are in no way responsible for the actions of the robber.

That argument, as has been pointed out elsewhere numerous times, also reduces a rape victim to the level of a stolen television. They aren't inanimate objects who are being happened upon by plucky opportunists. They're people who are being attacked and more people need to realise that comments like the above are hugely problematic, luckily it appears most people see this.

Buer

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Dil wikrenasingah? (sp?)

That show is painfull to listen to. News talk should have taken it as a chance to get rid of it.

It really is. It's simply not interesting in any shape or form.

connemara man

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That argument, as has been pointed out elsewhere numerous times, also reduces a rape victim to the level of a stolen television. They aren't inanimate objects who are being happened upon by plucky opportunists. They're people who are being attacked and more people need to realise that comments like the above are hugely problematic, luckily it appears most people see this.

You're dead right, and I was only using that analogy as it was previously used.

MJohnston

Also worth noting that he did NOT apologise for the substance of what he said, he used the weaselly "I apologise for any offense" version. Theres a substantial difference there, in that he is avoiding retracting his actual thoughts.

So it's very easy for people to believe that he doesn't mean his apology.

Buer

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The whole thing is way out of proportion. If someone said you need to be careful to secure your house because there are scumbags around that will rob you if you leave the door open that'd be seen as sage advice. The reality is there are bad people around that will rape someone they fine in a vulnerable position. Warning people not to put themselves in vulnerable positions isn't condoning rape anymore than saying you could be robbed if you leave you door open .

I understand the analogy but there's a slight difference. Firstly, the subject of rape is highly sensitive subject concerning a violation on your person and Hook was personalising this to a specific case.

Secondly, unlike the housing analogy above, it's aimed at a certain demographic of society. Take the housing analogy and make a minor change and it puts a very different slant:

You need to be careful to secure your house if you live in a council estate because there are scumbags around that will rob you if you leave the door open

I do think it's a bit of a witch hunt and people need to stop letting their hearts rule their head but Hook has talked a lot of rubbish in the past as well as this and is completely out of touch with a lot of society. With two major sponsors now pulling out, he was always going to get his marching orders.

MJohnston

The analogies to leaving your house unlocked are just nonsense - that suggests that men find it just as easy to rape a vulnerable woman as a burglar does to rob an open house. Like, do the people making this argument really think that lowly of their fellow men?

Another reason its nonsense is that it has nothing really to do with what Hook said. He literally uttered the words "But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her". That's such a twisted morality to live by - that a woman shouldn't be surprised to be raped by someone's mates after she consented to sex with that someone. Are people really defending this scummery?

Victim blaming is always wrong, I think that is an absolute. But, if you find yourself agreeing that women have a personal responsibility to not dress or act a certain way to avoid rape, then just stop and think about what that means about what you're saying about male society.

molloyjh

It's slightly different again Buer. It's a bit more like:

You need to be careful to secure your house if you live in a council estate because there are scumbags around that will rob you if you leave the door open, and you'll be partly to blame for their actions

The word "blame" alone is huge. Blaming someone for the actions of someone else is divisive enough generally. When talking sexual assault it's all sorts of wrong.

MJohnston

Here's a great piece of writing about the topic: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/09/14/george-hook-rape-culture-and-the-irish-media/

dregin

thomond2006 wrote: »

Hooky suspended.

I don't know what I think at this stage. He apologised and was rightly panned for his comments. Shouldn't that be an end to it?

Newstalk say process is ongoing so I suppose they had to suspend him for now.

Absolutely not. A zero tolerance policy is the only way to put an end to this horse****.

Former Former

Buer wrote: »

I understand the analogy but there's a slight difference. Firstly, the subject of rape is highly sensitive subject concerning a violation on your person and Hook was personalising this to a specific case.

Well this is it. The validity or otherwise of what he said doesn't really matter, it was always going to end badly for him once he brought the victim's actions into it.

I genuinely don't think he meant it in the way it's been portrayed though. George Hook is 76, he's from a generation for whom a woman going to the pub unaccompanied by a man was saucy behaviour. He more than likely just doesn't get how things are these days.

The wider question becomes though, is this not censorship of his opinion? We all know he's a windbag, but he said something that offends our collective morals, should he be chased off the air because of it? Do we allow people to express opinions, or only the "right" opinions?

I dunno, I think it's an over-reaction and there are a lot of people using it for their own ends.

MJohnston

Former Former wrote: »

The wider question becomes though, is this not censorship of his opinion? We all know he's a windbag, but he said something that offends our collective morals, should he be chased off the air because of it? Do we allow people to express opinions, or only the "right" opinions?

No, it's not. He has the right to his "opinion" (look: there is no debate about this, victim blaming is just wrong), but he doesn't have any right to retain a job that allows him to broadcast that opinion across the nation.

Free-speech only protects your ability to say things, it doesn't protect you from protest, from firing, from counter-opinion, etc. Nor should it.

Neil3030

Using the analogy of leaving my back door open - the crime is still theft regardless of whether I locked it. It's not a zero sum game - i.e., my behaviour has no bearing on the guilt of the perpetrator. It's disappointing that so many people see rape cases differently, and I think Hook's comments reflect this mindset.

Podge_irl

Former Former wrote: »

I genuinely don't think he meant it in the way it's been portrayed though. George Hook is 76, he's from a generation for whom a woman going to the pub unaccompanied by a man was saucy behaviour. He more than likely just doesn't get how things are these days.

Saucy behaviour isn't an invitation to rape either though. I agree with you in the sense that I think he is just questioning the morals of a woman who would go back to a guy's apartment having just met him but that view is pretty stupid as well.

The man has made a career out of having contrary opinions. I don't have an iota of sympathy for him that one has ended it for him.

Podge_irl

Neil3030 wrote: »

Using the analogy of leaving my back door open - the crime is still theft regardless of whether I locked it. It's not a zero sum game - i.e., my behaviour has no bearing on the guilt of the perpetrator. It's disappointing that so many people see rape cases differently, and I think Hook's comments reflect this mindset.

I think this comes from two angles. I get slightly bothered by the claims of "victim-blaming" when it comes to people issuing what seem to me to be reasonably warnings about how best to protect yourself. You shouldn't have to but unfortunately you can only control your own behaviour and assholes exist in the world.

This isn't really that though. This is a lot more along the lines of classic "well what did she expect was going to happen" victim-blaming. It's personalised, post-fact and with not a small amount of moralising.

MJohnston

Podge_irl wrote: »

Saucy behaviour isn't an invitation to rape either though. I agree with you in the sense that I think he is just questioning the morals of a woman who would go back to a guy's apartment having just met him but that view is pretty stupid as well.

He very clearly isn't just doing that though. Let's be clear about what he said:

Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him.

I mean this is 20th century thinking, and completely backward, but fine it's just an opinion at this point and hardly unique among older idiots.

She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, she has no idea what dangers he might pose.

Now we're getting onto shakier ground - no indication that he believes that men should have the same 'concerns' about random women they meet in bars, nor that the men in this situation have a responsibility to disclose 'heath conditions' to potential sexual partners. And the last bit here just suggests that he thinks very badly of the male population, that we're all dangerous. But then...

But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her.

This word "surprised" says so much about what he really thinks, and it is the core of what he's trying to get across too. He's diminishing the responsibility of the person committing the rape, shifting part of the blame from the rapist onto the victim.

Should she be raped? Course she shouldn’t. Is she entitled to say no? Absolutely. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of Course. All of those things.

These are just vapourous words designed to cover his arse, they're equivalent to "Some of my best friends are black". But here are the kickers:

But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?

The real issues nowadays and increasingly is the question of the personal responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety.

He is literallysaying that the victim of rape deserves some of the blame. He truly believes that the real issue behind rape culture has nothing to do with men, and everything to do with young girls who get drunk.

These are the opinions of an archaic scumbag, and he deserves zero airtime to broadcast them.

Former Former

Podge_irl wrote: »

Saucy behaviour isn't an invitation to rape either though.

No, of course not.

Podge_irl wrote: »

I agree with you in the sense that I think he is just questioning the morals of a woman who would go back to a guy's apartment having just met him but that view is pretty stupid as well.

The man has made a career out of having contrary opinions. I don't have an iota of sympathy for him that one has ended it for him.

What I mean is, he's an old man who's never going to be totally up to speed on modern life, sure even his views on rugby are rooted in the 1970s. But he made his comments, he was rightly pulled up on them, and I'm sure that when he had the chance to reflect on that, the apologies that he issued were genuine and that he is truly sorry.

I think there's an argument to be made that if he accepted his mistake and publicly acknowledged the hurt his comments could have caused (which he did), then it could have been left there. I just find the whole mass outrage a little bit unsettling, because it is essentially mob rule.