High Noon with George Hook.

super_furry

Was never one to give any credence to this talk of 'rape culture' and the rest but when you see the number of people willing to go to bat for George Hook on this and the mental gymnastics they'll perform to claim that he didn't blame the victim for getting raped here, well maybe there is something to it after all.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Was never one to give any credence to this talk of 'rape culture' and the rest but when you see the number of people willing to go to bat for George Hook on this and the mental gymnastics they'll perform to claim that he didn't blame the victim for getting raped here, well maybe there is something to it after all.

he didn't condone it, he said shouldn't people take responsibity to avoid ending up in precarious situations

super_furry

I never said he condoned the rape and I don't believe anyone is making that argument, but he unequivocally blamed the victim for getting raped and blamed her parents. There's no way around that.

limnam

Faugheen wrote: »

If a woman is going back to a hotel with a bloke then she should feel entitled to be safe and be allowed have sex with that bloke.

To suggest otherwise with 'personal responsibility' nonsense is victim blaming. There's no two ways about it.

We can get as blind drunk as we wish.
We can go back to hotel rooms with strangers.
We can have sex with the stranger

We also must understand that the reality of the world we live in the above has elements of risk to it. No one is arguing that it shouldn't, but it does.

If we go into that situation knowing there is an element of risk, while we're not the "cause" of been raped.we are responsible for our risk assessment and decisions after it.

No one is saying rape ok.
No one is saying it's her fault the man raped her.
What George was saying is that we need to be accountable for our decision making and risk assessment.

If you need to walk through a "d'odgey" area at night and you choose to go through the dark lane with bad lighting instead of the longer safer well lit walk and get your wallet/bag stolen.

Who's to blame?
The person stealig the wallet/bag. 100%
Should I not be able to walk down the badly lit lane in peace?
Damn right I should.

But I'm also responsible for the risk assessment and my decisions afterwards.

I'm all ready sorry I entered this thread

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

I never said he condoned the rape and I don't believe anyone is making that argument, but he unequivocally blamed the victim for getting raped and blamed her parents. There's no way around that.

Didn't come off that way to me, it was more of that people should be a bit more aware or try to avoid getting into potentially dangerous situations...but hey people can take what he said in their own way

limnam

limnam wrote: »

We can get as blind drunk as we wish.
We can go back to hotel rooms with strangers.
We can have sex with the stranger

We also must understand that the reality of the world we live in the above has elements of risk to it. No one is arguing that it shouldn't, but it does.

If we go into that situation knowing there is an element of risk, while we're not the "cause" of been raped.we are responsible for our risk assessment and decisions after it.

No one is saying rape ok.
No one is saying it's her fault the man raped her.
What George was saying is that we need to be accountable for our decision making and risk assessment.

If you need to walk through a "d'odgey" area at night and you choose to go through the dark lane with bad lighting instead of the longer safer well lit walk and get your wallet/bag stolen.

Who's to blame?
The person stealig the wallet/bag. 100%
Should I not be able to walk down the badly lit lane in peace?
Damn right I should.

But I'm also responsible for the risk assessment and my decisions afterwards.

I'm all ready sorry I entered this thread

X2

super_furry

limnam wrote: »

No one is saying it's her fault the man raped her.

George Hook is and there's no way around that.

In his own words; "You have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? Is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"

limnam

super_furry wrote: »

George Hook is and there's no way around that.

In his own words; "You have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? Is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"

As in my example above.

The person stealing my wallet is to blame for stealing my wallet

I'm responsible and accountable for my risk assessment and decisions

I'm to blame for making a bad choice based on the above to walk down the dark lane.

I'm not to blame for the guy stealing my wallet.

It's very clear IMO what George was talking about about and the usual gang are jumping all over it.

Faugheen

limnam wrote: »

As in my example above.

The person stealing my wallet is to blame for stealing my wallet

I'm responsible and accountable for my risk assessment and decisions

I'm to blame for making a bad choice based on the above to walk down the dark lane.

I'm not to blame for the guy stealing my wallet.

It's very clear IMO what George was talking about about and the usual gang are jumping all over it.

So if the woman is getting raped then she's to blame for going back with the first bloke and having sex with him?

Lady Chatterton

I heard the show yesterday and I feel George's comments were clumsy but he definitely wasn't condoning rape. He is old school, he reminds me of my Dad/Grandfather. When I was in my teens, my sisters and I used to get almighty lectures every weekend from my Dad before we left the house.

Mind your drink, don't leave it down, don't let anyone else mind it for you.
Don't walk home on your own, walk home in a group etc...

Sometimes, no matter how careful you are, bad stuff will happen to you and the statistics show that you're more likely to be attacked someone known to you. I believe George was behaving like the protective father yesterday, I don't believe he intended to create hurt and upset but he was encouraging people to protect themselves where possible.

The way I look at it is, all crime is wrong and it's never the victim's fault but at the same time, we have to accept we have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves and our property. For example: Our insurance companies advise us not to post holiday pictures from abroad on FB, to have someone collect our post, use automatic lighting or leave a radio on to protect our homes from burglary. This is simply advice, it's not considered to be victim blaming.

Is it unreasonable to advise people to look after themselves?

When I'm out walking or jogging in the early hours of the morning or later in the evening, I'll always carry a phone and I regularly change my route (as I've been followed in the past). I shouldn't have to do these things but for my peace of mind, I do. I wouldn't leave my iPhone and handbag on display in an unlocked car so why should I treat my personal safety any differently?

super_furry

Having a wallet stolen and being raped really isn't a comparison that can be made. And even if it were, that victim wasn't walking down a dark lane, she went back to a hotel room with a man as two consensual adults and afterwards another man tried to rape her.

Unless your argument is that women shouldn't have one-night stands, I'm really not seeing what point your trying to make. That isn't your argument is it?

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

So if the woman is getting raped then she's to blame for going back with the first bloke and having sex with him?

Isn't it risky (man or woman) to go back with a stranger ...I would think there is a risk bringing a stranger home

limnam

Faugheen wrote: »

So if the woman is getting raped then she's to blame for going back with the first bloke and having sex with him?

We're accountable for our risk assessment and decisions.

You can keep trying to change it to make it sound like the woman is been blamed for getting raped.

The rapist is to blame, no one else.

super_furry

limnam wrote: »

You can keep trying to change it to make it sound like the woman is been blamed for getting raped.

She is being blamed.

"You have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? Is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"

limnam

super_furry wrote: »

Having a wallet stolen and being raped really isn't a comparison that can be made. And even if it were, that victim wasn't walking down a dark lane, she went back to a hotel room with a man as two consensual adults and afterwards another man tried to rape her.

Unless your argument is that women shouldn't have one-night stands, I'm really not seeing what point your trying to make. That isn't your argument is it?

I'm not comparing rape to having a wallet stolen.

I'm discussing risk and accountability.

Going back to a hotel room with a stranger has an element of risk to it.
You could argue that it shouldn't

Bu to say otherwise is just been down right naive.

limnam

super_furry wrote: »

She is being blamed.

"You have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? Is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"

Nope,

This has been explained all ready. Feel free to keep ignoring it.

We're to blame for the choices we make after the risk assessment.

Not the blame of the act of rape.

Vorenus400

At what level does personal responsibility kick in? There are anti rape devices

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_device

This one is particularily nasty

https://buzzsouthafrica.com/south-african-anti-rape-device/

If a woman has knowledge of these devices, should it not be their responsibility to get them. Maybe if she doesnt have one then it is a bit her responsibility if she gets raped.

I think its stupid In the past a woman had to show that she made enough of an attempt to fight off an attacker otherwise it wasnt rape. This is harkening back to that.

Some people believe that you cant get pregnant by rape, therefore if a pregnancy occurs it wasnt rape. Same thing was said for orgasms.

If it is a womans personal responsibility should that be submitted in defence of the rapist in court. If rapist raped one woman who was drunk in a festival tent then another in a break in to a well secured house, should he get a higher sentence for the house rape?

Its bull****, rape is a horrible crime.

In case it isnt clear I was using gross hyperbole for the anti rape device being a womans personal responsibility

I think George is just stirring the pot again

hullaballoo

Moderator: Can we drop this now please. I think the points worthy of discussion (if they even are) have been addressed now.

foxtrot101

Newstalk has today issued an unreserved apology for George Hook’s comments about rape on the station yesterday. Managing Editor, Patricia Monahan said today that comments made were “totally wrong and inappropriate and should never have been made”.

George Hook has apologised for his comments. He said: “I wish to apologise unreservedly for comments I made about rape on my radio programme on Newstalk yesterday. It was unacceptable to suggest in any way that blame could be attributed to victims of rape. I apologise for the comments which caused hurt and offence, and for this I am truly sorry”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/george-hook-rape-criticism-3589574-Sep2017/

Lady Chatterton

There has been loads of outrage all over social media about George's comments but I wish people felt half as passionately about improving the judicial process for victims of sexual violence.

Some judges have given very lenient sentences, it's like they struggle to grasp how devastating the crime is on the victim. The crime needs to be taken more seriously than it is at present by the Irish courts.


Here are just a few high profile cases where you'd wonder what was going on in the judges' minds.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1219/97439-shannonm/

https://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0730/331210-lyons-jailed-for-six-months-for-sexual-assault/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sentence-of-man-who-raped-wife-s-sister-unduly-lenient-court-finds-1.2124814

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sentence-for-rapist-father-of-fiona-doyle-unduly-lenient-court-rules-654959.html

RustyNut

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

Here are just a few high profile cases where you'd wonder what was going on in the judges' minds.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1219/97439-shannonm/

https://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0730/331210-lyons-jailed-for-six-months-for-sexual-assault/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sentence-of-man-who-raped-wife-s-sister-unduly-lenient-court-finds-1.2124814

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sentence-for-rapist-father-of-fiona-doyle-unduly-lenient-court-rules-654959.html

Judges with the same dinosaur mind set as hook.

DickSwiveller

We've reached the point in this country where a civil discussion on any issue is practically impossible. Thanks to the internet, and many people only ever confronting opinions they agree with, they are absolutely astonished when someone goes against fashionable opinion. Just look at the hysterical reactions on this website, with anyone who expresses agreement with Hook being slammed as a woman hater, rape apologist etc.

The point he was making was a very simple and well thought out. He prefaced his remarks by stating clearly that the man is at fault for raping the woman, so please pipe down with this "George Hook is a rape apologist' nonsense. Some people on here seem to believe that the world is one of teddy bears and picnics and that there are no bad people ready to take advantage of vulnerable people.

His simple point was that women should take precautions in case one of these nasty men happen to bump in to them. What is wrong with that? It sounds perfectly reasonable?

Think of it this way. If my friend was making his way home from work and walking through a dodgy area, I would tell him to be careful, and to make sure he didn't have lots of money on him. If he gets robbed of lots of money and I criticize him for carrying a large sum , am I victim blaming?

quintana76

DickSwiveller wrote: »

We've reached the point in this country where a civil discussion on any issue is practically impossible. Thanks to the internet, and many people only ever confronting opinions they agree with, they are absolutely astonished when someone goes against fashionable opinion. Just look at the hysterical reactions on this website, with anyone who expresses agreement with Hook being slammed as a woman hater, rape apologist etc.

The point he was making was a very simple and well thought out. He prefaced his remarks by stating clearly that the man is at fault for raping the woman, so please pipe down with this "George Hook is a rape apologist' nonsense. Some people on here seem to believe that the world is one of teddy bears and picnics and that there are no bad people ready to take advantage of vulnerable people.

His simple point was that women should take precautions in case one of these nasty men happen to bump in to them. What is wrong with that? It sounds perfectly reasonable?



Think of it this way. If my friend was making his way home from work and walking through a dodgy area, I would tell him to be careful, and to make sure he didn't have lots of money on him. If he gets robbed of lots of money and I criticize him for carrying a large sum , am I victim blaming?

Very cowardly of NewsTalk management. He had to 'apologise' as his job was obviously in jeopardy.
Can't give a opinion anymore if the baying PC mob evoke fake outrage.

To think this witchhunt is led by 'ballsless' Chris Donoghue. The most insipid, spineless PC obsessed presenter on radio.
Quite an achievement, considering the competition.
It shows NewsTalk's priorities that they have supported the recently demoted Donoghue and the rabid mob over one of their most sucessful presenters.
Wonder how many of his excited detractors have listened to what he actually said. Wonder how many are regular listeners

Ursus Horribilis

This is just another version of the outrage the other week about the Bank of Ireland ad. Looking at the comments online today, it made me wonder how many people had actually taken the time to find out what exactly George said. There seems to be a lot of people out there who want to be offended and will use misinformation as the jumping off point.

I don't always agree with what George has to say and I don't always like him. Having said that, it's downright depressing that he has had to apologise for this. It's this sort of suppression of open discourse that has led to the likes of Trump and Brexit coming about. I hope this isn't going to lead to him having to pull his horns in and become bland. It's healthy to have alternative opinions on the radio. It's good that we get to hear things we don't like. If we don't it turns into an insipid echo chamber.

Lady Chatterton

quintana76 wrote: »

Very cowardly of NewsTalk management. He had to 'apologise' as his job was obviously in jeopardy.
Can't give a opinion anymore if the baying PC mob evoke fake outrage.

I suspect they apologised quickly as they were fearing a Sunday Times/Kevin Meyers backlash from the public (lets face it, the public, in this case, is some journalists and the Twitterati).

I feel in my heart that George will be hurting very badly today, this is going to hit very hard. As I said earlier, I believe he was in protective father/grandfather mode yesterday and he didn't mean any harm by his comments. I hope he doesn't feel pressurised into making any rash decisions about his future. I don't always agree with George but he provokes debate and he challenges conventional thinking. There are too many so-called journalists in Newstalk that have to consult the PC bible before they utter a word. They're just down right bland and boring ....and permanently outraged about everything.

I fear for the future, I think some people are taken in by style over substance. I've a wonderful neighbour, he is a man in his late 60's, he was always volunteering and helping people out in emergencies. However, he didn't always use PC language (he'd refer to children with disabilities as handicapped children). He never meant offence, he was the type of man that would give up a day to help build a wheelchair ramp for a child but his language wouldn't be very PC. A while back someone made a big scene and humiliated him in front of a group of neighbours, he took it to heart and since then he hasn't been the same.

Sometimes people don't say 'the right things' but their heart is in the right place and it's their actions that make them decent people (like my neighbour). Then you have people that say all the rights things but there is no substance behind the words, as my late Grandmother would say 'they're only full of soft talk'.

The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't automatically think that everyone who is uber PC is good and someone who isn't PC is bad.

DickSwiveller

I checked twatter earlier to get a taste of what the baying left wing electronic mob made of the whole affair. Never have I been met with such bile, hatred and downright nastiness. Just type 'George Hook' in to the search bar and see for yourselves. These nuts really need some help.

DickSwiveller

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

I suspect they apologised quickly as they were fearing a Sunday Times/Kevin Meyers backlash from the public (lets face it, the public, in this case, is some journalists and the Twitterati).

I feel in my heart that George will be hurting very badly today, this is going to hit very hard. As I said earlier, I believe he was in protective father/grandfather mode yesterday and he didn't mean any harm by his comments. I hope he doesn't feel pressurised into making any rash decisions about his future. I don't always agree with George but he provokes debate and he challenges conventional thinking. There are too many so-called journalists in Newstalk that have to consult the PC bible before they utter a word. They're just down right bland and boring ....and permanently outraged about everything.

I fear for the future, I think some people are taken in by style over substance. I've a wonderful neighbour, he is a man in his late 60's, he was always volunteering and helping people out in emergencies. However, he didn't always use PC language (he'd refer to children with disabilities as handicapped children). He never meant offence, he was the type of man that would give up a day to help build a wheelchair ramp for a child but his language wouldn't be very PC. A while back someone made a big scene and humiliated him in front of a group of neighbours, he took it to heart and since then he hasn't been the same.

Sometimes people don't say 'the right things' but their heart is in the right place and it's their actions that make them decent people (like my neighbour). Then you have people that say all the rights things but there is no substance behind the words, as my late Grandmother would say 'they're only full of soft talk'.

The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't automatically think that everyone who is uber PC is good and someone who isn't PC is bad.

Great comment.

stateofflux

Whats happening with this climate of PC madness is that even the mere suggestion of Intent means the statement must have intent or a dark motive (whether in context or not).

I don't particularly like Hook but this is a mental overreaction to a fairly innocent comment which has basis in common sense , and which was not, in my opinion implying that a girl is asking for it if she dresses provocatively.

Vorenus400

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

I suspect they apologised quickly as they were fearing a Sunday Times/Kevin Meyers backlash from the public (lets face it, the public, in this case, is some journalists and the Twitterati).

I feel in my heart that George will be hurting very badly today, this is going to hit very hard. As I said earlier, I believe he was in protective father/grandfather mode yesterday and he didn't mean any harm by his comments. I hope he doesn't feel pressurised into making any rash decisions about his future. I don't always agree with George but he provokes debate and he challenges conventional thinking. There are too many so-called journalists in Newstalk that have to consult the PC bible before they utter a word. They're just down right bland and boring ....and permanently outraged about everything.

I fear for the future, I think some people are taken in by style over substance. I've a wonderful neighbour, he is a man in his late 60's, he was always volunteering and helping people out in emergencies. However, he didn't always use PC language (he'd refer to children with disabilities as handicapped children). He never meant offence, he was the type of man that would give up a day to help build a wheelchair ramp for a child but his language wouldn't be very PC. A while back someone made a big scene and humiliated him in front of a group of neighbours, he took it to heart and since then he hasn't been the same.

Sometimes people don't say 'the right things' but their heart is in the right place and it's their actions that make them decent people (like my neighbour). Then you have people that say all the rights things but there is no substance behind the words, as my late Grandmother would say 'they're only full of soft talk'.

The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't automatically think that everyone who is uber PC is good and someone who isn't PC is bad.

George is actually very respectful of women. Most of his show of the last few years is an act to get people outraged and talking on twitter or texts. George is actually very modern in his sensibilities too. he just plays the aul out of his time character. At the start of each show he tries to get the outrage going.

I like George and think he is very intelligent but hate what he is doing last few years. I think he worded his argument very poorly. Not for one instant do I believe he subscribes to what he says. Same on the hpv vaccine. He is playing a bit and sometimes it backfires

I wish it was his anti hpv vaccine stance that he was apologising for but no one in the media seems to want to call him out on that

PeterTheNinth

http://entertainment.ie/trending/news/Newstalk-issues-apology-over-George-Hooks-comments-on-rape/397109.htm

"There is personal responsibility because it’s your daughter and it’s my daughter. And what determines the daughter who goes out, gets drunk, passes out and is with strangers in her room and the daughter that goes out, stays halfway sober and comes home, I don’t know. I wish I knew. I wish I knew what the secret of parenting is," said Hook.

With the reaction that this has got, I was expecting something far worse. Of all the things that he has come out with, I cant believe that he's had to apologise for this. The basic premise of his argument is that we are ALL vulnerable when we are drunk, and while we should all feel safe enough to pass out and not have somebody sexually assaulting us, it might be better to just not pass out in the first place. I don't think anywhere in that you find Hook blaming the victim, as our hero Chris Donoghue suggested.