High Noon with George Hook.

Morgans

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

I touched on this yesterday in a previous post but I believe we need people like George who are prepared to share their opinions and create debate. The alternative is radio studios filled with Shane Coleman types. I have a lot of time for Shane, he is a hardworking and decent journalist but he is absolutely terrified of saying anything that could be deeem remotely controversial.

I'm concerned that we're living at a time where we are being told how we should think and what is acceptable language to use. I worked for a large multi-national company a few years ago and we had all sort of days to promote awareness of various social issues. I don't think it achieved much because many of my colleagues at the time felt pressurised, they wanted to be seen to supporting such events but there was no sincerity behind it. I fear that there are lots of people who appear to be very PC but really it's just a superficial thing to make them look good.

I remember back in 2003 this country jumped on the Special Olympics bandwagon, there were loads of people and businesses wanting to be associated with it. I thought at the time that the event would do marvellous things to improve the lives of people living with disabiliities and their carers. However, 14 years on there are parents of children with special needs ringing Joe Duffy begging for access to basic services such as respite, a place in a school, Occupational therapy and so on. Joe will politely ask what the child's difference? Using PC language and sharing 'I stand with the people of ...' statuses on Facebook does nothing to improve their lot, only actions will.

That's why I feel that those campaigning now for George's removal should look at the bigger picture, like how victims of sexual assault are actually treated from the time they report an assault. Why are the Rape Crisis Centres around the country constantly fundraising to keep centres open? What about the rape victims that have trouble accessing counselling due to cuts to the various services? What about campaigning for tougher sentences for prisoners convicted of rape/child abuse, especially those who refuse to take part in rehabilitation programmes.

There is a lot in that post that is being conflated into what amounts to a defence of Hook, Myers and the likes spouting ill informed nonsense. It may or may not have been your point to defend them using this, but nevertheless...

Yes, multinationals are bland and diversity 'training' or 'awareness' is almost inevitably token. Yes, governments, and businesses are interested in easy PR wins rather than doing the hard work of system change. Yes, social justice warriors are happy to show their disgust from behind their keyboards.

However, this shouldn't be an excuse for broadcasters/journalists to be equally as lazy and give out soundbite opinions without scrutiny (it was never like this in my day), or excuse the fact that their opinions are racist/bigoted/offensive on some idea that free speech is being destroyed by preventing them from broadcasting racist offensive views. Was it Mary Ellen Synon that called the special olympics grotesque? Why cant we just call travellers what they are? Or black people by what they are? PC gone mad. Let's not be coerced into liberalism, Hook has said.

Diversity and contrary opinions are fascinating. A breath of fresh air someone mentioned before. It is why Christopher Hitchens was so compelling. However, very very few of Hook, Myers etc are as intellectually rigourous.

Hitchens would have been savaged on social media these days. And he would be a huge loss if he was to be silenced as a result. He was playing a different game. However, Hook knows the game they are playing and the apologies that came after their mistakes show that as Kenny Egan said 'its all about the benjamins'.

southstar

quintana76 wrote: »

Just clueless!

Haha it's dat PC gone mad.. seriously though George is an attention seeking **** stirrer and the arrogant nonsense about the vaccination issue was more of the same though surprisingly garnered very little attention

Morgans

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

I'm really not getting all the outrage over the Hook comments, what he said about personal responsibility is correct imo

You're at home and you leave your front door open, as is your right since it's your home and nobody should come inside uninvited. If that person was robbed would anybody have any sympathy for the person robbed? Obviously getting raped is worse than being robbed but I'm talking about doing things that increase your risk of bad things happening

Rape should never happen but putting yourself into those situations with strange people and getting drunk to the point where you aren't in control increases the chance of something bad happening because there are evil people

This appears to be a reasonable position but misses the point.

To be raped when stone cold sober is tragic, however, if the rape victim had a drink 'well, I suppose you are in some way responsible for what happened'.

I think this is why what Hook said has been taken up a victim-blaming and landed him in trouble. Its a very harsh view to see going for a drink as akin to leaving your front door open and having complaints of a rape being diminished as a result.

retro:electro

Morgans wrote: »

This appears to be a reasonable position but misses the point.

To be raped when stone cold sober is tragic, however, if the rape victim had a drink 'well, I suppose you are in some way responsible for what happened'.

I think this is why what Hook said has been taken up a victim-blaming and landed him in trouble. Its a very harsh view to see going for a drink as akin to leaving your front door open and having complaints of a rape being diminished as a result.

Getting sloshed and going home with someone you don't know from adam is risky behaviour. George was just advocating that people be aware of the risks. Nothing wrong with that. Personal responsibility is nothing to be offended by.

foxtrot101

quintana76 wrote: »

Do we now live in a dystopian alternative universe? Since when was sensibly advising people to take personal responsibility for their actions deemed offensive?
The PC brigade are running rampant over any expression of opinion that doesn't follow the (constantly shifting) party line.
It wouldn't matter if it wasn't for the connivance of most of the media. Most outlets are merely propaganda organs. Try RTE news.
Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

There is nothing more "constantly shifting" then the opinions of George Hook. He did a complete volte-face on a whole range of issues in the time it took to leave the Right Hook and start High noon. So he has either being bull****ting all those years in the old show or is he bull****ting now? What are George's real opinion? They change depending on his mood, or who he is talking to. He contradicts himself all the time. High Noon has been all about being controversial for the sake of being controversial. That there would be negative reactions to his comments was wholly predictable and I believe that's why he made them. Unfortunately for George, he misjudged the extent of that reaction, but that's what can happen when you court controversy.

Morgans

Two wrongs dont make a right.

I dont believe what Hook has said is his most sackable comment. I'd like to see less of his baiting broadcasting but the piling on has been unseemly. I can see why what he has said has been taken up as victim blaming. Yes, she put herself in a risky situation, but certainly didnt sign up to be raped by adam's friend. What she did was report it. Nothing to be offended by in that surely.

That the raped girl has a certain contingent saying that it was at least partly her fault, for being drunk, appears to play into the 'sure what would any red blooded male to do with the opportunity' and I think its only reasonable that there must be a sizable contingent of girls who do not report rapes because they feel that in some way they brought it on themselves for not being sober.

SureYWouldntYa

Morgans wrote: »

This appears to be a reasonable position but misses the point.

To be raped when stone cold sober is tragic, however, if the rape victim had a drink 'well, I suppose you are in some way responsible for what happened'.

I think this is why what Hook said has been taken up a victim-blaming and landed him in trouble. Its a very harsh view to see going for a drink as akin to leaving your front door open and having complaints of a rape being diminished as a result.

I never said responsible, just that doing that increases the chances of something bad happening, that's fact

A point I didn't consider before with regards "victim blaming" when it comes to rape is the fact women might be afraid to come forward after being raped if all she's going to get is "I told you so" or a variation of that, so while I still believe my point regarding personal responsibility is true it's not something someone needs to hear after the fact whatever about before, there's enough problems with women being raped with regard them being believed and the trauma of the act itself

DickSwiveller

Morgans wrote: »

That the raped girl has a certain contingent saying that it was at least partly her fault, for being drunk, appears to play into the 'sure what would any red blooded male to do with the opportunity' and I think its only reasonable that there must be a sizable contingent of girls who do not report rapes because they feel that in some way they brought it on themselves for not being sober.

He explicitly stated at the beginning that what he was about to say did not excuse the alleged perpetrators. Did you even listen to it?

Harry Angstrom

I can't wait to listen to High Noon tomorrow. No doubt Hook will have his biggest listenership figures of all time.

Morgans

DickSwiveller wrote: »

He explicitly stated at the beginning that what he was about to say did not excuse the alleged perpetrators. Did you even listen to it?

Hi DickSwiveller, I did listen.
Just because he said that he did not excuse the perpetrators, it does not mean that what he said does not blame the victim. Which he clearly did. And of course, its only an alleged rape, very correct in using that qualifier there.

"Im not racist, but those blacks, knackers"

Jamiekelly

The irony of Hook talking about personal responsibility given the relentless sh!t stirring he has been causing since his High Noon show came on air, which is clearly just for added attention and boosting ratings and advertising revenue for the fledgling Communicorp station. His rants on vaccinations were far more damaging and dangerous than this nonsense yet he apologises for this and yet if he was confronted with his HPV comments he would almost certaintly hold fast to defend it or at the very least be jovial in his dismissals.

I don't agree with Hook on a lot of his views but I used to love listening to The Right Hook because he was a welcome change to Matt Cooper's stagnant style of interviewing and presenting. Now, however, he seems to just court controversy for the sake of it. He went from being broadsheet to tabloid in one schedule change and it's not doing his career or legacy any favours.

On a side note I find it odd that Clayton Hotels are even getting involved or are willing to be dragged into this, as if they were considering themselves to have the same brand name as Hilton or Marriot in trying to sway a broadcaster to do their brand saving work. If they are so offended then either pull the funding straight away or keep out of the situation. Threatening to pull advertising is a fence sitting marketing decision that is just plain cowardly.

Funnily enough, I wouldn't even know of the Clayton hotel brand if it hadn't been for...well, George Hook....

Harry Angstrom

Jamiekelly wrote: »

The irony of Hook talking about personal responsibility given the relentless sh!t stirring he has been causing since his High Noon show came on air, which is clearly just for added attention and boosting ratings and advertising revenue for the fledgling Communicorp station. His rants on vaccinations were far more damaging and dangerous than this nonsense yet he apologises for this and yet if he was confronted with his HPV comments he would almost certaintly hold fast to defend it or at the very least be jovial in his dismissals.

I don't agree with Hook on a lot of his views but I used to love listening to The Right Hook because he was a welcome change to Matt Cooper's stagnant style of interviewing and presenting. Now, however, he seems to just court controversy for the sake of it. He went from being broadsheet to tabloid in one schedule change and it's not doing his career or legacy any favours.

Not to mention his constant vilification of people who refused to pay water charges whilst ignoring the elephant in the room of DOB and Siteserv.

What goes around comes around.

jooksavage

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

I've said this before, but I believe that one of the main reasons that Hook is prepared to ask the sort of questions that are not politically correct (but yet are likely being asked at every dinner table around the country) is that he doesnt really care hugely if he gets fired... He was going to retire anyway.

So why the unreserved apology? Doesn't sound like a man unconcerned with the opinion of his employers and sponsors.

Einstein A. Gogo

Let's face it. Hook does and says what he does with the full blessing and encouragement of his Newstalk bosses. He starts every show with an irrational and usually factually incorrect rant that gets people texting feverishly to contradict or berate him at 30cents a text. Nice money for Newstalk! I'd say they'll rake in the 30cents's tomorrow when he's on. He's radio equivalent of clickbait. Sadly he thinks he's Howard Stern. Sadly, he's not!

retro:electro

Morgans wrote: »

Hi DickSwiveller, I did listen.
Just because he said that he did not excuse the perpetrators, it does not mean that what he said does not blame the victim. Which he clearly did. And of course, its only an alleged rape, very correct in using that qualifier there.

"Im not racist, but those blacks, knackers"

You're missing the point. If he had said "is there no blame now to the person who gets raped", I would understand the outrage, and I'd be outraged msyelf.

But he didn't say that, no matter how much people try and proclaim he did. He simply didn't say that.
He asked is there no blame to lay at the feet of the woman who PUT HERSELF in DANGER. Unless she was forced, drugged and gagged into the situation- she holds responsibility for her decision making. She holds responsibility for getting into a risky and dangerous situation.

THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BLAMING HER FOR GETTING RAPED. THE RAPIST IS TO BLAME FOR RAPING HER.

Harry Angstrom

I wonder if the "broads and dames" from his execrable Here Come the Girls slot will be all that willing to share a studio with him on Friday? Or for that matter, will the highly principled Dr Ciara be willing to continue her health section with him tomorrow?

Del.Monte

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I wonder if the "broads and dames" from his execrable Here Come the Girls slot will be all that willing to share a studio with him on Friday? Or for that matter, will the highly principled Dr Ciara be willing to continue her health section with him tomorrow?

Will he still be on the payroll tomorrow?

Is there anywhere to listen to the programme as I see Newstalk only have the 1pm-2pm segment on the Listen Back http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/

quintana76

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I wonder if the "broads and dames" from his execrable Here Come the Girls slot will be all that willing to share a studio with him on Friday? Or for that matter, will the highly principled Dr Ciara be willing to continue her health section with him tomorrow?

Good God man lighten up!! The witchhunt is over. He apologised (even if unnecessarily). You have got your pound of flesh. Is that not enough for you? What do you PC fascists want? A public flogging?
They will happily appear with him as they will have no problem with his fatherly advice. They live in the world of facts not opinions.

Harry Angstrom

quintana76 wrote: »

Good God man lighten up!! The witchhunt is over. He apologised (even if unnecessarily). You have got your pound of flesh. Is that not enough for you? What do you PC fascists want? A public flogging?
They will happily appear with him as they will have no problem with his fatherly advice. They live in the world of facts not opinions.

I'm not a "PC fascist" at all, but I don't like George Hook, and I believe in karma

jooksavage

Hook has apologised. Doesn't that indicate that he himself believes he misspoke?

Harry Angstrom

jooksavage wrote: »

Hook has apologised. Doesn't that indicate that he himself believes he misspoke?

I think it indicates that he'll do anything to hold on to his job with NewsTalk.

quintana76

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I think it indicates that he'll do anything to hold on to his job with NewsTalk.

Considering how he talks about his domestic relationship with the 'lovely Ingrid' it could be easily seen how he would be reluctant to retire and become irrelevant.

quintana76

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I'm not a "PC fascist" at all, but I don't like George Hook, and I believe in karma

OK, I will concede the fascist bit. PC? I think so.

Morgans

anna080 wrote: »

You're missing the point. If he had said "is there no blame now to the person who gets raped", I would understand the outrage, and I'd be outraged msyelf.

But he didn't say that, no matter how much people try and proclaim he did. He simply didn't say that.
He asked is there no blame to lay at the feet of the woman who PUT HERSELF in DANGER. Unless she was forced, drugged and gagged into the situation- she holds responsibility for her decision making. She holds responsibility for getting into a risky and dangerous situation.

THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BLAMING HER FOR GETTING RAPED. THE RAPIST IS TO BLAME FOR RAPING HER.

No, you're missing the point. Even if he says 'this is not to exonerate the rapist', he is.

'he asked is there no blame to lay at the feet of the woman who PUT HERSELF in DANGER.'

You think the answer to this, as Hook does, is YES.

Is there a limit on the number of drinks that a woman can have before they are being irresponsible? Is a girl on a one-night stand in some way responsible if she is raped? Is there a hem line that encourages rape?

You point being is the way you carry yourself responsible for how you are viewed and to extend this, if you act like a flirt/slut/drunk you are more likely to be raped than someone who doesnt. You need to accept your personal responsibility not to get yourself in this situation. If you go in looking for a fight in a bar, you cant complain if someone knifes you. Its an old school conservative position. And best of luck to you with it.

I think this is very damaging especially to those who have suffered rape, people now thinking that they put themselves in danger and are in some way responsible for allowing themselves to be vulnerable. Was their top too low? Were they too drunk to defend themselves? How could they be so stupid. How many rape victims are not coming forward because of guilt?

I think its difficult to come up with a justification for rapists, but these are defences that are often used. The Stanford Swimmer a few years back springs to mind. I think this attitude prevents reportage of rapes and cause offence and unjustified harm to the person who was raped. It was 16 months later that this rape came to light. By saying the girl should not have put herself in danger is giving the rapist an out, and is deflecting responsibility of the rape from the rapist, regardless of what point you think Im missing.

Just because a girl is comatosed, it doesnt mean that its ok to rape. Just because you can overpower a girl, it doesnt mean that its ok to rape.

meeeeh

quintana76 wrote: »

Good God man lighten up!! The witchhunt is over. He apologised (even if unnecessarily). You have got your pound of flesh. Is that not enough for you? What do you PC fascists want? A public flogging?
They will happily appear with him as they will have no problem with his fatherly advice. They live in the world of facts not opinions.

George Hook is an old fart with old fart opinion not someone giving fatherly advice. I don't mind Hook and certainly don't want him to be fired but he went over the line and it won't help one bit with Newstalk's stale male presenter reputation. I wonder how or if Yates will approach it in his slot with Hook.

I suspect his girls or C. Kelly slot will either criticise his stance or not mention it but they will not condone it. I don't think he deserves the outrage he received but his comments were judging victims behaviour, he didn't wonder what kind of parenting makes kids rapists, he was wondering what kind of parenting causes girl to get totally drunk and have sex with strangers.

Harry Angstrom

quintana76 wrote: »

OK, I will concede the fascist bit. PC? I think so.

Believe what you like. I couldn't give a shyte.

constitutionus

well if he DOES go he lasted longer than noreen did !

Harry Angstrom

quintana76 wrote: »

Considering how he talks about his domestic relationship with the 'lovely Ingrid' it could be easily seen how he would be reluctant to retire and become irrelevant.

Plus the fact that he loves hearing the sound of his own voice.

Calhoun

As I have seen elsewhere George's mistake was not thoroughly condemning the rapist . How he said it makes it look like victim blaming.

Rape is never the victims fault but the reality of the world we operate in is you must always be vigilant male or female and look after yourself.

stateofflux

Calhoun wrote: »

As I have seen elsewhere George's mistake was not thoroughly condemning the rapist . How he said it makes it look like victim blaming.

Rape is never the victims fault but the reality of the world we operate in is you must always be vigilant male or female and look after yourself.

i agree with this. the amount of hatred on social media about this is laughable. people saying "women should be able to go anywhere without being raped"

by that logic i 'should' be able to go to Mogadishu for a city break in complete safety.