High Noon with George Hook.

PeterTheNinth

Faugheen wrote: »

Ciara Kelly is getting a raw deal here. She took George to task on what he said, just like she took Niamh Horan to task for saying the exact same thing last year. How dare she, right?

The point is that earlier this year Ciara Kelly thanked George Hook for how good he had been in helping her in her media career, and remarked that she owed it quite a lot for giving her a start. And after his remark and subsequent apology, she could have said what Pat Kenny said ... "I don't agree with what he said at all, but he's a good guy"... Because she KNOWS he's a decent guy, he's helped her ffs...

But on her first day back on the show, she piously chastised him live on air (as opposed to in private), and then was incredibly snotty with him for the rest of the show. And having flashed her SJW credentials to the nation, she just waited for the storm to play out, then stepped in to George's seat when the inevitable happened.

May she enjoy it while it lasts. She f**king dreadful anyway, and hopefully she gets all the luck that her Machiavellian behaviour deserves.

The Rape of Lucretia

Faugheen wrote: »

Lads, this notion that George said nothing wrong is nonsense.

He attributed blame to someone who was raped. Whether he meant to or not isn't the issue. Fact is he did exactly that. Yes, personal responsibility is a thing, but when you're talking about rape you need to make sure you say the right words. You do not say 'is there no blame to the person who puts themselves in danger?'

Possibly. When speaking to children or the intellectually challenged.
But when speaking to adults on a radio show, you can reasonably expect that they're able to understand what you are trying to say even when not optimally expressed. He wasnt drafting a definition for national legislation.

He said nothing wrong.

Did you say something wrong in your post by addressing it only to the male readers or 'lads' of this forum? Are you excluding female readers deliberately (you think they are not up to understanding you, or are assuming they are all agreeing with you already), or was it just subconscious sexism?
I think boards.ie should suspend you. Before they lose some advertisers.
Or maybe you should apologise.

PeterTheNinth

How has there not been a poll on this thread.. Maestro.. give me a poll?

jobbridge4life

Conservative wrote: »

I disagreed with many of your posts on this topic but I know you as a regular (and fair) poster on Radio so it is nice to see somebody with a nuanced view of things who isn't just baying for blood.

Cheers for that, I also want to say I am not in favour of George being sacked. I think a temporary suspension is probably about right, and maybe even prudent in that it might take some of the heat out of this debacle.

Conservative wrote: »

Ivan pretty much said that the topics at hand are decided by production. As far as I can see via the studio camera (I discovered it a couple of weeks ago so I am not an expert) a lot of what is broadcast is prepared and read.

Is it possible this was cleared for broadcast or would that be left to the presenter?

That adds an interesting aspect to the discussion, the involvement of production, in a similar vein to the Myers fiasco and his editors. As it is (generally) live radio I'd imagine that producers, or higher ups, probably do determine what topics are discussed and maybe approve/disapprove of certain talking points etc. but I can't imagine they clear things line by line.

Will be interesting to see if we find out more details on in the washout of the matter.

Faugheen

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

The point is that earlier this year Ciara Kelly thanked George Hook for how good he had been in helping her in her media career, and remarked that she owed it quite a lot for giving her a start. And after his remark and subsequent apology, she could have said what Pat Kenny said ... "I don't agree with what he said at all, but he's a good guy"... Because she KNOWS he's a decent guy, he's helped her ffs...

But on her first day back on the show, she piously chastised him live on air (as opposed to in private), and then was incredibly snotty with him for the rest of the show. And having flashed her SJW credentials to the nation, she just waited for the storm to play out, then stepped in to George's seat when the inevitable happened.

May she enjoy it while it lasts. She f**king dreadful anyway, and hopefully she gets all the luck that her Machiavellian behaviour deserves.

You need to read the rest of my post. She's one of few calling for him NOT to be sacked.

So why don't you wind in your little rant and agenda and cop on.

Lt Dan

jobbridge4life wrote: »

There is not a jot of 'hysteria' in my comment, it is a factual statement, George Hook disturbed the working environment, he imperiled the ability of the organisation to function smoothly. His comments lead to 20 Newstalk staff out of 60 signing a letter to management, a third of the employees. It prompted a other presenter to refuse to present her programme. It lead to a walk out and protest during another presenters show. If that is not damaging the working environment I don't really know what would qualify.

20 out of 60, a minority, none of whom bar Chris Donoghue (at least he is honest and consistent ) and Dil (what a surprise, she is even trying to make it about herself, as usual :rolleyes:) have made it clear that they were part of the group or would have been if present to sign the document

Dill refusing to present her show would be no great loss, and probably an excellent opportunity to get rid of her on her own accord. The rubbish that she gets away with but be noted if many even bothered to listen to her. She has her own thread, you will struggle to find anything positive said about her. When I first listened to her in 2010, I thought it was an interesting novel show and listened regularly , but that fade went quick when it was clear that she was talking utter tosh about subjects that were worth talking about . More to the point, very very very very few people have applauded her action and have been extremely negative and consider it as a stunt. But, I do get your point, it is still bad PR for NT

As for yer waun Coughlin, the dog on the street saw that for what it was. A stunt. She should be paying radio stations to interview her. Sure, that is not the point, again, I acknowledge what you are saying, you have a point, but her stunt looks a lot worse on her than it does on NT. Remember Vincent Brown about a year ago and the nonsense stunt that SPITU Jack O'Connor threatened during the course of 20 minutes about walking out, even if he did go through with the stunt immediately (he kinda did) , all it did was buying TV3 time to play in the background "Hit the Road Jack". Pure stunt work , and again, would have looked worse for him than TV3. The publicity would have been gold for both

Damaging for co -workers, they might need to have a look at themselves as to why their shows are failing. People use to tune into NT because they were NOT RTE, they were NOT Politically Correct. The listeners come from a vastly different social and slightly different political background (well, most political parties are the same) They are moving away because of the PC culture that reeks at NT. Even Off The Ball is not safe (it always had some political commentary, which was great because life is not all pizza and beer and there is always politics in sport)

So much for fearless journalism and setting and leading agendas. Instead, they heed the mob

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You also misquoted me so, I did t actually refer to George in the quoted text. It was a general comment on the growing insistence by some hysterics that if you call something an opinion then no matter how atrocious it is, and no matter the setting in which it is aired, the individual is somehow not to be judged on it, or face consequences for it.

Here is the problem, Hook did not express an "opinion". He asked a question. Presenters do that, even if the answer is obvious.

We have had clowns even quote out of context an extract a 2005 book, to try and defame him to make a point. This is despite admitted that he was a virgin at the time of marriage at 26 years of age, which there is no reason to disbelieve. So that must mean he was an adulter? Something the man has issue with on other people? Some how, I doubt it. Suffice to say, when committing on the said extract, they provided no evidence that the girls that he was scoring with were (a) unable to give consent to any activity that they might have got up to and (b) anything actually happened, it was Ireland 1960's after all. No one ever came out to make any claim of inappropriate behaviour by him to women . In fact, did anyone threaten to walk out of NT or refuse to sponsor his show because of that extract in 2005 onwards? It is not like the book was unpopular

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Were is the screeching about the freedom of speech of the Irish Times journalists who have been barred by Newstalk?

Funny enough, like you said in your fairly balanced piece about business decisions, why would Dinny O'Brien, who is happy to sue his own staff and sack them for the temerity of reporting on something close to Dinny, why would he bring in people from a rival paper?

Besides, IT people are hardly the most favorite of people. (on que fair comments about the Indo - I was an IT reader myself btw,couldn't touch the Indo, not that you care) Nevertheless, the only two people at NT, from the best of my memory who ever bothered to have guests on to argue opposite points was Marc Coleman and George Hook and then , a third, for a while at OTT, Colm Parkinson (about sport )

jobbridge4life

Discodog wrote: »

But was that because Newstalk wanted it ?

Hard to say. I would like to know personally because I've always been a fan of George, like to the extent that I sent him lengthy emails on things he discussed to try and tease out things, (and because I'm super cool with an endlessly fascinating life).

...And Justice

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

How has there not been a poll on this thread.. Maestro.. give me a poll?

I'm no George hook fan, in fact I think he's an arsehole, but this liberal witch hunt has reminded me that we're moving towards the lunacy of the US. And the liberal which hunt against men in general In irish society.

Started by lunatic lesbian feminists.

Faugheen

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Possibly. When speaking to children or the intellectually challenged.
But when speaking to adults on a radio show, you can reasonably expect that they're able to understand what you are trying to say even when not optimally expressed. He wasnt drafting a definition for national legislation.

He said nothing wrong.

Did you say something wrong in your post by addressing it only to the male readers or 'lads' of this forum? Are you excluding female readers deliberately (you think they are not up to understanding you, or are assuming they are all agreeing with you already), or was it just subconscious sexism?
I think boards.ie should suspend you. Before they lose some advertisers.
Or maybe you should apologise.

I say lads when I'm addressing a crowd, as do many people.

Is that really the argument you're going to bring up? Clutching at any straws much?

If he didn't say something wrong, why did he apologise? This is George Hook we're talking about. If he had nothing to apologise for then he wouldn't have apologised.

This point also applies to any 'to appease the SJW's' etc. He apologised because he knows he said something wrong, and people like you trying to say otherwise does not help him whatsoever.

The Rape of Lucretia

Faugheen wrote: »

I say lads when I'm addressing a crowd, as do many people.

Thats just so sexist though, and just because you do it elsewhere, doesnt excuse it here.
Dont say you dont even see any more the inherent male bias in such usage ?

Vorenus400

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

The point is that earlier this year Ciara Kelly thanked George Hook for how good he had been in helping her in her media career, and remarked that she owed it quite a lot for giving her a start. And after his remark and subsequent apology, she could have said what Pat Kenny said ... "I don't agree with what he said at all, but he's a good guy"... Because she KNOWS he's a decent guy, he's helped her ffs...

But on her first day back on the show, she piously chastised him live on air (as opposed to in private), and then was incredibly snotty with him for the rest of the show. And having flashed her SJW credentials to the nation, she just waited for the storm to play out, then stepped in to George's seat when the inevitable happened.

May she enjoy it while it lasts. She f**king dreadful anyway, and hopefully she gets all the luck that her Machiavellian behaviour deserves.

She let George away with the HPV stuff for months. She didnt criticise him all weekend after his comments. They seem very close. Someone had to be seen to take Hook to task or knock him down a bit live on air. Her reputation s a feminist and medical campaigner has suffered by association. He should have gone on with Matt Cooper or pat kenny and explained himself instead and let them take him down a bit.

She is a bland presenter but I dont think for one minute she moved against Hook. What would it benefit her? I do think Hook was grooming her as a possible replacement.

Look at Ivan, he toes the company line and does well out of it. Her career would do better to be like him

Conservative

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Ciara Kelly is getting a raw deal here. She took George to task on what he said, just like she took Niamh Horan to task for saying the exact same thing last year. How dare she, right?

The point is that earlier this year Ciara Kelly thanked George Hook for how good he had been in helping her in her media career, and remarked that she owed it quite a lot for giving her a start. And after his remark and subsequent apology, she could have said what Pat Kenny said ... "I don't agree with what he said at all, but he's a good guy"... Because she KNOWS he's a decent guy, he's helped her ffs...

But on her first day back on the show, she piously chastised him live on air (as opposed to in private), and then was incredibly snotty with him for the rest of the show. And having flashed her SJW credentials to the nation, she just waited for the storm to play out, then stepped in to George's seat when the inevitable happened.

May she enjoy it while it lasts. She f**king dreadful anyway, and hopefully she gets all the luck that her Machiavellian behaviour deserves.

I wanted to post something similar but you said it better than I could have.

I also checked her Twitter which is in no way as generous to George (her friend) as others have suggested. He shouldn't be sacked (of course he shouldn't FFS he made a mistake!!)

When the eyes/ears of the nation are on Newstalk she jumps at the chance of hosting his show the day he is suspended.

She is a qualified and practicing medical doctor. She's not exactly replacing Graham Norton!

jobbridge4life

Conservative wrote: »

I wanted to post something similar but you said it better than I could have.

I also checked her Twitter which is in no way as generous to George (her friend) as others have suggested. He shouldn't be sacked (of course he shouldn't FFS he made a mistake!!)

When the eyes/ears of the nation are on Newstalk she jumps at the chance of hosting his show the day he is suspended.

She is a qualified and practicing medical doctor. She's not exactly replacing Graham Norton!

What about when George called for people to be fired? AS he has done, on record.

J Mysterio

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I didn't say he imperilled anyone. I said he imperilled the working environment, which it is beyond a doubt that he has. Misrepresenting what I said is not going to work on me I'm afraid.

A full third of your colleagues signing their name to a letter is a massive rebuke. It would be a cause for concern in literally any organisation. It is patent nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Whatever one makes of Dil and her show, the fact that she threatened not to present, and the fact that this was disrupting other shows, is proof positive that he damaged/imperilled/undermined (chose whichever adjective you like) the working environment in Newstalk. They are also now in a dispute with the Irish Times.

As for your comments regarding hysterics, and poor word choice, I'd pay them more mind if you hadn't just a few pages ago impugned the character of Ciara Kelly and demonstrably falsely suggested that she hadn't defended George and had perhaps even stabbed him in the back. But hey, some of us actually care about the accuracy of what we right.

Normally I wouldn't, but...

jobbridge4life

J Mysterio wrote: »

Normally I wouldn't, but...

Oh Cheesus.:eek: MORTIFYING.

Someone put me in a bin.

J Mysterio

Hey, some of us care.

Lt Dan

hotmail.com wrote: »

Those who moan the most are the conservatives afraid of change. They do nothing but moan and crank, often anonymously online and many on this thread!

Hook said a woman is partly to blame for her own rape.. what kind of response did the Hook supporters expect? They can dish it out well but can't stand being challenged.

1. George Hook DID NOT actually say that women were to blame. Even the print media inserted a question mark at the end of his statement. They are not there for decoration. People saw the word "blame" which was inappropriate, and loss the run of themselves. Actually, it wasn't the listeners it was people in the media, some of whom have big axes to grind with George and / or Newstalk. Asking questions to lead the discussion is not an opinion.

There is a reason why a substantial proportion of people back him on this. Bar a small few, it is Not because they think certain women "are asking for it", not because they think that the girl in the court case in England was "to blame, the state of her"

The reason why so many back him (and I exclude those who are doing it just for the sake of sticking it to the mob) it is because they knew INSTANTLY what he was getting at and what he meant and at the same time had the cop on to know that even then, no matter what, a woman in that situation can never be blamed for being a victim of rape.

2. Hook is primarily a Conservative. Most of his listeners would be too. He never courted the liberals , though he was one of the very very very first to aggressively support Same Sex Marriage

Some listeners are not Conservative, but like to be wound up by him, gets people thinking. His show, regardless of him, was never bland. He got great guests to appear, who had no qualms having a row with him, and the topics were pretty good. You think most Irish people who went onto Youtube or Fox to watch Billy O'Reilly go mental did it because they think he is right in what he says? Nah, man , it is for comedy effect and to allow ourselves to be smug that there are bigger gob****es around .

3. They do nothing but moan and crank, often anonymously online and many on this thread

Ha ha ha . Brilliant. And what do snowflakes, touch feely "we are all equal" mob, proponents of Identity Politics and Social Justice Warriors do? The same! All Dill does.

Anonymously? Really? Says the hotmail.com man. Most of the social media comment sections now a days are linked to their face book accounts. Head on over to all of them, you will see many have no qualms using their real profiles and identities to express views, even the ill informed and down right defamatory

Reality is, both conservatives and the polar opposites are just as bad as the other when it comes to arguments , trying to shut people down and the huge display of stupidity in showing their complete and utter ignorance to terms that they use in their statements.

Conservative

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Conservative wrote: »

I wanted to post something similar but you said it better than I could have.

I also checked her Twitter which is in no way as generous to George (her friend) as others have suggested. He shouldn't be sacked (of course he shouldn't FFS he made a mistake!!)

When the eyes/ears of the nation are on Newstalk she jumps at the chance of hosting his show the day he is suspended.

She is a qualified and practicing medical doctor. She's not exactly replacing Graham Norton!

What about when George called for people to be fired? AS he has done, on record.

I have disagreed with him on many things. Leo Varadkar (came back to bite him in the ass ), HPV vaccine and nunerous other things.

I also agree that they or George were pushing things too far in general and being contrarian for the sake of it but I don't recall him trying to get his friends fired.

There are posts in this thread about his behaviour and treatment of colleagues in Marconi House (they have employed him for 15 years) which I think are absolute bs.

I know for a fact that Pat Kenny is a gentleman of the highest regard and he would not be quoted as he was if any of that were true.

jobbridge4life

Conservative wrote: »

I have disagreed with him on many things. Leo Varadkar (came back to bite him in the ass ), HPV vaccine and nunerous other things.

I also agree that they or George were pushing things too far in general and being contrarian for the sake of it but I don't recall him trying to get his friends fired.

There are posts in this thread about his behaviour and treatment of colleagues in Marconi House (they have employed him for 15 years) which I think are absolute bs.

I know for a fact that Pat Kenny is a gentleman of the highest regard and he would not be quoted as he was I'd he any of that were true.

Conservative, I think that is a fair point but I have to say I personally worked with someone who was working with GH in Newstalk, this was few years ago, during the Right Hook years. I was still completely enthralled by George at this time (Trump was still a celebrity!), and I used to enthuse to her regularly about Hook. She normally just went along with me but one day she very sombrely asked me to stop and told me that if I worked with him or for him I would not feel the same way. I tried to get her to divulge the reasons but she wouldn't.

I didn't and don't take it as proof of anything but I have to be honest it did throw me a bit. Made me wonder what he was like when that microphone was off. Especially as he admits himself that he treated his own mother and wife like ****.

PeterTheNinth

Vorenus400 wrote: »

She let George away with the HPV stuff for months. She didnt criticise him all weekend after his comments. They seem very close.

I have trouble with blaming him fully on that one though. THE PARENTS of the children brought this to George's attention. And George was relaying their concerns as they didn't think it was being treated seriously enough by the HSE. And honestly the HSE has a history of trying to bury stuff, so it is a fair question to ask "Is there a link, even if a very small percentage, between the HPV and chronic fatigue".

These remarks are all his own work, so he is obviously fully responsible for that.

Conservative

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Vorenus400 wrote: »

She let George away with the HPV stuff for months. She didnt criticise him all weekend after his comments. They seem very close.

I have trouble with blaming him fully on that one though. THE PARENTS of the children brought this to George's attention. And George was relaying their concerns as they didn't think it was being treated seriously enough by the HSE. And honestly the HSE has a history of trying to bury stuff, so it is a fair question to ask "Is there a link, even if a very small percentage, between the HPV and chronic fatigue".

These remarks are all his own work, so he is obviously fully responsible for that.

Peter, you are possibly Ireland's biggest radio anorak (a compliment) and we agree the vast majority of the time but he did take or promote the anti vax side, repeatedly. You might aswell have Mr. Bean choosing what medical advice is aired.

I think it was fuel for the mob. Criticising the Leo Varadkar probably added to it.

Vorenus400

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

I have trouble with blaming him fully on that one though. THE PARENTS of the children brought this to George's attention. And George was relaying their concerns as they didn't think it was being treated seriously enough by the HSE. And honestly the HSE has a history of trying to bury stuff, so it is a fair question to ask "Is there a link, even if a very small percentage, between the HPV and chronic fatigue".

These remarks are all his own work, so he is obviously fully responsible for that.

Hook had Jonathan Hourihane, head of paediatrics and child health at University College Cork on the show to debate the vaccine. Hook went full anti vaccine. he seemed desperate to beat the man in a debate any way and anyhow. Then he says he was just asking the question. here is a good version of the bullcrap Hook was spouting

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/curious-george-hook-and-the-hpv-jab-1.2819266


Hook was whipping up fear for ratings and I wish he had been taken to task over that rather than the stuff last week.

jobbridge4life

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Hook had Jonathan Hourihane, head of paediatrics and child health at University College Cork on the show to debate the vaccine. Hook went full anti vaccine. he seemed desperate to beat the man in a debate any way and anyhow. Then he says he was just asking the question. here is a good version of the bullcrap Hook was spouting

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/curious-george-hook-and-the-hpv-jab-1.2819266


Hook was whipping up fear for ratings and I wish he had been taken to task over that rather than the stuff last week.

This a thousand times. And if CK is going to be criticised in relation to GH let it be for her total failure to challenge him on the anti-vax stuff.

Wesser

I remember him coming on the week before last saying that he was the most emotional he has ever been in his life outraged over the way that the hpv parents had been treated, all the emotion in his voice. Total BS.

Calhoun

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Hook had Jonathan Hourihane, head of paediatrics and child health at University College Cork on the show to debate the vaccine. Hook went full anti vaccine. he seemed desperate to beat the man in a debate any way and anyhow. Then he says he was just asking the question. here is a good version of the bullcrap Hook was spouting

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/curious-george-hook-and-the-hpv-jab-1.2819266


Hook was whipping up fear for ratings and I wish he had been taken to task over that rather than the stuff last week.

For sure this one of the the topics he really should have been taken to task on but newstalk is like that, i found allot of the presenters would have people on just so they could savage them.

Vorenus400

jobbridge4life wrote: »

This a thousand times. And if CK is going to be criticised in relation to GH let it be for her total failure to challenge him on the anti-vax stuff.

It was very poor of her to be publicly calling out Finian McGrath(he deserved it though), and then reaping the benefits of being on Hooks show while he spouts anti vax crap free from challenge.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

For sure this one of the the topics he really should have been taken to task on but newstalk is like that, i found allot of the presenters would have people on just so they could savage them.

That started with Claire whats her face. Every question was framed to attack and get a sound bite for the news

ballsymchugh

Deleted User wrote: »

That started with Claire whats her face. Every question was framed to attack and get a sound bite for the news

Claire Byrne?

I was thinking about previous posters have said putting him in the same frame as Kevin Myers. I don't think that is fair at all. George spouts some bollox sometimes, but it's also live radio where there is reaction and emotion involved, while Myarse spent a few days writing his pieces, and still left in the bits that riled everyone.

the dangerous thing here is to completely silence debate. if someone doesn't agree with you, silencing them shouldn't make you feel like you've won. like a few other posters, i would've been driving on a saturday evening and just happened to listen to Victim Village the odd time. one particular time, Dil went off on one for about 15 minutes defending herself after she was in an argument with someone on a program on TV3 during the week - a completely pointless exercise. if that makes you feel better Dil, then go for it, but it makes you a crap presenter if you're unable to debate someone you disagree with and accept the differences.

that's where George is an infinitely better presenter. He regularly had people on he didn't agree with. He made it known that he didn't like interviewing Ivana Bacik (which according to Ruth Coppinger, made him a misogynist) but he still interviewed her and got on with it.

Del.Monte

I think it's unfair to savage Hook over the Vax issue as there's a veritable deluge of medical misinformation poured out every day by the media - much of it appears to be Advertising driven given the amount of Ads for medical products, insurance etc. As a parent I found/still find it quite difficult to make up my mind on the pros and cons of a lotthings - even simple stuff such on Monday drinking a crate of lager with every meal is recommended, but by Thursday a report will be out saying you should limit your lager intake to one bottle a month. :rolleyes:

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

That started with Claire whats her face. Every question was framed to attack and get a sound bite for the news

To be fair Claire has changed completely in RTE, i would think its perhaps a lack of training in Newstalk but you can clearly see the difference between presenting styles on both stations but also Pat Kenny compared to his peers in Newstalk.