The "War" Against Newstalk

Harry Palmr

They're queueing up to give NT a kicking, and it is the station rather than just George Hook at this stage as minor political parties, a hotel chain and Irish Times columnist Fintan O'Toole boycotting the station for no doubt entirely self interested publicity driven honourable reasons.

Isn't this all a bit silly? A response more worthy of the playground than functioning adults. It's no less than what one would expect from the IT scribbler but to what ends? If he wants to drive Hooky off air all that's likely to happen is his own position to become entrenched - anyone think DO'B Towers will accede to the wishes of a metropolitan 'right on'? Not me. Likewise the handful of people who constitute Solidarity have decided not to darken their doors again - will anyone notice and should they as a minority left wing party be so quick to shut themselves out of a national broadcaster?

Seems very short-sighted.

L1011

In Hooks case, I suspect there's a lot of people rather happy that there's finally something they can hang him with - his brand of presentation and facilitation of cranks like Michael Graham wasn't popular with many to begin with and has grown tiring for some of those who were OK with it.

Potential interviewees boycotting the station as a whole are generally doing it for their own media profiles. The reciprocal "We won't talk to the Irish Times" thing from NT is petty and will not look good if they do want to proceed with the INM manoeuvres.

Solidarity never really got on NT very much anyway - Vincent Browne was their outlet before; and I really don't see the replacement show being as open to them!

Elmo

I'd question NewsTalk's bias. Traditionally news and current affairs presenters have been balanced on both TV and Radio in Ireland. The same is said for most European countries, indeed Ireland's licencing system is based on that of the UKs which demands balance.

Newstalk seem to be heading towards a very unbalanced type of broadcasting. Their presenters seem to be no more than mouth pieces and are definitely edging towards far right wing economics. However I do like both Kenny and Monicreif if they are the balance perhaps they have got it right.

I don't really understand why Ivan Yeats was given the drive time slot. His audience figures on either indo broadcaster don't point to him getting that prime time slot. It's not like he is Pat Kenny, and even he as struggled to gain audiences at Newstalk and TV3.

As for George, he's just someone I cann't listen too, he doesn't have a voice for radio.

Harry Palmr

Bias? Everyone has bias - RTE's is clear enough when you listen to the likes of Marian Funicane for example. Anyway that's not the topic of this thread - it's the about attacking a broadcaster to get at one presenter.

hmmm

Most media in Ireland has a very left-wing bias, as do many of the media commentators. They seem to be delighted to find an angle to attack commentators who lean in the other direction - preferably through outrage-boycotts and not through debate.

ANXIOUS

I haven't been following it too closely so not sure where it's at presently. George shouldn't have said what he did and I thought it was very inappropriate. He has apologized and my question is now what more do people want? It appears to me now if you make a mistake on a platform like George people don't want you to ever work again. Like they don't seem to want anything except his head.

Rumple Stillson

hmmm wrote: »

Most media in Ireland has a very left-wing bias, as do many of the media commentators. They seem to be delighted to find an angle to attack commentators who lean in the other direction - preferably through outrage-boycotts and not through debate.

Never ceases to amaze me how unwilling those on the left are to openly debate issues, you either agree or your a racist/Nazi/misogynist... I lean to the left btw

tritriagain

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me how unwilling those on the left are to openly debate issues, you either agree or your a racist/Nazi/misogynist... I lean to the left btw

Totally agree. I voted for same sex marriage but have to say I was disgusted by the canvassing that went on. If you didn't vote for it you were considered a homophobic hillbilly with not an ounce of intelligence. In a democracy all citizens are entitled to their individual opinion and should not be abused and belittled because of this. I think Noel Whelan also commented on this aspect of the referendum and he was also pro same sex marriage as far as I can remember.

Rumple Stillson

tritriagain wrote: »

Totally agree. I voted for same sex marriage but have to say I was disgusted by the canvassing that went on. If you didn't vote for it you were considered a homophobic hillbilly with not an ounce of intelligence. In a democracy all citizens are entitled to their individual opinion and should not be abused and belittled because of this. I think Noel Whelan also commented on this aspect of the referendum and he was also pro same sex marriage as far as I can remember.

The abortion debate and possible future referendum will be the same again...I am pro same sex marriage and pro choice but people who hold opposing views should be allowed express them with being ridiculed by the left. I'm not religious but those that are should be allowed to hold views that are shaped by their beliefs. Thankfully they will be in the minority but I respect their views even if I don't share them.

dresden8

Nothing new here.

Sure didn't Inda himself boycott Vincent.

If the Taoiseach can throw a sulk why can't anybody else.

If the Taoiseach does it you can hardly accuse anybody else of unparliamentary behaviour.

hadoken13

I think they are right to go against Newstalk. Newstalk aren't doing enough to condemn Hook's despicable comments and frankly an apology won't cut it - this tool has been getting away with out-of-touch comments for years. Yes they are doing it partly to fuel their own careers and agendas but Hook must be held accountable.

tritriagain

hadoken13 wrote: »

I think they are right to go against Newstalk. Newstalk aren't doing enough to condemn Hook's despicable comments and frankly an apology won't cut it - this tool has been getting away with out-of-touch comments for years. Yes they are doing it partly to fuel their own careers and agendas but Hook must be held accountable.

For words?

hadoken13

tritriagain wrote: »

For words?

Meaning?

tritriagain

hadoken13 wrote: »

Meaning?

Meaning if people don't agree with something said they should either debate rationally or ignore but this constant "I'm offended" is getting boring to be honest. By the way I'm not having a go at you . Just tired of issues dominating the "news" while real and important issues seem to be ignored.

Charmeleon

hadoken13 wrote: »

I think they are right to go against Newstalk. Newstalk aren't doing enough to condemn Hook's despicable comments and frankly an apology won't cut it - this tool has been getting away with out-of-touch comments for years. Yes they are doing it partly to fuel their own careers and agendas but Hook must be held accountable.

"Getting away with out of touch comments".

Disturbing thought process there. Why should people not be allowed 'get away' with expressing unpopular opinions? What should we do to people who don't?

hadoken13

That's fair enough - and I never take comments personally so don't worry there, I was just wondering what your question was. In my opinion it's not just words though, he has a large audience and victim blaming is just wrong he shouldn't have said it pure and simple. It appears to be a mindset that a lot of people have in this country and it should be stopped.

Rumple Stillson

hadoken13 wrote: »

That's fair enough - and I never take comments personally so don't worry there, I was just wondering what your question was. In my opinion it's not just words though, he has a large audience and victim blaming is just wrong he shouldn't have said it pure and simple. It appears to be a mindset that a lot of people have in this country and it should be stopped.

He apologised, I don't think he can do much more. Perhaps he should be dismissed but his whole thing is expressing his widely out of touch views. This one is particularly poor to be fair.

DickSwiveller

hadoken13 wrote: »

I think they are right to go against Newstalk. Newstalk aren't doing enough to condemn Hook's despicable comments and frankly an apology won't cut it - this tool has been getting away with out-of-touch comments for years. Yes they are doing it partly to fuel their own careers and agendas but Hook must be held accountable.

Let me translate some of your comment for the uninitiated

1. "Despicable Comments" = I disagree with him.

2. "out-of-touch" = Currently unfashionable opinion.

3. "Held accountable" = Sacked.

Orwell would be proud of your newspeak efforts.

hadoken13

Charmeleon wrote: »

"Getting away with out of touch comments".

Disturbing thought process there. Why should people not be allowed 'get away' with expressing unpopular opinions? What should we do to people who don't?

It's not about unpopular comments it's about wrong and despicable comments. I'm not talking about stoning or getting out the lynch mob, I'm talking about being held accountable. It's easy to dismiss the comments as just being someone's opinions and accepting an apology - what about getting fined or docked pay or a walk of shame like in GOT. That way other like-minded individuals may think twice when making irrational comments.

hadoken13

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Let me translate some of your comment for the uninitiated

1. "Despicable Comments" = I disagree with him.

2. "out-of-touch" = Currently unfashionable opinion.

3. "Held accountable" = Sacked.

Orwell would be proud of your newspeak efforts.

Do you agree with what he said or believe it's not that bad?

Unfashionable opinion - tell me when these comments would ever be fashionable?

DickSwiveller

hadoken13 wrote: »

walk of shame like in GOT. That way other like-minded individuals may think twice when making irrational comments.

You're definitely on a wind up. Give up.

DickSwiveller

hadoken13 wrote: »

Do you agree with what he said or believe it's not that bad?

Unfashionable opinion - tell me when these comments would ever be fashionable?

I don't think it was that bad.

Elmo

Re: Bias, yes there is a bias among presenters but NewsTalk is going down the road of Fox News, I don't think total bias in a presenter should be allowed. No problem with George having a debate with someone but he wasn't having a debate he was giving his view.

If I get into bed with a girl and she then robs me blind, who's to blame?

I dislike both sides. Overtly PC types who condemn anything and everything, and those who talk about PC types getting offended. Both are as bad as one another.

George would be a man of polite society according to himself, what he said was not polite.

You can't blame someone for a misjudgment, mistake following a crime. It'd be like the headline Murder Victim Shouldn't Have Being Sleeping Says Murderer.

hadoken13

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't think it was that bad.

Now who's the one on a wind-up?

DickSwiveller

Elmo wrote: »

Re: Bias, yes there is a bias among presenters but NewsTalk is going down the road of Fox News, I don't think total bias in a presenter should be allowed. No problem with George having a debate with someone but he wasn't having a debate he was giving his view.

If I get into bed with a girl and she then robs me blind, who's to blame?

I dislike both sides. Overtly PC types who condemn anything and everything, and those who talk about PC types getting offended. Both are as bad as one another.

George would be a man of polite society according to himself, what he said was not polite.

You can't blame someone for a misjudgment, mistake following a crime. It'd be like the headline Murder Victim Shouldn't Have Being Sleeping Says Murderer.

For the 10 billionth time, he said the alleged rapist was fully responsible. Do people really have so much time on their hands that they're perpetually offended by remarks he made last week. Jesus Christ. Move on.

DickSwiveller

hadoken13 wrote: »

Now who's the one on a wind-up?

I fear you're a victim of peer pressure, and like to follow popular opinion. If I was you I'd take a break from Facebook and Twitter for a while. The bubble is a dangerous thing.

tritriagain

To be honest I don't agree with the word blame but I do think people have a responsibility for their own safety. I have a 19 year old son and I have had numerous talks with him on safety while socialising. I also have a 13 year old daughter and, rightly or wrongly , I will be having even more talks with her as again , rightly or wrongly, I feel she will be more vunerable in these situations. I maybe accused of being sexist because of this but I really don't give a ****. I wonder do a lot of the outraged posters here have kids of this age and if the don't will their views change when they do.
On a side note soon after my son was born I was out for a few pints and took a shortcut home through a known dodgy lane. 2 fellas started on me but luckily im a big bloke and was able to handle myself and they came off worst. I told my wife the next day and she ate the bollox off my saying that I was irresponsible for going that way and that I have son now and need to copy on. Should she apologise to me now that George had to.

hadoken13

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I fear you're a victim of peer pressure, and like to follow popular opinion. If I was you I'd take a break from Facebook and Twitter for a while. The bubble is a dangerous thing.

Says the guy who is complaining about moving on and yet is visiting and commenting on threads about the topic.

Don't have a Facebook account and don't go on twitter during the week. I used to listen to Newstalk every day on the way to and from work and I just feel they should take a stronger hand against this kind of talk - don't think it is a mis-judgement at all as he is prone to these kinds of comments.

DickSwiveller

hadoken13 wrote: »

Says the guy who is crying about moving on and yet is visiting and commenting on threads about the topic.

Don't have a Facebook account and don't go on twitter during the week. I used to listen to Newstalk every day on the way to and from work and I just feel they should take a stronger hand against this kind of talk - don't think it is a mis-judgement at all as he is prone to these kinds of comments.

If you don't like it don't listen. It's not very difficult.

Rumple Stillson

hadoken13 wrote: »

Says the guy who is crying about moving on and yet is visiting and commenting on threads about the topic.

Don't have a Facebook account and don't go on twitter during the week. I used to listen to Newstalk every day on the way to and from work and I just feel they should take a stronger hand against this kind of talk - don't think it is a mis-judgement at all as he is prone to these kinds of comments.

How odd!:pac:

I think the comments were insensitive at best and cruel at worst but his apology was unreserved and clear. Should he be sacked for this, I think that would be disproportionate on this occasion.

Nekarsulm

Nous ne sommes pas Charlie.

Amazing how all the media darlings and Facebook fashionistas all proclaim absolute belief in free speech, until all of a sudden it offends their sensibilities.
Then its a case of "Fire him. Fire him, Fire him"
20 out of 60 of Newstalks personnel signed a letter demanding his removal from the station, and a spokesperson has stated that they arrived into work on Monday presuming that he would be gone. "We were horrified to se him there as normal".

What are they going to do if the station lets him remain?
Resign from a radio station because they didn't get to limit free speech?
Can they not see the irony there?

If you read the complete transcript you will see that he stated, not unreasonably I thought, how ill advised it is to drink so much that you get sick in someone's bathroom, and fall asleep in an alcoholic stupor on the toilet

DickSwiveller

hadoken13 wrote: »

Says the guy who is complaining about moving on and yet is visiting and commenting on threads about the topic.

Don't have a Facebook account and don't go on twitter during the week. I used to listen to Newstalk every day on the way to and from work and I just feel they should take a stronger hand against this kind of talk - don't think it is a mis-judgement at all as he is prone to these kinds of comments.

Apologies. Reading my comments back, I think I came off as very condescending. Sorry about that. I just think people should be content with his apology and move on.

hadoken13

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

How odd!:pac:

I think the comments were insensitive at best and cruel at worst but his apology was unreserved and clear. Should he be sacked for this, I think that would be disproportionate on this occasion.

No sacking would be going too far, a fine would be harsh enough. Ye cold turkey with the twittering!!

hadoken13

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Apologies. Reading my comments back, I think I came off as very condescending. Sorry about that. I just think people should be content with his apology and move on.

Fair enough. To be honest I'm late to the party. Listening to podcasts on the way to work lately so only reading about these comments in the last day or two.

delly

The missing word with Hook's comments is 'perspective' and it seem to be missing in spades to the lynch mob looking for blood. He had an opinion on a situation, got it arse about face, said sorry. The perspective is what right minded person would disagree that consuming vast amounts of alcohol may put someone's safety in a negative position. That is the perspective of the comments he made.

Turnipman

dresden8 wrote: »

Nothing new here.

Sure didn't Inda himself boycott Vincent.

If the Taoiseach can throw a sulk why can't anybody else.

If the Taoiseach does it you can hardly accuse anybody else of unparliamentary behaviour.

That is correct only if one accepts that Kenny is/was the ideal role model for all Irish politicians to emulate, and if one believes that, in boycotting Browne, Kenny was setting a principled precedent that all other politicians should try to adhere to.

Amalgam

tritriagain wrote: »

To be honest I don't agree with the word blame but I do think people have a responsibility for their own safety. I have a 19 year old son and I have had numerous talks with him on safety while socialising. I also have a 13 year old daughter and, rightly or wrongly , I will be having even more talks with her as again , rightly or wrongly, I feel she will be more vunerable in these situations. I maybe accused of being sexist because of this but I really don't give a ****. I wonder do a lot of the outraged posters here have kids of this age and if the don't will their views change when they do.
On a side note soon after my son was born I was out for a few pints and took a shortcut home through a known dodgy lane. 2 fellas started on me but luckily im a big bloke and was able to handle myself and they came off worst. I told my wife the next day and she ate the bollox off my saying that I was irresponsible for going that way and that I have son now and need to copy on. Should she apologise to me now that George had to.

Hook is having a microscope held over one aspect of what he said, I think anyone, male or female, needs to be aware of alcohol. That sounds so naff in print, but there you go. Perish the thought the Irish take responsibility for being pissed out of their mind.

The only time I was ever beaten up was when I was 'rolled', due to me being blind drunk, up by Binns bridge. Nothing like being undressed by 2 or 3 men and having everything but your trousers and socks removed to get me to change my drinking habits.

I've seen Jarvees 'interfere' with unconscious female customers. I lived up from a very busy Club in central Dublin and it ate into your soul, (I worked night shift) walking away from the mess people (male and female) got themselves into. It was a chore, you could have made a full time job of 'assisting' drunks.

If you're lying flat out, legs apart with no underwear and your labia taking in the night breeze, on a secluded Dublin street *you* need to change how you go about drinking.

Elmo

tritriagain wrote: »

To be honest I don't agree with the word blame but I do think people have a responsibility for their own safety. I have a 19 year old son and I have had numerous talks with him on safety while socialising. I also have a 13 year old daughter and, rightly or wrongly , I will be having even more talks with her as again , rightly or wrongly, I feel she will be more vunerable in these situations. I maybe accused of being sexist because of this but I really don't give a ****. I wonder do a lot of the outraged posters here have kids of this age and if the don't will their views change when they do.
On a side note soon after my son was born I was out for a few pints and took a shortcut home through a known dodgy lane. 2 fellas started on me but luckily im a big bloke and was able to handle myself and they came off worst. I told my wife the next day and she ate the bollox off my saying that I was irresponsible for going that way and that I have son now and need to copy on. Should she apologise to me now that George had to.

You should of course advise your children to be careful, always. And if a loved one end up in a situation that they could have avoid they you should tell them that they should not have put themselves in that situation. I doubt your wife would have turned around and told you were irresponsible etc if you'd end up in hospital/ or dead and I am sure that the police would take a statement and investigate the case. She might rightly say to you later "what the **** are you doing there", otherwise it'd be more a case of finding out who did it.

Would you even think to ask your daughter "What did you expect to happen after going to a bedroom with one guy, of course he has a friend who wants to rape you? and you did you consent to the first guy having sex with you. Totally not either guys fault, live with it"

You can be guaranteed you'd happily chop off both their bollocks off.

tritriagain

Elmo wrote: »

You should of course advise your children to be careful, always. And if a loved one end up in a situation that they could have avoid they you should tell them that they should not have put themselves in that situation. I doubt your wife would have turned around and told you were irresponsible etc if you'd end up in hospital/ or dead and I am sure that the police would take a statement and investigate the case. She might rightly say to you later "what the **** are you doing there", otherwise it'd be more a case of finding out who did it.

Would you even think to ask your daughter "What did you expect to happen after going to a bedroom with one guy, of course he has a friend who wants to rape you? and you did you consent to the first guy having sex with you. Totally not either guys fault, live with it"

You can be guaranteed you'd happily chop off both their bollocks off.

Of course I would feed them their own bollocks. And I wouldn't say that to my daughter if anything happened. What gets me is that people say rape will happen anyway. Of course it ****ing will . It has done since the dawn of human kind. Which is all the more reason to try to play the odds and remain safe. I'm no ****ing angel and I doubt my kids are either. The world is a bad place it doesn't hurt to try and avoid to get caught out in it. I also have a serious problrm when someone makes a stupid comment about rape they become as villified as actual rapists. It really is a weird world where free speech is only ok if every thing you say is politically correct.

Elmo

tritriagain wrote: »

Of course I would feed them their own bollocks. And I wouldn't say that to my daughter if anything happened. What gets me is that people say rape will happen anyway. Of course it ****ing will . It has done since the dawn of human kind. Which is all the more reason to try to play the odds and remain safe. I'm no ****ing angel and I doubt my kids are either. The world is a bad place it doesn't hurt to try and avoid to get caught out in it. I also have a serious problrm when someone makes a stupid comment about rape they become as villified as actual rapists. It really is a weird world where free speech is only ok if every thing you say is politically correct.

Rape should not happen and the idea that because a girl is there certainly gives a free ticket to guys to do as they please is also wrong.

As I say its not just about being politically correct. Both sides have mauling over this.

One side casting Hook into the fire and the others helping him to dig the hole.

It's fine in hindsight to say all George was saying was we should be a bit more careful. Of course we should, but no one has the right to pontificate when we do put ourselves in danger.

I also do not believe that George would have said this if someone had been attacked (not sexually), I doubt that George would say what was the victim of this horrendous attack doing in that ally way at that time, I mean if you go into a lane or a dark place sure what do you expect. Of course he wouldn't because that doesn't enter his head or anyone's head.

If you see a girl on her own and anyway in need of help call the guards or try to find out if she has somewhere to go, don't drop your pants and help yourself.

Do we really need to tell people this?

Because you are drunk is not an invitation to be taken advantage of in anyway. But yes you should of course be careful because clearly there are ****ers around.

George sounded off and he wasn't misinterpreted by anyone.

Amalgam

Elmo wrote: »

It's fine in hindsight to say all George was saying was we should be a bit more careful. Of course we should, but no one has the right to pontificate when we do put ourselves in danger.

Why not? Just males, or just females can pontificate, what is this coming back to?

There's a whiff of ageism about all this too, 'Silly old fart' vibe. He should really crawl off somewhere and die, eh..

You are assuming everyone is a carbon copy of each other morally.

Elmo

Amalgam wrote: »

Why not? Just males, or just females can pontificate, what is this coming back to?

There's a whiff of ageism about all this too, 'Silly old fart' vibe. He should really crawl off somewhere and die, eh..

You are assuming everyone is a carbon copy of each other morally.

I am not assuming that at all. My point is it is rarely said about people attacked (non-sexually). It might be mentioned by their wife, husband, mother, father etc but in the news rarely do you hear, well now he/she shouldn't have been where they where when they were stabbed, because those guys with the knives.

And yes I don't like George Hook, I never did even when he was younger only problem now he's part of the news.

Sorry for being ageist in this PC world You PC guys always saying how lovely old people are, you know I know a few who are arse holes.

tritriagain

Elmo wrote: »

Rape should not happen and the idea that because a girl is there certainly gives a free ticket to guys to do as they please is also wrong.

As I say its not just about being politically correct. Both sides have mauling over this.

One side casting Hook into the fire and the others helping him to dig the hole.

It's fine in hindsight to say all George was saying was we should be a bit more careful. Of course we should, but no one has the right to pontificate when we do put ourselves in danger.

I also do not believe that George would have said this if someone had been attacked (not sexually), I doubt that George would say what was the victim of this horrendous attack doing in that ally way at that time, I mean if you go into a lane or a dark place sure what do you expect. Of course he wouldn't because that doesn't enter his head or anyone's head.

If you see a girl on her own and anyway in need of help call the guards or try to find out if she has somewhere to go, don't drop your pants and help yourself.

Do we really need to tell people this?

Because you are drunk is not an invitation to be taken advantage of in anyway. But yes you should of course be careful because clearly there are ****ers around.

George sounded off and he wasn't misinterpreted by anyone.

Show me where anyone said rape should happen. I said rape will happen. To deny this is to be naive.
Equally I know being drunk is not an invitation but it without does make it easier for a potential rapist.
And in fact everyone has the right to pontificate what we should be doing its called free speech ...that thing the extreme lefties love quoting but quite regularly take such offence to.

storker

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Nous ne sommes pas Charlie.

The trouble with a lot of the people who claimed "Je suis Charlie" was that when you explored their attitude to free speech it was usually qualified with "...as long as...", which meant of course that ils n'etaient pas du tout Charlie.

murphthesmurf

If Monicreif goes I'll be happy. He represents the extreme left wing liberals and feels he needs to educate us all on what is right and wrong. He scoffs at the ignorance of people who text in to his show with an opinion which doesn't match his. I really hate the guy. George Hook is a dithering old fool, but at least he offers a more down to earth approach rather than the other high and mighty Monicreif.
I think the left don't like Hook as he's not 'progressive ' and represents the type of people who would vote Ireland out of the EU or question the legitimacy of asylum seekers. We can't have that on the radio can we. He will undoubtedly be pushed out within the next few weeks.
Glad Ivan Yates is back, not keen on the man himself mind, but he's something different from the others.

storker

murphthesmurf wrote: »

George Hook is a dithering old fool, but at least he offers a more down to earth approach

My own beef with Hook is that whenever there's an opening to ask a killer question prompted by the interviewees previous statement, he invariably misses it completely and goes off on some long winded tangential waffle instead.

"But you know like, when Young Hook was a teenager down in Cork and going to mass on a Sunday...blather...blather...." over a minute to ask a 10 second question, which is the wrong question anyway and you feel like banging your head off the steering wheel in frustration. The main reason I stopped listening to any program with him in it.

I still don't think he should be sacked over this rape blame business though.

Elmo

tritriagain wrote: »

Show me where anyone said rape should happen. I said rape will happen. To deny this is to be naive.
Equally I know being drunk is not an invitation but it without does make it easier for a potential rapist.
And in fact everyone has the right to pontificate what we should be doing its called free speech ...that thing the extreme lefties love quoting but quite regularly take such offence to.

I accept that you said that rape will happen, but it is just as naive not educate people not to rape and that includes harder sentences and an effective criminal justice system for rape (something neither side seem to accept).

I find both sides regularly pontificate, that's very different to free speech.

IMO there is an irony to both sides when it comes to free-speech. Conservatives would have you believe "sure we could always say that" followed by "what has changed?". Yet it was often the case of Conservatives telling us what we could and could not say.

I think there are extremes and both are unwilling to seek a middle ground.

tritriagain

Elmo wrote: »

I accept that you said that rape will happen, but it is just as naive not educate people not to rape and that includes harder sentences and an effective criminal justice system for rape (something neither side seem to accept).

I find both sides regularly pontificate, that's very different to free speech.

IMO there is an irony to both sides when it comes to free-speech. Conservatives would have you believe "sure we could always say that" followed by "what has changed?". Yet it was often the case of Conservatives telling us what we could and could not say.

I think there are extremes and both are unwilling to seek a middle ground.

Agree with most of this. However I do feel that the lefties do fake outrage much better.

Harry Palmr

Shows what I know - Hook suspended while an investigation takes place.

IRE60

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Shows what I know - Hook suspended while an investigation takes place.

That will be an ad dollar driven move as opposed to anything else.

Elmo

Just to get back to the thread why the all out war against Newstalk.

I don't understand Ivan Yeats move to Drive time in the hard shoulder?