nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

High Noon with George Hook.

kneemos

A full ten minutes to get to the Muslims,and now it's Rugby.Not much has changed.

Sounds in good form anyway.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

jobbridge4life wrote: »

She ought to, but she won't. Much like she happily treats his sexism as a little nod and a wink joke, but then goes on like a proper feminist stalwart on Twitter.

I have heard her remind George, numerous times on air, to stop his bluster because she knows him off-mic, and he is genuinely supportive of women in the workplace.

This has an air of credibility about it. Despite all his potentially pejorative language about 'broads' and 'dames', George seems genuinely willing to promote women on air with slots like 'Here Come the Girls' on a Friday, where the panel discuss contemporary issues and current affairs. Now, whatever you think of the contributors, and I'm not always a fan, that is not the behaviour of some profuse sexist.

We sometimes forget that these presenters know one another off-air, and I honestly don't think Dr Kelly would have such good chemistry with George were he not a promoter of women on air, which I believe he is.

George Hook has many views that I find primitive, frankly; but I don't think it's fair at all to attribute sexism to him.

i71jskz5xu42pb

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have heard her remind George, numerous times on air, to stop his bluster because she knows him off-mic, and he is genuinely supportive of women in the workplace.

This has an air of credibility about it. Despite all his potentially pejorative language about 'broads' and 'dames', George seems genuinely willing to promote women on air with slots like 'Here Come the Girls' on a Friday, where the panel discuss contemporary issues and current affairs. Now, whatever you think of the contributors, and I'm not always a fan, that is not the behaviour of some profuse sexist.

We sometimes forget that these presenters know one another off-air, and I honestly don't think Dr Kelly would have such good chemistry with George were he not a promoter of women on air, which I believe he is.

George Hook has many views that I find primitive, frankly; but I don't think it's fair at all to attribute sexism to him.

This idea that he's OK behind his public persona doesn't wash for me. (same idea trotted out for Mcgregor)
If you trot out sexist, islamaphobic, anti vax, egotistical, etc. rhetoric all day it doesn't matter what you do off mic.

jooksavage

I hate his show, it's a total mess - take 30 mins from Moncrieff and give it to Hook so he rail against political correctness, get on his 2 inch soapbox to ramble incoherently about Muslims and vaccines, talk foot fungus with a doctor before concluding with the help of Bill Hughes that music after 1962 has no artistic merit.

Saying all that, I've heard from waiting staff that have encountered him that he's a perfect gentleman. The same folks could relate some horror stories about his colleagues.

ThisRegard

Chelsea Miniature Somehow wrote: »

This idea that he's OK behind his public persona doesn't wash for me. (same idea trotted out for Mcgregor)
If you trot out sexist, islamaphobic, anti vax, egotistical, etc. rhetoric all day it doesn't matter what you do off mic.

I've said it many times before, compare him to how he was when he had his drive time show. I believe a lot of his bluster on his afternoon show is to generate texts and tweets and just to wind up people for the craic. And it works.

sligojoek

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've said it many times before, compare him to how he was when he had his drive time show. I believe a lot of his bluster on his afternoon show is to generate texts and tweets and just to wind up people for the craic. And it works.

At 30c a pop

i71jskz5xu42pb

sligojoek wrote: »

At 30c a pop

30c less VAT, less the mobile operator share, less the SMS technology provider's share. If Newstalk are getting 10 cents on that I'd be surprised.
Hook get's what, 60k listeners? What % will actually text in (versus twitter, email, just shouting at the radio).

I may be way wrong but I doubt anybody is getting rich on the SMS revenue. I'd say it pays for itself but it's really use is to convince advertisers of how engaged people are with shows (in addition to the published listenership figures)

Anybody here know for sure?

Vorenus400

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have heard her remind George, numerous times on air, to stop his bluster because she knows him off-mic, and he is genuinely supportive of women in the workplace.

This has an air of credibility about it. Despite all his potentially pejorative language about 'broads' and 'dames', George seems genuinely willing to promote women on air with slots like 'Here Come the Girls' on a Friday, where the panel discuss contemporary issues and current affairs. Now, whatever you think of the contributors, and I'm not always a fan, that is not the behaviour of some profuse sexist.

We sometimes forget that these presenters know one another off-air, and I honestly don't think Dr Kelly would have such good chemistry with George were he not a promoter of women on air, which I believe he is.

George Hook has many views that I find primitive, frankly; but I don't think it's fair at all to attribute sexism to him.

There was one day where Dr Ciara let slip that what George says off radio is completely different. That he is very supportive of women and was mostly responsible for her radio career. George tried to shut it down quickly. George also refused to talk vaccinations with her. I imagine for her own career she wont bring it up with george again
Most of what George says is an act trying to get controversy. He started the anti vax stuff because he met some women who told him stuff. Then it was about not being able to find the information on the hse website.
Not sure if its still available but he did a talk/debate with a HSE doctor about it and George had a checklist of questions from anti vax sources. George was trying to tell the doctor that vaccines incubated in eggs would affect people with egg allergies. The doctor could only keep saying no or that isnt correct. George went full anti vax that day. He wanted to beat the doctor in a debate so he used all the stuff from the online crowds.

jobbridge4life

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have heard her remind George, numerous times on air, to stop his bluster because she knows him off-mic, and he is genuinely supportive of women in the workplace.

This has an air of credibility about it. Despite all his potentially pejorative language about 'broads' and 'dames', George seems genuinely willing to promote women on air with slots like 'Here Come the Girls' on a Friday, where the panel discuss contemporary issues and current affairs. Now, whatever you think of the contributors, and I'm not always a fan, that is not the behaviour of some profuse sexist.

We sometimes forget that these presenters know one another off-air, and I honestly don't think Dr Kelly would have such good chemistry with George were he not a promoter of women on air, which I believe he is.

George Hook has many views that I find primitive, frankly; but I don't think it's fair at all to attribute sexism to him.

As have I, but that is my point, she treats his publically professed sexist tripe as a joke, as a 'shur we know what you are really like' situation. It isn't good enough, it isn't consistent with her attitude to sexism generally.

I also don't accept that having a few women on now and again discludes the possibility of him being a sexist, or regularly trotting out sexist drivel.

I like Dr Kelly, but she lets George away with things that she ought not to. The vaccination stuff being the most crucial. She spends her days tweeting against anti-vaxxers, only in the last few days she was demanding the resignation of Finian McGrath, she rightfully views it as a life and death matter. Yet she will turn up on George's show and happily laugh at his inane medical remarks?

[Deleted User]

jobbridge4life wrote: »

As have I, but that is my point, she treats his publically professed sexist tripe as a joke, as a 'shur we know what you are really like' situation. It isn't good enough, it isn't consistent with her attitude to sexism generally.

I also don't accept that having a few women on now and again discludes the possibility of him being a sexist, or regularly trotting out sexist drivel.

I like Dr Kelly, but she lets George away with things that she ought not to. The vaccination stuff being the most crucial. She spends her days tweeting against anti-vaxxers, only in the last few days she was demanding the resignation of Finian McGrath, she rightfully views it as a life and death matter. Yet she will turn up on George's show and happily laugh at his inane medical remarks?

Yeah, when you put it that way I can't disagree.

I don't personally believe he is sexist, and I think Ciara Kelly doesn't either; but it's not good enough to dismiss what he says on air, on the nod and the wink that he's just stirring sh*t.

quintana76

The sadness about Karen Devine is that she seems to be a clever young woman. On the other hand she sounds like a beatific Soviet commissar.
She is unaware that she echoes the smilingly patronising ardent Catholics of the past that she would so much abhor.
The psychosis is the same, just the 'religion' is different. The Catholics have been replaced by the PC brigade. DCU seems have a mission (judging by the radio opinions of many of its staff) to brainwash the kids into the identity politics agenda. If their journalism school is the same no wonder the media is considered so biased and useless.

There used to be a very Catholic woman call Angela Mc Namara who used to write for
a Sunday newspaper when God was a boy. (So was I.) I believe, despite this, she was a good journalist.

Her mentality was exactly the same as Karen Devine. Her smug confidence as to the rectitude of her views never even considered any alternate viewpoint.
Any non fellow travellers were considered lost souls waiting for the truth to decend, with her help. She wasn't a bad person, she had just brainwashed herself. I fear the same for Karen.

RustyNut

Did I really just hear him blaming a rape victim for getting raped? He's a disgusting example of humanity.

Mantis Toboggan

RustyNut wrote: »

Did I really just hear him blaming a rape victim for getting raped? He's a disgusting example of humanity.

You do know that there are other radio stations right?

super_furry

RustyNut wrote: »

Did I really just hear him blaming a rape victim for getting raped? He's a disgusting example of humanity.

Yep you did unfortunately. Hook said in fairly clear terms that it was her fault she got raped for 'putting herself in that situation'. He's crossing a line from being a grumpy old man to a misogynistic scumbag.

applehunter

Think he was going down the personal responsibility angle.

Its nearly a taboo.

terryduff12

A Woman has every right to go out and get drunk and have a good time, but there is bad people out in the world and bad things happen.

Snake Plisken

I see failed presenter Chris Donoghue having a pop he should really shut up I don't even know why he is still there? George is entitled to his opinion and he is right there is a thing called personal responsibility and as a parent you do your best to explain to your kids not to get drunk out of your head and put yourself in dangerous situations. He hasn't said anything wrong here and I don't see that he is victim blaming at all.

hotmail.com

Snake Plisken wrote: »

I see failed presenter Chris Donoghue having a pop he should really shut up I don't even know why he is still there? George is entitled to his opinion and he is right there is a thing called personal responsibility and as a parent you do your best to explain to your kids not to get drunk out of your head and put yourself in dangerous situations. He hasn't said anything wrong here and I don't see that he is victim blaming at all.

Why can't the emphasis be on parents telling their sons not to rape people? Or do you accept some men will never change? Crazy defence of rape you have.

jooksavage

Snake Plisken wrote: »

George is entitled to his opinion

And no one else is? Whats wrong with challenging an antediluvian attitude to rape? A lot of people here love the version of free speech that fits their worldview and can't stomach actual debate. Ironically the same people accuse liberals of living in a bubble.

Obvious Otter

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why can't the emphasis be on parents telling their sons not to rape people? Or do you accept some men will never change? Crazy defence of rape you have.

It's not a defence of rape. You've just made that up. Some women don't want to accept personal responsibility for often putting themselves in vulnerable situations. It's obviously disgusting that a man would take advantage in such a situation but how about not putting yourself in that vulnerable situation in the first place?

In this case the girl went home after drinking with someone she didn't know. Are we really going to remove personal responsibility from people simply becuase they become the victim of an act? Society shouldn't look to blame these women but we also should be trying to stop women from putting themselves in these horrible situations in the first place.

hotmail.com

Obvious Otter wrote: »

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why can't the emphasis be on parents telling their sons not to rape people? Or do you accept some men will never change? Crazy defence of rape you have.

It's not a defence of rape. You've just made that up. Some women don't want to accept personal responsibility for often putting themselves in vulnerable situations. It's obviously disgusting that a man would take advantage in such a situation but how about not putting yourself in that vulnerable situation in the first place?

In this case the girl went home after drinking with someone she didn't know. Are we really going to remove personal responsibility from people simply becuase they become the victim of an act? Society shouldn't look to blame these women but we also should be trying to stop women from putting themselves in these horrible situations in the first place.

Sorting out the men doing the raping is surely the problem...nothing else.

Why do some men rape women and how can we prevent this? I presume you've no insights into that. You'd rather focus on the victim taking responsibility.

hotmail.com

Some people still have an issue with women drinking and getting drunk.

Obvious Otter

hotmail.com wrote: »

Sorting out the men doing the raping is surely the problem...nothing else.

Why do some men rape women and how can we prevent this? I presume you've no insights into that. You'd rather focus on the victim taking responsibility.

In an ideal world it would be as simple as just getting the men who carry out these heinous acts to stop, however, this is reality and not an ideal world and when you have a mix of alcohol involved reason goes out of the window.

If you really believe women have no duty of care to themselves then you're being incredibly naive.

Stop putting yourself in vulnerable positions with creeps and weirdos that you otherwise wouldn't do if you were drunk. Society can't protect you if you aren't going to even try and look after yourself. Obviously the victim shouldn't be blamed but how will anyone learn if we cannot accept that sometimes women put themselves in extremely compromising positions?

What's wrong with telling people not to put themselves in compromising positions? You seem to ignore reality with your idealism which doesn't help or solve the problem at all.

Telling men to stop raping women isn't working...

limnam

I was hoping this wouldn't be still a "thing" today.

Teachers pet Chriss would want to wind his neck in.

Hopefully forgot about come Monday

Faugheen

There is some right sick bastards in this thread.

limnam

Faugheen wrote: »

There is some right sick bastards in this thread.

Fairly OTT to be fair.

TheDavester

super_furry wrote: »

Yep you did unfortunately. Hook said in fairly clear terms that it was her fault she got raped for 'putting herself in that situation'. He's crossing a line from being a grumpy old man to a misogynistic scumbag.

No he didn't condone the rape or say it was her fault, the point he was making was people need to be aware and to stop putting themselves in dangerous situations,...its not victim blaming, people (yes women and men) need to look after themselves on nights out and try to avoid troublesome/dangerous situations (like this horrific incident or assaults etc)

But Il probably get criticised by the Louise O Neill/Una Mullaley/Rosemary McCabe types who dont advocate personal responsibility and use this to promote "rape culture" agenda

Faugheen

TheDavester wrote: »

No he didn't condone the rape or say it was her fault, the point he was making was people need to be aware and to stop putting themselves in dangerous situations,...its not victim blaming, people (yes women and men) need to look after themselves on nights out and try to avoid troublesome/dangerous situations (like this horrific incident or assaults etc)

But Il probably get criticised by the Louise O Neill/Una Mullaley/Rosemary McCabe types who dont advocate personal responsibility and use this to promote "rape culture" agenda

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.

super_furry

George Hook blamed the rape victim and he blamed her parents. I know you might like him because he's on your side politically or because he says controversial things that wind up left leaning people, but there's no getting around what he says here. He blames the rape victim for getting raped.

George Hook: "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? You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her. There is personal responsibility because it's your daughter and my daughter. What determines the daughter who goes out, gets drunk, passes out and has strangers in her room or the daughter that stays out, stays halfway sober and comes home? Is a point of responsibility the real issue?"

To which I say, no George, the 'real issue' is people who rape.

Snake Plisken

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why can't the emphasis be on parents telling their sons not to rape people? Or do you accept some men will never change? Crazy defence of rape you have.

Where I am defending rapist they are scumbags but I have told my daughters to mind themselves stay with friends mind their drinks aren't spiked etc.
But I have to laugh at leftys because if the perpetrators had been Muslim men and George had brought up the case the focus would have shifted from the victim to George singling out Muslims by some posters on this thread!

TheDavester

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.

Where have I said she deserved or responsible for her ordeal....People (yes men and women) have responsibility for themselves to take steps in preventing getting in bad situations like the woman did...

As Obvious otter posted
"If you really believe women (and men) have no duty of care to themselves then you're being incredibly naive.

Stop putting yourself in vulnerable positions with creeps and weirdos that you otherwise wouldn't do if you were drunk. Society can't protect you if you aren't going to even try and look after yourself. Obviously the victim shouldn't be blamed but how will anyone learn if we cannot accept that sometimes women (and men) put themselves in extremely compromising positions?

What's wrong with telling people not to put themselves in compromising positions? You seem to ignore reality with your idealism which doesn't help or solve the problem at all"

A woman should be able to get as drunk as she wants without fear of being raped/assaulted etc
Well, of course she should, just as a person should be able to walk home late at night, drunk and alone, without fear of getting mugged or assaulted. However, our society is not 100% safe and there are scumbags out there who prey on vulnerable people in vulnerable situations.

Arguing that women/men should take precautions to lessen the chances of being a victim, does not absolve the aggressor in the slightest for the crime - nor does it mean that the victim should be apportioned any blame. b