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

George hook

Specialun

Seems as if a fair few are pissed off over george hooks comments on newstalk today

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/george-hook-needs-to-get-off-his-dinosaur-backside-rape-victim-criticises-broadcaster-for-outrageous-and-offensive-remarks-about-rape-36113405.html

I did have a listen. He clearly condones the rape. his point that women need to be carefull and accept responsibility, is that not right to a degree. There is bad people out there.

Has he actually blamed the rape victim on his "rant"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

retro:electro

The idea of personal responsibility today has become offensive when it comes to things like this. For instance, around Christmas time you will see the usual campaigns- don't leave windows and doors open. Make sure you leave a light on if you're going out. This is a prime time for burglary. That's all fine and well. Nobody takes an issue with that.

However, going out for the night? Don't dare try and suggest you be careful and mind yourself. Maybe get a taxi home and don't walk alone. It's: HOW DARE YOU. MAYBE TARGET YOUR CAMPAIGN AT RAPISTS TO STOP RAPING. THIS IS VICTIM BLAMING.

No it's not. There are fcuking morons out there who will always rob and rape. So it's basic common sense to target campaigns at people of sound mind and ask them to do any thing they can to reduce the possibility that something bad may happen to them. What is the point in running a campaign asking a rapist not to rape? They will fcuking rape whether you ask them to or not.
People are too hysterical nowadays.

TheDavester

arayess wrote: »

it is insane how anybody can find much fault with what hook said.

I can imagine it's the usual outraged at anything crowd getting upset without reading or listening to what exactly Hook said.

that fool Chris Donoghue is newstalk colleague is throwing Hook under a bus I'm not surprised. He is a terrible fellow and journalist..hops on every bandwagon no opinions of his own other that what is the days fashion

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/its-disgusting-newstalks-chris-donoghue-slams-george-hook-over-outrageous-and-offensive-rape-remarks-36115321.html

Louise O'Neill and Rosemary 'I changed a story for blog hits' mccabe are having their meltdown and Lon gone on record in twitter saying she never heard it - ya it's the whingebags on twitter who are perpetually offended at everything

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?" Straight from the article.
And I do wonder about someone who'd ask a question like that, yes. Because it's a question that does get asked most often in cases of rape - why did she put herself in danger getting drunk? Having a one night stand? Wearing such revealing clothes? Flirting with that stranger?

Think about it, it would be an odd question indeed to ask if it had been a young man beaten up - why did he put himself in danger getting drunk? Talking back to the dangerous looking fella with the baseball bat? Walking home alone in the dark? Isn't his recklessness assuming he'll be all right actually irresponsible behaviour on his part? Is there no blame on him for putting himself in danger and ending up in hospital?

But for some reason, and to some people, it's a valid question to ask when a woman gets raped.

Only in lalaland, in the real world women are given far more of a pass regarding personal responsibility. And yes I would question the cop on of a man getting his head kicked in under those kinda circumstances. Anyone with two braincells to rub together would. Getting wasted and escalating/starting a situation where he's more likely to be in danger. Damn right he'd be a moron - and god knows I've seen enough of them down the years - and yes he'd be partially responsible for what went down as a result of his actions.

Now try saying the same thing only swap out he for she and see the (over)reaction. We're discussing that very thing in this thread and we have seen the reaction and Hook didn't even go that far.

arayess

Shenshen wrote: »

No, I have no numbers for either. I have frequently heard it being asked in cases of rape, but never in cases of assault.

If somebody went back to a house party with strangers and was beaten up, people would sympathise regarding the assault but also comment that it probably wasn't the best thing in the world to go to a house with strangers on your own.

Replace that with the crime of rape and suddenly a section of society (and people with media access) suddenly change their opinion.
exact same situation and the reaction is different..

the point is about personal responsibility - nobody for once says the victims was "asking for it" or to blame for the crime.

Certain people like to twist it that way for some reason...probably for their own agenda or platform whatever that is.
Or they just like being outraged.

blinding

Perhaps George in his own way is saying....

That we are living in the world as it is......not as we would like it to be....

Lets say that we know of a dangerous place for whatever reason .

Now we would all like that everyone can go to this place safely but in reality it ain't that way . Unfortunately because we think this place should be safe for everyone we do not warn somebody of the potential dangers .....Sadly that person comes a cropper .

Now would this person not have been better to be warned and possibly take precautions or even avoid that place .

We are living in the World as it is not as we would like it to be....

arayess

it is insane how anybody can find much fault with what hook said.

I can imagine it's the usual outraged at anything crowd getting upset without reading or listening to what exactly Hook said.

that fool Chris Donoghue Hook's newstalk colleague is throwing Hook under a bus I'm not surprised. He is a terrible fellow and journalist..hops on every bandwagon no opinions of his own other that what is the days fashion

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/its-disgusting-newstalks-chris-donoghue-slams-george-hook-over-outrageous-and-offensive-rape-remarks-36115321.html

LordSutch

...... "Should she be raped? Of course she shouldn’t. Isn’t she entitled to say no? Of course she is. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of course. All those things." ......

George said all these things and more, but he never condoned anything. He did however send out a message, that from his perspective as an elderly father & grandfather (of a certain vintage), that according to his moral code from the Ireland of yesteryear, getting plastered & then going on a one night stand with a stranger may be dangerous!

Picking up anybody at short notice & having sex with them before getting to know them really is a bit risky (is it not)?

The fella might seem very nice at face value in the bar, but he could be very dangerous, and if you're "three sheets to the wind" then your judgement is screwed, is it not?

And even if its just unprotected sex without any rape, you may still come away with more than you bargained for, in the way of a STD or HIV.

I think this ^ was the thrust of Georges argument.

I wonder what the lovely Ingrid thinks?

One_Of_Shanks

irishproduce wrote: »

You have the right to leave your front door on your property open if you like don't you? Without being robbed. I mean it's your property and no one should enter it unauthorised. But most of us that live in the real world know that it really isn't something you should do. There are bad people in the world.
If my son decided he wanted to leave his front door open because he has a right to without being robbed, i'd object on the grounds mentioned above - there are bad people. Rather than protest that robbers should not rob and that robbers should be made to know that robbing is utterly unacceptable, I would just advise him to not put his home at risk in the first place. It's a s**ty world with s**ty people in it.
This story is not exactly the same but the principle still applies, take care of yourself and your stuff, that's all.

See yes you're right, this is the point George was trying to get across.
And even within that people would pick flaws, as they do, but yeah I think this is the type of point he was trying to portray.

And now he's being accused of condoning rape and he's public enemy number one, but he's a dad isn't he? Of course he wasn't condoning rape.

He chose his words poorly and he didn't come across well at all but jesus he's hardly condoning rape.

I've two wee girls myself and I'm scared of what goes on out there, but what George Hook said today came across as a bit of a bumbling fool rather than anything malevolent intended, in my opinion.

Dyr

Shenshen wrote: »

Someone earlier posted that women don't have the right to get drunk, so that would be irresponsible, then, too, I assume.

So where's the line? Walking home alone at night? Is it responsible to walk from the bus stop to your front door? What about taxis? What if the driver gets too friendly?

You don't have a right to be drunk no do you have the right to walk around naked in public

In fact if you're drunkenness presents a danger to you or others then you can be arrested :eek:

Outrageous victim blaming that.

Other interesting fact: the case he referred to is ongoing, nothing proven or dismissed as yet.

irishproduce

You have the right to leave your front door on your property open if you like don't you? Without being robbed. I mean it's your property and no one should enter it unauthorised. But most of us that live in the real world know that it really isn't something you should do. There are bad people in the world.
If my son decided he wanted to leave his front door open because he has a right to without being robbed, i'd object on the grounds mentioned above - there are bad people. Rather than protest that robbers should not rob and that robbers should be made to know that robbing is utterly unacceptable, I would just advise him to not put his home at risk in the first place. It's a s**ty world with s**ty people in it.
This story is not exactly the same but the principle still applies, take care of yourself and your stuff, that's all.

Rumpy Pumpy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

George Hooks ongoing problem is his inability to articulate complex subjects which are by their nature highly charged - ironic given these are the topics on which he likes to trade.

Too often he is groping for the right words and in the correct order.

He's an old guy (76) on the radio, not because of his meticulous preparation and research, nuanced opinions, or ability to consider different viewpoints.

He's on the air because people enjoy listening to his brand of opinionated radio. And despite themselves in many cases, because they like the auld fart.

Shenshen

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

With respect thats a typically twitteresque / playing to the gallery / one sided argument.

Have you any source to suggest its asked most often in cases of rape?

I know I would never be asking if the victim was responsible in some way as a matter of course .

I wouldn't be asking it in the case of a serious assault as a matter of course either.

BUT if after more information came to light about an assault and a fella was drunk and heading down a dark alley way I'd be asking why was he putting himself in danger.
Suppose an Irish guy is murdered in New York? I certainly wouldn't be putting blame on him. But suppose it then came to light that he was taunting a couple of black guys ala Conor McGregor in "the projects" then I'd be saying he should had more cop on.

Outrage for the sake of outrage.

People, whether their Irish or Chinese or black or white or male or female have personal responsibility for their own safety.

No, I have no numbers for either. I have frequently heard it being asked in cases of rape, but never in cases of assault.
I'm not outraged, just to be clear on that. I wouldn't expect anything else from George Hook. I assume he meant to be saying something else that made sense, but as is frequently the case got lost in his own outrage.

I would wonder how far you'd take that personal responsibility. The girl went on a one night stand with a stranger, which apparently to some means she was putting herself willfully in danger and was acting irresponsibly.

Someone earlier posted that women don't have the right to get drunk, so that would be irresponsible, then, too, I assume.

So where's the line? Walking home alone at night? Is it responsible to walk from the bus stop to your front door? What about taxis? What if the driver gets too friendly?

My problem with demanding that women take responsibility for their own safety, well-intentioned as it may be and sensible as it may sound at first, is that there IS no clear line at which all the world would agree a woman was acting sensibly and was trying everything in her power to protect herself from rape unless she never left the house. And even then she could provoke a passer by by showing herself at the window or something.

No, having a one night stand with a stranger is not the safest thing you can do, certainly. And particularly so if you had too much drink. Is it irresponsible enough to have someone on national radio ranting about you had placed yourself in danger and asking the the world if you yourself acted irresponsibly?

ligerdub

up for anything wrote: »

I'm not asking any man to take account and responsibility for my actions. I just ask that if I'm staggering down the road past midnight and three sheets to the wind, with my skirt tucked into my knickers and unable to protect myself that he doesn't think that my body is his playground and make free with it. Just pass me by, laddie, pass me by and don't bloody pass me around.

I'm also not saying that women are "delicate, emotionally reactive and easily led creatures in near constant threat and in near constant need of societal protection" but in most cases, we are not as physically strong as men and therefore self-defence can be rather difficult.

At the risk of breaking the ice here........your account name makes this post more curious

One_Of_Shanks

Arghus wrote: »

Having read what he had to say there I don't think he's condoning what happened to this girl in any way - he clearly thinks that she was the vicitm of a crime. He follows that on with some points about personal responsibility, because he makes that a series of follow on points, directly after talking about a rape it's easy to think that he's conflating the two, which I don't think he necessarily is. I think he's being a little bit clumsy and perhaps a bit insensitive, but I don't think he's saying anything too radical. If you have the intelligence to pick up the wider meaning of what he's trying to say, I'd think you'd be hard pressed to be genuinely outraged.

Spot on.

He wasn't condoning it. Not at all. He didn't articulate his point very well, and his point was sort of lost on most of us anyway, as his points often are, but he wasn't condoning it.
That's taking it too far to say he condoned it.

Theres a huge difference between written media and the audio media in that you get time to sit and think and articulate your point when you are writing but when you're babbling along like he does it's different.
I agree it was clumsy but nah, I'm not having it that he was condoning anything.

Harry Palmr

George Hooks ongoing problem is his inability to articulate complex subjects which are by their nature highly charged - ironic given these are the topics on which he likes to trade.

Too often he is groping for the right words and in the correct order.

BrianBoru00

Shenshen wrote: »

I think the question of him condoning it comes with this sentence :

"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?" Straight from the article.
And I do wonder about someone who'd ask a question like that, yes. Because it's a question that does get asked most often in cases of rape - why did she put herself in danger getting drunk? Having a one night stand? Wearing such revealing clothes? Flirting with that stranger?

Think about it, it would be an odd question indeed to ask if it had been a young man beaten up - why did he put himself in danger getting drunk? Talking back to the dangerous looking fella with the baseball bat? Walking home alone in the dark? Isn't his recklessness assuming he'll be all right actually irresponsible behaviour on his part? Is there no blame on him for putting himself in danger and ending up in hospital?

But for some reason, and to some people, it's a valid question to ask when a woman gets raped.

With respect thats a typically twitteresque / playing to the gallery / one sided argument.

Have you any source to suggest its asked most often in cases of rape?

I know I would never be asking if the victim was responsible in some way as a matter of course .

I wouldn't be asking it in the case of a serious assault as a matter of course either.
BUT if after more information came to light about an assault and a fella was drunk and heading down a dark alley way I'd be asking why was he putting himself in danger.

Suppose an Irish guy is murdered in New York? I certainly wouldn't be putting blame on him. But suppose it then came to light that he was taunting a couple of black guys ala Conor McGregor in "the projects" then I'd be saying he should had more cop on.

Outrage for the sake of outrage.

People, whether their Irish or Chinese or black or white or male or female have personal responsibility for their own safety.

Dyr

Lads yiz dont understand, logic cannot apply when it comes to this topic. If you diverge from the party line in any way then you're victim blaming and the ritual denouncing must begin

I particularly like the quote that women have the right to be drunk and the right to walk the streets naked...eh you don't, neither does anyone else

Rumpy Pumpy

I haven't listened to the piece, but can only imagine it was from one of George's rants. He can be accused of many things: egotism, going off on tangents, being nostalgic for an old Ireland that wasn't as lovely as he imagined, etc. He's definitely not anti-woman though. He's a dude in his mid-70's who genuinely seems to worship women: Ingrid, Dr. Ciara Kelly, his Mother. His views on femininity might be old-fashioned, but there'd be no malice at all in it.

Your Face

Good ol' George - working the pigeons

strandroad

bilbot79 wrote: »

He's not condoning it. Some people are twisting the whole victim blaming thing now. Every Joe on the street knows that if an attractive girl gets comatose she's vulnerable to evil people that would do such things.

Women have just as much right to get into that state as anyone but those that do should beware. George will take a lot of flak for this but his words will do more to prevent rape than those who accuse him of victim blaming. It's been sage advice since the dawn of time. No amount of law or prevailing public opinion can stop rape happening.

Fact of the matter is nobody should ever get comatose cos you know full well you could get robbed, stabbed, beat up, raped and/or murdered with no way to defend yourself

She wasn't comatose though, she fought him off in the end too. She had a one night stand after drinks, like thousands of people do every night with both sides happy. And do you know what would really have an impact? If his lecture was to the "team player" lads who obviously never learned that it's not okay to pass your ons on. But no, we need to hear "women be careful" from the George Hooks and the Niamh Horans of this world again. How helpful and original.

Arghus

Having read what he had to say there I don't think he's condoning what happened to this girl in any way - he clearly thinks that she was the vicitm of a crime. He follows that on with some points about personal responsibility, because he makes that a series of follow on points, directly after talking about a rape it's easy to think that he's conflating the two, which I don't think he necessarily is. I think he's being a little bit clumsy and perhaps a bit insensitive, but I don't think he's saying anything too radical. If you have the intelligence to pick up the wider meaning of what he's trying to say, I'd think you'd be hard pressed to be genuinely outraged.

bilbot79

He's not condoning it. Some people are twisting the whole victim blaming thing now. Every Joe on the street knows that if an attractive girl gets comatose she's vulnerable to evil people that would do such things.

Women have just as much right to get into that state as anyone but those that do should beware. George will take a lot of flak for this but his words will do more to prevent rape than those who accuse him of victim blaming. It's been sage advice since the dawn of time. No amount of law or prevailing public opinion can stop rape happening.

Fact of the matter is nobody should ever get comatose cos you know full well you could get robbed, stabbed, beat up, raped and/or murdered with no way to defend yourself

Shenshen

I think the question of him condoning it comes with this sentence :

"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?" Straight from the article.
And I do wonder about someone who'd ask a question like that, yes. Because it's a question that does get asked most often in cases of rape - why did she put herself in danger getting drunk? Having a one night stand? Wearing such revealing clothes? Flirting with that stranger?

Think about it, it would be an odd question indeed to ask if it had been a young man beaten up - why did he put himself in danger getting drunk? Talking back to the dangerous looking fella with the baseball bat? Walking home alone in the dark? Isn't his recklessness assuming he'll be all right actually irresponsible behaviour on his part? Is there no blame on him for putting himself in danger and ending up in hospital?

But for some reason, and to some people, it's a valid question to ask when a woman gets raped.

meeeeh

I knew this is going to cause outrage the moment I heard it.

Anyway I would replace the word responsibility with probability. There is higher probability something will happen if you are pass out drunk and you go alone somewhere with a stranger or group of strangers. Does that make victim responsible? No. Is there less probability the rape would happen if the victim wasn't totally drunk, had friends with her or got taxi home? Yes. It's not victims fault if their house gets broken into but it will more likely happen if they advertise on facebook that they are on holidays.

There is very little consolidation in knowing it wasn't your fault once you are raped.

up for anything

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed it most certainly should, though that begs the question if one has some agency in these things, why not the other? Or are women agentless victims outa the box and we should just accept that regardless? Have men more agency and responsibility than women? So the drunk man has to take account and responsibility for his drunkeness, but also has to take account and responsibility for the woman's?

I have to say it really bloody well grinds my gears this modern "feminist" narrative of woman as the perpetual victim. It's damned near Victorian in outlook. And it's damned near everywhere in this narrative with it. It paints women as delicate, emotionally reactive and easily led creatures in near constant threat and in near constant need of societal protection, the poor dears. Bless. Doesn't sound like any women I know and have known. If anything I have found women to be generally more self deterministic and grounded overall than men. Maybe I just know outlier women and most are attention seeking, profligate Penelope Pitstop types screaming Heellllp all the time, but I bloody well doubt it.

I'm not asking any man to take account and responsibility for my actions. I just ask that if I'm staggering down the road past midnight and three sheets to the wind, with my skirt tucked into my knickers and unable to protect myself that he doesn't think that my body is his playground and make free with it. Just pass me by, laddie, pass me by and don't bloody pass me around.

I'm also not saying that women are "delicate, emotionally reactive and easily led creatures in near constant threat and in near constant need of societal protection" but in most cases, we are not as physically strong as men and therefore self-defence can be rather difficult.

Wibbs

up for anything wrote: »

Yes, Georgie, she surely is because in the same way that 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"

Maybe that personal responsibility should extend to your son and my son?

Indeed it most certainly should, though that begs the question if one has some agency in these things, why not the other? Or are women agentless victims outa the box and we should just accept that regardless? Have men more agency and responsibility than women? So the drunk man has to take account and responsibility for his drunkeness, but also has to take account and responsibility for the woman's?

I have to say it really bloody well grinds my gears this modern "feminist" narrative of woman as the perpetual victim. It's damned near Victorian in outlook. And it's damned near everywhere in this narrative with it. It paints women as delicate, emotionally reactive and easily led creatures in near constant threat and in near constant need of societal protection, the poor dears. Bless. Doesn't sound like any women I know and have known. If anything I have found women to be generally more self deterministic and grounded overall than men. Maybe I just know outlier women and most are attention seeking, profligate Penelope Pitstop types screaming Heellllp all the time, but I bloody well doubt it.

Wibbs

The problem I have with the victim blaming thing and the usual gnashing of teeth and bunching of knickers sure to follow if it's is brought up with the words personal responsibility chucked in, is that there are two different things going on. The rapist is... well, a rapist and the full force of law should be brought to bear on the bastard. The person who is raped bears no responsibility for the rapist's crime. However they do, or should have the cop on to realise that it is not the perfect world some people increasingly seem to believe it is and in such an imperfect world sh1t happens and we should be aware of that and take steps to avoid sh1t when it does.

QV: "Rape victim, Fiona Doyle, said Mr Hook's comments were "outrageous" and "offensive".../... Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish". Actually on the latter point, go ahead and try it. Quite likely to fall afoul of the law there. Anyway, yes women have the "right" to be drunk and most certainly have the right to say no, but they also in situations like the one Hook refers should have the cop and and responsibility to think "hang on, is this a good idea?".

The bit that is often missed in this and other narratives is rights are all very well, but responsibilities and the actual realities of life are nearly always left out in favour of the victim narrative.

BTW these cases are the minority of rape and sexual assault crimes. The vast majority occur where the victim knows their abuser/rapist and again usually happen in the most mundane and unexpected circumstances, where nothing short of a crystal ball would warn the victim in advance. But it's the "what the hell was she(and more rarely he) thinking" cases that get the blood up and the columns inches and clicks. Y'know the ones. The "we snogged for hours, I brought him back to my place we ate the wobbly bits off each other, started to have intercourse for a few minutes, but I thought no this is too much, but he kept going for a while before stopping. I was raped", or the "I think I was into it, but was too pissed to remember. I was raped".

up for anything

"But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her.

Yes, Georgie, she surely is because in the same way that 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"

Maybe that personal responsibility should extend to your son and my son? What determines the son who goes out, gets drunk, rapes a girl or the son that stays out, stays halfway sober and recognises that sexually assaulting a woman or man, because they are incapable of defending themselves for whatever reason or giving proper consent, is wrong and goes home without doing it. I'd say the former son acts like that because he's grown up listening to your victim blaming and righteous morality.

It's a good thing no one sensible pays much attention to George apart from wanting to give him a good right hook when they're stuck listening to his show for some reason.

lazybones32

Twitter, fb, bloggers and other perpetual web users are always pi$$ed of; offended/ outraged/horrified and indignant about something. It gets old real quick. Let them be outraged in the virtual world.

Hook shouldn't have used the word "responsibility". That is offensive to those who do not practise it.

Turtyturd

It's better to be wrong first than right second.