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

Pat Mustard

kylith wrote: »

When does she get tipsy enough that she gets to bear personal responsibility for a man forcing himself on her?

This is a loaded question, in the same vein as the notorious "are you still beating your wife?". There is an inbuilt presumption. Not a fair question.

Personal responsibility is independent of the factors that you mention.

midlandsmissus

I see today that someone said George Hook asked her what bra size she was wearing, when she started working with him.

George did say some fair points in his article, that it is the rapist's fault, and she didn't deserve rape.

What was wrong, is the he spoke solely about 'our daughters going out and getting drunk, our daughters going out and going home with strangers'. Why doesn't he hold young men to these same standards.

I wonder what the young man in question was thinking at this moment. She texted her friend for help. He knew he was about to ruin someone's life for his own pleasure. I think the thoughts were: 'women are worth much less than me, I will get away with it'

kylith

mzungu wrote: »

Are we reading the same thread?

The answer obviously is never. If you had read the thread you would have seen that has been the unanimous viewpoint.

No, the 'unanimous viewpoint' I'm seeing is that if a woman is drunk then she bears responsibility for putting herself in harms way.

To me this says that I can't go out and get drunk with my mates because if I'm raped that night people like those in this thread will see the fact that I was drunk as a fault on my side. Oh, sure they'll agree that 'the rapist is 100% to blame, but...'

kylith

Pat Mustard wrote: »

This is a loaded question, in the same vein as the notorious "are you still beating your wife?". There is an inbuilt presumption. Not a fair question.

Personal responsibility is independent of the factors that you mention.

But people here are tying a woman's personal responsibility to her level of drunkenness.

Pat Mustard

kylith wrote: »

But people here are tying a woman's personal responsibility to her level of drunkenness.

Surely, personal responsibility exists independently.

It seems to me that you were trying to link drink with responsibility, rather than other posters.

freshpopcorn

kylith wrote: »

No, the 'unanimous viewpoint' I'm seeing is that if a woman is drunk then she bears responsibility for putting herself in harms way.

To me this says that I can't go out and get drunk with my mates because if I'm raped that night people like those in this thread will see the fact that I was drunk as a fault on my side. Oh, sure they'll agree that 'the rapist is 100% to blame, but...'

Everybody is saying that the rapist is 100% to blame but people of all sexes need to understand that excess drinking can have very serious consequences and by drinking excessively you can get yourself into many dangerous situations that you'll find harder to deal with because of the amount of alcohol you've consumed.

markodaly

kylith wrote: »

But people here are tying a woman's personal responsibility to her level of drunkenness.

Are you serious? Unless someone has forced fed someone alcohol of course it is their responsibility. If someone gets plastered and ends up in A+E passed out, who is to blame there? The patriarchy?

mzungu

kylith wrote: »

No, the 'unanimous viewpoint' I'm seeing is that if a woman is drunk then she bears responsibility for putting herself in harms way.

Where? Can you point it out please?

kylith wrote: »

To me this says that I can't go out and get drunk with my mates because if I'm raped that night people like those in this thread will see the fact that I was drunk as a fault on my side. Oh, sure they'll agree that 'the rapist is 100% to blame, but...'

Nope, there is never a "but". The fact is that there are a fair few psychos out there, and while the chances of falling afoul of them are slim (more likely to be somebody known to the victim) it is a danger that everybody should be aware of. For those reasons, I never hitched a lift in my life, nor did I ever go back to somebody else's house unless I knew at least one other person there. I don't walk late at night on my own, anywhere. Chances are that I could do that my whole life and never have anything bad happen, but all it takes is to be unlucky once. I don't get why there is hysteria and furore about people taking measures to keep themselves safe.

arayess

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I see today that someone said George Hook asked her what bra size she was wearing, when she started working with him.

George did say some fair points in his article, that it is the rapist's fault, and she didn't deserve rape.

What was wrong, is the he spoke solely about 'our daughters going out and getting drunk, our daughters going out and going home with strangers'. Why doesn't he hold young men to these same standards.

that's a pretty skewed take to get on what Hook was saying.
maybe he was speaking in the context that in this case - a woman was claiming she was raped -

maybe hook being old fashioned knows (quite rightly) that woman aren't as strong as a man. a man who on average would stand a better chance at fighting off a rapist than a woman.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I wonder what the young man in question was thinking at this moment. She texted her friend for help. He knew he was about to ruin someone's life for his own pleasure. I think the thoughts were: 'women are worth much less than me, I will get away with it'

the jury didn't think he was guilty so maybe you should stop making stuff up to suit your own prejudices against men

you do know (because I'm sure you read about the case before commenting on it) there was no evidence she texted her friend for help which the defence pointed out..only her word.
I'm sure given the technology that they would have found that text pretty easily if it existed...but they didn't.

Timothy Evans, defending, pointed out that no text sent by the girl to a friend asking for help had ever been found.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4865368/Jury-fails-reach-verdict-swimmer-accused-rape.html

kylith

markodaly wrote: »

Are you serious? Unless someone has forced fed someone alcohol of course it is their responsibility. If someone gets plastered and ends up in A+E passed out, who is to blame there? The patriarchy?

Waking up in A&E is not being raped. Unless you've been beaten up chances are you're in A&E because of something you have done. Being raped is something that is done to you.

If a person gets plastered then the only thing they are only responsible for is getting plastered. If they are raped or jumped and beaten that is 100% on the perpetrator.

GritBiscuit

The vast majority of people know stealing is an awful thing to do but we don't leave keys in cars and hope appealing to the morals and ethics of potential car thieves will be enough.

People are a damn sight more precious than property, why the care we take with cars, houses, wallets and mobile phones is a given and yet any similar sentiment about people is shouted down with accusations of victim blaming is beyond me.

I have a daughter. It would be lovely to think she will never have to consider harm another human may inflict upon her person. In lieu of the kind of animals who preyed on that girl in the radio show spontaneously seeing the error of their ways because, well, it's the right thing to do...damn right I'm going to counsel my daughter in avoiding situations in which she is even more vulnerable than she already is.

RayM

An extract from Time Added On, Hook's autobiography:

retro:electro

kylith wrote: »

No, the 'unanimous viewpoint' I'm seeing is that if a woman is drunk then she bears responsibility for putting herself in harms way.

To me this says that I can't go out and get drunk with my mates because if I'm raped that night people like those in this thread will see the fact that I was drunk as a fault on my side. Oh, sure they'll agree that 'the rapist is 100% to blame, but...'

If you leave all the doors and windows to your house wide open when you leave, and you get robbed- whoever robbed your house is a scumbag and to blame for doing so, but you are partly responsible for that situation ever occurring. If you hadn't left them open- sure you may still have been robbed, these things always happen, but you have increased the probability of it ever happening by virtue of your negligence.

By the same token- if you're planning on going out and getting shi|tfaced, off you go. But maybe put some preventative measures in place for your safely. Maybe get a taxi home with friends. Make sure you all get in safe. Maybe don't go home with someone you've never met and don't know anything about. Again, this isn't iron clad protection and you may still get attacked, of course- but similar to above youre decreasing your probability of something bad happening to you.

Whoever rapes/robs/murders is ALWAYS to blame- but blame and responsibility aren't the same thing. It would be nice to walk around airy fairy and not have to worry about bad things happening, but alas we live in the real world. Taking some responsibility for yourself shouldn't be seen as an offensive suggestion.
It's really not that difficult.

markodaly

kylith wrote: »

Waking up in A&E is not being raped. Unless you've been beaten up chances are you're in A&E because of something you have done. Being raped is something that is done to you.

If a person gets plastered then the only thing they are only responsible for is getting plastered. If they are raped or jumped and beaten that is 100% on the perpetrator.

The very fact that if someone ends up in A&E, clogs up the system by their own personal irresponsibility, means that they are in fact irresponsible.

Now, there is very little consequences for this, apart from embarrassment perhaps, although I have heard calls for the NHS are trying to issue fines for such behaviour.

People seem to think that we live in some utopian world, like how the world ought to be and one should take any measure to mitigate risk out in the real world.

Next time you park your car on a public street, leave it unlocked, or even better leave the window open and something of value on the car seat. When you return and its gone, well who fault is it. The thief of course, they should not steal your stuff but was it wise to leave the window open. Of course not, doesn't absolve the thief of course, he is still a thief, just like a rapist is a scumbag and should be locked away for a long long time. So, do you lock your car?

Ulysses Gaze

TheDavester wrote: »

You know what this sort of crap will lead to?

It will solidify extremists on the far right.

This is social fascism. No opinions allowed expect the authorised ones.

Ridiculous. But damned dangerous.

Where is it going to end?

It ended up with Trump being elected as President of the USA

retro:electro

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I see today that someone said George Hook asked her what bra size she was wearing, when she started working with him.

George did say some fair points in his article, that it is the rapist's fault, and she didn't deserve rape.

What was wrong, is the he spoke solely about 'our daughters going out and getting drunk, our daughters going out and going home with strangers'. Why doesn't he hold young men to these same standards.

I wonder what the young man in question was thinking at this moment. She texted her friend for help. He knew he was about to ruin someone's life for his own pleasure. I think the thoughts were: 'women are worth much less than me, I will get away with it'

Is that Rosemary Mac Cabe you're referencing there? Is there any bandwagon she won't jump on? You should just ignore whatever she has to say about anything. She is nails on a chalkboard in human form.

Ray Palmer

TheDavester wrote: »

You know what this sort of crap will lead to?

It will solidify extremists on the far right.

This is social fascism. No opinions allowed expect the authorised ones.

Ridiculous. But damned dangerous.

Where is it going to end?

How do you suggest we differentiate what is acceptable to say? Or do you think everything is acceptable to say?

limnam

kylith wrote: »

No, the 'unanimous viewpoint' I'm seeing is that if a woman is drunk then she bears responsibility for putting herself in harms way.

To me this says that I can't go out and get drunk with my mates because if I'm raped that night people like those in this thread will see the fact that I was drunk as a fault on my side. Oh, sure they'll agree that 'the rapist is 100% to blame, but...'

You can do whatever you want.
You can also take responsibility and accountability for your decision making.

Going out with the plan of getting drunk is irresponsible.
You know if you get drunk your risk assessment and decision making is going to be off.
Now you decide to go back to a hotel/house/whatever with a complete stranger.

Every decision up to this point is your own, they all came with an element of risk.

So you're right, the rapist is 100% to blame for the crime. "But" people have to be accountable for their decisions.

It would be great to spike the water system with something that made people not rape so no one would have to worry about it.

But while there's a risk of it people need to be accountable for decisions that put them into high risk situations

Accountable for the decision, not the outcome.

TheDavester

Ray Palmer wrote: »

How do you suggest we differentiate what is acceptable to say? Or do you think everything is acceptable to say?

Stop bowing to the permanently outraged, 3rd wave feminists/virtue signallers pressure as what he said doesn't fit their agenda...he condemned the rape and all he was saying was to try to avoid ending up in precarious situations and you get the LON/Rosemary McCabe types being hysterical on twitter (and LON went for the pitchforks without hearing what he said according to her twitter) and exaggerating/twisting what he said

markodaly

I think we can look forward to many articles in the coming days from the Irish press twisting the knife on him.

TheDavester

markodaly wrote: »

I think we can look forward to many articles in the coming days from the Irish press twisting the knife on him.

Una Mullaley frantically writing now

One eyed Jack

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

This is basic common sense and for Hook to be taking heat for speaking what every body with their head screwed on knows is true is absolutely mental

This whole thing is BS

Anyone claiming to be outraged at what hook said is a w*nker

End of

Does George Hook bear no personal responsibility for his statements then?

I'm not at all outraged at what he said. Someone read that story to me this morning and all I could think was "*sigh*, it's George Hook", as much as to say "I've never given a tuppeny fcuk what George Hook has to say on anything, and I'm not about to start now".

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Personal responsibility is independent of the factors that you mention.

Personal responsibility is also independent of the causes of rape. Rape is committed by someone else, lacking in personal responsibility. Otherwise, just what standard of personal responsibility is enough to prevent oneself from being raped?

I'm sure I have a burqa and a steel chastity belt around here somewhere, and even then there's no guarantee I wouldn't be raped. The point being - it's bloody easy for someone else to determine after the fact that a person wasn't being personally responsible for themselves and that's why they were raped. Is it, really? We don't criminalise the victim, in this country at least. We still criminalise the perpetrator.

mzungu wrote: »

Nope, there is never a "but". The fact is that there are a fair few psychos out there, and while the chances of falling afoul of them are slim (more likely to be somebody known to the victim) it is a danger that everybody should be aware of. For those reasons, I never hitched a lift in my life, nor did I ever go back to somebody else's house unless I knew at least one other person there. I don't walk late at night on my own, anywhere. Chances are that I could do that my whole life and never have anything bad happen, but all it takes is to be unlucky once. I don't get why there is hysteria and furore about people taking measures to keep themselves safe.

While I do understand where you're coming from, it's not even a question of luck. I don't imagine you ever got home in one piece and thought "I was lucky I wasn't raped tonight", because there aren't too many people, unless they are incredibly paranoid, that do think like that, and I don't think it's a good idea to foster that sort of paranoia and mistrust of other people, in anyone.

While I understand the idea of personal responsibility, there are so, so many different scenarios, permutations and combinations of circumstances that can happen when you step outside your front door (and I've said this before, that more rapes happen behind closed doors), that nobody could possibly be expected to prepare for them all.

All someone who intends to rape you has to think of, is the one thing you haven't thought of, that nobody expects to be raped.

Dyr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point being - it's bloody easy for someone else to determine after the fact that a person wasn't being personally responsible for themselves and that's why they were raped. Is it, really? We don't criminalise the victim, in this country at least. We still criminalise the perpetrator.

Tell you what, next time you're away for the weekend turn your house alarm off and leave your windows open then see what the insurance company has to say about criminalizing the victim when they refuse to pay out for all your stuff being nicked

You are the captain of your ship.

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

Tell you what, next time you're away for the weekend turn your house alarm off and leave your windows open then see what the insurance company has to say about criminalizing the victim when they refuse to pay out for all your stuff being nicked

You are the captain of your ship.

That house analogy is quite frankly, and not to put too fine a point on it - a load of bollocks that's not even worth entertaining in the context of rape.

[Deleted User]

There's a call for the Clayton Hotels (sponsors) to be boycotted.

Ray Palmer

TheDavester wrote: »

Stop bowing to the permanently outraged, 3rd wave feminists/virtue signallers pressure as what he said doesn't fit their agenda...he condemned the rape and all he was saying was to try to avoid ending up in precarious situations and you get the LON/Rosemary McCabe types being hysterical on twitter (and LON went for the pitchforks without hearing what he said according to her twitter) and exaggerating/twisting what he said

So can we say something demeaning if we aren't the other person? Where is the line where it isn't acceptable. Isn't only feminist issues that bother you

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That house analogy is quite frankly, and not to put too fine a point on it - a load of bollocks that's not even worth entertaining in the context of rape.

Sorry but it's really not. The same principle applies. There will always be people who want to take what's not theirs. We need to do what we can on our side to minimise that happening. Why do people get so butt hurt at the idea of taking some responsibility for yourself?

TheDavester

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So can we say something demeaning if we aren't the other person? Where is the line where it isn't acceptable. Isn't only feminist issues that bother you

What did he say that indicates he was a rape apologist- he clearly stated people have to take some element of responsibility and all the pitchforks came out ,,, from the ultra liberal - extreme feminism gang who twist what's said and come out and hound anyone who doesn't follow their agenda and call you racist/sexist/rape apologist etc

RayM

markodaly wrote: »

I think we can look forward to many articles in the coming days from the Irish press twisting the knife on him.

I hope someone writes one about how Hook used to portray himself as a sort of harmless curmudgeonly centre-right/liberal Fine Gael supporter, who supported Obama in 2008, and once stood at a podium on the Late Late Show making a heartfelt plea for people to vote in favour of marriage equality. It's kind of cringe-worthy how, over the last couple of years, he's turned into a piss-poor excuse for a US-style "shock jock".

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

Sorry but it's really not. The same principal applies. There will always be people who want to take what's not theirs. We need to do what we can on our side to minimise that happening. Why do people get so butt hurt at the idea of taking some responsibility for yourself?

I'm not butt hurt at all (awkward phrasing there anna :pac:), but my point is - where do you stop? Even if I were to bolt up all my windows, doors, plug the chimneys, vacuum seal the house even, and someone comes along with a tool to overcome every safety measure and precaution I've taken, there's always, always, guaranteed to be some Inspector Clueless who will say "Sure why didn't you do such and such", as if what was only obvious to them, after the fact, is somehow something that should have been obvious before the fact.

Millions of adults go about their daily lives and they aren't raped, until they are. What changed in those circumstances? The presence of a person who chose to rape them. They couldn't possibly have accounted for that fact unless they adopt the mindset that everyone else is a potential rapist, and they being personally responsible for themselves means they should never leave their house for fear that to do so would be personally irresponsible.

Is that really the sort of paranoia and suspicion we want to be encouraging in society?