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

Snake Plisken

They have aparantly started a partition to have him removed from Newstalk. They are targeting advertisers! What a sad society we live in, I'd say the usual George haters on here are overjoyed with the news!
Look at this dope's tweet
https://twitter.com/miriamkivlehan/status/906588977960013830

jooksavage

Snake Plisken wrote: »

They have aparantly started a partition to have him removed from Newstalk. They are targeting advertisers! What a sad society we live in, I'd say the usual George haters on here are overjoyed with the news!
Look at this dope's tweet
https://twitter.com/miriamkivlehan/status/906588977960013830

I'm no fan of Hook's and I think he was way off the mark on this one but I don't agree with this. Hook is entitled to his opinion and Chris Donohoe, Colm O'Gorman etc. are perfectly entitled to challenge him. This kind of thing doesn't serve anybody, it just makes Hook look like the persecuted champion of free-speech instead of the thoughtless blowhard that he is.

sligojoek

It's being discussed on Radio 1 now

[Deleted User]

PeterTheNinth wrote:

With the reaction that this has got, I was expecting something far worse. Of all the things that he has come out with, I cant believe that he's had to apologise for this. The basic premise of his argument is that we are ALL vulnerable when we are drunk, and while we should all feel safe enough to pass out and not have somebody sexually assaulting us, it might be better to just not pass out in the first place. I don't think anywhere in that you find Hook blaming the victim, as our hero Chris Donoghue suggested.

What you quoted isn't why he is in trouble or why Clayton Hotels said today that they might pull out of the hook show.

This is what is causing him trouble
"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"
He tried to put blame on the victim.

Vorenus400

There doesnt seem to be much coverage of it in sunday papers. There is more coverage of the apology than the incident and the fallout.

Found this in the Indo and its linked from Business post

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clayton-hotels-threatens-to-pull-sponsorship-from-newstalk-over-george-hook-rape-comments-36117390.html

Pat McCann, the Chief Executive of Dalata, who own the Clayton Hotels, hit out at the High Noon host yesterday and threatened to withdraw its sponsorship.
Speaking to the Sunday Business Post, he said: “George Hook is fundamentally out of touch with reality. I am the father of two daughters and I find those types of comments totally unacceptable.

“This contract is up for renewal in October and this will bring into focus whether we will continue to sponsor the programme.”

So its not just people on twitter kicking up a fuss

Lady Chatterton

The Clayton Hotel group are piling on the pressure now too.

Pat McCann, the Chief Executive of Dalata, who own the Clayton Hotels, hit out at the High Noon host yesterday and threatened to withdraw its sponsorship.

Speaking to the Sunday Business Post, he said: “George Hook is fundamentally out of touch with reality. I am the father of two daughters and I find those types of comments totally unacceptable.

“This contract is up for renewal in October and this will bring into focus whether we will continue to sponsor the programme.”

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clayton-hotels-threatens-to-pull-sponsorship-from-newstalk-over-george-hook-rape-comments-36117390.html

I would hate for George's career to end like this. I sincerely hope that the matter can be resolved without his resignation.

What would be achieved by George's resignation? In my view, nothing good. I'm distraught that a broadcaster can potentially be bullied out of his job over some clumsy remarks which he has apologied for, yet there has been over a million fake breath tests, fraud and whistleblower scandals in the Garda Siochana and our Garda Commissioner is still sitting pretty. People need to seriously wake up and get outraged by real issues.

The only outcome that I can see from this and the Meyers scandal is our journalists are going to become gutless and bland. They're are going to be permanently muzzled. There was a time journalists were afraid of losing their homes because of a costly libel action, these days they're more likely to be taken down by a band of social media warriors.

Vorenus400

[QUOTE=

The only outcome that I can see from this and the Meyers scandal is our journalists are going to become gutless and bland. They're are going to be permanently muzzled. There was a time journalists were afraid of losing their homes because of a costly libel action, these days they're more likely to be taken down by a band of social media warriors.[/QUOTE]

George was never slow to start a libel action himself. Not sure if he ever followed one through to the end though.
His constant outrage everyday is similar to the sjw crowd online. He has called for multiple people to be sacked or fired. Look at his recent spat with Varadkar. There are times on his show where Micheal Graham the american shock jock comes out as the more sane and composed of the 2.

His show is based on outrage and he is/was much better than that, Katie Hopkins has shown how fast your star can grow by saying some stupid things and then just saying that it is common sense.

pitifulgod

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

The Clayton Hotel group are piling on the pressure now too.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clayton-hotels-threatens-to-pull-sponsorship-from-newstalk-over-george-hook-rape-comments-36117390.html

I would hate for George's career to end like this. I sincerely hope that the matter can be resolved without his resignation.

What would be achieved by George's resignation? In my view, nothing good. I'm distraught that a broadcaster can potentially be bullied out of his job over some clumsy remarks which he has apologied for, yet there has been over a million fake breath tests, fraud and whistleblower scandals in the Garda Siochana and our Garda Commissioner is still sitting pretty. People need to seriously wake up and get outraged by real issues.

The only outcome that I can see from this and the Meyers scandal is our journalists are going to become gutless and bland. They're are going to be permanently muzzled. There was a time journalists were afraid of losing their homes because of a costly libel action, these days they're more likely to be taken down by a band of social media warriors.

He said that a woman bears some of the blame for having a one night stand where an entirely different man walks into the room and rapes her. That is an utterly contemptible remark and it's not the first time he's taken jab at survivors of rape.

Conservative

I heard the show live and 100% agreed with what he was getting at but I think he could have approached and worded it better.

I was away for a few days so I didn't realise it was in the news until I saw George plastered all over the front pages today.

I thought no more of it until I tuned in to hear Chris Donoghue and his panel (on behalf on management it would seem) do a hatchet job on George - no chance of inviting someone in that wasnt all too willing to pile on.

The comments here suggest he was at least partially behind the feigned outrage.

I hope I am wrong but judging by what they just broadcast I think it's an excuse to get rid of George a year early.

constitutionus

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

The Clayton Hotel group are piling on the pressure now too.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clayton-hotels-threatens-to-pull-sponsorship-from-newstalk-over-george-hook-rape-comments-36117390.html

I would hate for George's career to end like this. I sincerely hope that the matter can be resolved without his resignation.

What would be achieved by George's resignation? In my view, nothing good. I'm distraught that a broadcaster can potentially be bullied out of his job over some clumsy remarks which he has apologied for, yet there has been over a million fake breath tests, fraud and whistleblower scandals in the Garda Siochana and our Garda Commissioner is still sitting pretty. People need to seriously wake up and get outraged by real issues.

The only outcome that I can see from this and the Meyers scandal is our journalists are going to become gutless and bland. They're are going to be permanently muzzled. There was a time journalists were afraid of losing their homes because of a costly libel action, these days they're more likely to be taken down by a band of social media warriors.

im still baffled as to how the fuk hundreds of gardai arent in danger of being sacked for gross miscondunct.

making up stats is practically a fecking definintion of it, yet NO outcry or call for it.

i can only assume the "good and the great" are fupping terrified of the gardai.

arrianalexander

constitutionus wrote: »

im still baffled as to how the fuk hundreds of gardai arent in danger of being sacked for gross miscondunct.

making up stats is practically a fecking definintion of it, yet NO outcry or call for it.

i can only assume the "good and the great" are fupping terrified of the gardai.

no outcry???
There has been calls for Commissioner to be sack/ resign for the past few months and all this week and it wasn't just limited to the commissioner. Those in Government (in power) can't because it could lead to cases of "constructive dismissal"

constitutionus

I said "gardai".

NOT comissioner. theyre names are on these reports so why arent they sacked.

constructive dismissal has fuk all to do with the lads that did the deeds and no one in the medias calling for that.

[Deleted User]

Conservative wrote:

I thought no more of it until I tuned in to hear Chris Donoghue and his panel (on behalf on management it would seem) do a hatchet job on George - no chance of inviting someone in that wasnt all too willing to pile on.

In fairness inviting someone on to defend George would have someone on the station defending victim blaming. This would not be a good move for the station

arrianalexander

constitutionus wrote: »

I said "gardai".

NOT comissioner. theyre names are on these reports so why arent they sacked.

constructive dismissal has fuk all to do with the lads that did the deeds and no one in the medias calling for that.

Sorry, you are right let's sack 100's if not 1000's ?of Gardai, my apologies . But only the lads as you say, not the female Gardai .

arrianalexander

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In fairness inviting someone on to defend George would have someone on the station defending victim blaming. This would not be a good move for the station

George apologized he isn't looking for anyone to defend him. And I doubt he would want someone defending comments he himself can't defend .

[Deleted User]

constitutionus wrote:

I said "gardai".

They have to be investigated first. Think I read yesterday that they have to interview over 1000 Gardai. That's going to take a few weeks.

constitutionus

arrianalexander wrote: »

Sorry, you are right let's sack 100's if not 1000's ?of Gardai, my apologies . But only the lads as you say, not the female Gardai .

you'd rather KEEP hunderds of liars who' may testify againsts you in court resulting in a miscarrage of justice ?

good luck with that then.

the force needs an absolute rout.

Conservative

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Conservative wrote:

I thought no more of it until I tuned in to hear Chris Donoghue and his panel (on behalf on management it would seem) do a hatchet job on George - no chance of inviting someone in that wasnt all too willing to pile on.

In fairness inviting someone on to defend George would have someone on the station defending victim blaming. This would not be a good move for the station

There is a difference between getting someone in to defend him and carefully selecting guests that would do Chris' dirty work for him. One of them in particular clearly disliked George and brought up other issues unrelated to his comments last week.

It reminds me of the time Sky leaked all that footage to get rid of football presenters they no longer wanted.

The only difference is they have stitched George up, created a load of fake outrage, forced him to "apologise" and then done a hatchet job on him at first opportunity.

No mention of having worked with him for 13 years, his good character etc. If they don't deem him worthy of that they shouldn't have employed him all these years.

Den14

Lady Chatterton wrote:

The only outcome that I can see from this and the Meyers scandal is our journalists are going to become gutless and bland. They're are going to be permanently muzzled. There was a time journalists were afraid of losing their homes because of a costly libel action, these days they're more likely to be taken down by a band of social media warriors.

You are absolutely right. It's this trajectory of social justice warrior mindset led society that we've been heading towards for some time. Freedom of speech is being eroded away and anybody who dares speak their mind and has even the slightest divergence of opinion from these SJWs will instantly labelled racist, homophobe, misogynist etc.
Big companies are now being forced to take action and Newstalk is no exception. Just look at Google where an employee who was fired for writing a 3,000-word internal memo about gender differences. It was completely science based and I believe he was genuinely not out to cause offence but what do ya know the usual crowd did take offence and that was the end for him.
I think George however sometimes clumsy with his arguments is a breath of fresh air. A source of different opinion which is important to get conversation going. If each and every one of us are to sing every word from exact same hymnsheet it is quickly going to become a very stale society indeed

Morgans

Den14 wrote: »

You are absolutely right. It's this trajectory of social justice warrior mindset led society that we've been heading towards for some time. Freedom of speech is being eroded away and anybody who dares speak their mind and has even the slightest divergence of opinion from these SJWs will instantly labelled racist, homophobe, misogynist etc.
Big companies are now being forced to take action and Newstalk is no exception. Just look at Google where an employee who was fired for writing a 3,000-word internal memo about gender differences. It was completely science based and I believe he was genuinely not out to cause offence but what do ya know the usual crowd did take offence and that was the end for him.
I think George however sometimes clumsy with his arguments is a breath of fresh air. A source of different opinion which is important to get conversation going. If each and every one of us are to sing every word from exact same hymnsheet it is quickly going to become a very stale society indeed

You can be a breath of fresh air without claiming that those raped are somehow responsible for being raped, or that the jews know a thing or two about making money. Hook should be called up a long time ago for the bollixology he spouts. The piling on from virtue signallers (Chris Donoghue consistently wanting to be on the right side of the arguement) is as predictable as the free-speech brigade that ride to the defence of Hook, Myers etc. In general, society is better served by broadcasters being less racist and offensive is better than hiding behind 'free speech' while being more racist and offensive. I find it suspicious if those broadcasters/journalists have a vested interest in being racist, offensive, telling-it-like-it-is, PC gone mad, whether it is more ratings, higher salary etc. What did Michael D say to Michael Graham 'A wanker whipping up fear'.

The most telling part of this is just how quick George folded when cash got threatened.

Lady Chatterton

I touched on this yesterday in a previous post but I believe we need people like George who are prepared to share their opinions and create debate. The alternative is radio studios filled with Shane Coleman types. I have a lot of time for Shane, he is a hardworking and decent journalist but he is absolutely terrified of saying anything that could be deeem remotely controversial.

I'm concerned that we're living at a time where we are being told how we should think and what is acceptable language to use. I worked for a large multi-national company a few years ago and we had all sort of days to promote awareness of various social issues. I don't think it achieved much because many of my colleagues at the time felt pressurised, they wanted to be seen to supporting such events but there was no sincerity behind it. I fear that there are lots of people who appear to be very PC but really it's just a superficial thing to make them look good.

I remember back in 2003 this country jumped on the Special Olympics bandwagon, there were loads of people and businesses wanting to be associated with it. I thought at the time that the event would do marvellous things to improve the lives of people living with disabiliities and their carers. However, 14 years on there are parents of children with special needs ringing Joe Duffy begging for access to basic services such as respite, a place in a school, Occupational therapy and so on. Joe will politely ask what the child's difference? Using PC language and sharing 'I stand with the people of ...' statuses on Facebook does nothing to improve their lot, only actions will.

That's why I feel that those campaigning now for George's removal should look at the bigger picture, like how victims of sexual assault are actually treated from the time they report an assault. Why are the Rape Crisis Centres around the country constantly fundraising to keep centres open? What about the rape victims that have trouble accessing counselling due to cuts to the various services? What about campaigning for tougher sentences for prisoners convicted of rape/child abuse, especially those who refuse to take part in rehabilitation programmes.

foxtrot101

George knew what he was doing, in so much as this is how he has started nearly every show since the inception of High Noon...say something that you know will piss enough people off to get those 30 cent texts rolling. He knew full well there would be a negative reaction to what he said, but he spectacularly misjudged the extent of that reaction this time and it has bit him the ass. I'm just surprised it has taken this long to happen.

quintana76

foxtrot101 wrote: »

George knew what he was doing, in so much as this is how he has started nearly every show since the inception of High Noon...say something that you know will piss enough people off to get those 30 cent texts rolling. He knew full well there would be a negative reaction to what he said, but he spectacularly misjudged the extent of that reaction this time and it has bit him the ass. I'm just surprised it has taken this long to happen.

Do we now live in a dystopian alternative universe? Since when was sensibly advising people to take personal responsibility for their actions deemed offensive?
The PC brigade are running rampant over any expression of opinion that doesn't follow the (constantly shifting) party line.
It wouldn't matter if it wasn't for the connivance of most of the media. Most outlets are merely propaganda organs. Try RTE news.
Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

duploelabs

quintana76 wrote: »

Do we now live in a dystopian alternative universe? Since when was sensibly advising people to take personal responsibility for their actions deemed offensive?
The PC brigade are running rampant over any expression of opinion that doesn't follow the (constantly shifting) party line.
It wouldn't matter if it wasn't for the connivance of most of the media. Most outlets are merely propaganda organs. Try RTE news.
Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

A tenner says you've never read any George Orwell

quintana76

duploelabs wrote: »

A tenner says you've never read any George Orwell

And fifty says you never have, or if you did, understood it.

southstar

Obvious Otter wrote: »

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.

I agree....they should be banned from nightclubs

quintana76

southstar wrote: »

I agree....they should be banned from nightclubs

Just clueless!

SureYWouldntYa

I'm really not getting all the outrage over the Hook comments, what he said about personal responsibility is correct imo

You're at home and you leave your front door open, as is your right since it's your home and nobody should come inside uninvited. If that person was robbed would anybody have any sympathy for the person robbed? Obviously getting raped is worse than being robbed but I'm talking about doing things that increase your risk of bad things happening

Rape should never happen but putting yourself into those situations with strange people and getting drunk to the point where you aren't in control increases the chance of something bad happening because there are evil people

retro:electro

I posted this on another thread earlier but am going to post it here too because I find myself agreeing with a lot that's being said here.

I think the narrative that "feminists" are peddling nowadays is actually very damaging and dangerous. Within their dialogue of "challenging oppression" they've created this false theory that woman can do whatever they want whenever they want.
"Want to walk home alone late at night? Do it! Want to go home with a man you just met and don't know from adam? Do it! Want to walk around naked for the rest of your life? Do. It.
You have the right to do whatever you want! It's people around you who need to change their behaviour, not you. You are perfect and can do what you want."

For an ideology whose dogma is supposedly about "consciousness raising" and "supporting women", this all sounds like a load of dangerous bollox to me, and it's not something I'd want me daughter (if i ever have one) to be listening to. Being told to mind yourself and be careful shouldn't be seen as tearing down women and shouldering blame. It should be seen as supporting them and encouraging them to be responsible for themselves. Nobody else is.

We all take measures every single day that restrict our liberty in order to protect ourselves.
We have freedom of speech but we don't go around mouthing off and telling people what we think of them. We censor ourselves to avoid getting punched in the fcuking face.

We have freedom of movement and travel but we often don't take risks that'll increase our chances of being attacked or killed. I could go on but we do things like this every single day without even thinking. But for some reason the suggestion that you take care of yourself and avoid risky situations on nights out is too hard for some people to handle and is seen as victim blaming.

George wasn't blaming the woman either. He was just trying to advocate for personal responsibility, and where there is a lack of it- bad things may happen to you. He's just not very articulate and people have a go cos he's an auld one. I wouldn't be a fan of his, in fact I'd probably turn the channel if he came on- but looking at what he was saying as a whole, I find it hard to disagree with it in principle.

PeterTheNinth

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

I touched on this yesterday in a previous post but I believe we need people like George who are prepared to share their opinions and create debate. The alternative is radio studios filled with Shane Coleman types. I have a lot of time for Shane, he is a hardworking and decent journalist but he is absolutely terrified of saying anything that could be deeem remotely controversial.

I've said this before, but I believe that one of the main reasons that Hook is prepared to ask the sort of questions that are not politically correct (but yet are likely being asked at every dinner table around the country) is that he doesnt really care hugely if he gets fired... He was going to retire anyway. Most of the other Newstalk presenters are terrified to say anything controversial, because with the way the liberals use social media to vilify anybody who says anything they deem to be offensive, your career could be killed instantly with one wayward remark.

It really is at the point now that if you plan to have a career in radio presenting, then you better adopt liberal views very quickly. Otherwise you will be hounded out by the Una Mullaly types that get offended at the slightest thing. Newstalk used to argue that they were not aligned with any ideology, given that "Dil represents the views of the left, and Hook represents the views of the right". But I think probably the most natural conclusion to this should be that Hook should leave, and this whole facade of Newstalk representing ALL views (and not just liberal) can be dispensed with.