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

Eric Cartman

He apologised for what the radical left felt he meant, rather than what he actually meant. The apology is a hollow one meant purely to save his job, that said I would have done the same thing.

People have made a mountain out of a mole hill here, and yet again, the idea that anyone should take any responsibility to minimise risk to themselves is deemed as offensive.

Nobody condoned rape or placed blame on the victim , it didnt happen, continues not to happen and hopefully now this will all quiet down until the next time people blow up about something trivial.

hullaballoo

Will you come off it with the left/right crap. This is about the farthest thing from a political issue imaginable, never mind left/right wing politics.

It's an absolutely outlandish proposition that this is somehow a left vs right issue.

walshb

I don't like Hook one bit but he was spot on in in my book on his views, and he did not one bit condone the crime of rape. He asked questions that we as a law abiding and decent species should be asking.

In a perfect and peaceful world nobody would have to think twice about the decisions they make. We don't live in that world, and never will, hence the absolute need to think about our choices and decisions.

Calhoun

walshb wrote: »

I don't like Hook one bit but he was spot on in in my book on his views, and he did not one bit condone the crime of rape. He asked questions that we as a law abiding and decent species should be asking.

In a perfect and peaceful world nobody would have to think twice about the decisions they make. We don't live in that world, and never will, hence the absolute need to think about our choices and decisions.

There has to be some recognition for the damage these comments can have unchallenged, its not just the impact on women but his view is nearly that the default stance of men is to rape. He would have been best advising people going out drinking should all be very careful with their own safety.

The other part of this however is that he is being dogpiled by people who dont like him in general, allot were not happy with the recent changes in the statin that saw the drivetime presenters replaced while older folks like hook are in place. You also then have the usual suspects who don't necessarily like men pushing for as much publicity as possible.

NIMAN

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Yes I agree. I'd be not radical left but fairly left and I wouldn't want to be lumped in with that professionally outraged sh1te.

We're turning into a society of clowns. (Not aimed at that left comment, just in general)

There seems to be an element now who want people's life's ruined for any mistakes they make.

I listened to The Last Word today and they had an unbalanced debate, with 2 guests on ripping George to pieces. No-one in support of Hook, maybe everyone is afraid to be seen to agree with his views for fear of the Internet posse hunting them down too.

The man has apologised, but some want blood. They want him sacked. His career ruined, simply for expressing his opinion.

I fear for the future. In 20 or 30 years there will be no debate shows as people won't express what they think any more.

Whatever happened to " well I don't agree with you but you're entitled to your opinion".

hullaballoo

I have to say that despite my overall views on this issue and Hook himself, the Last Word piece was exactly what has been said here. A hatchet job.

I was internally cringing for the whole thing and wondering wtf Hook ever did to Cooper.

godtabh

hullaballoo wrote: »

I was internally cringing for the whole thing and wondering wtf Hook ever did to Cooper.

Cooper doesnt Hook. He has made that point several times. Sticking the knife was probably the motivation

godtabh

Hook's sponsorship is gone

http://www.thejournal.ie/george-hook-newstalk-sponsorship-3591683-Sep2017/

I'd say that's him gone.

Calhoun

This is where your whole not about the left or right argument comes in to play. The radical left as someone else phrased above make it their mission to destroy people and entities that step out of line of popular opinion.

Why be anything but surprised that it was a hatchet job, cut off the limb to save the overall host so to speak.

retro:electro

hullaballoo wrote: »

I have to say that despite my overall views on this issue and Hook himself, the Last Word piece was exactly what has been said here. A hatchet job.

I was internally cringing for the whole thing and wondering wtf Hook ever did to Cooper.

I was shaking my head listening to it. Whatever happened to Matt. He used to have balls.

hullaballoo

godtabh wrote: »

Cooper doesnt Hook. He has made that point several times. Sticking the knife was probably the motivation

Of course he doesn't. No one likes Hook.

But publicly calling for the man's head on a platter - even for Cooper who's shot whatever remnants of journalistic integrity to shreds in the past few years - I thought it went a bit far.

godtabh

hullaballoo wrote: »

Of course he doesn't. No one likes Hook.

But publicly calling for the man's head on a platter - even for Cooper whose shot whatever remnants of journalistic integrity to shreds in the past few years - I thought it went a bit far.

could't care less. just stating that matt and george have history so it shouldn't have been a surprise

retro:electro

godtabh wrote: »

could't care less. just stating that matt and george have history so it shouldn't have been a surprise

He had two guests on, both ripping George to shreds. Not at all balanced. Say hello to the future of debate.

[Deleted User]

anna080 wrote:

He had two guests on, both ripping George to shreds. Not at all balanced. Say hello to the future of debate.

Sounds like the show George did on the vaccine

hullaballoo

Calhoun wrote: »

This is where your whole not about the left or right argument comes in to play. The radical left as someone else phrased above make it their mission to destroy people and entities that step out of line of popular opinion.

That's not left wing politics. That's my point. There is a cohort of people who conflate the perpetually offended with being "radical left wing" whatever that means. Being offended is not a political stand-point. Outrage is not a political stand-point.

Without getting bogged down in political theory, whether you believe Hook's comments were right or wrong or down the middle, it's not a political issue. It's a moral one that has nothing to do with policy.

Mr E

Did anyone hear Mary Coughlin on the Hard Shoulder at about 6:15? She basically said "Buy my tickets here (and named the website). I'm sorry this happened on your show but I'm disgusted with what happened on Newstalk and I'm not staying for this interview".

Ivan tried to get her to stay but she got up and walked off.

It was real WTF radio, somewhat diminished by the plug she got in before leaving.

walshb

Mr E wrote: »

Did anyone hear Mary Coughlin on the Hard Shoulder at about 6:15? She basically said "Buy my tickets here (and named the website). I'm sorry this happened on your show but I'm disgusted with what happened on Newstalk and I'm not staying for this interview".

Ivan tried to get her to stay but she got up and walked off.

It was real WTF radio, somewhat diminished by the plug she got in before leaving.

Attention seeking...reeked of it

More mad is who d fook buys tickets to listen to that woman "sing?"

NIMAN

If Couglan did that, well shame on her.

If she had honestly been annoyed she would have not attended the interview, or turned up, said her piece then walk out, but to blag tickets is embarrassing.

She should be ashamed of herself

retro:electro

Mr E wrote: »

Did anyone hear Mary Coughlin on the Hard Shoulder at about 6:15? She basically said "Buy my tickets here (and named the website). I'm sorry this happened on your show but I'm disgusted with what happened on Newstalk and I'm not staying for this interview".

Ivan tried to get her to stay but she got up and walked off.

It was real WTF radio, somewhat diminished by the plug she got in before leaving.

Jaysus really? Gas how she's so morally righteous about the station but not before she comfortably uses it to plug her gig.

PeterTheNinth

hullaballoo wrote: »

That's not left wing politics. That's my point. There is a cohort of people who conflate the perpetually offended with being "radical left wing" whatever that means. Being offended is not a political stand-point. Outrage is not a political stand-point.

It's more to do with certain groups within Irish society that are considered "victim groups".. The groups that Dil represents on Victim Village on a Saturday night. These groups are considered to have been wronged in the past and, as such, have no responsibility for anything in the present.

If a guy had got plastered and went home with a girl he didnt know.... then woke up in the morning and his wallet and phone were gone. Everybody would say "Well he was very drunk and he didn't know her, what did he expect". Newstalk lecture us every day that women should be treated as equals... right to their own bodies, rights to equal pay, rights to be treated in the very same way as a male... but they don't want us equally questioning this event in the same way that we would if it was a man involved. And that is hypocrisy.

Morgans

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

It's more to do with certain groups within Irish society that are considered "victim groups".. The groups that Dil represents on Victim Village on a Saturday night. These groups are considered to have been wronged in the past and, as such, have no responsibility for anything in the present.

If a guy had got plastered and went home with a girl he didnt know.... then woke up in the morning and his wallet and phone were gone. Everybody would say "Well he was very drunk and he didn't know her, what did he expect". Newstalk lecture us every day that women should be treated as equals... right to their own bodies, rights to equal pay, rights to be treated in the very same way as a male... but they don't want us equally questioning this event in the same way that we would if it was a man involved. And that is hypocrisy.

Have seen being raped compared to having wallets stolen, cars robbed, houses broken into throughout this thread as if they were comparable.

Interesting how no one has compared the experience of a man having a few drinks, hooking up with a girl, who when at home gets introduced to their huge (in all senses) male flatmate, who during the night overpowers him, and unable to fight back or run away from someone more powerful physically, is for the want of a better word, penetrated, perhaps repeatedly. Maybe has to confront the decision as to whether its worth fighting or not. Even then I guess, at least he will know that he isn't pregnant. Guess, he put himself in danger and when he had those drinks, and when he hooked up wtih the girl, he really should have known better. He'd better not bleat on and on about being a victim when struggling physically and mentally afterwards. Interesting no one has compared that situation to the female victims. Wallets being stolen is close enough. Imagine if Hook had got himself into this mess over a girl having her purse stolen by her one night stand. As if the consequences in the lapses of personal responsibility are in any way comparable.

Some victims are better than others.

Den14

Morgans wrote:

Interesting how no one has compared the experience of a man having a few drinks, hooking up with a girl, who when at home gets introduced to their huge (in all senses) male flatmate, who during the night overpowers him, and unable to fight back or run away from someone more powerful physically, is for the want of a better word, penetrated, perhaps repeatedly. Maybe has to confront the decision as to whether its worth fighting or not. Even then I guess, at least he will know that he isn't pregnant. Guess, he put himself in danger and when he had those drinks, and when he hooked up wtih the girl, he really should have known better. He'd better not bleat on and on about being a victim when struggling physically and mentally afterwards. Interesting no one has compared that situation to the female victims. Wallets being stolen is close enough.

Maybe being mauled to death for not being careful on safari would be a better analogy.

Morgans

Den14 wrote: »

Maybe being mauled to death for not being careful on safari would be a better analogy.

Not sure myself how a woman being raped is more easily compared to being mauled on safari than a man being raped.

tsue921i8wljb3

hullaballoo wrote: »

Will you come off it with the left/right crap. This is about the farthest thing from a political issue imaginable, never mind left/right wing politics.

It's an absolutely outlandish proposition that this is somehow a left vs right issue.

This forum is toxic and has been for quite a while. It serves a an "alt" politics forum for those who cannot or do not wish to engage in the main politics forum. Most topics here break down into left vs right squabbles.

hullaballoo

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

It's more to do with certain groups within Irish society that are considered "victim groups".. The groups that Dil represents on Victim Village on a Saturday night. These groups are considered to have been wronged in the past and, as such, have no responsibility for anything in the present.

If a guy had got plastered and went home with a girl he didnt know.... then woke up in the morning and his wallet and phone were gone. Everybody would say "Well he was very drunk and he didn't know her, what did he expect". Newstalk lecture us every day that women should be treated as equals... right to their own bodies, rights to equal pay, rights to be treated in the very same way as a male... but they don't want us equally questioning this event in the same way that we would if it was a man involved. And that is hypocrisy.

I agree with that somewhat. Everything you say is true, although the unnecessary dig at Global Village undermines that.

However, what's missing here is an appreciation of a few very salient points. Firstly, Hook isn't some oaf lambasting x, y and z from a barstool. He's a national radio presenter. His broadcast views carry weight.

The second and more important point is that victims of sexual assault are very, very slow to report assaults. They will use ANY reason they can not to report the crime. They will find a reason to make it their fault. It is unique in the criminal sphere and I can attest to that as a lawyer. Victims of other crimes quite readily report them. Robbery, burglary, simple assault, fraud etc. all of the victims will immediately go to AGS.

Sexual crime is different and as a result, the convenient analogies rife in this thread have no application. If you get mugged, even if it's because you were in the wrong part of town, wearing the wrong clothes, at the wrong time, you will report it. If you are raped, you will immediately blame yourself.

Thirdly, but related to the above, the seriousness of the offence has to be taken into account. Sexual assault and rape changes the victims' lives for good. Permanently. If you get burgled, which I view as an invasive crime, you eventually get past it. You might always be more vigilant about setting the alarm and locking the doors but you are generally ok to continue in relationships and with your life in general.

If you've been raped, **** all that. You're different now. You can never get over it. You can only learn to cope.

So, with all of that in mind, why were Hook's comments so lambasted? As a presenter on a national broadcaster, there's no way that he should be giving the victims of rape another reason not to report the crime. Oh, I was drunk/wearing the wrong clothes/leading him on/made one of any number of mistakes and the fact that someone raped me was perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

No.

Victims of this sort of crime are unique as the crime is unique and its effects are unique. That's why it's problematic for Hook to have said what he did, though everyone can see exactly where he's coming from, the comments were off the mark, dangerous and ultimately, doing more to facilitate sexual assault than deal with the very negative but prevalent societal issue.

Den14

Morgans wrote:

Not sure myself how a woman being raped is more easily compared to being mauled on safari than a man being raped.

I'm just attempting to raise to the level of devestation. It's difficult to make any comparison.

Morgans

Den14 wrote: »

I'm just attempting to raise to the level of devestation. It's difficult to make any comparison.

With respect what is easier than comparing a woman being raped to a man being raped?

It's also not all that uncommon. I'd guess it's more common than safari maulings

DickSwiveller

Morgans wrote: »

With respect what is easier than comparing a woman being raped to a man being raped?

It's also not all that uncommon. I'd guess it's more common than safari maulings

It is uncommon for a man to be raped. Very uncommon.

applehunter

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It is uncommon for a man to be raped. Very uncommon.

Well going by what hullaballoo asserts I would say a man would be very slow to reveal being raped (presumably by another man).

I'm sure I've heard a comedy bit about this.

edit > found it

hullaballoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It is uncommon for a man to be raped. Very uncommon.

It's actually impossible for a man to be raped under Irish law.

Sure, there's s. 4 rape which might cover some instances but for pure rape, it can only be a man raping a woman.

My view is that it's messed up but there is apparently no incentive to change that from a legislative point of view.