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

jooksavage

Yeah that's the thing. O'Donohoe has always maintained his credentials as a feminist. It wasnt like he was "soft on rape" and suddenly reversed himself to have a pop at Hook.

RustyNut

maxwell smart wrote: »

And Chris O'Donoghue is right at the head of the queue. He has either been waiting in the grass for George for some time or he thinks the new title means he is some sort of authority, I can't figure out which it is

Or maybe he just thinks that what hook said was unacceptable.

jooksavage

quintana76 wrote: »

I said controversial. He showed his usual bravery by showboating how much more in tune then most he was with the standard media view on the issue.
Hardly heroic or cutting edge journalism.
More like sucking up to those who share the same view.

I think the lack of controversy must have inverted itself and become actual controversy, just going by the amount of hot air and derision his showboating generated on the Newstalk Breakfast thread and Twitter at the time.

It was certainly no less heroic than the stance you're projecting onto Hook. "Hitting the high notes without harping on about it... and crapping out when the pressure is on"

maxwell smart

Whatever you think about his comments on this issue, he has obviously made quite a few enemies in the 'media' by the looks of things.

I haven't seen this much flack in quite a while.

I wonder how much of the indignation the 'media' is feeling is genuine or simply jumping on the latest social media outrage.

And Chris O'Donoghue is right at the head of the queue. He has either been waiting in the grass for George for some time or he thinks the new title means he is some sort of authority, I can't figure out which it is

DickSwiveller

What did Michael Graham say about it?

quintana76

I said controversial. He showed his usual bravery by showboating how much more in tune then most he was with the standard media view on the issue.
Hardly heroic or cutting edge journalism.
More like sucking up to those who share the same view.

applehunter

Someone should set up a separate thread for "man rape" discussion.

hullaballoo

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

You started out with saying it's impossible for a man to be raped under Irish law then pointed out S.4 Rape which exactly the law used to convict said rape of a man.

Ah right, I see the confusion. I'll leave it there as we are derailing the thread slightly at this stage.

jooksavage

quintana76 wrote: »

The only time the cowardly Chris has expressed an original or controversial opinion is when he stabs a colleague in the back.

Funnily enough during the marriage equality referendum lotta folks on the right were telling Donoghue to keep his opinions to himself and he even got a rap on the knuckles from the BAI so.... No.

quintana76

The actor who will ultimately come off the worst from this is Chris Donoghue. He has shown his true colours. Imagine the atmosphere in what is, by all accounts, a small office?
At least Hook expresses opinions. The only time the cowardly Chris has expressed an original or controversial opinion is when he stabs a colleague in the back.

ShiverinEskimo

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't understand your point, being honest, but I also don't see where there's a contradiction in my post? Genuine question, I'm not having a go in the least.

Is it that what most people understand as rape is covered by both common law rape and the provisions of s.4?

You started out with saying it's impossible for a man to be raped under Irish law then pointed out S.4 Rape which exactly the law used to convict said rape of a man.

jooksavage

Conservative wrote: »

Let's be honest your recent "generosity" to George and his sincerity is just another way to stick the boot in!

I don't like Hook's show but some of my friends have encountered him through work and described him as a gentleman - I actually posted this in this thread a few weeks ago. Nice person that he is, I'd like to think he has the capacity to take on board criticism and allow it to inform his outlook on things.

tsue921i8wljb3

doylefe wrote: »

I wonder have Hooks fellow presenters turned thier back on him.

Hook hasn't been in with Pat Kenny at the end of his show to promote High Noon and Moncrieff not in with Hook to promote the Moncrieff show.

Whatever about Pat Kenny the handover with Moncrieff stopped weeks ago long before this incident. I got the impression that there was a clash of personalities there.

Ursus Horribilis

They're probably afraid the baying mob will take after them too.

bloodless_coup

I wonder have Hooks fellow presenters turned thier back on him.

Hook hasn't been in with Pat Kenny at the end of his show to promote High Noon and Moncrieff not in with Hook to promote the Moncrieff show.

Snake Plisken

Is that Sean's protest not willing to speak to George about what's coming up on the show or did I miss it earlier? George sounds like a broken man. What a shame looks like we will have no balanced alternative views in the media anymore!

Conservative

jooksavage wrote: »

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why would I accept an apology that was essentially a surrender to a bunch of nasty bullies?

Hook, when he started High Noon last year, described it as as a passion project, said emphatically that he'd never say anything he didn't 100% believe, and if he couldn't do that, he'd retire etc. When Claire Byrne questioned his sincerity he nearly blew a fuse on live TV. When Johnny Sexton questioned his seriousness, he sent him a solicitors letter.

Yesterday he made an apology that I actually was quite heartfelt.Your stance makes no sense. Either

a) he means his apology and he's at odds with his hitherto defenders or

b) he's gone back on his pledge from day-one and will basically say whatever the snowflake producers tell him to say.

The second option isn't a very heroic stance. What's the point of having "opinion-led" broadcasting if the host, who's made such a song and dance about their sincerity, can't stand over something they believe to be true?

Let's be honest your recent "generosity" to George and his sincerity is just another way to stick the boot in!

jooksavage

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why would I accept an apology that was essentially a surrender to a bunch of nasty bullies?

Hook, when he started High Noon last year, described it as as a passion project, said emphatically that he'd never say anything he didn't 100% believe, and if he couldn't do that, he'd retire etc. When Claire Byrne questioned his sincerity he nearly blew a fuse on live TV. When Johnny Sexton questioned his seriousness, he sent him a solicitors letter.

Yesterday he made an apology that I actually think was quite heartfelt.Your stance makes no sense. Either

a) he means his apology and he's at odds with his hitherto defenders or

b) he's gone back on his pledge from day-one and will basically say whatever the snowflake producers tell him to say.

The second option isn't a very heroic stance. What's the point of having "opinion-led" broadcasting if the host, who's made such a song and dance about their sincerity, can't stand over something they believe to be true?

Conservative

Good man Michael Graham. Very nicely done.

It's just a shame that we probably won't hear a single Irish contributor willing to do the same - and who could blame them.

I read Fintan O'Tool article. I agree with him about the lack of gender balance but Fitzpatrick quit and Sarah McInerney wasn't up to the job (yet). The station manager is female if I'm not mistaken?

Reading the rest of it you'd swear NT was the Irish equivalent of Fox Radio. Clearly none of these opinionated muppets actually listen to the stations output.

quintana76

Michael showed support and friendship to Hook at a low moment for him.

scotchy

doylefe wrote: »

Michael Grahame must have briefed not to mention the hot topic.

This is very tame by most weeks standards. Pretty bland and boring.

Thanks all the whiners for neutering old Hook.

Nice end to Michaels segment there .

.

bloodless_coup

Michael Grahame must have briefed not to mention the hot topic.

This is very tame by most weeks standards. Pretty bland and boring.

Thanks all the whiners for neutering old Hook.

hullaballoo

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

You contradicted yourself there with an interesting choice of words. S.4 rape is any sexual assault which includes penetration however slight of the anus or mouth (regardless of gender).

That is rape. Rape in terms of legislation needs to include penetration/intercourse. When something is reported in the media as a rape it means there was forced intercourse or penetration.

Anything which doesn't involve penetration/intercourse is a sexual (indecent) assault on either a man or a woman.

I don't understand your point, being honest, but I also don't see where there's a contradiction in my post? Genuine question, I'm not having a go in the least.

Is it that what most people understand as rape is covered by both common law rape and the provisions of s.4?

PeterTheNinth

Chelsea Miniature Somehow wrote: »

if they didn't want Fintan O'Toole and Una Mullaly on the station why didn't they just stop inviting them on?

here here... *raises glass*

i71jskz5xu42pb

quintana76 wrote: »

maybe they knew what they were doing all along.

3D chess, right? I guess losing a show sponsor was the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn.

I just don't understand this: if they didn't want Fintan O'Toole and Una Mullaly on the station why didn't they just stop inviting them on?

PeterTheNinth

scotchy wrote: »

George seems to be on a charm offensive today. I wonder if Michael Grahame will say anything?

I was just thinking the same myself.. Surely if this topic didn't involve Hook himself it would be the first thing that Graham would have at the of his list for his traditional "Euro Weenie" rant.

George sounds like a broken man. I think what has been done to him in this has been disgraceful, and I think it pretty much sounds the death knell to anybody being able to ask any direct questions on radio. From now on George will be as brave and controversial as Chris Donoghue.

ShiverinEskimo

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

You contradicted yourself there with an interesting choice of words. S.4 rape is any sexual assault which includes penetration however slight of the anus or mouth (regardless of gender).

That is rape. Rape in terms of legislation needs to include penetration/intercourse. When something is reported in the media as a rape it means there was forced intercourse or penetration.

Anything which doesn't involve penetration/intercourse is a sexual (indecent) assault on either a man or a woman.

Where the problem comes in is in historical cases prior to the 1990 act that doesn't cover penetration my a man with a another man. This was put in the spotlight by the Catholic church scandals which gave rise to the 1990 act thus criminalising it. But you can't be retrospectively guilty of breaching laws that were brought in after the incident.

scotchy

George seems to be on a charm offensive today. I wonder if Michael Grahame will say anything?

.

DickSwiveller

jooksavage wrote: »

Still wondering about folks' attitudes to Hook's apology yesterday. A poster on a different thread summed it up nicely: some of his defenders insist we all accept Hook's apology but they won't accept it themselves.

Why would I accept an apology that was essentially a surrender to a bunch of nasty bullies?

jooksavage

Still wondering about folks' attitudes to Hook's apology yesterday. A poster on a different thread summed it up nicely: some of his defenders insist we all accept Hook's apology but they won't accept it themselves.