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

Hook has already taken a ton of punishment on this, he's lost a sponsor and he's conceded his mistake in what sounded, to my ears anyway, like a heartfelt apology. It's not easy admitting you were wrong, especially on national airwaves and I think it speaks well of him that he took on board the criticism levelled against him.

I don't think he's the horrible person his detractors here believe him to be or some of his die-hard supporters wish he was. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of his show but I've heard on the grapevine that he's a gentleman off-air. His best course is to steer clear of this area from now on and he'll probably weather the storm. Saying all that, I'll be first back on here calling him an idiot if he starts offering his shallow, layman's analysis of topics like vaccinations again.

retro:electro

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

It's not that it's uncommon it's that it's rarely reported.

retro:electro

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.

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

This is wrong. A man can be raped under Irish law, by another man. He cannot however be raped by a woman. That is sexual assault.

Conservative

Maximiliano Weak Guava wrote: »

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.

The last time I checked there was nobody debating politics on the 2fm thread.

Newstalk deal largely in the politics of the day so what is so unusual about items related to the shows being discussed?

There are lots of excellent posters on Radio with differing opinions.

Morgans

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

No facts, but strident opinion. Nevertheless, that's another argument won.

We'll go with safari maulings as a comparable experience to females being raped.

jooksavage

Conservative wrote: »

The last time I checked there was nobody debating politics on the 2fm thread.

Newstalk deal largely in the politics of the day so what is so unusual about items related to the shows being discussed?

There are lots of excellent posters on Radio with differing opinions.

The thoughts of bringing politics into 2fm :-) That station is mostly presented by and aimed at primordial soup.

PeterTheNinth

Morgans wrote: »

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

Well if you want to pick the most similar example involving a man.... Say you have one guy1 at a nightclub who meets another guy2. He doesn't know the guy2, but gets drunk with him and goes home with him. While he has passed out, the guy2 rapes him.

In this situation it would be fair and reasonable, without ever blaming the guy1 for the actions of the other man, to ask the question "Was getting drunk with a guy he did know and going home with him the best decision that he could have made with regard to his personal safety?".

But it is deemed in this scenario that it is not okay to ask a similar question, simply because the victim in this case is a woman.

Morgans

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Well if you want to pick the most similar example involving a man.... Say you have one guy1 at a nightclub who meets another guy2. He doesn't know the guy2, but gets drunk with him and goes home with him. While he has passed out, the guy2 rapes him.

In this situation it would be fair and reasonable, without ever blaming the guy1 for the actions of the other man, to ask the question "Was getting drunk with a guy he did know and going home with him the best decision that he could have made with regard to his personal safety?".

But it is deemed in this scenario that it is not okay to ask a similar question, simply because the victim in this case is a woman.

Correct. I think there is as much blame on the guy who was raped as the girl who was raped.

Interesting new bar set 'as getting drunk with a guy he did know and going home with him the best decision that he could have made with regard to his personal safety?'

Sober car driver gets killed by drunk driver in car crash. Well, was driving the best decision that could be made regarding his personal safety that day.

I think where the contention lies, is that people have different ideas of what a reasonable (not best) precaution to prevent harm to your person. Some say that the raped person shouldn't be promiscuous (it is interesting that Hook seemed to be worried about the raped girl catching an STI), some will feel that socialising in bars is an unreasonable risk to take, some will think wearing a low cut down, short skirt, '**** me' boots is an unreasonable risk to take. And some will feel that being promicious or even drunk or what you wear doesnt mean you should be responsible for someone raping you.

jooksavage

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Well if you want to pick the most similar example involving a man.... Say you have one guy1 at a nightclub who meets another guy2. He doesn't know the guy2, but gets drunk with him and goes home with him. While he has passed out, the guy2 rapes him.

In this situation it would be fair and reasonable, without ever blaming the guy1 for the actions of the other man, to ask the question "Was getting drunk with a guy he did know and going home with him the best decision that he could have made with regard to his personal safety?".

But it is deemed in this scenario that it is not okay to ask a similar question, simply because the victim in this case is a woman.

My wife works in the psych services and spent a little time with rape victims of both sexes. The way she put it makes most sense to me: if someone is raped, the circumstances leading up to it are immaterial, completely void. It doesn't matter the context, what happened in the days, hours and minutes leading up to it, nobody has ever been funnelled down the path where they have no choice but to commit rape. At that moment, there is only one person at fault. Factoring in context and setting AFTER THE FACT doesn't work for rape because unlike practically every other crime, there can be no extenuating circumstances. Hook used the word "blame", and this implies somehow the girl in question had helped to create a situation from which the alleged rapists were helpless but to take advantage of.

quintana76

Great news for NewsTalk and a majority of it's listeners. Fintan O'Toole and Una Mullaly have decided to embargo the station over Hook's remarks.
At least some good has come out of the issue.
The sanctimosity level on the station will be reduced by heaps.
A virtual coup for NewsTalk, maybe they knew what they were doing all along.

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.

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?

scotchy

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

.

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.

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.

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

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*

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?

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.

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 .

.

quintana76

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

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.

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

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!

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!

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.

Ursus Horribilis

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

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.

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.

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.