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

UsedToWait

suicide_circus wrote: »

Chris is an odious mealy mouthed sycophant. This guy never held an opinion until he was sure it went with the prevailing wind. A weasel with the personality of a dirty nappy and the charisma of a pot noodle.

Ah here.
I'm not a fan myself, but there has to be a line between fair criticism and "dirty nappy" flinging.

pilly

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

He HAS apologised for this comments ffs. You would swear that all the holy Joe (Molloy) types on this thread never send a wrong word in their lives. He has apologised for what he said, and I think both sides have ackowledged that. The question is post apology whether he deserves to lose his job over this.

That's not the point jook was making Peter, I get what he was trying to say. Hooks most staunch supporters are merely making him look worse by saying what he said was right and he shouldn't have apologised.

I actually think this thing would have gone away a lot quicker if people weren't trying to defend it.

Yep, we've all done things wrong in life (at least I know I have) but we apologise for it and learn from it. It's the people trying to defend the indefensible that are making a bad situation worse here.

[Deleted User]

chicken foot wrote: »

By agreeing with Hook, that you believe women shouldn't go home with a stranger, then you are placing yourself in the position of being a potential rapist too or you plan on never, ever having a one night stand yourself.

Here we go with the nonsense of "I should be able to do what I want to"
Of course you should but this is not a utopia, why the f@ck can people not accept that? There are dangerous people out there and Yes by heading away with someone you do not know does increase your chance of violent crime. It's a fact of life and people need to weigh up the potential of each situation.

It is NOT their fault if something bad happens but that IS the world we live in.

The Specialist

pilly wrote: »

That's not the point jook was making Peter, I get what he was trying to say. Hooks most staunch supporters are merely making him look worse by saying what he said was right and he shouldn't have apologised.

I actually think this thing would have gone away a lot quicker if people weren't trying to defend it.

Yep, we've all done things wrong in life (at least I know I have) but we apologise for it and learn from it. It's the people trying to defend the indefensible that are making a bad situation worse here.

What he said was 100% correct - is personal responsibility gone out the window these days? You put yourself in a situation where some very bad outcomes can happen, and something bad then happens, you are then absolved of all responsibility? It's not diminishing anything to do with the horrific seriousness of rape, and he never worded it in that way - he posed a question that the PC brigade were quick to tear to shreds without fully understanding the point he was making.

jimmyw

The big eegit has shot himself in the foot now.

Make him donate to the RCC, go out with the workers there to see exactly what good work they are doing, speak to survivors, but when you're so called colleagues back stab you for the snowflakes that they are, it's sad . But I dont think he should be sacked. I am surprised at P Kennys comments, I disagree with him on some other topics.

ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT CONDONING HIS COMMENTS.

mikep

I find Dalatas statement regarding their withdrawal of sponsorship quite interesting "@Dalatahotels cannot support any radio station that allows inappropriate & hurtful comments to be made"
That's a fairly sweeping statement as many media outlets will find it hard to comply with that..it also threatens the opportunity for reasoned debate to take place..

suicide_circus

UsedToWait wrote: »

Ah here.
I'm not a fan myself, but there has to be a line between fair criticism and "dirty nappy" flinging.

Perhaps youd like to start up a petition to get me taken off the forum?

If Chris wants to dish out criticism he can't be too upset if others start to shine a spotlight on him

Conservative

The Specialist wrote: »

pilly wrote: »

That's not the point jook was making Peter, I get what he was trying to say. Hooks most staunch supporters are merely making him look worse by saying what he said was right and he shouldn't have apologised.

I actually think this thing would have gone away a lot quicker if people weren't trying to defend it.

Yep, we've all done things wrong in life (at least I know I have) but we apologise for it and learn from it. It's the people trying to defend the indefensible that are making a bad situation worse here.

What he said was 100% correct - is personal responsibility gone out the window these days? You put yourself in a situation where some very bad outcomes can happen, and something bad then happens, you are then absolved of all responsibility? It's not diminishing anything to do with the horrific seriousness of rape, and he never worded it in that way - he posed a question that the PC brigade were quick to tear to shreds without fully understanding the point he was making.

Not only that but I haven't seen his qualifying comments posted anywhere. He afterwards said the rapist was 100% responsible for rape and he used a word like lowlife or scumbag.

DickSwiveller

pilly wrote: »

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of new posters on Boards on this issue, strange isn't it? And everyone of them say George Hook was right?

I know, it's astonishing when people disagree with you.

quintana76

Was impressed by Michael Graham showing Hook genuine friendship and support in a time of troubles. Pat also.
This contrasts with the odious behavior of 'stab em in the back' Chris Donoghue.

If he and his ilk become the future of NewsTalk the station is doomed.

jooksavage

pilly wrote: »

I actually think this thing would have gone away a lot quicker if people weren't trying to defend it.

This. 100 times this.

The most damaging thing I heard for Hook over the last few days was Matt Coopers piece on Monday where he actually cited Hook's unapologetic Twitter defenders. If those guys had cooled their jets and rolled in behind Hook's genuine-sounding mea culpa, this situation may not have gotten as out of hand.

DickSwiveller

jooksavage wrote: »

This. 100 times this.

The most damaging thing I heard for Hook over the last few days was Matt Coopers piece on Monday where he actually cited Hook's unapologetic Twitter defenders. If those guys had cooled their jets and rolled in behind Hook's genuine-sounding mea culpa, this situation may not have gotten as out of hand.

Why do presenters always cite twitter. Who cares what people on twitter say. Do they decide everything? What percentage of the population use it? I don't and I don't know anyone who does.

ballsymchugh

If Hook does walk, then newstalk is in danger of becoming one big echo chamber. other than Ivan and Pat Kenny, everyone there *thinks* they're 40 or under.

you can tell from what's going around on twitter who the people who don't like him are, from Richard Chambers, Oisin Langan etc. I would be thinking that it's more reporters than presenters putting out there. newscorp pay feck all to their journalists, so they may not give a shyte anyway.

bloodless_coup

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why do presenters always cite twitter. Who cares what people on twitter say. Do they decide everything? What percentage of the population use it? I don't and I don't know anyone who does.

Indeed. Or the articles on news websites with "twitter reacts to xxxx". All you get is about 4 embeds from randomers with 2 followers, zero re-tweets and 1 like. Who's give a **** what these people say.

suicide_circus

quintana76 wrote: »

Was impressed by Michael Graham showing Hook genuine friendship and support in a time of troubles. Pat also.
This contrasts with the odious behavior of 'stab em in the back' Chris Donoghue.

If he and his ilk become the future of NewsTalk the station is doomed.

I can't see CD ever becoming the headliner in NT or anywhere else. He's not genuine or likeable enough.

quintana76

suicide_circus wrote: »

I can't see CD ever becoming the headliner in NT or anywhere else. He's not genuine or likeable enough.

Agreed. I think he is delusional and really believes he is being hard done by.

pilly

The Specialist wrote: »

What he said was 100% correct - is personal responsibility gone out the window these days? You put yourself in a situation where some very bad outcomes can happen, and something bad then happens, you are then absolved of all responsibility? It's not diminishing anything to do with the horrific seriousness of rape, and he never worded it in that way - he posed a question that the PC brigade were quick to tear to shreds without fully understanding the point he was making.

You're just proving my point. Insisting that Hook was right even after he himself has admitted he was wrong is just foolishness.

DeadHand

pilly wrote: »

You're just proving my point. Insisting that Hook was right even after he himself has admitted he was wrong is just foolishness.

His general point (that people have a responsibility to themselves to avoid danger as much as possible) was correct- how he expressed it was wrong.

To use the word "blame" in referring to a rape victim was inappropriate. He apologised for it.

And the sanctimonious mob trying to destroy him now would still be doing so even were there no public support for Hook.

DeadHand

jooksavage wrote: »

If those guys had cooled their jets and rolled in behind Hook's genuine-sounding mea culpa, this situation may not have gotten as out of hand.

The mob would still be out for his blood.

The only difference is the internet would be an echo chamber on the issue. For Hook himself the situation would be much the same.

Ol' Donie

DeadHand wrote: »

His general point (that people have a responsibility to themselves to avoid danger as much as possible) was correct- how he expressed it was wrong.

To use the word "blame" in referring to a rape victim was inappropriate. He apologised for it.

And the sanctimonious mob trying to destroy him now would still be doing so even were there no public support for Hook.

The specifics of what he said are probably not enough to deserve this backlash.

However, I can't help thinking he's reaping the reward of at least 12 months of Michael Graham style provocation on this show.

DeadHand

chicken foot wrote: »

toBy agreeing with Hook, that you believe women shouldn't go home with a stranger, then you are placing yourself in the position of being a potential rapist too.

Wow.

Anyone who agrees with Hook is a "potential rapist" now. We've reached peak hysteria.

I agree with the general spirit of Hook's argument (but not how he worded it).

Suppose I better hand myself over to the authorities before I rape someone.

Beechwoodspark

quintana76 wrote: »

Was impressed by Michael Graham showing Hook genuine friendship and support in a time of troubles. Pat also.
This contrasts with the odious behavior of 'stab em in the back' Chris Donoghue.

If he and his ilk become the future of NewsTalk the station is doomed.

Real amateur hour stuff from Chris but no surprise there. Yates better watch his back.

optogirl

DeadHand wrote: »

Wow.

Anyone who agrees with Hook is a "potential rapist" now. We've reached peak hysteria.

I agree with the general spirit of Hook's argument (but not how he worded it).

Suppose I better hand myself over to the authorities before I rape someone.

A deliberate misreading of what was said. Point is women are told 'Not all men are rapists....but you should assume all men are rapists'

DeadHand

Ol' Donie wrote: »

The specifics of what he said are probably not enough to deserve this backlash.

However, I can't help thinking he's reaping the reward of at least 12 months of Michael Graham style provocation on this show.

He doesn't deserve a backlash of the scale and vitriol he is getting full-stop- not after apologising.

If people consider a dissenting voice "provocation" they are free to consume media more palatable to them.

Possibly in a safe space.

Larbre34

DeadHand wrote: »

His general point (that people have a responsibility to themselves to avoid danger as much as possible) was correct- how he expressed it was wrong.

To use the word "blame" in referring to a rape victim was inappropriate. He apologised for it.

And the sanctimonious mob trying to destroy him now would still be doing so even were there no public support for Hook.

I couldn't agree more, this has become a sickening witch-hunt because the man uttered the word blame instead of 'responsibility' or similar in what he said.

I knew one of his daughter's well growing up and though Hook can be ham-fisted, sensationalist and a bit of a bluffer at the best of times, he and his wife raised great kids and I don't think for one nano-second he holds women to 'blame' in any way for sexual violence.

The essence of what he said was right, and its the nightmare of every parent of girls, every father of a child who goes out to the local sports club disco wearing jeans but with a mini-skirt and a shoulder of vodka in her backpack "what if she loses control of herself and situation?"

I would always, always say to my daughter, your first responsibility is to limit the risk to yourself, no matter the scenario.

The "outrage" from his colleagues is absolutely disgusting. Imagine in your own job if your colleagues hopped off you at the first opportunity rather than give you the benefit of the doubt after 13 years service. They are protecting their own a*ses from potential loss of sponsors and listeners rather than allowing due process and a calm assessment of the facts. The knee-jerk from the sponsors is just as bad.

I genuinely feel sad for Hook, his head must be spinning with the feelings of betrayal. Im glad for him the station boss has said he 'wont be railroaded' and Pat Kenny has tried to put some perspective on the situation

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

jooksavage wrote: »

This. 100 times this.

The most damaging thing I heard for Hook over the last few days was Matt Coopers piece on Monday where he actually cited Hook's unapologetic Twitter defenders. If those guys had cooled their jets and rolled in behind Hook's genuine-sounding mea culpa, this situation may not have gotten as out of hand.

That's definitely not true. There were people out for his blood, not only Twitter users, but other on air presenters and backroom staff in Newstalk, Fintan O Toole (who I like) of the Irish Times amongst others. People were lining up for their pound of flesh!

The interesting part in all of this story is how most of the ordinary public actually accept that Hook made a mistake, has apologised, and now want to move on from the story. This appears to have played out as more of a media bubble witch hunt than anything else at this stage.

chicken foot

DeadHand wrote: »

Wow.

Anyone who agrees with Hook is a "potential rapist" now. We've reached peak hysteria.

I agree with the general spirit of Hook's argument (but not how he worded it).

Suppose I better hand myself over to the authorities before I rape someone.

That's not what I said or meant at all.
Have you ever had a one night stand?
If so, did you find your urge to Rape to increase/decrease/be non-existant during that encounter!?
Would you be offended if your date thought you could be a rapist?
Would you feel judged if she didn't go home with you because you "might" be a rapist?
Do you see where I'm going with this!?
"Not all men are rapists, don't judge us" but on the other hand "don't go home with me because I could be a rapist then it'll be partly your fault"
Which one is it to be?

To get back on point, we know he doesn't condone rape, we know he thinks rapists are animals BUT he still felt the need to point out that it was somewhat her fault therefore diminishing her right to be a victim and somehow giving leeway to the rapist because sure, she was right there...by her own doing!!! That's where he ****ed up. If you can't see that this is wrong then you're slightly sick in the head.

mikep

I find Matt Coopers intervention very hard to take..what he has done over the last few days is a textbook hatchet job on an opponent. This from the man who regularly had Katie Hopkins and years ago had Kalhid Kelly on just to wind people up..I recall these people regularly making "innapropriate or upsetting comments"..those are just 2 I can think of at the moment..
While he may not have agreed with what they say he gave them a platform without robustly challenging them in order to boost his listener-ship.

DeadHand

optogirl wrote: »

Point is women are told 'Not all men are rapists....but you should assume all men are rapists'

Told by whom?

pilly

mikep wrote: »

I find Matt Coopers intervention very hard to take..what he has done over the last few days is a textbook hatchet job on an opponent. This from the man who regularly had Katie Hopkins and years ago had Kalhid Kelly on just to wind people up..I recall these people regularly making "innapropriate or upsetting comments"..those are just 2 I can think of at the moment..
While he may not have agreed with what they say he gave them a platform without robustly challenging them in order to boost his listener-ship.

What did Matt Cooper do?