High Noon with George Hook.

So are we still allowed laugh at rape jokes or wha?

Cannon_fodder wrote: »

Best he ride off in the distance

Indeed, so the rest of us don't have to watch himself and the lovely Ingrid going at it.:P

I mean in fairness a lot of you guys seem like such prudes, for instance no sense of humour.

I grew up as a fan of Howard Stern in the 90s (watching the E Show every night with my Dad), it's tragic in fairness. P.C didn't exist in his heyday. It was free reign.

I certainly think if hook was to be pilloried it should have been over his anti vax spiel campaign and I agree he should have bowed out gracefully after the right hook ended.

Spiked' Editior Brendan O'Neil sums the situation up here perfectly!

I'm reading articles and comments by Irish lefties crowing over the mob-demanded suspension of George Hook, one of Ireland's longest-serving and best-known broadcasters, and they are genuinely disturbing. Hook was a presenter on Newstalk radio. He interviewed me a few times in Dublin. He is one of the most intellectually curious radio presenters I've encountered in Ireland or Britain. But now he's gone because on his show a few days ago he wondered out loud, as some women have done before him, whether the hook-up culture makes it easier for men to find rape victims and whether young women should make more effort to avoid vulnerable situations. Cue fury, cries of heresy, demands for his metaphorical head on a platter. This week Newstalk duly obliged the mob: Hook is suspended and by extension the rest of us have been warned yet again: "Speaking your mind can ruin your life." Censorious order is restored.

What's most awful about the crowing over Hook, the celebration of this attempted destruction of a man's career by a baying, time-rich mob of offence-takers, is the continual utterance of the phrase "Free speech has consequences". This is now the most ominous cry in the 21st-century West. It's the rallying cry of the new intolerance. It's a threat, in fact. A threat of punishment or even violence if you speak out of turn. The more the illiberal liberal set trots out this sinister slogan, the more you realise that the Twittermob and the murderers of Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists, our polite punishers of moral dissent and those foreign punishers of blasphemy, differ only by degree. Both believe in taking non-government action to destroy people who have offended them. Both elevate their feelings over other people's freedoms. And both mindlessly chant those chilling words. "Your free speech has consequences..."

Yep Ciara Kelly disagreeing with George but condemning the censorship, fair play to her

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Self serving boll*xology... She just wants the audience to know that she didn't sign the petition, and she's batting for the station with a view to them reciprocating with a nice spot on the Prime Time schedule.

Where was this statement earlier about how good he is to women and what a decent guy he is, when he was still in his job and needed some support? He's gone now, and she has his job....

Problem is no one wants to listen to her for any length of time.

I like Ciara Kelly and I think she did a fair job there of batting for George and quieting the mania. There's not much more she can do for him.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Spiked' Editior Brendan O'Neil sums the situation up here perfectly!

I'm reading articles and comments by Irish lefties crowing over the mob-demanded suspension of George Hook, one of Ireland's longest-serving and best-known broadcasters, and they are genuinely disturbing. Hook was a presenter on Newstalk radio. He interviewed me a few times in Dublin. He is one of the most intellectually curious radio presenters I've encountered in Ireland or Britain. But now he's gone because on his show a few days ago he wondered out loud, as some women have done before him, whether the hook-up culture makes it easier for men to find rape victims and whether young women should make more effort to avoid vulnerable situations. Cue fury, cries of heresy, demands for his metaphorical head on a platter. This week Newstalk duly obliged the mob: Hook is suspended and by extension the rest of us have been warned yet again: "Speaking your mind can ruin your life." Censorious order is restored.

What's most awful about the crowing over Hook, the celebration of this attempted destruction of a man's career by a baying, time-rich mob of offence-takers, is the continual utterance of the phrase "Free speech has consequences". This is now the most ominous cry in the 21st-century West. It's the rallying cry of the new intolerance. It's a threat, in fact. A threat of punishment or even violence if you speak out of turn. The more the illiberal liberal set trots out this sinister slogan, the more you realise that the Twittermob and the murderers of Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists, our polite punishers of moral dissent and those foreign punishers of blasphemy, differ only by degree. Both believe in taking non-government action to destroy people who have offended them. Both elevate their feelings over other people's freedoms. And both mindlessly chant those chilling words. "Your free speech has consequences..."

None of these people are "Lefties". They may claim a preference for left wing politics when it suits their own limited agenda, but that claim falls woefully short when they engage in this kind of silencing and censorship.

Back in my day, any self respecting "Leftie" was for freedom of speech and opposed to censorship. It was the conservative right, who were in favor of shutting down debate and conrtrolling what you could or couldn't watch on your TV/video at home, or even what you could do in your bedroom at night.

These asshats that claim to be "liberal", or "left wing" are nothing of the sort. In fact, they'd be right at home in the likes of Mary Whithouse's organisations, wagging their fingers at people for non issues like this.

I know little of Brendan O'Neil, but right off the bat his article sounds just like another arsehole who wants to make their own capital off this issue and have a go at "lefties". He's no better than the likes of Sharon O' Halloran in that case, who's using this to promote her own organisation while calling for Hook's head. But, I've talked to numerous people about this, most of whom are actual "lefties" and they see it just as much as an absurd witch hunt as O'Neil does.