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

Ash.J.Williams

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

Cannon_fodder

To be fair GH has been on border line territory for quite sometime, it might be okay to be opinionated on a rugby programme but with public radio you don't have that leeway.

Newstalk are as much to blame as GH, they themselves would know how borderline he is as well as being a few marbles short of memory loss / train of thought on occasion (cringe worthy to listen to at times).

He should have quit while he was ahead and had reputation from the 5 to 7pm programme but all that is undone by this episode.

Best he ride off in the distance and practice his golf. You know the saying

"old golfers never die they just lose their balls"

Loafing Oaf

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

The Rape of Lucretia

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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

Yes, there's no problem there. Rape jokes per se are still fine. Its when you get on to the topic of blame that you have to watch your step, and some people get tetchy.

DEFTLEFTHAND

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.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Alec Chubby Liposuction wrote: »

If having George Hook on the air is the price to pay for getting Dil off the air then it's a price I think it's worth paying, twice over if needs be. Give him another slot, I don't listen anyway, but that woman's odious agendas shouldn't be anywhere near mainstream radio. Hopefully she goes to AM or DAB.

To clarify.

It's not Dil's LGBT agenda I find odious.

It's her misandry and racism.

suicide_circus

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.

constitutionus

mr_edge_to_you wrote: »

The whole thing and the PC society of today reminds me about the sketch from the Life Of Brian where one of the MEN from the People's Front of Judea announces that he should have the right to want to have children. Some of his fellow party members agree and then John Cleese's character dismisses the notion as preposterous and absurd.

And ya know what?

Like "blazing saddles" that film couldn't be made now cause it'd "offend transgender people" or some bollocks.

That's the world we live in now thanks to these fascists.

"liberals and progressives" me hole. We've seen all this before in the 50s in the catholic church.

Max Headroom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q......:D

PeterTheNinth

Just switched off Ciara Kelly there again. I'm gonna text in and say that I'm a pensioner who was attacked during the week, and ask what should I do about this knife sticking out of my back.

Snake Plisken

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..."

PeterTheNinth

Snake Plisken wrote: »

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

That sums it up well. I'd doubt it will do anything positive for his career. He's brave to say it. I hope his sponsors don't leave him when the same mob of Una Mulally types come after him on the Twitter machine.

PeterTheNinth

Marion Finucane talking about it now.

I don't f**king believe it, Ciara Kelly is on with Marion talking about it now...

sligojoek

Ciara Kelly in on with Marian Finnucane now.

PeterTheNinth

"It's a bit like your dad messing up"..

No, it's a bit like like shoving your dad in to his grave so that you can get his inheritance..

Harry Palmr

She sounds quite reasonable to me, noting how it's become a witch-hunt trying to silence certain voices.

suicide_circus

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

padser

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

"It's a bit like your dad messing up"..

No, it's a bit like like shoving your dad in to his grave so that you can get his inheritance..

Yeah particularly given there are articles running touting her to take his slot.

I find this entire debacle really distasteful and I'll be turning off newstalk if they get rid of GH over it.

Incidently, really can't stand GH normally - but whether or not you agree with his comments or not - we have reached a sad place if someone is hounded from his job for saying them. Also, it seems pretty ironic coming from a station that allows (and indeed promotes) Sarah McInerny who regularly engages in open misandry (for anyone who doesn't understand the word, it's the opposite of misogyny).

PeterTheNinth

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....

statesaver

Please don't tell me Ciara Kelly is going to get his slot now.

Ah Christ

suicide_circus

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.

PeterTheNinth

Let's be frank about this, Ciara Kelly is no friend of George Hook.

Harry Palmr

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Let's be frank about this, Ciara Kelly is no friend of George Hook.

You are some fella on the internet - if she says she is then she is. She has the right to be critical and yes the right to stand in - someone had to. No doubt you'd be having a job at anyone else who took that slot. Cool your jets.

kazamo

Ciara Kelly moving in nicely into Hook's midday slot.
Will be there on Monday and we'll see from there....yeah right, the deal has been done.

That coupled with Yates talking yesterday about HR and legal teams involved makes it sound as if Hook is gone from Newstalk.

J Mysterio

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.

J Mysterio

Article by NT's (female) head of production in IT today, combatting Fintan O'Toole's nonsense.

PeterTheNinth

J Mysterio wrote: »

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.

He needed this earlier in the week. A statement from a respected female friend and fellow NT broadcaster that he is a decent guy. This would have helped counter the feminist/liberal mob that was coming after him. It was easier for her, and better for her own career, to stand back and say nothing.

He's gone now so what she said makes absolutely no difference. Doing it now is simply saving face for herself, against all the accusations that she knifed him in the back. Which is exactly which she did, by remaining silent as all her fellow liberals circled over George's carcas.

mikep

I think Ciara was genuine is her defense of George who she claims is a friend and has helped her in her career in the media.
From when I heard them together on the radio I always felt there was a genuine warmth between them despite the fact that they regularly had quite strong disagreements, to put it mildly!!
No doubt the bashing brigade will turn their sights on Ciara now...

Tony EH

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.

Tony EH

jobbridge4life wrote: »

HE very clearly implied that a rape victim ought to share part of the blame. He used the word blame.

He positioned a question and then apologised when it caused people offence. He didn't press the issue, nor did he say that he believed that victims of rape were to blame.

There really is no issue here.

There would be one if, indeed, he went on to press home an actual opinion that he believed that they were. But, he didn't.

Hook is a bufoon at teh best of times and can be a victim of foot in mouth disease. Christ, when he starts banging on about WWII, I feel my gorge rising. But, I don't genuinely think he believes that victims of rape are to blame for their attack.

I do however, think that he believes that people should exercise caution when the possibility of danger may arise and in the age of Tinder hookups etc, it's wise advice.