High Noon with George Hook.

CiDeRmAn · 17-09-2017 05:50PM

The_Captain wrote: »

I think he tried to bluster his way out as usual with his "I'm a straight shooter, telling like it is" guff then made a cynical apology to try to keep his job.

He still has the absolute right to say whatever he wants on twitter, on the street in the papers or anywhere that will have him, but people strangely seem to think he has a right to a radio show. He has no more right to be paid for his opinions than anyone else and now he's paying the price for years of being an arsehole

He swung hard to the right, or at least he tried to emulate more Michael Graham in recent years.
There was a time he tolerated Graham's particular vile crap but he has become almost always in agreement lately.
His time has come, he should move on.
I'm sure the Mail has a spot for his particular "telling it like it is" kinda bull.

Morgans · 17-09-2017 05:52PM

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

Absolutely, he would NEVER EVER blame me but I kind he would feel that he was negligent as a parent if he didn't highlight a potential danger.

I think it's any parents first instinct to protect their children as much as they can, hence all the warnings. (From not talking to strangers when your five to warnings about personal safety and driving behaviour when your older).

I believe this was the motivation for George's comments.

But you must admit that that is a generous assumption. It may be correct.

I think even those defending George must admit that he was, at best, clumsy in how he communicated this well-meaning message. This is something he addressed in his apology (which I believe he meant - even if his salary was under threat). Those complaining about Hook have a point.

I believe there are people using Hook's mistake to hammer him now unfairly, and ascribing lots to George/Newstalk to suit their own agenda, but it doesnt mean that Hook did nothing wrong.

Hook can claim that Newstalk benefit from him sailing close to the wind and that what he said on rape was no different to what he said years ago on the subject or any worse than the HPV twaddle etc. Its the ones you dont see coming that get you.

The Rape of Lucretia · 17-09-2017 05:53PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

But that's not what he said, he said that blame lay also with the person who is raped as they engaged in risky behaviour, and this is false.

He didnt. How many times does this have to be stated ? He asked a question.
To prompt debate. Which can be fully rebuffed through discussion.

It seems people want him to have said it so that they can criticise him, be outraged, or indulge their hypersensitivity.

Your statement above, a false statement about his, is far more outrageous than anything he said.

Morgans · 17-09-2017 05:54PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But he didn't say, he asked. Cue, discussion. Not suspension.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/curious-george-hook-and-the-hpv-jab-1.2819266

Gasbaggery.

CiDeRmAn · 17-09-2017 05:54PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But he didn't say, he asked. Cue, discussion. Not suspension.

It was entirely rhetorical, taken in the context of the rest of what he said, which were also rhetorical.

“But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. Should she be raped?
Course she shouldn’t.
Is she entitled to say no?
Absolutely.
Is the guy who came in a scumbag?
Certainly.
Should he go to jail?
Of Course.
All of those things,
But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?”

That this is his personal opinion is implicit.

Lt Dan · 17-09-2017 05:56PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No it isnt. People talk about it.

Not when they are members of that same court/tribunal or place of employment/Dáil Committee, in order to avoid being seen as making premature judgments or seeking to influence the outcome

Morgans · 17-09-2017 05:57PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

He didnt. How many times does this have to be stated ? He asked a question.
To prompt debate. Which can be fully rebuffed through discussion.

It seems people want him to have said it so that they can criticise him, be outraged, or indulge their hypersensitivity.

Your statement above, a false statement about his, is far more outrageous than anything he said.

And again

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/c...-jab-1.2819266

Mountainsandh · 17-09-2017 06:00PM

Morgans wrote: »

However, the 'free speechers, the PC gone mad brigade, parroting the alt-right wannabes, kicking back at the liberals, the seem to think that being controversial is by of itself good enough to broadcast. Katie Hopkins is available for work. If upsetting liberals is what you want to do, then that's who you want.

Katie Hopkins is incendiary, not controversial. She doesn't ask the questions, like GH. She makes provocative statements.

Get the difference ?

Controversy is good on radio broadcasts, imo, when there is an opportunity to interact : texts, emails, phone calls, and relevant, qualified guests. Debates may never be happily concluded, but that goes with raising the hard questions, it can be informative, provocative, and trigger healthy, democratic reflection.

In other words I don't want my brain polluted with trolling statements from Katie Hopkins, but I also don't want to be brainwashed into PC doctrines.

I'm ok with interesting, sometimes provocative questions, that may have me challenging my own take on current issues, or challenging others' take on same issues.

CiDeRmAn · 17-09-2017 06:02PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

He didnt. How many times does this have to be stated ? He asked a question.
To prompt debate. Which can be fully rebuffed through discussion.

It seems people want him to have said it so that they can criticise him, be outraged, or indulge their hypersensitivity.

Your statement above, a false statement about his, is far more outrageous than anything he said.

So, it's a debate on whether the acknowledged and accepted, wholly inappropriate statement was either a statement or a question?
It was a question that shouldn't have been asked as it only makes the reporting of rape more difficult, prolonging the suffering of the victims and increasing the chances that the perpetrators will not be caught.

And before we get into "free speech" think of the other types of sexual assault and crimes against humanity that we don't question in any regard as being the victims fault.

Lt Dan · 17-09-2017 06:05PM

Morgans wrote: »

And it wouldnt be all over the papers today. There is a remarkable amount of thin skinned snowflake behaviour among the Hook defenders. Donoghue as a role as political editor (like it or not) and if he steps out of line, Im sure George, his solicitors or newstalk will have something to say.

Chris Donoghue is a member of staff at Newstalk. Newstalk, his employers , are holding an investigation into the conduct of another member of staff. Full due procedures are required to be followed.

While it is not an important as a Dáil Committee, there is an important reason why the people voted against giving Dáil powers to act like Tribunals. The reason stems from the idiotic and disgraceful behaviour of TD's holding a Committee Investigation a number of years ago (The well known Maguire v Ardagh and others , Supreme Court Case) The very people investigating matters had gone on radio etc and made some idiot prejudice statements before a decision or facts finding was ever concluded.

"Snowflake"? You haven't a clue , boy. Don't even try that rubbish with me, you are not smart enough, not even close!

Pointing out that people are reverting to lies and even, pathetically other instances where George cause a row or taking completely out of context a paragraph of a book he wrote over 10 years ago, is not being sensitive or seeking to even shut down discussions. Pointing out a failing to follow correct procedures during investigations are hardly the acts of snowflakers. Know is pointing out that there is a world of difference between a question and an opinion.

Morgans · 17-09-2017 06:10PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

"Snowflake"? You haven't a clue , boy. Don't even try that rubbish with me, you are not smart enough, not even close!

Textbook. Triggered.

Morgans · 17-09-2017 06:13PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

Chris Donoghue is a member of staff at Newstalk. Newstalk, his employers , are holding an investigation into the conduct of another member of staff. Full due procedures are required to be followed.

Chris Donoghue is not an Newstalk employee. Gas.

Vorenus400 · 17-09-2017 06:16PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

Chris Donoghue is a member of staff at Newstalk. Newstalk, his employers , are holding an investigation into the conduct of another member of staff. Full due procedures are required to be followed.

While it is not an important as a Dáil Committee, there is an important reason why the people voted against giving Dáil powers to act like Tribunals. The reason stems from the idiotic and disgraceful behaviour of TD's holding a Committee Investigation a number of years ago (The well known Maguire v Ardagh and others , Supreme Court Case) The very people investigating matters had gone on radio etc and made some idiot prejudice statements before a decision or facts finding was ever concluded.

"Snowflake"? You haven't a clue , boy. Don't even try that rubbish with me, you are not smart enough, not even close!

Pointing out that people are reverting to lies and even, pathetically other instances where George cause a row or taking completely out of context a paragraph of a book he wrote over 10 years ago, is not being sensitive or seeking to even shut down discussions. Pointing out a failing to follow correct procedures during investigations are hardly the acts of snowflakers. Know is pointing out that there is a world of difference between a question and an opinion.

Did Chris Donoghue not do his text before the investigation. I am open to correction but I thought the investigation only started on the Thursday/Friday following the comments. I thought the internal investigation was only announced with Hook bring suspended

Lt Dan · 17-09-2017 06:24PM

Morgans wrote: »

Textbook. Triggered.

No one likes liars and the disingenuous

I have a major issue with people from both the left and right talking about things that they do not know what they are talking about. I'm an all for equal treatment on that front when calling them out .

I also have a huge issue with seemingly remotely intelligent people using terms like snowflake , racism, bigots etc when they clearly don't understand what the term means

Why on earth would someone like me seek to shut those idiots down? Why on earth would stop them digging a hole for themselves? God no, ripping apart their arguments and exposing their stupidity is far far far far more fun.

Long before you uttered a sentence, I have already pointed all of what you said in my earlier posts, especially the distaste of those who are seeking to defend George, simply in order to have a dig at the so called left or liberals

I made a statement just about a hour ago about why it is inappropriate for Chris Donoghue, an employee of Newstalk, to have even uttered a word about the recent issues at his station. You and the other genius failed to understand what was said. Due process does not mean that other members of the place of work make public statements or think aloud in public about the recent problems. It is simply not on. Nothing to do with triggered.

But, please, continue the waffle, I will not stop you

Triggered? Ha ha , you'd be incapable my good man

Lt Dan · 17-09-2017 06:27PM

Morgans wrote: »

Chris Donoghue is not an Newstalk employee. Gas.

Really? Self employed so,

Is he still a representative of Newstalk , when he goes on air or carries out broadcasts on their behalf? Yes.

If he made defamatory comments or allowed a guess to make defamatory comments (about other subjects) while doing a show exclusively for Newstalk , regardless of whether the piece was in the NT Studios or outside, could Newstalk say "hey, that has nothing to do with us" ? NO!

Lt Dan · 17-09-2017 06:31PM

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Did Chris Donoghue not do his text before the investigation. I am open to correction but I thought the investigation only started on the Thursday/Friday following the comments. I thought the internal investigation was only announced with Hook bring suspended

I am not referring to Chris' comments last Sunday

I am referring to the idea of even opening up a discussion of the matter this morning . Once Hook is officially gone, go to town on it

Hook is suspended while pending the conclusion of the investigation (which will probably not be held because he will either resign or be invited to resign and walk away and paid off)

Mountainsandh · 17-09-2017 06:33PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

So, it's a debate on whether the acknowledged and accepted, wholly inappropriate statement was either a statement or a question?
It was a question that shouldn't have been asked as it only makes the reporting of rape more difficult, prolonging the suffering of the victims and increasing the chances that the perpetrators will not be caught.
.

So the bit in your answer that I bolded is exactly how the subsequent conversation might have gone.

Texter :"George, you are so wrong to use/have used the word "blame" (last Thursday), it really is important that everyone understand that there is no blame apportioned to the victims ever. What you are doing makes the reporting of rape more difficult, prolonging the suffering of the victims, and increasing the chances that the perpetrators will not be caught."

Cue more discussion, more awareness of how important it is to support every woman to report assault/rape, while also encouraging personal responsibility, yada yada yada.

Communication.
Talking it out.
Voicing it back.

Not a petition to fire someone, and taking someone off the air for sparking a debate. That's the immature, knee jerk reaction of a generation that cannot accept to feel offended on occasion.

And before we get into "free speech" think of the other types of sexual assault and crimes against humanity that we don't question in any regard as being the victims fault

GH did not state it was the victim's fault. Assuming that discussion had taken place as above, he would have been quickly put in his place as regards his use of vocabulary, and then the question of what level of risk people are willing to take responsibility for in their lives could have been broached.

And that fits in nicely with your reference to other crimes against humanity, such as terrorism, and whether someone should stay away from concert halls since the terror attacks for example.

When people perceive GH as stating his opinions to annoy people, I have always felt that his attitude was more like : "ok, this is me, I'm an old cantankerous git, these are my old git opinions, challenge me, tell me I'm wrong so we can argue".

And he did take on board people's arguments. It's good. It makes for good listening, and whether we agree or disagree, it makes us think.

Morgans · 17-09-2017 06:35PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

Really? Self employed so,

Is he still a representative of Newstalk , when he goes on air or carries out broadcasts on their behalf? Yes.

If he made defamatory comments or allowed a guess to make defamatory comments while doing a show exclusively for Newstalk , regardless of whether the piece was in the NT Studios or outside, could Newstalk say "hey, that has nothing to do with us" ? NO!

Nice conversation you are having with yourself.

No, is not self employed. He is political editor of communicorp, with responsibility now for the political output for among others Newstalk, Today FM, Spin etc. Unfortunately, for George and any other presenter, Chris has a role to judge their output, and he was needed to outline Communicorp perspective on the hullabullo surrounding George when it happened. Which he did long before this 'internal review' took place.

Lt Dan · 17-09-2017 06:45PM

Morgans wrote: »

Nice conversation you are having with yourself.

No, is not self employed. He is political editor of communicorp, with responsibility now for the political output for among others Newstalk, Today FM, Spin etc. Unfortunately, for George and any other presenter, Chris has a role to judge their output, and he was needed to outline Communicorp perspective on the hullabullo surrounding George when it happened. Which he did long before this 'internal review' took place.

So he is either an employee of Communicorp or Self Employed with Communicorp?(yes,a separate company, a norm in business)

His actions while broadcasting or being interviewed exclusively on the Newstalk Vehicle, can NT and ultimately Communicorp wash their hands if he ever says or allows an interviewee say anything defamatory or in breach of court/tribunal orders in a case or something against the broadcasting laws and guidelines or an employment tribunal matter or an internal matter?

NO!

Chris is more than welcome to communicate his views during the private meetings, which no doubt, he will be involved in. Making statements or inviting on public radio , while an investigation is suppose to be on going is the hallmarks of poor procedures and frankly give the public an idea of a kangaroo court. There was no purpose with inviting discussion about the matter this morning!

Morgans · 17-09-2017 06:48PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

So he is either an employee of Communicorp or Self Employed with Communicorp?(yes,a separate company, a norm in business)

His actions while broadcasting or being interviewed exclusively on the Newstalk Vehicle, can NT and ultimately Communicorp wash their hands if he ever says or allows an interviewee say anything defamatory or in breach of court/tribunal orders in a case or something against the broadcasting laws and guidelines or an employment tribunal matter or an internal matter?

NO!

Chris is more than welcome to communicate his views during the private meetings, which no doubt, he will be involved in. Making statements or inviting on public radio , while an investigation is suppose to be on going is the hallmarks of poor procedures and frankly give the public an idea of a kangaroo court

You've already been told that he didnt say anything this morning.

And think the world and its wife can guess that the 'internal investigation' would last 30 seconds in reality, and is a discussion about how much George will be paid.

Lady Chatterton · 17-09-2017 06:49PM

longshanks wrote: »

Who do you fine people reckon will replace him?

I'm 99.9% certain that Dr. Ciara Kelly has been told that she has George's show.

I listened to her being interviewed yesterday by Marian Finucane and my initial thought was I had been very unfair to her during the week. She was quite generous in her praise for him and the help he had given her along the way.

However, as the interview progressed I felt that the interview was part of a rehabilitation process on behalf of Newstalk (The Mens Shed Station & Dr. Ciara). She knows that there are members of the public who feel that she was less than loyal to George this week. She seemed very anxious to let us know she didn't sign the petition asking for his removal. Ciara is smart enough to know she will need to win back the public if she is to make a successful radio career for herself. Starting a new show that your friend was ousted from might make you as popular as getting promoted after crossing a picket while your best friend and colleague was on strike.

The thing that struck me as being very strange was - when asked by Marian if she had been in contact with George, she said that she had been in touch with her good friend (father figure) George by text.

Anyone who knows George knows that he doesn't like text. I've lost track of how many times on the radio he has said that when he receives a text he rings the person because he hates it some much.

Given the close friendship they were supposed to have, I would have expected the good doctor to visit her friend (being a doctor, who expressed concerns to Marian about the affect the controversy would be having on his mental health) it amazes me that she chose to text him over a making phonecall or a visit (of course maybe he didn't want contact from her?).

I thought Ciara's answer to one of Marian's final questions was very interesting (perhaps even a little revealing). Marian asked her how she would feel if the current situation involving someone she regarded as a father figure/friend presented her with an opportunity.

Ciara spoke at length about not making secret of wanting a primetime show before saying
These were not the circumstances I would be looking for them...

'Were not' sounds like she has the job or has been promised it. Otherwise, her answer surely would have been "These are not the circumstances"???????

I'm convinced the deal has been done, time will tell but there was something smug about her demeanour in the final few minutes of the interview.

Morgans · 17-09-2017 06:54PM

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

I'm 99.9% certain that Dr. Ciara Kelly has been told that she has George's show.

I listened to her being interviewed yesterday by Marian Finucane and my initial thought was I had been very unfair to her during the week. She was quite generous in her praise for him and the help he had given her along the way.

However, as the interview progressed I felt that the interview was part of a rehabilitation process on behalf of Newstalk (The Mens Shed Station & Dr. Ciara). She knows that there are members of the public who feel that she was less than loyal to George this week. She seemed very anxious to let us know she didn't sign the petition asking for his removal. Ciara is smart enough to know she will need to win back the public if she is to make a successful radio career for herself. Starting a new show that your friend was ousted from might make you as popular as getting promoted after crossing a picket while your best friend and colleague was on strike.

The thing that struck me as being very strange was - when asked by Marian if she had been in contact with George, she said that she had been in touch with her good friend (father figure) George by text.

Anyone who knows George knows that he doesn't like text. I've lost track of how many times on the radio he has said that when he receives a text he rings the person because he hates it some much.

Given the close friendship they were supposed to have, I would have expected the good doctor to visit her friend (being a doctor, who expressed concerns to Marian about the affect the controversy would be having on his mental health) it amazes me that she chose to text him over a making phonecall or a visit (of course maybe he didn't want contact from her?).

I thought Ciara's answer to one of Marian's final questions was very interesting (perhaps even a little revealing). Marian asked her how she would feel if the current situation involving someone she regarded as a father figure/friend presented her with an opportunity.

Ciara spoke at length about not making secret of wanting a primetime show before saying
These were not the circumstances I would be looking for them...

'Were not' sounds like she has the job or has been promised it. Otherwise, her answer surely would have been "These are not the circumstances"???????

I'm convinced the deal has been done, time will tell but there was something smug about her demeanour in the final few minutes of the interview.

Given the publicity, Newstalk will have another round of 'is it anti-women' if it is a male. Ticks a lot of the boxes unfortunately.

constitutionus · 17-09-2017 06:55PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe they'll draft in someone from the weekend slots. Bobby whatshisname, one radio unfreindly voice to replace another. Except they won't. NT know this is a great chance to shut up critical reaction to some degree by giving a woman a prime slot.

this is one of the angles of this thats doing my head in.

WHY the fuk should newstalk managment give two fiddlers what those behind the "critical reaction" of their line up feel?

its people in RTE - who are 22 million in debt, nobodies from the journal.ie, fringe "wimmins groups" like the NWCI , Ivana bat**** and the Irish Times- whose entire readership is LESS than George Hooks high noon listenership !

the ONLY people they should give a monkies about is their audience. the ones paying the bills for them by turning up everyday and being the proof of the return advertisers can expect for their investments.

if they keep going down this path im sure they can be very proud of their "standing" in irish society- when they close the doors and let everyone go cause nobodies fecking listening to them anymore.

for what its worth i see that traitorous little toerag donogue getting the gig and i cant wait to see it blow up in his face as the public abandon him in their droves.

Lt Dan · 17-09-2017 06:56PM

Morgans wrote: »

You've already been told that he didnt say anything this morning.

And think the world and its wife can guess that the 'internal investigation' would last 30 seconds in reality, and is a discussion about how much George will be paid.

Does not matter how many seconds the internal investigation is held for, it should at least be held ( has/will be held) No discussion or inviting others to comment on air should occur until the investigation is over.After that, they can go to town man, skin him alive ............That applies to anyone else ,not just Hook incident

brooke 2 · 17-09-2017 07:40PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I do. Of all the Newstalk presenters she would be probably the closest to my worldview. I have absolutely no problem if she replaces Hook, I thought Hook having to go was wrong but I welcome a presenter who is not the same type of presenter as two or three others during the day.

You seem to be in the minority. Personally, I find it very difficult to listen to her
haranguing voice. Her scolding manner with George last Monday really annoyed me - very different from her usual flirty manner with him. What absolutely sticks in my craw is how she waited until GH was suspended to come out to speak in his favour., as she did on Marian Finucane yesterday. She says he mentored her, went to bat for her, argued with the higher ups in NT not to be so sexist and 'elevate' her as he thought she was 'very good'. It obviously worked as she seems to be in there constantly. Considering all that, wouldn't you think that she would have spoken up for GH sooner, just as Pat Kenny did? It's also interesting that as soon as she spoke on MF, her picture was all over the media. A report of her interview was even on Journal.ie, which is more than can be said for Pat Kenny's statement of support. No doubt she pays her agent well! :rolleyes:

Snake Plisken · 17-09-2017 07:42PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

Really? Self employed so,

Is he still a representative of Newstalk , when he goes on air or carries out broadcasts on their behalf? Yes.

If he made defamatory comments or allowed a guess to make defamatory comments (about other subjects) while doing a show exclusively for Newstalk , regardless of whether the piece was in the NT Studios or outside, could Newstalk say "hey, that has nothing to do with us" ? NO!

I thin you are spot on Dan there is an internal review and if it goes against George I think he has grounds to sue Newstalk for unfair dismissal due to the likes of Donaghue Dil and the likes making comments if you notice Moncrieff has made a very generic statement on the subject and how folks have tried to get a response from him on twitter he has kept his silence! Donahue hasn't and I hope he is repremanded because of it!

brooke 2 · 17-09-2017 07:45PM

constitutionus wrote: »

which is a rarity in newstalk. Faaaar too many of their presenters are the type you'd run a mile from. as the yanks put it "you wouldnt have a beer with them"

for the life of me i dont know why he and coleman arent presenting the breakfast show. they worked very well together when fitzpatrick fecked off to TV3.

i'd be back in a second with that line up but as long as williams is there i wont be.

on topic the Sindo is now saying hooks gone and the talk with the lawyers is all about a settlement to get them out of his contract. if thats true then i look foreward to the JLNRS in a year time showing the exodus of his listeners. particularly if that little shyte donogue gets his gig longterm.

the least thing newstalk will have to worry about then is tescos.

Cuddihy and Coleman would be a good mix. Have not listened to NT breakfast for ages. Can't stand Williams.

brooke 2 · 17-09-2017 07:50PM

nc6000 wrote: »

Judging by this and the papers today, it looks like a lot of people have an axe to grind with Hook and are using this as an excuse to settle some old scores.

Tom Lyons in the SBP not a great fan of George. Worked in NT for a few years as business editor.

meeeeh · 17-09-2017 08:12PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

Considering all that, wouldn't you think that she would have spoken up for GH sooner, just as Pat Kenny did? It's also interesting that as soon as she spoke on MF, her picture was all over the media. A report of her interview was even on Journal.ie, which is more than can be said for Pat Kenny's statement of support. No doubt she pays her agent well! :rolleyes:

We know way to little about what anyone said or did to make any conclusions. The only people who can make an informed judgement about the whole thing are those in Newstalk. I have the same rule about any other situation with limited information. I think snap emotional reaction is often not productive or wrong.

foxtrot101 · 17-09-2017 08:25PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

You seem to be in the minority. Personally, I find it very difficult to listen to her
haranguing voice. Her scolding manner with George last Monday really annoyed me - very different from her usual flirty manner with him. What absolutely sticks in my craw is how she waited until GH was suspended to come out to speak in his favour., as she did on Marian Finucane yesterday. She says he mentored her, went to bat for her, argued with the higher ups in NT not to be so sexist and 'elevate' her as he thought she was 'very good'. It obviously worked as she seems to be in there constantly. Considering all that, wouldn't you think that she would have spoken up for GH sooner, just as Pat Kenny did? It's also interesting that as soon as she spoke on MF, her picture was all over the media. A report of her interview was even on Journal.ie, which is more than can be said for Pat Kenny's statement of support. No doubt she pays her agent well! :rolleyes:

She is now with "super" agent Noel Kelly

http://www.nkmanagement.ie/female.html

High Noon with George Hook.

Comments