High Noon with George Hook.

meeeeh · 22-09-2017 04:18PM

scotchy wrote: »

Please Newstalk NOOOOOOOooooo.

.

.

I like her but it's just my speculation that she will replace Hook.

22-09-2017 04:26PM

Five Green Bottles wrote: »

Utter nonsense!
Minimising risk is locking the door, minimising risk is not walking home alone drunk.

Minimising risk is also never crossing the road because you might get hit by a bus.

Where do you draw the line?

My mum's theory of never locking her kitchen door is that 'if they want to get in, they'll get in anyway', and her windows are expensive to repair. That's sensible.

I regularly walk home after a night out, because I live 10 minutes from Grafton Street. If anything were to happen to me, or someone like me, I defy anyone to say to the face of a victim's loved one 'well, they have to bear some responsibility here'.

It's the kind of thing that's very easy to write when sitting at a keyboard or to blather out in front of a mic, but everyone knows it cuts across the boundary of common decency, and in the instant case, I suspect there's a bit of a gender bias going on.

I don't recall a single instance of Trevor Deely being blamed for walking home alone whilst inebriated, and rightly so. If he were a female, and were raped, I suspect that narrative might have arisen.

BPKS · 22-09-2017 04:27PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Should it though?

Back when bank robberies were reasonably common occurences, nobody to my knowledge ever claimed that although robberies were always wrong, and it was never the fault of the bank tellers, that traumatised bank tellers had to accept any element personal responsibility.

That would be a bizarre claim for anyone to have made,

Five years ago, a stone's throw away from where I live in Dublin, a journalist was killed by a single-punch blow to the neck. He was inebriated and walking home, when put upon by a drunken maniac. No right-thinking person would have ventured to suggest that the journalist who was walking home, inebriated, but minding his own business, should have incurred an iota for of personal responsibility.

No civil human being should even indulge such nonsense.

My own mother lives in rural Ireland, and hasn't locked our kitchen door in my lifetime. The milkman, the man who milks the cows, the postman, and friends and neighbours, know just to push the door and come inside.

Now, that house has in fact been burgled, but they didn't come in through the kitchen door (assuming it to be locked). In my mind, it makes zero difference whether they push in the door or break it down. The victim does not bear any responsibility for the trespass and crimes of another.

Take this example.

A young fella goes on the p1ss. Spends all his money on drink so has no money for a taxi. He decides to walk home on a dark country road. He is very drunk. He is wearing black jeans and a black coat. He staggers out onto the road a bit and a drunk driver knocks him down.

Is the young fella any way to blame for getting knocked down?

PeterTheNinth · 22-09-2017 04:30PM

BPKS wrote: »

Take this example. Is the young fella any way to blame for getting knocked down?

Is he wearing a hypothetical luminous jacket?

kunst nugget · 22-09-2017 04:32PM

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Is he wearing a hypothetical luminous jacket?

He was but it stolen off his back by a hypothetical hawk. That's why he ended up staggering out into the middle of the hypothetical country road.

BPKS · 22-09-2017 04:34PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

He was but it stolen off his back by a hypothetical hawk. That's why he ended up staggering out into the middle of the hypothetical country road.

No he was p1ssed and this actually happened.

22-09-2017 04:36PM

BPKS wrote: »

Take this example.

A young fella goes on the p1ss. Spends all his money on drink so has no money for a taxi. He decides to walk home on a dark country road. He is very drunk. He is wearing black jeans and a black coat. He staggers out onto the road a bit and a drunk driver knocks him down.

Is the young fella any way to blame for getting knocked down?

The driver didn't set out to knock-down this hypothetical pedestrian. we are talking here about criminal acts, i.e. for which there is criminal intent which is acted upon, or attempted to be acted upon.

The example you give is more akin to someone getting their arm mangled in the PTO shaft of a tractor, when they ought to have taken more care. That's personal responsibility.

But personal responsibility is not incurred by a victim in the event of criminal activity, unless they are in some way a party or conspirator in that crime.

kunst nugget · 22-09-2017 04:40PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The driver didn't set out to knock-down this hypothetical pedestrian. we are talking here about criminal acts, i.e. for which there is criminal intent which is acted upon, or attempted to be acted upon.

The example you give is more akin to someone getting their arm mangled in the PTO shaft of a tractor, when they ought to have taken more care. That's personal responsibility.

But personal responsibility is not incurred by a victim in the event of criminal activity, unless they are in some way a party or conspirator in that crime.

The fact is if the driver was drunk then it was a criminal act.

BPKS · 22-09-2017 04:40PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The driver didn't set out to knock-down this hypothetical pedestrian. we are talking here about criminal acts, i.e. for which there is criminal intent which is acted upon, or attempted to be acted upon.

The example you give is more akin to someone getting their arm mangled in the PTO shaft of a tractor, when they ought to have taken more care. That's personal responsibility.

But personal responsibility is not incurred by a victim in the event of criminal activity, unless they are in some way a party or conspirator in that crime.

The driver was drunk. That is a criminal offence.

BPKS · 22-09-2017 04:41PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

The fact is if the driver was drunk then it was a criminal act.

And out of interest do you think the young lad contributed to his death or is it entirely the drunk drivers fault?

southstar · 22-09-2017 04:45PM

HurlingRanker wrote: »

On her first broadcast after GH's suspension she signed off her intro with "and yes, I AM a woman"

I immediately switched off and haven't tuned back in since. I don't know what point she was trying to make and quite frankly I don't care, and I couldn't care less what the gender is of a presenter. She can peddle her us and them nonsense all she likes, thanks to tunein there are thousands of alternatives.

I interpreted that declaration(Yes I am a woman..) as a kind of snub to comments intimating that Newstalk had a bias against women presenters.Id say that she's ambitious all right... though the talent to match is not evident so far....but its a hell of a jump to that from accuse her of tramping over the carcass of Hook.I'd hoped that Newstalk would have shown more bottle but I guess money talks.I've pretty much stopped listening

22-09-2017 04:45PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

The fact is if the driver was drunk then it was a criminal act.

BPKS wrote: »

The driver was drunk. That is a criminal offence.

Well if the driver is drunk, the question is whether a hypothetical non-intoxicated driver would have seen the hypothetical pedestrian. In these circumstances, I suggest that is unlikely.

You have to distinguish crime from acts of personal responsibility. A crime is a crime is a crime, and when you start talking about the 'personal responsibility' of a victim for another's criminal behaviour, you are inherently implying that less blame therefore attaches to the criminal who committed the offensive act.

kunst nugget · 22-09-2017 04:49PM

BPKS wrote: »

And out of interest do you think the young lad contributed to his death or is it entirely the drunk drivers fault?

Miltiades makes a good point in terms of personal responsibility and the actions of the young lad were foolish in the extreme - I'll hold my hands up and say I have been that idiot in the past - but the minute that driver got into that car drunk and drove a tonne of steel with compromised reaction times, the consequences of his actions were entirely his fault.

bottlebrush · 22-09-2017 04:52PM

BPKS wrote: »

And out of interest do you think the young lad contributed to his death or is it entirely the drunk drivers fault?

I blame the car

BPKS · 22-09-2017 05:16PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Miltiades makes a good point in terms of personal responsibility and the actions of the young lad were foolish in the extreme - I'll hold my hands up and say I have been that idiot in the past - but the minute that driver got into that car drunk and drove a tonne of steel with compromised reaction times, the consequences of his actions were entirely his fault.

This is what I was trying to find out peoples views on.

BPKS · 22-09-2017 05:18PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well if the driver is drunk, the question is whether a hypothetical non-intoxicated driver would have seen the hypothetical pedestrian. In these circumstances, I suggest that is unlikely.

You have to distinguish crime from acts of personal responsibility. A crime is a crime is a crime, and when you start talking about the 'personal responsibility' of a victim for another's criminal behaviour, you are inherently implying that less blame therefore attaches to the criminal who committed the offensive act.

I'm just trying to see if people think there could be even a smidgen of contributory negligence on behalf of the victim, even when a criminal act occurred.

suicide_circus · 22-09-2017 05:25PM

Should be interesting when christ donahue and dil pickle pass george in the break room in December

Jamiekelly · 22-09-2017 05:43PM

They're talking about Hook again on Matt Coopers show and I'm struck at just how political this is. Hugh linehan is filling in and has admitted that a vast majority of the texts are agreeing with the general sentiment of George regarding personal responsibility but saying he made a simple error in making the point effectively.

Cue Mr Linehan saying "well George apologized for it so its clear even George doesn't agree with you"

Is this really the state of broadcast journalism in Ireland? A silly little game of one upsmanship with the programs own listener base?

I've been a liberal all my life and I'm only in my 20s but now I really am starting to see the snide visciousness that has been directed at conservative people simply for holding an opinion. It's really forcing me to evaluate if I should continue to call myself liberal any more given how the term has been hijacked by an internet mob and almost turned the word into the opposite of what it actually means.

If Hook has proven one thing correct it's that virtue signalling for applause is really dumbing down debate and political discourse.

22-09-2017 05:46PM

BPKS wrote: »

I'm just trying to see if people think there could be even a smidgen of contributory negligence on behalf of the victim, even when a criminal act occurred.

I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure contributory negligence only arises in civil matters, and even then, not all civil matters.

There are acts that can be classed as both criminal and civil in nature, and I assume that it is only the civil aspect for which a defence of contributory negligence arises.

So AFAIK contributory negligence simply doesn't arise in cases of rape, although that only applies to the question of guilt or innocence. Judges are obviously free, within the law, to mitigate sentences in light of the circumstances of a particular case.

22-09-2017 05:51PM

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Cue Mr Linehan saying "well George apologized for it so its clear even George doesn't agree with you"

Is this really the state of broadcast journalism in Ireland? A silly little game of one upsmanship with the programs own listener base?

But Linehan actually makes a good point.

George Hook did apologise, he did say it was unacceptable language, and he accepts the blame for what he said.

All of the people who are so outraged by Hook's suspension are, pretty significantly, disagreeing with George Hook himself in terms of the supposed personal responsibility of rape victims.

DickSwiveller · 22-09-2017 05:56PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The driver didn't set out to knock-down this hypothetical pedestrian. we are talking here about criminal acts, i.e. for which there is criminal intent which is acted upon, or attempted to be acted upon.

The example you give is more akin to someone getting their arm mangled in the PTO shaft of a tractor, when they ought to have taken more care. That's personal responsibility.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But personal responsibility is not incurred by a victim in the event of criminal activity, unless they are in some way a party or conspirator in that crime.

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense. If I drive a ferrari, and leave it unlocked in Ballymun, and am subsequently robbed, I deserve absolutely no sympathy.

DickSwiveller · 22-09-2017 05:59PM

Jamiekelly wrote: »

They're talking about Hook again on Matt Coopers show and I'm struck at just how political this is. Hugh linehan is filling in and has admitted that a vast majority of the texts are agreeing with the general sentiment of George regarding personal responsibility but saying he made a simple error in making the point effectively.

Cue Mr Linehan saying "well George apologized for it so its clear even George doesn't agree with you"

Is this really the state of broadcast journalism in Ireland? A silly little game of one upsmanship with the programs own listener base?

I've been a liberal all my life and I'm only in my 20s but now I really am starting to see the snide visciousness that has been directed at conservative people simply for holding an opinion. It's really forcing me to evaluate if I should continue to call myself liberal any more given how the term has been hijacked by an internet mob and almost turned the word into the opposite of what it actually means.

If Hook has proven one thing correct it's that virtue signalling for applause is really dumbing down debate and political discourse.

Mr Linehan is a fanatic. Just look at his twatter feed.

Del.Monte · 22-09-2017 06:01PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But Linehan actually makes a good point.

George Hook did apologise, he did say it was unacceptable language, and he accepts the blame for what he said.

All of the people who are so outraged by Hook's suspension are, pretty significantly, disagreeing with George Hook himself in terms of the supposed personal responsibility of rape victims.

Why do you think George apologised - do you really think that he changed his view in a couple of hours? He apologised because he had to.. Linehan is another fool and later in the programme when talking about Brexit he addressed a British interviewee and informed them that 'we' in Ireland have the word blather...probably got a Masters from TCD too.

https://www.google.ie/search?client=opera&hs=8wT&q=blather+meaning&oq=blather+meaning&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l2j0i22i30k1.3227.4392.0.4700.7.7.0.0.0.0.144.861.0j7.7.0.foo%2Ccfro%3D1%2Cnso-ehuqi%3D1%2Cnso-ehuui%3D1%2Cewh%3D0%2Cnso-mplt%3D2%2Cnso-enksa%3D0%2Cnso-enfk%3D1%2Cnso-usnt%3D1%2Cnso-qnt-npqp%3D0-1701%2Cnso-qnt-npdq%3D0-54%2Cnso-qnt-npt%3D0-1%2Cnso-qnt-ndc%3D300%2Ccspa-dspm-nm-mnp%3D0-05%2Ccspa-dspm-nm-mxp%3D0-125%2Cnso-unt-npqp%3D0-17%2Cnso-unt-npdq%3D0-54%2Cnso-unt-npt%3D0-0602%2Cnso-unt-ndc%3D300%2Ccspa-uipm-nm-mnp%3D0-007525%2Ccspa-uipm-nm-mxp%3D0-052675...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.857....0.wzY66j3609E

:rolleyes:

22-09-2017 06:03PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense. If I drive a ferrari, and leave it unlocked in Ballymun, and am subsequently robbed, I deserve absolutely no sympathy.

Ferrari drivers, as a class of individuals, tend not to garner much sympathy for anything they do or omit to do. So that's a distorted example.

But if I leave my car unlocked whilst I run into Spar to buy a gallon of milk, as I have often done, and my car were stolen; I would not, in that case, consider myself responsible for the criminality of another, at all.

You might think it's an act of stupidity, and that's fair enough. But don't confuse a fleeting, stupid decision with the very different concept of 'personal responsibility'.

Personal responsibility means *sharing* the blame with the offender.

PeterTheNinth · 22-09-2017 06:10PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But if I leave my car unlocked whilst I run into Spar to buy a gallon of milk, as I have often done, and my car were stolen; I would not, in that case, consider myself responsible for the criminality of another, at all.

If it was a company car, and you had to tell your boss that you left the company car unlocked outside Spar to buy a gallon of milk, and the car got robbed... What would you think that your boss, or more importantly the insurance company, would say?

Conservative · 22-09-2017 07:15PM

That's a pretty big **** you to Donoghue and the 20 who signed his petition! I wasn't expecting that at all.

Fair play to NT management for giving George an opportunity to end his broadcasting career in the manner he deserves..

ALSO, surely this means Dil doesn't return? hahahaha best possible result

PeterTheNinth · 22-09-2017 07:24PM

How about if George and Dil co-host a show called The Right Left.

PeterTheNinth · 22-09-2017 07:26PM

Interesting to see that Jonathan Irwin (head of Jack And Jill) has made some "controversial" remarks regarding the HPV.

https://twitter.com/JohnJoedotcom

#Gardasil Miller's Review lists no less than 17 scientific Reports that highlight very serious concerns about the Vax.Harris pay attention

#GARDASIL Have v Frightening book"Millers Review of Critical Vaccine Studies"10 pages on HPV Vax which Harris,O'Brien et al shld read NOW.

Found a video of him on the REGRET site as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeP-eIyibQM

Good few tweets about it. I wonder does this make him an emotional terrorist as well?

nullzero · 22-09-2017 07:44PM

Hopefully that pile of dirt global village gets chopped in favour of a new show for George hook. What an insufferable pain in the ears that Dil character is, a professional whinger who offers nothing. Her show should have been called "Dil's safe space".

bottlebrush · 22-09-2017 07:55PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ferrari drivers, as a class of individuals, tend not to garner much sympathy for anything they do or omit to do. So that's a distorted example.

But if I leave my car unlocked whilst I run into Spar to buy a gallon of milk, as I have often done, and my car were stolen; I would not, in that case, consider myself responsible for the criminality of another, at all.

You might think it's an act of stupidity, and that's fair enough. But don't confuse a fleeting, stupid decision with the very different concept of 'personal responsibility'.

Personal responsibility means *sharing* the blame with the offender.

And the likelihood is that you would replace the car and make sure you locked this new car before you go into the shop . . Hence taking a degree of responsibility for it not happening to you a second time. . ?

High Noon with George Hook.

Comments