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

What George Hook said wasn't so bad after all, was it?

Comhrá

Egyptian lawyer jailed for saying women in ripped jeans should be raped

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42209755?ocid=socialflow_twitter

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Vela

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't say that though

It was directly implied from what he did say:

"Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She's only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, no idea what dangers he might pose.
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."

George Hook than goes on to discuss the "responsibility of women.
"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger? You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her."

Source

Bullsh1t of the highest order.

milehip

Pithythefool wrote: »

I wasn't talking about George hook, I was talking about the poster.

Pretty sure they'd be okay with them both being silenced.

Vela

Pithythefool wrote: »

I wasn't talking about George hook, I was talking about the poster.

Same applies.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

Same applies.

Ah that's too far, or at least hyperbolic.

If someone dresses provocatively, it is intended to provoke. Now I know its not the same exact issue, but its the same principle at play here.

There is your own responsibility, and then there is societal responsibility. They are not on an equal footing.

Just to clarify about using the word "provoke".......it obviously isn't intended to bring the likes of unwanted attention, but it can. That's just reality.

People cant, on the one hand, say "I can do whatever I want", and then if something bad happens, also say "Why didn't society protect me?"

Basically there are multiple levels of responsibility at play, and that's why I said in my original comment that your post was correct in a particular fashion, whereas the other post was correct in a broader fashion.

irishproduce

Angela Lansbury said something similar the other day. She referenced "time immemorial" just like George does. She was basically that women everywhere and forever have worked on making themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. George said something similar. She's getting similar treatment in fairness.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/angela-lansbury-women-blame-sexual-harassment-1202624492/

[Deleted User]

Broadcasters job is to challenge opinions and ask questions, it requires the panelists to justify them and shows the strength of the argument. Regardless of how obvious the merit of their argument seems to be. It has always been thus and broadcasting should challenge all arguments equally.

George hook has been demonised for challenging an argument, and effectively silenced. That's a massive issue in my opinion and a catalyst for something that we might regret.

Dancing Inferno

Vela wrote: »

It was directly implied from what he did say:

"Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She's only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, no idea what dangers he might pose.
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."

George Hook than goes on to discuss the "responsibility of women.
"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger? You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her."

Bullsh1t of the highest order.

No it's not. If a woman gets raped I don't blame her but I do question why she did foolish things, like getting drunk and going to a stranger's house.

The disgraceful thing was how Hook was treated.

kerrylad1

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

No it's not. If a woman gets raped I don't blame her but I do question why she did foolish things, like getting drunk and going to a stranger's house.

The disgraceful thing was how Hook was treated.

I agree

uck51js9zml2yt

O look... another G Hook bashing/ defending thread.

When is he back? I miss common sense on 106!

Vela

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

No it's not. If a woman gets raped I don't blame her but I do question why she did foolish things, like getting drunk and going to a stranger's house.

The disgraceful thing was how Hook was treated.

Wow. Just.. Wow.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

Wow. Just.. Wow.

Taking hook out of the conversation, I don't see whats wrong with the sentiment behind that posters comment.

As I said above, you cant absolve yourself of all responsibility and expect society to pick up the slack. It a two way street.

I cant go prancing through a gang of shady blokes in an alley with 50 euro notes sellotaped to my head AND blame society when they attack/mug me.

Its not absolving the gang of wrongdoing, they'll get their comeuppance under the law. But what about my own responsibility for my safety in that hypothetical situation? Do I not need personal responsibility?

Should I be able to sellotape money to my head in dark alleys? Yeah, I should.

Is it a good, responsible decision for me to make? No, its not.

Vela

Pithythefool wrote: »

Taking hook out of the conversation, I don't see whats wrong with the sentiment behind that posters comment.

As I said above, you cant absolve yourself of all responsibility and expect society to pick up the slack. It a two way street.

I cant go prancing through a gang of shady blokes in an alley with 50 euro notes sellotaped to my head AND blame society when they attack/mug me.

Its not absolving the gang of wrongdoing, they'll get their comeuppance under the law. But what about my own responsibility for my safety in that hypothetical situation? Do I not need personal responsibility?

Should I be able to sellotape money to my head in dark alleys? Yeah, I should.

Is it a good, responsible decision for me to make? No, its not.

I understand what you're trying to say, I simply don't agree.

You DO realise that people, who have never previously met, get drunk and go home with each other every weekend? This happens all of the time in pubs/clubs around the country.

So, let's look at what he's said. The woman in question had a responsibility not to get drunk and go home with a guy? Right so, go tell that to every woman who gets chatting to a guy on a Saturday night and goes home with him.

How about, the guy has a responsibility not to go around raping women?

This actually really angers me, because I got a call from a friend in the early hours last weekend - after she went home with a guy and he wouldn't let her leave his house until she agreed to sleep with him. Which she didn't, FYI. She was in a terrible fcuking state over it, and kept repeating how "stupid" she was to me and it pissed me off so much. I spent the guts of an hour reassuring her that she wasn't stupid, that going home with a guy doesn't mean you're consenting to have sex with him, and that it wasn't her fcuking fault. Because it wasn't.

So for a man to be saying that the onus was on the woman in that situation, to be more responsible? That's just beyond the amount of BS that I'm willing to tolerate from anyone, and I'm glad he's been put through the wringer about it.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

I understand what you're trying to say, I simply don't agree.

You DO realise that people, who have never previously met, get drunk and go home with each other every weekend? This happens all of the time in pubs/clubs around the country.

So, let's look at what he's said. The woman in question had a responsibility not to get drunk and go home with a guy? Right so, go tell that to every woman who gets chatting to a guy on a Saturday night and goes home with him.

How about, the guy has a responsibility not to go around raping women?

This actually really angers me, because I got a call from a friend in the early hours last weekend - after she went home with a guy and he wouldn't let her leave his house until she agreed to sleep with him. Which she didn't, FYI. She was in a terrible fcuking state over it, and kept repeating how "stupid" she was to me and it pissed me off so much. I spent the guts of an hour reassuring her that she wasn't stupid, that going home with a guy doesn't mean you're consenting to have sex with him, and that it wasn't her fcuking fault. Because it wasn't.

So for a man to be saying that the onus was on the woman in that situation, to be more responsible? That's just beyond the amount of BS that I'm willing to tolerate from anyone, and I'm glad he's been put through the wringer about it.

Nothing about that experience is nice. But you said yourself a couple times there that people get drunk (invariably, i'm sure) very late at night, and then go to a strangers house.

And the onus, in ANY situation, is ALWAYS on the potential victim. How could it be any other way? Do you expect criminals not to be criminals, just cos it isn't nice?

Its just not sensible. And perhaps instead of trying to MAKE that kind of behaviour okay, we should be encouraging people NOT to get drunk late at night and go to strangers houses.

People, no matter how much they don't want to hear it, can NOT do anything they want while at the same time have zero responsibility for it. Its just completely impractical, not to mention dangerous.

People are not allowed to drink and drive. You don't hear drunkards shouting about their right to drink. If they kill people on the road, society isn't going to take responsibility, the courts will rightfully blame the person for making less-than-optimum decisions. Equally so, the onus is placed on the drinker, not the pub that served them the alcohol.

Is it really so difficult to look after yourself, that you need literally everyone else to do it for you? Why not have women walk around naked whenever they want with no personal responsibility, we'll blame the people that look at them.

Or how about a man turning up to an interview wearing a bin bag for clothes, why don't we blame the employers for not hiring him?

Look after yourself to a decent degree, and society will try to cover the other side of it.

Vladimir Poontang

Vela wrote: »

I understand what you're trying to say, I simply don't agree.

You DO realise that people, who have never previously met, get drunk and go home with each other every weekend? This happens all of the time in pubs/clubs around the country.

So, let's look at what he's said. The woman in question had a responsibility not to get drunk and go home with a guy? Right so, go tell that to every woman who gets chatting to a guy on a Saturday night and goes home with him.

How about, the guy has a responsibility not to go around raping women?

This actually really angers me, because I got a call from a friend in the early hours last weekend - after she went home with a guy and he wouldn't let her leave his house until she agreed to sleep with him. Which she didn't, FYI. She was in a terrible fcuking state over it, and kept repeating how "stupid" she was to me and it pissed me off so much. I spent the guts of an hour reassuring her that she wasn't stupid, that going home with a guy doesn't mean you're consenting to have sex with him, and that it wasn't her fcuking fault. Because it wasn't.

So for a man to be saying that the onus was on the woman in that situation, to be more responsible? That's just beyond the amount of BS that I'm willing to tolerate from anyone, and I'm glad he's been put through the wringer about it.

Sorry but you are wrong. The onus is on everyone to be more responsible, male or female. As a grown adult you are ultimately responsible for your own safety. Nobody else. The only exceptions are parents being responsible for their children's safety.

Your friend took a risk going back to that guy's house. We live in a world where going back to someones house, in the early hours and presumably where alcohol is involved by one or both parties (more than likely) also implies that sex is on the agenda. Because it is more often than not.

That doesn't excuse his behaviour when sex turned out to not be on the agenda but one has to wonder what your friend was doing if it was not her intention. Because that's what the vast majority of people would assume.

She took a risk and it ended in a dangerous situation for her. She has to own that which doesn't absolve the guy of any responsibility for his role.

She chose poorly. Luckily for her it didn't end up being worse.

Welcome to the real world.

Dancing Inferno

Vela, your friend was foolish to go to house of a random stranger. Thankfully nothing bad happened to her and hopefully she will be wiser in future.

Pithythefool

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

Vela, your friend was foolish to go to house of a random stranger. Thankfully nothing bad happened to her and hopefully she will be wiser in future.

I agree, but for the sake of balance in all of this, the man shouldn't have been doing what he did either. Isnt it the same when you mix bad decisions with criminals in ANY scenario?

That's the key word in all of this, balance.

Dancing Inferno

Pithythefool wrote: »

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

Vela, your friend was foolish to go to house of a random stranger. Thankfully nothing bad happened to her and hopefully she will be wiser in future.

I agree, but for the sake of balance in all of this, the man shouldn't have been doing what he did either. Isnt it the same when you mix bad decisions with criminals in ANY scenario?

That's the key word in all of this, balance.

Agreed. The man sounds scummy but the woman should not have gone to his house.

Vladimir Poontang

It has been pointed out by several posters that the guy was a scumbag.

How many times does it need to be said?

Pithythefool

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

It has been pointed out by several posters that the guy was a scumbag.

How many times does it need to be said?

This is the internet, you cant assume anything, no matter how obvious or redundant the point may be.

The equivalent of introducing yourself by name each time you meet your family. You know, just in case it wasn't clear or you didn't think it needed to be said!

Vela

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Sorry but you are wrong. The onus is on everyone to be more responsible, male or female. As a grown adult you are ultimately responsible for your own safety. Nobody else. The only exceptions are parents being responsible for their children's safety.

Your friend took a risk going back to that guy's house. We live in a world where going back to someones house, in the early hours and presumably where alcohol is involved by one or both parties (more than likely) also implies that sex is on the agenda. Because it is more often than not.

That doesn't excuse his behaviour when sex turned out to not be on the agenda but one has to wonder what your friend was doing if it was not her intention. Because that's what the vast majority of people would assume.

She took a risk and it ended in a dangerous situation for her. She has to own that which doesn't absolve the guy of any responsibility for his role.

She chose poorly. Luckily for her it didn't end up being worse.

Welcome to the real world.

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.

Silentcorner

Here is where I had a problem with the whole debacle...

Calling the guy who did it was a scumbag serves no purpose, nobody is born a rapist and his life has been destroyed....

What we should have been asking was...
What was going though his mind when he did what he did?
Was he blind drunk?...which is a problem in our culture (American/British/Irish culture in particular)
Was he coked off his head?
Was he addicted to porn?
Was he addicted to sex?
Has he done it before?

To ask these questions we need to ask questions of our own behaviour...

It is a pity George focused on the actions of the woman only...he was ripe for the picking for any social media storm...

the_pen_turner

Vela wrote: »

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.

everybody is happy she called you and got out safely

but people would be even happier if she wasn't in that situation to begin with.
there are two sides to that obviously. your friend going to some isolated place with a complete stranger and the 'rapist' who was trying to force the situation
if either of those two inputs changed the situation would have been a lot different. of course your friend should be able to do what she did but its too risky

Oldtree

It's gotten to the stage where a man needs written consent from a woman, in her right mind, witnessed by a lawyer, to have sex, or even kiss without fear of getting put on the sex offenders register. No doubt the agreement will have written parameters as to the exact course of events to follow, and indeed many more caveats. Que stage left the sex robots.

Case this week, judge said it was a he said, she said, and the jury sided with the woman.

Be careful out there.

As a concerned father, I understand what George was trying to say, albeit in his usual manner of posing a question to highlight a particular nuanced point in a discussion.

darlett

Silentcorner wrote: »

It is a pity George focused on the actions of the woman ONLY...he was ripe for the picking for any social media storm...

He absolutely didn't. You ignore his comments on the perpetrator if you will but they are contained here again particularly in conclusion.

Hook said:

"She was passed around, went the story. And apparently she went to bed with one guy and he goes out and another guy comes in. She doesn’t want to have relations with the second guy but he forced himself upon her. Awful.
But when you then look deeper into the story you have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, she has no idea what dangers he might pose.
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."

If a daughter of mine meets and goes back to a strangers hotel room on the night they meet, I'm worried to the point of panic incase they meet a scumbag. His words are designed to give advice to reduce rape occurrences. Scumbags exist. Be wary. That he was silenced for this makes you question the motivation/intelligence of his detractors. I think some disliked him for a long time due to his controversial opinions generally, and others were deeply misguided.

Vladimir Poontang

Vela wrote: »

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.

Because of course if a distressed friend called me I'd have given her a lecture on being more responsible. :rolleyes:

It is a big bad world out there, if you are going to go out there looking to be offended you are not going to have a good time of it.

Roger Hassenforder

Vela wrote: »

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.

Well I'm glad your friend wasn't raped.
Threads like this where you see a complete abdication of personal responsibility make me sad.

Whatll I tell my girls when they're of an age to be meeting guys in pubs?
"be careful going to strange mens homes ( particularly drunk), because he could rape or worse killl you."
Or
"you go girl and have zero regard for your safety because like you know, men they shouldn't rape women"

Of course they shouldnt rape. And of course women should be able to go about their business without being raped. Unfortunately, this is the real world where women are at risk of being raped, not putting oneself in such places where there is a greater risk is but common sense, not a blow for female liberties.

I suspect if you had a daughter you'd be saying the same thing, try avoid a situation where there is a greater risk of being harmed.

Dave147

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't say that though

No, he said they must take some of the blame, which is just as bad. I've no problem with Hook saying women should be careful. Saying they should take some of the blame is a ridiculous thing to say.

PeterParker957

professore wrote: »

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To us maybe, but everyone is entitled to their view, and other cultures and traditions must be respected even if a long way from our own.

No they shouldn't. Some things are too barbaric to be respected. Gays are still prosecuted in many countries. Should I respect ISIS for throwing gay men off buildings just for being gay or women being stoned for adultery because that's how they roll?

ISIS are equal opportunity genocidal maniacs. They kill or turn into sex slaves anyone who is not them. Not just gays.

Vela wrote: »

Pithythefool wrote: »

Its just a case of applying different parameters. He is correct in the broad sense, you are correct in a particular sense.

Theres no reason to be disgusted, surely?

There's every reason to be disgusted. What he said and equally implied was irreprehensible and he should be off the air entirely in my opinion.

Damn him for going against the groupthink!!!

Silentcorner

darlett wrote: »

He absolutely didn't. You ignore his comments on the perpetrator if you will but they are contained here again particularly in conclusion.

Hook said:

"She was passed around, went the story. And apparently she went to bed with one guy and he goes out and another guy comes in. She doesn’t want to have relations with the second guy but he forced himself upon her. Awful.
But when you then look deeper into the story you have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, she has no idea what dangers he might pose.
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."

If a daughter of mine meets and goes back to a strangers hotel room on the night they meet, I'm worried to the point of panic incase they meet a scumbag. His words are designed to give advice to reduce rape occurrences. Scumbags exist. Be wary. That he was silenced for this makes you question the motivation/intelligence of his detractors. I think some disliked him for a long time due to his controversial opinions generally, and others were deeply misguided.

I didn't ignore his comments about the perpetrator what I said was calling him a scumbag serves no purpose....

What I meant was we should be asking ourselves how did this guy end up a convicted rapist? If we don;t ask ourselves that our society will continue creating situations like this one where two lives have been destroyed...

If he had asked those questions first (listed in my previous posts) he may not have been harangued out of his position...just my opinion...

PeterParker957

I have no qualms about women wishing to go off with whoever the wish.

I'm just curious why the woman in question went back to the house if not to have sex ? Did he seductively whisper on her ear "i have the box set of Stranger Things...." ?