# George Hook



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

So George Hook didn't toe the PC line and now everyone is calling for his head.
I think he's a opinionated windbag and don't really like him but the hysteria and over reaction to him saying, in a rather hamfisted manner, "don't put yourself in harm's way" is just ridiculous.
Mary Coughlan's actions in refusing to go in the Station and saying she did it for wemmen everywhere is puke inducing. 
I have two daughters and I'll certainly be saying the same thing to them that George said when they are older; if something bad like that happens it won't be your fault but please be careful and don't put yourself in harms way.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

So what George Hook was saying (and you are now repeating) is that men can't be trusted not to rape women.  That being alone with a man or several men is dangerous and women must avoid doing so or they will be raped. 

Try this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
Consent is a simple as tea.

Of course we have an entire religion, promulgated for 2,000 years, predicated on a woman's rape so its no wonder that rape culture is engrained.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> So what George Hook was saying (and you are now repeating) is that men can't be trusted not to rape women.  That being alone with a man or several men is dangerous and women must avoid doing so or they will be raped.


 No, that's not what I'm saying at all. How on earth do you get to that conclusion?





Thirsty said:


> Of course we have an entire religion, promulgated for 2,000 years, predicated on a woman's rape so its no wonder that rape culture is engrained.


 eh?  
I dislike all religions and supernatural mumbo-jumbo but that's just nonsense.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> that's just nonsense


 I trust we are agreed that sex without consent is rape?

Mary, the mother of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, was not asked if she wished to become pregnant - it was 'announced' to her - she did not give her prior consent to being impregnated.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> How on earth do you get to that conclusion?


This is how I come to that conclusion.

You (and others) say 





> ... be careful and don't put yourself in harms way...


  So what is 'putting yourself in harms way'?  It would appear to be ...being with men who cannot be trusted not to rape you.

edit typo


----------



## Firefly (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Mary, the mother of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, was not asked if she wished to become pregnant - it was 'announced' to her - she did not give her prior consent to being impregnated.



But if you're a Catholic you will believe that it was an immaculate conception so no hanky-panky was involved. Considering the pressure on the young women, given that the future of humanity rested with her, I think she at least deserved a bit of fun.


----------



## Firefly (13 Sep 2017)

Purple said:


> I have two daughters and I'll certainly be saying the same thing to them that George said when they are older; if something bad like that happens it won't be your fault but please be careful and don't put yourself in harms way.



I agree 100%. I'll be telling my son not to walk the streets late at night on his own too. Basic common sense.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Mary, the mother of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, was not asked if she wished to become pregnant - it was 'announced' to her - she did not give her prior consent to being impregnated.


 The Bible say that she was all on for it. Personally I think it's all rubbish.



Thirsty said:


> I trust we are agreed that sex without consent is rape?


 Of course. 



Thirsty said:


> So what is 'putting yourself in harms way'? It would appear to be ...being with men who cannot be trusted not to rape you.


 No, it is common sense to avoid potentially dangerous situations. "Potentially" being the operative word. 
When I park my car in the street I don't think that everyone who passes it will steal from it but I still lock the door. 
When I go to the ATM I don't think everyone in the queue will try to see my PIN and steal my card but I still shield the keypad from view.
When I go out to work I don't think everyone who passes my house will try to break in but I make sure to close the front door.
When I go out for the evening I don't think everyone will try to mug me but I don't get blind drunk and stumble around the streets on my own. 
When my children are out I don't tell them that every stranger is going to try to kidnap them and rape them but I do tell them to be careful around strangers. 

Do you understand?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> ..an immaculate conception ...


regardless of how you believe the pregnancy came about, some form of non-consensual assault was involved.



> I think she at least deserved a bit of fun


I believe she at least deserved to give her *consent*.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> .. be careful around strangers...


The figures on rape are clear - the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by a man or men who are known to the woman.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> The figures on rape are clear - the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by a man or men who are known to the woman.


Agreed. How is that relevant to this specific topic?


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> regardless of how you believe the pregnancy came about, some form of non-consensual assault was involved.


 No pun intended but, sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately. How do you know there was no consent? (Why am I even asking?)
The whole religion was started by Abraham, a guy who thought God told him to kill his own son.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> Abraham, a guy who thought God told him to kill his own son


Abraham was Jewish as is the 'Old' testament.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

If your daughter came to you and said "I'm planning on going out tonight and getting really drunk, hooking up with someone I never met before, going back to his hotel, having sex with him and then passing out drunk on the bathroom floor in a state on undress", would you say, "Great love, enjoy yourself!"?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> Agreed. How is that relevant to this specific topic?


Because your proposal is that if people are 'careful' around 'strangers' they will avoid rape.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Abraham was Jewish as is the 'Old' testament.


It's the same thing. Think The Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> I'm planning on going out tonight and getting really drunk, hooking up with someone I never met before, going back to his hotel, having sex with him


Its not for me to judge what *consenting *adults wish to do in their spare time.  Again, I will point you to the video I posted earlier as being an excellent analogy on consent.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> How do you know there was no consent?


Because Mary was not asked for her consent; it is 'announced' to her.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Its not for me to judge what *consenting *adults wish to do in their spare time.  Again, I will point you to the video I posted earlier as being an excellent analogy on consent.


Okay, I would advising my daughter that it would be a bad idea. She would also be perfectly entitled to get a tattoo of a monkeys This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language on her forehead. I'd also advise her against such a course of action.
The link you posted is a good way of stating the blindingly obvious.
Nobody is asking you to judge anyone. George Hook wasn't judging anyone. 
I'm asking you if it was your daughter would you tell her that you thought she shouldn't do that or would you keep quite in order to avoid her thinking you might be judging her?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

I would agree that I believe casual sex is not conducive to human happiness, neither to my mind is drinking to excess or taking drugs or eating poor quality food.  But they are choices that people make. 

Being raped is not a choice.  

A medical professional would not carry out a (non-life emergency) procedure without your consent, and it's considered so important that you are asked to sign documents to confirm your consent.  They certainly will not do it if you are unconscious - see report last week on nurse in the US who was arrested for standing by this important concept.

I'm not suggesting that providing consent in writing is to be recommended if you wish to have sex!  

But it would seem to me, based on George Hook's and others remarks, that many people don't understand the concept of consent.


----------



## Ceist Beag (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Because your proposal is that if people are 'careful' around 'strangers' they will avoid rape.


That is such a misrepresentation of what Purple is saying. How you could read that from what was posted I do not know.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

> How you could read that


Because those are the words that were used! 



> When my children are out I don't tell them that every stranger is going to try to kidnap them and rape them but I do tell them to be careful around strangers.


Ergo - if you are 'careful' around 'strangers' you will avoid that risk.  

So far as rape is concerned (and that is what we are discussing here), in the overwhelming majority of cases of rape is not 'strangers' that hold the risk, but people who are known.


----------



## blueband (13 Sep 2017)

Purple said:


> So George Hook didn't toe the PC line and now everyone is calling for his head.
> I think he's a opinionated windbag and don't really like him but the hysteria and over reaction to him saying, in a rather hamfisted manner, "don't put yourself in harm's way" is just ridiculous.
> Mary Coughlan's actions in refusing to go in the Station and saying she did it for wemmen everywhere is puke inducing.
> I have two daughters and I'll certainly be saying the same thing to them that George said when they are older; if something bad like that happens it won't be your fault but please be careful and don't put yourself in harms way.


Have to agree with you there purple, total overreaction regarding George Hook..


----------



## Ceist Beag (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Because those are the words that were used!
> 
> Ergo - if you are 'careful' around 'strangers' you will avoid that risk.


Clearly you have a problem understanding logic Thirsty. Nowhere was it stated that being careful would completely avoid the risk.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Because your proposal is that if people are 'careful' around 'strangers' they will avoid rape.


No it isn't.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Because those are the words that were used!


 Do you think that by wearing a seat belt  while driving I consent to other drivers crashing into me (even if they know me)?
Do you think that by advising others to wear their seat belt I am saying that it is their fault if other motorists crash into them?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Sep 2017)

I don't think George was criticising her for being careless.  Rather he was suggesting that given the way she was behaving what did she expect.  And by the way the jury agreed, so yes the bash George bandwagon is OTT.

That video (forget its blindingly obvious message) is about the most extreme example of PC obsession I have seen.  It portrayed as many same sex situations as the traditional set up.  It portrayed mixed race situations.  It even portrayed a man being exploited by a woman whilst in a drunken sleep.

Givus a break


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

"he was suggesting that given the way she was behaving what did she expect"

Quite.  Blame the woman and not the rapist.

"It portrayed as many same sex situations as the traditional set up. It portrayed mixed race situations. It even portrayed a man being exploited by a woman whilst in a drunken sleep."

Do you think that rape cannot happen in these contexts?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

Ok purple, so explain to me why do you suggest being 'careful' around 'strangers' is important in this context (rape).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "It portrayed as many same sex situations as the traditional set up. It portrayed mixed race situations. It even portrayed a man being exploited by a woman whilst in a drunken sleep."
> 
> Do you think that rape cannot happen in these contexts?


_Thirsty_ we see adverts advising us not to drink and drive.  Thankfully we have not yet got to the situation where the message has to be illustrated for each section of the LGBTIQxxx community and any other minority you might be having, albeit the message is equally valid for them.

The video could have achieved its (b.o.) message by concentrating on the by far most common occurrence of this abuse in our society viz. a white male exploiting a white female.

As to a woman raping a man in his sleep, I'd say about as rare as a chimpanzee committing same act.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

I don't understand your objection; the point being made is that consent is essential in all contexts.  They are cartoon stick figures after all! 

Edit typo


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Ok purple, so explain to me why do you suggest being 'careful' around 'strangers' is important in this context (rape).


If that's all you can pluck out of my last series of posts can I take it that you agree with the rest of them?


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> I don't understand your objection; the point being made is that consent is essential in all contexts.  They are cartoon stick figures after all!
> 
> Edit typo


Nobody is arguing that consent is not required. Why do you keep bringing it up?


----------



## Ceist Beag (13 Sep 2017)

George would have been better served simply leaving it at "forewarned is forearmed".


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

"...can I take it that you agree with the rest..."
No.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

If I've misunderstood your warning to be careful around strangers, can you explain?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

Purple said:


> Nobody is arguing that consent is not required. Why do you keep bringing it up?


A. Because we are discussing rape
And
B. The reply you quoted was in response to a poster who objected to the variety of relationships depicted in the cartoon. An objection I don't understand.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> A. Because we are discussing rape


That doesn't explain why you are bring it up all the time. Nobody is arguing against that point. Everyone accepts that consent is required. 



Thirsty said:


> The reply you quoted was in response to a poster who objected to the variety of relationships depicted in the cartoon. An objection I don't understand.


 So?


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> If I've misunderstood your warning to be careful around strangers, can you explain?


Sure; I tell my kids to be careful around strangers because there is a remote chance that the stranger might wish them harm. I tell them to be careful in order to further minimise that remote risk.
That's the context of George Hook's comments. He wasn't talking about rape by family members or, the highest risk group, the non-biological live in partner of the mother of young children.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "...can I take it that you agree with the rest..."
> No.



Okay then, can you comment on this?



Purple said:


> No, it is common sense to avoid potentially dangerous situations. "Potentially" being the operative word.
> When I park my car in the street I don't think that everyone who passes it will steal from it but I still lock the door.
> When I go to the ATM I don't think everyone in the queue will try to see my PIN and steal my card but I still shield the keypad from view.
> When I go out to work I don't think everyone who passes my house will try to break in but I make sure to close the front door.
> ...


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

" I tell my kids to be careful around strangers because there is a remote chance that the stranger might wish them harm."

Exactly. And my response to that was, that rape (which is what we are discussing here) is in the overwhelming majority of cases more likely to be perpetrated by rapists who are known to the individual. It is not the 'stranger' who represents the risk.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

"can you comment on this"
Rat hole.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> " I tell my kids to be careful around strangers because there is a remote chance that the stranger might wish them harm."
> 
> Exactly. And my response to that was, that rape (which is what we are discussing here) is in the overwhelming majority of cases more likely to be perpetrated by rapists who are known to the individual. It is not the 'stranger' who represents the risk.


But the case about which George Hook was commenting did not involve a family member of person the victim knew. Therefore while correct your comments are not relevant in the context of this specific topic, i.e. his comments about a specific case.

In the generality of things children should be warned about their mothers boyfriend/ their stepfather as they are statistically the group most likely to sexually assault them.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "can you comment on this"
> Rat hole.


Nice.
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. You seem to think that if someone is pointing out risk, or advising someone to avoid risk, they are by extension assigning a moral culpability on the victim if that risk manifests.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

Comparision to seat belts / cars /etc is a rat hole & its one I'm not going down.

I didn't reference family members.

I thought I was being pretty clear.

George Hook says that it was the woman's fault that she was raped by person B as she had sex with person A.

I believe he is wrong.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> George Hook says that it was the woman's fault that she was raped by person B as she had sex with person A.
> 
> I believe he is wrong.


He didn't say that.
I don't agree with some of the things he said but to suggest that he said it was her fault she was raped is incorrect.
As I said at the start I don't like him. I think he's a bigot and a misogynist but it is valid to say that it is irresponsible for people to put themselves in the situation that the victim put herself in in this incident.


----------



## Dan Murray (13 Sep 2017)

Purple,

What parts of Hook's apology do you agree with and what parts do you not agree with?


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Sep 2017)

The blame is always with the rapist. We should all try to avoid these vile creatures.

Ways to avoid these vile creatures might include; not getting blind drunk (or take drugs), not strolling around dodgy parts of town, not heading with someone you've just met, not going to somewhere other than your place (I'm speculating a bit on that one, but I guess at least you know there isnt a dungeon at your place and someone will eventually come looking for you there). I didn't hear George's comments, I read some quotes but it's not clear to me that he was victim blaming, but there's utter hysteria and good advice is still good advice, even if you insist on twisting it.


----------



## mathepac (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> regardless of how you believe the pregnancy came about, some form of non-consensual assault was involved.
> 
> I believe she at least deserved to give her *consent*.


Waffle and nonsense. Even fundamentalist women's rights fanatics, Christians or other, Bible adherents or not don't believe the rubbish you are promulgating. New Testament Luke 1:26-28

"In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you." But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him This post will be deleted if not edited immediately. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.  He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."  Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"  The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." Then Mary said, "*Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.*" Then the angel departed from her."

The speech by the angel is in the future tense and according to the Bible, Gospel of Luke, nothing did happen until Mary consented, the bit I put in bold italics, and the angel left.

That is the Christian story and the usual source quoted. Where did yours come from?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

She's told, not asked.


----------



## mathepac (13 Sep 2017)

At what point was she subjected to "non-consensual assault"? Show me the sentence that documents that happening. At what stage, again according to one of the few documents in existence about the purported events of that day, does Mary refuse her consent, say "NO", or tell the angel to get lost? Show me the sentences where those things happen.

I can show you where the opposite happens and the interpretation theologians and other Bible scholars place on it. Where is your evidence for your version of events? Can you quote me chapter and verses? Are you a Christian or did you just latch onto a fairy story you thought you understood in support of a concept you clearly don't fully understand?

Do you now regret the stupid series of posts you made?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Sep 2017)

I know the religious side show is all a bit tongue in cheek but just as a matter of clarification rape is separate from impregnation.  Look up the Oxford dictionary for the graphic details.  

It is not unknown for women to deliberately get pregnant after consensual sex but where the male party no way wants to be "pregnant".  Does that affront the consent principle?  Well obviously yes but clearly not on the same page as rape.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Dan Murray said:


> Purple,
> 
> What parts of Hook's apology do you agree with and what parts do you not agree with?


I agree with his apology. As I said at the outset it was a ham-fisted attempt to make a point. It is not the fault of the victim and he was wrong to question whether it was even partially her fault but that doesn't mean one should not question the wisdom of putting yourself in a risky situation. We certainly should not tell young women that it's a good idea to get blind drunk, pick up a stranger, go to his hotel and have sex with him and then pass out on the floor of the jacks.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is not unknown for women to deliberately get pregnant after consensual sex but where the male party no way wants to be "pregnant".  Does that affront the consent principle?  Well obviously yes but clearly not on the same page as rape.


 Indeed; if he doesn't want to be a father he's a deadbeat dad but if he wants to be a father and she doesn't want to be a mother he's interfering with her bodily autonomy.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

"male party no way wants to be "pregnant"."

It is relatively easy to prevent.


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2017)

Here's my experience with a very drunk girl;

A few years ago I was out for a drink with a friend in Dublin during the week. We got talking to a few girls from Wexford who were heading off on their first ever foreign holiday the next day. One of the girls was quite drunk and was, as they say, all over me. I didn't reciprocate for a number of reasons, firstly I was married at the time, secondly she was a 19 and so to me she was a child and thirdly she was drunk and nobody can consent to anything when they are blind drunk.
My friend and I moved away from them as it was a bit awkward.
At around 11.30 I went outside to get a taxi home and I saw the same gild stumbling around looking distressed. I asked her if she was okay and she said that she couldn't find her friends. She then fell and smacked the side of her face on the pavement. I knew that if I left her the most likely thing that would happen was that the police would bring her to hospital and she and her friends would miss their holiday. Therefore I stayed with her and tried to get her to call one of her friends.
She was so drunk and distressed that she couldn't find her phone in her bag. I had to root through her stuff and get it out. Eventually I got the name of a friend from her and called the number. There was no answer. I sat with her until 1.30am until her friend called back and then came and got her.
She put herself in a very difficult position. She also put me in one, rooting through a drunk girls bag while sitting at the side of the road outside a pub. I got home at 2.30 am, covered in her blood and puke.

She was a child and vulnerable and anything could have happened to her. It was grossly irresponsible of her to get that drunk and it was disgraceful that her friends left without her. She could have been mugged or raped or just knocked down by a car. It is her right to do what she did. It was also really really stupid.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

@mathepac - if you consider God vs. Mary to be a relationship of equal standing, jolly good.  I don't see it that way.



> stupid series of posts


perfectly happy for you to disagree with my point of view, but abuse is unnecessary.

edit typo


----------



## mathepac (13 Sep 2017)

Describing a post or series of them as "stupid" is not abuse, not by any stretch of anyone's imagination. I offer the following as definitions, with examples, of "abuse"; which one relates to describing internet posts as stupid? 

*abuse* (as in "maltreatment") _n._ : cruel or inhumane treatment; "the child showed signs of physical abuse"  

*abuse* (as in "disrespect") _n._ : a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"

*abuse* (as in "misuse") _n._ : improper or excessive use; "alcohol abuse"; "the abuse of public funds"  

*abuse* (as in "mistreat") _v._ : treat badly; "This boss abuses his workers"  

*abuse* (as in "pervert") _v._ : change the inherent purpose or function of something; "Don't abuse the system"

*abuse* (as in "attack") _v._ : use foul or abusive language towards; "The actress abused the policeman who gave her a parking ticket"

*abuse* (as in "use") _v._ : use wrongly or improperly or excessively; "Her husband often abuses alcohol"; "while she was pregnant, she abused drugs"  

And at what sage did God rape Mary, his mother? Do you have that documented or are you just making it up as you go along?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

*abuse* (as in "disrespect") _n._ : a rude expression intended to offend or hurt;

Your intention was quite clear, it's unnecessary.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "male party no way wants to be "pregnant"."
> 
> It is relatively easy to prevent.


Some guys trust their gals.

Anyway what about the parable of the Golden Fleece.

It came to pass that there was a very very rich man.  He so wanted to flaunt his wealth that he had a suit made of €50 notes and went strolling down skid row.

Tramp A approached him and asked "please sir can I have €50 off your sleeve.  "Certainly my man" said the v.v. rich man.

Tramp B, greatly impressed by the success of A, asks can he have €50 off the other sleeve.  "Certainly not" says the v.v. rich man.

B grabs the €50 anyway and runs away.

EoP

Now there is absolutely no question in law as to who is the victim and who is the villain here. All the same, it's hard not think the v.v. rich man shares some of the blame.


----------



## cremeegg (13 Sep 2017)

mathepac said:


> New Testament Luke 1:26-28
> 
> "In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you." But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him This post will be deleted if not edited immediately. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.  He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."  Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"  The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." Then Mary said, "*Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.*"



Reminds me of a story told in Brendan Behan's Borstal Boy. While Brendan was imprisoned in borstal with a few hundred other teenage boys, it was decided to stage a nativity play for Christmas. The boys were invited to audition for the various roles and the governor said that his daughter had volunteered to play Mary. Up pipes Behan, "can I be the Holy Spirit"


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "male party no way wants to be "pregnant"."
> 
> It is relatively easy to prevent.


Can't you see the contradiction here.  The male is guilty for not taking his own precautions and yet in the George Hook case the victim carries no responsibility for throwing all caution to the wind.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2017)

If a woman wants to have sex and not become pregnant, there are ways to prevent that.

If a man wants to have sex and not become a father there are ways to prevent that.

These are choices people make.

Being raped is not a choice.


----------



## mathepac (13 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> if you consider God vs. Mary to be a relationship of equal standing, jolly good.


I don't see that the relationship is in any way adversarial, in fact, only God's messenger is present with Mary to put God's case and take her response back. I don't understand the extrapolations you make from events you don't know about. . The Christian churches that teach about Mary's impregnation regard it as miraculous. There is no mention of assault or rape or lack of consent and none of these are present in any writing of the events.  I've asked you to produce evidence for your point of view; it's clear at this stage you have none.


----------



## Thirsty (14 Sep 2017)

You want me to provide 'evidence' of a 'miraculous' event? 

I rather thought my point of view was pretty clear. 

The woman is afraid, the 'visitor' scares her, she is told she will become pregnant, although she clearly says she has chosen up to now not to have sex with a man.

This is a God who is willing to bring plagues and floods; who will turn people into salt for disobeying.  How much choice does Mary really have here?

You may not like or agree with my interpretation, that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't make it invalid.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Of course we have an entire religion, promulgated for 2,000 years, predicated on a woman's rape so its no wonder that rape culture is engrained.



I've read this again and for me it speaks to a really disturbing mindset where abstract theory and fundamentalist principle and more important than motivation, reality and practicality. 

As a atheist I have no dog in this fight but to dismiss the Christian message of compassion and forgiveness (“do onto others as you would wish them to do onto you” and “love your neighbour as yourself”) because of an absurd position about an allegorical conception story which pre-dates Christianity by nearly a millennia is, in my opinion, deeply bigoted and shows a “liberal” fundamentalism bereft of compassion and understanding which is actually the antitheses of what being liberal really is.  

To then suggest that it is the reason, or a major part of the reason, that we have a ”rape culture” strengthens that view and is deeply offensive to all Christians and all men.

I am not part of a “rape culture”.

No man I know is part of a “rape culture”.

No man I know thinks it is in any way acceptable to in any way force anyone into a sexual act.


The reason the RC Church became a hypocritical institution which both facilitated and covered up the abuse and rape of Children is the same reason the BBC did the same; it was run by unaccountable and misogynistic old men who thought that the institution was so important that protecting it was more important than anything else. I have no doubt that if there were more women at the top these things simply would not have happened.


----------



## Ceist Beag (14 Sep 2017)

Well said Purple.


----------



## Thirsty (14 Sep 2017)

"No man I know thinks it is in any way acceptable to in any way force anyone into a sexual act."

Indeed. 

And yet rape still happens, everyday, in all populations, in all countries, against all ages.


----------



## Ceist Beag (14 Sep 2017)

No man I know thinks it is in any way acceptable to murder someone. And yet murder still happens, everyday, in all populations, in all countries, against all ages. So do you think that murder culture is also engrained?


----------



## Thirsty (14 Sep 2017)

... God told Abraham to kill his own son...

QED


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "No man I know thinks it is in any way acceptable to in any way force anyone into a sexual act."
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And yet rape still happens, everyday, in all populations, in all countries, against all ages.



It does. Bestiality and necrophilia also take place. To say that something is a "culture" is to imply that it is widely acceptable. In the context of this country that is patently absurd.


----------



## Leo (14 Sep 2017)

mathepac said:


> .. New Testament Luke 1:26-28



Are you actually quoting the current 'interpretation' of a >2000 year old story, littered with many confirmed factual inaccuracies, was originally written many years after the events by people who were not present, and has been translated and mistranslated and modified significantly many times over the years as evidence or a definitive account? 

Also, it was the translation from Hebrew to ancient Greek that switched from a word meaning young woman to one generally used to describe a virgin.  

And of course all that ignores the Pantera theory too.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Sep 2017)

Hey, leave Heavy Metal outta this, Pantera's record did not tell George to say that, even if you play it backwards...... (btw I'm amused by the mixing of a widly theoretical conversation with real world events. How many angels are we up to on the head of a pin guys?)


----------



## Firefly (14 Sep 2017)

Leo said:


> And of course all that ignores the Pantera theory too.



Who's your daddy?


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> I'm amused by the mixing of a widly theoretical conversation with real world events.


 I'm disturbed by a mindset which can find offense and oppressive male dominance of "wemmen" in just about everything.


----------



## cremeegg (14 Sep 2017)

Kitty Holland has an excellent article in todays IT about George and his comments.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/george-hook-should-be-challenged-not-silenced-1.3219952


----------



## cremeegg (14 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "No man I know thinks it is in any way acceptable to in any way force anyone into a sexual act."
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And yet rape still happens, everyday, in all populations, in all countries, against all ages.





Ceist Beag said:


> No man I know thinks it is in any way acceptable to murder someone. And yet murder still happens, everyday, in all populations, in all countries, against all ages. So do you think that murder culture is also engrained?



A very experienced criminal lawyer friend of mine, who has defended many people accused of the most heinous crimes says that he can understand murderers, they are ordinary people who whether through weakness or pressure have done a terrible thing. That we all experience feelings, which brought to an extreme could lead to murder. He says that in his experience rapists are identifiably different from ordinary people.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2017)

cremeegg said:


> A very experienced criminal lawyer friend of mine, who has defended many people accused of the most heinous crimes says that he can understand murderers, they are ordinary people who whether through weakness or pressure have done a terrible thing. That we all experience feelings, which brought to an extreme could lead to murder. He says that in his experience rapists are identifiably different from ordinary people.


So they are not the result of a "culture" as otherwise they would be normal people.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Kitty Holland has an excellent article in todays IT about George and his comments.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/george-hook-should-be-challenged-not-silenced-1.3219952


I don't think it's excellent at all. She does the usual thing of conflating rape, women's rights generally and abortion as if you are some sort of misogynistic pig who things it's okay to sexually assault women if you don't support abortion. I find her article and its implications grossly offensive just as much as I found George Hook's comments grossly offensive. 
She says _"Such views are underpinned by a society that politically and economically disadvantages women and girls, in the workforce – as exemplified by Newstalk’s male-only schedule between 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday; in politics; and in a Constitution that denies us the right to decide what happens to and in our bodies."
_
She ignores the fact that Newstalk had a woman co-host for their evening show until a week ago but changed things around because listenership figures were dropping. 
My teenage daughter tells me that some of her friends are sexually active. She said that some of them pressure their boyfriends into having sex with them. Should those girls be charges with rape? Are they part of a rape culture?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Sep 2017)

I know this "_virgin birth doctrine gives rise to a rape culture_" is only a troll (please _Thirsty _say it is so).  

There is no doubt that it has influenced attitudes to sexual activity but in the exact opposite way.  It implies that there is even something a bit dubious about consensual sex within marriage

And the figures bear this out.  Rape statistics are much less in RC Europe than Protestant Europe. I think e.g. 4 per 100k in Italy vs 70 per 100k in Sweden.

Now, I hear you say, that is because RC countries under report rapes.  I am sure that is so but that only goes to underscore that RC culture is much more anti rape than Protestant culture and that has a direct link to the RC devotion to the BVM.


----------



## mathepac (14 Sep 2017)

Leo said:


> Are you actually quoting the current 'interpretation' of a >2000 year old story, littered with many confirmed factual inaccuracies, was originally written many years after the events by people who were not present, and has been translated and mistranslated and modified significantly many times over the years as evidence or a definitive account?
> 
> Also, it was the translation from Hebrew to ancient Greek that switched from a word meaning young woman to one generally used to describe a virgin.
> 
> And of course all that ignores the Pantera theory too.


@Thirsty introduced the event as a topic relevant to rape and I searched for documentation of it, the one I quoted seemed most cogent. 

Naturally what I quoted has little if anything to do with what I believe but what @Thirsty believes. And that seems to be that it was a real event, with God present, who assaulted Mary and had non-consensual sex with her. This would also seem to imply that God is male or at least can take male form, hence @Thirsty's God vs. Mary interjection

The questions, doubts, language issues and other teories are for @Thirsty to answer, not me; I haven't said whether or what I believe. Your questions are more appropriately directed to the poster whose beliefs seem grounded in the document I quoted from.

Next please.


----------



## mathepac (14 Sep 2017)

Sorry this got missed out for some reason:

As written, in translation, this passage from the Bible consists of God's representative, Gabriel, making his pitch to Mary on his boss's behalf, proving his credentials by referencing Elizabeth's situation, talking up the child Mary will bear if she agrees to be impregnated and at the end Mary gives her consent and then divine impregnation takes place.

That's what's written in the Christian book. @Thirsty has a whole different slant on it founded in violence, which has no evidence and hasn't been substantiated by @Thirsty with one whit of evidence


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Sep 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> that only goes to underscore that RC culture is much more anti rape than Protestant culture and that has a direct link to the RC devotion to the BVM.



jeez, I dunno about that. That's a fair tenuous observation, does your average could-be rapist (which is all men going by the usual feminist mantra) weigh up his devotion to BVM and decide against? I think there could be more of a link in the demographic make up of Sweden.....I don't really want to go further in spelling that out, as I could be getting myself offside with the PC brigade (even if I wasn't interfering with play), but as wild unsubstantiated theories go if you put a gun to my head I'd go for that one above the BVM one......


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Sep 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> That's a fair tenuous observation, does your average could-be rapist (which is all men going by the usual feminist mantra) weigh up his devotion to BVM and decide against?


Oh no, I'm not suggesting that.  I'm talking about the overall culture - if it is squeamish about consensual activity within marriage, and reverence of the Virgin birth suggests that it is (it certainly was but I guess things have changed), then how much more repugnant should it find rape.

I must admit I was surprised by just how high the Sweden figure was, please go further in spelling out what you think is at play here


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Sep 2017)

I think you already know what I'm talking about with the hint "demographics". You might recall the furore in Germany (Munich was it?) about the recently arrived Syrians and their culture vis a vis women. So that was my scurrilous insinuation. Now....I'd like a gallows with a view.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Sep 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> I think you already know what I'm talking about with the hint "demographics". You might recall the furore in Germany (Munich was it?) about the recently arrived Syrians and their culture vis a vis women. So that was my scurrilous insinuation. Now....I'd like a gallows with a view.....


And they certainly were not influenced by doctrines on the Virgin birth


----------



## cremeegg (14 Sep 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> I think you already know what I'm talking about with the hint "demographics". You might recall the furore in Germany (Munich was it?) about the recently arrived Syrians and their culture vis a vis women. So that was my scurrilous insinuation. Now....I'd like a gallows with a view.....



It wasn't Munich and while some of the perpetrators may have been Syrian, most were not. If you are heading to the gallows, may as well get your facts straight.


----------



## Vanilla (14 Sep 2017)

Mr Hook said: "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, no idea what dangers he might pose.

"_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.

"There is personal responsibility because it's your daughter and my daughter."

Just going to leave those words here to speak for themselves.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Sep 2017)

cremeegg said:


> It wasn't Munich and while some of the perpetrators may have been Syrian, most were not. If you are heading to the gallows, may as well get your facts straight.


Ok, you win Pedantic Pat award of the day, my point (which everyone got) was that they were not of christian persuasion. So if you want to explore religions with twisted attitudes to women I think you'll find far more fertile ground there.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Sep 2017)

Vanilla said:


> "_But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?_



Fair enough, George was sticking his oafish foot in his enormous gob. But dare I say that that's hardly a newsflash.  The hysteria about "rape culture" and vilification of him what should be long retired is very OTT. George does not represent Irish men on most topics, so let's not read too much into what his words say about Irish society.


----------



## Delboy (15 Sep 2017)

Yesterday, a colleague of George's announced she wouldn't present her weekend show if he was still at the station.
And 1 researcher on his team was moved to a different show after requesting the move.
George has been suspended this morning pending conclusion of the review by Mgmt.


----------



## Dan Murray (15 Sep 2017)

Some people might believe this to be over the top but George must ask himself should he have put himself in harm's way?!


----------



## Betsy Og (15 Sep 2017)

George seems to think of himself as too old to give a damn, and probably thinks that makes him "outspoken", endearing, a clear clarion call in the morass of PC (or some other bombastic pompous notion). It's a skill to know when to go, I used to listen to George and overall used to like him, so it'll be a sorry end if he gets "bundled into the back of van", but he should have hung up his headphones a year ago when he left drivetime. Now, when you look up "Loose cannon on deck", there's just a picture of George....


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> George seems to think of himself as too old to give a damn, and probably thinks that makes him "outspoken", endearing, a clear clarion call in the morass of PC (or some other bombastic pompous notion). It's a skill to know when to go, I used to listen to George and overall used to like him, so it'll be a sorry end if he gets "bundled into the back of van", but he should have hung up his headphones a year ago when he left drivetime. Now, when you look up "Loose cannon on deck", there's just a picture of George....


I never liked him but other than that I agree.


----------



## Delboy (15 Sep 2017)

Dan Murray said:


> Some people might believe this to be over the top but George must ask himself should he have put himself in harm's way?!


I wonder how many times he was told by his bosses to be controversial, speak his mind!
But this is one topic he should have steered well clear of...you're on a hiding to nothing if you don't go with the consenus viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not. So leave well alone


----------



## joe sod (15 Sep 2017)

Delboy said:


> Yesterday, a colleague of George's announced she wouldn't present her weekend show if he was still at the station.
> And 1 researcher on his team was moved to a different show after requesting the move.
> George has been suspended this morning pending conclusion of the review by Mgmt.



The whole controversy started when Chris Donoghue his newstalk colleague tweeted that his (George Hooks) comments were disgusting. Chris Donoghue was basically demoted from the drivetime show after only a year, the show which George Hook had anchored since newstalk started in 2004. I think alot of the newbie pc types in newstalk were jealous of George Hook and the following he had. I think they were especially put out when Ivan Yates was brought in to replace Chris Donoghue and Sarah McInerney. I think they saw this as an opportunity to take out George Hook, they are now waiting in the long grass for Ivan Yates. These machinations are like something out of soviet russia.


----------



## Tebbit (16 Sep 2017)

I'm feeling really sorry for George Hook and was really sad to see him suspended from his job. As far as I'm concerned he apologised sincerely and that's the end of it.  Put him back on air - he doesn't deserve to be fired.   I love his radio show and only listen to it because of him. Part of his charm is his outspoken way - he says things out straight. What he said regarding going to bed with someone on the same night as you meet them is what many people would say - rightly or wrongly.  What harm in bringing up the notion of personal responsibility - all people, but especially women ( who are not as well able to defend themselves as men) need to be aware of what they're doing / where they are.  I know that I always have the car lock on now when in traffic after hearing one or two horror stories.   He called the rapist a scumbag which he is and he should be punished. George doe NOT condone rape but the way people are hopping on the 'anti George' bandwagon you would think he did. It seems like every second person is anti him - perhaps they were only waiting for an opportunity.    Please Newstalk put him back on.


----------



## Thirsty (17 Sep 2017)

Working off a phone so may have some typos.

To try and answer some posts.

I have as much belief in the 'New' Testament, (or the Old one for that matter), Supreme Beings, miracles etc., as I do in the tooth fairy.

In my view you might just as well claim the Lord of the Rings to be a true and accurate reflection of historical events and that Gandalf is the Supreme Being as he clearly died and was resuurected.

The regrettable fact is however, that for thr last 20 or so centuries these religious  writings have exerted an enormous, and in my view evil, influence on our society.

The subjugation of women, justification for slavery, attitudes towards sexual orientation etc., have their roots in this influence. And this has been documented and researched elsewhere by many others far more qualifed than I.

The reading of what is called the Annunciation as being consent between equals is, in my view, impossible.

With any work of fiction, it is open to the reader to interpret the characters and plot therein; my view of this story is no less valid than any other view.

The novel, a Handmaids Tale, is a work of fiction, but every act depicted therein has happened to women in the past and regretably is still happening in many parts of the world. The primary female character takes part in a regular ritual of sex with the Commander. Although she appears to consent, it is clearly rape since to refuse means punishment or death.

Someone referenced murders as another heinous crime; however I've yet to see anyone blame the murdered person for wearing the wrong clothes, or being in the wrong street after dark, or having too much to drink.  And I've never heard it being offered as mitigation for the  murderer's crime.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2017)

_Thirsty_ you have made the mistake of regarding the lack of consent as the heinous crime. Furthermore you argue that what might appear to be consent is in fact illusory as there are implicit influences which give no real alternative.

The reality is that an awful lot of what we do is done on the basis of a consent where we would much prefer to be doing something else - in fact most people's working lives fits this description.

In the context of rape lack of consent is a test just as in the context of murder premeditation is a test - doesn't mean premeditation of itself is a heinous crime.

So let us accept your argument that the BVM effectively had no choice but to agree, that does not in anyway imply she was raped.

I shouldn't really be engaging with you on this matter as it is undoubtedly a TROLL.


----------



## Thirsty (17 Sep 2017)

"...had no choicebut to agree, that does not in anyway imply she was raped."

In the context of rape, consent is the only test, and the only defence.

Consent under duress is not consent.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2017)

_Thirsty_ I apologise for calling you a Troll, rather you seem somewhat intellectually challenged.

I am deducted taxes without my consent, doesn't mean I'm being raped.


----------



## Thirsty (17 Sep 2017)

" deducted taxeswithout my consent"

We are talking about rape, not politics or finance.

"rather you seem somewhat intellectuallychallenged." 
Now you're just being rude.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> " deducted taxeswithout my consent"
> 
> We are talking about rape, not politics or finance.
> 
> ...


The BVM was told she would give birth to a child.  She was not raped. Consent doesn't come into it.  Get it?


----------



## Thirsty (17 Sep 2017)

"...told she would give birth...Consent doesn't come into it. "

So if I read you correctly, you believe that whatever process was invoked, be that 'divine intervention' or the more prosaic, and usual, method of man / penis / semen. Mary's consent to this process was not required?

Edit Corrected required to invoked to be clearer


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> "...told she would give birth...Consent doesn't come into it. "
> 
> So if I read you correctly, you believe that whatever process was invoked, be that 'divine intervention' or the more prosaic, and usual, method of man / penis / semen. Mary's consent to this process was not required?
> 
> Edit Corrected required to invoked to be clearer


_Purple_ someone, anyone please advise me to stop engaging with this poster, she is so obstinate.

_Thirsty_ you posited that the treatment of the BVM has given rise to a rape culture. I hope you will now accept that she was not in any way raped, indeed the story seems to go in the total opposite direction, she was spared sexual activity of any sort, consensual or otherwise.

You have instead changed your point to one about consent, which since there is no rape involved is totally irrelevant to OP.


----------



## Thirsty (17 Sep 2017)

Perhaps you might answer my question?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Perhaps you might answer my question?


If you really want an answer it is Yes.  But please don't take that as an encouragement to ask other irrelevant questions like 'What is the capital of France?'

Your persistence that what the BVM experienced was rape is a kick in the teeth to true victims of that heinous crime.


----------



## Thirsty (17 Sep 2017)

Just to sum up

The question was..
Mary's consent to this process was not required?

Answer: Yes

I rest my case.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> Just to sum up
> 
> The question was..
> Mary's consent to this process was not required?
> ...


Good, if I have persuaded a Troll to rest her case, then I have achieved something.


----------



## Thirsty (17 Sep 2017)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/i-rest-my-case


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Sep 2017)

Sounds like George ain't coming back. Now while I've already said he should have finished up, I'm not supportive of contrary opinion being squashed. We used to have right wing totalitarianism via the church, now we have left wing/liberal outrage imposing a single acceptable view. I was pro marriage equality, anti-Trump etc etc but I still don't think we need to pillory anyone who was anti marriage equality or pro-Trump, an awful lot of playing the man not the ball in modern discourse, if the merits of the argument stack up then why not debate those instead of trying the get the other argument off the pitch.


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ someone, anyone please advise me to stop engaging with this poster


I'm the last person who should give advice in that area. 

My only comment on that matter is that anyone who thinks that religion creates the moral framework of a society without also thinking that the moral framework of a society creates the religion is not really thinking things though.


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> Sounds like George ain't coming back. Now while I've already said he should have finished up, I'm not supportive of contrary opinion being squashed. We used to have right wing totalitarianism via the church, now we have left wing/liberal outrage imposing a single acceptable view. I was pro marriage equality, anti-Trump etc etc but I still don't think we need to pillory anyone who was anti marriage equality or pro-Trump, an awful lot of playing the man not the ball in modern discourse, if the merits of the argument stack up then why not debate those instead of trying the get the other argument off the pitch.


That about sums up my view on the matter as well. The media should challenge the consensus, not just reinforce it.
Those who were the liberal outsiders have now become the establishment but they don't realise it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (18 Sep 2017)

Thirsty said:


> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/i-rest-my-case


You have me tearing my hair out by now

I never challenged your views as to the consent of the BVM.  In the terms of Mathematical Logic (which I appreciate may be beyond your grasp) lack of consent is a *necessary* but not a *sufficient*  condition for rape.  Other aspects which you yourself have alluded to graphically must also be present.

Lack of consent is arguably present in the case of the BVM and certainly in the case of my taxation but the other conditions are not present ergo in neither case is there rape.  I rest my case


----------



## Thirsty (18 Sep 2017)

> You have me tearing my hair out by now


Because you didn't understand the meaning of the term?  Dearie me....


----------



## Firefly (18 Sep 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> Sounds like George ain't coming back.



What are the odds on Georgie Boy penning a book between now and Xmas and appearing on the LLS ??


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2017)

Firefly said:


> What are the odds on Georgie Boy penning a book between now and Xmas and appearing on the LLS ??


I thought that living in Dublin all these years had knocked the rough edges off him but as they say, "you can take the man out of Cork..."


----------



## Leper (19 Sep 2017)

If George is permanently railroaded off the radio station, it is nothing short of character assassination by many (nobody) people who should have known better.


----------



## Delboy (19 Sep 2017)

Ivan Yates today said he doubted George would come back to Newstalk after the investigation was complete. I can't see it myself either.


----------



## michaelm (22 Sep 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ someone, anyone please advise me to stop engaging with this poster, she is so obstinate.


You should probably use the 'People You Ignore' feature, for your own sanity.





Betsy Og said:


> we have left wing/liberal outrage imposing a single acceptable view. I was pro marriage equality, anti-Trump etc etc but I still don't think we need to pillory anyone who was anti marriage equality or pro-Trump


Well said.  Our bleeding heart media are cheerleaders for the blue hair brigade.  It seems that hard left/ultra-liberals don't know the meaning of tolerance, God love them .


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2017)

michaelm said:


> You should probably use the 'People You Ignore' feature, for your own sanity.Well said.  Our bleeding heart media are cheerleaders for the blue hair brigade.  It seems that hard left/ultra-liberals don't know the meaning of tolerance, God love them .


The problem is that the US media keeps incorrectly conflating socialism and liberal. 
I'm a liberal; pro-marriage equality, LGBT rights, individual freedom, legalisation of drugs etc but I'm not a socialist and I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and a free press. That means that God fearing, Mass going, FF  voting, social conservatives (all things I'm not) are entitled to air their views. 
Those who were the outsiders have become the establishment but they are still acting like they are outsiders which leads to a tyranny of the majority.


----------



## Delboy (22 Sep 2017)

George Hook steps down from Newstalk lunchtime but will get a new weekend show later. Thats a sop to him and a bit of a 2 fingers to the Irish Times and other media heads who came out against both him and Newstalk IMO
http://www.independent.ie/entertain...urn-to-newstalk-later-this-year-36158838.html


----------



## Leper (23 Sep 2017)

I'm glad the situation is ending as a transfer from one radio slot to another within the same station. I don't believe the genuine people who run rape crisis centres and hostels for the abused would have condoned the witch hunt  that was run against George Hook. The twenty of George Hook's nobody co-workers who signed a petition to get him off the air must now be looking at themselves in the mirror and I suppose they are so crass they don't know what to do next. I know one thing, if I spent my working time contacting sponsors who pay for such radio programmes to pull-the-plug on their advertising etc I reckon I'd be shortly looking for a new job. I'm not forgetting the former "pop-star" who walked off another radio programme interview in so-called protest  which from where I sit is just another publicity stunt which she needed to aid her ailing career. The press scraped the bottom of the barrel against Hook too. In fairness, I should point out that amid the silence that was "support" for Hook, Pat Kenny did say publicly some kind words in favour of George Hook.

George Hook is a giver. He lauds his mother who put him through private secondary school by paying in weekly instalments. I know George is no angel, but he was contrite in his apologies regarding his comments which put him in hot water. Whatever way you take Hook (pun intended), he was through the mill, a failed businessman, a tough enough life, a marriage that was seconds from being on the rocks, a monumental fight with his depression, a visit to a harbour pier where he contemplated immediate suicide. If there is anybody on our airways who would help victims of rape it is George Hook. 

I bet George will keep on giving because when all his demons were conquered that was what he did, keep on giving.


----------



## joe sod (23 Sep 2017)

yea i think newstalk have made the right decision, but they didnt have much choice anyway as George hook had a very strong case for unfair dismissal, afterall what he said wasnt illegal or defamatory. I presume newstalk are required to continue to pay his salary while off. I have to say I was surprised at Ivan Yates joining the lynch mob I thought he was bigger than that, I wasnt surprised at the young pc types in newstalk joining the mob. Maybe they are a result of the facebook generation where everybody wants to comply with the popular opinion and dissenters are shunned


----------



## Delboy (23 Sep 2017)

Yates sounded to me that he was supporting Hook. Everything he said on this, even on his new TV show, was in support though while still saying that Hook had said the wrong thing and had apoogised for it. 
Yate and Kenny kept the same line


----------



## Delboy (5 Oct 2017)

Another big decision from Newstalk...Dil has been let go from her Saturday eve show. Very silly move going on strike...put Mgmt into a corner and there was only ever going to be 1 winner


And in other news, following a few columnists at the IT saying they wouldn't go near Newstalk while Geroge was still there, Denis has hit back
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...-brien-bans-irish-times-journalists-1.3245906


----------



## Leper (6 Oct 2017)

In fairness, Dil didn't want to work for a radio station that had George Hook on air. He's nearly back, she's nearly gone . . . Dil is getting what she wished and wanted . . . I wish her the best in her future media career.


----------



## Daithi7 (6 Oct 2017)

The PC brigade have become an almighty pain in the hole imho. I'd classify myself as a moderate liberal but these PC militants are nothing more than social nazis imho.

George Hook apologised for some inadvertent comments on air. End of.

No need for protests, walking out of interviews, lobbying sponsors to withdraw advertising, pejorative, & bs articles from socially militant fools likes like F. o'tool - heaven spare us!!!

It was similar with Kevin Myers, who while I was no fan of tbh, was a provocateur, and when he made accurate observations about the hysterical reactions to the so called gender pay gap, and a few mild, but admittedly poorly conceived references to anti semitism, was fired from his column. Gone. Reading the' offending ' article, I am still flabbergasted that he was let go cos of that mild opinion piece. Modern Ieland has gone totally PC mad, and our daily dialogue is now being militantly moderated by intolerant PC Nazi-istas...... not good imho, unless you're a fan of censorship.


----------



## Purple (9 Oct 2017)

The problem is that one man (or woman!)'s* free speech is another man (or woman!)'s hate speech.

We need to decide if freedom of speech is important or not in this country because to me it looks like the Roman Catholic censors just been replaced by the Liberal/Feminist/Leftie censors.

Does the excellent Stefanie Preissner's recent comment that the objectivisation of women is down to women and not men mean that she will also be silenced? When speaking about unrealistic images of women she said "The world is shallow and it's not just men. Actually very rarely, it's men. Men aren't buying those magazines. They're not created and constructed by men."

*Life of Brian reference


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> We need to decide if freedom of speech is important or not in this country because to me it looks like the Roman Catholic censors just been replaced by the Liberal/Feminist/Leftie censors.



I think Sean Moncrieff makes the point about the Irish having a herd mentality... once they were guided by the Church, now it's the liberal media. Most were never really Catholic, just as today most aren't really liberal, they are just following the herd and above all else don't want to be seen to be stepping out of line.


----------



## Delboy (10 Oct 2017)

Moncrieff would be an authority on the liberal media!


----------



## Vanessa (31 Oct 2017)

Thanks George, now we are landed with Dr Kelly to be lecturing us. Time to changethe dial


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2017)

Vanessa said:


> Thanks George, now we are landed with Dr Kelly to be lecturing us. Time to changethe dial


I agree. I can't listen to her. Ivan Yates was excellent when he had Chris Donoghue as a counterbalance but he's too much to listen to on his own. I've moved to Matt Cooper in the evenings.


----------



## Ceist Beag (2 Nov 2017)

I thought Chris Donoghue and Sarah McInerney were excellent and then Newstalk went and replaced them with Yates who, as you say, is far too much on his own. Apparently Chris and Sarah won an award for their show ... after they had been replaced! Some strange decisions from the Newstalk management. And agreed Dr Kelly is quite painful to listen to.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2017)

Ceist Beag said:


> I thought Chris Donoghue and Sarah McInerney were excellent and then Newstalk went and replaced them with Yates who, as you say, is far too much on his own. Apparently Chris and Sarah won an award for their show ... after they had been replaced! Some strange decisions from the Newstalk management. And agreed Dr Kelly is quite painful to listen to.


I wasn't mad on Sarah McInerney. She's really good generally but I don't think she was suited to the format. The woman who does the current affairs stuff on TV3 who did the morning show on Newstalk the odd time was excellent.


----------



## Betsy Og (2 Nov 2017)

Sarah McInerney has a lovely voice (pause as I float off into the air).... and of course they all have lovely voices, but one of the criticisms you hear are that women's voices can in some cases be a bit raspy and harder to listen to. I like Dr. Ciara, maybe people have the image of her as the finger wagging one on Op Trans, but I thought she used to be really good with George on the medical segment, and when she used to be on the show on Friday evenings. Give her a chance.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> Sarah McInerney has a lovely voice (pause as I float off into the air).... and of course they all have lovely voices, but one of the criticisms you hear are that women's voices can in some cases be a bit raspy and harder to listen to. I like Dr. Ciara, maybe people have the image of her as the finger wagging one on Op Trans, but I thought she used to be really good with George on the medical segment, and when she used to be on the show on Friday evenings. Give her a chance.


I like Ciara Kelly's voice and found Sarah McInerney's a bit hard to listen to. What they say is what matters though.


----------



## Betsy Og (2 Nov 2017)

Problem is that some presenters think what they have to say is THE most important bit. Guests were just a foil or prompt for George to spill forth his wisdom - but that was his schtick.

Chris was alright but suffers a bit from the Shane Coleman thing of always needing to be 'right on' and PC. An odd bit of (odd) personality keeps it interesting. I like Ivans capacity to mischievously stir it a bit without it having to have everything his way.


----------



## michaelm (2 Nov 2017)

Purple said:


> I agree. I can't listen to her.


Me neither.  My wife dislikes all female DJs, but she's sexist.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2017)

michaelm said:


> Me neither.  My wife dislikes all female DJs, but she's sexist.


Women can't be sexist, didn't you know?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Nov 2017)

Referring to the latest manifestation who has published his "apology" in the _Sindo_.  It seems to me that when someone admits that their behaviour was politically incorrect they are not apologising they having a dig at the whole cult of political correctness.


----------



## Vanessa (19 Nov 2017)

Poor Hookey has messed up again. Thats the problem with egos


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2017)

Vanessa said:


> Poor Hookey has messed up again. Thats the problem with egos


What's he done now?


----------



## Seagull (21 Nov 2017)

Purple said:


> What's he done now?


Woken up, got out of bed and opened his mouth. I think that's all he needs to do normally to offend someone. There seems to be a lack of filter between initial half-baked thought and speech.


----------



## Godfather (28 Dec 2017)

I saw George Hook in the Church of Donaghmede during Lent and he gave a speech on spirituality. I saw two people standing up and leave and they didn't come back... There were moments in which silence was hanging for a few seconds after one of his strong remarks, you could not hear a whisper. That was the sound of "shock"


----------



## Leper (29 Dec 2017)

Typical George . . . . he often said he rehearsed a remark for a fortnight before "ad-libbing" it.

Last Sunday at my Mass, the priest said nothing of note but the Mass was dragging on and on and a lot more than two walked out not to return.


----------



## joe sod (21 Jan 2018)

I see George hook back on newstalk between 8am and 10 on saturday mornings. I wonder are newstalk waiting for the furore to die down before moving him to a more prominent slot. He had one of their biggest audiences before the controversy and they were the higher spending people too.


----------

