George hook

BillyBobBS

With views like that maybe Hook needs to change to the religion of peace.

sid waddell

Nabber wrote: »

Situational awareness is required regardless of the law.

It's against the law to steal a car, but we don't leave them unlocked with key in the ignition because the law protects it.

Keep yourself safe.

You're comparing a woman being raped to somebody leaving their car unlocked and having it stolen?

The mental gymnastics just keep getting more and more acrobatic.

I haven't seen any sort of defence of Hook's comments that doesn't amount to that classic misogynistic trope "she was asking for it".

And there won't be, because, by definition, any defence of them amounts to nothing more than saying "she was asking for it".

Allinall

sid waddell wrote: »

You're comparing a woman being raped to somebody leaving their car unlocked and having it stolen.

........

And there won't be, because, by definition, any defence of them amounts to nothing more than saying "she was asking for it".

Your last paragraph is nonsense.

You should stop making things up and pretending you know what other people think.

It makes you look foolish.

sid waddell

Allinall wrote: »

Your last paragraph is nonsense.

You should stop making things up and pretending you know what other people think.

It makes you look foolish.

Hook blamed the victim.

Yes, that is saying "she was asking for it".

If you defend such comments, that's what you are saying too.

And quite clearly, anything else is nonsense.

This is as uncomplicated as anything can be.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if you were to get raped, no matter what the circumstances, someone, somewhere would question whether you were in some way responsible for getting yourself raped. That's the point of objecting to someone suggesting that someone who was raped was somehow personally responsible for their being raped, by someone else.

This point is, unfortunately, true. Time after time people will hear about a rape and say - she shouldn't have been wearing that, she shouldn't have been walking down that street, she shouldn't have been drunk, she shouldn't have gone with that guy.

Women have been raped in their own homes after getting drunk and going to bed. Should she not have gotten drunk? Should she not have gone off by herself? Does she bear a personal responsibility for any of that? George Hook's words imply she would.

Allinall

sid waddell wrote: »

Hook blamed the victim.

Yes, that is saying "she was asking for it".

If you defend such comments, that's what you are saying too.

And quite clearly, anything else is nonsense.

This is as uncomplicated as anything can be.

Please quote his words where he "blamed the victim".

markodaly

kylith wrote: »

This point is, unfortunately, true. Time after time people will hear about a rape and say - she shouldn't have been wearing that, she shouldn't have been walking down that street, she shouldn't have been drunk, she shouldn't have gone with that guy.

Women have been raped in their own homes after getting drunk and going to bed. Should she not have gotten drunk? Should she not have gone off by herself? Does she bear a personal responsibility for any of that? George Hook's words imply she would.

In fairness, this is just hysteria. Next time you park your car, leave it unlocked with the keys on the seat.

sid waddell

Allinall wrote: »

Please quote his words where he "blamed the victim".

Quite clearly you haven't read or listened to his comments.

Given such, you should perhaps ask yourself why you are even commenting.

Hook asks the quite clearly rhetorical question: “But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?”

The answer, obviously in his view, being "yes, there is blame attached to her".

It's as categorical a case of victim blaming as there can be.

And the fact that he uses the words "putting themselves in danger" implies that the woman knew what she was getting herself into, ie. a situation where she would be raped.

Which is clearly balderdash.

Allinall

sid waddell wrote: »

Quite clearly you haven't read or listened to his comments.

Given such, you should perhaps ask yourself why you are even commenting.

Hook asks the quite clearly rhetorical question: “But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?”

The answer, obviously in his view, being "yes".

It's as categorical a case of victim blaming as there can be.

And the fact that he uses the words "putting themselves in danger" implies that the woman knew what she was getting herself into, ie. a situation where she would be raped.

Which is clearly balderdash.

So you're making things up again, and assuming what he meant.

I've read the full transcript of his comments, so you're wrong on that count as well.

As I said earlier , you're just looking foolish.

sid waddell

Allinall wrote: »

So you're making things up again, and assuming what he meant.

I've read the full transcript of his comments, so you're wrong on that count as well.

As I said earlier , you're just looking foolish.

Quite clearly you're deliberately playing dumb as to your knowledge of the concept of a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is a very basic tool of the English language in which the answer to a question is so obviously implied that the question doesn't require an answer.

It's a tool regularly used in broadcasting, print journalism and politics. You regularly see it employed by the likes of the Daily Mail.

Given that you're deliberately trying to claim ignorance of what a rhetorical question is, there's really no point in conversing any further with you.

Muahahaha

nc6000 wrote: »

I don't have much time for Hook. As far as I'm concerned he made the RTE rugby coverage unwatchable with his stupid comments and reaction to games and his personal vendettas with players. I never took to his show on Newstalk and generally now avoid that station altogether.

However, I think the reaction to his recent comments is way over the top.

I feel the same, he made the rugby coverage awful by his use of rhetoric and hyperbole. The last straw for me was a couple of years ago when just a minute into the pre-match coverage he said that this Ireland team could never beat South Africa. That Irish team duly beat South Africa that very afternoon and Hook was left eating his words. Such crap though to come out with before a game even kicked off. An Irish pundit on an Irish channel telling an Irish audience that we could never win, he is just out to wind people up really and not in a comedic way, he is a special kind of head wreck.

Then he had his rants on cyclists telling his listerners that he hates them with a passion. It was nothing more than a blatant attempt to turn one group against the other. He called cyclists criminals when it was Hook himself who has a string of road traffic offences, so many that a judge called Hook a serial traffic offender. He couldnt even see the hyprocrisy of his words but at least Matt Cooper put him firmly back in his box over it.

I think the reaction to this latest controversy is a bit OTT but to be honest Im enjoying it. Hook is nothing more than a wind-up merchant who seeks to annoy people to stroke his own ego. So when he is receiving a backlash like this I have no sympathy for the man whatsoever, he has more than earned everything coming his way. Large dose of schadenfreude going on here for me

MickDoyle1979

Muahahaha wrote: »

I feel the same, he made the rugby coverage awful by his use of rhetoric and hyperbole. The last straw for me was a couple of years ago when just a minute into the pre-match coverage he said that this Ireland team could never beat South Africa. That Irish team duly beat South Africa that very afternoon and Hook was left eating his words. Such crap though to come out with before a game even kicked off. An Irish pundit on an Irish channel telling an Irish audience that we could never win, he is just out to wind people up really and not in a comedic way, he is a special kind of head wreck.

Then he had his rants on cyclists telling his listerners that he hates them with a passion. It was nothing more than a blatant attempt to turn one group against the other. He called cyclists criminals when it was Hook himself who has a string of road traffic offences, so many that a judge called Hook a serial traffic offender. He couldnt even see the hyprocrisy of his words but at least Matt Cooper put him firmly back in his box over it.

I think the reaction to this latest controversy is a bit OTT but to be honest Im enjoying it. Hook is nothing more than a wind-up merchant who seeks to annoy people to stroke his own ego. So when he is receiving a backlash like this I have no sympathy for the man whatsoever, he has more than earned everything coming his way. Large dose of schadenfreude going on here for me

I like Hook and he is entertaining.

You don't like him don't listen.

You don't like what he has to say and stop him from saying it?

This is a Republic and we have freedom.

Shutting down Myers a few weeks ago and now Hook is creating a chilling effect.

I want a society in which people can say what they like.

sid waddell

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

I like Hook and he is entertaining.

You don't like him don't listen.

You don't like what he has to say and stop him from saying it?

This is Republic and we have freedom.

Shutting down Myers a few weeks ago and now Hook is creating a chilling effect.

I want s society in which people can say what they like.

Should I be allowed name you online and call you a paedophile?

See what I did there?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way, for those not familiar with the concept.

Muahahaha

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

I like Hook and he is entertaining.

You don't like him don't listen.

You don't like what he has to say and stop him from saying it?

This is a Republic and we have freedom.

Shutting down Myers a few weeks ago and now Hook is creating a chilling effect.

I want a society in which people can say what they like.

You are talking about him as if he is some sort of philosopher or intellectual heavyweight that we need for balance in democratic discourse. He is not, he is a wind-up merchant, a shock-jock who is deliberately spouts sh1t to divide people.

He can say whatever he likes. No-one is stopping him. Even when he gets the sack from Newstalk later this week he can still say whatever he wants, there is a whole world of internet radio out there for him to continue on shouting at clouds or whatever other nonsense his fanboys wish to hear.

Zonda999

I'd love to see a poll on this because I'm convinced the majority of people actually agree with Hooks comments from a personal responsibility poiint of view. If that was shown to be the case, I'd love to see the response of the people calling for his head.

One eyed Jack

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

I like Hook and he is entertaining.

You don't like him don't listen.

You don't like what he has to say and stop him from saying it?

This is a Republic and we have freedom.

Shutting down Myers a few weeks ago and now Hook is creating a chilling effect.

I want a society in which people can say what they like.

You already live in that society, it's the same society where you are saying that people who are raped should be held personally responsible for their being raped by someone else. You're absolutely free to say that. You're also personally responsible for anything you do say.

If you don't want to be held responsible for the consequences of what you say, then why do you think other people should be held responsible not for their own actions, but for the actions of someone else completely?

You can see how that makes no sense surely? And because we all live in a Republic, and we all have freedom, people are just as entitled to say what they like as you are. It just so happens that you don't like what people are saying when they are saying what they like, but they're doing exactly as you suggested, in the society that you would want.

Unless of course you'd rather live in a society where everyone would agree with you and do as you say. There are societies like that alright, but they ain't Republics, and they sure as hell don't place the same value in the right to freedom of expression as we do. That's a right btw that comes with implicit responsibilities -

Freedom of expression

You have a right to freely express your convictions and opinions. However, the Constitution asserts that the State should try to make sure that the radio, the press and the cinema are not used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. It also states that it is an offence to publish or utter blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter.

There are some limitations on your freedom of expression. For example, the Censorship of Publications Acts and the Censorship of Films Acts allow censorship of publications like books, films and DVDs.


Source: Fundamental Rights under the Irish Constitution, Citizens Information

freshpopcorn

So, can we just confirm that people that the people who disagree with George's comments will tell there kids/family etc when they start going on nights out to go out and get get pissed drunk and not offer them advice about staying safe on a night out?

Sleeper12

MickDoyle1979 wrote:

I want a society in which people can say what they like.

There's a very good reason why we don't tolerate victim blaming and shaming. It discourages victims coming forward, particularly rape victims. Blaming victims upsets victims of past sex crimes. I could even lead to someone talking their own life.

I've read most of the comments up to this point and I think you are the only one suggesting that people should be allowed to publicly blame rape victims. Plenty of people believe that hook didn't me to blame but I'm pretty sure that you are the only one so far suggesting that it's ok to blame a victim. It's not.

As for hook he has strange views on a lot of things. Many IMO made up views purely for shock value. I'd like to think that his comment / belief about there being no such thing as marital rape in made up. Marriage implies consent is a reasonable defence in hooks world.

The man himself has done a lot of damage to the government's complain for the cervical cancer vaccine. His very first the right hook show was dedicated to casting doubt on the safety of the vaccine without giving a balanced view including the scientific community. Girls lives will be lost due to this. That's not being dramatic. I'm stating a fact.

Last rant. He claims that he is a socialist at heart at other times he feels that he is centre. He flat out denies the he might be right wing yet the name of his show clearly makes him out to be right wing. Right hook=right wing for anyone that didn't know. If he wants to be right wing so be it but be honest about it. He dances with his views and is never very honest about them.

Dyr

Has anyone seen the new safe cross code advert?

I can't believe they're victim blaming kids who get hit by cars.

One eyed Jack

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So, can we just confirm that people that the people who disagree with George's comments will tell there kids/family etc when they start going on nights out to go out and get get pissed drunk and not offer them advice about staying safe on a night out?

Why would I tell him that though? You're arguing as though if a person gets drunk it's an inevitability that they will be raped. With that sort of 'advice', you're bound to be proven right at some point, because people do go out, and people do get drunk, and people do get raped, by someone else.

People who don't go out, and don't get drunk, also get raped, so your 'advice' tbh is really just pointless, because in hindsight you can point to an infinite number of reasons as to why someone is personally responsible for getting themselves raped, by someone else.

super_furry

See the head of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre is the latest to slam Hook for his Stone Age opinions https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0910/903614-call-for-media-outlets-to-develop-guidelines-on-rape/

But she's just another leftie, SJW, snowflake getting too easily offended, right?

Sleeper12

Zonda999 wrote:

I'd love to see a poll on this because I'm convinced the majority of people actually agree with Hooks comments from a personal responsibility poiint of view. If that was shown to be the case, I'd love to see the response of the people calling for his head.

I disagree with you. What I've read on this thread that a lot and possibly more than half agree with parts of what hook said. Posting certain sentences. He asked was there blame there on the girls part. I don't see to many agreeing with blaming a rape victim.
Hook used the word blame. He hasn't since admitted to blaming the victim.
Some posters are determined to agree with something that hook didn't say and won't believe hook himself when he said that he said it.
It's a crazy rock n roll world we live in

MickDoyle1979

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There's a very good reason why we don't tolerate victim blaming and shaming. It discourages victims coming forward, particularly rape victims. Blaming victims upsets victims of past sex crimes. I could even lead to someone talking their own life.

I've read most of the comments up to this point and I think you are the only one suggesting that people should be allowed to publicly blame rape victims. Plenty of people believe that hook didn't me to blame but I'm pretty sure that you are the only one so far suggesting that it's ok to blame a victim. It's not.

As for hook he has strange views on a lot of things. Many IMO made up views purely for shock value. I'd like to think that his comment / belief about there being no such thing as marital rape in made up. Marriage implies consent is a reasonable defence in hooks world.

The man himself has done a lot of damage to the government's complain for the cervical cancer vaccine. His very first the right hook show was dedicated to casting doubt on the safety of the vaccine without giving a balanced view including the scientific community. Girls lives will be lost due to this. That's not being dramatic. I'm stating a fact.

Last rant. He claims that he is a socialist at heart at other times he feels that he is centre. He flat out denies the he might be right wing yet the name of his show clearly makes him out to be right wing. Right hook=right wing for anyone that didn't know. If he wants to be right wing so be it but be honest about it. He dances with his views and is never very honest about them.

What is wrong with telling women not to get legless drunk which makes them vulnerable to attack?

Let's stick to what supposedly offended the outragentsia.

Talking basic common sense that everyone knows is true is not allowed?

The only people offended by what Hook said are w*nkers.

You know it I know it and everyone else does.

Just be honest and admit what he said was basic cop on.

One eyed Jack

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

What is wrong with telling women not to get legless drunk which makes them vulnerable to attack?

There's nothing wrong with that.

But that's not what he actually said.

Sleeper12

freshpopcorn wrote:

So, can we just confirm that people that the people who disagree with George's comments will tell there kids/family etc when they start going on nights out to go out and get get pissed drunk and not offer them advice about staying safe on a night out?

Hell no. I'll be particularly to blame for letting them out of the house. I can prevent this happening and I can prevent kids getting into strangers cars by home schooling. They'll never leave the house again. George says that I must take measures to prevent this from happening.

super_furry

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

The only people offended by what Hook said are w*nkers.

You know it I know it and everyone else does.

So Noeline Blackwell, head of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, she's a wanker yeah?

Ulysses Gaze

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

I like Hook and he is entertaining.

You don't like him don't listen.

You don't like what he has to say and stop him from saying it?

This is a Republic and we have freedom.

Shutting down Myers a few weeks ago and now Hook is creating a chilling effect.

I want a society in which people can say what they like.

You have that.

But if you make a ****ing stupid or dangerous comment in the media, expect a firestorm of criticism.

After all, people have a right to say they disagree with you.

Sleeper12

MickDoyle1979 wrote:

The only people offended by what Hook said are w*nkers.

MickDoyle1979 wrote:

What is wrong with telling women not to get legless drunk which makes them vulnerable to attack?

How do you feel about blaming rape victims? We're not talking about any advice that George might have given out. Good for him.
What about when he asks is there any BLAME on her part.

I have no problem with hook giving good advice. He said that she should have not been surprised /or even expected someone hiding in the bathroom.
He never suggested that the guy who brought her back shouldn't be drunk or suggested that you leave yourself wide open to false claims by doing these things. I won't even say hello to a small child without any wife beside me because I could be accused.
He only gave advice on her short commings and suggested that some blame lies with her.

I ask again are you happy with someone blaming the victim of a rape live on national radio?

eleventh

kylith wrote:

Women have been raped in their own homes after getting drunk and going to bed. Should she not have gotten drunk? Should she not have gone off by herself? Does she bear a personal responsibility for any of that? George Hook's words imply she would.

The point is that she was drunk out of her mind and agreed to go to bed with a stranger. It makes no difference after that whether it's a hotel bedroom or her own bedroom she's invited him into.

If it was her own bedroom and she did not invite him in, well I would put it like this - if she's living alone and invites a stranger back in a drunken state, that is still a very risky thing to do regardless of whether he's sleeping on the couch or where else in the house he's sleeping. He could be a murderer, thief, rapist etc for all she knows.

LordSutch

super_furry wrote: »

See the head of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre is the latest to slam Hook for his Stone Age opinions https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0910/903614-call-for-media-outlets-to-develop-guidelines-on-rape/

But she's just another leftie, SJW, snowflake getting too easily offended, right?

Correct.

freshpopcorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would I tell him that though? You're arguing as though if a person gets drunk it's an inevitability that they will be raped. With that sort of 'advice', you're bound to be proven right at some point, because people do go out, and people do get drunk, and people do get raped, by someone else.

People who don't go out, and don't get drunk, also get raped, so your 'advice' tbh is really just pointless, because in hindsight you can point to an infinite number of reasons as to why someone is personally responsible for getting themselves raped, by someone else.

In my opinion people should tell your kids family the dangers of alcohol and the effects it may have on them and others.

MickDoyle1979

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with that.

But that's not what he actually said.

He said in so many words that women should not go home with a guy they just met and be so out of it that they are vulnerable to being raped.

Wtf is wrong with saying that?

How is that controversial when it is basic common sense?

MickDoyle1979

Sleeper12 wrote: »

How do you feel about blaming rape victims? We're not talking about any advice that George might have given out. Good for him.
What about when he asks is there any BLAME on her part.

I have no problem with hook giving good advice. He said that she should have not been surprised /or even expected someone hiding in the bathroom.
He never suggested that the guy who brought her back shouldn't be drunk or suggested that you leave yourself wide open to false claims by doing these things. I won't even say hello to a small child without any wife beside me because I could be accused.
He only gave advice on her short commings and suggested that some blame lies with her.

I ask again are you happy with someone blaming the victim of a rape live on national radio?

Hook blamed the rapist. He said so. The rapist committed the crime.

A woman who didn't take precautions with alcohol or drugs and made reckless risks in going home with someone they didn't know is responsible for putting themselves in danger.

You know that too so cut the nonsense.

Richard Hillman

If you are a male, would you walk through a dodgy neighbourhood at night where gangs like to congregate? No

If you get mugged or assaulted is it your fault? No

Are you a complete and utter thick for walking through the known gang hotspot? Yes

Is that victim blaming? No

MickDoyle1979

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

You have that.

But if you make a ****ing stupid or dangerous comment in the media, expect a firestorm of criticism.

After all, people have a right to say they disagree with you.

What is stupid about telling women to avoid getting wasted that they fall unconscious in a stranger's house and get raped?

Nothing.

Your outrage is pretend. You are in a power trip

Spanish Eyes

I think he is right. Personal responsibility has to be an issue.

Men can be raped and assaulted also.

Anyway, this is the best publicity for Newstalk EVER!

Ulysses Gaze

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

What is stupid about telling women to avoid getting wasted that they fall unconscious in a stranger's house and get raped?

Nothing.

Your outrage is pretend. You are in a power trip

I'm not talking about Hook specifically, I am talking about the fact that you can say pretty much what you want in Ireland. No-one is stopping you.

Just expect it to be challenged, and vocally so, if people disagree with you.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would I tell him that though? You're arguing as though if a person gets drunk it's an inevitability that they will be raped. With that sort of 'advice', you're bound to be proven right at some point, because people do go out, and people do get drunk, and people do get raped, by someone else.

People who don't go out, and don't get drunk, also get raped, so your 'advice' tbh is really just pointless, because in hindsight you can point to an infinite number of reasons as to why someone is personally responsible for getting themselves raped, by someone else.

Taking rape out of the equation for a minute, advising not to drink too much is something that most parents should tell their kids before going out. There are lots of other nasty things that could happen besides rape.

One eyed Jack

freshpopcorn wrote: »

In my opinion people should tell your kids family the dangers of alcohol and the effects it may have on them and others.

Absolutely, I completely agree with you. And I do advise my son on plenty of things, but in just the same way as I'm not going to tell him don't go out and rape someone, I'm not going to start looking for reasons he was raped if he is raped either. That's passing judgement after the fact, after he took your advice.

What do you say then? You're hardly going to suggest he shouldn't have gone out, because it's already happened. That's why George's comments were ridiculous, because he was looking for reasons after the fact as to why this girl was raped, and ignoring the fact that she didn't do anything that people do every weekend, and they aren't raped.

The only thing that is common to to all incidents of rape is a rapist. It's the rapist who is personally responsible for their actions. The person they rape isn't responsible for a rapists actions, and it was stupid to suggest that they are. That's what George was suggesting, and that's what he apologised for suggesting.

MickDoyle1979

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I'm not talking about Hook specifically, I am talking about the fact that you can say pretty much what you want in Ireland. No-one is stopping you.

Just expect it to be challenged, and vocally so, if people disagree with you.

The shutting down of Hook is not disagreement it is an attempt to crush any form of dissent.

What did he say that is so outrageous?

The shrill vocal minority of hand bangers are shouting down any view point that breaks with their liberal agenda.

They are just as hysterical as the ultra Catholic wing nuts 50 60 70 years ago who ran dissenters out of this country

spookwoman

There is also the other matter this is still before the courts and he hasn't been convicted of anything, in fact he was found not guilty on 1 of the charges. No one can say what happened in that room except those 3 people and it's their word against each other. There may have not been a rape at all, I can't say I was not there. Like it or not the questions Hook asked are probably the same questions the defense team asked and the same questions people asked themselves and don't want to admit.

Sleeper12

MickDoyle1979 wrote:

Hook blamed the rapist. He said so. The rapist committed the crime.

Hook then went on to say was there no blame on her part. Or words to that effect.

Everything he said before that was nonsense. He said all of that thinking that allowed him to ask what blame on her part. It's like when someone says "I'm not racist but" they then go on to say something that they know is racist. It's still racist. Doesn't matter if you claim not to be racist.

Found his actual quote "But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"
This is what he is apologizing for. I don't think anyone has an issue with giving girls in general some advice. He suggested that there is blame on her part.

One eyed Jack

mzungu wrote: »

Taking rape out of the equation for a minute, advising not to drink too much is something that most parents should tell their kids before going out. There are lots of other nasty things that could happen besides rape.

But there's nothing wrong with giving advice like that. That's not what I have an issue with at all. It's the passing judgement after something has happened, which was caused by someone else, is what I have a problem with. We can only hold people personally responsible for their own actions. We can't hold people responsible for the actions of someone else.

That's allowing for other people to abdicate their personal responsibility and say that it was the other persons fault which caused them to act the way they did. No matter how drunk anyone is, it still doesn't give anyone else the right to take advantage of the fact. They too are personally responsible for their actions, and yet we don't tell men don't be raping women, don't be going to clubs where there are women, don't be going home with women you just met, etc. We don't tell men that they are responsible for increasing their chances of committing rape.

Yet we're supposed to tell women that they are responsible for increasing their chances of being raped? I still don't understand the point of that strategy to prevent a rape that's already happened, and it could be for any reason, because we don't know the mind of the person who chose to commit rape.

Sleeper12

Richard Hillman wrote:

If you are a male, would you walk through a dodgy neighbourhood at night where gangs like to congregate? No

Richard Hillman wrote:

If you get mugged or assaulted is it your fault? No

Richard Hillman wrote:

Are you a complete and utter thick for walking through the known gang hotspot? Yes

Richard Hillman wrote:

Is that victim blaming? No

I seem to have pointed this out several times already. Hook didn't say she was an utter thick he said "But is there no BLAME now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"

So in your bottom quote the answer is YES to victim blaming on Hooks part

Ulysses Gaze

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

The shutting down of Hook is not disagreement it is an attempt to crush any form of dissent.

What did he say that is so outrageous?

The shrill vocal minority of hand bangers are shouting down any view point that breaks with their liberal agenda.

They are just as hysterical as the ultra Catholic wing nuts 50 60 70 years ago who ran dissenters out of this country

"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"

That.

Richard Hillman

The only faux-outrage I have seen are from the people in medialand. Then you get your obligatory statements from rape charities to get their names into paper>hits for the website>donations>rich CEO.

The days of the media reporting the news are gone. Now they create the news and the warp the stories to create further noise.

Sleeper12

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Anyway, this is the best publicity for Newstalk EVER!

Looks like they are losing their main sponsor though.contract is up in a few weeks and they might not renew it. In fairness they might not have been renewing it anyway. It never seemed to be the type of business that would have permanent sponsorship

MickDoyle1979

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Hook then went on to say was there no blame on her part. Or words to that effect.

Everything he said before that was nonsense. He said all of that thinking that allowed him to ask what blame on her part. It's like when someone says "I'm not racist but" they then go on to say something that they know is racist. It's still racist. Doesn't matter if you claim not to be racist.

Found his actual quote "But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"
This is what he is apologizing for. I don't think anyone has an issue with giving girls in general some advice. He suggested that there is blame on her part.

If I park a Mercedes unlocked in a crime ridden area of the city I am not to blame for being robbed but I would be an idiot wouldn't I?

If a woman went swimming in a bikini made of a raw rashers the shark than gobbles her up is to blame but she is an idiot.

If a woman drinks herself to unconsciousness and ends up raped at a stranger's house the rapist is to blame but she is an idiot.

Basic common sense.

I can't believe this has to be explained.

Apparently common sense is not very common anymore

MickDoyle1979

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?"

That.

If you knowingly put yourself in danger you are responsible for putting yourself in danger.

Not hard to grasp is it?

Apparently it is going by how often this has to be repeated.

One eyed Jack

spookwoman wrote: »

Like it or not the questions Hook asked are probably the same questions the defense team asked and the same questions people asked themselves and don't want to admit.

There are plenty of people here who aren't afraid to admit they think the girl was in some way personally responsible for her being raped. You're saying that the question Hook asked is probably the same question the defence team would ask. Well that's because it's their job to create reasonable doubt. George wasn't creating reasonable doubt though, he was sure that the girl must be in some way to blame for being raped, that she must accept personal responsibility for being raped, as if to say that being raped is an inevitable consequence of her actions.

It isn't, because her actions weren't any different from millions of other people who do the very same thing, and aren't raped.