Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rape crisis centre calls for media code after George Hook show

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rape crisis centre calls for media code after George Hook show

    The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has called for media guidelines on the discussion of sexual assault following controversial comments by Newstalk presenter George Hook last week.

    More...

  • #2
    Me wonders how he will start off his show later on this morning , I'll be all .

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Twobob View Post
      Me wonders how he will start off his show later on this morning , I'll be all .
      So will everybody else Twobob

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Vico2 View Post
        So will everybody else Twobob
        The shows sponsor [Clayton Hotels] pulled the plug .

        P.S. , amazingly he didn't receive any text messages in regards his apology .......truly amazing ......me thinks not
        Last edited by Twobob; 11-09-2017, 02:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Twobob View Post
          The shows sponsor [Clayton Hotels] pulled the plug .

          P.S. , amazingly he didn't receive any text messages in regards his apology .......truly amazing ......me thinks not
          I gave up to listening to him on a regular basis years ago, the nickname for his show "High Loon" is highly appropriate. The same old anecdotes told on a two month cycle like its the first time telling them. Famous name dropping all the time yet a man of the people. His infamous rants which seem to make him the leader of the non pc brigade are just American shock jock nonsense. He has his head up Denis O'Brien rear end most of his time at Newstalk. Hooks fawning over Pat Kenny when he joined Newstalk was embarrassing.

          The funniest part was the movie review on Thursday evenings when he rolled out his movie industry knowledge(he was a failed caterer for movie sets) to impress the listeners and the guy who did the reviews had to keep on correcting him. The same with most of his general knowledge frequently out of date after 1975. Lazy presenting, probably too busy with his business interests and product endorsements.

          It's a big decision for O'Brien if he comes under pressure to finally retire Hook. Dinny phone company doesn't seem to be doing that well and he already tried off loading Newstalk to Independent Media in a very questionable deal. Then he crammed most of his radio interests into one building to cut his costs. Hook seems to have a steady listenership but when the media momentum starts to dig up Hooks previous comments about women and Newstalk poor image as a lads radio station other sponsors may follow Clayton Hotels out the door.

          Strange year for Irish media do, two elder shock jocks, Hook and Myers overstepping the mark one time too many.

          Comment


          • #6
            I know I will get attacked when I say this but I don't think a person with a speech impediment should be presenting a radio program.He can't pronounce his words.

            Comment


            • #7
              Mary Coughlan's walk-off on Ivan Yates show , self serving ?? .

              20 staff hand in letter to management for Hook to be dismissed , citing that it reflects badly on them as professionals , crap IMO opinion . They had no hand , act , or part in views he expressed .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rasher View Post
                I know I will get attacked when I say this but I don't think a person with a speech impediment should be presenting a radio program.He can't pronounce his words.
                From Cork... and residing in Foxrock. Vowels might get a bit scrambled in pronunciation..
                Everything is self-evident.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Napper Tandy View Post

                  Strange year for Irish media do, two elder shock jocks, Hook and Myers overstepping the mark one time too many.
                  I didn't hear the Hook broadcast (tend to avoid him anyway) but I thought the treatment of Myers was a bit over the top...
                  Everything is self-evident.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cogito View Post
                    I didn't hear the Hook broadcast (tend to avoid him anyway) but I thought the treatment of Myers was a bit over the top...
                    Car crash interviews after didn't help.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cogito View Post
                      I didn't hear the Hook broadcast (tend to avoid him anyway) but I thought the treatment of Myers was a bit over the top...
                      Why? I don't know much about the guy but from what I've read he'smade some pretty offensive comments about Jews and women, stuff that if Trump had said them you'd be the first to label him a bigot and a mysogynist. Are you defending this guy and if so, can you explain why? (And yes I know the Jewish Council of Ireland jumped to his defence, but people were offended nonetheless.) Is it a "Freedom of Speech" issue?
                      Also according to Wikipedia he says he denies the holocaust happened though he admits millions of Jews were murdered and that the Nazi's "planned the extermination of the Jews." Isn't that what a holocaust is, or am I missing something? This guy sounds barmy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Napper Tandy View Post
                        Car crash interviews after didn't help.

                        She's a bleedin cracker .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Having listened to the interview, I have to say that he comes across as someone who tends to shoot his mouth off without thinking, and who has difficulty expressing himself and getting his point across without causing offence.....not very good characteristics for a journalist! But I've softened a bit towards him - his comments come across as casually racist rather than overtly so, and that's something we're probably all guilty of on occasion. He
                          talks about "the Jews" as though they're a different species.......admiring "the Jews" for being successful in banking is pretty much the same as admiring "the Blacks" for having a great sense of rhythm.......he seems to have very little self-awareness.....having said all that, I did think the interviewer was a little harsh, especially at the beginning when she kept talking over him. I would have liked to have heard more from him about the Holocaust thing, as I'm still confused about that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KatieMorag View Post
                            Why? I don't know much about the guy but from what I've read he'smade some pretty offensive comments about Jews and women, stuff that if Trump had said them you'd be the first to label him a bigot and a mysogynist. Are you defending this guy and if so, can you explain why? (And yes I know the Jewish Council of Ireland jumped to his defence, but people were offended nonetheless.) Is it a "Freedom of Speech" issue?
                            Also according to Wikipedia he says he denies the holocaust happened though he admits millions of Jews were murdered and that the Nazi's "planned the extermination of the Jews." Isn't that what a holocaust is, or am I missing something? This guy sounds barmy.
                            This is the 'holocaust' article he wrote some years ago... people can make their minds up.

                            Personally, I believe the anti-semitic accusations about him are absurd.


                            Let me say from the outset; I'm with Bishop Richard Williamson on this. There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU.
                            Why, they could in the right circumstances even get me extradited for trial in Sweden, a country which heroically kept the Third Reich supplied with iron ore, even as the last victims of the Nazi genocide were being murdered.
                            What? I admit that there was murder and genocide (or Genocide, as my spell-check wants me to call it) but almost in the same breath, insist that there was no holocaust? How is this possible? Well, if you turn historical events into current political dogmas, (believed even by my computer) you are thereby creating a sort of secular, godless religion, which becomes mandatory for all who wish to participate in public life. Yet dogmas, by definition, are so simplistic and crude that they are usually not merely wrong, but are also probably so.
                            It is an offence in German law to say that six million Jews did not die in the holocaust. Very well then. I am a criminal in Germany. For efficient though the Nazis were, they were not so clinically precise as to kill six million Jews -- not a Jew more, or not a Jew less.
                            As it happens, the figure 'six million' was originally a round-estimate of the total numbers of concentration camp victims of the Third Reich: this was then turned by popular perception, aided by activists such as the Simon Weisenthal Centre, into the Jewish death toll.
                            However, there is not even a scientific or documentary basis for this number. Its enduring appeal -- the digit six, with the six zeros which follow it -- depends upon a fairly basic human predilection for numerological magic. It is, very likely, a subconsciously appealing version of the diabolical, 666.
                            Moreover, there certainly was no holocaust. For if the word is to have any literal validity at all, it must be related to its actual meaning, which comes from the Greek words holos, 'whole', and caust, 'fire'. Most Jewish victims of the Third Reich were not burnt in the ovens in Auschwitz. They were shot by the hundreds of thousands in the Lebensraum of the east, or were worked or starved to death in a hundred other camps, across the Reich.
                            This programme was begun informally by Nazi armies in 1941, and only took organised form after the Wannsee conference in January 1942. Thus was born one of the most satanic operations in world history, in which millions of Jews were murdered. To be sure, you can use the term holocaust to describe these events, but only as a metaphor.
                            However, to turn that metaphor into a political dogma, a denial of which can result in imprisonment, is to create a religio-penal code of which Torquemada would have approved.
                            Now, I've done an extensive internet search on Bishop Williamson, and I truly have no idea what he actually said about the Third Reich; though he is everywhere called a 'holocaust denier', as if this term has some universal meaning.
                            It hasn't. I'm a holocaust denier; but I also believe that the Nazis planned the extermination of the Jewish people, as far as their evil hands could reach. And because the Nazis lost, the free-speech party won. So, this means that the bishop can believe, and even publicly state, if he wants, that Auschwitz was an ice-cream parlour and the SS was a dance troupe.
                            That is the nature of free speech. Any one of us should be able to declare any old counter-factual and even offensive nonsense, without being sent to jail, provided we preach hatred for no one. It's a free and equal world.
                            Or is it?
                            Across Europe, there are countless Islamic madrasahs, in which imams regularly preach hatred for Jews, and where the holocaust is routinely denied.
                            Which member-state of the EU will pursue such conveyors of hate, or seek the extradition of an imam who says that the holocaust was a Zionist hoax? None of them. We know this.
                            For the EU has tolerated the creation of an informal historiographical apartheid. So, on the one hand, a single, eccentric (and possibly deranged) Christian bishop may be hounded for his demented historical beliefs: but on the other, there is a deafening silence over the widespread and virulent distortion of the 'holocaust' by Islamic preachers.
                            If Bishop Williamson has an agenda, it is so bonkers as to rank alongside that of The Lunar Cheese Society.
                            Yet he, and other Christian cranks like him, could even be imprisoned for their stated beliefs, as other 'men of God', working to an infinitely more sinister and far more politically inspired agenda, are simultaneously ignored.
                            This disparity is now effectively an EU policy.
                            You can reasonably call such double-standards many things, but the words 'rational', 'wise' or 'consistent' are not among them. 'Suicidal' and 'insane', however, certainly are
                            Everything is self-evident.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Would his apology been forthcoming if he hadn't been checked .

                              If he believes in what he said , so be it , that's his opinion ...rightly/wrongly , but he should have enough common sense to know there are times when you keep your opinions to yourself .

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X