George Hook

Newstalk reports:

Newstalk has confirmed that George Hook has been suspended from his duties at the station. The process regarding his comments last week is ongoing. It came after the comments were condemned by groups such as the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI). On Monday, George Hook offered a “profound apology” for his recent comments about rape. Newstalk last week issued an unreserved apology for the comments. Managing Editor Patricia Monahan said that comments made were “totally wrong and inappropriate and should never have been made.”

George Hook suspended from duties at Newstalk (Newstalk)

UPDATE:

161 thoughts on “Suspended Hook

    1. Increasing Displacement

      how so?

      that it took all that negative attention and pressure before they got their act together?

      poor result imo

      1. Brother Barnabas

        Yeah. It’s hard not to suspect that Newstalk were just figuring out a way to milk this for maximum publicity, and shaping things so they emerge as heroes.

  1. bisted

    …good riddance…that people like Hook and David Quinn are given a platform to spew their bile and vitriol in the name of balance is astonishing…over the years when these people had more power in church and state they killed people they disagreed with…at least today they can be banished to the dark ages of history where they belong…

    1. martco

      ….& into the shadows where they continue to be who they are

      major opportunity missed here to challenge the likes of this plank of a human

      I think it’s bad move & achieves SFA

      1. bisted

        …challenging people like Hook and Myers achieves SFA…it only feeds them oxygen. The difference between the ‘mob’ and these fascists with their phobias is that they are sidelined by public opinion and not physical force or violence…

        1. ZeligIsJaded

          Calling Hook a fascist is just plain ridiculous.

          An opportunity was undoubtedly missed for a larger debate, where his attitude could have been taken apart, and a light shone on how dangerous and prevalent these sort of views are.

          Instead the issue will become the dynamics of the suspension itself and whether or not it was fair.

          Crazy stuff

    2. newsjustin

      What utter nonsense. What people did David Quinn and George Hook – or people remotely like them – kill?

      1. bisted

        …David Quinn is an apologist for a church which hankers after the day when their power was absolute and they could act with impunity…they have been shown to be guilty of the most heinous crimes of physical and sexual abuse. He is just the latest iteration of a mouthpiece for the intolerence that is a short step to fascism.

        1. newsjustin

          Ah, I see, so no-one is the answer.

          George Hook, very correctly, is being castigated for saying something ridiculous. You’re obviously in a rush to join him with your “these people I dislike would kill us if they got the chance” remarks.

      2. gerry

        I’ve hear George Hook say explicitly that he doesn’t like Muslims and that he wants to stop all immigration into Ireland to achieve a “homogenous society”. He also supports bans on immigration that specifically target Muslims. People who share these kinds of views have murdered quite a few people in the US this year including the man who drove a car into a crowd of protesters.

          1. bisted

            …like someone said one time…arguing with you is like playing handball against a haystack… is a nasty old fascist and if it took the power of Tesco to silence him then so be it

        1. rotide

          Thats funny because people who share the same religious views as the people he talked about murdered a few people in europe this year.

          Come to think of it, someone who shares your name murdered a few people in Ireland a few years ago.

          Gas altogether.

          1. bisted

            …I suppose you have to protect your sources Rotide, otherwise you’d have brought that info to the attention of gardai/psni…

    3. Jetpack Mc Nutter

      Disgusting. Personally I despise the man, find his opinions repulsive and found his comments last week as ignorant as they come. What an insult to any man or woman who found themselves the victim of a rape but now his employment has become precarious on the back of public opinion and social justoce warriors! The irony. That any member of society can have thier employment situation deliberated on and potentially ruined – without fair trial – is as utterly disgusting and the hypocracy of those reveling in his dismissal is just as sickening. The fact that it was his fellow work coleagues (especially the recently demoted ones) who erected the gallows just finished the deal, the snyde pathetic bunch of self promoting snakes

      1. ReproBertie

        He was suspended because a supermarket chain and a hotel group withdrew their financial support as part of a public backlash against his ridiculously outdated viewpoint. Had there been no financial damage to the station he’d still be filling the airwaves with his reactionary contrarian waffle.

      2. Fergus the magic postman

        So a person has been suspended. But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?? I mean shouldn’t he have been more careful?

          1. Nigel

            It very much depends, unless employee protections have improved since the last time I worked on contract, a while ago admittedly.

    4. GiggidyGoo

      Leo Varadkar says that Hooks comments ‘are indicative of attitudes in Irish Society’

      I’d think, more indicative of the circles Varadkar roams in. How dare he tarnish Irish society with a FG sympathiser ‘s comments.

  2. Charlie

    He said a very stupid thing but I feel very uneasy about the ceaseless witch hunt. There’s a lot more serious junk being said by a lot more fools in positions of power.

    1. Spaghetti Hoop

      This. I think this has become an uncontrolled debacle where those who dislike Hook have gone beyond the disputed words. Justine McCarthy tarnished the work of Mens Sheds on RTE Radio last weekend, hinting they were sexist by comparing them to Newstalk. She quickly apologised. She still has her job.

        1. Spaghetti Hoop

          It was Marian’s Sunday morning show on 10 Sep hosted by Brendan O’Connor. You can grab a podcast of it from the RTE website. I can’t see why her apology was accepted unequivocally but Hook’s isn’t.

  3. Twunt

    Disgraceful, the guy articulated a point poorly and gets chased of air. He apologized but that wasn’t good enough for the PC mob.

      1. Twunt

        It is the permanently outraged inhabitants of Twitter, and other such vacuous platforms, that got him put off air. Such places are full of empty vessels, and we all know empty vessels make the most noise.

    1. gerry

      He showed contempt for the victim of a crime by sneering at her decision to have sex with someone. Then he said she needed to take personal responsibility for the crime. This is a real person he was attacking. A young woman who has been through something horrible and is now has to deal with her story being all over the media in order to seek justice. Talk about kicking someone when they are down.

  4. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

    I feel sorry for him. In no way do I condone what he said but the rage and anger of social media is a little frightening, I find. It was never going to end well, I guess.

    1. b

      it is worrying how regular and organised this outrage is getting. Hook is a clown, made a mistake and apologised, as the tagline goes, move the dial.

      It seems the bat signal goes up amongst various interest groups “Let’s get him” and the outrage doesn’t end until someone is silenced.

      People of Hook’s age and mindset need to be educated and debated, not silenced. They are also big voters and hugely influential as a group. If this type of shouting down goes on the the Repeal referendum could get extremely messy.

      1. Rich Uncle Skeleton

        What about the fact he said something similar not so long ago? Does that not reinforce the idea that theses are genuinely his views therefore negating the apology?

        1. mildred st. meadowlark

          When did he say something similar?

          Not doubting your words, btw, I just didn’t realise that he’d done this before. Which doesn’t surprise me at all.

          1. Harry Molloy

            he didn’t say, he asked.

            he’s from an old far away world where radio presenters were supposed to challenge views, both popular and unpopular, to examine their validity.

            challenge is dangerous these days…

          2. mildred st. meadowlark

            Cheers Rich Uncle. (I’m rather a fan of your fantastic name, if i haven’t said it before.)

            See I kind of see where Harry is coming from. Hook is from an older generation. My own grandparents would have typically conservative, unpopular opinions. I don’t think what he said was intentionally offensive, but rather a product of his age. I expect he thought it would stir up a bit of talk, but not this.

            However, that does not make it acceptable, knowing what we know about rape and the effects it has those who survive such an attack. As someone who makes a living in media, for a current events show, you’d expect that he’d appreciate this and understand that the mentality around rape has utterly changed, and that implying that a rape victim is somehow responsible for the attack is unacceptable.

            And as the link above shows, he is clearly aware of how the mindset has changed around idea of sexual consent. He wasn’t clueless. He was aware that his words would have an effect. I just don’t think that he expected this.

          3. Rich Uncle Skeleton

            Thank you!

            I can see where Harry is coming from too but wouldn’t be anywhere near agreeing with it. The whole ‘he’s from an older generation’ thing doesn’t cut it with me due to what his job entails. My own Grandparents would be the same as yours; conservative old-fashioned views etc, however they don’t have a job on national radio. It’s a simplistic point I know…If this was the first time he’d said something along those lines I could maybe see from that point of view. But as we know, it’s not. So either he’s fit for the job, which means he’s capable of learning from previous mistakes and can adjust his views accordingly (or at least not spout them on air like he did), or he’s unfit for the job, can’t see the problem with his views, won’t update them, and has to go.

          4. Harry Molloy

            not exactly what I was saying, my longer comment below has more context, I’m just saying he isn’t as bad as people are making out

        2. b

          this is where you and I disagree whether he was actually supporting rapists or victim blaming or rather clumsily giving his opinion on how women can mitigate their risk

          the argument’s been done to death, i don’t wish to go over it again but there will always be people telling their daughters to be careful on a night out and that’s not a bad thing.

          *cue vitriol*

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            He didn’t give his daughter advice before a night out. He blamed a rape victim for trusting a man not to rape her on national airwaves.

          2. Rich Uncle Skeleton

            Did anybody say he was “supporting rapists”?

            And saying “be careful on a night out” is a long way from implying it’s partly the victim’s responsibility if a second man comes into the room and rapes her.

          3. LW

            I suppose the key to what he meant is in what he said “is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?”. Blame being the key word here

          4. rotide

            Yes, Dav and others insist on saying he ‘supports’ rapists. he says it on this very thread.

            Even above here Moyest misrepresents what he said.

          5. MoyestWithExcitement

            Nope. That is what he said. You have resorted to lies to defend a millionaire who blames rape victims for getting raped. Have a word with yourself.

          6. rotide

            Tell you what Moyest, You go ahead and link where he ‘supports rapists’ and where he used the words ‘trusts a man not to rape her’ last week.

          7. MoyestWithExcitement

            Tell you what, why don’t you point out where I said he supports rapists or used the exact words that I did.

          8. rotide

            You are an absolute master troll. Where did i state you said he supports rapists?

            Can you actually read moyest? It’s right there above your first reply to me

            “Yes, Dav and others insist on saying he ‘supports’ rapists. he says it on this very thread.

            Even above here Moyest misrepresents what he said.”

            To which you replied “Nope. That is what he said.”

            To which i asked you to provide a link. You then went off to google it, couldn’t find it and returned to troll another comment.

          9. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Where did i state you said he supports rapists?”

            Here “Tell you what Moyest, You go ahead and link where he ‘supports rapists’”

            You even put supports rapists in quotes. You must be trolling. Nobody is this stupid. You are King Troll on fairness.

        3. LW

          No, no, a hasty apology at the behest of the station definitely shows he completely understands it’s wrong to blame rape victims, and he’s now changed his outlook. Genuinely

      2. MoyestWithExcitement

        It’s a scary time for wealthy talk show hosts with nationwide platforms everywhere. Who’ll be the next millionaire talkshow host to be told not to come in to their highly paid non-job for a while? The horror of it all.

      1. gerry

        He’s said this kind of thing and lots of other appalling things many times. It’s a miracle he has lasted 13 years.

      1. dav

        @rotide – he did so on a national radio broadcast – I’m sure it’s online for you to listen to.. next thing you’ll be shouting “fake news” or something…

    1. Harry Molloy

      think everyone would agree with that dav.
      not sure if I’ve ever even heard of anyone supporting rapists. and I’m not sure what the relevance is here

      1. TheRealJane

        I think the relevance is that many people don’t understand or possibly accept what rape is. So it’s easy to say that you are totally against the things that you accept are rape but think that the things that you don’t accept as rape aren’t a problem.

        In the case of Hook, for example, he doesn’t think that your partner can rape you while you’re asleep, that your presence and consent to prior sexual activity is a bit like consent to all future sexual activity. So it’s perfectly possible for him to brush off what most people know is rape while believing himself to be against rape.

        1. Harry Molloy

          he never said he doesn’t think your partner can rape you in your sleep, he ASKED if there was implied consent, a question which was obviously going to be answered in the negative. that’s what radio presenters do, they put things to people. Hook plays the old ill informed curmudgeon to get the best out of people, it’s his vehicle.

          Honestly, has anyone ever heard when he used to have Ciara Kelly on the show and put ridiculous things to her, which gave her the opportunity to show how ridiculous the question was. It works quite well.

          Hook actually goes on the switch roles when he has Mikey Graham on, he ridicules his opinions. and your left thinking how ridiculously out of date Graham’s opinions must be if even an old curmudgeon like Hook can ridicule them.

          Another point of note is that I heard Hook describe a time he was romantically in love with a man in his youth. He was telling the story to highlight that it is natural.

          He’s not have as conservative as some people might think, it’s the vehicle he uses to get a response, kind of like how Louis Thereaux plays a gormless idiot.

          Nevertheless, he does hold the odd view that is incompatible with the modern world, but this is hardly surprising given his vintage (ever hear a parent or a grandparent say something dodgy ? Imagine they were on the radio every day …)

          He was right to apologise as the questions he posed were insensitive and hurt people. But the reaction is completely disproportionate, it doesn’t allow for people to be mistaken and it stifles debate in the traditional sense.

          He’s hardly an evil person ffs

          1. Vote Rep #1

            What question was posed by this comment?

            “But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. ”

            That she shouldn’t be surprised?

          2. TheRealJane

            I think suggesting that he was innocently asking probing questions to stimulate exciting debate is extremely disingenuous.

            He didn’t even try that defense himself.

            We’ve all heard how he asks these questions, by the way, spitting into the microphone in disbelief that anyone could see it differently to him.

    1. TheRealJane

      Sincere in what sense? He has also apologise for saying that if you sleep in the same bed as your partner, that’s tacit consent to sex while you sleep (this is rape, fact fans).

      I don’t think he sincerely understands this issue at all and I’m pretty sure his apology is as self serving and worthless now as then.

  5. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    The only way this decision would have been for the good is if they made it immediately after the comments. He should’ve been gone long ago. Anyway, he brought it on himself etc. He should give Bill O’Reilly a call, they could spark up quite the bromance.

    1. Vote Rep #1

      I do like this modern idea that free speech means that there can be no repercussions to what you say. He was given his platform to say what he wanted. How is that not free speech? Does free speech only flow one way and applies to him and not the others who disagreed with what he said?

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        Yeah. I want a national radio show. If newstalk don’t give me one, they’re denying my free speech!

        1. Vote Rep #1

          Wrong login? Or are you just windmilling around to the extent you are now attacking both sides of the argument?

          1. Vote Rep #1

            No but I have no idea what your point is. You seem to have attacked my point that he had free speech and the criticisms of him are not an attack on free speech which some people seem to try to frame it as.

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            Ok. I was making the point that not having a radio show does not mean your free speech has been attacked.

    2. Nigel

      Free speech so long as you’re a man in a priveleged position as a national broadcaster. Anyone says anything else it’s a witch hunt.

  6. MoyestWithExcitement

    It’s funny to watch right wing reactionaries complain about people overreacting to this while referring to them as a mob and making out that Hook is being persecuted.

  7. Andrew

    This story has more legs than a centipede! I must say I’m enjoying it. I wonder what Hook’s next move will be? I’d be consulting an employment lawyer if I were him.
    Expressing an opinion presumably is part of his job description however repellent his views may be to some people, but there was nothing illegal about his utterances.
    He should dig his heels in and make sure he gets a pay off from redacted.
    I wonder who will be targeted next for saying the ‘wrong’ thing ?
    If you parse, for example Dil’s commentary on her Global Village show I’m sure you could find something too. Will it go down that road?
    Who decides what can and cannot be said? Twitter accounts?

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      “I wonder who will be targeted next for saying the ‘wrong’ thing ?”

      A millionaire gets told not to come into “work” for a few days after he lost important business accounts for his company and no-marks on the internet start worrying about dictatorships.

      1. garthicus

        He’s probably self employed/contractor.. not sure what employment law would cover him for termination of his agreement.

        1. Frilly Keane

          well if he was following his “client’s” remit
          and being the mouthy grumpy intolerant blowhard he was engaged to be

          and he was exactly that
          and he was suspended or had his contract terminated

          I suspect he might have grounds for an action
          loss of income stuff

  8. rotide

    I find it ironic that this is the same guy who railed against gay marriage. He said some pretty choice things about it for a good long time before having his mind changed in the run up to the referendum and ended up being pro marriage equality.

    Of course that time he was telling the truth about changing his mind. This time his apology is clearly false. Another succesful witch hunt.

    1. TheRealJane

      It’s clearly false because he made a similar apology on the same issue some years ago but was able to demonstrate – under no duress at all – that he still thinks women’s actions get them raped.

      Personally, I’d like Hooky to explain where he thinks women should sleep if they don’t want to be raped. Not at home in your own bed with your partner, not in a hotel with someone you’ve just met…

    2. Rich Uncle Skeleton

      Ok, without going off topic, what about the fact he’s done this before 2 years ago? Should he be allowed to just keep expressing these views, apologise for them, and then go back to normal?

        1. Rich Uncle Skeleton

          Ah grand so. You don’t believe in context. That previous behaviour can inform present behaviour. Noted.

          1. rotide

            Context needs to be presented.

            The mob might have pitchforks fashioned entirely out of the transcribed word of hook but I’m afraid I’m quite ignorant of what he said a few years ago.

            You’ll excuse me if i don’t take your word for exactly what he said considering the misrepresentation of what he said this time.

          2. Nigel

            How often does this sort of thing really happen without it being the catalyst to a long-standing accumulation of bad behaviour? As with Myers it wasn’t JUST what he said on the day.

        2. Alastair

          And yet happy to discribe the campaign against Hook as a ‘witch hunt’. Generally witch hunts involve some manner of fabricated wrongdoing. Hook is being punished for something he actually did. But then you’ve no interest in seeing merit in those seeking to hold him to account.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            Yeah, this “editor” doesn’t understand the terms he’s using. He also never listens to hook but knows his apology was sincere as well. :D

          2. Charlie

            The merit is only as a result of an large group of outraged PC warriors and loss of revenue. Had his genuine apology been accepted this issue would be over. Their merit is hollow at best.

          3. Alastair

            Nope. The merit in punishing Hook for his advocacy of Victim blaming is self -evident. His apology, whether genuine or not, doesn’t remove from the case for punishment. Deeds have consequences.

          4. Alastair

            And speaking for myself – I’m not remotely outraged by the comments. Wouldn’t expect any more from him. Hook is merely apeing the strategies of US comedy-conservativism talk radio hosts. Plenty of audience for blinkered reactionary scapegoating. However that’s no argument for tolerating a drift to lower common denominator dross in lieu of reasoned debate on the national airwaves. Propagate offensive nonsense and have the listenership kick back with their pocketbooks. Seems fair enough to me.

          5. ReproBertie

            “He blamed a woman for trusting the man she went to a hotel room with not to rape her.”
            As I understand it he blamed a woman for not expecting a different man to enter the room and rape her after she went to a hotel room with a man.

        3. Rich Uncle Skeleton

          Here you go, glad to help:

          http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rape-victim-hits-out-at-george-hooks-comments-342775.html

          In case you haven’t time to click the link, he said the following regarding a woman who was raped by her boyfriend in her sleep, a boyfriend who was then convicted of rape:

          “You go into a relationship with somebody be it marriage or be it you’re living with somebody. So now you’re sharing a bed with somebody, yes? And obviously sexual congress takes place on a regular basis because you’re living with somebody. Now is there not an implied consent, therefore that you consent to sexual congress?”

          1. Vote Rep #1

            It has been pointed out to Rotide a few times here but he is ignoring it as it goes against his original point which he has no intention of changing.

            “But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. ”

            How dare she not expect this to happen.

          2. rotide

            Clicked the link, you neglected to mention that was a question to a guest who was a professor of law who was on to discuss the case and who replied with horror.

            Harry put his finger on it above I think.

  9. Rois

    It’s disappointing that this is now overshadowing the discussion around people’s lack of understanding of rape.

  10. Niallo

    I think this is along the lines of the point he was making https://g.co/kgs/SMwsgZ
    If you have half an ounce of sense you dont expose yourself needlessly to risks.
    And that extends to everyone in all areas of life, there are simply bad people out there who will take the advantage(and this is the important bit) if it is presented to them.
    Anyway, now who am i going to listen to ? The vacuous yes men and sports reporters stuck in endless in-jokery on practically all the other stations ?
    He is/was like a breath of fresh/stale air, a touchstone to how things used to be here, and its so important to stay in touch with the past, embrace it, to understand where we are, and where we are going as a society, he was the only presenter prepared the say “hold a while” and offer an alternate viewpoint, or compare how things are done now to how they were done in the past. you may not agree with it, but thats the essence of free speech, or at least we did have free speech until it was seemingly made illegal.
    So it seems we are now not to stray from the mainstream groupthink.
    Now to me, that smells like the beginings of totalitarianism.

  11. Jockey

    Good news, finally.
    Shame to George H for making these comments.
    Shame to Newstalk for taking so long to act on them.
    Shame on the bottom half of the internet that are too thick to acknowledge the irony in his comments around a person’s “sense of responsibility” when his, as a national broadcaster, was clearly lacking.

    And no, a presenter’s ability to stay balanced doesn’t apply here. Believe it or not, in a civilized world, there are cases where balance is not appropriate, and rape is one. Stating a person should be more responsible on a night out is fine, whatever about that. But cop on if you think you can mention it within the same breath as an example such as this horrible case, and even using the word “blame” as well.. How do you live for 76 years on earth and not foresee the impact that this will have on victims, family of victims, and anybody spending their lives coaching those affected by the crime? And for the benefit of who? Nobody.

    What an Idiot.

  12. Milo

    The most disgusting thing is watching people like Moyest using rape to make themselves look good. Are there no depths to which you will sink?
    Worse than Joe Duffy.

  13. andymac

    The big problem for the complainers, mostly feminists and lefty whinge bags is that Hook had the audacity to point out responsibility! Women are special and blameless anyway never mind some poor girl that’s raped. If these complainers could get over there self righteous anger a proper discussion could happen, and we could save some women putting themselves in harms way.
    Worse than What Hook said is what he represents, Christian, privileged, conservative male. Newstalk who are a feminists left station are delighted to sacrifice him to the court of public opinion, which they will muddy with their agenda and phoney concern for George.

    1. ReproBertie

      “Hook had the audacity to point out responsibility!”

      Do you agree with George that the victim was in some way responsible for being raped?

  14. andymac

    …and let’s not forget he was furious about the girls that were harmed by the gardasil vaccine. He annoyed medical, political and the main one big pharmaceutical. So i wouldn’t be surprised if there’s pressure from those interests to get rid of him.
    I’m listening to the back stabber Dr Ciara Kelly now, she can barely contain her delight a t doing Georges show.

  15. Riz

    1. Women have a responsibility to themselves to look after themselves. Getting pissed and going to a room with a man you don’t know is irresponsible and one has has every right to judge someone on that failing.

    2. Getting raped is dreadful.

    I don’t think once George Hook said anything that differs from those two statements. He shouldn’t have been suspended.

    1. Nigel

      Amount you spent judging the victim: a whole paragraph.
      Amount you spent judging not the rapist not the crime of rape but the experience of being raped: a single sentence.
      And you aren’t even doing it on the national airwaves.

  16. Lilly

    When I first heard Hook’s comments reported, I thought they sounded reasonable enough – adults taking responsibility for their own safety etc. But when I heard his actual comments, a lot was in the tone – sneering almost – and he actually used the word blame. So yes, he deserved a swift kick in the pants but firing him is a bit much. The debate that ensued was probably educational for a lot of men his age, and younger.

Comments are closed.