New Newstalk line up


The law allows free speech within defined limits, such as the Prohibition of the Incitement to Hatred Act.

Hook is entitled to voice his opinions on anything he wants, and my, how he does.

Others are entitled to say that certain opinions, such as blatantly implying that a woman is to blame for her own rape, are not appropriate opinions to be aired by a presenter on a national radio station and that his services should be dispensed with as a result of voicing such.

That’s called free speech.


Clearly you feel that a national radio presenter should have carte blanche to imply that a woman is to blame for her own rape.

I don’t.




Pretty much everything you post stirs up feelings of hatred. Can you shut the fuck up for a few days at least?


How honest of you to admit you’re a hate-filIed individual.

Sorry, but I don’t pander to individuals such as yourself.


You left out his most common debating tactic, that anyone disagreeing with him on any topic is labelled a rapist, paedophile, sexual molester, etc or a supporter of same. This tends to happen shortly after he has his ass handed to him.


I see some sponsors have already terminated their contracts with Newstalk. Lovely.


Great stuff


You’re good at putting words in people’s mouths. I didn’t say I was hate-filled.


Oh there’s so many. It goes right down to the levels of “I know you are but what am I” with him.


You put those words in your own mouth. Read back over what you wrote. If you didn’t mean to write what you wrote, the obvious implication is that you’re not very good at composing sentences in the English language.


Hopefully Hook gets turfed out on his ear and Sarah McInerney gets the gig.

And people say I’m anti-Galway, pah.


You read back over it. I know what I wrote. Behind all your verbal posturing, you’re actually quite dim.


Manuela Riedo was a 17 year-old Swiss girl who walked alone along a lonely pedestrian path across Lough Atalia from Galway railway station to Renmore late one night in October 2007.

While walking that path, she was brutally murdered by an evil predator.

“But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?” asked George Hook, in relation to the alleged victim at the centre of the rape trial in the UK.

Perhaps George would care to answer that same question in relation to the Manuela Riedo case?

It’s an entirely logical and necessary follow through to ask such a question of Hook in regard to that horrific murder.

Perhaps he might also answer the same question in relation to the murder of Marilyn Rynn, a civil servant who was a work colleague of my father’s at the Department of the Environment, who was raped and murdered whole walking home alone after getting off a Nitelink bus in Blanchardstown a few nights before Christmas in 1995.

Or 15 year-old Melanie Gleeson, who was one class below me in primary school and was murdered by her 18 year-old boyfriend in the grounds of a school one night in October 1995.

Or Jo Jo Dollard or Deirdre Jacob or Annie McCarrick and countless others.

Rape and murder are both horrific crimes.

When one blames the victim of a rape merely because she “put herself in danger” (a disgusting implication), as Hook did, one cannot then disavow that opinion about murders which were perpetrated on a lonely, eerie path, especially at night. or about murders which took place in not dissimilar situations.

Again I return to Hook’s verbatim rhetorical question: “But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?”

One cannot get away from this rhetorical question.

By Hook’s reckoning, Manuela Riedo put herself in danger.

And by Hook’s reckoning, she did carry blame for her own murder.

The abhorrent implications at the heart of this sort of rant before you think opinion on national radio are frightening.

A person who can utter such incredibly damaging, misogynistic, victim blaming rhetoric is simply not fit to broadcast on a national radio station.


Well, if you know what you wrote, you’ll know I’m right.


But there in lies the rub. You think that people that hold different ideas or opinions to you should be silenced. if you judge what they say as the wrong type of view you shout them down along with your fellow permanently outraged comrades on twitter. Half your posts on this thread are just calling names and throwing insults. If you dont agree with someone feel free to voice your opinion and call them out on it but when you start making demands that they be sacked it all becomes more insidious in my opinion. Again I am asking who made you the moral authority to decide what views are simply right or wrong? I’m sure you would rightly criticise the church taking this role upon themselves in the past but as far as i can see you are just as culpable at trying to force your ideological views down peoples throats. I agree Hooks comments were ridiculous and ignorant but hey if you dont like them dont listen to them. Simples.


You (possibly) have no idea how prevalent the nutcase opinions of Sidney are becoming, driven mainly by Marxist professors in third level institutions who have poisoned a whole generation of young minds. The fact it is coming in this instance from a woman hating individual, as evidenced by the “satire” regarding Tony Keady’s widow, makes it all the more stark. The outrage at every perceived “wrong” view from an opponent is now far more important and meaningful than actual outrages, like a scumbag cunt mocking a recently widowed woman with an enormous task on her hands raising four kids alone. Thankfully she will be surrounded by a community of caring people who will do everything possible to help her through this incredible trauma.

Date rape is an incredible complex topic, anyone presenting it in a black and white fashion is either a moron or a wum. If a man and a woman meet in a bar, both get drunk and end up in bed, and both regret it the next day and claim it was non consensual, who was raped? Both of them? Of course there’s personal responsibility involved in many of these cases, on both sides, as with too much drink on board people routinely make poor decisions they may regret. Having sex with someone who is passed out is unconscionable, but lots of people have “black outs” while drunk and can appear (to someone else who is drunk) quite coherent and consensual. It’s a fucking mine field from a legal perspective.

The bottom line is males should refrain in this day and age from commenting on personal responsibility when it comes to drinking and sex as inevitably they will get labeled as rape enablers. Hook is basically an idiot for his comments.


You complain about “outrage” and then launch into a classic example of it yourself.

Many people are outraged at Hook because he blamed a woman for her own rape. Something that is entirely worthy of outrage because its a deeply misogynist worldview worthy of the 19th century and which should hold no place in society.

Your “outrage” is at satire.

One is an outrage, the other is not.

Entirely predictably, you get them the wrong way around. But then you have a terrible habit of getting things the wrong way around. One wonders how you even manage to put your shoes on in the morning.

Your politics is all about the imagined victimhood of the non-victim. You and your ilk are the most “outraged” snowflakes of them all. But the primary “victim” in your posts is usually yourself. A more self-pitying cunt I’ve yet to observe online.

Here, you bizarrely, and not for the first time, go on a bizarre rant at “Marxist professors in third level institutions who have poisoned a whole generation of young minds.”

Anybody has read your nonsense on a regular basis knows who has the poisoned mind. This sort of stuff keeps you awake at night, doesn’t it?. You’re obsessed by it in a very unhealthy way. Perhaps you should get a college education and find out about the things you hate for yourself instead of swallowing whatever far-right propaganda nonsense it is you read.

Or go back to wanking into your Ayn Rand book, you fucking social Darwinian weirdo.


What a very very very strange individual.


He is determined to hide behind his “satire” stance in order to get away with saying incredibly cruel and stupid things about a woman. It is not behaviour you’d normally associate with a self-proclaimed women’s rights campaigner. Strange indeed.