Hook was stupid to raise the point in context of a rape case.
Itâs not victim blaming to say that people should exercise some personal responsibility like going swimming or kite surfing in a hurricane. If you meet a stranger and decide to be alone with them then there is a risk associated with that. You are not responsible for their crime but there is a reason we lock our doors at night.
Hook didnât break any laws. He made a comment that people rightly disagreed with. Anyone with an issue around what he said had the option of lodging a formal complaint with the BAI. Did you? Hook apologised for his comments. The bandwagon werenât happy with this and put pressure on his advertisers and newstalk to sack him. There was petitions flying around demanding his head on a plate and some even protested outside the station. Hooks comments were a handy excuse for people who dont like him to try hound him out of his position in newstalk. people like yourself were demanding he be held accountable for his comments. It was a witch hunt plain and simple.
I see people complaining about Cusack but Iâm not aware of any organised campaign to have him sacked from his job.
Dil didnt show up to work for a few weeks. No one listens to her show anyway. Newstalk took the opportunity to get rid of her.
Iâm bored here in work. i couldnt help it.
It is victim blaming when somebody blames a victim.
Sarcastically asking why a woman is surprised when she is raped by a different man to the one she had consensual sex with, is a dismissal of rape as a serious crime.
Hook did both of those things, and there are a load of posters here who still have trouble figuring that out, or are deliberately ignoring it.
It is not at all.
If somebody does not lock their house when away on holiday and their home is robbed then people would say robbers are scumbags but the world is a bad place and people do bad things so take some care.
Hook was an idiot to raise it in context of a specific rape case and a particular fact scenario.
Iâm really not sure why youâre talking about people not locking their house in relation to George Hook blaming a rape victim for her own rape.
It could only be because youâre attempting to perform some weird form of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that what he said wasnât a pile of shit.
I am not defending Hook. I am making a broader point about personal responsibility and suggesting somebody take personal responsibility does not absolve a criminal of their crime and is not victim blaming.
The world is a dark place with bad people and bad things happen to good people. So people should be careful with their personal safety.
Youâre still blithely ignoring that there was an acquittal and a hung jury in the case hook was talking about
Nothing compared to your mental gymnastic on Cusack.
Didnt the garda advise people to be aware of their surroundings and take care around the city centre last week after an attempted rape. Were they victim blaming Sid?
The only âpersonal responsibilityâ Hook focussed on was the âpersonal responsibilityâ of the victim.
This focus from the reactionary right on the âpersonal responsibilityâ of the victim of a serious crime to not be a victim of a serious crime appears to only apply in relation to women.
Strange, that.
Hookâs defenders have completely absolved him of personal responsibility for what he said. Thatâs why they never mention what he said.
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? Sheâs 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.
âBut modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. Should she be raped? Course she shouldnât. Is she entitled to say no? Absolutely. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of Course. All of those things.â
He continued: "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 itâs your daughter and my daughter. What determines the daughter who goes out, gets drunk, passes out and has strangers in her room or the daughter that stays out, stays halfway sober and comes home, I donât know. I wish I knew what the secret of parenting is.
"Is a point of responsibility the real issue?
âThere is a point of responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety,â he said
Youâre still blithely ignoring that George Hook had made up his mind about the case and that his comments are applicable to all rapes which happen in a bedroom between two people who are not in a relationship.
So you are blithely ignoring the context in which Hook made his remarks.
Hook has already given us a good idea of what he thinks about the concept of intra-relationship rape.
Do you lock your house door at night?
Do you lock your valuables in your car boot if parking somewhere?
Do you cover your PIN at an ATM.
There are scumbags in the world so you have to have a certain level of awareness and as best you can avoid putting yourself and your possessions in harms way.
OK, mate, itâs clear you that over a month later, youâre still deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room and ignoring what Hook actually said.
You should ask yourself why you are doing that, and what it says about your attitude to rape as a crime.
You can stop this pretence about caring for the victims of rape as you clearly donât give a flying fuck about Humphreys victim, a case where there was a conviction.
She essentially told hphreys to go fuck himself with his apology letter so Iâd say thatâs give you a clear idea what she thinks of Cusackâs attempt to get him a more lenient sentence, because letâs be honest thatâs the entire point of Cusackâs letter.
And Cusack isnât sorry he wrote the letter, like Humphreys heâs sorry he got caught.
What has any of that to do with rape and who is to blame for rape?
Iâll give you the answer.
Absolutely nothing.
Itâs about crime. And protecting yourself. Of course it is relevant.
It is. The whole point of those comments is shifting the focus to the victim. Thereâs always a way to rationalise it as being partly the womanâs fault. How she was dressed, where she walked, how much she had drank. All of it suggests she deserves some of the blame for what happened to her, and in the larger sense that if only women behaved the right way these things wouldnât happen.
Whoah, Iâm not the one who has stood up for somebody who blames rape victims here.
Thatâs you.
I donât have to keep up pretence about anything here because I havenât defended victim blamers.
You have, so the pretence is entirely yours.
So, on the subject of being soft on rape, itâs very definitely you who has the questions to answer here.
And given that you work within the justice system of this state, thatâs quite worrying.