George Hook

Denis Irwin wrote: Stepping down from his lunchtime show but getting a new weekend show from December.... . .

So now he is discriminating against weekdays

He is a weekendist pig

Stepping down from his lunchtime show but getting a new weekend show from December.... . .

sid waddell wrote: BrenC wrote: Hook's comments are the words of someone who believes any woman who has a one night stand is inherently somehow blameworthy and less deserving of sympathy. Pretending he was only talking about being careful is pathetic when he expressly talked about where the blame for a rape lies. "Why can't people focus on the actual analysis Ron Atkinson gave during the 2004 Monaco-Chelsea game? I mean, did he not have a good point about Desailly's poor defending? He just phrased it clumsily."

Big Ron for United

flipper wrote: Your coming at this purely from a legal perspective. If the chap had been found guilty, obviously he is 100% responsible regardless of the victims behaviour. Hooks poorly worded comments were from a more practical advice perspective. About a year ago the guards put out a media campaign aimed specifically at young men out socialising regarding violence and assault. Included were guidelines like stay with friends, avoid large groups that kind of thing. No one saw a problem with this, nor should they. I know there was some nonsense about comparing lesser crimes to rape earlier in the thread. Nobody was actually doing that, they were merely pointing out that advise on reducing the risk of bad things happening to people is legitimate.

Edited by pre Madonna - 16 Sep 2017 at 9:06am

Shedite wrote: greenforever I've given up on this thread, other posters aren't getting it

Shedite wrote: greenforever I've given up on this thread, other posters aren't getting it

Yeah sure what would Dave in particular know with that law degree of his and all that.... Sweet f**king Jesus

greenforever wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: Let me be very clear here then. If you are saying the victim should have been more careful, which is what you are saying, you are saying she is partly responsible. If you are saying the victim is partly responsible, which you thus are, you are saying the rapist is less than 100% responsible. If you are saying the rapist is less than 100% responsible, you are an apologist for rape. There's one person responsible, and it's the rapist. Blaming the victim is disgusting. Which one of those three statements do you disagree with? One logically follows from the last. So to advise people to be careful is a crime Thank god your not a parent Hook was not talking to a vicgim he was talking to a radio audience The fact he is a repulsive individual is irrelevant Why do we have awareness campaigns for road safety and other issues but to advise people It does make the people behind the awareness campaign apologists for criminals Have you never told any of your friends to be careful ?

Let me be very clear here then.

If you are saying the victim should have been more careful, which is what you are saying, you are saying she is partly responsible.

If you are saying the victim is partly responsible, which you thus are, you are saying the rapist is less than 100% responsible.

If you are saying the rapist is less than 100% responsible, you are an apologist for rape. There's one person responsible, and it's the rapist. Blaming the victim is disgusting.

Which one of those three statements do you disagree with? One logically follows from the last.

greenforever wrote: bhob wrote: Where are all the Hook defenders gone? Agreeing with some.of his comments does not mean defending the man it means agreeing with some of.the comments. You twist words, Tell me a good female friend of yours (if you have one) gets very drunk and tells you she is going back to some lads hotel room she has only met, would you not tell her to be careful????

Let's make this very simple.

No matter how well you know someone.

No matter how much you've had to drink.

No matter where you are.

If you agree to have sex with one person, and another person has sex with you, without your consent, that's rape. It's rapey rape. It's the rapiest of rapes.

It is entirely, 100%, the responsibility of the cretinous rapist. No one else is to blame.

Saying the victim is partly responsible is to insinuate the perpetrator is less than 100% responsible for what happened. It's to suggest that it's natural or at least excusable or understandable for a man, seeing a drunk woman, to want to have sex with her without her consent or perhaps even knowledge. That's 100% inexcusable. That's 100% wrong. That's 100% rape. It lessens the responsibility of rapists and perpetuates the idea that somehow the rapist is among two people who are to blame.

That's bollocks. When someone is raped, one person is one hundred percent responsible. That person is a rapist. The victim is not. To say the victim is partly responsible is effectively to say they are an accessory to their own rape. That's completely reprehensible.