Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Fiona Doyle and George Hook

Fiona Doyle

According to the Irish Independent on 8th September:
Victim blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George [Hook] is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. "Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a women and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame. [My Emphasis]
"What George said is that a man can't help himself if he comes across a drunk woman. It takes the responsibility off men. Men should know not to touch a woman."
Fiona said that the comments broadcast earlier today were "old fashioned" and that it brings women back centuries. "George Hook needs to get off his dinosaur backside and see the impact of what he is saying on young women."
She added that campaigners, gardai and the rape crisis centres have been working with women to get them to come forward after a rape. "We're working so hard to get women to stand up and come forward without thinking they are responsible.
"It's a big thing for women to blame themselves after a rape happens. It's very hard for women to get over something like that and to tell women that it's their fault is outrageous." Fiona said that George Hook's comments will "pull out that stigma that women are responsible".
"No man has a right to touch a women. It's that simple." [My Emphasis]

Again there was some disagreement on this issue during the course of a discussion on Politics.ie

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [1]
........40 years ago, we had already reached the point where a male  doctor had to be very careful when informing a female patient that her STD problem had something to do with the number of her sexual partners. We are now reaching the stage where a male has to be cautious when he advises a woman to take care of her physical safety. Especially if he tells her that she has a responsibility to do so!

ON THE OTHER HAND feminists can say exactly what they like - no matter how preposterous, illegal or dangerous to other women. The following is also a repeat of a post from ages ago (well about a week)

Feminist heroine Fiona Doyle said something  a lot crazier and seems to have got away with it - as per the Irish Independent yesterday.
'Way too soon to tell' if George Hook will face formal internal investigation over rape comments

....Speaking to Independent.ie following the broadcast of the show on Friday, rape victim and campaigner Fiona Doyle said Mr Hook's comments were "outrageous and offensive". Her father Patrick O'Brien (79) was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2013 for raping and sexually abusing his daughter from 1973 to 1982.

Ms Doyle said: "Victim-blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a woman and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame."...

Of course a woman does NOT have the right to walk down the street naked if she wants; she would be arrested for public indecency. An additional reason for the arrest would be that a naked drunk woman is putting herself in danger of sexual assault but Fiona Doyle is either unaware or uninterested in some basic facts, so eager is she to denounce George Hook!

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [2]

However let's take a charitable interpretation of Fiona Doyle's words. She doesn't LITERALLY mean that women should behave in a manner that is stupid, illegal and actually facilitates rapists. She WANTS to make the point that rapists are fully responsible for their own actions but has mis-spoke herself in the process. George Hook has specifically condemned rapists, wants to make the point that women should take precautions to protect themselves and MAY have strayed into "victim blaming" in the process.  Nevertheless it is obviously Fiona Doyle who has completely over-stepped the mark and made comments that could endanger women. There's no way she should be allowed to get away with it in view of what is happening to George Hook. This hysterical over-reaction by the media  has nothing to do with any desire to protect vulnerable women.

Reply by Jimmy Two Times
What a load of nonsense. Fiona Doyle wasn't chairing a national radio show.  The ott reaction to this Hook issue is from the Rightist snowflakes whingeing about him getting suspended for making an idiot of himself

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [3]

I suspect that one reason Fiona Doyle made her ludicrous statement is that she knew that she could get away with anything. If she HAD been chairing a national radio show it wouldn't have made any difference. Do you suppose that Fintan O'Toole and our Minister for Justice would have been lining up to condemn her? The hysterical reaction against George Hook is based on the fact that he is supposed to be  a reactionary. John Cooney was a former religious affairs correspondent for the Irish Times when he made allegations of paedophilia against John Charles McQuaid that were so ludicrous that even anti-clerics were embarrassed and annoyed. I recall one reviewer who REGRETTED that the transparently false allegations might create sympathy for the late Archbishop. A few years later Cooney was appointed Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Independent. There was no campaign of denunciation directed against Cooney's appointment - precisely because he was a liberal. (OTOH suppose that  an  Irish Catholic journalist made similar false allegations against a former Church of Ireland Archbishop - how would HIS career have developed subsequently?)

Reply by PeaceGoalie
A related point is that many of these women are just as thick as bricks and logic and maturity are beyond them. Many men are the same, and even some transexual freaks

Why are Feminists and Liberals So Stupid?

The problem is not low IQ or similar but the fact that they can say ANYTHING and expect to get away with it. I have written here and elsewhere about a certain type of anti-clerical allegation that I call "Murder of the Undead" or "Victimless Murders" [try googling the terms]  i.e. journalists and/or leaders of "Victim" groups claim that children were murdered by brothers or nuns - at times when no child died of ANY cause. Why couldn't the journalists do a bit of research, find the name of a child who actually died and accuse the Church of murdering THAT child? Well they sometimes do that also BUT they know they don't need to; because they know there will be no consequences of their lies. So they become lazy and stupid and sometimes they do get themselves into serious trouble (Like the RTE clowns who accused a priest of rape and fathering a child - they actually ignored his offer to take a DNA test before they broadcast the libel!)


  1. Rory, I don't want to distract you from what you are doing by engaging you in an online dialogue but I thought I'd give a quick summary of what led me to your blogs.

    Ten years ago or so I got interested in extraverts and introverts and soon connected extraverts with political correctness. I have been meaning to write a book about it but have been putting it off, partly because I have had to revise my original ideas. It did lead me on a strange journey of discovery, however, into areas as diverse as global warming, 'pseudoscience', mass immigration and (recently) history (most notably Spanish history since the Civil War).

    RTE Primetime's A Mission To Prey brought me to yourself when I turned to the search engine to try and find out if anyone had any explanation. I think I saw you (or someone like you) on a Catholic website where you raised the anticlerical witch hunt and were told that 'we need to meditate' (or something like that) on the abuse that happened within the Church. I then found the main Irish Salem site and Webster's Sceptical Essays one.

    A further twist happened in February last year when something my sister posted on Facebook about Jimmy Savile challenged me to look into that story too. I told her that it was almost certain that nearly all of it was wrong lies and that there was a chance, "however small", that it all was. I had been waiting for the next witch hunt because, like buses, there will always be another one along in a minute but, oddly, had not thought that this was one too. That led me to 'Anna Raccoon' (who sadly died a few days ago), 'Moor Larkin' and 'Rabbitaway'.

    Another thing that had a big effect on my thinking (perhaps the biggest) was a book about the rise of the 'swinging sixties' in London which Peter Hitchens recommended. It is The Neophiliacs and was written by Christopher Booker (at a precocious age) in 1969. It explains those events in terms of two full cycles of a 'fantasy cycle', apparently of his own devising, running from 1956 to 1968. It seems clear to me that the fantasy has continued and probably deepened ever since.

    I just realized I can scroll down to older comments here and was reading through them. I had already read much of your main website. I find I am in complete agreement with you all the way. (Moor Larkin said you had been an inspiration and was wondering if you were still around.)

    I am afraid I am of very little help practically as people are either natural researchers (like yourself and Moor) or (as in my case) not.

    Did you notice Varadkar's comments at the time of the St Attracta's (Roscommon) story, following another Primetime programme? I wrote the quote dow but it went along the lines of: when you have evil people evil things are done.

    1. I have the quote now: "So long as there are evil people out there evil things will happen." As you know the story amounted to little more than unprofessional behaviour on the part of a couple of staff members.


  2. Sean. I am fairly narrowly focused myself on false allegations of child abuse directed against the Catholic Church although I have also written about allegations against laypeople. In Ireland I suspect that anti-clerical hatred is caused by the failure of the liberal agenda - and consequently their desperate need for a scapegoat. Our "liberals" attributed problems like crime and alcoholism to poverty and repression and blamed both on the Catholic Church. But violent crime and drug addiction reached a peak in Ireland during the Celtic Tiger. In January 2006 the Sunday Tribune published an article pointing out that the previous year had seen the highest number of homicides in the history of the State - at least since the Civil War of the early 1920s. All other crimes increased in tandem - during a period when prosperity was increasing and the influence of the Catholic Church had collapsed. Our liberals have no solution at all to this paradox. Their response is NOT to rethink their philosophy - but instead to launch a hysterical campaign against the Catholic Church.

    I think that the number of children in the care of the State increased from less than 4,000 in the 1990s to over 6,000 today. Only a small percentage are taken into care because of SEXUAL abuse; alcoholism, drug addiction or gross immaturity (of parents) are far more important factors, that are overshadowed by the hysteria about sex abuse. However the general increase almost certainly indicates a significant increase in paedophilia also. Irish liberals have no intention of investigating these issues or suggesting solutions. Scapegoating the Church is all they can do!