David Norris - Post-Revelations

Dodd

Biggins wrote: »

What the media - and perhaps some people? - need to remember at the back of it all is "To Err Is Human, To Forgive Divine" - and lest we forget, especially those with short memories, this country has already elected and sometimes re-elected maybe persons of questionable character?

So learn from our mistakes and do not do it this time or again.?
Thanks.

Biggins

Dodd wrote: »

So learn from our mistakes and do not do it this time or again.?
Thanks.

Well thats up to yourself and choice. I can't answer for your situation should you find yourself in one.
Me, I hope I'd learn from my mistakes and not do the same again.

annascott

Yes, I would still vote for him. He is a wonderful, intelligent and articulate man. This has all been a horrid smear campaign which is targeted at homophobes and people too dumb to think for themselves. The things that have been highlighted have all been taken completely out of context and twisted. It would be laughable if people weren't stupid enough to believe everything that they read...

Pompey Magnus

Biggins wrote: »

Well thats up to yourself and choice. I can't answer for your situation should you find yourself in one.
Me, I hope I'd learn from my mistakes and not do the same again.

Do you believe Norris truely regrets what he did or do you think he just regrets being caught? He strikes me as being a very stubborn character and one to not easily retreat from a position.

Dodd

annascott wrote: »

Yes, I would still vote for him. He is a wonderful, intelligent and articulate man. This has all been a horrid smear campaign which is targeted at homphobes and people too dumb to think for themselves. The things that have been highlighted have all been taken completely out of context and twisted. It would be laughable if people weren't stupid enough to believe everything that they read...

Have you read the letters.?

Biggins

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Do you believe Norris truely regrets what he did or do you think he just regrets being caught? He strikes me as being a very stubborn character and one to not easily retreat from a position.

I genuinely don't know what he thinks or regrets - I do hope he knows, regrets and acknowledges that he made a mistake.
In turn we should fellow acknowledge that he's not the first to make a mistake either in office or in running to get to one.
I don't know about him being stubborn, but I will hazard a guess that be it Norris or someone else, the quality of "one to not easily retreat from a position" is oft times as not, to our betterment also when facing a foreign political opponent or business associate when it comes to negotiations.
Just a thought...

7sr2z3fely84g5

Should had done an bertie interview,with the tears and the scripted questions.

Kanoe

I hadn't decided until now but I will be voting for him inspite of this information coming to light. I've read the letters and as far as I can ascertain he pleaded for clemency for a friend in a case of statutory rape. I am a parent and I'm only too aware of the importance of our childrens safety but I know if someone here knew their bother had consensual sex with a minor, they would probably plead for leniency if they knew their brother wasn't a "rapist", knew it was consensual knew their brother was a good man who never harmed another and at the same time they would probably be annoyed they made such a foolish mistake. But they would still be their brother and not want them to be persecuted.

In the letters Norris makes the case that he has worked for many years with dealing with the problems experienced by gay people. It is true that there are as many consenting minors as there are older males willing to form relationships with them. I don't condone it but I am aware it occurs much more frequently and accounts for many male first (consensual) homosexual encounters.

Many men here would readily admit to being more than willing to have sexual encounter with an older woman when they were 15, I'd hazard a guess that more than a few did too. I think I've seen threads discuss the topic before and it was all taken in a less than criminal manner and yet it would still be statutory rape.

It's become clear to me that this is nothing more than a campaign of ignorance and despite the arguments against an anti gay position, there hasnt been one page of this thread which doesn't contain some slurred homophobic remark.

Dodd

I think Mary Mc Aleese should get another year while we see what should be done.

Anyway I have some stalkers on here so will keep quite for a while.

Dodd

Kanoe wrote: »

I hadn't decided until now but I will be voting for him inspite of this information coming to light. I've read the letters and as far as I can ascertain he pleaded for clemency for a friend in a case of statutory rape. I am a parent and I'm only too aware of the importance of our childrens safety but I know if someone here knew their bother had consensual sex with a minor, they would probably plead for leniency if they knew their brother wasn't a "rapist", knew it was consensual knew their brother was a good man who never harmed another and at the same time they would probably be annoyed they made such a foolish mistake. But they would still be their brother and not want them to be persecuted.

In the letters Norris makes the case that he has worked for many years with dealing with the problems experienced by gay people. It is true that there are as many consenting minors as there are older males willing to form relationships. I don't condone it but I am aware it occurs much more frequently in many male homosexual encounters.

Many men here would readily admit to being more than willing to have sexual encounter with an older woman when they were 15, I'd hazard a guess that more than a few did too. I think I've seen threads discuss the topic before and it was all taken in a less than criminal manner and yet it would still be statutory rape.

It's become clear to me that this is nothing more than a campaign of ignorance and despite the arguments against an anti gay position, there hasnt been one page of this thread which doesn't contain some slurred homophobic remark.

He used headed paper.

Will

Something really stinks about this. Smear campaign after smear campaign, low post count posters coming out of the woodwork who've just bashed on him and nothing previous.

Someone really doesn't want him in the presidential race. The accusations a few weeks back, now this. This was in 1997, 14 years ago. He's been in the seanad, tv and radio a hell of a lot since then and nothing said. If it was a big of an issue as we are being lead to believe it would have come out there and then. All changes when it comes to votes! It's a campaign to tarnish his credibility and public standing.

Politics, cut throat stuff and seems people won't stop until he bows out. Shame too, I think he would make a great President. He's an intellectual, a character and a well spoken person.

The things he has done far outshine any politician currently around so they're trying to focus on a headed letter... wow. A headed letter. This pales in comparison to the things other politicians have done to us and our country.

Biggins

Dodd wrote: »

I think Mary Mc Aleese should get another year while we see what should be done.

I think its within the constitution that no more than two terms can be served by any one person - so legally a third term is not possible.

Sorry to hear you might have stalkers - had two myself at stages. Sad people. Good luck with that problem.

Kanoe

Dodd wrote: »

He used headed paper.

I don't know if you've ever requested a character reference before but they are usually written on headed/formal paper.

The second letter is not written on headed paper. He Was at the original case and wished to be called to give evidence as he was witness to some events pertaining to the case, as he wasn't asked he called into play his position, not just as senator but as an individual with experience in gay rights here and internationally in an attempt to plead for understanding.
He is a senator and he has as much right to use the title as a Dr would when signing off on his/her letters.

Pompey Magnus

Kanoe wrote: »

not just as senator but as an individual with experience in gay rights here and internationally in an attempt to plead for understanding.

What relevance does gay rights have in this case? It was statutory rape of a minor, it was not two adult men who consented to sex.

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

What relevance does gay rights have in this case? It was statutory rape of a minor, it was not two adult men who consented to sex.

If you read the letters you will understand what gay rights have to do with the case.

Einhard

xoxyx wrote: »

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, but if it was something as simple as having sex with somebody who was consensual but underage, I would do the same for somebody that I cared about.

xoxyx wrote: »

C'mon. In our society, there are many 15 year olds with 1 year old children. They're not sacrosanct!!

xoxyx wrote: »

Look - sex is sex. Private areas are private because that is what we are taught. There are cultures where sex is something to be sold. I'm not saying that it's ideal - but would it be such a big deal if Norris had written a recommendation for somebody who had used a 7 year old to clean their chimney???

At 15 years old, if you were free from the taboo of sex is for certain people, of a certain age, and it's only for those who have their minds fully developed, what's the big deal???

It all seems to centre on what we think is right and wrong, without giving consideration to other cultures and other values.

Do you know what I think? I think we have far too big a stick up our own arses and we need to start living outside the box that we have made for ourselves.

Ummm, that's all kinda unsettling. There's a reason we have statutory rape laws. They are recognition that people under a certain age are generally not emotionally mature enough to engage in sexual relations. It's to protect them from themselves, and also predatory adults- because, let's face it, having sex with a 15 y/o is a predatory act. To compare such an act with chimney sweeping is absurd. For an adult to participate in such a act with an adolescent is a form of abuse, regardless of whether the encounter is "consensual, and to talk of other cultures, and to regard abhorrence of such acts as somehow small minded or insular is disturbing.

Kanoe wrote: »

I hadn't decided until now but I will be voting for him now. I've read the letters and as far as I can ascertain he pleaded for clemency for a friend in a case of statutory rape. I don't get the big deal. I have a child. I know if someone here knew their bother had consensual sex with a minor, they would probably plead for leniency if they knew their brother wasn't a "rapist", knew it was consensual knew their brother was a good man who never harmed another and at the same time they would probably be annoyed they made such a foolish mistake. But they would still be their brother and not want them to be persecuted.

My God. You have a child, and you don't see the big deal about statutory rape?? Good people don't go around engaging in sexual relations with adolescents, and to infer that holding such people to account under the law is "persecution" is ridiculous. People of that age are not emotionally or intellectually mature enough to make such decisions, especially when it comes to sexual relations with adults.

In the letters Norris makes the case that he has worked for many years with dealing with the problems experienced by gay people. It is true that there are as many consenting minors as there are older males willing to form relationships. I don't condone it but I am aware it occurs much more frequently in many male homosexual encounters.

It doesn't matter how "true" it is, it's still wrong, and illegal too.

Many men here would readily admit to being more than willing to have sexual encounter with an older woman when they were 15, I'd hazard a guess that more than a few did too. I think I've seen threads discuss the topic before and it was all taken in a less than criminal manner and yet it would still be statutory rape.

Yes, of course we had. But any woman who facilitated such a fantasy would be acting in a grossly irresponsible manner.

It's become clear to me that this is nothing more than a campaign of ignorance and despite the arguments against an anti gay position, there hasnt been one page of this thread which doesn't contain some slurred homophobic remark.

And there hasn't been one where the genuine concerns of those who actually admire Norris haven't been dismissed as part of some homophobic agenda.

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

What relevance does gay rights have in this case? It was statutory rape of a minor, it was not two adult men who consented to sex.

would you feel as compelled to argue the position if it was a 15 year old guy who got his end away with his friends mother or substitute school teacher?
And do you see the difference.
The fact is that there are as many 15 year old gay boys who do the same. If not more.

Kanoe

Einhard wrote: »

My God. You have a child, and you don't see the big deal about statutory rape?? Good people don't go around engaging in sexual relations with adolescents, and to infer that holding such people to account under the law is "persecution" is ridiculous. People of that age are not emotionally or intellectually mature enough to make such decisions, especially when it comes to sexual relations with adults.

this is bs. Read my post and see where I wrote that I don't condone it but 15 year olds are going to go out and start doing it anyway. I'm going to keep saying it but if it were a 15 year old boy who got it on with a friends mother or school teacher he would get a pat on the back for it. at least here he would anyway. This is not priest in a confessional grooming young boys scenario.

It doesn't matter how "true" it is, it's still wrong, and illegal too.

see above. No where do I condone it, nowhere. I am aware it happens. But again if this situation weren't about two men, if this situation were about 15 year odl boy and 40 year old woman while still illegal, it wouldn't considered half as bad.

Yes, of course we had. But any woman who facilitated such a fantasy would be acting in a grossly irresponsible manner.

and the lad would get a pat on the back.

And there hasn't been one where the genuine concerns of those who actually admire Norris haven't been dismissed as part of some homophobic agenda.

read this thread carefully, and start counting.

You can hate me for this and you can call me blind but I genuinely was no more convinced of Norris position until I read this thread and it's become clear to me that homophobia is alive and well in Ireland.

Einhard

Kanoe wrote: »

this is bs. Read my post and see where I wrote that I don't condone it but 15 year olds are going to go out and start doing it anyway.

And that's why we need laws. They're there to protect minors, who generally aren't mature enough to make such decisions for themselves. This isn't an inconsequential matter, as some seem to be implying.

I'm going to keep saying it but if it were a 15 year old boy who got it on with a friends mother or school teacher he would get a pat on the back for it. at least here he would anyway.

Yes, he might. But the adult would (or should) be prosecuted in such a scenario.

This is not priest in a confessional grooming young boys scenario.

So it's ok to groom young people, as long as one is not a priest, and it's not happening in a confessional?

read this thread carefully, and start counting.

I don't know what you mean by this...

minidazzler

I'd still vote for him, simply because I have no moral objection to what the guy he was supporting did. A 15 year old can decide on their own accord to have sex. It wasn't sexual abuse, it was sex.

Pompey Magnus

minidazzler wrote: »

I'd still vote for him, simply because I have no moral objection to what the guy he was supporting did. A 15 year old can decide on their own accord to have sex. It wasn't sexual abuse, it was sex.

Do you feel the same about <snip> and the 14 year old girl he was having a relationship with?

Chucky the tree

Einhard wrote: »

Ummm, that's all kinda unsettling. There's a reason we have statutory rape laws. They are recognition that people under a certain age are generally not emotionally mature enough to engage in sexual relations. It's to protect them from themselves, and also predatory adults- because, let's face it, having sex with a 15 y/o is a predatory act. To compare such an act with chimney sweeping is absurd. For an adult to participate in such a act with an adolescent is a form of abuse, regardless of whether the encounter is "consensual, and to talk of other cultures, and to regard abhorrence of such acts as somehow small minded or insular is disturbing.



My God. You have a child, and you don't see the big deal about statutory rape?? Good people don't go around engaging in sexual relations with adolescents, and to infer that holding such people to account under the law is "persecution" is ridiculous. People of that age are not emotionally or intellectually mature enough to make such decisions, especially when it comes to sexual relations with adults.

So if the boy was 15 years old and 363 days old and he's not emtionally mature enough to be having sex but in a mere 72 hours it's perfectly accetabpe?

Pompey Magnus

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So if the boy was 15 years old and 363 days old and he's not emtionally mature enough to be having sex but in a mere 72 hours it's perfectly accetabpe?

The age of consent is there because it's impossible to know if someone is ready for sex at a certain age. It has to be semi-arbitrary and can't be taken on a case by case basis. Some boys would be mature enough for sex at 13, some at 16. It depends on the particular boy. That is why an arbitrary limit has to be set in order to protect those that aren't ready.

We have no problem with a semi-arbitrary alcohol level for drivers, why the problem with one for sex with minors?

Skid

Will wrote: »

Shame too, I think he would make a great President. He's an intellectual, a character and a well spoken person.

Being a 'character' might make him a great Dinner party guest, but it doesn't make him a suitable candidate for President.

He has shown appalling judgment. Norris is also a loose cannon who likes to deliberately provoke controversy at every opportunity.

He would have been a terrible choice as President.

Chucky the tree

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The age of consent is there because it's impossible to know if someone is ready for sex at a certain age. It has to be semi-arbitrary and can't be taken on a case by case basis. Some boys would be mature enough for sex at 13, some at 16. It depends on the particular boy. That is why an arbitrary limit has to be set in order to protect those that aren't ready.

We have no problem with a semi-arbitrary alcohol level for drivers, why the problem with one for sex with minors?

I wouldn't say we have no problem. I'd see a huge difference is someone being caught drink driving the following morning then some caught straight after leaving the pub having had 10+ pints.

minidazzler

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Do you feel the same about <> and the 14 year old girl he was having a relationship with?

Not necessarily, I don't know much about either case. But there is quite a degree of difference between 14 and 15, and after 5 mins searching I can't find much in the way of facts about either case so I am not in a position to say whether or not I feel the same.

Simply put, I don't believe that Norris did anything wrong, and was meerly ill-advised to send it on parlimentary letterhead.

Einhard

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So if the boy was 15 years old and 363 days old and he's not emtionally mature enough to be having sex but in a mere 72 hours it's perfectly accetabpe?

What he says vvv

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The age of consent is there because it's impossible to know if someone is ready for sex at a certain age. It has to be semi-arbitrary and can't be taken on a case by case basis. Some boys would be mature enough for sex at 13, some at 16. It depends on the particular boy. That is why an arbitrary limit has to be set in order to protect those that aren't ready.

We have no problem with a semi-arbitrary alcohol level for drivers, why the problem with one for sex with minors?

Pompey Magnus

minidazzler wrote: »

Not necessarily, I don't know much about either case. But there is quite a degree of difference between 14 and 15,

I would argue that a 14 year old girl is quite possibly more mature than a 15 year old boy, that girls mature quicker than boys at that age is well established. I can see absolutely no difference between the two cases, both are reprehensible in my opinion.

Kanoe

Einhard wrote: »

And that's why we need laws. They're there to protect minors, who generally aren't mature enough to make such decisions for themselves. This isn't an inconsequential matter, as some seem to be implying.

No, it's not but it's not as some would like us to believe a case of paedophilia.

Yes, he might. But the adult would (or should) be prosecuted in such a scenario.

he didn't seek to diminish responsibility, he sought that the courts deal with the case in a lenient manner, in a country which at that point had little in the way of tolerance toward homosexuality and ultimately served harsher punishments. He merely requested that all the facts be considered and put into context.

So it's ok to groom young people, as long as one is not a priest, and it's not happening in a confessional?

where does it state that anyone was groomed? Do you know the difference between grooming someone and a 15yr old going out and seeking sex? does it pain you to think that might actually happen?

I don't know what you mean by this...

I doubt you ever will.

minidazzler

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I would argue that a 14 year old girl is quite possibly more mature than a 15 year old boy, that girls mature quicker than boys at that age is well established. I can see absolutely no difference between the two cases, both are reprehensible in my opinion.

Physically I would argue girls mature faster. Sexually, I would argue boys do.