David Norris - Post-Revelations

dvpower

carlos D wrote: »

Some bizarre amount of people who wish that Gay Mitchell had campaigned to have that man murdered.

If zero is a bizarre amount...

alejandro1977

dvpower wrote: »

If zero is a bizarre amount...

what's bizarre is that the letter was never raised (until Norris pulled out) even though it was in the public domain.

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

The comparisons with the Norris letter ignores the important fact that it was completely out in the open - unlike the letter asking for clemency for Norris creepy pederast boyfriend.

Does anyone have a link to this 'completely out in the open' letter? I've read the Norris one.

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

what's bizarre is that the letter was never raised (until Norris pulled out) even though it was in the public domain.

I thought it was published by Norris after the blogger made some mention of the existance of it. When was it put in the public domain?


Edit: Sorry. I misunderstood - you're referring to the Mitchell letter.

carlos D

dvpower wrote: »

If zero is a bizarre amount...

If zero is every lefty in Ireland bitter that Norris blew it.

dvpower

carlos D wrote: »

If zero is every lefty in Ireland bitter that Norris blew it.

... bizarre post.

skregs

.

efb

Maybe Cardinal Brady could take a leaf from David Norris' book and do the right thing, but swearing abused children to a vow of silence can't be as bad a letter asking for clemency...

dvpower

skregs wrote: »

You are aware of course that he hasn't been sentenced yet and could sue any paper that specifically named him to bankruptcy. However, there were many, many articles on the sexual activities of a "prominent Irish sports journalist" to the point where his ordeal is now common knowledge in the country.

Not even charged yet afaik, so, no I wouldn't have expected to see a lot of coverage - that's why I was very surprised to see you say 'he was utterly, utterly vilified', when in fact he was hardly mentioned.

The case did get a fair bit of coverage, but Tom Humphries wasn't mentioned very much at all. I only learned of his identity in this thread, so again I'm surprised to see you say that his ordeal is 'now common knowledge in the country'.

Perhaps I have a different measure of what is 'common knowledge' and what it is to be 'utterly, utterly vilified'.


By the by, is he on the [EMAIL="http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/sex_offenders_register.html"]'sex offenders register' [/EMAIL]as you say? That link suggests that one must be convicted of certain offences under the Sex Offenders Act 2001.

HarryPotter41

dvpower wrote: »

Well that is a 'clarification' of your earlier position.



The problem is that you were ambiguous in how you view the crime of murder. And, if the last week has shown us anything, ambiguity is a very serious offence. You gave one impression and no clarification can ever take that away. Your presidential campaign is doomed (unless Dana gets a nomination - you could probably still beat her).

I am not in the least ambiguous as to how I view the crime, I have made it quite clear how I view the crime, I referred to the victim. There is absolutely no ambiguity.

HarryPotter41

dvpower wrote: »

Not even charged yet afaik, so, no I wouldn't have expected to see a lot of coverage - that's why I was very surprised to see you say 'he was utterly, utterly vilified', when in fact he was hardly mentioned.

The case did get a fair bit of coverage, but Tom Humphries wasn't mentioned very much at all. I only learned of his identity in this thread, so again I'm surprised to see you say that his ordeal is 'now common knowledge in the country'.

Perhaps I have a different measure of what is 'common knowledge' and what it is to be 'utterly, utterly vilified'.


By the by, is he on the 'sex offenders register' as you say? That link suggests that one must be convicted of certain offences under the Sex Offenders Act 2001.

To the best of my knowledge the Tom Humphries case is still under investigation and he hasn't been brought to trial yet, which is possibly why it has received very little coverage as of yet. It can't be compared to the David Norris issue because one is an old court case and the other is in progress and is also covered by certain blocks to protect the identities of injured parties.

Liam Byrne

Can anyone clarify something ?

Norris was quick to refer to "25 years ago" in order to make it seem like his association was ancient history.

1) When was the crime committed ?
2) When did he write the letter ?
3) Was Norris involved with the convicted criminal after the letter or conviction ?

dvpower

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

I am not in the least ambiguous as to how I view the crime, I have made it quite clear how I view the crime, I referred to the victim. There is absolutely no ambiguity.

Yes. Of course. You suggested that murder might be less henious than rape, from the point of view of a dead person.
No room for ambiguity there at all.:rolleyes:

HarryPotter41

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. Of course. You suggested that murder might be less henious than rape, from the point of view of a dead person.
No room for ambiguity there at all.:rolleyes:

If someone does not become a victim until after the crime, yes, they are dead when they are the victim.

HarryPotter41

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can anyone clarify something ?

Norris was quick to refer to "25 years ago" in order to make it seem like his association was ancient history.

1) When was the crime committed ?
2) When did he write the letter ?
3) Was Norris involved with the convicted criminal after the letter or conviction ?

Crime was committed in 1992 iirc
The letter was written in 1997
This is the fun part, Norris suggests that they parted company in 1985, whereas a 2002 interview he gave suggests that they parted company the previous year, 2001.

dvpower

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

If someone does not become a victim until after the crime, yes, they are dead when they are the victim.

... at which point they have no point of view at all.

You might as well have said that murder is a victimless crime from a victim's point of view.

HarryPotter41

dvpower wrote: »

... at which point they have no point of view at all.

You might as well have said that murder is a victimless crime from a victim's point of view.

Crime is not victimless from the victims point of view, if I was murdered in the morning I know there are people who would be deeply affected by it, the same as if I was the victim of any other crime, so that is not a conclusion that can be drawn from anything I said. And you are also way off topic.

dvpower

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Crime is not victimless from the victims point of view, if I was murdered in the morning I know there are people who would be deeply affected by it, the same as if I was the victim of any other crime, so that is not a conclusion that can be drawn from anything I said. And you are also way off topic.

That's exactly the point I made after you made your 'is murder more heinous, since the victims are dead' gaffe.

Good stuff.

K-9

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge the Tom Humphries case is still under investigation and he hasn't been brought to trial yet, which is possibly why it has received very little coverage as of yet. It can't be compared to the David Norris issue because one is an old court case and the other is in progress and is also covered by certain blocks to protect the identities of injured parties.

Has he been publicly declared or does everybody just know it's him now. Usually the name is never mentioned to protect the minor. There definitely was big publicity about a sports journalist, I only learned recently it was him, but yep, big publicity.

With my tin foil hat on, Israeli involvement and then Dana announces she might run the very day Norris leaves............................................

dvpower

K-9 wrote: »

Has he been publicly declared or does everybody just know it's him now. Usually the name is never mentioned to protect the minor. There definitely was big publicity about a sports journalist, I only learned recently it was him, but yep, big publicity.

The Sunday World ran something a while back and some stuff on IrishCentral.com (also a mention on his Wikipedia page), so the name is out there, but not so much in the mainstream.

HarryPotter41

dvpower wrote: »

That's exactly the point I made after you made your 'is murder more heinous, since the victims are dead' gaffe.

Good stuff.

And as you can see I said is murder more heinous, not murder is more heinous.

Show Time

How can the yes vote still be going up???

TryItMyWay

Unlike his supporters here who are somewhat disconnected from reality, he realised that the vast majority of Irish people consider his actions as utterly inappropriate and has withdrawn.

He should also resign his seat in the senate.

Those here that wish to suggest or endorse children of 15 having sex with middle aged people should really be reported to the authorities as dispite their self delusion that it is OK for children to be used as sexual 'objects' it is not.

Should any middle aged women mess with someones 15/16 year old son she should be prosecuted for statuatury rape and I would hope psychatric evaluation, certainly she should be disbarred form working with teenage boys.

Should any middle aged man have sex with a 15/16 year old boy then he should be charged with statutory rape, undergo psychiatric evaluation and be barred from working with teenage boys.

Should any middle aged man have sex with a 16/16 year old girl then he should be charged with statutory rape, undergo psychiatric evaluation and be barred from working with teenage girls.

Speaking as a parent and reading some of the postings on this thread, I suggest that those who view teenagers as fair game for their sexual entertainment that the law does not just exist for the protection of teenagers and their childhood years from rotten scumbags with sexual obsessions.

It is also what protects such rotten scumbags, male or female, straight or hetroxexual from justifyiably angry parents excecuting them.

SO those advicocating their fetish for teenagers on here should contemplate how great it is that the law exists because without it, many of them would probably be dead. As it is they have the relativly easy option of statuatory rape and registration as a sexual offender.




Whether anyone would miss them is another matter.

Just something for you child predators to comtemplate, be they male or female, gay or straight. You may not like the age of consent and statuatory rape law, but they are probably better for you than a lynch mob with a rope and a can of petrol.

Believe me, the vast majority of parents would be quite glad if you faced the latter option, so instead of seeking to change the law, shut up and be very, very grateful they exist, because outside of whatever small depraved niche you inhabit, you are viewed with horror and disguist and it is a very generous society that has such lenient laws rather than the more sincere penalties you deserve. It's expensive and over cautious towards justice but we are a civilised society and decent at heart. You seem to feel that you should be legally entitled to behave in a bestial manner. Should that be the case should parents not be allowed also to behave in a bestial manner? Be very careful for what you ask for....


This law you criticise is in fact the only thing protecting you. The courts, Guards and judges are the only thing protecting you.


As regards Norris, he has never even been democratically elected except by a small proportion of TCD graduates. He should continue his recognition of his inappropriate behavior by resigning his seat in the senate and withdrawing to whatever pseud corner he inhabits surrounded by those who will applaud him, no matter what he says or does.

There is absolutely no reason that consenting adults should not be free to express their sexuality. As I said earlier in this thread, I prefer to thing that the majority of gay men and women would also feel like kicking the **** out of someone who preys on young teenagers for their sexual kicks. You are revolting freaks living in a self made hell and only you yourselves can wake up to this and realise that you are evil and pepetuating evil. I suspect you already know this.

In the mean time, the next time you look at a 15 year ol boy or girl and decide to manipulate them into having sex with you, imagine I'm the father because if you are ever unlucky enough in your choices, I assure you you may run into a father like me or a mother like my wife, in which case it would probably be best if you just killed yourself.

Liam Byrne

Show Time wrote: »

How can the yes vote still be going up???

Because his supporters have twisted it into a "homophobic" debate, which it quite obviously isn't; the objection would apply even if it was a heterosexual encounter.

But those who are falsely claiming it to be a "witch-hunt" or believe that Norris (or more specifically, any gay president) would automatically mean "progress" are mobilised now by their blinkered support for anything unconventional.

starbelgrade

If this crime was committed by a priest & the letter pleading clemency was written by a Bishop or another member of the clergy, how many of the people who are defending Norris would be standing up for the Bishop?

Very few I would imagine.

HarryPotter41

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Because his supporters have twisted it into a "homophobic" debate, which it quite obviously isn't; the objection would apply even if it was a heterosexual encounter.

But those who are falsely claiming it to be a "witch-hunt" or believe that Norris (or more specifically, any gay president) would automatically mean "progress" are mobilised now by their blinkered support for anything unconventional.

Which is strange considering the LGBT forum shows a higher level of abhorrence to what he did. then again they aren't trying to be cool by supporting the gay guy, they are just actually gay and attached to reality

mikemac

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Which is strange considering the LGBT forum shows a higher level of abhorrence to what he did. then again they aren't trying to be cool by supporting the gay guy, they are just actually gay and attached to reality

Very true, some of the most critical posts are in that forum.

The posters there see a situation and give their opinion exactly as they see it

There's a few here trying too hard to look liberal or seeking media conspiracies or deflecting attention by playing a card.

If you want straight talking, have a read of LGBT

TryItMyWay

starbelgrade wrote: »

If this crime was committed by a priest & the letter pleading clemency was written by a Bishop or another member of the clergy, how many of the people who are defending Norris would be standing up for the Bishop?

Very few I would imagine.

I don't understand why the parents and grandparents of Ireland tolerate this from either Bishops, Norris or anyone else whether they be a senator, bishop, used car salesman or nurse.

Perhaps a law regarding advocacy or facilitation of child sexual abuse should be introduced? Those who advocate or facilitate sex with minors should be placed on an offenders registrar.

In the event of a sexual assault on a teenager, it might be a useful resource for the Guards.

Show Time

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Because his supporters have twisted it into a "homophobic" debate, which it quite obviously isn't; the objection would apply even if it was a heterosexual encounter.

But those who are falsely claiming it to be a "witch-hunt" or believe that Norris (or more specifically, any gay president) would automatically mean "progress" are mobilised now by their blinkered support for anything unconventional.

Twisted is the word.

dvpower

TryItMyWay wrote: »

Perhaps a law regarding advocacy or facilitation of child sexual abuse should be introduced?

I wonder would there be enough evidence to convict Norris?