John Halligan withdraws support for David Norris

Kracken

Should John have withdrawn support in my opinion.. No I don't think he should... John halligan has been all about supporting the small time guys in small businesses and unions... but I think he didn't take into account the fact that Sen. Norris wrote a large volume of letters of clemency. For all types of people in many situation, both political and judicial.

As he said its not about the crime its about the mercy, not having the sentenced reduced but the type of sentence.

John Halligan should take into account that he needs to think more like senator norris think about all people regardless of creed, colour, etc.

Sully

Kracken wrote: »

Should John have withdrawn support in my opinion.. No I don't think he should... John halligan has been all about supporting the small time guys in small businesses and unions... but I think he didn't take into account the fact that Sen. Norris wrote a large volume of letters of clemency. For all types of people in many situation, both political and judicial.

As he said its not about the crime its about the mercy, not having the sentenced reduced but the type of sentence.

John Halligan should take into account that he needs to think more like senator norris think about all people regardless of creed, colour, etc.

Nobody should run for the office of president, or a state position really, with such views.

sparkling sea

Very sad to hear the John has withdrawn support for Mr Norris as it appears to me that the media are controlling the choice of candidates that will be put before the people - not really a reflection of the wishes of the majority with due regard for the rights of the minority. TDs are meant to uphold the principles of democracy, not let the tabloids quash them.

There still seems to be support for Mr Norris and its a pity that TDs are not reflecting the wishes of the people, because they are not ensuring Mr Norris's name will be on the ballot.

As someone who voted for John I think its quite sad that he did not feel that the electorate would be able to sort through the crap and make a choice they felt was right, re Mr Norris. I am not necessarily saying he is the right person for the Aras but now we will never know who the majority felt and so our supposed opinions will continue to be portrayed as the same as those of the tabloids who now probably feel justified in their hounding of Mr Norris and forcing him out of the race. Mr Norris himself acted in a humane way but any act can be twisted to suit an arguement - its quite sad that John bought it.

Happyman42

sparkling sea wrote: »

Very sad to hear the John has withdrawn support for Mr Norris as it appears to me that the media are controlling the choice of candidates that will be put before the people - not really a reflection of the wishes of the majority with due regard for the rights of the minority. TDs are meant to uphold the principles of democracy, not let the tabloids quash them.

There still seems to be support for Mr Norris and its a pity that TDs are not reflecting the wishes of the people, because they are not ensuring Mr Norris's name will be on the ballot.

As someone who voted for John I think its quite sad that he did not feel that the electorate would be able to sort through the crap and make a choice they felt was right, re Mr Norris. I am not necessarily saying he is the right person for the Aras but now we will never know who the majority felt and so our supposed opinions will continue to be portrayed as the same as those of the tabloids who now probably feel justified in their hounding of Mr Norris and forcing him out of the race. Mr Norris himself acted in a humane way but any act can be twisted to suit an arguement - its quite sad that John bought it.

The system is the system and Norris knew that and furthermore, he never did anything to change it in all the years he was in the Senate.
By deciding to run he was accepting the system, he failed to pass the first hurdle in the system, he wasn't sacked, he wasn't pushed, he withdrew with apologies for doing 'wrong'.
Halligan did the only thing he could do if he found that Norris shouldn't have intervened, we are looking for honourable reps after all.
Huffing about the media being responsible is arrant nonsense. Who wrote the letters...the media???

sparkling sea

Happyman42 wrote: »

Huffing about the media being responsible is arrant nonsense. Who wrote the letters...the media???

No huffing and puffing and the media manipulation is anything but arrant nonsense - it is what it is. I don't feel John allowed the electors the choice they seem to have wanted, I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from him given his experience of Waterford City Council pact voting policy. Rules may be rules but any Irish person knows how easily they can be abused to bar entry or bring about outcome against the wishes of the people.

I don't have any problem with people seeking clemency for others and context is everything.

I am not sure if I would have voted for David Norris but I would have liked to have had the opportunity to make that choice and I know I am not alone on this.

Happyman42

sparkling sea wrote: »

No huffing and puffing and the media manipulation is anything but arrant nonsense - it is what it is. I don't feel John allowed the electors the choice they seem to have wanted, I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from him given his experience of Waterford City Council pact voting policy. Rules may be rules but any Irish person knows how easily they can be abused to bar entry or bring about outcome against the wishes of the people.

I don't have any problem with people seeking clemency for others and context is everything.

I am not sure if I would have voted for David Norris but I would have liked to have had the opportunity to make that choice and I know I am not alone on this.

The media did the same job they normally do, with different shades of opinion. There was no 'orchestrated campaign'
This whinging about the press and the system is wrong.
We elect our representatives to make decisions in good conscience....but when they do (Haligan) you have the knifes out for them.
It's a nonsense position.

He messed up, he's gone.....get over it.

Yes Boss

I hope John Halligan's past is squeaky clean after taking such a high moral ground.

tombliboo83

I was disappointed that Halligan withdrew his support for Norris. Whatever I think of Norris is irrelevant but it's quiet clear that there is an appetite amongst the general public for Norris to run for office. If Halligan and others had of stayed the course then we may have then had the chance to have our say on Norris. Instead we are left with 'what ifs'. Surely backing Norris was about letting the man present his candidacy to the public and not about endorsing him or what he stands for.

Junior

Surely John could have stated he thought that Senator Norris's position on this clemency letter wasn't one he could stand behind, but could have used the chance to call for presidential electoral reform. Which would have been a decent position, I understand that we need people like Norris to stand for election, but I think the system is flawed.

merlante

How many of the great leaders of the past, Churchill, etc., or any of our state founders, would have a snowballs of getting a presidential nomination in this day and age? Political correctness and mere peripheral association with wrongdoing is enough to keep you out of the race. So all you are left with are colourless characters who have done nothing of any interest their entire lives. This is a pretty piss poor era for politics, where slimey game players and quiet fellas who say and do nothing progress, while anybody who might be in danger of doing a good job is scuppered by something or other from their past.

And anyway, there are probably a few people who have read these posts that are guilty of statutory rape themselves (if, for example, they ever had sex with a 16 yr old when they were 17), and maybe everyone knows at least one person who has, and therefore any of their mates, who would write a character reference for them, in an attempt to ease their sentence, should not even bother running for president in the future. I know it's generally considered morally (far) worse when the offender is older, but technically it's the same thing.

He shouldn't have used Seanad notepaper, but I can understand somebody trying their best to ease what could be a pretty bad sentence in a place like israel for someone they care about. Is it really that crazy? He's gone now anyway, and we are left with a pretty anaemic presidential race.

Junior

merlante wrote: »

He's gone now anyway, and we are left with a pretty anaemic presidential race.

Oh no, looks like we've got a live nutter joining in again, rumours that Dana will be running are rife on twitter from newstalk.

jbwan

Yes Boss wrote: »

I hope John Halligan's past is squeaky clean after taking such a high moral ground.

I'm sure it is. No doubt he fled the Worker's Party over this bombshell http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3822005.stm

Even though the investigation was 4 years previous and he was ultimately asked to resign his seat by the party. Yes, a track record of withdrawing support at the first sign of wrongdoing. :rolleyes:

Sen. Norris did wrong and he openly admitted it. Not like the fiasco surrounding Tony Killeen for a case that was not dissimilar to this, except there was no romantic relationship between the origin and the accused that we know of.

It's a tough fence to pick a side of. Ultimately even Sen. Norris agrees that it was wrong, indefensible, and in retrospect, an error in judgement. However, the dignity and resolve with which he accepted his sentence (effective expulsion from the presidential race) are testimony to his undoubted suitability for the position. Not that I would always agree with his politics but I have never heard the man speak and thought to myself, that's embarrassing. The exact opposite in fact. An articulate, learned scholar of world politics and artistic merit - moral compass points to disapproval of his actions but all the same, it's a shame he won't be at the helm.

dayshah

Junior wrote: »

Surely John could have stated he thought that Senator Norris's position on this clemency letter wasn't one he could stand behind, but could have used the chance to call for presidential electoral reform. Which would have been a decent position, I understand that we need people like Norris to stand for election, but I think the system is flawed.

Tee hee hee

merlante wrote: »

And anyway, there are probably a few people who have read these posts that are guilty of statutory rape themselves (if, for example, they ever had sex with a 16 yr old when they were 17), and maybe everyone knows at least one person who has, and therefore any of their mates, who would write a character reference for them, in an attempt to ease their sentence, should not even bother running for president in the future. I know it's generally considered morally (far) worse when the offender is older, but technically it's the same thing.

But the case doesn't involve a 16 and 17 year old. It involves a 15 year old and someone born in 1952. If it was a 15 year old girl, and a 40 year old man, most people would think it a crime and the man should serve jail. Maybe it is 'technically' the same crime, but the judge takes all these other factors into account.


And Churchill was a prick who was responsible for the Black and Tans, and far worse in India.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

But the case doesn't involve a 16 and 17 year old. It involves a 15 year old and someone born in 1952. If it was a 15 year old girl, and a 40 year old man, most people would think it a crime and the man should serve jail. Maybe it is 'technically' the same crime, but the judge takes all these other factors into account.

These factors are mitigating but the crime is the same. Either way, if you haven't reached the age of consent, the law does not consider that you are mature enough to consent to sex, therefore, if an adult allows sex to happen with someone under that age, they have defacto raped the person. You can sugar coat the two teenagers in love scenario all you want (and I'd personally go along with that) but it is rape under the law.

Under the law (in Ireland), an 18 yr old is as mature and responsible for their actions and decisions as a 40 yr old is. We might be far less impressed with a 40 yr old taking advantage but it's the person underage that matters because they are not deemed to be able to consent one way or the other.

Anyway, this is getting somewhat off topic...

dayshah wrote: »

And Churchill was a prick who was responsible for the Black and Tans, and far worse in India.

Yeah, he was a prick to Ireland, but did great service for his own country. (Also a prick to Ireland even when Ireland was in the UK granted. ) If only we had a few more politicians in Ireland who shafted outsiders rather than their own people...

decies

Maybe John will switch his allegiances to the Dana campaign !!

jbwan

decies wrote: »

Maybe John will switch his allegiances to the Dana campaign !!

All kinds of Halligan, remind me of...

Silverado

Perhaps he might also attend more Dail votes. WLR today reported that he was present for only 44% of Dail votes since his election, by far the worst of Waterford TDs. Ciara Conway attended 100% of votes while Coffey and Deasy were in the 80s.

What did he think he was being elected for?

tombliboo83

Silverado wrote: »

Perhaps he might also attend more Dail votes. WLR today reported that he was present for only 44% of Dail votes since his election, by far the worst of Waterford TDs. Ciara Conway attended 100% of votes while Coffey and Deasy were in the 80s.

What did he think he was being elected for?

I was quite disappointed about his voting record when I read about it yesterday. Seems like alot of the opposition can't be arsed with voting according to the figures, taking a defeat for granted each time.

sparkling sea

Happyman42 wrote: »

The media did the same job they normally do, with different shades of opinion. There was no 'orchestrated campaign'
This whinging about the press and the system is wrong.
We elect our representatives to make decisions in good conscience....but when they do (Haligan) you have the knifes out for them.
It's a nonsense position.

Very emotive it maybe, all though getting the knives out is a bit OTT.

I am still disappointed John Halligan didn't allow people to have a choice ( in so far as he could have).

Godsentme

Yes Boss wrote: »

I hope John Halligan's past is squeaky clean after taking such a high moral ground.

Everyone has a skeleton in the cupboard they hope will never come out.
in the case of a public representative they just have to hope harder.;)

Kracken

Sully wrote: »

Nobody should run for the office of president, or a state position really, with such views.

Hypothetically, if a president / senator was to ask for clemency for a life sentence rather than a death sentence. Would that be as bad, grant the crime was terrible but would prefer a president with compassion and a thought for rather than a statue and figure that doesn't really do much for the country.

waterford

I am glad John pulled out in time and didn't get all kinds of everything

Sully

Kracken wrote: »

Hypothetically, if a president / senator was to ask for clemency for a life sentence rather than a death sentence. Would that be as bad, grant the crime was terrible but would prefer a president with compassion and a thought for rather than a statue and figure that doesn't really do much for the country.

Hypothetical?

I think writing re: death penalty is different then writing asking for an easy ride for your former lover who had sex with a 15 year old boy and is in trouble for it. The former is different and more acceptable.

Different issues. Norris overstepped the mark, and there was no going back considering the previous accusation laid against him. He had no way out of this and if his last accusations stuck, he would have been out earlier. According to the papers, there was a lot more skeletons ready to pop out.

Nobody in this race is squeaky clean. But Norris was completely different and very uncomfortable.

Hoffmans

i like the way hally G waited till the last possible minute to withdraw from d norris , obviously till he knew norris was quitting the race because or his twisted judgement in supporting a nonce....

robtri

Halligan was right to pull his support of Norris, While before any scandals about norris appeared, he seemed to be good for the job and to offer support too.

But after hearing about his past deeds, it makes sense for Halligan to pull his support. That to me is acting in the best interest of the people he is representing, by supporting the best candidates but being of good mind that when stuff like this appears to change his mind. I say well done Halligan.

Norris had no right to represent the Irish people in pleading for clemancy for his partner. He wrote on Senate paper, declaring himslef to be a representative of the Irish people in his plea for a more leniant sentence.

wellboytoo

Halligan withdraws from Norris...
It has a certain ring to it!

tombliboo83

wellboytoo wrote: »

Halligan withdraws from Norris...
It has a certain ring to it!

Yet more homosexual ridiculing. This is why Norris was destined to not make the race. Ireland is not ready to have an openly gay President.

Deisekickboxing

tombliboo83 wrote: »

wellboytoo wrote: »

Halligan withdraws from Norris...
It has a certain ring to it!

Yet more homosexual ridiculing. This is why Norris was destined to not make the race. Ireland is not ready to have an openly gay President.

Quite a ring to it alright, no point getting 'browned' off about it tho....