so david norris is unable to work as a lecturer

JohnMc1

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is no evidence of other letters, there is no evidence of involvement with a paedophile group and plenty of evidence of irishcentral being garbage through and through.

Did you read the letter? It's a letter in plea of mitigation. Pretty commonplace things actually.

So everybody is making up thathe wrote 7 letters? LOL. Someones in denial.

FreudianSlippers

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So everybody is making up thathe wrote 7 letters? LOL. Someones in denial.

Unless there is evidence of the contents of the other letters, other than a rag website saying that another news outlet spoke to someone that says that there are other letters - it's fairly healthy to be sceptical of these reports and speculation on their alleged contents.

Promoting paedophilia is an offence and if these were anything more than nonsense the DPP would be involved.

RandomName2

cgarrad wrote: »

Can't be too f*cking disabled if he can rush all over the country in an election campaign...

We need less people like him not more.

Might well be the case that Trinity quite frankly didn't want someone around who had hepatitis and was willing to pay him to go away.

Whether he should have accepted such payment, if that was indeed the case, is another matter however.

JohnMc1

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So everybody is making up thathe wrote 7 letters? LOL. Someones in denial.

Unless there is evidence of the contents of the other letters, other than a rag website saying that another news outlet spoke to someone that says that there are other letters - it's fairly healthy to be sceptical of these reports and speculation on their alleged contents.

Promoting paedophilia is an offence and if these were anything more than nonsense the DPP would be involved.

So I guess in your mind RTE is also a "rag" since they also reported there were multiple letters sent from Norris. Even claiming that gays shouldn't be held to the same sex laws at straight people.

Keep that head buried.

FreudianSlippers

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So I guess in your mind RTE is also a "rag" since they also reported there were multiple letters sent from Norris. Even claiming that gays shouldn't be held to the same sex laws at straight people.

Keep that head buried.

Do you have a source for this? You'd think that a user registered in 2005 would have learned by now that because you say it is so, doesn't mean it is.
Claims such as yours are usually backed by evidence. I did a search on google and the RTÉ website for evidence to support you and haven't found it yet.

If my "head is buried" (:rolleyes:) then perhaps a shred of evidence in support of your spurious claims may enlighten me.

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I literally JUST linked the actual letter, but sure you couldn't be bothered to read the letter and make your own decision; just rely on rag journalism from irishcentral.com (probably the WORST source possible).
Nothing came of that spurious allegation of him being a part of a paedophile group and the other allegations are potentially defamatory.

Just a point of order here, you are linking to a letter in which Mr Norris refrains from pointing out the real nature of the relationship which he had with the defende and and in which Mr Norris makes claims as regards his being mentioned as a contender as a candiate for Ireland's presidency - a claim which he later in the Tubridy interview, he first tries to deny and then which he says ' couldnt be taken seriousily'.
So my question is just how much reliance can be placed on that particular letter ?
Could it be said to be more reliable than the interviews referred to in the central article about which you are disparaging ?

Dr Galen

This thread is specifically for the discussion around Norris's ability to work as a lecturer (or not) and the disability pension thing.

I would suggest, that if people still see a need to discuss the ongoing letters saga, then they start a new thread.

Cheers

DrG

Festus

One would imagine that if he was incapable of working in Trinity in any capacity then he would be equally incapable of working as a senator.

Surely the work of a senator is more arduous or am I thinking of a different country

goat2

Festus wrote: »

One would imagine that if he was incapable of working in Trinity in any capacity then he would be equally incapable of working as a senator.

Surely the work of a senator is more arduous or am I thinking of a different country

ya, different country, has to be,
and i thought he explained that clearly the night of the debate, he had paying into some pension fund which would cover him in the event of illness, it is not welfare,

IrishPolitik

My last point on this thread is the following.

Firstly as I have said before I work in the Life & Pensions industry and what Norris claimed off was a Salary Protection Scheme as he is quoted on Newstalk this morning.

I'll give you another example of a case I dealt with recently, in which, a person had a Life Protection Scheme and paid the premiums toward for almost a decade.
The person was diagnosed with a cancer of the liver and died with 4 months of the diagnosis. When their next of kin went to claim off the policy they were declined as it had become apparent that in the past an illness related to something completely minuscule and unrelated was detected when they took the policy out.
Although this had nothing to do with the person's death, because they did not inform the company of this when they signed the papers, the company did not pay out.
The next of kin spent 10 years in the courts trying the get the money. It becomes almost a matter of principle for their deceased loved one. They would have been owed about 40 grand in a lump sum pay out, however the company spent well over 300 grand dragging it through the courts for ten years not to pay out.
Why? To prove a point. That all information relating to health matters must be disclosed on pursuing Life Cover.

Now, if anyone thinks that an Insurance company has discovered that the most famous Senator in Ireland has scammed them out of €2500 a month for the past 17 years and their reaction is "oohh look something shiney", it is absolute nonsense.

Personally I am a Norris supporter, however the only wavering in my support has his handling of the media so far.

To my knowledge, whether Norris wins or loses, he is due to make a lot of money from 2 defamation cases when this election comes to an end.
IMO he has been defamed and wish him all the luck.

However this talk of him scamming disability while working as a Senator has to stop!

foggy_lad

IrishPolitik wrote: »

My last point on this thread is the following.

Firstly as I have said before I work in the Life & Pensions industry and what Norris claimed off was a Salary Protection Scheme as he is quoted on Newstalk this morning.

I'll give you another example of a case I dealt with recently, in which, a person had a Life Protection Scheme and paid the premiums toward for almost a decade.
The person was diagnosed with a cancer of the liver and died with 4 months of the diagnosis. When their next of kin went to claim off the policy they were declined as it had become apparent that in the past an illness related to something completely minuscule and unrelated was detected when they took the policy out.
Although this had nothing to do with the person's death, because they did not inform the company of this when they signed the papers, the company did not pay out.
The next of kin spent 10 years in the courts trying the get the money. It becomes almost a matter of principle for their deceased loved one. They would have been owed about 40 grand in a lump sum pay out, however the company spent well over 300 grand dragging it through the courts for ten years not to pay out.
Why? To prove a point. That all information relating to health matters must be disclosed on pursuing Life Cover.

Now, if anyone thinks that an Insurance company has discovered that the most famous Senator in Ireland has scammed them out of €2500 a month for the past 17 years and their reaction is "oohh look something shiney", it is absolute nonsense.

Personally I am a Norris supporter, however the only wavering in my support has his handling of the media so far.

To my knowledge, whether Norris wins or loses, he is due to make a lot of money from 2 defamation cases when this election comes to an end.
IMO he has been defamed and wish him all the luck.

However this talk of him scamming disability while working as a Senator has to stop!

We could all have private insurance cover to deal with loss of earnings in the event of any disability or change in circumstances which prevented us resuming work after an illness and if that is indeed what Norris had then fair play to him and hope he spent it well and in reasonably good health.

The problem arises when we consider that if we were to fail to resume employment after a year of illness it would most likely be due to us being disabled or our employer has replaced us.

In Norris' case he said Trinity had replaced him but surely it would have been far cheaper to keep Norris the brilliant Joycean scholar on staff and get rid of the blow in who as it happens seems to have secured tenure in super quick time!

The whole deal with Trinity needs much deeper investigation imho as it stinks. Norris was disabled on a pension from trinity which was not a pension but a disability payment from an insurance company and even though he was disabled officially he was not forced to take early retirement like just about every other public servant would have to but kept on the books of Trinity with all the perks that would bring! Charlie Haughey would be so proud of you David!

IrishPolitik

foggy_lad wrote: »

We could all have private insurance cover to deal with loss of earnings in the event of any disability or change in circumstances which prevented us resuming work after an illness and if that is indeed what Norris had then fair play to him and hope he spent it well and in reasonably good health.

The problem arises when we consider that if we were to fail to resume employment after a year of illness it would most likely be due to us being disabled or our employer has replaced us.

In Norris' case he said Trinity had replaced him but surely it would have been far cheaper to keep Norris the brilliant Joycean scholar on staff and get rid of the blow in who as it happens seems to have secured tenure in super quick time!

The whole deal with Trinity needs much deeper investigation imho as it stinks. Norris was disabled on a pension from trinity which was not a pension but a disability payment from an insurance company and even though he was disabled officially he was not forced to take early retirement like just about every other public servant would have to but kept on the books of Trinity with all the perks that would bring! Charlie Haughey would be so proud of you David!

but surely it would have been far cheaper to keep Norris the brilliant Joycean scholar on staff

Firstly thats a nonsense statement, it would have been much cheaper to pay a blow in, than keep a so-called brilliant Joycean Scholar on! Norris pension cost Trinity nothing! The Insurance company paid him.

He paid his premiums for 26 years and claimed off the policy.

seems to have secured tenure in super quick time!

1968 to 1994 i.e 26 years is plenty of time to secure tenure, I'm presuming you know what tenure is of course.

The whole deal with Trinity needs much deeper investigation imho as it stinks

Then every employer and beneficiary of such policies need deeper investigation. You clearly lack a basic knowledge of said industry.

Norris was disabled on a pension from trinity which was not a pension but a disability payment

Makes no sense. disabled on a pension, what are talking about. There's no such thing! He took early retirement and claimed off his pension. Simples!

he was not forced to take early retirement

no he was not, very few people are

kept on the books of Trinity

he was not kept on the books of Trinity. Trinity paid him nothing after he retired, the Insurance company did.

Jesus some factual assertions would be great!

goat2

IrishPolitik wrote: »

My last point on this thread is the following.

Firstly as I have said before I work in the Life & Pensions industry and what Norris claimed off was a Salary Protection Scheme as he is quoted on Newstalk this morning.

I'll give you another example of a case I dealt with recently, in which, a person had a Life Protection Scheme and paid the premiums toward for almost a decade.
The person was diagnosed with a cancer of the liver and died with 4 months of the diagnosis. When their next of kin went to claim off the policy they were declined as it had become apparent that in the past an illness related to something completely minuscule and unrelated was detected when they took the policy out.
Although this had nothing to do with the person's death, because they did not inform the company of this when they signed the papers, the company did not pay out.
The next of kin spent 10 years in the courts trying the get the money. It becomes almost a matter of principle for their deceased loved one. They would have been owed about 40 grand in a lump sum pay out, however the company spent well over 300 grand dragging it through the courts for ten years not to pay out.
Why? To prove a point. That all information relating to health matters must be disclosed on pursuing Life Cover.

Now, if anyone thinks that an Insurance company has discovered that the most famous Senator in Ireland has scammed them out of €2500 a month for the past 17 years and their reaction is "oohh look something shiney", it is absolute nonsense.

Personally I am a Norris supporter, however the only wavering in my support has his handling of the media so far.

To my knowledge, whether Norris wins or loses, he is due to make a lot of money from 2 defamation cases when this election comes to an end.
IMO he has been defamed and wish him all the luck.

However this talk of him scamming disability while working as a Senator has to stop!

i do think that it was wrong of who ever came up with the story that norris was cheating welfare system, and since he did at the debate explain that he had been paying into a pension fund which would cover him if he became ill, then he was not cheating, he had been honest to this end all along,
i wish the man well,
and i also ask now, do the seven other letters really exist, or was that a tale also.

flutered

can someone please tell was norris claiming a disability payment either yes or no, i do not need long winded posts, just say yes or no.

Zubeneschamali

flutered wrote: »

can someone please tell was norris claiming a disability payment either yes or no, i do not need long winded posts, just say yes or no.

If you mean social welfare, then no.

anymore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you mean social welfare, then no.

I am sure the poster would have said social welfare disability payments if he meant it.
The question of the thread however rleates to Norris's ability or not to work as a lecturer. And I am not sure we have seen anything, bearing in mind his political, broadcasting, writing work, to suggest he would not have been capable of working as a lecturer, would you agree ?

foggy_lad

IrishPolitik wrote: »

Firstly thats a nonsense statement, it would have been much cheaper to pay a blow in, than keep a so-called brilliant Joycean Scholar on! Norris pension cost Trinity nothing! The Insurance company paid him.

He paid his premiums for 26 years and claimed off the policy.


1968 to 1994 i.e 26 years is plenty of time to secure tenure, I'm presuming you know what tenure is of course.


Then every employer and beneficiary of such policies need deeper investigation. You clearly lack a basic knowledge of said industry.


Makes no sense. disabled on a pension, what are talking about. There's no such thing! He took early retirement and claimed off his pension. Simples!


no he was not, very few people are


he was not kept on the books of Trinity. Trinity paid him nothing after he retired, the Insurance company did.

Jesus some factual assertions would be great!

Norris was being paid a disability payment for 16 years, he was put on this payment due to him being unable to continue working which may have been down to Trinity replacing him.

If you read my previous post carefully I was referring to his replacement getting tenure in less than a year which is practically unheard of if my Trinity source is correct, the minimum term to secure tenure is 2years.

Now back to Norris' payment, he became ill and after a year Trinity asked what he wanted to do, they had replaced him so didn't want him back. They would surely have asked him to take EARLY RETIREMENT with a reduced pension which would have worked out at just under €2500 monthly, but this would have ended his working relationship with trinity.

In my opinion they came up with some other plan because he was a senator, and kept him on their books as a lecturer but had him as being on disability leave. This if the case is dishonest because he was afforded perks of trinity employment while not physically employed by trinity.

There is also the lack of medical examinations and the fact he continued to work away heartily as senator and at several nixers while considered by one employer to be disabled!

If you became ill and had to retire from your job on health grounds would you expect to be classed as their employee 16 years later? In fact up to the day you retired? That is the issue Norris must clear up if he is to keep his cushy position as senator.

Scofflaw

The dead horse now has so many stripes it's beginning to look like a dead zebra.

cordially,
Scofflaw

anymore

foggy_lad wrote: »

Norris was being paid a disability payment for 16 years, he was put on this payment due to him being unable to continue working which may have been down to Trinity replacing him.

If you read my previous post carefully I was referring to his replacement getting tenure in less than a year which is practically unheard of if my Trinity source is correct, the minimum term to secure tenure is 2years.

Now back to Norris' payment, he became ill and after a year Trinity asked what he wanted to do, they had replaced him so didn't want him back. They would surely have asked him to take EARLY RETIREMENT with a reduced pension which would have worked out at just under €2500 monthly, but this would have ended his working relationship with trinity.

In my opinion they came up with some other plan because he was a senator, and kept him on their books as a lecturer but had him as being on disability leave. This if the case is dishonest because he was afforded perks of trinity employment while not physically employed by trinity.

There is also the lack of medical examinations and the fact he continued to work away heartily as senator and at several nixers while considered by one employer to be disabled!

If you became ill and had to retire from your job on health grounds would you expect to be classed as their employee 16 years later? In fact up to the day you retired? That is the issue Norris must clear up if he is to keep his cushy position as senator.

So are you actually saying he was not retired but was a trinity employee for 16 years ? How could that be ?

FreudianSlippers

anymore wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you mean social welfare, then no.

I am sure the poster would have said social welfare disability payments if he meant it.
The question of the thread however rleates to Norris's ability or not to work as a lecturer. And I am not sure we have seen anything, bearing in mind his political, broadcasting, writing work, to suggest he would not have been capable of working as a lecturer, would you agree ?

No, I wouldn't agree. TCD is entitled to set criteria for their fitness to work as a lecturer and they may be manifestly deferent than those of a senator.

flutered

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you mean social welfare, then no.

i asked did dn recieve a disability payment i did not specify any type,
so once again did dn recieve a disability payment, aye or nae.

Zubeneschamali

flutered wrote: »

did dn recieve a disability payment, aye or nae.

Yes, Norris has said that he took disability payments from Trinity for 16 years, see this Irish Times story. The exact terms and conditions have not been published, as far as I know.

flutered

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, Norris has said that he took disability payments from Trinity for 16 years, see this Irish Times story. The exact terms and conditions have not been published, as far as I know.

so my question is answered at last, mods please close this thread, thanking you all flutered.

MadsL

so my question is answered at last,

Or you could have just read the first page of this thread. Or a newspaper.

mods please close this thread,

I'm sorry, and you are who exactly?

thanking you all flutered.

:rolleyes:

flutered

one should use the adage, attack the post not the poster.

foggy_lad

anymore wrote: »

So are you actually saying he was not retired but was a trinity employee for 16 years ? How could that be ?

Well going on the fact that he used the title David Norris of Trinity college Dublin during all this time while retired or on permenant disability it becomes clear thet Trinity still had him on their books as an employee or were allowing him to use their name even though his connection with Trinity would have ended.

If you worked in a main car dealership for a number of years with free services and loan cars as a perk and retired or were pensioned off due to disability would you be able to keep all the perks of the job for 16 years after being pensioned off?

FreudianSlippers

foggy_lad wrote: »

anymore wrote: »

So are you actually saying he was not retired but was a trinity employee for 16 years ? How could that be ?

Well going on the fact that he used the title David Norris of Trinity college Dublin during all this time while retired or on permenant disability it becomes clear thet Trinity still had him on their books as an employee or were allowing him to use their name even though his connection with Trinity would have ended.

If you worked in a main car dealership for a number of years with free services and loan cars as a perk and retired or were pensioned off due to disability would you be able to keep all the perks of the job for 16 years after being pensioned off?

I believe that's referring to his senator election.

anymore

flutered wrote: »

one should use the adage, attack the post not the poster.

That would be difficult to do if this thread were closed down, as you want, jsut as the other two Norris treads were ????

IrishPolitik

For what its worth for all those trying to keep this dead horse alive,

The Evening Herald has apologised to David Norris for insinuating that that he claimed 'Disability Benefits' !!

foggy_lad

Norris has just stated on the news that he was asked by Trinity to make the claim against his income protection insurance when they had replaced him as lecturer but when asked if this was only for people who are permenantly disabled Norris replied it was for if his employment ended, so he should not have been on the books of trinity as being employed and should not have had all the ancilliary perks of that position!

alastair

What perks would those be?

There's a subsidised canteen in the dail too you know.

foggy_lad

alastair wrote: »

What perks would those be?

There's a subsidised canteen in the dail too you know.

Does a lecturer/professor in Trinity college not have access to areas and services not available to students or the general public without them being granted access by the college authorities?

There is also the use of the Title David Norris of Trinity College Dublin which would have elevated his standing and may well have been of benefit in securing speaking engagements and other nixers and may well have influenced his (s)election to the Seanad?

alastair

foggy_lad wrote: »

Does a lecturer/professor in Trinity college not have access to areas and services not available to students or the general public without them being granted access by the college authorities?

There is also the use of the Title David Norris of Trinity College Dublin which would have elevated his standing and may well have been of benefit in securing speaking engagements and other nixers and may well have influenced his (s)election to the Seanad?

He was elected to the Seanad before he got sick, and he's still the senator representing TCD regardless of whether he's in employment there. I doubt he was angling for photocopying access or a nice bike rack out of Trinity. I'm just not seeing the 'perks'. He'd get speaking engagements on his colourful personality and advocacy of Joycean stuff - not because someone's impressed he's on a retainer for TCD.

foggy_lad

alastair wrote: »

He was elected to the Seanad before he got sick, and he's still the senator representing TCD regardless of whether he's in employment there. I doubt he was angling for photocopying access or a nice bike rack out of Trinity. I'm just not seeing the 'perks'. He'd get speaking engagements on his colourful personality and advocacy of Joycean stuff - not because someone's impressed he's on a retainer for TCD.

He was elected just once in over 16 years? Surely his re-election should have been based on him no longer being the TCD senator as he no longer worked there(except trinity forgot to mark him as retired on disability).

IrishPolitik

foggy_lad wrote: »

Norris has just stated on the news that he was asked by Trinity to make the claim against his income protection insurance when they had replaced him as lecturer but when asked if this was only for people who are permenantly disabled Norris replied it was for if his employment ended, so he should not have been on the books of trinity as being employed and should not have had all the ancilliary perks of that position!

Your talking sh1te mate. The Herald have printed an apology in todays edition for saying that it was Disability!!!!

foggy_lad

IrishPolitik wrote: »

Your talking sh1te mate. The Herald have printed an apology in todays edition for saying that it was Disability!!!!

The insurance was for if his employment finished early for whatever reason but he was still technically employed by Trinity up to the point he started to get his Trinity pension two years ago

IrishPolitik

foggy_lad wrote: »

The insurance was for if his employment finished early for whatever reason but he was still technically employed by Trinity up to the point he started to get his Trinity pension two years ago

Trinity havent paid the man since he left in 1994, the insurance company did !!


This thread needs to be closed, its beyond ridiculous at this stage

lorrscann

disability - did not prevent him from carrying on his role as a senator.. sounds dodgy to me

foggy_lad

IrishPolitik wrote: »

Trinity havent paid the man since he left in 1994, the insurance company did !!


This thread needs to be closed, its beyond ridiculous at this stage

Trinity didn't pay him because they replaced him, so he was no longer working for Treinity and he was advised by Trinity to claim the income protection insurance which he had availed of as a trinity employee. Up to this point is all fairly standard stuff and he was able to avail of this insurance because his employment had ended.

but it had not technically ended as Trinity have kept him on staff until his retirement two years ago when his early employment termination insurance payments finished and he went on his Trinity old age pension.

The part that is not right is that he was unable to work and was recieving insurance payments because of this but Trinity kept him on staff for 16 years and he was aware of this as he kept using the David Norris of TCD title. is this a case of him misrepresenting himself or is it that Trinity wanted him listed on staff so like any old boys club they dispensed with the rules for one of their own?

alastair

foggy_lad wrote: »

He was elected just once in over 16 years? Surely his re-election should have been based on him no longer being the TCD senator as he no longer worked there(except trinity forgot to mark him as retired on disability).

foggy_lad wrote: »

The part that is not right is that he was unable to work and was recieving insurance payments because of this but Trinity kept him on staff for 16 years and he was aware of this as he kept using the David Norris of TCD title. is this a case of him misrepresenting himself or is it that Trinity wanted him listed on staff so like any old boys club they dispensed with the rules for one of their own?

He's the TCD senator as long as he's elected by the TCD panel - regardless of whether he's working there or not. It's not the college that elects him - it's the panel. Most TCD candidates are not TCD employees.

foggy_lad

alastair wrote: »

He's the TCD senator as long as he's elected by the TCD panel - regardless of whether he's working there or not. It's not the college that elects him - it's the panel. Most TCD candidates are not TCD employees.

But surely him being on the books is of great benefit in securing election as well as other benefits one can only avail of as a trinity employee? Why was he kept on as an employee when his employment had ceased? Really though it doesnt matter as people have seen the true David Norris and know he is a rambling babbling boffoon who answers serious questions by rambling off talking utter nonsense about something totally unrelated. But may I just say that I was going to vote for him until he proved to the country that he is not suitable as president or indeed as a senator unless it is in ancient Rome or Greece.

Scofflaw

And I think that's enough, really. A long thread built on nothing at all, really.

moderately,
Scofflaw