[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by JohnMc1

[I can't believe he actually believes the sex laws shouldn't apply to gays]

That's not even partially correct.

[JohnMc1]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

That's not even partially correct.

How so? He did state something to that effect?

[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by JohnMc1

How so? He did state something to that effect?

You're the one alleging that, seemingly. Why don't you tell us?

[JohnMc1]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

You're the one alleging that, seemingly. Why don't you tell us?

You're telling me I'm wrong. He stated that the limitations shouldn't apply to gays because "an older gay person can help an younger one accept that they're gay" or something to that effect.

[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by JohnMc1

You're telling me I'm wrong. He stated that the limitations shouldn't apply to gays because "an older gay person can help an younger one accept that they're gay" or something to that effect.

“Where two people are having sexual relations and one is marginally below the legal age, the judiciary should have the power to examine what he called the principle of consent involved in the relationship... Young people are experimenting sexually all the time. This is wrong but sending them to juvenile institutions is questionable.”

That's not limited to homosexuals. In considering his own youth, he stated that there were no social outlets for young gay men and he didn't become involved until he was in his 20s. He said that there should be more outlets for older gay men to socialise with younger gay men, but nothing about these people being under the age of consent and/or nothing to do with sex.

[JohnMc1]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

“Where two people are having sexual relations and one is marginally below the legal age, the judiciary should have the power to examine what he called the principle of consent involved in the relationship... Young people are experimenting sexually all the time. This is wrong but sending them to juvenile institutions is questionable.”

That's not limited to homosexuals. In considering his own youth, he stated that there were no social outlets for young gay men and he didn't become involved until he was in his 20s. He said that there should be more outlets for older gay men to socialise with younger gay men, but nothing about these people being under the age of consent and/or nothing to do with sex.

He used that in his letter as defense for his partner that was arrested for raping a 15 year old boy. He used that line to defend his partner's actions.

[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by JohnMc1

He used that in his letter as defense for his partner that was arrested for raping a 15 year old boy. He used that line to defend his partner's actions.

Here is the letter, which I take it you have not read. Would you care to point out where he states this?

The letter is quite simply a plea in mitigation relating to specific legal principles (for the most part), recommending a non-custodial sentence for a statutory rape.

If you're going to talk rubbish, at least go for something even remotely accurate.

[JohnMc1]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

Here is the letter, which I take it you have not read. Would you care to point out where he states this?

The letter is quite simply a plea in mitigation relating to specific legal principles (for the most part), recommending a non-custodial sentence for a statutory rape.

If you're going to talk rubbish, at least go for something even remotely accurate.

I guess you'll want to keep your head in the sand with this:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Fur...127263293.html

[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by JohnMc1

I guess you'll want to keep your head in the sand with this:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Fur...127263293.html

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.

[JohnMc1]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

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.

He writes a letter in the vein of a job reference letter and you think that's good enough. He releases the safe one and won't release the others and you don't have a problem?

Ofcourse a news site is a rag if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by JohnMc1

He writes a letter in the vein of a job reference letter and you think that's good enough. He releases the safe one and won't release the others and you don't have a problem?

Ofcourse a news site is a rag if it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

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.

[JohnMc1]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

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]

Originally Posted by JohnMc1

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]

Originally Posted by cgarrad

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]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

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.