Is David Norris Toast?

acer1000

InigoMontoya wrote: »

First of all, I think you're exaggerating the role that any Irish president can play in alleviating our current situation.

Secondly, I think you're exaggerating (gushingly so, really) the calibre and stature of David Norris.

The reality is that his credibility has been undermined not only by his actions in the "Ezra letter" debacle, but also by his attitudes to underage sex, which he has failed to clarify to the satisfaction of many people. Perhaps he was a little unfortunate in that the Cloyne report/Kenny's criticism of the Vatican had made people particularly sensitive to this issue at the moment, but he has only himself to blame for the failure of his campaign.

I’m inclined to think that the current situation is mild to what may be coming down the road in the not so distant future and we’re going to need leaders with intellect, wit, good heart, original thought and whatever else to help us navigate our way forward.

I accept that DN is no angel, but he never claimed to be, and that ‘Ezra’ guy was a jerk to have sex with a 15 yr old, regardless of the circumstances, but Ireland still seems to be in denial. The fact is, we can’t afford to discard political talent just because they aren’t squeeky clean, and if they were so, they probably wouldn’t be any good, anyway.

I read it that the polls surprisingly indicated that people were satisfied regarding the HL Burke affair. I don’t think there was an issue so much regarding clarification, I just think that the original political backers who were brave enough to back him initially ran scared, and I suppose nobody could blame them for that.

Where I live there are many farmers, builders and the like, and it’s interesting to hear their opinions on such issues as the DN affair. Believe me, they can be far more interesting than the cowardly, cagey political and media commentary that we hear. I haven’t heard any of them say a bad word about DN, other than a mild refrain from one of the wives, ‘Ah but what about the gay thing, can’t he get himself a woman’. With regard to the ‘Cloyne Report’, nobody passed any comment on it at all, and neither did I . The fact is, ordinary people have had clerical abuse up to their eyeballs, at this stage, and have moved on long ago.

Mainstream media and the crowded middle ground political consensus rightly made such an issue of the clerical abuse in the Cloyne Report , and other reports in the past, that they felt they couldn’t be seen to in any way to endorse DN who had a very weak association, that’s if he had any with the topic. However for ordinary folk, just like their little interest in the Cloyne report, they didn’t have that much interest in the sexual antics of some guy in Israel who was linked to DN. All that stuff is very much of the past, it’s the future that rightly concerns them?

My opinions seem to be backed up by the polls conducted after the HL Burke affair. Also, it’s hardly surprising that the initial backers were new to the political arena, thus more than likely getting their political cues from the people. Maybe some got scared, because they had started to get their political cues from the establishment, thus misreading the situation. And if such is the case, that’s a bad omen of itself, and a big mistake, I think.

InigoMontoya

acer1000 wrote: »

I’m inclined to think that the current situation is mild to what may be coming down the road in the not so distant future and we’re going to need leaders with intellect, wit, good heart, original thought and whatever else to help us navigate our way forward.

I accept that DN is no angel, but he never claimed to be, and that ‘Ezra’ guy was a jerk to have sex with a 15 yr old, regardless of the circumstances, but Ireland still seems to be in denial. The fact is, we can’t afford to discard political talent just because they aren’t squeeky clean, and if they were so, they probably wouldn’t be any good, anyway.

I read it that the polls surprisingly indicated that people were satisfied regarding the HL Burke affair. I don’t think there was an issue so much regarding clarification, I just think that the original political backers who were brave enough to back him initially ran scared, and I suppose nobody could blame them for that.

Where I live there are many farmers, builders and the like, and it’s interesting to hear their opinions on such issues as the DN affair. Believe me, they can be far more interesting than the cowardly, cagey political and media commentary that we hear. I haven’t heard any of them say a bad word about DN, other than a mild refrain from one of the wives, ‘Ah but what about the gay thing, can’t he get himself a woman’. With regard to the ‘Cloyne Report’, nobody passed any comment on it at all, and neither did I . The fact is, ordinary people have had clerical abuse up to their eyeballs, at this stage, and have moved on long ago.

Mainstream media and the crowded middle ground political consensus rightly made such an issue of the clerical abuse in the Cloyne Report , and other reports in the past, that they felt they couldn’t be seen to in any way to endorse DN who had a very weak association, that’s if he had any with the topic. However for ordinary folk, just like their little interest in the Cloyne report, they didn’t have that much interest in the sexual antics of some guy in Israel who was linked to DN. All that stuff is very much of the past, it’s the future that rightly concerns them?

My opinions seem to be backed up by the polls conducted after the HL Burke affair. Also, it’s hardly surprising that the initial backers were new to the political arena, thus more than likely getting their political cues from the people. Maybe some got scared, because they had started to get their political cues from the establishment, thus misreading the situation. And if such is the case, that’s a bad omen of itself, and a big mistake, I think.

Norris has some qualities that would suit the presidency, for sure. Enough that I was fairly well disposed to his candidacy. His actions, reactions and attitudes over recent weeks and months have convinced me that he also has some that would not, and were he still in the campaign I would not be prepared to overlook them.

My experience of talking to people (in Dublin where I live and work and Offaly where I am from) has, since the letter emerged, been almost uniformly negative to his prospective candidacy. I also have experienced quite a bit of reaction to the Cloyne report, generally a renewed sense of disappointment/anger that the church still exhibits the same old attitudes. But all that's just as anecdotal as your experiences.

Above all, we could use leaders with practical skills, ideas and determination where it matters. In government. The presidency of this country is such a peripheral role that I don't think it matters much to the recovery or otherwise of our national fortunes. Rhetoric, no matter how eloquent or uplifting, will not fix what is wrong in Ireland.

Your argument about the reasons for his backers shifting position is pretty speculative really. It could be the case, but it could just as easily be a result of listening to changing opinions from their constituents. Or even using their own minds.

acer1000

InigoMontoya wrote: »

Norris has some qualities that would suit the presidency, for sure. Enough that I was fairly well disposed to his candidacy. His actions, reactions and attitudes over recent weeks and months have convinced me that he also has some that would not, and were he still in the campaign I would not be prepared to overlook them.

My experience of talking to people (in Dublin where I live and work and Offaly where I am from) has, since the letter emerged, been almost uniformly negative to his prospective candidacy. I also have experienced quite a bit of reaction to the Cloyne report, generally a renewed sense of disappointment/anger that the church still exhibits the same old attitudes. But all that's just as anecdotal as your experiences.

Above all, we could use leaders with practical skills, ideas and determination where it matters. In government. The presidency of this country is such a peripheral role that I don't think it matters much to the recovery or otherwise of our national fortunes. Rhetoric, no matter how eloquent or uplifting, will not fix what is wrong in Ireland.

Your argument about the reasons for his backers shifting position is pretty speculative really. It could be the case, but it could just as easily be a result of listening to changing opinions from their constituents. Or even using their own minds.

Yes, you are correct my experience is anecdotal, but polls suggest that my experience is closer to the mark. I have read on another thread and on another website where people seem to be referring to a recent poll where his popularity has still remained very high, even after the last controversy.

Why is he still so popular? It’s really an interesting question and the answers would tell a lot about the Ireland of today.

So, here’s more speculation – A lot of people have made comments regarding the ‘innocent’, 15 yr old ‘boy’ and have all sorts of flowery debates about the age of consent, trying to bend the matter to suit their agendas mixed in with loads of phoney concern. Ordinary folk don’t look at their own 15 yr old sons and foolishly see innocent boys, they see horny little feckers, who probably know more about sex than they do.

If their own ‘children’ aren’t coming home and telling them they’re gay, everybody knows at least one family just likes theirs’ where such has happened and that there is a possibility that the same could happen in their own family.

A lot of rural people are familiar, or have been acquainted with a C of I big farmer who fitted the profile of a DN. There was one such character around here and I’m told he used to give sex lessons to local farmers after IFA meetings, this was 60 / 70 yrs ago. Farmers were always going to his door with such and other matters. Where else could they turn. He was known to be frisky with the ladies, but a regular church goer and a Christian in the true meaning of the word. He even used to let unmarried mothers live in part of his big house, thus saving them from what we now know would have been a terrible fate. So, maybe Norris’s appeal has a certain nostalgia, and not at all because he’s seen as some threatening reforming liberal character, but more to do with the opposite?

I think people can relate to the human aspect of the recent controversy, everybody knows somebody who got a little too fond of another that others couldn’t see what the infatuation was about. I think people want their public figures to be human, to be flawed even, they don’t like the robotic sameness of much of our public figures. It’s that inhumane quality that permits them to more easily make unjust political decisions.

Yes, my theory regarding the withdrawal of political is speculative, eitherway, I think they got it wrong.

And yes I agree that the role of president is mostly peripheral, but if talented people can’t even get on a ballot paper for such a role, how difficult must it be to get such a person to a more central role?

anymore

acer1000 wrote: »

Yes, you are correct my experience is anecdotal, but polls suggest that my experience is closer to the mark. I have read on another thread and on another website where people seem to be referring to a recent poll where his popularity has still remained very high, even after the last controversy.

Why is he still so popular? It’s really an interesting question and the answers would tell a lot about the Ireland of today.

So, here’s more speculation – A lot of people have made comments regarding the ‘innocent’, 15 yr old ‘boy’ and have all sorts of flowery debates about the age of consent, trying to bend the matter to suit their agendas mixed in with loads of phoney concern. Ordinary folk don’t look at their own 15 yr old sons and foolishly see innocent boys, they see horny little feckers, who probably know more about sex than they do.

If their own ‘children’ aren’t coming home and telling them they’re gay, everybody knows at least one family just likes theirs’ where such has happened and that there is a possibility that the same could happen in their own family.

A lot of rural people are familiar, or have been acquainted with a C of I big farmer who fitted the profile of a DN. There was one such character around here and I’m told he used to give sex lessons to local farmers after IFA meetings, this was 60 / 70 yrs ago. Farmers were always going to his door with such and other matters. Where else could they turn. He was known to be frisky with the ladies, but a regular church goer and a Christian in the true meaning of the word. He even used to let unmarried mothers live in part of his big house, thus saving them from what we now know would have been a terrible fate. So, maybe Norris’s appeal has a certain nostalgia, and not at all because he’s seen as some threatening reforming liberal character, but more to do with the opposite?

I think people can relate to the human aspect of the recent controversy, everybody knows somebody who got a little too fond of another that others couldn’t see what the infatuation was about. I think people want their public figures to be human, to be flawed even, they don’t like the robotic sameness of much of our public figures. It’s that inhumane quality that permits them to more easily make unjust political decisions.

Yes, my theory regarding the withdrawal of political is speculative, eitherway, I think they got it wrong.

And yes I agree that the role of president is mostly peripheral, but if talented people can’t even get on a ballot paper for such a role, how difficult must it be to get such a person to a more central role?

Just out of curiosity, do you have children ?

InigoMontoya

acer1000 wrote: »

So, here’s more speculation – A lot of people have made comments regarding the ‘innocent’, 15 yr old ‘boy’ and have all sorts of flowery debates about the age of consent, trying to bend the matter to suit their agendas mixed in with loads of phoney concern. Ordinary folk don’t look at their own 15 yr old sons and foolishly see innocent boys, they see horny little feckers, who probably know more about sex than they do.

Yeah and if they found out their 15 year old son had sex with a 40 year old man (or woman) I'm sure they'd be fine with it. "Ah that's grand, sure he was probably mad for it, the wee messer" they'd say. Right?

Obviously some people went over the top in terms of making suppositions about the nature of the incident in question, but it requires no bending of the matter to identify that statutory rape, regardless of the willingness of the boy, was an illegal and morally wrong act. Or is that too much of a flowery debate?

Incidentally, why the quotating of 'boy'? Pretty standard term to use for a 15 year old I'd say.

acer1000 wrote: »

If their own ‘children’ aren’t coming home and telling them they’re gay, everybody knows at least one family just likes theirs’ where such has happened and that there is a possibility that the same could happen in their own family.

Not sure what this has to do with the issue?

acer1000 wrote: »

A lot of rural people are familiar, or have been acquainted with a C of I big farmer who fitted the profile of a DN. There was one such character around here and I’m told he used to give sex lessons to local farmers after IFA meetings, this was 60 / 70 yrs ago. Farmers were always going to his door with such and other matters. Where else could they turn. He was known to be frisky with the ladies, but a regular church goer and a Christian in the true meaning of the word. He even used to let unmarried mothers live in part of his big house, thus saving them from what we now know would have been a terrible fate. So, maybe Norris’s appeal has a certain nostalgia, and not at all because he’s seen as some threatening reforming liberal character, but more to do with the opposite?

Oh yes, that certainly seems like the most logical explanation.

acer1000 wrote: »

I think people can relate to the human aspect of the recent controversy, everybody knows somebody who got a little too fond of another that others couldn’t see what the infatuation was about. I think people want their public figures to be human, to be flawed even, they don’t like the robotic sameness of much of our public figures. It’s that inhumane quality that permits them to more easily make unjust political decisions.

Really? I'd say our politicians have exhibited more than enough human flaws in the last couple of decades.

Anyway, this is getting increasingly tangential and pointless, so I'm out.

anymore

I happened to find this particular entry on Mr Norris's website regarding his opposition to an Aborotion Referendum

"..I opposed this referendum both in Seanad Eireann and on public platforms. I did so because I do not believe the Constitution is the correct place for this kind of material also on the grounds of compassion for the victims of rape, incest and for those women who find themselves in the tragic situation of being legally obliged by the State to bring to full term an encephalic or other unviable foetuses. I naturally therefore welcome/regret the result of this referendum which I accept as the democratic wish of the people "
It makes for interesting reading - any commnets anyone ?

newmug

I hear Gay Byrne said he'd consider it if he got the support. Another "Gay", but one I'd love to see as our president!

Pompey Magnus

anymore wrote: »

I happened to find this particular entry on Mr Norris's website regarding his opposition to an Aborotion Referendum

"..I opposed this referendum both in Seanad Eireann and on public platforms. I did so because I do not believe the Constitution is the correct place for this kind of material also on the grounds of compassion for the victims of rape, incest and for those women who find themselves in the tragic situation of being legally obliged by the State to bring to full term an encephalic or other unviable foetuses. I naturally therefore welcome/regret the result of this referendum which I accept as the democratic wish of the people "
It makes for interesting reading - any commnets anyone ?

Norris, at the 3rd AGM of National Gay Federation in 1982 in which he was political coordinator, spoke on the issues of the abortion, contraceptives and other controversial debates in Irish society raging at the time and advocated that the Irish gay community should not actively support these causes as it would be seen as bad tactics on their part.

From the point of view of the gay community he may have been tactically right in some respects but in the broader social context he was being coldly cynical.

It needs to be remembered though that by recommending the NGF not get publicly involved in the contraceptives debate at the time he was abandoning the opportunity to openly discuss the specific threat of AIDS being spread by unprotected sex at a time when it was still considered primarily a gay disease. That he saw this as a good tactic calls into question his grasp on reality.

anymore

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Norris, at the 3rd AGM of National Gay Federation in 1982 in which he was political coordinator, spoke on the issues of the abortion, contraceptives and other controversial debates in Irish society raging at the time and advocated that the Irish gay community should not actively support these causes as it would be seen as bad tactics on their part.

From the point of view of the gay community he may have been tactically right in some respects but in the broader social context he was being coldly cynical.

It needs to be remembered though that by recommending the NGF not get publicly involved in the contraceptives debate at the time he was abandoning the opportunity to openly discuss the specific threat of AIDS being spread by unprotected sex at a time when it was still considered primarily a gay disease. That he saw this as a good tactic calls into question his grasp on reality.

That is an interesting post which adds to our knowledge of the man and i say that without being critical or not critical. Looking at all the different issues which have been looked at and have shed some light on Mr Norris - and the same no doubt could be said of any politicians- it is surprising how very analysis of this kind is actaully done by the media - only the shallowest picture of individuals are given. I have said it before we are very fortunate that the internet exists and that site such as Boards and p.ie allow the facility to fill in the gaps and give more complete pictures of politicians. Is it surprising that sales of newspapers are falling ?

Annasopra

anymore wrote: »

That is an interesting post which adds to our knowledge of the man and i say that without being critical or not critical. Looking at all the different issues which have been looked at and have shed some light on Mr Norris - and the same no doubt could be said of any politicians- it is surprising how very analysis of this kind is actaully done by the media - only the shallowest picture of individuals are given. I have said it before we are very fortunate that the internet exists and that site such as Boards and p.ie allow the facility to fill in the gaps and give more complete pictures of politicians. Is it surprising that sales of newspapers are falling ?

Indeed - the relationship between Norris and LGBT community is very interesting. Revered by many but also seriously disliked by others. Noone wants to talk about it though. There's always hints of a fractions relationship but then there's a hushed silence.

JonathanAnon

Does anybody know the content of the Daily Mail article on Norris today..

Ger Colleran said that: "There is a story about what David Norris said to the Irish Queer Archive in 1975, to do with his sexual preference."

But he wouldnt say any more "without being able to see the source for the article"..

HarryPotter41

MadsL wrote: »

He has? Did he make a statement on the matter? Did you alert the media?


Last I knew he wrote a letter. :rolleyes:


You are aware that Ezra Yizhak Nawi has said that he was assured by this boy that he was over 16.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-am-not-a-paedophile-says-norris-expartner-2839306.html

Strange then that on Radio One he says he knew that the boy was underage, in his own words, not the interpretation of a journalist

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0805/media-3019177.html

anymore

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Does anybody know the content of the Daily Mail article on Norris today..

Ger Colleran said that: "There is a story about what David Norris said to the Irish Queer Archive in 1975, to do with his sexual preference."

But he wouldnt say any more "without being able to see the source for the article"..

Out of curiosity, has he ever had any medium/long term relationships with Irish men ? Any pics I have seen of him with boyfriends seem to be abroad.

Teclo

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Does anybody know the content of the Daily Mail article on Norris today..

Ger Colleran said that: "There is a story about what David Norris said to the Irish Queer Archive in 1975, to do with his sexual preference."

But he wouldnt say any more "without being able to see the source for the article"..

David Quinn has described what's in that article. I would high-light the most shocking parts but that, well, wouldn't leave much else...

There are more revelations about David Norris and his controversial views on paedophilia and the age of consent in today’s Mail on Sunday and Sunday Times.

The Sunday Times reports that members of Norris’s staff didn’t resign because of his letter pleading clemency on behalf of Ezra Nawi, but because of correspondence Norris showed them that included “more controversial views on underage sex”.

Norris gave his letters concerning Nawi to The Sunday Independent, but The Sunday Times quotes one of Norris’s former campaign team as follows: “There was a lot of surprise among the team last Sunday when they read the letters he’d released as they weren’t the ones that caused people to resign.

“He released the safest letters to be published. The ones that made people angry included stuff that wasn’t appropriate. It was stuff similar to what had been in the Helen Lucy Burke interview – more controversial views on underage sex.”

Meanwhile The Mail on Sunday has uncovered in the National Library minutes of the first meeting of the Union for Sexual Freedom in Ireland held on May 10, 1975.
Norris addressed the meeting and according to the minutes, “David said as a child it had been his greatest desire to be molested so he, more than most people, knows the rarity of the homosexual child molester.”

More damningly, it catalogues the support given to a pro-paedophile organisation in the 1980s called the Paedophile Information Exchance (which at the time was a member of Britain's National Council for Civil Liberties). The Mail reports that Norris was a founding member of the International Gay Association and in the 1980s the association passed two motions. One called for the abolition of the age of consent, whilst the second called for an international solidarity campaign on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

“At the time of the letter, members of exchange were being prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’ over ads that appeared in a magazine that were alleged to have promoted indecent acts between adults and children.”
The Mail article draws on records from the Irish Queer Archive.

It continues: “One letter [from the International Gay Association] seeking support for the exchange, dated May 13, 1981, said: ‘PIE is an organisation set up in the ‘70s with two aims: to provide a counselling and support service for isolated paedophiles, and to campaign against the legal and social oppression of paedophilia”.

The National Gay Federation, to which David Norris belonged, was a member of the International Gay Association.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/more-revelations-about-david-norris-paedophilia-and-age-consent

Happyman42

^^^^ That is shocking stuff....I think the country had a lucky escape!

JonathanAnon

“David said as a child it had been his greatest desire to be molested so he, more than most people, knows the rarity of the homosexual child molester.”

This is shocking stuff, but I find it hard to believe that Norris actually believes this.. I think he may have been trying to be deliberately provocative, sensationalist and hyperbolic to shock people.. as he has been frequently in the past... This just substantiates my point that he is way too unpredictable and impetuous to be President..

Also, it really is amazing that he forgot all of these previous controversies... He surely must have known that any one of them in isolation would have torpedoed him..

tayto lover

What shocks me is the fact that a group of 45 Norris supporters handed a letter into the Dail today complaining about the election process. Will these people ever give up.

anymore

JonathanAnon wrote: »

This is shocking stuff, but I find it hard to believe that Norris actually believes this.. I think he may have been trying to be deliberately provocative, sensationalist and hyperbolic to shock people.. as he has been frequently in the past... This just substantiates my point that he is way too unpredictable and impetuous to be President..

Also, it really is amazing that he forgot all of these previous controversies... He surely must have known that any one of them in isolation would have torpedoed him..

I dont think he did forget them at all - at this stage I am wondering if he was delibrately trying to shock helen Lucy Burke.
At this point I suggest Helen Lucy Burke deserves an apology and our thanks for being one of the very few journalists in this country with the courage to speak up.

Pompey Magnus

anymore wrote: »

I dont think he did forget them at all - at this stage I am wondering if he was delibrately trying to shock helen Lucy Burke.
At this point I suggest Helen Lucy Burke deserves an apology and our thanks for being one of the very few journalists in this country with the courage to speak up.

If those claims are correct then it will be interesting to see how those Norris supporters who accused Helen Lucy Burke of misrepresenting Norris in the Magill article will react to these latest revelations.

anymore

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If those claims are correct then it will be interesting to see how those Norris supporters who accused Helen Lucy Burke of misrepresenting Norris in the Magill article will react to these latest revelations.

From my memory of listening Liveline interview on internet, Joe Duffy said Norris had issued a statment saying quorations had been taken out of context and not that any quotes were wrong. And HLB suggested that legal action was open if it was felt she was wrong in her quotes. Duffy said, I think that Norris was unable to participate because he was in a meeting. Well one would have thought he would have placed more priority in confronting HLB and placing his version very firmly on the record.
Soi what can one make of this ? I will liten ti it again.

Paulie Walnuts

To all the Norris supporters that think that there's some dirty tricks campaign against poor old David Norris. Cop on to yourselves. He has chosen the game of politics which is a dirty game. Now he may be new to this game (seeing as how he has spent most of his career in the talking shop that is the Seanad and has never run in a general election) but these revelations are all of Norris' own making. Anyone that wants to do some digging on Norris will find rich pickings.

I don't hear anyone complaining of a dirty tricks campaign against Gay Mitchell re: the letters he wrote appealing for clemency for death row convicts.

HarryPotter41

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

To all the Norris supporters that think that there's some dirty tricks campaign against poor old David Norris. Cop on to yourselves. He has chosen the game of politics which is a dirty game. Now he may be new to this game (seeing as how he has spent most of his career in the talking shop that is the Seanad and has never run in a general election) but these revelations are all of Norris' own making. Anyone that wants to do some digging on Norris will find rich pickings.

I don't hear anyone complaining of a dirty tricks campaign against Gay Mitchell re: the letters he wrote appealing for clemency for death row convicts.

Well personally I think there is a heterophobic conspiracy trying to take down Gay Mitchell.......etc, etc, etc. Ehem

n32

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Well personally I think there is a heterophobic conspiracy trying to take down Gay Mitchell.......etc, etc, etc. Ehem

as billy connolly once said ''the most discriminated group in the world are the straight white men, nobody gives a **** about us!!!'':D poor oul gay mitchell hasnt a hope so!

Fuinseog

n32 wrote: »

as billy connolly once said ''the most discriminated group in the world are the straight white men, nobody gives a **** about us!!!'':D poor oul gay mitchell hasnt a hope so!

Gay mitchell looks and acts like a Fianna Failer. that is why he has no chance. nothing to do with being called gay or having a criminal relation.

anymore

I see Fintan O Toole is continuing to represent Norris as victim of the system. I didnt always agree Mr O Toole but liked to read him and respected him.
Now I have to laugh at the idea that he was prompoting himself as one of our ' political reformers'. I have to admit too that I would have been glad to see him get invloved in politics.

n32

Fuinseog wrote: »

Gay mitchell looks and acts like a Fianna Failer. that is why he has no chance. nothing to do with being called gay or having a criminal relation.

in case you didnt realise, i was making a joke, i couldnt give a toss about gay mitchell

anymore

Fuinseog wrote: »

Gay mitchell looks and acts like a Fianna Failer. that is why he has no chance. nothing to do with being called gay or having a criminal relation.

Well his party leader at least broke the mould as far as attacking the Vatican about its delaying and evasive tactics in relation to clerical sex abuse. Now the net clearly has to be widened to examine the extent to which children teenagers are vulnerable to being exploited by adults.

Zubeneschamali

Noises this morning that Norris may be trying to climb out of the toaster and back into the race:

The Indo says:

Mr McCabe called the senator to tell him of the result of an opinion poll showing one in three voters wanted him to run, and almost one in five still backed him.

Judgement Day

Will never happen. Michael Twee is your only man! Get in there at 8/13 with Paddy Power.

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Noises this morning that Norris may be trying to climb out of the toaster and back into the race:

The Indo says:

Mr McCabe called the senator to tell him of the result of an opinion poll showing one in three voters wanted him to run, and almost one in five still backed him.

With more stuff out there that wasn't revealed? Not a mission, unless the man adds foolishness to a complete lack of judgement and appropriateness. He'd need to be a narcissistic fool..........oh wait!