David Norris' presidential bid scupperd by Israel

digme

I'm delighted , this is great news !!!!!!!!!

54kroc

Should we not be thanking the Israeli Embassy for bringing this to light?

goat2

uriah wrote: »

If the Department of Justice released letters he wrote to the Irish Government asking for leniency for someone being charged with rape of an underage child, would our first instinct be to accuse them of attempting to scupper his campaign?

Do we believe such information about possible presidential candidates is relevant and ought to be released?

Or do we believe it is none of our business?

it most certainly is our buisness, who ever we elect will be representing us on the world stage,

My name is URL

cork45 wrote: »

Should we not be thanking the Israeli Embassy for bringing this to light?

They could have brought it to light 20 odd years ago, when it was even more relevant than it is now.

54kroc

My name is URL wrote: »

They could have brought it to light 20 odd years ago, when it was even more relevant than it is now.

Well they didn't, but they have now and I'd just like to say thanks to Israel.

Wolfe Tone

Sure isnt Michael D just as "anti Israel"

Jeboa Safari

My name is URL wrote: »

Accused being the operative word, yekahS. He had not been found guilty at the time when Norris wrote the letters (and I agree that he shouldn't have done that in the first place).. he asked for clemency to be shown, and for the evidence to be carefully examined. It's hardly the worst thing an elected official could do.

His hopes to be president are over. That's fine, and not surprising given this new information. But the motives of Israel releasing the documents now can still be questioned. To me it just shows them for the slimy scumbags that they are. Taking the moral high-ground over something like this despite their own history of interfering in the affairs of other countries.

Fair play to whoever released it, its better us knowing now. And it would look like it was Norris who tried to use his capacity as Senator to influence a court decision in another country, supporting someone convicted of statutory rape.

King Mob

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Fair play to whoever released it, its better us knowing now. And it would look like it was Norris who tried to use his capacity as Senator to influence a court decision in another country, supporting someone convicted of statutory rape.

But this seems to be jumping to assumptions in the same way.
Has the letter actually been released to the public?
Have you read it?
How is he using his position to influence anything? If he did, how was it an inappropriate use of his position?
Had the guy actually been convicted at the point the letter was written?
What does the letter actually ask?
Does it actually try to defend statutory rape as some seem to be implying?

My name is URL

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisd.html

That gives the jist of what was said.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisd.html

That gives the jist of what was said.

Don't see what's wrong with any of that, he's just making an emotional plea (and IMO a futile one, as the guy had already been convicted.)
The only thing I can see that might be wrong is him using seanad letterheads, which may have implied a level of authority he was no allowed to use in a personal matter.
Hardly the worst abuse of power I've ever heard of.

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

Don't see what's wrong with any of that, he's just making an emotional plea (and IMO a futile one, as the guy had already been convicted.)
The only thing I can see that might be wrong is him using seanad letterheads, which may have implied a level of authority he was no allowed to use in a personal matter.
Hardly the worst abuse of power I've ever heard of.

I agree, but think there may be more to it. I can't see his entire senior campaign team stepping down over what appears in that article. There's no hint about who 'leaked' the letters either. I presume that it would be very difficult to acquire that kind of stuff from the Israeli authorities.

He was definitely foolish to use official stationary nonetheless.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

I agree, but think there may be more to it. I can't see his entire senior campaign team stepping down over what appears in that article. There's no hint about who 'leaked' the letters either. I presume that it would be very difficult to acquire that kind of stuff from the Israeli authorities.

He was definitely foolish to use official stationary nonetheless.

It could be that the election team do see it as a killing blow to the campaign, not because of the actual letter but the overreaction seen in the popular press.
Or it could be that he perhaps had denied to them that he had written such a letter. and they are all offended that he would so blatantly lie about it.

But why exactly do you presume that such a letter would be hard to get from the authorities?
I'd imagine that if an Irish senator wanted to send such a letter to Israel he'd do it through the embassy who might keep a copy on file. Or maybe it was sent directly to the court who then sent a copy to the embassy as it was a communication from a foreign official.
I'm sure if you knew where exactly to look and what exactly to look for you'd be able to get something like that.

Yitzhak Rabin

Mob, were you not critical me that hill fella who sent a dvd to a jury in england. Why so defensive of a senator abusing his position to try and influence a sentence in a child rape case?

King Mob

yekahS wrote: »

Mob, were you not critical me that hill fella who sent a dvd to a jury in england. Why so defensive of a senator abusing his position to try and influence a sentence in a child rape case?

Well one I wasn't very critical of Hill, I just made fun of his fake name which he ripped off of Dune.
Second I was mostly just pointing out stuff like "sending tapes to the jury could be considered jury tampering." I am not trying to say that the guy who was convicted of child rape was right or justified or that child rape is not a crime.
Thirdly they are different circumstances as Hill sent tapes to a jury and judge in an on going trial which was suggesting that the people on trial were not guilty, while Norris sent a letter to the court asking for leniency after the trial had found the guy guilty.

So could you explain how exactly was he abusing his position other than perhaps inappropriate use of stationary?

N8

King Mob wrote: »

So could you explain how exactly was he abusing his position other than perhaps inappropriate use of stationary?

inappropriate defense of statutory homosexual paedophilic and predatory rape of a minor by a member of a national body not democratically placed there who was in fact a partner of said paedo rapist ...

perhaps I missed something here ....

Emiko wrote: »

Statutory rape is not rape. It means the person had sex with someone underage.

fair point - why not contact Norris and offer your under age child for his israeili bud to shag up the butt and endure the forced oral sex?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I'm just delighted that this came out now before the election.

I would guess his backers are thinking the exact same thing this evening ....


Ok now it’s a conspiracy theory to expose a dirty old man whose ex partner was a child raping homosexual paedophile predator who used his charity to groom vulnerable children and that this same presidential candidate exposes a thought it is ok for older men to train younger children toward homosexuality – not a bother – this is the man to represent our country – a liberal wanting our children exposed to child rape – why not resurrect Brendan Smith and have him as our President?

Surely it couldn’t be a conspiracy to expose Norris? It couldn’t be exposing the truth about a pretender who has paedophilic leanings finding a short route to the top? Surely not?

I have found it is not bigotry to rather not have children raped or abused??
Ah sure because it’s a homosexual exposing the benefits of paedophilia rather than the Vatican sure why not?

Ah sure lets continue to have our children raped and tortured under another the guise of another regime – liberalism.

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

inappropriate defense of statutory homosexual paedophilic and predatory rape of a minor by a member of a national body not democratically placed there who was in fact a partner of said paedo rapist ...

perhaps I missed something here ....

Yes, you did miss something.
What Norris actually said in his letter.
He at no point "defended" any sort of rape.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you did miss something.
What Norris actually said in his letter.
He at no point "defended" any sort of rape.

Kings Mob play with words as you like - 'clemency for child rapist who is an ol' ride of mine – it’s ok Israeli friends I am an Irish senator' – sure it’s not a defence or that ... from a chap who openly stated it’s ok for older men to groom children?

Kings Mob do you want the ex partner of a homosexual predatory paedo rapist as the head of state of any country?

Is it a conspiracy this has become known or an expose of the real person behind the facade of liberalism?

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

Kings Mob play with words as you like - 'clemency for child rapist who is an ol' ride of mine – it’s ok Israeli friends I am an Irish senator' – sure it’s not a defence or that ... from a chap who openly stated it’s ok for older men to groom children?

Kings Mob do you want the ex partner of a homosexual predatory paedo rapist as the head of state of any country?

Is it a conspiracy this has become known or an expose of the real person behind the facade of liberalism?

Ok wow. You don't seem to actually be able to read what people say...
You're claiming he said things he didn't and total and dishonestly misrepresenting the things he did.

I could restate the facts and show you exactly were you're wrong and telling lies, but your clearly not interested in the truth.

N8

its ok King Mob you are the absolute truth - I bow down and immediately forget everything I heard today on the radio stations and return to voting for those presidential hopefuls proposed by the smallest minority who would have their friends rape my children and those of my friends family and neighbour - I apologise Kings Mob I will of course bow down to you who knowest everything :rolleyes:

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

its ok King Mob you are the absolute truth - I bow down and immediately forget everything I heard today on the radio stations and return to voting for those presidential hopefuls proposed by the smallest minority who would have their friends rape my children and those of my friends family and neighbour - I apologise Kings Mob I will of course bow down to you who knowest everything :rolleyes:

N8, here's a little project for you.
Actually go and find the full quotes that you think show that he supports child rape.
See if they actually match what you claim he said.

But I would imagine you'd be more comfortable spreading lies rather than actually examine something.

Jeboa Safari

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you did miss something.
What Norris actually said in his letter.
He at no point "defended" any sort of rape.

Would you not question the judgement of someone defending a man convicted of statutory rape? If this was a TD looking for clemency and talking up a priest convicted of the same there'd be uproar

nullzero

Israel doesn't need to hide it's distain of anyone who questions their actions behind the veil of conspiracy theories, it's just plain obvious as they rarely even attempt to cover the fact that they dislike those who dislike them.

Having an openly anti zionist president in any European country would be something I and anyone else who as ever heard of Isreal would be able to assume (quite easily and without relying upon any perosnal bias) to be in their interests (based on their past actions) to try to stop happening.

King Mob, there is a decent discussion to be had on this topic but you make this forum a very difficult read at times. Everything with you is an accusation or a barbed or condescending comment. Wanting salient facts is a good thing, the way you go about it leaves a lot to be desired and having encountered you many times before I know that you are absolutely impossible even when you're plainly wrong. In fact your'e even worse when you're wrong not that you'd ever believe you could ever be wrong about anything. You may think you're a great debater but to be honest you're the only person who could be bothered to keep up with any discussion you're involved in, your opening replies in this thread were at times snide and impossible to read without dispairing at the thought of what wretchedly bitter person wrote them.

This forum needs balanced debate from both sides, you contribute some very worthwhile facts, sadly they come laced with a sickening venom that paints a uneasy picture of a troubled character. I've had enough of the unwarranted insults of others ("here's a little project for you" being the latest), you taint any point you try to make with your poison barbs.

I'll leave you to rip me to shreds in your reply as I prepare ofor my iminent ban.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

But I would imagine you'd be more comfortable spreading lies...

Of course I am not entitled to opinion opposite to the god almighty King Mob - surely its all a lie and a chap who openly advocates the grooming of children for underage sex could not have a partner or ex who could be convicted for the homosexual paedophilic predatory rape of a vunerable child within settings of purported charitable work - if Norris's partner wasn't as Israeli it could be the work of a priest but hey how could that be true

King Mob you are right its a conspiracy such a thing could never have happened - imagine if this candidate has written to an Irish court asking for clemency on the basis of 'he is my homosexual partner who has done great work for children....'

King Mob

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Would you not question the judgement of someone defending a man convicted of statutory rape? If this was a TD looking for clemency and talking up a priest convicted of the same there'd be uproar

I would if Norris was defending some random guy, or another person who was defending a random priest.
But this is not the case.

So aside from possible inappropriate use of official stationary and ignoring the inane lies and misrepresentation, I still fail to see what he's done wrong.

gbee

My name is URL wrote: »

about us electing a president that would be bad for Ireland.

They've a high opinion of our presidency then?

I think it's just good old fashioned RELIGIOUS bigotry and the kind we are trying to stamp out in Ireland today.

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

...surely its all a lie and a chap who openly advocates the grooming of children for underage sex ...

This is a lie.
Norris never said this or supports this in any way shape or form.

The only way you can conclude that he does is because you are simply unaware of what he actually said or you are deliberately misrepresenting what he said.

This would be apparent if you would post what he actually said.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

I would if Norris was defending some random guy, or another person who was defending a random priest.
But this is not the case.

it was his boyfriend ..... :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

So aside from possible inappropriate use of official stationary and ignoring the inane lies and misrepresentation, I still fail to see what he's done wrong.

that statement in itself says so much about you and your arguments to date :rolleyes:

ted1

There looking out for the Irish state, could you imagine what would happen if they were released when br was an acting president.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

This is a lie.
Norris never said this or supports this in any way shape or form.

sure.....

King Mob wrote: »

The only way you can conclude that he does is because you are simply unaware of what he actually said or you are deliberately misrepresenting what he said.

of course how could I be less intelligent than you to have come to a differing opinion having read the same I must be stupid....

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

it was his boyfriend ..... :rolleyes:

Yes, and since he was his partner I can see why he would want to defend him regardless of whether or not if Norris was right, hence I do not question his judgement.

N8 wrote: »

that statement in itself says so much about you and your arguments to date :rolleyes:

But no one has actually presented any form of argument as to why what he did was actually wrong.
All the stuff you are posting is simply based on lies and ignorance.