Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

David Norris - Post-Revelations

Options
1…3032343536

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    gambiaman wrote: »
    Mitchell has a whole thread devoted to his goings on if you'd bother to look.

    Actually don't bother, already one poster on that thread has taken to labelling each and every poster questioning Mitchell as hysterical, broken-hearted Norris supporters and 'dishonest' - wouldn't want to feed his stupid, wrong impressions now would ya?

    Yet has pressure been put on him to drop out of the race? No.


  • Options
    #933
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    Biggins wrote: »
    No.

    BOTH was asking for clemency.

    One man was convicted of killing someone.
    One man was convicted of sexual assault.

    Which is the legally lesser crime?
    Yet who was forced to quit of the two crimes?

    It wasn't even sexual assault.


  • Options
    #934
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    I think I'll find, as usual, your reasoning behind this post is non existent and it's yet more useless irrational **** proclaiming your side to be the more mature with no real reason given why.

    The reason? Because that's what generally happens in real life, maturity wins out over the rashness of youth. Perfectly evident in the Norris bid for the Park.
    Go on!, have a look at his FB supporters page....it's mostly people who think protest is putting his name on the ballot paper anyway ala Dustin The Turkey :rolleyes: or middle aged women who just want to hug him. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #935
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    It wasn't even sexual assault.
    ...Yet a man that hold strong religious views, defends a man that DOUBLE kills outside an abortion clinic that - surprise - Mitchell opposes too in belief of right to exist...

    And lest we forget...
    Hill was convicted of murdering two people at an abortion clinic in 1994 and later said that he did not regret the killings adding later that in order to stop abortions you have to “do what you have to do to stop it.
    http://www.thejournal.ie/calls-for-mitchell-to-explain-letter-seeking-clemency-for-double-murderer-193038-Aug2011/

    Norris supports a lover.
    Mitchell supports a person that has the same strong religious views.


  • Options
    #936
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Biggins wrote: »
    No.

    BOTH was asking for clemency.

    One man was convicted of killing someone.
    One man was convicted of sexual assault.

    Which is the legally lesser crime?

    These are two very different cases.

    Norris was giving a character reference for someone that he had a relationship with. This is entirely reasonable except the Norris:
    a) strayed off the normal 'this is who I am; this is how I know the defendant; this is what I can say about his character' and went off on one critising the conduct of the police, and comparing the Israeli system to ours and so on.
    b) used Senate paper (I'm torn on this - he used his position as a senator, which he is, not any office that he holds).

    Mitchell asked for the death sentence to be commuted, not because the offender particulary deserved it, but because he is, rightly imo, opposed to the death penalty. As far as I know, he didn't abuse any position or office. It is the policy of his party to oppose the death penalty and its to his and his party's credit that he did.

    I can see no substantial comparison at all in these cases aside from the very superficial.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    It wasn't even sexual assault.


    :rolleyes::rolleyes: here we go again :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #938
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Biggins wrote: »
    Mitchell supports a person that has the same strong religious views.

    You're not saying that Mitchell supports the murder of abortion doctors?


  • Options
    #939
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    dvpower wrote: »
    These are two very different cases.

    Norris was giving a character reference for someone that he had a relationship with. This is entirely reasonable except the Norris:
    a) strayed off the normal 'this is who I am; this is how I know the defendant; this is what I can say about his character' and went off on one critising the conduct of the police, and comparing the Israeli system to ours and so on.
    b) used Senate paper (I'm torn on this - he used his position as a senator, which he is, not any office that he holds).

    Mitchell asked for the death sentence to be commuted, not because the offender particulary deserved it, but because he is, rightly imo, opposed to the death penalty. As far as I know, he didn't abuse any position or office. It is the policy of his party to oppose the death penalty and its to his and his party's credit that he did.

    I can see no substantial comparison at all in these cases aside from the very superficial.

    See previous post - but summarised (again):

    Norris supports a lover.
    Mitchell supports a person that has the same strong religious views.

    One kills TWICE.
    One assaults once.


  • Options
    #940
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    dvpower wrote: »
    You're not saying that Mitchell supports the murder of abortion doctors?
    Did I type that above? Did I?
    Please show us where?


  • Options
    #941
    whydoibother?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 758 ✭✭✭whydoibother?


    I think something that is relevant here is that Norris did it for his partner. Most posts that I've seen that considered that, looked at it as a mitigating factor - doing it for someone he loved. I would look at it differently, i.e. sparing his partner jail brought him a personal benefit - that makes it worse than pleading for someone you don't know where the person could be doing it as a matter of principle, albeit misguided principles.

    But I do think there needs to be consistency and clarity about when politicians can do this sort of thing. So far, he is the only one whose suffered. It's not fair that we make up the conditions as we go along. There needs to be an Oireachtas Code on this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Biggins wrote: »

    Norris supports a lover.
    Mitchell supports a person that has the same strong religious views.

    One kills TWICE.
    One assaults.

    Are you saying that Mitchell was motivated by the fact that they share the same religion?


  • Options
    #943
    val_jester
    Registered Users Posts: 318 ✭✭val_jester


    Biggins wrote: »
    No.

    BOTH was asking for clemency.

    One man was convicted of killing someone.
    One man was convicted of sexual assault.

    Which is the legally lesser crime?
    Yet who was forced to quit of the two crimes?

    Mitchell wasn't asking that the guy got off with the murder charges, he was asking that he get life in prison as opposed to the lethal injection. This is something norris has also done in the past and will probably do in the future. Neither of the two politicians comitted a crime. Norris's letter has been condemned due to the content of it and because the nature of the crime is particularly sensitive at the moment in Ireland. Mitchell wrote the letter because he was against the death penalty. Mitchell is the last person I want to win this election but there is nothing in this letter. He has plenty of skeletons in his closet and there are lots of reasons why he shouldn't be elected. People should focus on these rather than going on about how unfairly norris has been treated which is a load of crap. Norris has alway been given an easy ride in the media and nothing has changed this week. Other people would have been slaughtered if they had done what norris did.


  • Options
    #944
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Evening.

    Can we please keep it civil and somewhat on topic, thanks.


  • Options
    #945
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Biggins wrote: »
    Did I type that above? Did I?
    Please show us where?
    No you didn't (obviously). I'm trying to get at why you are introducing the fact that they are both Christians into this.

    It's either a red herring, or that Mitchell had some empathy for the guy because they share the same religion or that Mitchell somehow sympathised with the actions of the guy because of their shared religion.

    I think its a red herring.


  • Options
    #946
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    whydoibother? wrote: »
    I think something that is relevant here is that Norris did it for his partner. Most posts that I've seen that considered that, looked at it as a mitigating factor - doing it for someone he loved. I would look at it differently, i.e. sparing his partner jail brought him a personal benefit - that makes it worse than pleading for someone you don't know where the person could be doing it as a matter of principle, albeit misguided principles.

    It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do to provide a character reference to a court. More than reasonable, commendable in fact, if done properly and honestly because it is providing a service to the court to help a judge in his task to decide a fair sentence.


  • Options
    #947
    val_jester
    Registered Users Posts: 318 ✭✭val_jester


    dvpower wrote: »
    It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do to provide a character reference to a court. More than reasonable, commendable in fact, if done properly and honestly because it is providing a service to the court to help a judge in his task to decide a fair sentence.

    It was the content of the letter more than the letter itself which did norris in.


  • Options
    #948
    whydoibother?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 758 ✭✭✭whydoibother?


    dvpower wrote: »
    It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do to provide a character reference to a court. More than reasonable, commendable in fact, if done properly and honestly because it is providing a service to the court to help a judge in his task to decide a fair sentence.

    I don't think providing a character reference for your partner can ever be classified as proper. I can't think of any other circumstances where a reference from someone with whom you has such a close personal relationship would be acceptable. What's next? Judge, here's a reference from my mother.


  • Options
    #949
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    dvpower wrote: »
    Are you saying that Mitchell was motivated by the fact that they share the same religion?
    You will have to ask him that - I'm not he or his spokesperson.
    val_jester wrote: »
    (1) Mitchell wasn't asking that the guy got off with the murder charges, (2) he was asking that he get life in prison as opposed to the lethal injection. This is something norris has also done in the past and (3) will probably do in the future. Neither of the two politicians comitted a crime. Norris's letter has been condemned due to the content of it and (4) because the nature of the crime is particularly sensitive at the moment in Ireland. Mitchell wrote the letter because he was against the death penalty. Mitchell is the last person I want to win this election but there is nothing in this letter. He has plenty of skeletons in his closet and there are lots of reasons why he shouldn't be elected. People should focus on these rather than going on about how unfairly norris has been treated which is a load of crap. (5) Norris has alway been given an easy ride in the media and nothing has changed this week. (6) Other people would have been slaughtered if they had done what norris did.
    (1) Norris wan't asking for anyone to get off either - but thanks for raising that irrelevant point.

    (2) So Gay was asking for clemency too!

    (3) Do in the future? Can you fortune-tell or can you PROVE what you allege? Otherwise its just a cheap unfounded slur!

    (4) So we can force out a man from an election race just because one issue is currently more sensitive that the other? What realistic madness is this? A legal assault beats a legal double murder just because its AT THE MOMENT more sensitive? Madness in twisted legal thought!

    (5) Norris had it easy in the media? SERIOUSLY?
    a. If so - when did that become tantamount to a crime?
    b. Have you been reading in the media since he started to run, all the schite that has been thrown at him by those out to get him?

    (6) Two people were slaughtered by the man Gay was seeking clemency for.
    I have more sympathy for them than I do for a fool trying to get their killer a lighter sentence!


  • Options
    #950
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    whydoibother? wrote: »
    I don't think providing a character reference for your partner can ever be classified as proper. I can't think of any other circumstances where a reference from someone with whom you has such a close personal relationship would be acceptable. What's next? Judge, here's a reference from my mother.

    I think it entirely reasonable. As long as the reference is upfront and honest.

    Judges are not stupid. They can weigh the references and any other information they get and make a judgement (you know, their job).

    A reference from a defendants mother might be very appropriate. I can imagine a reference from a mother might be very useful for a judge in assessing the character of a person.


  • Options
    #951
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    val_jester wrote: »
    It was the content of the letter more than the letter itself which did norris in.

    I agree, but I think he would have got some stick even if had stuck to the simple who, what, where, when and how.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    val_jester
    Registered Users Posts: 318 ✭✭val_jester


    Biggins wrote: »

    (1) Norris wan't asking for anyone to get off either - but thanks for raising that irrelevant point.

    (2) So Gay was asking for clemency too!

    (3) Do in the future? Can you fortune-tell or can you PROVE what you allege? Otherwise its just a cheap unfounded slur!

    (4) So we can force out a man from an election race just because one issue is currently more sensitive that the other? What realistic madness is this? A legal assault beats a legal double murder just because its AT THE MOMENT more sensitive? Madness in twisted legal thought!

    (5) Norris had it easy in the media? SERIOUSLY?
    a. If so - when did that become tantamount to a crime?
    b. Have you been reading in the media since he started to run, all the schite that has been thrown at him by those out to get him?

    (6) Two people were slaughter by the man Gay was seeking clemency for.
    I have more sympathy for them than I do for a fool trying to get their killer a lighter sentence!

    I'm not going to try and debate with you anymore. If you wish to twist what I say and misread things (norris's letter and what I wrote) then thats your business. I am leaving this 'debate'.


  • Options
    #953
    whydoibother?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 758 ✭✭✭whydoibother?


    dvpower wrote: »
    I think it entirely reasonable. As long as the reference is upfront and honest.

    Judges are not stupid. They can weigh the references and any other information they get and make a judgement (you know, their job).

    A reference from a defendants mother might be very appropriate. I can imagine a reference from a mother might be very useful for a judge in assessing the character of a person.

    "Their job" also includes disregarding the unreliable. Any system that allows references from people who would be so biased is a joke. Try applying for a job with your first referee - mammy, and your second referee - daddy. There's a reason for this.


  • Options
    #954
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Biggins wrote: »
    You will have to ask him that - I'm not he or his spokesperson.

    But you brought his religious views into it. Why?
    Biggins wrote: »
    Mitchell supports a person that has the same strong religious views.

    Would this fix things up?
    Biggins wrote: »
    Mitchell supports a person that has the same strong religious views blood type.


  • Options
    #955
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    val_jester wrote: »
    I'm not going to try and debate with you anymore. If you wish to twist what I say and misread things (norris's letter and what I wrote) then thats your business. I am leaving this 'debate'.
    I read your words and stated as close to fact as possible, with a modicum of opinion.
    Your free to disagree - but I disagree that I have twisted your words.


  • Options
    #956
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    whydoibother? wrote: »
    "Their job" also includes disregarding the unreliable. Any system that allows references from people who would be so biased is a joke.
    Exactly. It's their area of expertise. They can look at the reference in the light of other evidence and make a judgement - that's what they get paid so much to do...
    whydoibother? wrote: »
    Any system that allows references from people who would be so biased is a joke.
    ... so why would we deny judges the opportunity to make judgements:confused:
    whydoibother? wrote: »
    Try applying for a job with your first referee - mammy, and your second referee - daddy. There's a reason for this.
    I'm not sure that a job reference is relevant.
    But a judge in deciding a sentence might well find it useful to get a picture of the familial relationships that the defendant has.


  • Options
    #957
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    dvpower wrote: »
    But you brought his religious views into it. Why?
    ...Becuase its an interesting point that of ALL the Irish politicians even going to the bother of seeking clemency for anyone in this world, one Irish politician seeks clemency for a double murderer killer - so I raise (justifiably - and I don't now the answer myself) the question WHY is Gay Mitchell (of all the many) standing up for this chap?

    Had Gay Mitchell asked for clemency for ALL killers on death row - or just this one?
    ...If so why? Whats the connection?
    I personally can only see one - but thats opinion!


  • Options
    #958
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...Becuase its an interesting point that of ALL the Irish politicians even going to the bother of seeking clemency for anyone in this world, one Irish politician seeks clemency for a double murderer killer - so I raise (justifiably - and I don't now the answer myself) the question WHY is Gay Mitchell (of all the many) standing up for this chap?

    Had Gay Mitchell asked for clemency for ALL killers on death row - or just this one?
    ...If so why? Whats the connection?
    I personally can only see one - but thats opinion!

    That they share the same religion also shared by two billion other people is the only connection you can see. Jeepers.


  • Options
    #959
    val_jester
    Registered Users Posts: 318 ✭✭val_jester


    Biggins wrote: »
    I read your words and stated as close to fact as possible, with a modicum of opinion.
    Your free to disagree - but I disagree that I have twisted your words.
    You have completely misread my words to suit your own agenda.
    Biggins wrote: »

    (1) Norris wan't asking for anyone to get off either - but thanks for raising that irrelevant point. Norris asked if it would be possible for the boy involved to be given money to solve the case as opposed to ezra getting jail time.

    (2) So Gay was asking for clemency too! Just as norris has asked for clemency in similiar situations (relating to death row prisoners) before.

    (3) Do in the future? Can you fortune-tell or can you PROVE what you allege? Otherwise its just a cheap unfounded slur! What are you on about here? Saying that I believe in the future norris will continue to write letters campaigning for rights he believes in is now a slur?

    (4) So we can force out a man from an election race just because one issue is currently more sensitive that the other? What realistic madness is this? A legal assault beats a legal double murder just because its AT THE MOMENT more sensitive? Madness in twisted legal thought! You conveniently put the 4 at the second half of my sentence in this instance

    (5) Norris had it easy in the media? SERIOUSLY?
    a. If so - when did that become tantamount to a crime?
    b. Have you been reading in the media since he started to run, all the schite that has been thrown at him by those out to get him? All the ****e that has been thrown at him? There have been two major issues thrown at him both of which were is own making. Norris has been invited to present shows on newstalk and tv3, something no other candiate has been given a chance to do. He has a lot of friends in the media and imo he has received an easy ride over this issues in the media. If it had been other people there would have been a lot more coverage and debate on whether or not he should resign his seanad seat.

    (6) Two people were slaughtered by the man Gay was seeking clemency for.
    I have more sympathy for them than I do for a fool trying to get their killer a lighter sentence!
    This is just ridiculous, my choice of language was poor, but there is no need for this. Where did I say I had any sympathies towards the killer, or were did mitchell say he had any. Mitchell is opposed to the death penalty and sought a life sentence because of this. Norris said in his speech after quitting the race that he has also written letters in relation to death row prisoners rights.


  • Options
    #960
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    whydoibother? wrote: »
    I think something that is relevant here is that Norris did it for his partner. Most posts that I've seen that considered that, looked at it as a mitigating factor - doing it for someone he loved. I would look at it differently, i.e. sparing his partner jail brought him a personal benefit - that makes it worse than pleading for someone you don't know where the person could be doing it as a matter of principle, albeit misguided principles.

    But I do think there needs to be consistency and clarity about when politicians can do this sort of thing. So far, he is the only one whose suffered. It's not fair that we make up the conditions as we go along. There needs to be an Oireachtas Code on this.


    Sen John Crown has promised to bring in a bill for just this sort of thing + others.
    Let's see if the big boys and girls in the Dail who appear to depend on this type of solicitation, agree with it or bury it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    dvpower wrote: »
    That they share the same religion also shared by two billion other people is the only connection you can see. Jeepers.
    That they possibly share a stronger religious faith.
    Still the question goes unanswered. Why seek clemency for this man and not others?
    What makes this double killer more important above the rest on death row?

    We can strongly agree on one thing - nether of us would like to see this man in the Presidents office.
    (Nor would I like to see Dana)
    val_jester wrote: »
    You have completely misread my words to suit your own agenda.

    This is just ridiculous, my choice of language was poor, but there is no need for this. Where did I say (1) I had any sympathies towards the killer, or (2) were did mitchell say he had any. (3) Mitchell is opposed to the death penalty and sought a life sentence because of this. (4) Norris said in his speech after quitting the race that he has also written letters in relation to death row prisoners rights.
    (1) I NEVER said you had "any sympathies towards the killer".
    (2) I NEVER stated Mitchell said he had any. Nice try.
    (3) ...And so I ask the question out of genuine puzzlement - NOT MALICE - why this killer and not the rest on death row?
    (4)...And if the Irish public wanted to hold him answerable for that, so be it.


Advertisement