David Norris - Post-Revelations

Pompey Magnus

Spread wrote: »

And finally, he should apologise to all the homosexuals in Ireland ....... for conning them into thinking that his opposers were homophobic.

Did Norris actually claim that his opposition were homophobic? Certain members of his supporters certainly were very trigger happy at throwing the homophobic label around at people who asked awkward questions about Norris but I can't remember him doing it.

If so then he should be under no obligation to apologise for the wrongs of these supporters, it is up to them to apologise for their own actions.

Spread

What I meant was ........ that by allowing some people to play the homophobic card ......... he fostered that feeling. By not condoning it he was complicit. Purely my take.

odnauq

Now, I'm leaning towards Gay Mitchell until a new candidate is introduced.
Does Ireland really need a President???

K-9

odnauq wrote: »

Now, I'm leaning towards Gay Mitchell until a new candidate is introduced.
Does Ireland really need a President???

If people are leaning towards Mitchell because of lack of alternatives I'd say No.

tayto lover

We do not need a President at all.
Our country is too poor for this kind of extravagance.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs should do this kind of work, why duplicate ?

HarryPotter41

tayto lover wrote: »

We do not need a President at all.
Our country is too poor for this kind of extravagance.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs should do this kind of work, why duplicate ?

So we should become the only country in the world without a head of state?

Biggins

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

So we should become the only country in the world without a head of state?

The sad alternative might be some state of a bad head!

AnonoBoy

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Did Norris actually claim that his opposition were homophobic? Certain members of his supporters certainly were very trigger happy at throwing the homophobic label around at people who asked awkward questions about Norris but I can't remember him doing it.

If so then he should be under no obligation to apologise for the wrongs of these supporters, it is up to them to apologise for their own actions.

He has no need to apologise. His withdrawal speech was very dignified and he didn't cast any accusations about.

mikom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZ8xwXE5UY

Pompey Magnus

AnonoBoy wrote: »

He has no need to apologise. His withdrawal speech was very dignified and he didn't cast any accusations about.

That's good, just those supporters of his who threw the homophobia tag around willy-nilly need to so.

HarryPotter41

AnonoBoy wrote: »

He has no need to apologise. His withdrawal speech was very dignified and he didn't cast any accusations about.

Incredibly dignified in the way he finally realised that he should have been as worried about the victim as much, if not more, than his partner.

Spread

AnonoBoy wrote: »

He has no need to apologise. His withdrawal speech was very dignified and he didn't cast any accusations about.

Obviously, your interpretation of dignified differs from mine. The guy squirmed out. And he tried to blame outside forces for his undoing. But we have a lot to be thankful for .......... at least that obnoxious, idiotic and egotistical DH will not be representing us.

alejandro1977

what do people have to say about Norris behaviour re the Hirschfeld centre -

Essentially he sat on the board of a company set up as device to own the Hirschfeld Centre on behalf the gay community. He ends up making a small fortune when the building is sold during the boom.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/1998/1023/98102300006.html

Basic facts - centre in Temple Bar (10 fownes Street) bought for/by LGBT community early 1980s (National Gay Federation), company set up to handle mortgage, banks, funding, etc (company directors are NGF directors), centre burns down, company still intact and goes to sell building when boom starts, NG(Lesbian)F counter claims saying its not company's property but community's, company goes to Circuit Court, Judge calls for a settlement after a few days of hearings, NGLF cannot afford to appeal. Norris and Co walks with money.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/162032-what-makes-senator-david-norris-so-progressive-11.html

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

what do people have to say about Norris behaviour re the Hirschfeld centre -

Essentially he sat on the board of a company set up as device to own the Hirschfeld Centre on behalf the gay community. He ends up making a small fortune when the building is sold during the boom.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/1998/1023/98102300006.html


http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/162032-what-makes-senator-david-norris-so-progressive-11.html

Not enough information. Did he profit personally from the transaction? Did he put his own personal money into the company?
Whats the allegation, if there is one? If there isn't one, whats the sugestion? Why are we getting this post without even a basic amount of information?

alejandro1977

dvpower wrote: »

Not enough information. Did he profit personally from the transaction? Did he put his own personal money into the company?
Whats the allegation, if there is one? If there isn't one, whats the sugestion? Why are we getting this post without even a basic amount of information?

the reason is that there is so little info is that the gay community (not Norris) had to agree to a confidentiality clause - they couldn't afford to fight the case.

The fact is that he did make money from the sale of the building. The community felt it wasn't his to sell.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/162032-what-makes-senator-david-norris-so-progressive-13.html#post4001880

Yes - there is a world of difference. In short, Hirschfeld Enterprises was a company set up by Norris and Co, with and for the NGF (Nat Gay Fed) and was indeed the legal owning entity - obviously no bank would give a federation of people of illegal status a mortgage - some sort of company was needed (hence Hirschfeld Enterprises for the Hirschfeld Centre). As the Judge Devally pointed out in the Circuit Court in 1998, there is no such thing as 'community' in Irish law - just a person or a company. As such, the community that the members of the Nat Gay Fed made up (the many thousands of voluntary hours put in by so many to build the asset) have no status and therefore can have no ownership. Yet it was the Fed that set up and agreed to the setting up of the device of the Company. On ethical grounds the question is both valid and clear. The question is whether you can afford to pay for that query to be properly thrashed out in the courts.

Hirschfeld Ent. did not win the case, the judge asked for a settlement after a few days of cross examination and evidence. The NLGF was voluntary and not very functional and without any resources (e.g. they did not have a building to sell to pay legal fees) and the individuals were each being held liable and therefore could not go to a higher court to establish the point of law about community. It was disgraceful. The 'real story' as you put it, is how someone willfully profits from their own. DN sees himself as the great emancipator of the Irish gay, but many Irish gays see someone 1) not to be trusted and 2) a self-serving pompous ass who is quite an embarrassment when friends and family kindly say how they'll be voting for him (he's gay, your gay, hey happy days!). So, I do not think your cut-and-dry 'hence nor real story here' is bang on. i also think one reason he did not go for Magill and Helen L Burke was that he was only just out of court with the HE stuff, which would have resurfaced, it being so soon after.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/162032-what-makes-senator-david-norris-so-progressive-13.html#post4002144

Ok - I'll lay the sequence out: 1) 1979 NGF (Nat Gay Fed) set up after split with more lefty, feministy civil rightsy crew all centred in Parnell square 2) NGF move into 10 Fownes st - to be much more than a gay social club, but a support and advocacy space for illegal status etc: concurrently Norris is running on 'homosexual law reform' ticket for trinity 3) Having looked for mortgage and being told they need to set up a company, the board of NGF agree to set up Hirschfeld Enterprises as a legal device for the NGF to bu a building to do the work: its 1982 and DN puts up over £40k of his own money to secure mortgage (of just over 100k I think). organisational records show that he was repaid every penny including interest of this money by 1986. 4) Mortgage secured, members of the centre build up the space - through buy a brick fundraising drives and lots and lots of other 'community ownership' events. 5) november 1987, building burns - interior wrecked. Operations stop. Bpard of NGF and Hirschfeld Ent do not do anything to fix building. also it was a crazy tim with AIDS hitting the community like a hurricane and charity tending to go in that direction. Norris then tries getting govt. funding, lottery, etc etc No joy. 6) 1994/95 eviction notice to gay community news - FAS scheme of 20 people working from the top floor of the burnt out building - been there since feb 1988. Its run by N(L)GF, but now directors of that are not directors of Hirschfeld ent - and hence the issue of ownership of building arose (and where proceeds should go. Concurrently efforts to make a new community centre are underway - of which Hirsch Ent and Norris have nothing to do with. 7) Court case to establish ownership, settlement reached (a not high amount in terms of percentage of worth of building - legal gag on actual terms imposed by Norris' crew suprisingly).

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

the reason is that there is so little info is that the gay community (not Norris) had to agree to a confidentiality clause - they couldn't afford to fight the case.

The fact is that he did make money from the sale of the building. The community felt it wasn't his to sell.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/162032-what-makes-senator-david-norris-so-progressive-13.html#post4001880



http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/162032-what-makes-senator-david-norris-so-progressive-13.html#post4002144

If the facts in the second post are accurate he may have a case to answer.
But he did settle the case and I don't see any evidence that it was an unfair settlement (I suppose that when any financial transaction ends up in court, one side will invariably end up happier than the other).

To hard to call - has DN ever said anything about it?

Spread

I remember reading about this many years ago in The Phoenix, I think. My take then was that Norris had pulled a fast one. Incidentally, hirschfeld means deerfield in German. Conjures up a picture of ancient Greek paintings of rutting stags, satyrs etc. in a sylvan setting.

alejandro1977

Spread wrote: »

I remember reading about this many years ago in The Phoenix, I think. My take then was that Norris had pulled a fast one. Incidentally, hirschfeld means deerfield in German. Conjures up a picture of ancient Greek paintings of rutting stags, satyrs etc. in a sylvan setting.

I'd forgotten about it until I saw a reference to the p.ie poster. Obviously those opposing him in court felt it was a fast one. To be fair he risked some money - 40k but his eventual payoff was huge and not nike he needed it

@dvpower "To hard to call - has DN ever said anything about it?"

What do you think! Ring him up and ask him? Real man of the people and all that!

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

@dvpower "To hard to call - has DN ever said anything about it?"

What do you think! Ring him up and ask him? Real man of the people and all that!

You ring him - you opened the topic.

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

Obviously those opposing him in court felt it was a fast one.

And yet they settled?

Spread

dvpower wrote: »

And yet they settled?

I'd imagine that they were bullied by the defence solicitors ....... long drawn out costly war etc., deeper pockets and all that. However, this may all be explained defended shortly.

dvpower

Spread wrote: »

I'd imagine that they were bullied by the defence solicitors ....... long drawn out costly war etc., deeper pockets and all that. However, this may all be explained defended shortly.

Good imagination.

alejandro1977

dvpower wrote: »

alejandro1977 wrote: »

Obviously those opposing him in court felt it was a fast one.

And yet they settled?

Sometimes there's a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And fair play even. They obviously slipped up by paying him back rather than buying his share in the holding company.

But you see the terms of the settlement were subject to a gagging order! I wonder why? Would't want to sully David's image, old boy! Not seeing as he has been mulling a run for the Aras since he wrote the blasted letter!

Funny how DN portrayed Ezra as merely breaking the letter of the law, the chap was almost 16 don't you know! By jove David really knows the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law when it comes to screwing his "friends"

Spread

dvpower wrote: »

Good imagination.

Not really, that is what the legal eagles do. Ethics is a word rarely understood in those circles.

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

But you see the terms of the settlement were subject to a gagging order! I wonder why?

A gagging order that was agreed upon presumably.

Funny how DN portrayed Ezra as merely breaking the letter of the law, the chap was almost 16 don't you know! By jove David really knows the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law when it comes to screwing his "friends"

I really have no idea what you're getting at here. If you have something on your mind thats pertinant to the property case, come out and say it.

alejandro1977

dvpower wrote: »

alejandro1977 wrote: »

But you see the terms of the settlement were subject to a gagging order! I wonder why?

A gagging order that was agreed upon presumably.

Funny how DN portrayed Ezra as merely breaking the letter of the law, the chap was almost 16 don't you know! By jove David really knows the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law when it comes to screwing his "friends"

I really have no idea what you're getting at here. If you have something on your mind thats pertinant to the property case, come out and say it.

The "argument" is that the 15year old wasn't really a child, so it wasn't really child abuse. Ie Ezra broke the letter of the law but not the spirit so he's nor really a scum bag.

Norris comrades felt he broke the spirit of the law/fair play but the lawyers felt the letter of the law was on his side so he was able to make of with a 6 figure sum. Nice.

Obviously they had to agree to a gagging order to settle the case as the lawyers meters were running- the GayFed people didn't have an asset they could use to pay so it became a game of high stakes chicken.

You are obviously uncomfortable with this revelation.

Someone behaved unethically here. Whose side are you on- the Gay Federation or Norris?

I'm with the small guys.

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

You are obviously uncomfortable with this revelation.

You have revealed nothing.

alejandro1977

dvpower wrote: »

You have revealed nothing.

that he shafted his gay comrades and pocketed a load of cash they felt belonged to them?

And then gagged them to hide it?

dvpower

alejandro1977 wrote: »

that he shafted his gay comrades and pocketed a load of cash they felt belonged to them?

And then gagged them to hide it?

You provided no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing. This matter was before a court and there was an agreed settlement.

But do continue throwing out dirt, some of it might stick.

later12

This is interesting, but not exactly a huge controversy - David Norris just fought for a return on his investment, even if it might be considered 'unethical' given the nature of the investment and the implication that it was undertaken for the benefit of the gay community.

It's quite possible - likely, even - that this may have been one of the two outstanding controversies surrounding DN that Joe Jackson spoke of this time last week.

Wonder what the other one is.