Should Norris apologise for letter?

alan85

Norris' letter to the Israel authorities is generally accepted as an abuse of his position as a Senator and his participation on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Should he apologise for this?

I believe so. I think it's only appropriate in the context of his predicament. In May he was asked had he anything else to disclose after his views on pedastry were brought to light. He said 'no'. In hindsight Norris was very economical with the truth. This is disrespect for his potential electorate at the very least.

Liam Byrne

alan85 wrote: »

Norris' letter to the Israel authorities is generally accepted as an abuse of his position as a Senator and his participation on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Should he apologise for this?

I believe so. I think it's only appropriate in the context of his predicament. In May he was asked had he anything else to disclose after his views on pedastry were brought to light. He said 'no'. In hindsight Norris was very economical with the truth. This is disrespect for his potential electorate at the very least.

An "apology" at this stage would be insincere, and only for political posturing.

He should simply resign.

Teclo

Actually I think he should also apologize for being the cause of so many threads on this site.

I don't want to hear anything more about Palestinian goat herder boys as long as I live.

murraykil

Teclo wrote: »

Actually I think he should also apologize for being the cause of so many threads on this site.

I don't want to hear anything more about Palestinian goat herder boys as long as I live.

Don't forget to turn off email notifications so!

Happyman42

If he has any respect for the office and if there was any truth in what he had to say about the Vatican and Bishops and TD's when they engaged in exactly the same corruption, then he should walk, right now. But he will probably (like all those mentioned above) cling desperately to the source of his over developed ego until his cold white fingers let go. (An ego embarrassingly on full ceremonial parade in the 'letters')

ebbsy

Not even Max Clifford could turn this around now.

alan85

Not to mention, in his letter he alludes to himself being a possible future President. Wouldn't it be laughable if we acutally voted him into that office having abused his potential of becoming President to get a more lenient sentence of a statutory rapist!

Alopex

For me using the senate paper wasn't such a big deal. The letter is clear that it is from him and not the state.

Its just the actual plea he makes. I know he felt sorry for a dear friend. That can perhaps push people to extreme actions - but he should have been strong. He should have recognised someone who knowingly has sex with a minor deserves a custodial sentence and he should not have made that plea.

SeanW

alan85 wrote: »

Norris' letter to the Israel authorities is generally accepted as an abuse of his position as a Senator and his participation on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Should he apologise for this?

I believe so. I think it's only appropriate in the context of his predicament. In May he was asked had he anything else to disclose after his views on pedastry were brought to light. He said 'no'. In hindsight Norris was very economical with the truth. This is disrespect for his potential electorate at the very least.

I agree with Liam. He has shown at minimum very poor judgement and severely questionable attitude regarding the protection of children. The only fitting thing for him is to GO.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anymore

Alopex wrote: »

For me using the senate paper wasn't such a big deal. The letter is clear that it is from him and not the state.

Its just the actual plea he makes. I know he felt sorry for a dear friend. That can perhaps push people to extreme actions - but he should have been strong. He should have recognised someone who knowingly has sex with a minor deserves a custodial sentence and he should not have made that plea.

" Dear friend " Can we please call a spade a spade here ? He and the defendant were not friends - they were lovers, boyfriends, partners - call it what you will but the term ' friends' does not describe the relationship.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

+1.

I am a big Norris fan and would have given him my vote. But this shows a lack of judgement both politically in terms of writing a letter on Oireachteas paper to a foreign state and the matter he was pressing.

But more importantly, if he had ambition for higher office he must have known the Israeli's would sit on it and leak it at some point. I would question how this got into the public domain and the motives of the blogger in question ('punishing' him for support of the Palestinian nation) but I would question Senator Norris's naivety in all this.

I can't see him recovering from this - too many question marks over this incident.

anymore

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

+1.

I am a big Norris fan and would have given him my vote. But this shows a lack of judgement both politically in terms of writing a letter on Oireachteas paper to a foreign state and the matter he was pressing.

But more importantly, if he had ambition for higher office he must have known the Israeli's would sit on it and leak it at some point. I would question how this got into the public domain and the motives of the blogger in question ('punishing' him for support of the Palestinian nation) but I would question Senator Norris's naivety in all this.

I can't see him recovering from this - too many question marks over this incident.

If questions are to be asked as to how this got into the public domain, then questions have to asked as to what has motivated Norris's criticisms of Israel since the conviction. What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. Norris was writing as an Irish Senator and a potential future President. Not alone do have have the right to know about this letter, it would have been a travesty and a mockery of democracy if we had not been made aware of it. Norris's supporters have repeatedly complained about selective quotations and about quotes being taken out of context. Well this letter has now allowed us to make our own minds about context.

EnufisEnuf

To be honest I think it at dissappointing he did what he did, but I don't think it is any more dispicable than what our other Politicians get up to.
And in fairness if any of us were in the same situation where a partner, lover, friend was in a predicament of such proportions that you wouldn't do what you could to get them out of it...... poor judgment ABSOLUTELY..

anymore

EnufisEnuf wrote: »

To be honest I think it at dissappointing he did what he did, but I don't think it is any more dispicable than what our other Politicians get up to.
And in fairness if any of us were in the same situation where a partner, lover, friend was in a predicament of such proportions that you wouldn't do what you could to get them out of it...... poor judgment ABSOLUTELY..

I suggest that many, many people, indeed I would say the majority of people, would have dumped their lover/ boyfriend who had been found to been having sex with a fifteen year old boy. Bad enough to have been betrayed but with a teenager involved, how may people would have stayed with thier partner ?

seamus

From what I understand the second letter, though addressed to the judges of the court, was requested by the defence of Norris, and not something that was sent directly to the Judge(s) by Norris, nor was it written off his own bat.

That makes a huge difference IMO.

In any case, it's far less controversial or a major issue than everyone likes to think. There's been a major conspiracy underway since Norris announced his intentions, with the sole aim of preventing Norris from getting on the Presidential ballot and perverting democracy.

I'm sure if the other candidates had their past put under similar scrutiny, we'd find far more nefarious acts than simple letters pleading a case for an old friend.

anymore

seamus wrote: »

From what I understand the second letter, though addressed to the judges of the court, was requested by the defence of Norris, and not something that was sent directly to the Judge(s) by Norris, nor was it written off his own bat.

That makes a huge difference IMO.

In any case, it's far less controversial or a major issue than everyone likes to think. There's been a major conspiracy underway since Norris announced his intentions, with the sole aim of preventing Norris from getting on the Presidential ballot and perverting democracy.

I'm sure if the other candidates had their past put under similar scrutiny, we'd find far more nefarious acts than simple letters pleading a case for an old friend.

The existence of the letter raises questions over comments Mr Norris has made in relation to other matters.

Liam Byrne

EnufisEnuf wrote: »

And in fairness if any of us were in the same situation where a partner, lover, friend was in a predicament of such proportions that you wouldn't do what you could to get them out of it...... poor judgment ABSOLUTELY..

If a partner, lover or friend does something absolutely despicable they'll get no help from me.

Minor indiscretions maybe, but rape of a child ?

Would you have posted the above if it were a bishop ?

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

we'd find far more nefarious acts than simple letters pleading a case for an old friend.

I hate when people attempt to trivialise away an important issue during the course of a discussion. The fact is that middle-aged pederasts engaging in sexual activity with young teenagers is wrong, not just legally (where it is technically a rape offense) but morally as well. Personally I find the notion disgusting in the extreme and if I found out "an old friend" of mine was complicit in taking advantage of young boys I wouldn't want anything to do with him ever again, never mind attempt to make an intervention of his behalf.

To be honest this case just highlights yet again there is something inherently wrong with Norris' thinking on this issue. A few years ago he was champing at the bit to defend that wretch Cathal O'Searcaigh after he was exposed for taking advantage of dirt-poor Nepalese teenagers; Norris was quick to erroneously label everyone a homophobe for questioning the glaring power disparity in such a relationship. The fact of the matter is that sexual relations with young underage minors is wrong full stop. The fact that these might take place in a homosexual context doesn't make these relations any more "enlightened" or whatever spin Norris likes to put on pederasty. If a middle-aged man was having sex with a 15-year old girl there would be (rightly) universal revulsion, and there would also be revulsion toward any political figure intervening on behalf of the above statutory rapist.

How is this any different in Norris' case? It isn't, and despite his charm and intellect Norris' opinions on this matter mean he isn't fit to be this nation's head of state.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

paddyandy

Norris should be tried for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

ebbsy

Its too late to apologise, its too late.....

(Repeat Chorus 20 times)

walshb

Liam Byrne wrote: »

An "apology" at this stage would be insincere, and only for political posturing.

He should simply resign.

Spot on; only problem is that the word resign does not exist in the Irish copy of the English Dictionary.

fly_agaric

FTA69 wrote: »

If a middle-aged man was having sex with a 15-year old girl there would be (rightly) universal revulsion, and there would also be revulsion toward any political figure intervening on behalf of the above statutory rapist.

Yes, have been thinking this myself. In the above case of course, Norris would have the womens lobby/feminists out for blood!

thebman

I think Norris has demonstrated an above average naivety during this campaign so far and in his past which has come to light as a result of this campaign that means he would not be a good president.

Would have voted for him before this campaign with some doubts about his naivety but couldn't now.

commelion

just wanted to make a simple point, this letter when read aloud is no more than a chacter reference, he did not condone the actions of his ex partner but simply said to offer leniency on account of his chacter. the stumbling block is the Seanad paper used.

although it was probally not correct to use this paper, i belive there are far worse bastards on the irish political scene.

I say through norris to the loins (the irish electorate) let the people decide, he will still get my vote because I’m not homophobic and believe in democracy, and more importantly there is noting else in the race that i would have the slightest bit of interest in. ?

thebman

commelion wrote: »

just wanted to make a simple point, this letter when read aloud is no more than a chacter reference, he did not condone the actions of his ex partner but simply said to offer leniency on account of his chacter. the stumbling block is the Seanad paper used.

although it was probally not correct to use this paper, i belive there are far worse bastards on the irish political scene.

I say through norris to the loins (the irish electorate) let the people decide, he will still get my vote because I’m not homophobic and believe in democracy, and more importantly there is noting else in the race that i would have the slightest bit of interest in. ?

The other stumbling block is how he has handled it and it is a statutory rape case which in Ireland with the whole priest thing, doesn't go down very easy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did he appeal for clemency though? He was asked for a charachter reference by the court and obliged. The letter itself is fairly toothless.

But regardless, writing to the courts of another country on headed Oireachteas notepaper is out.

finisklin

Norris is gone....bowed out.

More here.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0802/norrisd.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Young boy/young girl, whateve; I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so black-and-white about it when actually placed in the situation themselves.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hysterical language aside, Gay Mitchell has similarly appealed to a foreign country for clemency on behalf of a unrepentent double murderer.
The amount of scrutiny that Norris has been under, if a couple of letters and some iffy use of language in an interview is all a concerted smear campaign can find, then the hysteria has won and democracy has lost.

As I say, look as deeply into anyone's affairs and you'll uncover all sorts of things that you wouldn't want in a president.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But regardless, writing to the courts of another country on headed Oireachteas notepaper is out.

As has been pointed out on another thread, the letter addressed to the court was not written on state letterhead. Only the character reference was.

finisklin

He did bring a certain je ne sais quoi to the race but I am sure that the aras race is still going to be full of mud slinging......

Valmont

seamus wrote: »

As I say, look as deeply into anyone's affairs and you'll uncover all sorts of things that you wouldn't want in a president.

In which case, I guess it's a good thing that Irish presidents don't really do anything of much use.

anymore

seamus wrote: »

Young boy/young girl, whateve; I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so black-and-white about it when actually placed in the situation themselves.Hysterical language aside, Gay Mitchell has similarly appealed to a foreign country for clemency on behalf of a unrepentent double murderer.
The amount of scrutiny that Norris has been under, if a couple of letters and some iffy use of language in an interview is all a concerted smear campaign can find, then the hysteria has won and democracy has lost.

As I say, look as deeply into anyone's affairs and you'll uncover all sorts of things that you wouldn't want in a president.

As has been pointed out on another thread, the letter addressed to the court was not written on state letterhead. Only the character reference was.

And as someone else has pointed out, Norris not only identified himself as an Irish senator but as someone is being mentioned as a possible future Irish President. That surely must be both brazen and arrogant,

anymore

seamus wrote: »

From what I understand the second letter, though addressed to the judges of the court, was requested by the defence of Norris, and not something that was sent directly to the Judge(s) by Norris, nor was it written off his own bat.

That makes a huge difference IMO.

In any case, it's far less controversial or a major issue than everyone likes to think. There's been a major conspiracy underway since Norris announced his intentions, with the sole aim of preventing Norris from getting on the Presidential ballot and perverting democracy.

I'm sure if the other candidates had their past put under similar scrutiny, we'd find far more nefarious acts than simple letters pleading a case for an old friend.

Are you suggesting that the defendant was just ' an old friend' of Norris ?

paddyandy

Waving his stick at the Israeli justice system and it has 'returned on his own head'..to paraphrase.No shame or remorse yet for trying to pervert the course of justice.

seamus

anymore wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the defendant was just ' an old friend' of Norris ?

Old friend, former lover. Is there a difference?

paddyandy wrote: »

Waving his stick at the Israeli justice system and it has 'returned on his own head'..to paraphrase.No shame or remorse yet for trying to pervert the course of justice.

Norris did not attempt to pervert the course of justice. The letter to the judges was sent to the defence team, at their request, as best I understand it.

JustinDee

seamus wrote: »

The letter to the judges was sent to the defence team, at their request, as best I understand it.

Should have been a personal letter. Not a letter with a Senate letterhead.

Nasty dirt-digging though. A fair indicator of how low each campaign team will stoop to discredit a favourite.

seamus

JustinDee wrote: »

Should have been a personal letter. Not a letter with a Senate letterhead.

It was. Look at the scan again, it wasn't sent with Senate letterhead

mikemac

seamus wrote: »

The amount of scrutiny that Norris has been under, if a couple of letters and some iffy use of language in an interview is all a concerted smear campaign can find, then the hysteria has won and democracy has lost.

There was plenty more

No paper mentioned Cathal Ó Searcaigh during the campaign. None in the media brought up the RTÉ documentary and his request to get it reviewed by a government committee before it was aired.

And that was the biggest story, more newsworthy then letters or interviews and yet the media never used it.

anymore

mikemac wrote: »

There was plenty more

No paper mentioned Cathal Ó Searcaigh during the campaign. None in the media brought up the RTÉ documentary and his request to get it reviewed by a government committee before it was aired.

And that was the biggest story, more newsworthy then letters or interviews and yet the media never used it.

No commentator seemed to look at again at the Magill interview and the HLB Liveline programme and started asking questions/ Why is that - did it involve two totally different people ?
And no one as yet seems inclined to offer an aplology to HLB. I listed to the podcast of the liveline interview for the first time last night. She was impressive.

anymore

anymore wrote: »

No commentator seemed to look at again at the Magill interview and the HLB Liveline programme and started asking questions/ Why is that - did it involve two totally different people ?
And no one as yet seems inclined to offer an aplology to HLB. I listed to the podcast of the liveline interview for the first time last night. She was impressive.

I owe an apology to Vincent Browne who has in fact raises the various issues in this morning column:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0803/1224301767166.html

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

Young boy/young girl, whateve; I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so black-and-white about it when actually placed in the situation themselves.

Well forgive me but that line is absolute nonsense. If a middle-aged friend of mine was convicted of the statutory rape of a young boy I'd be repulsed and wouldn't want anything to do with the sicko in question, end of bloody story. The last thing I'd be doing would be pleading on his behalf. Call me an old-fashioned buzz-kill, but I'm not the most tolerant of sex-offenders.