John Halligan withdraws support for David Norris

decies

Well was this the correct decision or not?

Minstrel27

Yes it was. No politician should use his or her position to gain favours for anyone, let alone someone who pleads guilty to statutory rape.

torrentum

He should step out of the presidential race and the senate too

mike65

Makes sense for Halligan, he has little to gain and a bit to lose, esp if something else should yet come out

Godsentme

Oh yeah.:rolleyes:

Halligan is dab hand at deserting a sinking ship. The Workers Party was another ship he jumped when it looked like it wasn't going be any benefit any more to John Halligan.

Minstrel27

Godsentme wrote: »

Oh yeah.:rolleyes:

Halligan is dab hand at deserting a sinking ship. The Workers Party was another ship he jumped when it looked like it wasn't going be any benefit any more to John Halligan.

You think he should have continued to support David Norris do you?

MitchKoobski

Oh christ here we go....

Silverado

What is wrong with letting the people decide at election time. Is that not true democracy?

mike65

That would require an outbreak of real democracy rather than candidates having to pimp themselves

Godsentme

Minstrel27 wrote: »

You think he should have continued to support David Norris do you?

He shouldn't have thrown his hat in the Norris ring in the first place!

He was elected to represent the people of Waterford and do his best for the county, not to toady up to anyone he feels might benefit himself. he is getting well paid to look after us. Plus the outragious "handouts", euphemistically known as "Expenses". No wonder the country is shagged.

Halligan also gets leaders allowance of €41,000 plus they all get an allowance of €26,000 a year to run constituency offices and they also all get a p.a. at a cost of at least €30,000 a year plus he or she gets expenses!

Dan133269

Godsentme wrote: »

He shouldn't have thrown his hat in the Norris ring in the first place!

He was elected to represent the people of Waterford and do his best for the county, not to toady up to anyone he feels might benefit himself. he is getting well paid to look after us. Plus the outragious "handouts", euphemistically known as "Expenses". No wonder the country is shagged.

Halligan also gets leaders allowance of €41,000 plus they all get an allowance of €26,000 a year to run constituency offices and they also all get a p.a. at a cost of at least €30,000 a year plus he or she gets expenses!

What in the name of christ are you scuttering on about? trying to back up your point about Halligan making a bad decision about a presidential candidate by how much money he earns?

And as for deserting a sinking ship, Halligan said he was unaware of what went on in 1997, as I think everyone was. He didn't pledge his unconditional support of Norris running for President at the outset. Norris tried to use his political influence in a dishonest manner to plea for leniency for a sex offender. It was dishonest because he did it not in a personal capacity but rather in his capacity as an elected representative and potential future Presidential candidate which he specifically alluded to in his letter. The news broke what happened, and Halligan decides it would not be right for him personally to nominate Norris to run for the Presidency.

So, you on the other hand would actively remain committed to someone who did those acts just because you said you would support them at one point? There's a difference between loyalty and integrity you know. Halligan made the right call in my opinion.

And as for deserting sinking ship with socialist party, as far as I know that was down to party policy which he didn't agree with.

deisemum

I think David Norris is expected to call a press conference later today.

I was backing David Norris until this scandal broke. I view it in the same way as a bishop trying to get a lenient sentence for a priest who's been found guilty of child sex abuse which should not be condoned.

Cabaal

Have to say what bothers me about this whole Norris thing is the very clear witch hunt that has gone on against him, you can guarantee that if you go digging deep enough you'll find crap about the rest of the people too but nobody is doing it.

Norris made mistakes but you have to wonder why he is being targeted so much, are they scared he might win?

Even with the most recent events he's still topping the poll on the likes of thejournal.ie with 43% of the vote with with Higgins at 17% followed by none of the candidates listed at 16% - http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-who-would-get-your-vote-to-be-the-next-president-191121-Aug2011/?voted=1

You have to ask why is Norris getting flack and Mitchell is getting feck all for the likes of - http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0903/deathrow.html who was Mitchell to start interfering with the US justice system in respect of a murderer?

I say if Norris wants to run then leave him run, let the people vote.
If people have an issue with him then he won't get the votes and as such people have nothing to worry about.

Max Powers

Halligan was right to withdraw support, the comments made 10 years ago were seen to be out of context by most people but supporting a rapist is not good in anyones book. Would you like it if you were related to the boy that was raped.

The most interesting thing I think is what did Norris say or do to get the Israelis back up? They leaked the info, they have track records in such interventions who show slightest criticisim of Israel.

deisemum

There's a witch hunt alright and in any poll he's a clear favourite so a big threat to the rest of the candidates.

The finger of suspicion has been pointed at Michael D. Higgins who's come out and said it's not him that's leaking the scandals surrounding David Norris.

Sully

I wouldn't put this into the category of a simple "mistake" we should just forgive and forget. He is getting a VERY easy time considering it was on official headed paper even though it had nothing to do with Ireland or the Seanad.

Considering the accusations laid before him in the past which he has denied always, this seems to just cast further doubt on those accusations he denied and make me far more uncomfortable.

The role of the president, regardless of it being a tad pointless here, is still very important and should be treated that way. Norris is seeking the support from TDs before going forward - but these TDs are rightly withdrawing support as a personal choice considering what he did.

Electing someone with these beliefs would damage the role and make a mockery of our system.

seanybiker

I read the letters last night. Funnily enough they where PDF files (geddit?).I can't see how anyone could vouch for him anymore. He's very egotistical and never should have sent those letters. Your man halligan is right to withdraw support.

Dan133269

deisemum wrote: »

I think David Norris is expected to call a press conference later today.

I was backing David Norris until this scandal broke. I view it in the same way as a bishop trying to get a lenient sentence for a priest who's been found guilty of child sex abuse which should not be condoned.

I think what he did was bad, but those 2 situations are completely different in my opinion. What bishops have been covering up is the rape of little children, forced rape where the victim has not consented in fact, rape in the normal sense of the word.

The situation with Norris' ex-partner is different, he committed what is commonly referred to as statutory rape i.e. the victim did consent to the act but in the eyes of the law, he was incapable of giving legal consent as he was not old enough. Definitely wrong and immoral, but I just think it's different to the above situation.

Cabaal wrote: »

Have to say what bothers me about this whole Norris thing is the very clear witch hunt that has gone on against him, you can guarantee that if you go digging deep enough you'll find crap about the rest of the people too but nobody is doing it.

Norris made mistakes but you have to wonder why he is being targeted so much, are they scared he might win?

Even with the most recent events he's still topping the poll on the likes of thejournal.ie with 43% of the vote with with Higgins at 17% followed by none of the candidates listed at 16% - http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-who-would-get-your-vote-to-be-the-next-president-191121-Aug2011/?voted=1

You have to ask why is Norris getting flack and Mitchell is getting feck all for the likes of - http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0903/deathrow.html who was Mitchell to start interfering with the US justice system in respect of a murderer?

I say if Norris wants to run then leave him run, let the people vote.
If people have an issue with him then he won't get the votes and as such people have nothing to worry about.

I don't understand this whole mentality of a witch-hunt, out to sabotage Norris' campaign. The whole incident is purely factual, and was carried out in the public domain. It just slipped under the door at the time.

Godsentme

This thread is called John Halligan withdraws support for Norris.
Its turned into a debate on Norris's suitability for the Aras. Thers plenty of other threads about him if you look. lets stick to the subject matter.

John Halligan is not exactly a heavyweight figure in National circles, so who he choses to back in a Presidential campaign is not going to push him/her into the Aras. Neither are the other shower of ( up to now) toadies. (See picture page 3 of todays Mail. Its like a bunch of waxworks drunks!)

My basic point, as a very heavily taxed and under paid worker, with no dubious expenses claims, was, that Halligan should get on with the job he is privliged and higly paid to have should give his undevided attention to doing that job.

Represent the people of Waterford. Full Stop.

takola

Godsentme wrote: »

This thread is called John Halligan withdraws support for Norris.
Its turned into a debate on Norris's suitability for the Aras. Thers plenty of other threads about him if you look. lets stick to the subject matter.

If you have a problem with a post(s) please report it. Back seat modding is against the forum rules, and it tends to irritate pretty much everyone on the internet.

Sully

Godsentme wrote: »

This thread is called John Halligan withdraws support for Norris.
Its turned into a debate on Norris's suitability for the Aras. Thers plenty of other threads about him if you look. lets stick to the subject matter.

John Halligan is not exactly a heavyweight figure in National circles, so who he choses to back in a Presidential campaign is not going to push him/her into the Aras. Neither are the other shower of ( up to now) toadies. (See picture page 3 of todays Mail. Its like a bunch of waxworks drunks!)

My basic point, as a very heavily taxed and under paid worker, with no dubious expenses claims, was, that Halligan should get on with the job he is privliged and higly paid to have should give his undevided attention to doing that job.

Represent the people of Waterford. Full Stop.

If I am not mistaken, John IS representing the people of Waterford in this decision.

Unless there has been some change and we don't get to vote in the Presidential Election here in Waterford?

Also, Norris needed 20 TDs to back him. No party was ever going to back a candidate outside their own ranks. That leaves the Independents. So Norris needed Halligans support, and was getting it until it came out that he wrote on official headed state paper to go easy on his ex partner who had underage sex with a 15 year old!!!!!

In this circle, Halligan is very much a heavyweight. The pool of people Norris can call upon is very small, and whether you think they are all a pack of drunks is your own view but Norris would think different. He needs all the support he can get and there isn't much out there to try convince to come around to supporting him.

Halligan represents me, and he is representing my views here as I would not like such a candidate running in an election.

Yes Boss

I hope the other candidate that wrote a letter of support for a murderer in the USA is treated the same way.:rolleyes:

Sully

He has stepped down from the race. An appropriate move, but it was pretty much a gun to the head moment.

I feel bad for him, as I can see he had the passion and interest, but this was to much.

MitchKoobski

The part that disappoints me about Norris withdrawing completely is that now we're just left with a load of cracp to pick from.

Fair play to John for thinking about it and asking people for their opinions before making his decision.

homolumo

Supposedly Gay Mitchell wrote a letter of 'support' for a double murderer in the US, shouldn't he go too?

Sully

homolumo wrote: »

Supposedly Gay Mitchell wrote a letter of 'support' for a double murderer in the US, shouldn't he go too?

This thread is talking about Halligan and his reasons for withdrawing support. Right or wrong.

I'd prefer we didn't engage in an all rounder topic about the president, as its being discussed in the Politics forum already.

rasper

I think he should have kept his support for him to be on the ticket, and just let the people not the partys decide, although no doubts Norris would've fared poorly Id imagine

Bards

I just think it is more of the "Establishment" dictating to us little people who we can and cannot vote for - He coul dhave easly said "I'm still going to support Norris and let the people decide if he is fit for the presediency" - That's the last time I'm voting for John Halligan in an election

AdMMM

The complete lack of political experience among his campaign team is a big contributing factor to how events transpired. The campaign seemed to be so focused on generating column inches and general publicity that no attention was paid to the flank i.e. the dirty element of Irish Politics (which is actually quite tame compared to the likes of the US). They did not comb through his history looking for potential scandals and for ways to protect him from it. In the end, Norris was blindsided by a story for which a plan should have been made for. Other candidates have overcome far greater scandals and with a competent team, David could have overcome this.

Once his team started to resign, he was toast. The second the letter came out into the public domain and David decided to maintain radio silence, the 14 members supporting him came under incredible pressure. By refusing to engage with the media, David turned the attention away from himself and onto those who supported him. With no way of contacting him, they were essentially left in the political equivalent of no-mans land.

At that point I think all his supporters realised that he was unsupportable. He had abused his position as a politician. In this climate, a Independent politician, many of whom campaigned on a platform of ending this sort of controversial practice, cannot support a candidate who has abused their position.

It is a shame though and I do feel very sorry for the man.

AdMMM

Have to say what bothers me about this whole Norris thing is the very clear witch hunt that has gone on against him, you can guarantee that if you go digging deep enough you'll find crap about the rest of the people too but nobody is doing it.

You will now see the media dig deep into the past of the other main candidates. The reason why Norris was such easy pickings was because he had an inexperienced team who didn't know how to defend their candidate. Also, as such an outspoken candidate, it was more likely that there was material in Norris' past that would have been easy to find.

seanybiker

Bards wrote: »

I just think it is more of the "Establishment" dictating to us little people who we can and cannot vote for - He coul dhave easly said "I'm still going to support Norris and let the people decide if he is fit for the presediency" - That's the last time I'm voting for John Halligan in an election

damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Kracken

Should John have withdrawn support in my opinion.. No I don't think he should... John halligan has been all about supporting the small time guys in small businesses and unions... but I think he didn't take into account the fact that Sen. Norris wrote a large volume of letters of clemency. For all types of people in many situation, both political and judicial.

As he said its not about the crime its about the mercy, not having the sentenced reduced but the type of sentence.

John Halligan should take into account that he needs to think more like senator norris think about all people regardless of creed, colour, etc.

Sully

Kracken wrote: »

Should John have withdrawn support in my opinion.. No I don't think he should... John halligan has been all about supporting the small time guys in small businesses and unions... but I think he didn't take into account the fact that Sen. Norris wrote a large volume of letters of clemency. For all types of people in many situation, both political and judicial.

As he said its not about the crime its about the mercy, not having the sentenced reduced but the type of sentence.

John Halligan should take into account that he needs to think more like senator norris think about all people regardless of creed, colour, etc.

Nobody should run for the office of president, or a state position really, with such views.

sparkling sea

Very sad to hear the John has withdrawn support for Mr Norris as it appears to me that the media are controlling the choice of candidates that will be put before the people - not really a reflection of the wishes of the majority with due regard for the rights of the minority. TDs are meant to uphold the principles of democracy, not let the tabloids quash them.

There still seems to be support for Mr Norris and its a pity that TDs are not reflecting the wishes of the people, because they are not ensuring Mr Norris's name will be on the ballot.

As someone who voted for John I think its quite sad that he did not feel that the electorate would be able to sort through the crap and make a choice they felt was right, re Mr Norris. I am not necessarily saying he is the right person for the Aras but now we will never know who the majority felt and so our supposed opinions will continue to be portrayed as the same as those of the tabloids who now probably feel justified in their hounding of Mr Norris and forcing him out of the race. Mr Norris himself acted in a humane way but any act can be twisted to suit an arguement - its quite sad that John bought it.

Happyman42

sparkling sea wrote: »

Very sad to hear the John has withdrawn support for Mr Norris as it appears to me that the media are controlling the choice of candidates that will be put before the people - not really a reflection of the wishes of the majority with due regard for the rights of the minority. TDs are meant to uphold the principles of democracy, not let the tabloids quash them.

There still seems to be support for Mr Norris and its a pity that TDs are not reflecting the wishes of the people, because they are not ensuring Mr Norris's name will be on the ballot.

As someone who voted for John I think its quite sad that he did not feel that the electorate would be able to sort through the crap and make a choice they felt was right, re Mr Norris. I am not necessarily saying he is the right person for the Aras but now we will never know who the majority felt and so our supposed opinions will continue to be portrayed as the same as those of the tabloids who now probably feel justified in their hounding of Mr Norris and forcing him out of the race. Mr Norris himself acted in a humane way but any act can be twisted to suit an arguement - its quite sad that John bought it.

The system is the system and Norris knew that and furthermore, he never did anything to change it in all the years he was in the Senate.
By deciding to run he was accepting the system, he failed to pass the first hurdle in the system, he wasn't sacked, he wasn't pushed, he withdrew with apologies for doing 'wrong'.
Halligan did the only thing he could do if he found that Norris shouldn't have intervened, we are looking for honourable reps after all.
Huffing about the media being responsible is arrant nonsense. Who wrote the letters...the media???

sparkling sea

Happyman42 wrote: »

Huffing about the media being responsible is arrant nonsense. Who wrote the letters...the media???

No huffing and puffing and the media manipulation is anything but arrant nonsense - it is what it is. I don't feel John allowed the electors the choice they seem to have wanted, I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from him given his experience of Waterford City Council pact voting policy. Rules may be rules but any Irish person knows how easily they can be abused to bar entry or bring about outcome against the wishes of the people.

I don't have any problem with people seeking clemency for others and context is everything.

I am not sure if I would have voted for David Norris but I would have liked to have had the opportunity to make that choice and I know I am not alone on this.

Happyman42

sparkling sea wrote: »

No huffing and puffing and the media manipulation is anything but arrant nonsense - it is what it is. I don't feel John allowed the electors the choice they seem to have wanted, I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from him given his experience of Waterford City Council pact voting policy. Rules may be rules but any Irish person knows how easily they can be abused to bar entry or bring about outcome against the wishes of the people.

I don't have any problem with people seeking clemency for others and context is everything.

I am not sure if I would have voted for David Norris but I would have liked to have had the opportunity to make that choice and I know I am not alone on this.

The media did the same job they normally do, with different shades of opinion. There was no 'orchestrated campaign'
This whinging about the press and the system is wrong.
We elect our representatives to make decisions in good conscience....but when they do (Haligan) you have the knifes out for them.
It's a nonsense position.

He messed up, he's gone.....get over it.

Yes Boss

I hope John Halligan's past is squeaky clean after taking such a high moral ground.

tombliboo83

I was disappointed that Halligan withdrew his support for Norris. Whatever I think of Norris is irrelevant but it's quiet clear that there is an appetite amongst the general public for Norris to run for office. If Halligan and others had of stayed the course then we may have then had the chance to have our say on Norris. Instead we are left with 'what ifs'. Surely backing Norris was about letting the man present his candidacy to the public and not about endorsing him or what he stands for.

Junior

Surely John could have stated he thought that Senator Norris's position on this clemency letter wasn't one he could stand behind, but could have used the chance to call for presidential electoral reform. Which would have been a decent position, I understand that we need people like Norris to stand for election, but I think the system is flawed.

merlante

How many of the great leaders of the past, Churchill, etc., or any of our state founders, would have a snowballs of getting a presidential nomination in this day and age? Political correctness and mere peripheral association with wrongdoing is enough to keep you out of the race. So all you are left with are colourless characters who have done nothing of any interest their entire lives. This is a pretty piss poor era for politics, where slimey game players and quiet fellas who say and do nothing progress, while anybody who might be in danger of doing a good job is scuppered by something or other from their past.

And anyway, there are probably a few people who have read these posts that are guilty of statutory rape themselves (if, for example, they ever had sex with a 16 yr old when they were 17), and maybe everyone knows at least one person who has, and therefore any of their mates, who would write a character reference for them, in an attempt to ease their sentence, should not even bother running for president in the future. I know it's generally considered morally (far) worse when the offender is older, but technically it's the same thing.

He shouldn't have used Seanad notepaper, but I can understand somebody trying their best to ease what could be a pretty bad sentence in a place like israel for someone they care about. Is it really that crazy? He's gone now anyway, and we are left with a pretty anaemic presidential race.

Junior

merlante wrote: »

He's gone now anyway, and we are left with a pretty anaemic presidential race.

Oh no, looks like we've got a live nutter joining in again, rumours that Dana will be running are rife on twitter from newstalk.

jbwan

Yes Boss wrote: »

I hope John Halligan's past is squeaky clean after taking such a high moral ground.

I'm sure it is. No doubt he fled the Worker's Party over this bombshell http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3822005.stm

Even though the investigation was 4 years previous and he was ultimately asked to resign his seat by the party. Yes, a track record of withdrawing support at the first sign of wrongdoing. :rolleyes:

Sen. Norris did wrong and he openly admitted it. Not like the fiasco surrounding Tony Killeen for a case that was not dissimilar to this, except there was no romantic relationship between the origin and the accused that we know of.

It's a tough fence to pick a side of. Ultimately even Sen. Norris agrees that it was wrong, indefensible, and in retrospect, an error in judgement. However, the dignity and resolve with which he accepted his sentence (effective expulsion from the presidential race) are testimony to his undoubted suitability for the position. Not that I would always agree with his politics but I have never heard the man speak and thought to myself, that's embarrassing. The exact opposite in fact. An articulate, learned scholar of world politics and artistic merit - moral compass points to disapproval of his actions but all the same, it's a shame he won't be at the helm.

dayshah

Junior wrote: »

Surely John could have stated he thought that Senator Norris's position on this clemency letter wasn't one he could stand behind, but could have used the chance to call for presidential electoral reform. Which would have been a decent position, I understand that we need people like Norris to stand for election, but I think the system is flawed.

Tee hee hee

merlante wrote: »

And anyway, there are probably a few people who have read these posts that are guilty of statutory rape themselves (if, for example, they ever had sex with a 16 yr old when they were 17), and maybe everyone knows at least one person who has, and therefore any of their mates, who would write a character reference for them, in an attempt to ease their sentence, should not even bother running for president in the future. I know it's generally considered morally (far) worse when the offender is older, but technically it's the same thing.

But the case doesn't involve a 16 and 17 year old. It involves a 15 year old and someone born in 1952. If it was a 15 year old girl, and a 40 year old man, most people would think it a crime and the man should serve jail. Maybe it is 'technically' the same crime, but the judge takes all these other factors into account.


And Churchill was a prick who was responsible for the Black and Tans, and far worse in India.

merlante

dayshah wrote: »

But the case doesn't involve a 16 and 17 year old. It involves a 15 year old and someone born in 1952. If it was a 15 year old girl, and a 40 year old man, most people would think it a crime and the man should serve jail. Maybe it is 'technically' the same crime, but the judge takes all these other factors into account.

These factors are mitigating but the crime is the same. Either way, if you haven't reached the age of consent, the law does not consider that you are mature enough to consent to sex, therefore, if an adult allows sex to happen with someone under that age, they have defacto raped the person. You can sugar coat the two teenagers in love scenario all you want (and I'd personally go along with that) but it is rape under the law.

Under the law (in Ireland), an 18 yr old is as mature and responsible for their actions and decisions as a 40 yr old is. We might be far less impressed with a 40 yr old taking advantage but it's the person underage that matters because they are not deemed to be able to consent one way or the other.

Anyway, this is getting somewhat off topic...

dayshah wrote: »

And Churchill was a prick who was responsible for the Black and Tans, and far worse in India.

Yeah, he was a prick to Ireland, but did great service for his own country. (Also a prick to Ireland even when Ireland was in the UK granted. ) If only we had a few more politicians in Ireland who shafted outsiders rather than their own people...

decies

Maybe John will switch his allegiances to the Dana campaign !!

jbwan

decies wrote: »

Maybe John will switch his allegiances to the Dana campaign !!

All kinds of Halligan, remind me of...

Silverado

Perhaps he might also attend more Dail votes. WLR today reported that he was present for only 44% of Dail votes since his election, by far the worst of Waterford TDs. Ciara Conway attended 100% of votes while Coffey and Deasy were in the 80s.

What did he think he was being elected for?

tombliboo83

Silverado wrote: »

Perhaps he might also attend more Dail votes. WLR today reported that he was present for only 44% of Dail votes since his election, by far the worst of Waterford TDs. Ciara Conway attended 100% of votes while Coffey and Deasy were in the 80s.

What did he think he was being elected for?

I was quite disappointed about his voting record when I read about it yesterday. Seems like alot of the opposition can't be arsed with voting according to the figures, taking a defeat for granted each time.

sparkling sea

Happyman42 wrote: »

The media did the same job they normally do, with different shades of opinion. There was no 'orchestrated campaign'
This whinging about the press and the system is wrong.
We elect our representatives to make decisions in good conscience....but when they do (Haligan) you have the knifes out for them.
It's a nonsense position.

Very emotive it maybe, all though getting the knives out is a bit OTT.

I am still disappointed John Halligan didn't allow people to have a choice ( in so far as he could have).

Godsentme

Yes Boss wrote: »

I hope John Halligan's past is squeaky clean after taking such a high moral ground.

Everyone has a skeleton in the cupboard they hope will never come out.
in the case of a public representative they just have to hope harder.;)