Sunday Times has new revelations on you know who....NOT letter related!

darkman2

This has just been tweeted.

mark_tighe Mark Tighe
Have revelations in ST about #Norris & Nawi tomorrow that should interest people. #aras11 Nothing to do with letters or that case!

Should have the story before midnight. What could it be? Joe Jackson, Norris biographer, claims there are 3 "scandals" not letter related to come. Maybe this is the first of them.

J. Marston

Didn't they have revelations last week too?

ShamoBuc

Tired of their revelations .

mickydoomsux

They're gay.

It's a closely guarded secret but the Times have got their fingers on the pulse.

orourkeda

Hopefully they'll finish him off once and for all. I dont think I could handle another 4 weeks of his bullsh1t

Cicero

similar thread started this time last week...again about DN...again about something in the ST......calling wolf comes to mind here.....

LeixlipRed

Can guarantee they all have skeletons, curious how it's all directed at him....

darkman2

J. Marston wrote: »

Didn't they have revelations last week too?

Yes, last week it was the 6 letters. Maybe they have all this stuff to drip feed out. A bit cynical but that's the media.

orourkeda

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Can guarantee they all have skeletons, curious how it's all directed at him....

Mary Davis was caught today too. Its not all directed at him

mickydoomsux

Hey, there's only one candidate who's a murderer so these "revelations" about the other candidates are going to have to be fairly bad.

Grants fairy

mickydoomsux wrote: »

They're gay.

It's a closely guarded secret but the Times have got their fingers on the pulse.

jhegarty

Cicero wrote: »

similar thread started this time last week...again about DN...again about something in the ST......calling wolf comes to mind here.....

Last week was the extra letter.

No wolf crying going on.

Biggins

The tweet says "should interest people" ?
So in other words its probably more like personal, crap about their personal lives - the sort of cheap stuff one might find in the tabloids that we are normally giving out about?

Time will tell I suppose.

Someone at The Times must be trying to get the boot in again - its getting tiresome.

squod

No matter what it is, the internet trolls will forgive him 'cause he's gay and tell me I don't understand etc. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

squod wrote: »

No matter what it is, the internet trolls will forgive him 'cause he's gay and tell me I don't understand etc. :rolleyes:

No matter what it is his detractors will claim he is a disgrace and should withdraw :rolleyes:

Biggins

I want to know what they can do for my country, what skills they bring, what related work experience they bring etc... not kiss and tell cheap crap.

ascanbe

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Can guarantee they all have skeletons, curious how it's all directed at him....

Ironic that what's in the the closet, those skeletons, will probably be his undoing.

Nolanger

He's as fake as that stupid accent.

jhegarty

Biggins wrote: »

The tweet says "should interest people" ?
So in other words its probably more like personal, crap about their personal lives - the sort of cheap stuff one might find in the tabloids that we are normally giving out about?

Time will tell I suppose.

Someone at The Times must be trying to get the boot in again - its getting tiresome.

Crap from personal lives like a persons religion ?

woodoo

Biggins wrote: »

I want to know what they can do for my country, what skills they bring, what related work experience they bring etc... not kiss and tell cheap crap.

I agree

I'm at the stage where i don't give a damn what the papers bring out. We all have things we are not proud of in the past. We move on and change.

We are not looking to elect a saint.

orourkeda

Biggins wrote: »

I want to know what they can do for my country, what skills they bring, what related work experience they bring etc... not kiss and tell cheap crap.

Then why avoid two candidates on religious grounds

Biggins

jhegarty wrote: »

Crap from personal lives like a persons religion ?

I don't care what their religion is - but when any RELEVANT aspect of of their life will further interfear with their ability to do their jobs IN THE FUTURE, thats when such things matter

Kiss and tell crap from the past, is a method by those of poor argument to just throw irrelevant dirt in hope some of it will stick and blemish the other parts that are more relevant and important to be seen.

Biggins

orourkeda wrote: »

Then why avoid two candidates on religious grounds

Did you actually see the Late Late last night?
That question would have been answered for you.

cml387

I hate conspiracy theories but I'm beginning to wonder whether there is someone in a certain middle eastern country stirring the sh!t here.

Red Alert

How many journalists have "clean" lives? Let's face it, they avoided mentioning the indiscretions of that sports journalist, not just for legal reasons. Norris did something very stupid but he's quite open about it.

ArtSmart

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Can guarantee they all have skeletons, curious how it's all directed at him....

personally i think it's his stance on a number of issues at odds with the O Reilly world view, and not his sexuality. though of course, that is an easier target. thing is, it will most likely backfire.

orourkeda

Biggins wrote: »

Did you actually see the Late Late last night?
That question would have been answered for you.

I haven't seen it all yet so cant make a judgement on that broadcast yet.

orourkeda

cml387 wrote: »

I hate conspiracy theories but I'm beginning to wonder whether there is someone in a certain middle eastern country stirring the sh!t here.

Even if there was what would they have to gain by it?

orourkeda

Red Alert wrote: »

How many journalists have "clean" lives? Let's face it, they avoided mentioning the indiscretions of that sports journalist, not just for legal reasons. Norris did something very stupid but he's quite open about it.

How many journalists are running for president? He's not being open about it. Thats part of the problem here.

humberklog

orourkeda wrote: »

Even if there was what would they have to gain by it?

Peace in our Times?

cml387

orourkeda wrote: »

Even if there was what would they have to gain by it?

Not much except that they would have "sorted" one of their more vocal enemies.

4leto

Listen people he did ask the Irish people to move past this, so we should (not)

Anything more or worse about this man does not surprise he is a deeply flawed and delusional man.

Which makes us a deeply flawed and delusional electorate if the polls are to be believed.

I really wish he would just go away.

Nodin

cml387 wrote: »

I hate conspiracy theories but I'm beginning to wonder whether there is someone in a certain middle eastern country stirring the sh!t here.

....you do realise he's not the only one with pro-Palestinian views in the race...?

ArtSmart

orourkeda wrote: »

Then why avoid two candidates on religious grounds

well let's take Dana's stance on the confession seal. She believes in freedom of religious belief (Catholic in this particular case) supersedes the recommendations on child protection.

She clearly stated that her motivations was to 'protect religious freedom' on the late late.

personally I feel a person's personal world view, must come second to the common good.

so religious beliefs, if they supersede the demands of the state are not good for this particular job, ie president.

orourkeda

cml387 wrote: »

Not much except that they would have "sorted" one of their more vocal enemies.

But the state has previously expressed its support for a palestinian state. The state has made its position clear on that already. Besides the presidents role is little more than a ceremonial role with little tangible power.

lynski

woodoo wrote: »

I agree

I'm at the stage where i don't give a damn what the papers bring out. We all have things we are not proud of in the past. We move on and change.

We are not looking to elect a saint.

hear hear. at least he could give a speech to stir the hearts and engage the mind.cant be said of too many of the candidates. oh and he is not a murderer

Biggins

orourkeda wrote: »

I haven't seen it all yet so cant make a judgement on that broadcast yet.

Let me explain then.

Dana for example was interviewed one on one with Tubs.
She stated QUITE clearly that she would NOT sign anything into the constitution that she thought would go against what she believed!
She later in the group debate said words to this effect again - adding she said she would be defending the constitution the way it is now - she would not allow change!

Now remember this (JUST for example) when we at the next president election date, vote on two referendums.
Imagine then those two bills later being shoved in front of her for her to sign into law, the people of Ireland having voted for them, for the constitution to be updated - and she because of what she personally believes will not sign them - again, despite a majority of the Irish nation wishing such things to be law!

Now THATS when EXTREME religious natures have an effect on the future prospects of our nation - and as Dana made QUITE clear to all last night, she is willing or should I say NOT willing to sign anything that interfears with her strong religion.

orourkeda

ArtSmart wrote: »

well let's take Dana's stance on the confession seal. She believes in freedom of religious belief (Catholic in this particular case) supersedes the recommendations on child protection.

She clearly stated that her motivations was to 'protect religious freedom' on the late late.

personally I feel a person's personal world view, must come second to the common good.

so religious beliefs, if they supersede the demands of the state are not good for this particular job, ie president.

Sean Gallagher who is also a catholic stated the exact opposite view.

Isn't it their stance on the issue more important than their religious baackground.

orourkeda

Biggins wrote: »

Let me explain then.

Dana for example was intervied one on one with Tubs.
She stated QUITE clearly that she would NOT sign anything into the constitution that she thought would go against what she believed!
She later in the group debate said words to this effect again - adding she said she would be defending the constitution the way it is now - she would not allow change!

Now remember this when we at the next president election date and we vote on two referendums.
Imagine then those two bills later being shoved in fron ot her for her to sign into law, the people of Ireland having voted for them, for the constitution to be updated - and she because of what she personally believes will not sign them - again, despite a majority of the Irish nation wishing such things to be law!

Now THATS when EXTREME religious natures have an effect on the future prospects of our nation - and as Dana made QUITE clear to all last night, she is willing or should I say NOT willing to sign anything that interfears with her strong religion.

As I've mentioned above Sean Gallagher (who also happens to be catholic)had expressed a diametrically opposed stance on the issue of protecting child abusers who have confessed in confession so to speak. (for want of a better expression)

It's more to do with the candidates relevant stance on the issue rather than their religious beliefs that should be judged here.

Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

orourkeda

lynski wrote: »

hear hear. at least he could give a speech to stir the hearts and engage the mind.cant be said of too many of the candidates. oh and he is not a murderer

Who cares whether or not he can make a speech?

Biggins

orourkeda wrote: »

As I've mentioned above Sean Gallagher (who also happens to be catholic)had expressed a diametrically opposed stance on the issue of protecting child abusers who have confessed in confession so to speak. (for want of a better expression)

It's more to do with the candidates relevant stance on the issue rather than their religious beliefs that should be judged here.

Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

I would say that so far all but two would be willing to sign into law, anything that would update our constitution, despite their own personal strong feelings.
They would allow democratic right more so to take precedence.
That to me, was made quite clear last night by most.

lynski

orourkeda wrote: »

A
Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

same as who? dana or sean?
you obviously did not watch too closely as Dana was alone in saying she would place her personal opinions or her religion's diktats ahead of the law of the land.
Norris btw had no problem in answering the question.

cml387

Biggins wrote: »

Let me explain then.

Dana for example was intervied one on one with Tubs.
She stated QUITE clearly that she would NOT sign anything into the constitution that she thought would go against what she believed!
She later in the group debate said words to this effect again - adding she said she would be defending the constitution the way it is now - she would not allow change!

Now remember this (JUST for example) when we at the next president election date, vote on two referendums.
Imagine then those two bills later being shoved in front of her for her to sign into law, the people of Ireland having voted for them, for the constitution to be updated - and she because of what she personally believes will not sign them - again, despite a majority of the Irish nation wishing such things to be law!

Now THATS when EXTREME religious natures have an effect on the future prospects of our nation - and as Dana made QUITE clear to all last night, she is willing or should I say NOT willing to sign anything that interfears with her strong religion.

Not something that any of the media made any issue of. I was absolutely amazed that Ms Scallon was allowed to get away with the nonsense she was spouting last night.

Bannasidhe

orourkeda wrote: »

As I've mentioned above Sean Gallagher (who also happens to be catholic)had expressed a diametrically opposed stance on the issue of protecting child abusers who have confessed in confession so to speak. (for want of a better expression)

It's more to do with the candidates relevant stance on the issue rather than their religious beliefs that should be judged here.

Is it reasonable to presume that 6 of the 7 candidates will hold the same view on all issue because they happen to be of the same religion. Norris being the exception.

But will all of the other candidates (Norris included - he is a committed Christian) refuse to accept a change to the Constitution or legislative Act that is in opposition to their personal religious beliefs?

If there is a referendum on Gay Marriage and the majority vote in favour - will Dana refuse to sign? Or abortion (it could happen!)? Would she have refused to sign the act allowing divorce?

The President must be the representative of all the people - RC, COI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist and Agnostic - so must keep their religious beliefs separate from their official duties.

lynski

orourkeda wrote: »

Who cares whether or not he can make a speech?

well for me it is a large part of the job description; being able to make speeches is pretty much a huge part of the job, being charismatic, interested in people, highlighting issues, being unafraid to challenge the government of the day when needed are all aspects too, but day in day out the president travels the country and the world making speeches.

Biggins

cml387 wrote: »

Not something that any of the media made any issue of. I was absolutely amazed that Ms Scallon was allowed to get away with the nonsense she was spouting last night.

Well as she stated this at 10pm at night onwards - the paper presses would have been long gone to print.
The presses roll from about 4.30pm onwards for the next days publication/sales.

orourkeda

lynski wrote: »

same as who? dana or sean?
you obviously did not watch too closely as Dana was alone in saying she would place her personal opinions or her religion's diktats ahead of the law of the land.
Norris btw had no problem in answering the question.

6 of the 7 candidates are catholics. My point was that it is hghly improbable that these 6 candidates will hold the same view on important issues simply because they are part of the catholic religion. Rather than focus on the fact that they are catholic shouldn't an effort be made to determine their stances on the relevant topics.

Sean Gallagher also gave a straight answer.

orourkeda

Biggins wrote: »

Well as she stated this at 10pm at night onwards - the paper presses would have been long gone to print.
The presses roll from about 4.30pm onwards for the next days publication/sales.

But the sundays have had plenty of time to analyse the debate.

Biggins

orourkeda wrote: »

But the sundays have had plenty of time to analyse the debate.

Aye, the editors comments and other Sunday writers could be interesting.

orourkeda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But will all of the other candidates (Norris included - he is a committed Christian) refuse to accept a change to the Constitution or legislative Act that is in opposition to their personal religious beliefs?

If there is a referendum on Gay Marriage and the majority vote in favour - will Dana refuse to sign? Or abortion (it could happen!)? Would she have refused to sign the act allowing divorce?

The President must be the representative of all the people - RC, COI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist and Agnostic - so must keep their religious beliefs separate from their official duties.

Surely we should make an infomed determination on the full extent of a candidates stance on these issues. Religious belief isnt the be all and end all but it is a factor nonetheless.


Mary McAleese is a catholic who is opposed to divorce and abortion and divorce. It didnt impair her ability to do her job.Perhaps Dana is different but if enough people have an issue with this then she wont get elected and I dont expect that she will.

The arguments are all based on the assumption that those constitutional reforms would be passed in a referendum which is another issue entirely and the further assumption that Dana is elected.

orourkeda

Biggins wrote: »

Aye, the editors comments and other Sunday writers could be interesting.

It was always going to be the case.