Norris tape to be broadcast at 2:30pm (Oct 21)

gizmo555

Joe Duffy has just announcedthat Helen Lucy Burke has located the original tape of the now notorious Magill interview. It will be broadcast on Liveline at 2:30pm (today, Fri Oct 21).

cardwizzard

Should be interesting. Surprised they can do this, but i'd like to hear it.:)

foggy_lad

Helen Lucy Burke has supplied a tape to RTE's liveline program ant it is currently being listened to with a view to airing it. Is this the end of the Norris campaign?

fred funk }{

Don't see what difference it will make. Norris is finished anyway and he also hasn't really refuted anything that was supposed to be in tapes.

It's amazing how all the best dirt has been saved until the last week of the election.

fred funk }{

His campaign was finished long ago.

tfitzgerald

I think this is part if a dirty tricks campaign against Norris they should let the people decide all this rubbish has being done to death + I can't stand that moron Joe Duffy .

Mr.Micro

It is not correct to air this tape now unless all the candidates are going to have "dirt" dished up as well. To me it is an abuse if it is RTE ( Joe Duffy) who are going to broadcast and will certainly not be neutral or fair but Joe Duffy using RTE to promote his bias and influence the election.

squonk

Well I don't think it matters now to be honest for Norris but given the 'what exactly was said' nature of the argument so far, it certainly makes it quite clear what, indeed was said, and in what context. I think it's purely academic. I don't think Joe Duffy is the correct medium for this however. The 5PM show certainly where it could be disected and discussed in an intelligent manner, but we know what we'll get from Joe & Co.

Teclo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It is not correct to air this tape now unless all the candidates are going to have "dirt" dished up as well.

All candidates have dirt dished on them. Except for Higgins, of course.

SeaFields

I'm too young to remember the last presidential debate in any great detail (its refreshing to be able to say that - i aint too young for much these days ) but feck me these presidential elections, for lets face it - a meaningless, powerless political position - are durty!

Six days before the election and she finds the tape she couldn't find months ago?!

I don't think it'll change who i'm voting for....at the moment its a case of working backward for whom I'm not voting for til i end up with one of them.

Mr.Micro

Teclo wrote: »

All candidates have dirt dished on them. Except for Higgins, of course.

Well this appears to be singling out Norris if at this particular time in the campaign? Unfair and bias from a public broadcaster.

Perhaps there is no dirt on MDH? There are some decent people in Ireland, I suppose.

Zubeneschamali

Why does everyone assume there is something terrible in here? I'll bet it'll be a damp squib.

Ash.J.Williams

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why does everyone assume there is something terrible in here? I'll bet it'll be a damp squib.

it is actually....nothing to see here!

Zubeneschamali

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it is actually....nothing to see here!

So far, nothing significant, it's very close to the published article. On an ad break now.

jhegarty

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It is not correct to air this tape now unless all the candidates are going to have "dirt" dished up as well. To me it is an abuse if it is RTE ( Joe Duffy) who are going to broadcast and will certainly not be neutral or fair but Joe Duffy using RTE to promote his bias and influence the election.

Would it be better if the tape was not played until after the election ?

If he is to be believed then this tape will prove his words were twisted in the article, and his name will be cleared on this issue.

Ash.J.Williams

He came accross ok to be honest...she sounded like she was from the dark ages.

super_furry

Joe Duffy really has timed this well. Hechas orchestrated a campaign against Norris all along and it looks like he's been sitting on this tape, waiting until the final week of the election campaign.

hidinginthebush

I missed this, can anyone give a quick rundown on what was on the tape?

Mr.Micro

jhegarty wrote: »

Would it be better if the tape was not played until after the election ?

If he is to be believed then this tape will prove his words were twisted in the article, and his name will be cleared on this issue.

True of course, but why not broadcast before now, but the tape has only just been found. I am sure Joe Duffy will be voting for DN and he wants DN vindicated

Zubeneschamali

So, that wasn't a break, that was all she had. She apparently turned off the dictaphone.

What came across on the tape which wasn't obvious in the finished article was that HLB was obviously digging for dirt, she wanted Norris's opinion on gay sex in bath houses and AIDs, promiscuity, paedophilia, incest and so on.

All the durty stuff.

Guy:Incognito

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I think this is part if a dirty tricks campaign against Norris they should let the people decide all this rubbish has being done to death + I can't stand that moron Joe Duffy .

I dont see how letting the public know things he says and does is dirty tricks. They are not making things up.

Maybe David Norris needs to have his thoughts and actions edited before making them public. No ones fault but his own.

mike65

Pretty obvious attempt at entrapment/self-incrimination I'd say.

steelcityblues

He won't win, but he should pick up a lot of extra 2nd/3rd/4th preferences now.

Dr Galen

Have RTE made this available online yet? Missed it and it appears this might have been less than the smoking gun the certain elements claimed. Interesting....

JonathanAnon

I've levelled off the volume and uploaded it to youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwrTPj1NBdw

Mr.Micro

One wonders if the pious and self righteous are more concerned about a gay man becoming President than anything else? 2002 tapes that reappear at the appropriate/inappropriate time.


So between IRA Marty and his inglorious past, Gay Norris and his musings, attention seeking Dana ( crazy as a box of frogs), born again Independent new FF Gallagher who cannot talk straight, Mr grudge chip on both shoulders Mitchell, Mary Well connected talentless Davis who cannot understand why she was on numerous Boards without and qualifications and Mr MD Higgins our very own leprechaun. We have a right Bassetts assortment.

Teclo

None of the age of consent issues but hearing much of the 'classic Greek paedophile' stuff is creepy.

RichardAnd

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I think this is part if a dirty tricks campaign against Norris they should let the people decide all this rubbish has being done to death + I can't stand that moron Joe Duffy .

If by dirty tricks you mean bringing to light, many of the very questionable and highly suspect aspects of this charlatan's past then yes, it is a dirty tricks campaign.

Honestly, there are a handfull of people left that claim Norris is being targeted but everything that has come out is verifiable and serious, not smear. I fail to see how that is targeting, would the few remaining supporters of this lunatic prefer if the less palatable details of his past simply didn't come up at all?

After this is over, I deeply wish that David Norris never blackens the public eye again. Given all that has come up in a few weeks, god only knows what this character has gotten up to in the past. Presidential material? I think not.

groovyg

After all the hype about this tape .....and this is as good as it gets..ffs what a waste of time

Zubeneschamali

I think it is a very feeble dirty trick, there's nothing shocking on the tape at all and it shows HLB herself in a rather creepy light, but sitting on it until a week before the election is obviously an attempt at a dirty trick.

mikom

groovyg wrote: »

After all the hype about this tape .....and this is as good as it gets..ffs what a waste of time

Imagine how Norris feels.

jonniebgood1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it is a very feeble dirty trick, there's nothing shocking on the tape at all and it shows HLB herself in a rather creepy light, but sitting on it until a week before the election is obviously an attempt at a dirty trick.

+1

Wolfe Tone

I think it verifies HLBs article tbh

Min

Helen Lucy Burke was deemed a liar by some people for not having the tapes.
She comes out of this well.

He is weak when it comes to the age of consent and has no limit.

pipelaser

I was very impressed with his answers until the very end. It all seemed to make sense until he naively wandered off into the whole thing about there being a difference between a christian brother putting his hand into a pupils pocket and a rapist, there's no difference if you ask me. Someone being a predator is someone being a predator...end of.

Its such a pity, I like him so much, his personal values are strong, but his meandering thoughts get him into trouble. Just cant vote for him.:(

gizmo555

pipelaser wrote: »

I was very impressed with his answers until the very end. It all seemed to make sense until he naively wandered off into the whole thing about there being a difference between a christian brother putting his hand into a pupils pocket and a rapist, there's no difference if you ask me. Someone being a predator is someone being a predator...end of.

Well of course there's a difference between a violent rape and a teacher indecently fondling a child in class. They're both wrong, and Norris is clear on that, but one is so obviously worse than the other that if you can't see that, you're making Norris's precise point for him.

anymore

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well of course there's a difference between a violent rape and a teacher indecently fondling a child in class. They're both wrong, and Norris is clear on that, but one is so obviously worse than the other that if you can't see that, you're making Norris's precise point for him.

Yes I agree but the reality is that the experience of so many who were abused by religous in our schools is that the abuse became progessively worse. And the very name Christian Brothers, rightly or wrongly, is for some/many now almost synonymous with sexual and physical abuse.
On my first listen to the tape, it seemed to confirm that actaul magill interview was quite faithful to what was actually siad and afterwards Harry Magee of the Irish Times confirmed that HLB was " a punctilious journalsit". There is certainly nothing in this tape to justify some of the appalling criticism that she received here on Boards.ie

the_syco

I wonder if it took this long to edit the tape? Also, HLB must think Norris's chances are decent if she feels she must release the tape that she didn't have...

Doirtybirdy

Min wrote: »

Helen Lucy Burke was deemed a liar by some people for not having the tapes.
She comes out of this well.

He is weak when it comes to the age of consent and has no limit.

Hmmm what was martin mcguinness up to though around the same time this was taped?Most of us have got beyond his outrageous support for death and yet we have this pathetic carry on by some worried conservatives over norris.

I'm not voting for DN,never would have.
Truth be told,I'm not a fan,the way he talks,his mannerisms etc.
But I do believe in a sense of fair play.
No fair play here just a homophobe looking for a sensational story providing some cobweb covered tape to fodder more homophobes who just can't be having a pinky in the park.
Any fool could work out DN wouldn't have won.But of course the homophobes wanted to trap him into a humiliation,probably to in their eyes deter any other pinky getting notions of rising above their station.
Pathetic

nesf

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well of course there's a difference between a violent rape and a teacher indecently fondling a child in class. They're both wrong, and Norris is clear on that, but one is so obviously worse than the other that if you can't see that, you're making Norris's precise point for him.

Exactly, anyone who can't tell the difference truly scares me.

Godge

Waited to comment until I heard the tape

(1) There was nothing in the tape that contradicted HLB's article. I don't know where Norris and his supporters have got the idea that his words were twisted.
(2) He did equate paedophilia with pre-pubescence and said that other than that it was about the principle of consent.
(3) He seemed to indicate that a Christian Brother who put his hand in the pocket of a school-boy and presumably fondled him was a less than serious incident.

I have continually wanted an answer about his view on sex between a 40-year old and a 15-year old. The answer was in the tapes and he believes in the principle of consent and there is a lot of fuss around this issue.

Those are the facts. If people want a person like that as President, they can vote for him just like those who want a fully practising Catholic can vote for Dana or Gay Mitchell.

He won't get my vote.

Godge

anymore wrote: »

Yes I agree but the reality is that the experience of so many who were abused by religous in our schools is that the abuse became progessively worse. And the very name Christian Brothers, rightly or wrongly, is for some/many now almost synonymous with sexual and physical abuse.
On my first listen to the tape, it seemed to confirm that actaul magill interview was quite faithful to what was actually siad and afterwards Harry Magee of the Irish Times confirmed that HLB was " a punctilious journalsit". There is certainly nothing in this tape to justify some of the appalling criticism that she received here on Boards.ie

I absolutely agree with this. Hearing the reference to the Christian Brother and knowing what some friends of mine have been through, was creepy.

anymore

nesf wrote: »

Exactly, anyone who can't tell the difference truly scares me.

Yes but also make the point, some abusers set out jsut doing things such as fondling and progress. That should have been acknowledged but I can see the nature of the interview in a resaurant might not have been ameniable to that. However , there has been ample time since then to clarify it.

nesf

Godge wrote: »

He seemed to indicate that a Christian Brother who put his hand in the pocket of a school-boy and presumably fondled him was a less than serious incident.

You think fondling a child is as serious as raping and then murdering a child? What whacked out nutjob world do you live on?

nesf

anymore wrote: »

Yes but also make the point, some abusers set out jsut doing things such as fondling and progress. That should have been acknowledged but I can see the nature of the interview in a resaurant might not have been ameniable to that.

You can't reasonably expect someone after a few drinks to be succinctly footnoting their comments to deal with all interpretations. I don't agree with many of his comments but I'm not overly bothered that he didn't bring up the slippery slope argument with respect to lesser child sexual abuse.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

Waited to comment until I heard the tape

(1) There was nothing in the tape that contradicted HLB's article. I don't know where Norris and his supporters have got the idea that his words were twisted.

Well - the part of the interview that Norris said he was misquoted on wasn't on this tape - so that's not very surprising.

Godge wrote: »

(2) He did equate paedophilia with pre-pubescence and said that other than that it was about the principle of consent. .

and?...

Godge wrote: »

(3) He seemed to indicate that a Christian Brother who put his hand in the pocket of a school-boy and presumably fondled him was a less than serious incident..

Less serious than rape and murder. Yes he did. Shocking stuff really.

Godge wrote: »

I have continually wanted an answer about his view on sex between a 40-year old and a 15-year old. The answer was in the tapes and he believes in the principle of consent and there is a lot of fuss around this issue..

What answer do you believe you heard? Just curious.

Godge wrote: »

Those are the facts. If people want a person like that as President, they can vote for him just like those who want a fully practising Catholic can vote for Dana or Gay Mitchell.

He won't get my vote.

He'll be getting mine.

anymore

nesf wrote: »

You think fondling a child is as serious as raping and then murdering a child? What whacked out nutjob world do you live on?

On the basis of what you quoted you have absolutely no reason to suggest that the poster was equating the two !
:
" Originally Posted by Godge
He seemed to indicate that a Christian Brother who put his hand in the pocket of a school-boy and presumably fondled him was a less than serious incident"

nesf

anymore wrote: »

On the basis of what you quoted you have absolutely no reason to suggest that the poster was equating the two !
:
" Originally Posted by Godge
He seemed to indicate that a Christian Brother who put his hand in the pocket of a school-boy and presumably fondled him was a less than serious incident"

The context was the Christian Brothers incident being put at the lower end of the spectrum and raping and killing a child at the top of it.

Godge

nesf wrote: »

You think fondling a child is as serious as raping and then murdering a child? What whacked out nutjob world do you live on?

Of course I don't equate the two, but hearing his almost casual reference to it when I know people who have been on the receiving end of the less serious type of abuse was chilling to the bone. He alluded to it as if it was nothing. It sounded even worse than it read in print.


P.S. you will have seen enough of my posts to know I don't live on a nutjob world so less of the attack on the poster

pipelaser

nesf wrote: »

You can't reasonably expect someone after a few drinks to be succinctly footnoting their comments to deal with all interpretations. I don't agree with many of his comments but I'm not overly bothered that he didn't bring up the slippery slope argument with respect to lesser child sexual abuse.

Hence the point I made about unfortunate meandering.

Can you not see that, by mitigating the Christian brothers act of putting the hand in the pocket against rape, his argument goes against his personal values.

Ill give you an example,
Its like saying that murdering someone quickly and quietly is less a crime than subjecting someone to a prolonged killing with plenty of suffering.
The sentence for the 2nd scenario my be slightly longer, but premeditated murder has been committed nonetheless.
Murder is Murder, the 2nd scenario does not take away the gravity of the 1st.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

and?...




.

Let us be absolutely clear on the implications of what he has said.

If you are an 11-year old girl who has had her first period and you have a mature outlook on life and are able to give consent, then it is ok for a 50-year old man to have sex with you.

We are clear that it is not something that would personally appeal to David Norris but we are also clear that he sees nothing wrong with that situation if the two people give consent.

Now I have a problem with that view, so I will not vote for him. If you don't have a problem with it, and you are entitled to have that view, off you go and vote for him but don't tell me that is not the full implication of what he said.