Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    I think it verifies HLBs article tbh


  • Options
    #34
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    pipelaser
    Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭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.:(


  • Options
    #36
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #38
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #39
    Doirtybirdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #40
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #45
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭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 viewpost.gif
    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"


  • Options
    #48
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭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 viewpost.gif
    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.


  • Options
    #49
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #50
    pipelaser
    Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    pipelaser wrote: »
    Murder is Murder, the 2nd scenario does not take away the gravity of the 1st.

    That's all well and good, but inappropriate touching - however wrong and abusive, is not murder. One has a greater gravity than the other.


  • Options
    #53
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Godge wrote: »
    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.

    Just to be clear - you've devised a scenario of your own there - and ascribed it to Norris without a shred of evidence that it's something he would condone, let alone consider 'ok'.


  • Options
    #54
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    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.

    What do you think is a ' dirty feeble trick' ? Producing the tape and letting us all hear it for ourselves ?

    I am still trying to find the bit that was ' quoted out of context'.
    The remarkable thing about the tape was how it showed that the article was so accurate - as I said The Irish Times Harry Magee commented on it at the end of the show. I wonder if Joe jackson will be making some comment now ?
    I notice that his site no longer carries the artcile relating to this show.


  • Options
    #55
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    alastair wrote: »
    Just to be clear - you've devised a scenario of your own there - and ascribed it to Norris without a shred of evidence that it's something he would condone, let alone consider 'ok'.
    Post 306 on the P.ie thread on the interview has a transcript of much of the tape and you can read for yourself the remarks regarding this matter.
    http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/173791-liveline-broadcast-helen-lucy-burke-interview-david-norris-2-30pm-31.html


  • Options
    #56
    pipelaser
    Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭pipelaser


    alastair wrote: »
    That's all well and good, but inappropriate touching - however wrong and abusive, is not murder. One has a greater gravity than the other.

    Sorry man, your getting the wrong end of the stick here.
    Murder is as serious as murder
    Sexual assault is as serious as rape.

    That's the point i'm making.


  • Options
    #57
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    pipelaser wrote: »
    Sorry man, your getting the wrong end of the stick here.
    Murder is as serious as murder
    Sexual assault is as serious as rape.

    That's the point i'm making.

    And the point he was making is that the child murderer has rather more gravity than the child molestor. It shouldn't really be a contentious comment.


  • Options
    #58
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Godge wrote: »
    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

    I didn't interpret it as meaning it was almost nothing, only that on a scale of child abuse it ranks at the lower end of things which is fair enough.


  • Options
    #59
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    anymore wrote: »
    Post 306 on the P.ie thread on the interview has a transcript of much of the tape and you can read for yourself the remarks regarding this matter.
    http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/173791-liveline-broadcast-helen-lucy-burke-interview-david-norris-2-30pm-31.html

    Remarks by Norris or others? Because anyone can chime in with their own opinions -it doesn't mean they can be ascribed to Norris.


  • Options
    #60
    Sean Bateman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 858 ✭✭✭Sean Bateman


    The tape (obviously) doesn't cover the whole interview. But the elements that are included in both the Magill article and the tape are identical. That gives her credibility.

    To be honest I'm amazed that Norris apologists are still defending him. It's just a reflection of the homosexual and liberal agenda to put a bizarre candidate into the Aras.

    What's quite disturbing is the way Norris claims he's not personally into kids...his concern doesn't appear to be age related...the implication seems to be that if a 13 year old boy is 6'2" and shaving, Norris would be perfectly happy to sodomize him, but that if underage males are "childlike", he has no interest. All about the physical. No mention of the mental or the ability to consent.

    He's a f..king disgrace, as is anyone who votes for him.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    alastair wrote: »
    Remarks by Norris or others? Because anyone can chime in with their own opinions -it doesn't mean they can be ascribed to Norris.
    If you have listened to the tape and read the transcript, you can decide where the transcript differs from the tape. Or maybe the FBI or CIA or some such body should be brought in to verify this is the real tape.

    The reality is that we have heard the tape and heard Norris's own words.
    I see no reason to doubt HLB's magill article whatsoever. I feel she has been vindicated.


Advertisement