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

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm not the one evading the facts here. If you put BS out there, you'll get called on it. Norris didn't blame the victim - that's a fiction of your creation - nothing more.

Not evading? If you put BS out there?

Can you show me where I said Norris BLAMED the victim Alastair? And I am putting BS out there???? 'Implied' is the word I used Alastair, not BLAMED. He selectively used cases to imply certain things.
Prehaps if you have a problem dealing with subtlety and nuance you shouldn't be the one interpreting this man's motives and character?

Happyman42 wrote: »

And why wouldn't that fact have been the main part of Norris's plea for clemency?

Norris instead implied that the 'victim' was the instigator, he quoted a case where a girls appearance made her appear to be older, he complained about set-ups etc. His modus operandi was to make the 'victim' look as bad as he could. In summing up he never once mentions the fact....why? .....to cynically achieve the maximum leniency for his lover/former lover of course. And he used his position as a Senator and an arrogant twerp to do it.

anymore

alastair wrote: »

Again - for those slow on the uptake - the victim didn't want a custodial sentence for Ezra - the nonsense that the victim was being blamed by Norris is laughable - Norris knew very well the nature of the relationship between Ezra and Fuad - an ongoing and consensual one. Norris's character reference for Ezra was certainly admissible, and his points in relation to the victim impact statement stand regardless of whatever you think about Norris's relationship to Ezra. The implication of a trap set for Ezra have nothing to do with Fuad - it relates to his parents (and the likelyhood that the Israeli authorities might relish some difficulties for Ezra) - not him.

Maybe if you acquainted yourself with the actual facts of the case you'd be a bit less eager to paint Norris as having no regard for the victim, and 'implying' that he 'instigated' anything.

So are you saying David Norris was aware of the sexual realtionship between his boyfrend/ex boyfriend and the 15 year old boy and that it was an ongoing one ? See the section of your post in bold ?
Also why was compensation being offered if this was a consensuall one withno ill effect on the boy ?
Mr Norris says in his Judge to the letter ' Secure in the knowledge that Mr Yizhak will not offend again in the same way, he is prepared to make financial compensation to the young man involved, ...." This would seem to imply that the relationship was to be brought to an end. Would you agree ?
Incidentally, I have never before seen a 15 year old refered to as a ' young man'.

alastair

Instigator/blame - same difference. Who are you saying Norris is 'implying' is culpable. As I say - sheer fiction.

alastair

anymore wrote: »

So are you saying David Norris was aware of the sexual realtionship between his boyfrend/ex boyfriend and the 15 year old boy and that it was an ongoing one ? See the section of your post in bold ?
Also why was compensation being offered if this was a consensuall one withno ill effect on the boy ?
Mr Norris says in his Judge to the letter ' Secure in the knowledge that Mr Yizhak will not offend again in the same way, he is prepared to make financial compensation to the young man involved, ...." This would seem to imply that the relationship was to be brought to an end. Would you agree ?
Incidentally, I have never before seen a 15 year old refered to as a ' young man'.

Of course he did - the case took quite a while to come to court - by which time Fuad was above the age of consent - the ongoing nature of the relationship was known to all. The relationship lasted another decade.

anymore

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not evading? If you put BS out there?

Can you show me where I said Norris BLAMED the victim Alastair? And I am putting BS out there???? 'Implied' is the word I used Alastair, not BLAMED. He selectively used cases to imply certain things.
Prehaps if you have a problem dealing with subtlety and nuance you shouldn't be the one interpreting this man's motives and character?

Norris quotes Fox and Feinberg as follows : " Where the victim not only consents, but could be the instigator, or at least a willing participator, a sentence towards the lower range will be considered. "

alastair

anymore wrote: »

Norris quotes Fox and Feinberg as follows : " Where the victim not only consents, but could be the instigator, or at least a willing participator, a sentence towards the lower range will be considered. "

You are clear that no-one disputes that Fuad was a willing participant in the relationship?

anymore

alastair wrote: »

Of course he did - the case took quite a while to come to court - by which time Fuad was above the age of consent - the ongoing nature of the relationship was known to all. The relationship lasted another decade.

And what, if anything, did David Norris do to bring this ongoing relationship with a 15 year old to an end ?

alastair

anymore wrote: »

And what, if anything, did David Norris do to bring this ongoing relationship with a 15 year old to an end ?

Have you much success in controlling other people's relationships? Why would Norris have any influence in that regard?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Instigator/blame - same difference. Who are you saying Norris is 'implying' is culpable. As I say - sheer fiction.

I don't think even Norris was going to be stupid enough to libel in writing. He instead resorted to implying and I am sure the attack on his character would have come in court if he had been accepted as a witness.
Fiction? Norris was fully aware of what was going on.

anymore

alastair wrote: »

Have you much success in controlling other people's relationships? Why would Norris have any influence in that regard?

I assume if an Irish Senator was willing to go on an all expenses trip to Thailand to look a the exploitiaton of girls there, then the very least he would do in the case of his boyfreind/ex boyfriend exploiting a 15 year old boy woul be t try to intervene to stop this exploitiation. Would you not agree ?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am sure the attack on his character would have come in court if he had been accepted as a witness.
Fiction? Norris was fully aware of what was going on.

This is direct from the tea leaves, yeah? Not only fiction, but the psychic arts!

alastair

anymore wrote: »

I assume if an Irish Senator was willing to go on an all expenses trip to Thailand to look a the exploitiaton of girls there, then the very least he would do in the case of his boyfreind/ex boyfriend exploiting a 15 year old boy woul be t try to intervene to stop this exploitiation. Would you not agree ?

And you know that he didn't - or just assume? The Thailand study wasn't about 'girls' btw - it was about the sexual exploitation of women and children.

anymore

alastair wrote: »

You are clear that no-one disputes that Fuad was a willing participant in the relationship?

Well until Norris reveals the content of the letter he is keepng under wraps, I am afraid, i am not clear at all. If compnsation was ofered, it could only be for the breach of some duty or for some wriong done. After all was Mr Norris not himself the benficiary of some insurance policy after some event insured had occured ?

anymore

alastair wrote: »

And you know that he didn't - or just assume? The Thailand study wasn't about 'girls' btw - it was about the sexual exploitation of women and children.

Have you much success in controlling other people's relationships? Why would Norris have any influence in that regard?

I was responding to your post- you appear to be the expert on Norris. Again, if he didnt intervene to bring his relationship to an end how can he justify going an a junket to look at the exploitation of girls ?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

This is direct from the tea leaves, yeah? Not only fiction, but the psychic arts!

It's there in the letter Alastair,

'Sixthly, I was 'a direct personal witness' to some of the peripheral events before they came to the attention of the first court. To my surprise I was not called to present this evidence which I think might have helped the court to come to a more lenient judgement.'

alastair

anymore wrote: »

Well until Norris reveals the content of the letter he is keepng under wraps, I am afraid, i am not clear at all. If compnsation was ofered, it could only be for the breach of some duty or for some wriong done. After all was Mr Norris not himself the benficiary of some insurance policy after some event insured had occured ?

What have the letters got to do with Norris's relationship advice to Ezra? You think that Norris was crying on McAleese's shoulder in the letter? Norris wasn't in any position to offer any compensation in the case - it's nothing to do with him. His salary protection insurance is equally besides the point.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's there in the letter Alastair,

'Sixthly, I was 'a direct personal witness' to some of the peripheral events before they came to the attention of the first court. To my surprise I was not called to present this evidence which I think might have helped the court to come to a more lenient judgement.'

And what leads you connect this with attacking the character of Fuad? Do tell.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

And what leads you connect this with attacking the character of Fuad? Do tell.

Because he made cynical implications in his letter about where the 'crux' of the case might lie by citing cases that he 'thought' where similar or relevant, I suggest that he would have used the privilege of the court to elaborate on that. Why would he be so coy about the 'evidence' in the letter? He KNEW it was probably libellous, is why.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because he made cynical implications in his letter about where the 'crux' of the case might lie by citing cases that he 'thought' where similar or relevant, I suggest that he would have used the privilege of the court to elaborate on that. Why would he be so coy about the 'evidence' in the letter? He KNEW it was probably libellous, is why.

I suggest that you're talking through your hat - the only 'implications' at play here are the ones you've fabricated.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I suggest that you're talking through your hat - the only 'implications' at play here are the ones you've fabricated.

So master of defensive conjecture; what do you think Norris's 'evidence' relating to the events was?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So master of defensive conjecture; what do you think Norris's 'evidence' relating to the events was?

I certainly don't pretend to know - unlike some. What I do know is that Norris knew the nature of the relationship between Ezra and Fuad - and that Ezra and Fuad would certainly not have tolerated Norris attacking the character of Fuad. That's your personal fantasy.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I certainly don't pretend to know - unlike some. What I do know is that Norris knew the nature of the relationship between Ezra and Fuad - and that Ezra and Fuad would certainly not have tolerated Norris attacking the character of Fuad. That's your personal fantasy.

I think anybody with an ounce of sense would know from one letter, never mind the others, that Norris was capable of saying and doing anything to get a more lenient sentence for this man. Perhaps he saw himself as the hero on the white horse riding to rescue his beloved and so win his hand. And they'd all live happily ever after. :rolleyes:

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think anybody with an ounce of sense would know from one letter, never mind the others, that Norris was capable of saying and doing anything to get a more lenient sentence for this man. Perhaps he saw himself as the hero on the white horse riding to rescue his beloved and so win his hand. And they'd all live happily ever after. :rolleyes:

And perhaps your simply a fantasist, prepared to conjure up any outlandish theory to support your anti-Norris bias?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

And perhaps your simply a fantasist, prepared to conjure up any outlandish theory to support your anti-Norris bias?

At least I have more evidence (the letter) than those who claim McG is a murderer. :rolleyes:

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

At least I have more evidence (the letter) than those who claim McG is a murderer. :rolleyes:

Evidence of your folly? No argument there.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Evidence of your folly? No argument there.

Thankfully the electorate didn't let your hero squirm out of his past follies and aid him in making more.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thankfully the electorate didn't let your hero squirm out of his past follies and aid him in making more.

The electorate who voted him back into the senate, or the electorate who appear to be supporting him in growing numbers for this presidential election?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The electorate who voted him back into the senate, or the electorate who appear to be supporting him in growing numbers for this presidential election?

The electorate that was going to elect him President until he inevitably shot himself in both feet. But then, he couldn't miss as they were invariably in his mouth!

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The electorate that was going to elect him President until he inevitably shot himself in both feet. But then, he couldn't miss as they were invariably in his mouth!

This would be the same electorate that had Mitchell as the second place contender? Very compelling.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

This would be the same electorate that had Mitchell as the second place contender? Very compelling.

Yep...he got found out too.;)