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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Is David Norris Toast?

1…457910…70

Comments

  • #182
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Can anyone verify that on Liveline yesterday, she claimed no changes were made to the article, while on Pat Kenny Today this morning, she claimed that Norris asked for changes to the article (after Norris said she made no changes)?

    P.

    On Liveline, HLB said that she read back to Norris the full transcript of their conversation.
    She said that she read the full transcript back to him slowly.

    She said that Norris requested no changes/amendments to the transcript.

    She then forwarded the transcript to the editor. The editor removed one particularly salacious paragraph. The final published transcript omitted the paragraph in question.


  • #183
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    In fairness, she said yesterday on air that she meant nothing by the mention of Thailand, she did not seem to care whether he was in Thailand or in Tipperary. Personally I am far more concerned about what DN actually said, and how his use of the word boys, as well as suggesting that sex should be consent based and not aged based could possibly be taken out of context. It is important to note that DN has not denied saying this.
    In fairness though to the cop on of most of the general public,I'd suggest she saw that little jibe was amongst the biggest of the backfires in her attempted demolition job.

    As for the boys bit etc,I'm of the view now that DN was waxing lyrically as he often does about in this case classical Greece.
    His reference to boys in all clarifications was boys of consenting age.
    I'm a boy by the way,I've no objection to calling a male adult a boy or me being called a boy or a 17yr old being called a boy.
    This is all misinterpretation jam.


  • #184
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »

    I'm a boy by the way,I've no objection to calling a male adult a boy or me being called a boy.

    what age are you?


  • #185
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In fairness though to the cop on of most of the general public,I'd suggest she saw that little jibe was amongst the biggest of the backfires in her attempted demolition job.

    As for the boys bit etc,I'm of the view now that DN was waxing lyrically as he often does about in this case classical Greece.
    His reference to boys in all clarifications was boys of consenting age.
    I'm a boy by the way,I've no objection to calling a male adult a boy or me being called a boy or a 17yr old being called a boy.
    This is all misinterpretation jam.
    Would you say that even if it does not do anything for you, that there is something to be said for classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks?

    Do you see how unacceptable that is in a country that has been torn up with paedophilia, and with masses of the public coming out to back up respected public figures (in those cases, church figures) during such controversies in the past?


  • #186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Eh? I've voted in 5 or 6 of the last general elections.
    I am a boy.
    I am somebodies boy friend.
    I am one of the boys,one of the lads.

    I don't agree with this notion of seizing on the use of one word and running off going j'accuse with it.
    Especially when in this case David Norris has clarified what he meant.

    I mean he could have just been talking about age differences between the younger legal age of consent person and someone much older.
    He clarified the important bit umpteen times in that he said within the law.
    Thats that to bed.

    (Unless someone here wants to outrageously twist that choice of word there into who it is I want in my bed which perhaps you could save untill I run for president please,as I don't have time right now...plus I reckon it might gain me votes not lose them)


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I mean he could have just been talking about age differences between the younger legal age of consent person and someone much older.
    That is not the ancient Greek version, whereby adults engaged in non penetrative sexual relations with adolescent boys. In ancient Greece this was something that happened before the coming of age, almost by definition.

    Further, Norris said he supported a consent based approach, and not age limits.

    These are not interpretations, these are my paraphrasing from direct quotes, and Norris is not denying having made them. I personally find that unacceptable. If he did not mean these comments to be taken seriously, or if he was trying to spark lively debate, fine, but he should say that.


  • #188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    Would you say that even if it does not do anything for you, that there is something to be said for classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks?

    Do you see how unacceptable that is in a country that has been torn up with paedophilia, and with masses of the public coming out to back up respected public figures (in those cases, church figures) during such controversies in the past?
    I think it's taking a mudsling somebody else has tried and going way OTT with an analysis of it.
    David Norris is on record of what he thinks of Church child sex abuse,he has been very unequivocal about it.

    As regards your first line,I'm inclined not to take anything written in the article as trustworthy at this stage now that it's been scrutinized and it's been shown that he denied it 9 years ago and she ignored him and said no more on the topic back then but brings it all back up now even though it's as shakey an article now as it was then.

    As noidin said earlier HLB seems to imply much and deliver little.
    Classic mud slinging.
    Further, Norris said he supported a consent based approach, and not age limits.
    I already dealt with that.
    He could have been talking about age differences but he definitely clarified within the law


  • #189
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think it's taking a mudsling somebody else has tried and going way OTT with an analysis of it.
    David Norris is on record of what he thinks of Church child sex abuse,he has been very unequivocal about it.

    As regards your first line,I'm inclined not to take anything written in the article as trustworthy at this stage now that it's been scrutinized and it's been shown that he denied it 9 years ago
    He is not denying having said any of it. Show me where he denied having said these words nine years ago, and explain why is not denying it today.

    If *anybody* did make these comments, do you think they are acceptable or not?


  • #190
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    He could have been talking about age differences but he definitely clarified within the law
    No9 he did not. He suggested that the law should take a different approach to non penetrative sex - he suggested it should be based on consent and not age. Read the article.


  • #191
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    No9 he did not. He suggested that the law should take a different approach to non penetrative sex - he suggested it should be based on consent and not age. Read the article.
    I did read the article.
    I also am aware that David Norris asked for some parts of the article to be corrected back before it's original publication and I'm aware that he has denied supporting child sex as the law today stands on the radio this morning.
    I'm also aware that he stated this morning that at the time in 2002 he stated in several rebuttals that it was inaccurate.
    For that reason as stated in another post,the article as far as I'm concerned is unentertainable.
    It appears to be gospel to you though,I think taking that attitude is unreasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    he has denied supporting child sex as the law today stands on the radio this morning.
    Of course he does not support sex with children under standing legislation, the article did not even suggest that.
    However, he has not denied supporting a change to the legislation whereby the courts take account of consent instead of age, and whereby it occured in ancient Greece. He has not rejected nor denied these comments. He was quoted directly.

    I am going to ask you again. Do you think it is acceptable for *anyone*, be it a bishop or a senator or a newspaper vendor to come out with such rubbish as suggesting that there is something to be said for the ancient Greek model of non penetrative sex with boys, or that the courts should take account of consent instead of age? Do you think that is ever an acceptable thing to say?


  • #193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    I am going to ask you again. Do you think it is acceptable for *anyone*, be it a bishop or a senator or a newspaper vendor to come out with such rubbish as suggesting that there is something to be said for the ancient Greek model of non penetrative sex with boys, or that the courts should take account of consent instead of age? Do you think that is ever an acceptable thing to say?
    Frankly you have no need to ask me that as the veracity of the article is in question considerably.
    You've also no right to ask me that.


  • #194
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Again Black Briar alleges that Helen Lucy Burke is homophobic, AGAIN I ask for some evidence.

    If you are going to make such accusations you need to back them up, or keep stum.

    Its pathetic that you attempt to portray anyone who takes issue with what Norris has said as homophobic.


  • #195
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You've also no right to ask me that.
    I absolutely do.

    Do you think such comments as have not been denied, are ever acceptable, regardless of who advances them?


  • #196
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    later10 wrote: »
    I am going to ask you again. Do you think it is acceptable for *anyone*, be it a bishop or a senator or a newspaper vendor to come out with such rubbish as suggesting that there is something to be said for the ancient Greek model of non penetrative sex with boys, or that the courts should take account of consent instead of age? Do you think that is ever an acceptable thing to say?

    he said there was something to be said for it, in that he said he would have liked an older figure when he was that age. That's all. Heaven forbid anyone under the age of 17 even consider their sexuality?! sure I didnt even look at women til I was 18, and only then, when I was given permission. :rolleyes:
    He also says he was either misquoted or mispoker, and the quote was classical Pederasty, not paedophilia.


  • #197
    kn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭kn


    Joe Duffy and Liveline seemingly have THE TAPE.....da na na na......


  • #198
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    kn wrote: »
    Joe Duffy and Liveline seemingly have THE TAPE.....da na na na......
    Is that live now?


  • #199
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    zuroph wrote: »
    He also says he was either misquoted or mispoker, and the quote was classical Pederasty, not paedophilia.
    That is fine... classical pederasty is no better in my view. Its advancement is equally misplaced is a developed society such as ours. Do you think the comments are ever acceptable? What if Archbishop Martin came out and said this? I think that there would - quite rightly - be fury.

    Of course, if an archbishop was accused of saying such things 25 years ago, there would be a swell of support for him. How ironic.


  • #200
    kn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,897 ✭✭✭kn


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Is that live now?

    The programme starts in 10 minutes.


  • #201
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Is that live now?
    about 20 minutes

    edit
    oops... ten apparently


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,299 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Its pathetic that you attempt to portray anyone who takes issue with what Norris has said as homophobic.
    This is what has ticked me off most about this thread and opinions on this matter elsewhere. Oh noes can't say boo about oul Dave or you're a homophobe. Brilliant way to clamp down on any negative press. Eh no.

    For the record I'd still vote for him so far. So he ran off his mouth ten years ago. I can see what he's getting at and it's hardly perverse, though I can see how others would think it was. I don't put him next nor near an asses roar of o snodaigh and gits like that. They shouldnt be in the same sentence.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #203
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    I absolutely do.
    I am not the subject of this thread ergo You do not.
    Do you think such comments as have not been denied, are ever acceptable, regardless of who advances them?
    Actually as I understand it they have been denied.
    I've explained it in earlier posts here, [the the one addressed to you about the radio interview on kenny this morning] and explained again by Zuroph just now.
    On a point of principle I'm not going to give my views on the topic as they are irrelevant.
    Mind you I'm sure you'll keep asking for them.
    Again Black Briar alleges that Helen Lucy Burke is homophobic, AGAIN I ask for some evidence.
    Thats my view yes.I don't have to give evidence for my views,just my facts.


  • #204
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Actually as I understand it they have been denied.
    Norris has not denied making the direct quotes in question. Why are you unwilling to say whether you think it is acceptable or not that such comments might be advanced?

    You have nothing to back up the direct and, quite frankly libelous suggestion that HLB is homopohobic. I suggest you back it up, or do not put it forward in the first place.


  • #205
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    later10 wrote: »
    Norris has not denied making the direct quotes in question. Why are you unwilling to say whether you think it is acceptable or not that such comments might be advanced?

    .

    This seems to be a variant of 'You don't support Osama, do you?'.


  • #206
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    It isn't paedophilia, yet that term is being used all over the media about it.


  • #207
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    jakdelad wrote: »
    so your not anti gay
    so you beleive duffy and helen burke then
    well the best thing you can do is not vote for him.

    and you were worried about our president being gay
    it seems you have issues with gay people
    does a persons sexuality really matter to you???
    what is it withyou??
    what exactly is your problem ????
    let talk about his politics not his private life jeeze

    As I have already stated, I have nothing against gay people and was going to vote for David Norris - but not now. When I said I worried about Ireland not being ready for a gay President it was in terms of the country being mature enough to see beyond his being gay and vote for the man rather than his sexual preference. Since his intention to run for the Presidency was announced my only concern was that the newspapers would end up carrying salacious stories of his gay sex life that might be bad for him and the country. I had never heard of the Magill article before, not being a fan of the magazine, and thus had no knowledge of the comments regarding pederastry etc.

    I have no problem - thank you for your concern.


  • #208
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Nodin wrote: »
    This seems to be a variant of 'You don't support Osama, do you?'.
    I think comparing this to Osama is a little strange.

    The question is the nature of these comments, and whether it is ever acceptable to promote the abolition of the age of consent in favour of consent alone in a classical Greek pederastical context. I think it is fair to ask whether or not that is ever acceptable. Particularly so when the relevent quotes are direct quotes, and are not subject to denial.


  • #209
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    later10 wrote: »
    That is fine... classical pederasty is no better in my view. Its advancement is equally misplaced is a developed society such as ours. Do you think the comments are ever acceptable? What if Archbishop Martin came out and said this? I think that there would - quite rightly - be fury.

    Of course, if an archbishop was accused of saying such things 25 years ago, there would be a swell of support for him. How ironic.

    what comment? The idea that an aspect of pedarasty ("something to be said for.."), the chance to be mentored by an older male, was something that he personally would have liked when he was a young man, trying to deal with his sexuality in a time when it was very tough to do so in Ireland?

    Again, if I say that when I was 15 I'd have loved to have an affair with a 25 year old, is that so abhorrent?


  • #210
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    You have nothing to back up the direct and, quite frankly libelous suggestion that HLB is homopohobic. I suggest you back it up, or do not put it forward in the first place.
    Lol,expressing what I think it looks like to me [reasonably I might add] and stating a fact are two entirely different things.
    Hyperbole much.
    Barrell scraping galore.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    zuroph wrote: »
    Again, if I say that when I was 15 I'd have loved to have an affair with a 25 year old, is that so abhorrent?
    Not for a fifteen year old. But for a twenty five year old to suggest that such a thing has, in retrospect, something to be said for it, yes I would find that unacceptable.

    David Norris said that he would have liked such a thing when he was a boy - sure - no problem there at all.

    But for him to say, as an adult, that such a situation has merit, is what I have trouble in excusing.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement