David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

prinz wrote: »

Isn't that a personal remark?

Never, just clarification of the scraping sounds you were wondering about!

prinz wrote: »

It fits the bill quite well actually. I would say David's reputation was greatly affected myself. Defamation is a strict liability offence, whether HLB or Magill knowingly intended to defame Norris or not is irrelevant. So your understanding is off the mark.

Irrelevant that it didn't contain an outright lie. It can still be defamation by virtue of being twisted out of context.

Well not according to this

http://indigo.ie/~kwood/defamation.htm

Only a false statement is actionable. But defamation differs from other torts in that a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise. If a defendant wishes to plead justification as a defence, he has to prove the truth of the statement. It is not up to the complainant to prove that the original statement was false.

Having said that, there is a lot of stuff on that seems to contradict what I thought, what you think and itself

prinz wrote: »

So in discussing ancient Greece he mentioned what the law in the sphere should take into account? Does that honestly make sense to you? I could be discussing mass murder by the nazis, but if I go on to say 'the law in this sphere should take into account whether jews actually count as people'.... I mean just how does saying what the law (currently) should (in future) take into account tie up with discussing what actually did happen a few thousand years ago?

As for the second issue, yes it does not appear as a direct quote from Senator Norris but does allude to an opinion differentiating between males and females.

We don't know the entire conversation! It's easy to take a sentence and put a spin on it, which is exactly what HLB did! It's like taking an entire book and judging it on one solitary paragraph!

prinz wrote: »

Is it just too difficult to consider the possibility that he may possibly have had a bit to drink, or was tired and off-form and spoke out of turn, without due care to his choice of wording etc? I really don't see the logic behind deciding that Norris couldn't possibly have said those things, that it has to be not only out of context (if you can find any for some of the remarks) but part of a "extreme right wing agenda"... (which by the way you have not remotely backed up with anything.)

That could be the most sensible thing you've actually said. I do think he let his guard down, with someone who he assumed would have been an ally of some sort. They fought for the same goals in equality, equal pay etc; I can't imagine the thought would have crossed his mind that she would have taken everything he said and would totally destroy his reputation!

I'm sure we are all guilty of saying things we shouldn't necessarily when we are with people we think/hope are friends

she might find that this will have opposite effect, and norris could be representing us, she is brave to come up with comments said in the past and have nothing to back them up, just her word

goat2 wrote: »

she might find that this will have opposite effect, and norris could be representing us, she is brave to come up with comments said in the past and have nothing to back them up, just her word

She comes out very bad in this whole thing. To be fair to her, she did a huge amount for womens equality, but with this, she has created a bad legacy for herself. By rights history should reflect that she was a great womens advocate, and that she was part of the machine that changed Irish law. But now she won't be, she'll be remembered as someone who can't find interview tapes, and someone who played to the agenda of Enoch Burke (I don't think they're related).

peaders yard wrote: »

Ah I dont know about that now, isnt that fella a bit on the you know side?

Are you perhaps referring to the fact that he is maybe you know em, eh, well GAY?????

Nooooo, none of us knew, it's a really well kept secret!

peaders yard wrote: »

But to get in hed have to sway the majority of mass going rural and middle Ireland, not just the urban cosompolitan crowd. And they are not to happy with the thought of electing that sort of thing.

Obvious troll is obvious..

Einhard wrote: »

Call me a cynic

With ice and lemon?:p

I think I will cut to the chase here.

peaders yard banned.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I think I will cut to the chase here.

peaders yard banned.

Can I ask why? Genuinely curious =]

Deckof52 wrote: »

Can I ask why? Genuinely curious =]

Without the risk of second guessing our lord and mod Micky Dolenz, he was trolling, and he wasn't even very good at it!

RachaelVO wrote: »

Without the risk of second guessing our lord and mod Micky Dolenz, he was trolling, and he wasn't even very good at it!

Thanks
There's been so much sarcasm and deliberate jokes it's hard to tell when someone is being mean or attempting to be funny.

Biggins wrote: »

I dunno - would she be young, looking fit and wearing the smallest of a bikini possible?

I'd listen while she stood in front of me and spoke!

Yeah you'd be listening! You'd be quiet alright, but I doubt you'd be listening!