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.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Is David Norris Toast?

1…1516182021…70

Comments

  • #512
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fuinseog wrote: »
    Norris revealed his true self in the interview , which she has on tape. Then on 'mature reflection' he decides some of his statements were not the wisest and tries to worm his way out.
    And your evidence of that is what exactly?


  • #513
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    professore wrote: »
    Hitler had no problem telling the truth about awkward subjects either. Now I'm not comparing Norris to Hitler, quite the opposite, but ASSUMING the quote above is from the original article, I cannot in good conscience vote for him, regardless of his other excellent qualities.

    what a bizarre tangent to go off on then...


  • #514
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience.

    This is what HLB wrote. It's quite different to Waters's half remembered 3rd hand quote:

    sexually abused children might suffer more from the investigation of their abuser than from the abuse.

    The condemnation of abuse often extends to the abused themselves, who feel enormous shame and often feel compelled to hide the abuse for fear of what people will think of them. This is more basic than the Waters version, which can be twisted (as the trolls in this thread already have) into a desire not to investigate.

    Given that Norris had already stated that abuse falls on a spectrum from violent rape down to a CB putting his hand in your pocket, you can see how he might say that the condemnation associated with being an abused child might be worse than the actual abuse.


  • #515
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    I hear that Shell to Sea are backing Norris in the Áras, he has backed Maura Harrington and the Shell out campaign in the Senate all the way.


  • #516
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    I hear that Shell to Sea are backing Norris in the Áras, he has backed Maura Harrington and the Shell out campaign in the Senate all the way.
    And that has what to do with the topic of this thread[HLB's attack on Norris] exactly?


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You need to go listen to David Norris's interview with Pat Kenny earlier in the week because he absolutely did not say that and has a problem with HLB's interpretational style of writing,making her interpretations of what he says look like he said something he didn't....

    I heard that interview, and I was listening carefully for one thing: whether Norris disputed any of the quotes attributed to him. He didn't.

    He may dislike Burke's style of writing. That's subjective. I think she writes well, and it is very clear what she presents as fact, and what she presents as opinion.

    He may dispute her interpretation of his views. I think that what she says is defensible as reasonable comment.

    He may contend that what he said is taken out of context. I don't think is was taken out of context by Burke, but I certainly think that many people commenting on the piece are ignoring the context.


  • #518
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    He may contend that what he said is taken out of context. I don't think is was taken out of context by Burke, but I certainly think that many people commenting on the piece are ignoring the context.
    I certainly think many people taking a dim view of Norris are ignoring the fact that there were only 2 people there,her and him and the fact that she has described him as sinfull.

    With that latter pronouncement of hers,I hope you'll understand,I've little time for her claiming veracity in her piece.
    As for the fuller rebuttal,he did that 9 years ago and to be frank the requirement for a repeat is just oxygen for the lurid pathetic hatchet attempt this campaign is.
    Her article to me is untrustworthy.


  • #519
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I certainly think many people taking a dim view of Norris are ignoring the fact that there were only 2 people there,her and him and the fact that she has described him as sinfull.

    With that latter pronouncement of hers,I hope you'll understand,I've little time for her claiming veracity in her piece.
    As for the fuller rebuttal,he did that 9 years ago and to be frank the requirement for a repeat is just oxygen for the lurid pathetic hatchet attempt this campaign is.
    Her article to me is untrustworthy.


    You may be right and it may just be a hatchet campaign.

    But I have voted Green, Labour and Fine Gael in the last few elections and would therefore have considered voting for Norris. As I have posted already I am not happy with what I have heard and would like a fuller explanation (I have also said that he could yet get my vote in that case).

    If this dies down without any further explanations (or revelations), he has probably lost a few votes (like mine) and gained a few votes (those who think it is a hatchet campaign) and it will therefore not make much of a difference. He may still become President but unlikely to become an inclusive president until the questions are answered.


  • #520
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I certainly think many people taking a dim view of Norris are ignoring the fact that there were only 2 people there,her and him and the fact that she has described him as sinfull.

    With that latter pronouncement of hers,I hope you'll understand,I've little time for her claiming veracity in her piece.
    As for the fuller rebuttal,he did that 9 years ago and to be frank the requirement for a repeat is just oxygen for the lurid pathetic hatchet attempt this campaign is.
    Her article to me is untrustworthy.

    Where did she describe him as sinful?

    There was a recording device used during the interview (I gather it was an old-fashioned Dictaphone or something similar). I think it telling that Norris has not denied any of the words attributed to him.

    I have been aware of Burke's journalistic work for a long time. I think anybody casting doubts on her truthfulness needs to make a case, and not just throw out accusations. She has a reputation of being tough, but she also has a reputation for getting her facts right. Her opinions are, obviously, her own.


  • #521
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Where did she describe him as sinful?

    There was a recording device used during the interview (I gather it was an old-fashioned Dictaphone or something similar). I think it telling that Norris has not denied any of the words attributed to him.

    I have been aware of Burke's journalistic work for a long time. I think anybody casting doubts on her truthfulness needs to make a case, and not just throw out accusations. She has a reputation of being tough, but she also has a reputation for getting her facts right. Her opinions are, obviously, her own.

    she described his opinions as "sinful and evil" on Joe Duffy show.

    no1 is saying she's lying, but her opinions between the quotes totally misread what he was trying to say, and lead readers to believe he's saying something that he isnt.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    zuroph wrote: »
    she described his opinions as "sinful and evil" on Joe Duffy show.

    I don't recall that, but that is a description of his opinions, not of the man himself, or even of his actions.
    no1 is saying she's lying, but her opinions between the quotes totally misread what he was trying to say, and lead readers to believe he's saying something that he isnt.

    That's tosh. Much of the piece is Norris's words directly quoted, and he said things that some people would find disquieting. Burke makes it clear that she found what he said troubling.

    I'm not going to slog back through several hundred posts to show that a number of people are indeed suggesting that Burke is lying. I'll give you this from Black Briar: "... I've little time for her claiming veracity in her piece.... Her article to me is untrustworthy.".


  • #523
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I don't recall that, but that is a description of his opinions, not of the man himself, or even of his actions.
    No thats your opinion.
    When she said that,I stopped taking her seriously.
    The reporter who did norris's rebuttal 9 yrs ago was on the programme giving her the verbal raised eye brow after she said that.


    That's tosh. Much of the piece is Norris's words directly quoted, and he said things that some people would find disquieting. Burke makes it clear that she found what he said troubling.

    I'm not going to slog back through several hundred posts to show that a number of people are indeed suggesting that Burke is lying. I'll give you this from Black Briar: "... I've little time for her claiming veracity in her piece.... Her article to me is untrustworthy.".
    I've no idea if she's lying,the court of my opinion suggests she wrote the article to her own agenda as to what she thought of Norris. I will not take her word given the tone of her joe Duffy piece alone and her sin and evil remarks.
    I have of course said that David Norris has said she is lying by virtue of denying he said he was happy with the article when she says he was.
    Thats where any faith in her position must collapse because she stated he was happy with the article after she read it to him.
    Theres no way he could have been obviously given what she wrote.
    I and others have already had countless posts in this thread explaining our reasoning on this,I've no desire to repeat as it's all here in the thread.

    This is the journalist who from a link earlier in this thread didn't write an article on a certain dublin restaurant after she had legal proceedings waived by the owner at her who accused her of being obnoxious and drunk apparently.
    Not a fine example of knowledge purveyance if you ask me.


  • #524
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »

    This is the journalist who from a link earlier in this thread didn't write an article on a certain dublin restaurant after she had legal proceedings waived by the owner at her who accused her of being obnoxious and drunk apparently.
    Not a fine example of knowledge purveyance if you ask me.
    It is quite obvious that you have failed to even read your own link. You will find that HL Burke did write the review, which was published, and the article is a compliment to her integrity... Your pathetic attempt to slur her character fails miserably. From the link --
    ...However, Helen Lucy Burke is a woman of rare integrity. Her moral probity is even celebrated in a song by Christy Moore, who refers to her 'mattress-sniffing' days as a hotel critic. Gallagher's decision to issue a solicitor's letter was designed to deflect attention from the contents of the review itself. Rather than issuing a strenuous denial, Burke's editor, John Ryan, decided to publish the solicitor's letter alongside the review - which, by the way, was quite sympathetic - allowing readers to decide who stumbled on the job: who had a leg to stand on, and who was utterly legless. The article was headlined 'The Peacock, the Critic and the Blind Pussy'. It marked, I think, the beginning of the end for Gallagher's empire.


  • #525
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    It is quite obvious that you have failed to even read your own link. You will find that HL Burke did write the review, which was published, and the article is a compliment to her integrity... Your pathetic attempt to slur her character fails miserably. From the link --
    mea culpa,the article was wrote,I didn't read the internal link just the post.
    And of course It does look like a pathetic attempt by me to slur her character...she couldn't possibly have been witnessed by peacock alley staff drunk on the job...


  • #526
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    she couldn't possibly have been witnessed by peacock alley staff drunk on the job...
    Who gives a damn if she was drunk? Hopefully she had a good night, it is her affair. Seriously, I do not see how that could be an issue for you.


  • #527
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    zuroph wrote: »
    she described his opinions as "sinful and evil" on Joe Duffy show.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I don't recall that, but that is a description of his opinions, not of the man himself, or even of his actions.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    No thats your opinion.

    Read what zuroph said; read my response to it. How, in any normal meaning of language, can a claim about Norris's opinion be anything other than a description of his opinions?

    Perhaps you can show me where Burke described Norris as sinful. I may be getting old, and my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't think that is why I do not remember such a thing being said.


  • #528
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Read what zuroph said; read my response to it. How, in any normal meaning of language, can a claim about Norris's opinion be anything other than a description of his opinions?

    Perhaps you can show me where Burke described Norris as sinful. I may be getting old, and my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't think that is why I do not remember such a thing being said.


    Semantics. Saying that his opinions are 'sinful and evil,' implies that his thinking is 'sinful and evil' and therefore so is he. I would consider that to be slanderous and defammatory. And i'm sure most of Joe Duffy's audience won't be making as careful a distinction as you have.

    It's one thing to say you disagree with an opinion or that an opinion is wrong, but when you throw such emotive words into the mix, it's tantamount to an accusation.


  • #529
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Semantics. Saying that his opinions are 'sinful and evil,' implies that his thinking is 'sinful and evil' and therefore so is he. I would consider that to be slanderous and defammatory. And i'm sure most of Joe Duffy's audience won't be making as careful a distinction as you have.

    It's one thing to say you disagree with an opinion or that an opinion is wrong, but when you throw such emotive words into the mix, it's tantamount to an accusation.

    I see. So it's acceptable to upgrade what Burke said so that it can be regarded as a defamatory attack. While some people are also inviting us to downgrade what Norris said to something akin to shooting the breeze.

    I don't buy it.


  • #530
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I see. So it's acceptable to upgrade what Burke said so that it can be regarded as a defamatory attack. While some people are also inviting us to downgrade what Norris said to something akin to shooting the breeze.

    I don't buy it.

    No, I'm saying it WAS a defamatory attack that was carefully worded so that she could pretend that legally it wasn't one.


  • #531
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Memnoch wrote: »
    No, I'm saying it WAS a defamatory attack that was carefully worded so that she could pretend that legally it wasn't one.

    If Norris sued her (or RTE) for defamation, would he have any chance of success?


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    Who gives a damn if she was drunk? Hopefully she had a good night, it is her affair. Seriously, I do not see how that could be an issue for you.
    Maybe she was drunk on the night of the interview too,we only have her word against David Norris who has clashed with several sides of her story so far.
    P.breatnach wrote:
    If Norris sued her (or RTE) for defamation, would he have any chance of success?
    Outside of this thread and politics.ie both of which in fairness are niche threads,theres little or no discussion of this.
    It hardly ever got legs at all so the people behind it including HLB will just have to try harder.

    Norris won't sue and I'll bet thats driving the posse behind this mad :)
    As I say they'll have to try harder,I would suggest they come out and stop hiding surreptitiously smearing David Norris.
    They'll have to try harder.
    Bring it on :)


  • #533
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    Noris is shagged.


  • #534
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    If Norris sued her (or RTE) for defamation, would he have any chance of success?

    Did you read my post at all?
    No, I'm saying it WAS a defamatory attack that was carefully worded so that she could pretend that legally it wasn't one.


  • #535
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Did you read my post at all?

    Yes, I read it. You were trying to ride two horses, saying that it was defamation but it wasn't defamation. I was tying to get you to choose one steed or the other.


  • #536
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Semantics. Saying that his opinions are 'sinful and evil,' implies that his thinking is 'sinful and evil' and therefore so is he. I would consider that to be slanderous and defammatory. And i'm sure most of Joe Duffy's audience won't be making as careful a distinction as you have.

    Semantics. Or nuance. I don't think Norris is sinful or evil. Indeed, I quite the like man, and would have given him my vote. I also don't believe in the concepts of evil or sin. However, if I did believe in them, I could well describe one interpretation of Norris' words as sinful and evil, without reflecting on the man's sexuality. Many of the posts here seem to be trying to equate criticism, or even questioning, of Norris as part of some form of homophobic agenda, and this is but one example. Burke describes Norris' opinions on paedophilia as evil- therefore she thinks homosexuality is evil etc. There is absolutely nothing to back this up. I haven't paid much attention to the article, but I'm quite disturbed by the pervasive attempt to shut down reasoned debate with the homophobic card.

    It's one thing to say you disagree with an opinion or that an opinion is wrong, but when you throw such emotive words into the mix, it's tantamount to an accusation.

    She accuses him of holding these opinions, opinions that many people would find sinful and evil. How exactly is it wrong to express this?


  • #537
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Maybe she was drunk on the night of the interview too,we only have her word against David Norris who has clashed with several sides of her story so far.

    There is no evidence for this at all. Seriously, the only person doing any smearing here is you- of Burke. You don't like what she wrote, and thus you are ignoring everything and anything that might speak to her version of events, and casting scurrilous accusations to blacken her name. You seem to have your opinions set in stone, and won't brook any criticism of Norris, no matter how valid they might appear to be.

    It hardly ever got legs at all so the people behind it including HLB will just have to try harder.

    Norris won't sue and I'll bet thats driving the posse behind this mad :)
    As I say they'll have to try harder,I would suggest they come out and stop hiding surreptitiously smearing David Norris.
    They'll have to try harder.
    Bring it on :)

    This is kind of pathetic actually. "Try harder" at what exactly? At publishing the truth (or what she believes to be the truth?). Burke is a well-respected journalist, whose integrity has never been questioned AFAIK, and here is absolutely no evidence that Burke has an anti-gay agenda. Yet you feel comfortable smearing her and sullying her name, rather than accept, as an open-minded person would, that she might be speaking the truth. As others have pointed out, Norris has not denied that he said what she claimed he did. It could be, of course, that Burke is homophobic, but I have seen nothing at all to sustain such an allegation.

    It strikes me as very strange that, for some people (I'm not including Norris in this, but many of his supporters), sexual equality extends to not being allowed subject gay people to the same scrutiny and questioning as straight people- once you do, it's only a matter of time before the homophobic card is pulled out.


  • #538
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Maybe she was drunk on the night of the interview too,we only have her word against David Norris who has clashed with several sides of her story so far.
    Nobody has suggested that HL Burke was drunk on the night of the interview. I also suspect that many people, like myself, dislike your attempts to slur her character in this way. You got it wrong with that link you posted. Put down the shovel.

    It is a good thing that the intelligent people down at Norris HQ do not resort to PR like that. Norris would be gone already.


  • #539
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,785 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    later10 wrote: »
    Nobody has suggested that HL Burke was drunk on the night of the interview. I also suspect that many people, like myself, dislike your attempts to slur her character in this way. You got it wrong with that link you posted. Put down the shovel.

    It is a good thing that the intelligent people down at Norris HQ do not resort to PR like that. Norris would be gone already.
    Rofl.
    This from the person who doesn't dispute some slurs against Norris in this thread...but is very quick to identify my comments/questions as such.I didn't read the internal link in a quoted post,I acknowledged that.Questioning HLB's sobriety on the night is fair game otherwise.
    I'm already on record as not paying an ounce of credit to her after she went on with the sinfull and evil comments on Duffy.

    einhard wrote:
    This is kind of pathetic actually. "Try harder" at what exactly? At publishing the truth (or what she believes to be the truth?). Burke is a well-respected journalist, whose integrity has never been questioned AFAIK, and here is absolutely no evidence that Burke has an anti-gay agenda. Yet you feel comfortable smearing her and sullying her name, rather than accept, as an open-minded person would, that she might be speaking the truth. As others have pointed out, Norris has not denied that he said what she claimed he did. It could be, of course, that Burke is homophobic, but I have seen nothing at all to sustain such an allegation.
    Her integrity was questioned 9 years ago when this article was first questioned.
    All I did is ask if she was drunk.
    She certainly was accused of being disgracefully so in peacock alley that night.
    I keep hearing this he hasn't denied it too from the anti Norris people.
    Have you ever considered what I said earlier at all,he's just not engaging anymore as bar this thread most people aren't interested.
    Smear campaign mega fail.
    It strikes me as very strange that, for some people (I'm not including Norris in this, but many of his supporters), sexual equality extends to not being allowed subject gay people to the same scrutiny and questioning as straight people- once you do, it's only a matter of time before the homophobic card is pulled out.
    Thats utter rubbish.It's already been pointed out in this thread that even the stuff disputed in the article,if it had been said about heterosexual relationships,no one would have batted an eyelid.
    So much for equality.

    And don't comeback to me with the christian brothers hand down the pants quote either,that was an intellectual argument,like a lot of this it seems regarding the degree's of wrongness in abuse.
    All wrong but one gone to the heinously heinous end of the spectrum.
    Taken out of context of course for the sake of a row, like Ken Clarkes comments on degrees of rape the other week in the uk were too.


  • #540
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Deleted User wrote: »

    Her integrity was questioned 9 years ago when this article was first questioned.

    Her integrity was questioned by many, but not by Norris himself. Which is a bit odd to say the least.
    All I did is ask if she was drunk.
    She certainly was accused of being disgracefully so in peacock alley that night.

    No you didn't- you attempted to sully her reputation, and her integrity, buy suggesting that she writes articles whilst intoxicated. If anyone is running a smear campaign here, it's you.

    Also, I'm probably going to get somewhat inebriated tonight, it being the long weekend and all. Would you use this to impugn me should you disagree with any other posts I might write?
    I keep hearing this he hasn't denied it too from the anti Norris people.
    Have you ever considered what I said earlier at all,he's just not engaging anymore as bar this thread most people aren't interested.
    Smear campaign mega fail.

    I find it every strange that the only one not denying the words is Norris himself. I think it's pretty clear that Norris said what she claims he said. The issue therefore, is in what context they were made, and what, if anything, they reveal about Norris' attitudes to adulescent sexuality.
    Thats utter rubbish.It's already been pointed out in this thread that even the stuff disputed in the article,if it had been said about heterosexual relationships,no one would have batted an eyelid.
    So much for equality.

    Are you for real? If Fergus Finlay came out tomorrow, and said much the same thing, then there would be an uproar. And people wouldn't be forced to tip-toe around it for fear of being falsely accused of homophobia.
    And don't comeback to me with the christian brothers hand down the pants quote either,that was an intellectual argument,like a lot of this it seems regarding the degree's of wrongness in abuse.
    All wrong but one gone to the heinously heinous end of the spectrum.
    Taken out of context of course for the sake of a row, like Ken Clarkes comments on degrees of rape the other week in the uk were too.

    I'm not arguing about the meaning or nuances of Norris' words, but rather with the notion that even discussing his words, and what they meant, is somehow part of a homophobic smear campaign. Norris went on Pat Kenny to put his side forward; it's only right that those of us who have issues with what he said be allowed to listen to both sides, and then make up our minds without being accused of sexual prejudice.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Rofl.
    This from the person who doesn't dispute some slurs against Norris in this thread
    I suggest you spend less time rolling on the floor laughing, and actually read the thread. I am and have been defending David Norris against many unhelpful comments made against him. I have no interest in slurring David Norris, I already said that I am ok with his explanation (not that I would vote for him -- that is a separate issue). I have also said that it would be a shame if this ruined his campaign.

    Even if people are attempting to defame David Norris, that is their problem. While you might try and correct them, it is clearly wrong of you to attempt to slur the character of HL Burke by half-reading articles that are actually tributes to her integrity, and creating implications of drunkenness from the same half read articles.

    David Norris is not attempting to attack the character of HL Burke, nor are his campaign team. Because they knwo that will work against them. I just wish some of the slower online supporters would catch on to that.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement