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…5960626465…70

Comments

  • #1832
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Bock the Robber wrote: »
    There were two different ages of consent.

    Do you have a link to a first-hand report of the trial? That would settle the matter once and for all and we could all forget about it.

    I believe in Isreal at the time but have not seen any evidence the age of consent for heterosexual sex was 16 and for homosexual sex was 18. In either case 15 was below the age. I also believe that the current age is 16.


  • #1833
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I believe in Isreal at the time but have not seen any evidence the age of consent for heterosexual sex was 16 and for homosexual sex was 18. In either case 15 was below the age. I also believe that the current age is 15.

    Please provide the original link to the first-hand evidence that the youth was 15. If we can get this information, the whole discussion can be ended.


  • #1834
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    Bock the Robber wrote: »
    Please provide the original link to the first-hand evidence that the youth was 15. If we can get this information, the whole discussion can be ended.

    If the youth was underage why does it matter if he was 15 or older, he was below the age of consent at the time of the offence. if he wasn't there would not have been a conviction.


  • #1835
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    If the youth was underage why does it matter if he was 15 or older, he was below the age of consent at the time of the offence. if he wasn't there would not have been a conviction.

    There were two ages of consent. I thought I already said this.


  • #1836
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    Bock the Robber wrote: »
    There were two ages of consent. I thought I already said this.

    And as the young person was under whichever was applicable at the time I do not see how the argument can be stopped immediately with that info.


  • Advertisement
  • #1837
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    And as the young person was under whichever was applicable at the time I do not see how the argument can be stopped immediately with that info.
    Nobody is trying to stop the argument. I just asked if anyone has a link to first-hand reports of the trial. Do you?


  • #1838
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    It's saddening to see certain people only interested in the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law - so fixated on the childs age and proximity to the age of consent. Not only was the child under the age of consent, but the sex-offender who buggered him was a good 30 yrs older.

    if a 46 yr old man slept with your vulnerable 16 yr old brother/sister/niece/nephew/son/daughter/etc , you would be OK with that because it would be technically legal ? Really ? Bull****.


    He clearly took advantage of the child, as well as breaking the law. How can there be any doubt of that.


  • #1839
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »
    It's saddening to see certain people only interested in the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law - so fixated on the childs age and proximity to the age of consent. Not only was the child under the age of consent, but the sex-offender who buggered him was a good 30 yrs older.

    if a 46 yr old man slept with your 16 yr old brother/sister/niece/nephew/son/daughter/etc , you would be OK with that because it would be technically legal ? Really ? Bull****.


    He clearly took advantage of the child, as well as breaking the law. How can there be any doubt of that.

    I think it's quite important to establish exactly what Nawi was convicted of.


    Was he convicted of buggery and can you provide a link to that?

    Also, the age of consent is important for a very simple reason. It's the age of consent. The age difference is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.


  • #1840
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    He clearly took advantage of the child, as well as breaking the law. How can there be any doubt of that.

    err there's doubt because the facts of the case don't appear to have been widely published yet...but of course "He clearly took advantage"


  • #1841
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    Bock the Robber wrote: »
    I think it's quite important to establish exactly what Nawi was convicted of.


    Was he convicted of buggery and can you provide a link to that?

    Also, the age of consent is important for a very simple reason. It's the age of consent. The age difference is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.


    I'm aware of the legality of it. But there are obvious moral implications here. I already stated that I'm saddened by the fact people are so fixated on the letter of the law and posed a hypothetical question - you would see no wrong in a 46 yr old man sleeping with your vulnerable 16 yr old daughter/son because it would be, in the eyes of the law, legal ?


    as for what exactly Nawi did... it was for having sex with a child. A male child. So I suppose that narrows the details down somewhat.
    Are you going to tell me the crime might not be so bad if it were a blowjob ? or a handjob ? ... Really ? .... Besides, I didn't think such things were classified as sex, but rather sex-acts


  • Advertisement
  • #1842
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    MadsL wrote: »
    err there's doubt because the facts of the case don't appear to have been widely published yet...but of course "He clearly took advantage"


    even if the child 'seduced' him...as an adult of 45 yrs old, I would say yes. Absolutely. 100% he took advantage. There are laws to protect children for a reason.


  • #1843
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »
    even if the child 'seduced' him...as an adult of 45 yrs old, I would say yes. Absolutely. 100% he took advantage. There are laws to protect children for a reason.
    What age was the child?


  • #1844
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    15


  • #1845
    calex71
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,126 ✭✭✭✭calex71


    No sign of him giving up his Seanad seat :mad:


  • #1846
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »
    15

    Could you please provide a link to your source for that information?


  • #1847
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    Sure...

    but are you seriously taking part in this discussion without being aware of the facts yourself ? :eek:


  • #1848
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »
    Sure...

    but are you seriously taking part in this discussion without being aware of the facts yourself ? :eek:


    I've been involved in this discussion from the start and I'm genuinely asking for an authoritative source, not just a newspaper article. Can you please provide a first-hand link to the trial.


  • #1849
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    wow, you really are a pedant aren't you...
    Norris hasn't challenged any of the facts, and he's gone on record in these very papers on this very issue. What you're saying is this is all bull**** until you see court papers detailing the case for you ?



    I'll source you a link when you tell me you'd see no wrong in a 46 yr old sodomizing your vulnerable 16 yr old child - because it would be legal.


  • #1850
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »
    wow, you really are a pedant aren't you...
    Norris hasn't challenged any of the facts, and he's gone on record in these very papers on this very issue. What you're saying is this is all bull**** until you see court papers detailing the case for you ?



    I'll source you a link when you tell me you'd see no wrong in a 46 yr old sodomizing your vulnerable 16 yr old child - because it would be legal.

    If you have a source all you have to do is link to it. There's no need to get so tetchy.

    You do have a source, don't you?


  • #1851
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    It's clear to me that you're just being pedantic, so I'm not really all that motivated to go googling on your behalf. I see no reason not to believe the child was 15. Norris has gone on record on this issue, accepted culpability, and challeneged none of the facts whilst at the same time clutching at straws to defend his character - so I have to believe if there are any technical innaccuracies in what's being reported he would have certainly highlighted them.

    Besides that, you've refused to acknowledge my reference to the moral issues here and answering a simple hypothetical question. If you were to answer that question honestly, which in fairness I know you can't/won't, I might be motivated to waste my time needlessly sourcing a link that might satisfy your pedantry.


  • Advertisement
  • #1852
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »
    It's clear to me that you're just being pedantic, so I'm not really all that motivated to go googling on your behalf. I see no reason not to believe the child was 15. Norris has gone on record on this issue, accepted culpability, and challeneged none of the facts whilst at the same time clutching at straws to defend his character - so I have to believe if there are any technical innaccuracies in what's being reported he would have certainly highlighted them.

    Besides that, you've refused to acknowledge my reference to the moral issues here and answering a simple hypothetical question. If you were to answer that question honestly, which in fairness I know you can't/won't, I might be motivated to waste my time needlessly sourcing a link that might satisfy your pedantry.


    I didn't ask you to Google, I didn't ask you about Norris and I didn't ask you about morals. All I asked you to do was provide a link to the youth's age. Is that a very hard thing to do?


  • #1853
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    and I've given you my reply,
    you're being pedantic,
    the facts have not been challenged,
    you're consistently ignoring an argument I have put to you,

    so no - I won't provide you with a link.

    But I assure you that the child is 15.

    Do you expect anyone to take your argument seriously, when you cherry pick what to respond to, and call into question facts that not even David Norris himself challenges ?

    Good luck with that.


  • #1854
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »

    But I assure you that the child is 15.

    In that case, you'll have no difficulty producing your source, and I'll be delighted to accept it.


  • #1855
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    There certainly wouldn't be any difficulty in producing a source.
    Never the less, I won't be.

    For the reasons listed above.


  • #1856
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    ThreeTwoOne wrote: »
    There certainly wouldn't be any difficulty in producing a source.
    Never the less, I won't be.

    For the reasons listed above.

    So you can't produce your source then.


  • #1857
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    Bock the Robber wrote: »
    I think it's quite important to establish exactly what Nawi was convicted of.


    Was he convicted of buggery and can you provide a link to that?

    Also, the age of consent is important for a very simple reason. It's the age of consent. The age difference is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

    A quick google provided nothing of note but as I am on a work computer I cannot filter results the same as I can at home. I still do not see that what exactly he was convicted of or what age the boy is going to change any of the facts. David Norris at no stage suggested the age of 15 was inaccurate so i would be inclined to believe it is the age of the boy at the time.


  • #1858
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    A quick google provided nothing of note but as I am on a work computer I cannot filter results the same as I can at home. I still do not see that what exactly he was convicted of or what age the boy is going to change any of the facts. David Norris at no stage suggested the age of 15 was inaccurate so i would be inclined to believe it is the age of the boy at the time.


    It's about the facts of the case. Should we have difficulty accessing them?


  • #1859
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    I think I'm going to agree with Brook,

    The facts are as follows

    David Norris has quit the race because of the letters he wrote.

    We have seen copies of the letters which show that Ezra was convicted of a sexual crime.

    After that we really don't know anything for sure. We do not know who complained, or when. We are not sure was the lower court trial in 1992 or 1997. We do not know for sure the age of the victim. We do not know for sure what age of consent was in place at the time, reported as 16 and 18.

    While it is true Senator Norris has not challenged any of the facts asserted, that does not of itself confirm the facts.


  • #1860
    ThreeTwoOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ThreeTwoOne


    Bock the Robber wrote: »
    So you can't produce your source then.

    If you say so buddy.

    If you think you've got a strong position in debate by being a pedant, willfully obtuse, and ignoring counter-arguments.... well... Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't.

    The internet is awash with tools like yourself, and I'm not all that interested in hashing out this issue with that type of schoolyard skullduggery. I can see that it's purely academic for you - at best.

    If you want to feel like you've bested me, by all means do. I'll continue the discussion with everyone/anyone else.


  • Advertisement
  • #1861
    Bock the Robber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Bock the Robber


    Thank you. All I'm asking for is a clear exposition of the facts so that we can form a judgement.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement