Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

DeanAustin

ThisRegard wrote: »

So your basing you opinion, an incorrect one at that, on the basis that anger or outrage over his comments are only driven by media outlets?! Do you think people need a newspaper or radio station to tell them about what they should be angry about?

As for your Newscorp conspiracy, laughable.

The “outrage” I saw was from Ciara Kelly and a handful of other people on Twitter. In fact Ciara Kelly’s problem wasn’t about Dunphy’s sympathy for Humphries, it was about his comments on the underage sex aspect. I hadn’t seen much else, certainly not enough to justify the “backlash for Eamon” headline.

Generally a headline like that is generated by a major public figure condemning the comments or a mass outcry from the public. That a very minor part of Dunphy’s comments that missed the main points he was making and that attracted little meaningful attention was deemed the most newsworthy aspect of this story is incredible.

retro:electro

Wtf is Dunphy even going on about? He thought it was just "benign underage sex".
What? Face-palm alert.

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

Wtf is Dunphy even going on about? He thought it was just "benign underage sex".
What? Face-palm alert.

Did he say “benign”?

ThisRegard

DeanAustin wrote: »

The “outrage” I saw was from Ciara Kelly and a handful of other people on Twitter. In fact Ciara Kelly’s problem wasn’t about Dunphy’s sympathy for Humphries, it was about his comments on the underage sex aspect. I hadn’t seen much else, certainly not enough to justify the “backlash for Eamon” headline.

So now you're changing tact and have issues with Ciara Kelly, after saying numerous times it was only Today FM and Newstalk.

You need to find out how to use Twitter better if that's all you could find.

DeanAustin

ThisRegard wrote: »

So now you're changing tact and have issues with Ciara Kelly, after saying numerous times it was only Today FM and Newstalk.

You need to find out how to use Twitter better if that's all you could find.

Ciara Kelly works for Newstalk. That said, her issue wasn’t with Dunphy’s sympathy for Humphries. You need to learn to understand or read posts correctly.

Also, what public figures had a go on Twitter at what Dunphy said about having sympathy for Humphries?

retro:electro

DeanAustin wrote: »

Did he say “benign”?

Quote:
The story that I heard, through David Walsh in particular, was much more benign than the story that emerged and the evidence that was given. It was not about grooming. It was more of a question, I was told, of underage sex which is, of course, serious but he had been a colleague of mine and I went to see him and brought him a book.

I spent an hour with him because I felt he hadn’t at this stage been charged with anything but I knew this was pending. But I didn’t know the nature of it; I didn't know anything about grooming, for example. I didn't know anything about the length of time.

I thought he would be charged with having sex with an underage girl. I did know there was a connection with the Gaelic club and I did know he was in a position of authority. But the gravity of it I didn’t know.

In these tragic circumstances, I think Judge Karen O’Connor was, I think, gave just about the right sentence, it's not for me to judge. I don't believe in trial by media.

I feel dreadfully sorry for the victim first of all and for all victims.

And I feel that Tom Humphries’ life is effectively over and has been for many years. He has to live with the shame. His own family he has hurt. He has hurt this girl.

I believe that mitigation is part of a criminal justice system and I also believe that redemption is important.

howiya

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

The GAA and the club he was involved with (not sure if I'm allow name them here so I wont) have not issued a statement, to the best of my knowledge. Their silence has been deafening to be honest. Now when a retired player has a testimonial dinner, there's no shutting them up....priorities...

Camogie Association issued a statement yesterday

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

Quote:
The story that I heard, through David Walsh in particular, was much more benign than the story that emerged and the evidence that was given. It was not about grooming. It was more of a question, I was told, of underage sex which is, of course, serious but he had been a colleague of mine and I went to see him and brought him a book.

I spent an hour with him because I felt he hadn’t at this stage been charged with anything but I knew this was pending. But I didn’t know the nature of it; I didn't know anything about grooming, for example. I didn't know anything about the length of time.

I thought he would be charged with having sex with an underage girl. I did know there was a connection with the Gaelic club and I did know he was in a position of authority. But the gravity of it I didn’t know.

In these tragic circumstances, I think Judge Karen O’Connor was, I think, gave just about the right sentence, it's not for me to judge. I don't believe in trial by media.

I feel dreadfully sorry for the victim first of all and for all victims.

And I feel that Tom Humphries’ life is effectively over and has been for many years. He has to live with the shame. His own family he has hurt. He has hurt this girl.

I believe that mitigation is part of a criminal justice system and I also believe that redemption is important.

You’ve sorta invented the quote in your original post then haven’t you?

Grayson

how can something be benign and serious at the same time?

retro:electro

DeanAustin wrote: »

You’ve sorta invented the quote in your original post then haven’t you?

What exactly do you think he was referring to so when he said "benign"?

ThisRegard

DeanAustin wrote: »

You need to learn to understand or read posts correctly.

Somewhat ironic from you given your heroic defence of a man who said that he only thought a paedophile was in a grave trouble after hearing how he groomed the child, but not when he knew he had sex with her.

You can whinge all you want about some conspiracy against Dunphy. The truth is that it's all in your head and Dunphy was massively ill judged when he said what he said, and was a massive hypocrite saying it, given the atmosphere at the time.

But then again, it's Dunphy, he feeds off any sort of publicity he can get these days so his comment may not have been so ill judged in his opinion.

DeanAustin

ThisRegard wrote: »

Somewhat ironic from you given your heroic defence of a man who said that he only thought a paedophile was in a grave trouble after hearing how he groomed the child, but not when he knew he had sex with her.

You can whinge all you want about some conspiracy against Dunphy. The truth is that it's all in your head and Dunphy was massively ill judged when he said what he said, and was a massive hypocrite saying it, given the atmosphere at the time.

But then again, it's Dunphy, he feeds off any sort of publicity he can get these days so his comment may not have been so ill judged in his opinion.

Fair enough. You have your view, I have mine. We’ll agree to disagree.

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

What exactly do you think he was referring to so when he said "benign"?

You quoted him as saying “benign underage sex”. That’s not what he said. You’re misrepresenting what he actually said and the sentiment behind what he actually said.

If a newspaper printed what you quoted, they’d find themselves in trouble.

retro:electro

DeanAustin wrote: »

You quoted him as saying “benign underage sex”. That’s not what he said. You’re misrepresenting what he actually said and the sentiment behind what he actually said.

If a newspaper printed what you quoted, they’d find themselves in trouble.

Do you want to maybe answer my question?

PopePalpatine

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Inport some garlic and you get 6 years.

Bonkers.

Maybe the judge thought he was only "making playful conversation".

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

Do you want to maybe answer my question?

Sure. He said it was “more benign” than he was led to believe. He also said he was originally misled by Humphries.

Let’s say Humphries told him that a 16 year old approached him, said she was 18 and he had sex with her. Dunphy then finds out that actually, Humphries knew her age all along, was in a position of power over her and groomed her from the age of 14.

In that situation, isn’t Dunphy correct in saying that what he was originally led to believe was more benign than what subsequently emerged as the truth?

Isn’t it also true that he never said “benign underage sex” as you claimed?

retro:electro

DeanAustin wrote: »

Sure. He said it was “more benign” than he was led to believe. He also said he was originally misled by Humphries.

Let’s say Humphries told him that a 16 year old approached him, said she was 18 and he had sex with her. Dunphy then finds out that actually, Humphries knew her age all along, was in a position of power over her and groomed her from the age of 14.

In that situatikn

He said the story he heard was "more benign" and was "more of a question of underage sex".
Unless I'm completely misinterpreting his comments there is nothing "more benign" about underage sex- be it "consensual" or not. Our laws exist for a reason and they are there to protect minors.
There is no such thing as an adult having underage sex with someone. It's called sexually abusing a minor.

Grayson

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Maybe the judge thought he was only "making playful conversation".

16,000 times in 3 months.

Macy0161

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

The GAA and the club he was involved with (not sure if I'm allow name them here so I wont) have not issued a statement, to the best of my knowledge. Their silence has been deafening to be honest. Now when a retired player has a testimonial dinner, there's no shutting them up....priorities...

Keeping their head down as much as possible. How the GAA have avoided hardly any mention, to me, shows they're the last organisation that media run scared off.

Does anyone think Swim Ireland would've got off with so little scrutiny of them or their child protection policies if Humphries had been volunteering with a Swimming Club rather than a GAA Club? In fact, I think I've heard more discussion about swimming in wake of this case than I have about the GAA!

Sierra Oscar

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

The GAA and the club he was involved with (not sure if I'm allow name them here so I wont) have not issued a statement, to the best of my knowledge. Their silence has been deafening to be honest. Now when a retired player has a testimonial dinner, there's no shutting them up....priorities...

The Camogie Association have made some drastic changes to their child protection policies since they came aware of the situation as far back as 2011.

I know first hand that there has been an intense focus on ensuring all people acting in an official capacity in the organisation are trained in child protection, that they know the law inside out and that they are all subject to extensive Garda vetting. There's also strict regulations in place regarding the retention of data, such as contact details, and who has access to that data. It's the same across the GAA. The issue is whether other sporting organisations have followed suit.

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

He said the story he heard was "more benign" and was "more of a question of underage sex".
Unless I'm completely misinterpreting his comments there is nothing "more benign" about underage sex- be it "consensual" or not. Our laws exist for a reason and they are there to protect minors.
There is no such thing as having underage sex with someone. It's called sexually abusing a minor.

He didn’t say there was anything benign about it at all. He said it was “more benign” than what he heard. He could have said, “the reality was much worse than I was led to believe” which is the same thing in reality so maybe he is guilty of bad wording. But he was on live TV so I could forgive him that.

Do you really not see the difference?

lawred2

anna080 wrote: »

He said the story he heard was "more benign" and was "more of a question of underage sex".
Unless I'm completely misinterpreting his comments there is nothing "more benign" about underage sex- be it "consensual" or not. Our laws exist for a reason and they are there to protect minors.
There is no such thing as having underage sex with someone. It's called sexually abusing a minor.

Underage sex to me paints a picture of two 15 year olds being consentual idiots

It doesn't paint a picture of a 50 year old man and 14/15/16 year old girl.. Perhaps Eamo got his wording a bit wrong..

I'd wonder what sort of tales Tom was telling David Walsh? That this girl was encouraging him? Dunphy seems to have picked up this story third hand..

lawred2

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Camogie Association have made some drastic changes to their child protection policies since they came aware of the situation as far back as 2011.

I know first hand that there has been an intense focus on ensuring all people acting in an official capacity in the organisation are trained in child protection, that they know the law inside out and that they are all subject to extensive Garda vetting. There's also strict regulations in place regarding the retention of data, such as contact details, and who has access to that data. It's the same across the GAA. The issue is whether other sporting organisations have followed suit.

Humphreys was actually Garda Vetted

allym

I have to say, I have no love for Ciara Kelly but I wholeheartedly agree with her comments on news talk just there.

What he did was appalling and he completely abused his position to get what he wanted.

PopePalpatine

Grayson wrote: »

16,000 times in 3 months.

My bad, sarcasm/facetiousness are hard to tell on the Internet.

Deise Vu

lawred2 wrote: »

Humphreys was actually Garda Vetted

I have been Garda Vetted for involvement with my son's soccer team. All it involves is you giving your name and all your previous addresses and the Guards doing a quick check on Pulse.

I presume it would weed out Tom Humphries or the various paedophile swimming coaches if they ever were daft enough to apply in the future but it is far from being a rigorous process and I honestly don't see how it could be.

lawred2

Deise Vu wrote: »

I have been Garda Vetted for involvement with my son's soccer team. All it involves is you giving your name and all your previous addresses and the Guards doing a quick check on Pulse.

I presume it would weed out Tom Humphries or the various paedophile swimming coaches if they ever were daft enough to apply in the future but it is far from being a rigorous process and I honestly don't see how it could be.

Nor do I. I've been garda vetted too for U5/6 rugby coaching. It wouldn't overly instill me with a sense of confidence.

nagdefy

Deleted User wrote: »

Thought it was 5, but in any event for starters he pleaded guilty.

That has to result in a reduction. And a substantial one. If it didn't, everyone would simply contest every single case and the system would collapse within weeks.

One area where I'm not sure I agree with the Judge is her comment about the fall being greater for people in the public eye.

In the Adam Johnson case it seems that his fame was an aggravating factor, that he used it.

Yes Conor. But isn't there something wrong in a legal system that drops one case of abuse when a perpetrator admits guilt in another case? Concurrent sentencing...

Domo1982

anna080 wrote: »

Wtf is Dunphy even going on about? He thought it was just "benign underage sex".
What? Face-palm alert.

You've manufactured this quote.

Either you don't understand the full context of the transcript from an intelligence point of view or you created the quote to be malicious.

You should ask that the mods remove it. I have reported the quote.

ThisRegard

Domo1982 wrote: »

You've manufactured this quote.

Either you don't understand the full context of the transcript from an intelligence point of view or you created the quote to be malicious.

You should ask that the mods remove it. I have reported the quote.

Poor Eamo, he needs all the help he can get.