Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

nagdefy

kaymin wrote: »

Your insinuations are outrageous.

The sentence is entirely consistent with sentences for similar crimes in the past. Provide some evidence for your claims that this is not the case.

The case has been treated far differently than any other case. You find me a case where the perpetrator of abuse sentence was given with consideration to his fall from grace being so great.

As for outrageous insinuations how does one explain Humphries defenders making comments like in the past his behaviour would be considered courtship rather than grooming?

A 47 year old man sending those type of pics to a 14 year old who said she was very uncomfortable with it is about as far removed from 'courtship' as you can get.

And you have the cheek to call it outrageous when i try and find logical reasons why a person would defend him.

A lot of pro Humphries statements on here went far beyond legal reasoning of why he was given a 2.5 yr sentence. I have no problem with people doing the later. However i have issue with statements trying to downplay the serious nature of the abuse.

Grayson

PopePalpatine wrote: »

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

I was following on with the sarcasm. So yeah, I guess it's hard to tell

Grayson

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.

He said he thought it was something more benign like under age sex.

Benign doesn't belong in that sentence.

DeanAustin

Grayson wrote: »

He said he thought it was something more benign like under age sex.

Benign doesn't belong in that sentence.

The quote is a couple of pages back and was posted by someone making the same argument as you.

You’ve both completely misquoted him and misrepresented him. That’s quite serious given the nature of the subject matter here.

Snickers Man

We are at a truly nauseating stage of this story now: the self-righteous prigs of the world trying to out do each other, not in condemnation of Humphries and his acts but in condemnation of those who didn't condemn him early enough or often enough.

Headline in the Journal "Dunphy defends meeting Humphries in hospital"
Headline in Times "Lawyer defends use of character testimonials"
Earlier headlines were along the lines of David Walsh "defending" his own contribution of a testimonial and defending the fact that he still considered Tom Humphries a friend and that he would stick by him despite considering that what he did was wrong. And Donal Og Cusack cutting and running (for perhaps the first time in his life!!) and declining to remain in a position where people might take potshots at him for his "error of judgement".

Do I now have to "defend" the fact that I continue to keep a few of Mr Humphries' books on my shelf and to dip into them? Does his crime mean that he was always a bad journalist and poor writer and that one should have noticed through his voluminous words in admiration of the likes of Roy Keane and Sonia O'Sullivan and his distaste for Michelle Smith and just about anybody who plays rugby that he was a paedophile pervert all along?

I don't know Mr Humphries. I know some people who did and they all say (or at least said) that you couldn't have met a nicer guy. I can believe this. I can believe that people who knew him were shocked at the revelations. This is not the sort of thing that nice guys are expected to do.

But those with a little maturity, worldly experience and just plain hard-bitten cynicism know that it is a fact of life that there is a difference between a nice guy and a good guy; that the two don't always go together; that bad guys are often nice guys and conversely that good guys are often insufferable pains in the arse.

Of course he's a nice guy. What do you think first attracted the young girl into a relationship (however dysfunctional) with a man nearly thirty years older than her and who was probably never much of an oil painting in physical terms? It wasn't for his sleek physique and devastatingly handsome features. Look at him, FFS.

Now this is not "Victim blaming". On the contrary it is an example of how subtly charming people can inveigle their way into relationships and behaviour that are inappropriate at best or just plain wrong at worst. If many mature intelligent adult people found Humphries to be a charming and personable companion how could a teenager be faulted for coming to a similar conclusion? He is to blame for the nature of the relationship, it was wrong, he has been brought to account and is going to jail.

I don't think we are doing young people any sort of service if we decry those who maintain any sort of human contact with Tom Humphries, or who remember him fondly, as condoning of his actions. Do we really think that all paedophiles are grotesque physical and emotional specimens like the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? The real world is far more nuanced than that.

Messrs Dunphy, Walsh, Cusack, Kimmage and others who behaved charitably towards Humphries have nothing to apologise for, nor should they be chided for "defending" the fact that they are causing "offence" to the finger waggers.

Mr Humphries, by contrast, has been judged by society and is going to jail for nearly two years at minimum. I wouldn't change places with him for any money.

retro:electro

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.

If someone can tell me what he was referring to when he said the word "benign" that wasn't underage sex then I'll remove my post.

DeanAustin

Snickers Man wrote: »

We are at a truly nauseating stage of this story now: the self-righteous prigs of the world trying to out do each other, not in condemnation of Humphries and his acts but in condemnation of those who didn't condemn him early enough or often enough.

Headline in the Journal "Dunphy defends meeting Humphries in hospital"
Headline in Times "Lawyer defends use of character testimonials"
Earlier headlines were along the lines of David Walsh "defending" his own contribution of a testimonial and defending the fact that he still considered Tom Humphries a friend and that he would stick by him despite considering that what he did was wrong. And Donal Og Cusack cutting and running (for perhaps the first time in his life!!) and declining to remain in a position where people might take potshots at him for his "error of judgement".

Do I now have to "defend" the fact that I continue to keep a few of Mr Humphries' books on my shelf and to dip into them? Does his crime mean that he was always a bad journalist and poor writer and that one should have noticed through his voluminous words in admiration of the likes of Roy Keane and Sonia O'Sullivan and his distaste for Michelle Smith and just about anybody who plays rugby that he was a paedophile pervert all along?

I don't know Mr Humphries. I know some people who did and they all say (or at least said) that you couldn't have met a nicer guy. I can believe this. I can believe that people who knew him were shocked at the revelations. This is not the sort of thing that nice guys are expected to do.

But those with a little maturity, worldly experience and just plain hard-bitten cynicism know that it is a fact of life that there is a difference between a nice guy and a good guy; that the two don't always go together; that bad guys are often nice guys and conversely that good guys are often insufferable pains in the arse.

Of course he's a nice guy. What do you think first attracted the young girl into a relationship (however dysfunctional) with a man nearly thirty years older than her and who was probably never much of an oil painting in physical terms? It wasn't for his sleek physique and devastatingly handsome features. Look at him, FFS.

Now this is not "Victim blaming". On the contrary it is an example of how subtly charming people can inveigle their way into relationships and behaviour that are inappropriate at best or just plain wrong at worst. If many mature intelligent adult people found Humphries to be a charming and personable companion how could a teenager be faulted for coming to a similar conclusion? He is to blame for the nature of the relationship, it was wrong, he has been brought to account and is going to jail.

I don't think we are doing young people any sort of service if we decry those who maintain any sort of human contact with Tom Humphries, or who remember him fondly, as condoning of his actions. Do we really think that all paedophiles are grotesque physical and emotional specimens like the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? The real world is far more nuanced than that.

Messrs Dunphy, Walsh, Cusack, Kimmage and others who behaved charitably towards Humphries have nothing to apologise for, nor should they be chided for "defending" the fact that they are causing "offence" to the finger waggers.

Mr Humphries, by contrast, has been judged by society and is going to jail for nearly two years at minimum. I wouldn't change places with him for any money.

Fantastic post. The story here is Tom Humphries and what he did.

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

If someone can tell me what he was referring to when he said the word "benign" that wasn't underage sex then I'll remove my post.

I’ve explained it to you. You have also misquoted him in your original post and refused to acknowledge this even though your subsequent post, with the actual quote, clearly shows it.

retro:electro

DeanAustin wrote: »

I’ve explained it to you. You have also misquoted him in your original post and refused to acknowledge this even though your subsequent post, with the actual quote, clearly shows it.

He used the word benign in relation to underage sex. I find it both bizarre and disturbing that you're trying to defend that.

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

He used the word benign in relation to underage sex. I find it both bizarre and disturbing that you're trying to defend that.

He said that what he originally heard was “more benign” than what subsequently emerged. He could have said “the truth that emerged in court was much worse than what I was originally told”. They mean the same thing.

He never said underage sex was “benign” in any way, shape or form. What you are saying is dangerous and a complete misrepresentation of what he said.

If you can not comprehend that difference, you shouldn’t be posting about a subject like this.

lawred2

Snickers Man wrote: »

We are at a truly nauseating stage of this story now: the self-righteous prigs of the world trying to out do each other, not in condemnation of Humphries and his acts but in condemnation of those who didn't condemn him early enough or often enough.

Headline in the Journal "Dunphy defends meeting Humphries in hospital"
Headline in Times "Lawyer defends use of character testimonials"
Earlier headlines were along the lines of David Walsh "defending" his own contribution of a testimonial and defending the fact that he still considered Tom Humphries a friend and that he would stick by him despite considering that what he did was wrong. And Donal Og Cusack cutting and running (for perhaps the first time in his life!!) and declining to remain in a position where people might take potshots at him for his "error of judgement".

Do I now have to "defend" the fact that I continue to keep a few of Mr Humphries' books on my shelf and to dip into them? Does his crime mean that he was always a bad journalist and poor writer and that one should have noticed through his voluminous words in admiration of the likes of Roy Keane and Sonia O'Sullivan and his distaste for Michelle Smith and just about anybody who plays rugby that he was a paedophile pervert all along?

I don't know Mr Humphries. I know some people who did and they all say (or at least said) that you couldn't have met a nicer guy. I can believe this. I can believe that people who knew him were shocked at the revelations. This is not the sort of thing that nice guys are expected to do.

But those with a little maturity, worldly experience and just plain hard-bitten cynicism know that it is a fact of life that there is a difference between a nice guy and a good guy; that the two don't always go together; that bad guys are often nice guys and conversely that good guys are often insufferable pains in the arse.

Of course he's a nice guy. What do you think first attracted the young girl into a relationship (however dysfunctional) with a man nearly thirty years older than her and who was probably never much of an oil painting in physical terms? It wasn't for his sleek physique and devastatingly handsome features. Look at him, FFS.

Now this is not "Victim blaming". On the contrary it is an example of how subtly charming people can inveigle their way into relationships and behaviour that are inappropriate at best or just plain wrong at worst. If many mature intelligent adult people found Humphries to be a charming and personable companion how could a teenager be faulted for coming to a similar conclusion? He is to blame for the nature of the relationship, it was wrong, he has been brought to account and is going to jail.

I don't think we are doing young people any sort of service if we decry those who maintain any sort of human contact with Tom Humphries, or who remember him fondly, as condoning of his actions. Do we really think that all paedophiles are grotesque physical and emotional specimens like the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? The real world is far more nuanced than that.

Messrs Dunphy, Walsh, Cusack, Kimmage and others who behaved charitably towards Humphries have nothing to apologise for, nor should they be chided for "defending" the fact that they are causing "offence" to the finger waggers.

Mr Humphries, by contrast, has been judged by society and is going to jail for nearly two years at minimum. I wouldn't change places with him for any money.

Why would you have to apologise for having a few of his books? Has someone asked? Has someone demanded that all his literary works be burned on a heap? I don't get why you think that this means anything for you?

Basically what your post amounts to is that a pedophile in most cases has a public persona that doesn't necessarily reflect some of his innermost actions/thoughts/deeds... Hardly groundbreaking stuff. The same is repeatedly uttered about countless men who beat/abuse their wives and children - "He was the nicest man I've ever met... couldn't do enough for you. I'd never have guessed" .. blah blah blah.

I think everyone is well enough aware that the majority of these people don't fit neatly into pantomime villain roles. You've constructed a false narrative really..

Sure if it was easy to spot them - we'd have no such problems.

retro:electro

DeanAustin wrote: »

He said that what he originally heard was “more benign” than what subsequently emerged. He could have said “the truth that emerged in court was much worse than what I was originally told”. They mean the same thing.

He never said underage sex was “benign” in any way, shape or form. What you are saying is dangerous and a complete misrepresentation of what he said.

If you can not comprehend that difference, you shouldn’t be posting about a subject like this.

Riiiiight..... :rolleyes:

RGDATA!

DeanAustin wrote: »

He said that what he originally heard was “more benign” than what subsequently emerged. He could have said “the truth that emerged in court was much worse than what I was originally told”. They mean the same thing.

He never said underage sex was “benign” in any way, shape or form. What you are saying is dangerous and a complete misrepresentation of what he said.

If you can not comprehend that difference, you shouldn’t be posting about a subject like this.

is this quote accurate? (I didn't see the show)

Dunphy: "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."

if the quote is accurate, then what is he saying is more benign than what?

Shurimgreat

Underage Sex vs grooming.

I fail to see the distinction in terms of seriousness. If anything underage sex is worse than grooming, because at least nothing yet has happened with grooming, whereas underage sex is considered statutory rape in our society and rightly so as someone under the age of 16 isn't really in a position to give consent, especially when they feel pressured into the situation.

Dunphy has a habit of somehow making himself the centre of every controversy in this country, but in this case he's made a fool of himself.

DeanAustin

RGDATA! wrote: »

is this quote accurate? (I didn't see the show)

Dunphy: "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."

if the quote is accurate, then what is he saying is more benign than what?

We don’t know because he wasn’t pressed on what he originally heard.

Let’s say Humphries told Walsh/Dunphy that a girl approached him, said she was 18 and he later found out she was 16 and was charged with abuse.

That’s a “more benign” version of events than what emerged in court as the truth. So is anything Humphries told them originally as we can be fairly sure that Humphries did not reveal the full story to Dunphy/Walsh originally.

All Dunphy was saying was that what he heard originally wasn’t as bad as what emerged as the truth.

He wasn’t in any way saying that abuse of a minor is benign in any circumstances and the quote above by you confirms that.

Domo1982

anna080 wrote: »

If someone can tell me what he was referring to when he said the word "benign" that wasn't underage sex then I'll remove my post.

You need to stop using quotes if you don't understand the application.

Very simple question for you anna - yes or no answer please

Did Dunphy at any stage say "benign underage sex"?

Snickers Man

lawred2 wrote: »

Why would you have to apologise for having a few of his books? Has someone asked? Has someone demanded that all his literary works be burned on a heap? I don't get why you think that this means anything for you?

Basically what your post amounts to is that a pedophile in most cases has a public persona that doesn't necessarily reflect some of his innermost actions/thoughts/deeds... Hardly groundbreaking stuff.

Fair enough. But the news cycle at this point in time (it will pass in a few days) is concentrated on that very point. "How can you say or think anything beneficial about this guy?"

Jeez just look earlier in this thread and see people trembling with indignation that the Times printed a resumé of his career and accomplishments on the day of his sentencing. "Can't believe this was published!" they quavered, as if it was somehow a justification for what he did.

Given that the story dates back more than five years and that Humphries has been out of circulation for all of that time, there could be many new readers of the Times, either new arrivals to the country or people just coming of Time-reading age who didn't know who he was, so it was perfectly legitimate to enlighten people to who he was/is.

lawred2 wrote: »

The same is repeatedly uttered about countless men who beat/abuse their wives and children - "He was the nicest man I've ever met... couldn't do enough for you. I'd never have guessed" .. blah blah blah.

I think everyone is well enough aware that the majority of these people don't fit neatly into pantomime villain roles. You've constructed a false narrative really..

Have I? Do you not remember the "Her name was Clodagh" mallarkey from not so long ago?

lawred2 wrote: »

Sure if it was easy to spot them - we'd have no such problems.

In a nutshell.

Shurimgreat

Domo1982 wrote: »

You need to stop using quotes if you don't understand the application.

Very simple question for you anna - yes or no answer please

Did Dunphy at any stage say "benign underage sex"?

He said that or words to that effect.
He said he understood it to be something less serious than grooming, that it was a case of underage sex.

Domo1982

Shurimgreat wrote: »

He said that or words to that effect.
He said he understood it to be something less serious than grooming, that it was a case of underage sex.

Nope he didn't - have another read of the full transcript.

retro:electro

Domo1982 wrote: »

You need to stop using quotes if you don't understand the application.

Very simple question for you anna - yes or no answer please

Did Dunphy at any stage say "benign underage sex"?

He said the story he initially heard was more benign and was a question of underage sex. The logical deduction there would tell you he sees underage sex as more benign than Humphries act.

Shurimgreat

Domo1982 wrote: »

Nope he didn't - have another read of the full transcript.

Do you have a link to a full transcript?

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

He said the story he initially heard was more benign and was a question of underage sex. The logical deduction there would tell you he sees underage sex as more benign than Humphries act.

Humphries was convicted of abuse and grooming. The grooming element makes it more sinister or “less benign” than abuse on its own.

Both are heinous crimes.

Shurimgreat

anna080 wrote: »

He said the story he initially heard was more benign and was a question of underage sex. The logical deduction there would tell you he sees underage sex as more benign than Humphries act.

Got it in one.

holyhead

People are not cardboard cut outs. We are all multi sided in our personalities. We can appear to be different things to different people and all could be true. Even paedophiles can have good qualities which can make their dark side/s seem astonishing to those who know them only in a good light.
I think we also need to look at the definition of paedophilia. I always understood it to mean sex with a child. Is a child under 18 or is a child pre formation of genitals. If a child is under 18 then technically a boy 17 who has sex with a 15 yo is a paedophile. At what age is someone considered a young adult. To what extent does the emotional maturity of the girl come into the equation.
Can paedophiles be treated? If so is it by chemical means/therapy/physical castration. The problem is such urges don’t disappear because a paedophile is locked up for a period of time.
What factors go into making a paedophile? The more we know the better we will be able to start to tackle this issue.
I see in the UK it is being reported that an enormous amounts of child porn images are being looked up online. This is chilling to read.

Domo1982

anna080 wrote: »

He said the story he initially heard was more benign and was a question of underage sex. The logical deduction there would tell you he sees underage sex as more benign than Humphries act.

I respectfully disagree BUT I can see how you formed that view. That's not my issue here though

Here is my issue....

You've created the following sentence......"benign underage sex".....and presented it as a quote from the transcript in one of your posts...this is clearly not accurate.

Please tell me you can you see an issue with this?

Domo1982

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Got it in one.

Jesus wept - when did wanting to be outraged by something become peoples default setting?

ThisRegard

Domo1982 wrote: »

Please tell me you can you see an issue with this?

So this is your biggest issue with the whole thing, what a poster said on boards? Not even the fact that when Dunphy thought it was only underaged sex he didn't think it that serious, or in his own words, didn't know the gravity of it.

So he knew he had sex with an underage girl, but it only became a grave issue for him after that fact.

Argue semantics all you want, but this is ultimately what Dunphy felt about the whole thing. It only became a serious issue when he found out about the grooming side.

valoren

DeanAustin wrote: »

We don’t know because he wasn’t pressed on what he originally heard.

Let’s say Humphries told Walsh/Dunphy that a girl approached him, said she was 18 and he later found out she was 16 and was charged with abuse.

That’s a “more benign” version of events than what emerged in court as the truth. So is anything Humphries told them originally as we can be fairly sure that Humphries did not reveal the full story to Dunphy/Walsh originally.

All Dunphy was saying was that what he heard originally wasn’t as bad as what emerged as the truth.

He wasn’t in any way saying that abuse of a minor is benign in any circumstances and the quote above by you confirms that.

Considering he threatened suicide after getting confronted by his family in what for me is nothing but manipulation having been caught red handed it is quite reasonable that he would also manipulate his colleagues with a version of events that portrayed himself as a victim who had made a mistake.

RGDATA!

DeanAustin wrote: »

We don’t know because he wasn’t pressed on what he originally heard.

Let’s say Humphries told Walsh/Dunphy that a girl approached him, said she was 18 and he later found out she was 16 and was charged with abuse.

That’s a “more benign” version of events than what emerged in court as the truth. So is anything Humphries told them originally as we can be fairly sure that Humphries did not reveal the full story to Dunphy/Walsh originally.

All Dunphy was saying was that what he heard originally wasn’t as bad as what emerged as the truth.

He wasn’t in any way saying that abuse of a minor is benign in any circumstances and the quote above by you confirms that.

We know that what Dunphy heard, because he concedes it, involves what he terms "underage sex" (I think statutory rape is the more accurate description).

Grayson

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Underage Sex vs grooming.

I think it's more Underage Sex vs grooming that leads to underage sex.