Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

Shurimgreat

Domo1982 wrote: »

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

Yeh you are right. We shouldn't be outraged. We should be happy about this whole situation. :rolleyes:

FFS

retro:electro

Domo1982 wrote: »

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?

Like I said earlier until someone can reassure me that he was not taking about underage sex then my post stays- unless the mods want to remove it. Do you even know what benign means? Who on earth would even think to put that in the same sentence as underage sex?
But sure ya, keep getting hysterical and finger wagging at me for "misquoting". Don't direct your frustrations at the dude who misspoke, or even Humphries, whatever you do.

RGDATA!

Domo1982 wrote: »

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

now you're ridiculing "outrage"? you seem equally outraged (reporting posts and what not).

Shurimgreat

Domo1982 wrote: »

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?

Help us out here and print the specific lines from the transcript you are referring to.

DeanAustin

RGDATA! wrote: »

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).

A man is in a pub. A girl approaches him and she looks 20 and says she is 20. He fancies her and has sex with her. It turns out she is 16. That's "underage sex" as you put it.

Answer the following questions. Morally,

1. Is that the same as having sex with someone you know is 16?

2. Is that the same as grooming that same person for two years?

retro:electro

DeanAustin wrote: »

A man is in a pub. A girl approaches him and she looks 20 and says she is 20. He fancies her and has sex with her. It turns out she is 16. That's "underage sex" as you put it.

Answer the following questions. Morally,

1. Is that the same as having sex with someone you know is 16?

2. Is that the same as grooming that same person for two years?

Why are you speculating and inferring that these are the circusmstances surrounding what Dunphy heard? You have no idea what he heard. None. Yet you finger wag at me for "quoting out of context" when here you are pulling hypothetical situations out of your arse to try and somehow justify his points.

Shurimgreat

Grayson wrote: »

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

I think the undertones to what Dunphy said was that the underage sex was somehow consensual, as opposed to Humphries forcing himself on the girl. But there is no such thing as consensual sex with someone underage, not in the eyes of the law and not morally either. Underage sex is a very serious offence. The ironic thing is Humphries didn't even commit full underage sex, just sexual acts with someone underage.

There is nothing more benign or less serious or whatever semantic arrangement you want to use about underage sex.

Domo1982

ThisRegard wrote: »

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.

Nice try - but ultimately you're assuming what Dunphy was told by David Walsh. That's the missing variable here. You're also assuming what my opinion on this is.

But sure anything that keeps the outrage wagon rolling on......(last stop snowflake central....anyone for Snowflake central?)

Domo1982

anna080 wrote: »

Like I said earlier until someone can reassure me that he was not taking about underage sex then my post stays- unless the mods want to remove it. Do you even know what benign means? Who on earth would even think to put that in the same sentence as underage sex?
But sure ya, keep getting hysterical and finger wagging at me for "misquoting". Don't direct your frustrations at the dude who misspoke, or even Humphries, whatever you do.

You cant see it - its sad anna.

ThisRegard

Domo1982 wrote: »

Nice try - but ultimately you're assuming what Dunphy was told by David Walsh. That's the missing variable here. You're also assuming what my opinion on this is.

But sure anything that keeps the outrage wagon rolling on......(last stop snowflake central....anyone for Snowflake central?)

Nice try? What are you talking about, I posted Dunphy's own words. If you have an issue with that, get in touch with Dunphy, or at least RTE for doctoring the video.

Based on your first paragraph in the quote I think I can safely assume that you think calling someone a snowflake, as pathetic as that is, is some cool way to end a conversation when you're backed up against a wall with no other sensible thought entering your head?

If there's an adult nearby ask them to simplify this sentence further for you

It was more of a question, I was told, of underage sex which is, of course, serious,

Shurimgreat

DeanAustin wrote: »

A man is in a pub. A girl approaches him and she looks 20 and says she is 20. He fancies her and has sex with her. It turns out she is 16. That's "underage sex" as you put it.

Answer the following questions. Morally,

1. Is that the same as having sex with someone you know is 16?

2. Is that the same as grooming that same person for two years?

I'm pretty sure most of the nature of the offences Humphries was accused of, grooming, etc were already in the public domain by the time Walsh and Dunphy visited Humphries. The age of the victim, when it started and how it started was already publicised.

Why they chose to believe Humphries version over other versions, most notably the victims or the gardai is unclear.

Part of the deviousness of Humphries is he tried to deceive others after his crimes such as Walsh and also tried to portray himself as a victim. He lied before during and after his crimes were discovered it now seems.

Shurimgreat

Domo1982 wrote: »

Nice try - but ultimately you're assuming what Dunphy was told by David Walsh. That's the missing variable here. You're also assuming what my opinion on this is.

But sure anything that keeps the outrage wagon rolling on......(last stop snowflake central....anyone for Snowflake central?)

Your last sentence sounds very like the way Boatmad signed off his posts yesterday. Any relation?

DeanAustin

anna080 wrote: »

Why are you speculating and inferring that these are the circusmstances surrounding what Dunphy heard? You have no idea what he heard. None. Yet you finger wag at me for "quoting out of context" when here you are pulling hypothetical situations out of your arse to try and somehow justify his points.

I didn't mention Dunphy or what he heard in that post.

DeanAustin

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most of the nature of the offences Humphries was accused of, grooming, etc were already in the public domain by the time Walsh and Dunphy visited Humphries. The age of the victim, when it started and how it started was already publicised.

Why they chose to believe Humphries version over other versions, most notably the victims or the gardai is unclear.

Part of the deviousness of Humphries is he tried to deceive others after his crimes such as Walsh and also tried to portray himself as a victim. He lied before during and after his crimes were discovered it now seems.

Based on what?

Domo1982

anna080 wrote: »

Who on earth would even think to put that in the same sentence as underage sex?

Its not in the same sentence though is it anna? incorrect...again but sure who cares right?

Here's the transcripts first 3 paragraphs - I would suggest that you read it(again)

"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"

nagdefy

Domo1982 wrote: »

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

I don't think people want to be outraged. It's not really an emotional state that you wish for or is good for you! However their are aspects of this case that are outraging people.

1. The Donal Og and Walsh references.

2. The comments made by the judge about Humphries fall from grace somehow taking away from his punishment.

3. The Irish legal system in general. 6 years for garlic importation, 2.5 for grooming and sexual assault of a minor.

Just a few reasons that stir the blood in people. We want to do better, have a better legal system, one that doesn't take account of 'reputation' or 'standing' in society.

The argument is being put forward ad nauseum that we're 'internet warriors', looking to be outraged, internet mobs etc. That's not true. We're ordinary people with opinions on this case.

Domo1982

RGDATA! wrote: »

now you're ridiculing "outrage"? you seem equally outraged (reporting posts and what not).

I see what you did there - anna's post was malicious and reporting it was the right thing to do. Do you support malicious posts on boards? I would in fact be outraged if you did,well at least disappointed.

lawred2

Snickers Man wrote: »

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

What was that?

ThisRegard

DeanAustin wrote: »

Based on what?

The fact the world and it's dog within the media world knew about it, the Sunday World also ran with his name in 2011. He attempted suicide after this, twice.

Do you want to continue digging in your defence of the characters in this story?

Shurimgreat

DeanAustin wrote: »

Based on what?

Messages on the phone, his arrest, the age of the victim. How he was caught was common knowledge.

This wasn't a case of a man in a pub entrapped by someone whose age he didn't know.

robbiezero

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think the undertones to what Dunphy said was that the underage sex was somehow consensual, as opposed to Humphries forcing himself on the girl. But there is no such thing as consensual sex with someone underage, not in the eyes of the law and not morally either. Underage sex is a very serious offence. The ironic thing is Humphries didn't even commit full underage sex, just sexual acts with someone underage.

There is nothing more benign or less serious or whatever semantic arrangement you want to use about underage sex.

Do you really not think there are degrees of seriousness with regard to underage sex?

Domo1982

nagdefy wrote: »

I don't think people want to be outraged. It's not really an emotional state that you wish for or is good for you! However their are aspects of this case that are outraging people.

1. The Donal Og and Walsh references.

2. The comments made by the judge about Humphries fall from grace somehow taking away from his punishment.

3. The Irish legal system in general. 6 years for garlic importation, 2.5 for grooming and sexual assault of a minor.

Just a few reasons that stir the blood in people. We want to do better, have a better legal system, one that doesn't take account of 'reputation' or 'standing' in society.

The argument is being put forward ad nauseum that we're 'internet warriors', looking to be outraged, internet mobs etc. That's not true. We're ordinary people with opinions on this case.

Reasonable post

My issue here is that a poster created a fake quote to push her outrage agenda. Same poster is now running around deflecting as opposed to taking responsibility for making a mistake or purposely making a malicious claim.

In fact what this poster has done is far far worse than the issue Dunphy is being accused of.

lawred2

Domo1982 wrote: »

"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.

ok you seem to be having comprehension issues

the story = grooming a child for the purposes of sexual acts

the more benign story = underage sex between Humphreys and this girl, whatever that is supposed to mean - consensual maybe

not sure what point you're making about sentences unless it's a puerile one about punctuation.

The takeaway regardless of paragraph construction is that this underage sex story fed to Dunphy was in his head more benign than grooming. I'd really like to know what Walsh told him. And given that Walsh also supplied a character reference for Humphreys, I'd also really like to know what Walsh was told. Wonder did Humphreys make a total fool of him.

ThisRegard

Domo1982 wrote: »

My issue here is that a poster created a fake quote to push her outrage agenda.

And that's your problem, your 'issue' is hysterically misplaced.

Only a snowflake would have an issue with what a stranger says on the internet about another stranger, right, right?

Shurimgreat

robbiezero wrote: »

Do you really not think there are degrees of seriousness with regard to underage sex?

I didn't say anything about degrees of seriousness.

However, the point is he groomed and committed sexual acts against someone underage. There are allegations from other possible victims too. Hopefully he will be tried for those cases as well.

Regardless of the age of the victim, underage grooming with the intent to commit acts is a very serious crime. It certainly deserved more than a paltry two and half years.

Shurimgreat

Domo1982 wrote: »

Reasonable post

My issue here is that a poster created a fake quote to push her outrage agenda. Same poster is now running around deflecting as opposed to taking responsibility for making a mistake or purposely making a malicious claim.

In fact what this poster has done is far far worse than the issue Dunphy is being accused of.

What fake quote?

Here is the quote from the transcript:

"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.

There is nothing in that quote inconsistent with what Anna said.

In fact reading Dunphy's quote again its worse than I thought. He actually said underage sex is much more benign than grooming. I don't think he understands the gravity of either to be honest.

nagdefy

Domo1982 wrote: »

Reasonable post

My issue here is that a poster created a fake quote to push her outrage agenda. Same poster is now running around deflecting as opposed to taking responsibility for making a mistake or purposely making a malicious claim.

In fact what this poster has done is far far worse than the issue Dunphy is being accused of.

I agree on Dunphy. I think it's a non issue. I read the article and my reading was Dunphy thought the crime was less serious, and led to believe so by Humphries.

I wouldn't compare what Dunphy did in visiting Humphries etc with Donal Og giving a reference in full knowledge of the case.

Domo1982

lawred2 wrote: »

ok you seem to be having comprehension issues

the story = grooming a child for the purposes of sexual acts

the more benign story = underage sex between Humphreys and this girl, whatever that is supposed to mean - consensual maybe

not sure what point you're making about sentences unless it's a puerile one about punctuation.

Not at all and no need to insult.

Can you not see the missing variable here? Can you not see the seriousness of just making up quotes and not being called on it by people?

Maybe you should look inward or just read the passage again maybe?

ThisRegard

Ah Shurimgreat, you can't be expecting to be using Dunphy's own words, that he spoke, live on tv, and expect certain people to still believe you that he actually said those things? Are you some kind of madman?

lawred2

Domo1982 wrote: »

Not at all and no need to insult.

Can you not see the missing variable here? Can you not see the seriousness of just making up quotes and not being called on it by people?

Maybe you should look inward or just read the passage again maybe?

I didn't make up any quotes. I took those directly from your post.

I don't need to look inward. Thanks for the advice all the same.