Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

ThisRegard

Domo1982 wrote: »

Can you not see the missing variable here?

You seem to be quite fond of saying that, despite the missing variable not being missing at all but right there out of Dunphy's own mouth.

You claimed another missing variable was what Dunphy knew about Humphries at the time, despite Dunphy actually telling us.

retro:electro

lawred2 wrote: »

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.

He's talking about me

professore

I was over talking about the nuances of the #MeToo campaign yesterday. Here, there are no nuances for me. He's a sick perv, don't care what he has written or what is legal or illegal in other EU countries. I have the same attitude about Macron's wife BTW, not that it's relevant here.

Shurimgreat

ThisRegard wrote: »

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?

True enough.
We all know from watching him down the years that he can take every side of the argument within the course of a few minutes. He will say something is terrible one minute and its ok a few minutes later and then terrible again a few minutes after that. He can condemn, condone, excuse and support the same thing all within a few minutes.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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.

Well it can be, yeah. I mean, it's a bit of a blanket statement.

There is an undeniable capriciousness in a legal system where there exists this incontrovertible rule that sexual relations between an adult and a person aged 17-minus-1-day will constitute rape, or defilement; and that sexual relations between an adult and that person, on the following day (their seventeenth birthday) is entirely acceptable in the eyes of the law.

Assessing the age of sufficient mental, sexual and emotional maturity is a bit like the Sorites Paradox ... when does a 'heap' of sand become a 'heap'?

I would say that yes, there are circumstances when underage sex is not particularly (or not at all) harmful. I don't see how that is even deniable.

Exploitation, and grooming, are different matters entirely. They necessarily require the crucial ingredient of manipulation, which underage sex does not necessarily require.

Now, in the case under discussion, I don't know how Dunphy could have failed to understand the gravity of the charges, given the massive age and status disparity between Humphries and his teenage victim.

I'm just making a general point: underage sex can obviously be far, far less serious then grooming and sexual exploitation.

Shurimgreat

People will have subjective opinions about it. My own view is grooming means an adult slowly desensitising a child to sexual activity to the point it becomes part of every day conversation which is what Humphries did. Its a serious offence no doubt. He had several years to decide if this was right or the right course of action and yet continued on his way. This cancels out most other mitigating circumstances. The judge seemed to overlook many of the aggravating factors such as the length of time grooming took place.

Underage sex on the otherhand is basically statutory rape, again an equally serious crime. I don't think it can be argued that it is much more benign.

I'm going to give Dunphy the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he fully informed himself or understood the nature of what Humphries did. And if he didn't he shouldn't have gone on TV last night.

Snickers Man

lawred2 wrote: »

What was that?

You don't then? You're better off, trust me.

lawred2

Snickers Man wrote: »

You don't then? You're better off, trust me.

Clodagh Hawe?

Stacksofwacks

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.

No they have everything to apologize for(although Kimmage in fairness did distance himself from Humphries at an early stage). By publically or otherwise supporting an alleged paedophile they chose to make him the victim in the scenario and gave him their pity instead of the real victim. This I imagine only added to her suffering. Now it's ''bad judgement'', really?? In their statements since they seem more concerned about trying to cover their own arses than actually condemning Humphries and calling him out as a piece of crap that he is. But now its about a nice guy in a dark place who made a mistake. It was more than a simple honest mistake, it was sustained sexual exploitation and manipulation, in the most cynical form. And yet still we hear mealy mouthed apologies and deflections. Its almost more shocking than the crime itself

DeanAustin

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

No they have everything to apologize for(although Kimmage in fairness did distance himself from Humphries at an early stage). By publically or otherwise supporting an alleged paedophile they chose to make him the victim in the scenario and gave him their pity instead of the real victim. This I imagine only added to her suffering. Now it's ''bad judgement'', really?? In their statements since they seem more concerned about trying to cover their own arses than actually condemning Humphries and calling him out as a piece of crap that he is. But now its about a nice guy in a dark place who made a mistake. It was more than a simple honest mistake, it was sustained sexual exploitation and manipulation, in the most cynical form. And yet still we hear mealy mouthed apologies and deflections. Its almost more shocking than the crime itself

Jesus wept. That's some dose of hysteria you have there.

Stacksofwacks

DeanAustin wrote: »

Jesus wept. That's some dose of hysteria you have there.

I'm glad you got the point

hatrickpatrick

Public opinion shouldn't dictate sentencing in individual criminal trials, sure. However, in a democracy, public opinion should dictate the law around how we punish such crimes, and I think a lot of people in Ireland would like to see mandatory minimum sentencing introduced in order to force our courts, which currently hand out suspended or lenient sentences like tequila at a hen party, to actually protect the public by keeping dangerous people away from the rest of us.

Mandatory minimum sentencing has a horrible reputation because in the United States it is applied to victimless drug offenses, which is moronic. I'm talking about mandatory minimum sentencing for serious and violent crime, crime with a tangible victim.

I don't believe, for instance, that there should be a Kinahan v Hutch feud - because in a properly functioning society, everybody involved in it who already has a bajillion previous convictions would have been locked up years ago and that would just be the end of it.

The justice system in Ireland utterly fails to protect the public from dangerous individuals, and at some stage as a society we're going to have to deal with that.

Omackeral

Mary Lou McDonald right now is speaking about light sentencing in the Dail. She's speaking specifically about sexual crimes and how the punishments don't seem to fit the crime and said a recent high profile case is a prime example.

The Ceann Comhairle is shutting her down straight away. Told her not to name cases and to be general. She said she was being general.

JERRY! JERRY!

Hotblack Desiato

Omackeral wrote: »

Mary Lou McDonald right now is speaking about light sentencing in the Dail. She's speaking specifically about sexual crimes and how the punishments don't seem to fit the crime and said a recent high profile case is a prime example.

The Ceann Comhairle is shutting her down straight away. Told her not to name cases and to be general. She said she was being general.

JERRY! JERRY!

The utter hypocrisy and cynicism of SF really is breathtaking.

Red_Wake

Omackeral wrote: »

Mary Lou McDonald right now is speaking about light sentencing in the Dail. She's speaking specifically about sexual crimes and how the punishments don't seem to fit the crime and said a recent high profile case is a prime example.

The Ceann Comhairle is shutting her down straight away. Told her not to name cases and to be general. She said she was being general.

JERRY! JERRY!

Is Gerry squirming in his seat?

Hector Savage

approx .16K texts sent, are these actual SMS messages or Whatsapp/free messenger messages ?

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Public opinion shouldn't dictate sentencing in individual criminal trials, sure. However, in a democracy, public opinion should dictate the law around how we punish such crimes, and I think a lot of people in Ireland would like to see mandatory minimum sentencing introduced in order to force our courts, which currently hand out suspended or lenient sentences like tequila at a hen party, to actually protect the public by keeping dangerous people away from the rest of us.

Mandatory minimum sentencing has a horrible reputation because in the United States it is applied to victimless drug offenses, which is moronic. I'm talking about mandatory minimum sentencing for serious and violent crime, crime with a tangible victim.

I don't believe, for instance, that there should be a Kinahan v Hutch feud - because in a properly functioning society, everybody involved in it who already has a bajillion previous convictions would have been locked up years ago and that would just be the end of it.

The justice system in Ireland utterly fails to protect the public from dangerous individuals, and at some stage as a society we're going to have to deal with that.

Say we introduced mandatory minimum sentencing for underage sex, say ten years, would you be happy with that?

What if a case came to court where a woman (girl) aged 17 years and 1 day, was convicted of underage sex with a man (boy), aged 16 years and 364 days, and received your minimum sentence of ten years?

blanch152

Shurimgreat wrote: »

What fake quote?

Here is the quote from the transcript:



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.

There are differences between the two. I gave an example pages back of this.

blanch152 wrote: »

That just proves that she was groomed over a long period of time as he made it normal to her. It was only when she stepped away from it that she realised the full horror.

There is no excuse for Humphries, she was 14, he targetted her with texts and contact until she was 16. He probably thought he could get away with then so it moved into a sexual phase. It is a very serious crime.

If it had been a consensual (but not in the statutory sense as underage is always non-consensual) one-off encounter round the back of a nightclub where he had met her for the first time, when he thought she was over 18 because of where it was, and he had impaired judgement because of drink and a personal crisis, there might be some excuse or some reason for mitigation and a lesser sentence. But it wasn't.

It is a clear case of long-term grooming and planning which is very very dangerous. No matter what type of sentence he gets, he should be kept well away from involvement with kids for the rest of his life.

At the end of the day, no means no, and underage means no, and a man has to pay the consequences. If there are mitigating circumstances, there may be a lesser sentence, but in this case, I can't see any.

From what I have read, Dunphy and Walsh seem to have been led to believe that the offence was more like the nightclub example I gave rather than the grooming that actually occurred.

horseburger

Shurimgreat wrote: »

What fake quote?

Here is the quote from the transcript:



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.

Eamon Dunphy did not state that underage sex is more benign than grooming. He said on The Tonight Show on TV3, on Tuesday 24th October 2017, that underage sex is serious.

He said that that he had been misled to believe a version of what had been occurring, and that this version of what had been occurring, was more benign than what had actually been happening.

On the show, Eamon Dunphy said "The story that I heard through David Walsh, in particular, was much more benign, than the story that emerged when evidence was given. It was not about grooming. It was more a question, I was told, of underage sex, which is of course serious".

He did not describe underage sex as being benign. He described it as being serious.

Eamon Dunphy also said, later in the programme, after the break, "I believe I was misled, by somebody, who had been, themselves, misled".

Matt Cooper asked "Who?", and Eamon Dunphy replied "I think David Walsh was misled, by Tom".

https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/134122/0/The-Tonight-Show

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

Eamon Dunphy did not state that underage sex is more benign than grooming.

[...]

On the show, Eamon Dunphy said "The story that I heard through David Walsh, in particular, was much more benign, than the story that emerged when evidence was given. It was not about grooming. It was more a question, I was told, of underage sex, which is of course serious".

Can you not just read your own quote until this sinks in?

The story he says he hears was "much more benign", and he says he was told a story "of underage sex"

I happen to agree with him. Underage sex, all things being equal, is more benign than sex involving grooming, since underage sex does not involve manipulation, coercion, or violence in its own right.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Public opinion shouldn't dictate sentencing in individual criminal trials, sure.

It probably should be a significant factor.

One of the main functions of sentencing is retribution. A peaceful and ordered society is one which believes that retribution towards criminals is being executed appropriately. If it isn't, retribution will be taken back into the hands of the people.

The courts only administer justice with the consent of the people. That consent is conditional upon public approval, even if it isn't directly controlled, like the Oireachtas is. The modern courts, which date back to 1961, were created by us in the Constitution, and exist at our pleasure.

That doesn't mean they ought to pander obsequiously to every shrill red-top headline and Twitter hashtag, because on calm and considered reflection, none of us would want them to operate that way.

horseburger

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Can you not just read your own quote until this sinks in?

The story he says he hears was "much more benign", and he says he was told a story "of underage sex"

I happen to agree with him. Underage sex, all things being equal, is more benign than sex involving grooming, since underage sex does not involve manipulation, coercion, or violence in its own right.


It probably should be a significant factor.

One of the main functions of sentencing is retribution. A peaceful and ordered society is one which believes that retribution towards criminals is being executed appropriately. If it isn't, retribution will be taken back into the hands of the people.

The courts only administer justice with the consent of the people. That consent is conditional upon public approval, even if it isn't directly controlled, like the Oireachtas is. The modern courts, which date back to 1961, were created by us in the Constitution, and exist at our pleasure.

That doesn't mean they ought to pander obsequiously to every shrill red-top headline and Twitter hashtag, because on calm and considered reflection, none of us would want them to operate that way.

The person, to whom I replied, said that Eamon Dunphy had described underage sex as "more benign than grooming".
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105079848&postcount=747

Eamon Dunphy did not say that.

Eamon Dunphy said the story that he had been told, of what had happened - what he said that he had been misled to believe, and what he thinks Tom Humphries had misled David Walsh to believe - was more benign, than what had actually been happening. He said that the story that he had been misled to believe, was more benign, that what had actually been happening, as revealed in the evidence in the court case.

Eamon Dunphy did not describe underage sex as benign.

On the show, Eamon Dunphy said "The story that I heard through David Walsh, in particular, was much more benign, than the story that emerged when evidence was given". He said the story he had been misled to believe "was not about grooming. It was more a question, I was told, of underage sex, which is of course serious".

Eamon Dunphy stressed that he had been misled about what had been happening and he said that he thinks David Walsh had been misled by Tom Humphries.

Eamon Dunphy emphasized that, at the time he had visited Tom Humphries in St Patrick's Institution, that he had not known about the length of time that Tom Humphries had been in contact with the victim, nor had he known about the nature of the contact. Eamon Dunphy said that he did not know about the grooming. He said "The gravity of it I didn't know". By "gravity of it" I interpret that what he means, by that, is the extent and nature of the contact between Tom Humphries and the victim.

Eamon Dunphy said that at the time he visited Tom Humphries, "he (Tom Humphries) hadn't, at this stage, been charged with anything".

Eamon Dunphy stated that "It was more a question, I was told, of underage sex, which is, of course, serious".

Eamon Dunphy did not say that he was told a story of underage sex. He said "It was more a question, I was told, of underage sex, which is, of course, serious".

Perhaps Tom Humphries had, at that time, tried to suggest to Eamon Dunphy and David Walsh, that he (Tom Humphries) had not known the girl was underage?

Paul Kimmage's article, in the Sunday Independent, details how he had been told an untruthful account, by Tom Humphries, of what had been occurring, an untruthful version of what had happened, that tried to suggest that it was consentual. I think, Eamon Dunphy was making a similar point, that both he and David Walsh had been misled as to what had been happening. In no way was Eamon Dunphy trying to lessen the seriousness, of the actions of Tom Humphries.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/it-was-a-consensual-act-this-is-how-the-abuse-by-paedophile-tom-humphries-was-framed-paul-kimmage-36270886.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/paul-kimmage/paul-kimmage-they-will-never-forget-his-name-the-paedophile-tom-humphries-36270205.html

RasTa

Just looking at the news today. First case is nuts but he was suing him in court today

O'Brien pleaded guilty in 2008 at Cork Circuit Criminal Court to six counts of sexual assault on Mr McCarthy and was sentenced to three years imprisonment with the last 18 months suspended provided he stay away from Kilmallock for 15 years.
The Court of Appeal later increased the sentence to five years with two years suspended providing O'Brien give a similar undertaking.

I can't believe the first sentence but anyway, similar to humphries.

Another one today

Two Cork sisters have opened up about the years of abuse they were subjected to by their father, who was today sentenced to jail for 10 years for his crimes

All very similar cases of child abuse but what is with the sentencing?

Icemancometh

Ah here, that Cork case is far worse than the Humphries one.

splinter65

RasTa wrote: »

Just looking at the news today. First case is nuts but he was suing him in court today



I can't believe the first sentence but anyway, similar to humphries.

Another one today



All very similar cases of child abuse but what is with the sentencing?

Very few similarities . What similarities do you see?

Outlaw Pete

RasTa wrote: »

All very similar cases of child abuse but what is with the sentencing?

Neither of these cases are anything like the Humphries case.

The first one concerns a man who sexually abused a 7-year-old neighbour for many years (and threatened to slit the throats of the boy’s parents if he said anything about it) and the second concerns a man who raped his two daughters multiple times (for many years also) one of them from when she was just 8.

Humphries didn't even have penetrative sex with the girl in his case.

Not even remotely similar.

RasTa

Yeah just got a BJ a few times, it's all the same to me involving children. So there needs to be sex for a high sentence?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RasTa wrote: »

Yeah just got a BJ a few times, it's all the same to me involving children. So there needs to be sex for a high sentence?

Age of and relationship to the victims will always be taken into account as well as the number and type of assaults. You can't say that forced penetrative sex on two pre-teen children over a period of years is the same as reciving oral sex from a teenager - it's far, far worse.
And as for threatening to slit a child's parents' throats if he told? - that's a couple of years in itself, in my book.

What the system needs is minimum sentencing of x number of years for any form of sexual contact with a minor, increasing from there with severity.

blanch152

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What the system needs is minimum sentencing of x number of years for any form of sexual contact with a minor, increasing from there with severity.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Under your system, a woman of 17 years and 1 day who has sex with a boy of 16 years and 364 days is guilty of an offence and will have a minimum sentence imposed.

Circumstances have to be taken into account.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

blanch152 wrote: »

I have to respectfully disagree.

Under your system, a woman of 17 years and 1 day who has sex with a boy of 16 years and 364 days is guilty of an offence and will have a minimum sentence imposed.

Circumstances have to be taken into account.

Not actually a crime.

17. The Act of 2006 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 3:

(8) Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section against a child who at the time of the alleged commission of the offence had attained the age of 15 years but was under the age of 17 years, it shall be a defence that the child consented to the sexual act of which the offence consisted where the defendant—

(a) is younger or less than 2 years older than the child,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

That said, whilst I see your point, it shouldn't be hard to legislate for pedophiles as opposed to teenagers having sex.

blanch152

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not actually a crime.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

That said, whilst I see your point, it shouldn't be hard to legislate for pedophiles as opposed to teenagers having sex.

It is hard to legislate, once the age gap is more than two years, your minimum sentence kicks in and some poor teenager the target of a crush ends up in jail for ten years.