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
The Tonight Show - Virgin Media One
Options
Comments
-
technocrat wrote: »Matt's apology for not have a female on the first discussion panel is like WTF... who cares!
No apology for not having a female co-host?:rolleyes:0 -
That was just strange. Do we now have to have a man, woman and someone of different races available on every single talk show topic. You have to wonder about people these days!
What he should have been saying about the rail strike discussion is, we are sorry we have tried numerous times to get someone from the transport department or government in, but they have all refused. That is what was relevant. Not whether there were men or women present.
This show is really getting on my tits now. I really like the time slot for a bit of current affairs discussion, but it's just an absolute rabble of a show.
I think they should give more time to discussing particular topics, and have a more detailed debate, rather than trying to cover three or four topics per show.0 -
Dunphy was a disgrace last night with his comments on the Tom Humphries case. The bias was incredible. I can only imagine what Dunphys take on such a scenario would be if the victim was a family member of his and the perpetrator a totally unknown to him. There would be no better man calling for life sentences etc. in such a scenario. As it was he had the gall to call out another abuse victim for calling for harsher or life sentences. He let himself down badly last night.
Absolutely right! He was rather controlled and restrained until the end when he showed his true colours. He dutifully expressed sympathy for the girl, etc. - blah, blah, blah. But, just as the programme was almost over, he almost went apopleptic, in true Dunphy style, as he spoke about another rape victim who was on the radio the previous day, saying that Humphries should be jailed for life. This enraged him - according to him, Tom Humphries did not deserve this 'witch hunt'! :mad: It was interesting that the injured girl did not provoke the same strong feelings in Dunphy. No apopleptic anger on her behalf. You would wonder how anyone could have sympathy/empathy for the rapist Humphries as Eamon Dunphy clearly has. Shame on him!! :mad:0 -
ashfield_1990 wrote: »They should let Dunphy on every night. It's kinda boring without him!
Yes, we really could do with seeing more of the rapist sympathiser. :mad:0 -
technocrat wrote: »Matt's apology for not have a female on the first discussion panel is like WTF... who cares!
That was so bizarre. Matt is so PC.0 -
Advertisement
-
horseburger wrote: »I think they should give more time to discussing particular topics, and have a more detailed debate, rather than trying to cover three or four topics per show.
Totally agree. It's made even worse by the fact that if Cooper, Yates or a guest get up on their soapbox during a topic, a lot of the time is lost and other guests barely get a word in then.
It just seems to be a really poorly run show. There really is no need to cover more than 1 or 2 topics maximum a night. Whatever other topics are current can be discussed at length the following night.0 -
Absolutely right! He was rather controlled and restrained until the end when he showed his true colours. He dutifully expressed sympathy for the girl, etc. - blah, blah, blah. But, just as the programme was almost over, he almost went apopleptic, in true Dunphy style, as he spoke about another rape victim who was on the radio the previous day, saying that Humphries should be jailed for life. This enraged him - according to him, Tom Humphries did not deserve this 'witch hunt'! :mad: It was interesting that the injured girl did not provoke the same strong feelings in Dunphy. No apopleptic anger on her behalf. You would wonder how anyone could have sympathy/empathy for the rapist Humphries as Eamon Dunphy clearly has. Shame on him!! :mad:
Couldn't agree more. I thought his comments were disgusting. Downplaying the gravity of what Humphries did almost.
Also, even though he said a few times about sympathizing with the victim, by his comments regarding Humphries he was almost subtly putting it out there that maybe this wasn't all 100 percent Humphries fault imo. Just a perception of his comments that I took!
Usually I would just laugh at Dunphy and know that he plays the eejit and looks for publicity no matter the topic. Here though, I've lost any ounce of respect for him. What kind of person would have a cut off another abuse victim for asking for a longer sentence in this case. His comments towards her were shocking. All the while, he was talking about poor auld Tom. The man who groomed a teenager for years, while coaching her GAA team and then sexually abused her. Poor Tom indeed.0 -
Couldn't agree more. I thought his comments were disgusting. Downplaying the gravity of what Humphries did almost.
Also, even though he said a few times about sympathizing with the victim, by his comments regarding Humphries he was almost subtly putting it out there that maybe this wasn't all 100 percent Humphries fault imo. Just a perception of his comments that I took!
Usually I would just laugh at Dunphy and know that he plays the eejit and looks for publicity no matter the topic. Here though, I've lost any ounce of respect for him. What kind of person would have a cut off another abuse victim for asking for a longer sentence in this case. His comments towards her were shocking. All the while, he was talking about poor auld Tom. The man who groomed a teenager for years, while coaching her GAA team and then sexually abused her. Poor Tom indeed.
In fairness to Eamon Dunphy, what I took from what he said, was that both he and David Walsh, were misled, as to what Tom Humphries had done.
I don't think he downplayed the seriousness of what had happened.
I think what Eamon Dunphy was saying on the programme, was that when he had met Tom Humphries in hospital, that he had not known the full details of what had happened, that he had not been informed as to what had actually happened.
I don't think David Walsh had known, the full details of what Tom Humphries had done, when Matt Cooper interviewed David Walsh in 2012.
I think, that was what Eamon Dunphy was saying, when he spoke on the programme last Tuesday 24th October, that both he and David Walsh had been misled. He later said, on the show, that he thinks David Walsh was misled by Tom Humphries.
In the Sunday Independent, last Sunday, Paul Kimmage mentioned in his article, that when he had met Tom Humphries, that Tom Humphries had given him an impression of what had been happening, in a way that didn't indicate what had actually been happening.
https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/paul-kimmage/paul-kimmage-they-will-never-forget-his-name-the-paedophile-tom-humphries-36270205.html
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.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/david-walsh-condemns-actions-of-tom-humphries-1.3267373
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/david-walsh-apologises-tom-humphries/
https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/134122/0/The-Tonight-Show
https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-With-Matt-Cooper/I-Find-It-Incredible-That-David-Walsh-Gave-A-Character-Reference-To-Tom-Humphries0 -
Couldn't agree more. I thought his comments were disgusting. Downplaying the gravity of what Humphries did almost.
Also, even though he said a few times about sympathizing with the victim, by his comments regarding Humphries he was almost subtly putting it out there that maybe this wasn't all 100 percent Humphries fault imo. Just a perception of his comments that I took!
Usually I would just laugh at Dunphy and know that he plays the eejit and looks for publicity no matter the topic. Here though, I've lost any ounce of respect for him. What kind of person would have a cut off another abuse victim for asking for a longer sentence in this case. His comments towards her were shocking. All the while, he was talking about poor auld Tom. The man who groomed a teenager for years, while coaching her GAA team and then sexually abused her. Poor Tom indeed.
His comment that he thought it might have been 'just' underage sex was very telling and rather disturbing.0 -
His comment that he thought it might have been 'just' underage sex was very telling and rather disturbing.
I don't think Eamon Dunphy meant to say it in any way, to lessen the seriousness, of what had occurred.
I think, what he was saying was, that He had been misinformed as to what had actually been happening. I also think he was saying that David Walsh had been misled, as to the details of what happened.
He did not use the word "just".
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. He did not say, that he understood that what had happened, was "just" underage sex.
He said, that he had been misled to understand a version of what had been occurring - that the story he had been told of what had been occurring, was more benign, than what had actually been occurring.
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.
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".
Paul Kimmage, in the item in the Sunday Independent, discusses how Tom Humphries had given him an impression of what had happened, that didn't tell the full story.
https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/paul-kimmage/paul-kimmage-they-will-never-forget-his-name-the-paedophile-tom-humphries-36270205.html
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.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/134122/0/The-Tonight-Show0 -
Advertisement
-
For a lot of what Dunphy was saying, he spoke of sympathy for the victim etc. It just didn't seem genuine at all though. When he spoke of his sympathy for Humphries, and how his life was over no matter how long a sentence he was given, it was impassioned.
Dunphys comments about the sex abuse victim who had called for a harsher sentence, being part of a lynch mob were disgusting. Dunphy is also clearly an intelligent man, as much as people like to laugh at him sometimes, so for him to be saying that the sentence was fair enough because as a respected journalist Humphries life was now over, was absolute nonsense. Dunphy and others mentioning the fact he was a journalist numerous times does not sit well with me at all. They are using it as a mitigating factor for a more lenient sentence when if anything the exact opposite should be the case.
This man groomed a child, and sexually abused her. He did so from a position of power as a sports coach. The sentence handed down was very disturbing but at least there is now a discussion about this. There's no real grey area in this situation so for Dunphy or anyone else to come out with the absolute bluster they have over the last while is hard to listen to. I've listened to Dunphy for years, be it sports or other programmes, I've laughed at him rising people. I've agreed with him on many things and disagreed with him on many others. All the while though, I would have had respect for the man. You just couldn't respect anyone who takes that stance though.0 -
For a lot of what Dunphy was saying, he spoke of sympathy for the victim etc. It just didn't seem genuine at all though. When he spoke of his sympathy for Humphries, and how his life was over no matter how long a sentence he was given, it was impassioned.
Dunphys comments about the sex abuse victim who had called for a harsher sentence, being part of a lynch mob were disgusting. Dunphy is also clearly an intelligent man, as much as people like to laugh at him sometimes, so for him to be saying that the sentence was fair enough because as a respected journalist Humphries life was now over, was absolute nonsense. Dunphy and others mentioning the fact he was a journalist numerous times does not sit well with me at all. They are using it as a mitigating factor for a more lenient sentence when if anything the exact opposite should be the case.
This man groomed a child, and sexually abused her. He did so from a position of power as a sports coach. The sentence handed down was very disturbing but at least there is now a discussion about this. There's no real grey area in this situation so for Dunphy or anyone else to come out with the absolute bluster they have over the last while is hard to listen to. I've listened to Dunphy for years, be it sports or other programmes, I've laughed at him rising people. I've agreed with him on many things and disagreed with him on many others. All the while though, I would have had respect for the man. You just couldn't respect anyone who takes that stance though.
Eamon Dunphy made the comment, about not wanting public reaction to court cases, to influence judgements and the length of sentencing, after the other guest on the show, Barry White, Barrister and retired Hight Court Judge, had said that he expects the length of the sentence, in this case, to be reviewed, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, because of public pressure and the reaction, by people on social media, to the length of the sentencing of Tom Humphries.
I think Eamon Dunphy was speaking in general about judgements in court cases, about the possibility of judgements and decisions made in court cases, being influenced by the reactions of the public, to specific cases, on social media.
I think what Eamon Dunphy was arguing, was, that it is concerning, that judgements might be influenced by the opinions of people on social media, even though in many cases, the people on social media, calling for particular lengths of sentences, might not have all the information about a court case, that a Judge, presiding over a case, would have.
Earlier, when Matt Cooper brought up the issue of the reaction of people on social media, on the sentencing, Eamon Dunphy said "I would leave judgement to Judges. I don't believe in trial by media".
I think he was just saying that it is very important that Judges are afforded the space to make judgements - without the influence of social media reaction - having considered all the relevant information, available to Judges about cases, information, that members of the public, might not have.
https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/134122/0/The-Tonight-Show0 -
I've read numerous people's reactions to Dunphy's comments last week and I'm still perplexed at the outrage that they've caused and just the flat out misreadings of what the man was trying to say, albeit in a somewhat clumsy way, I'll admit.
While I personally don't agree with his opinion that the Judge got the sentence "about right", I certainly don't see what there is to get so upset about.
It's a lot of ire exercised over the wrong target.0 -
For a lot of what Dunphy was saying, he spoke of sympathy for the victim etc. It just didn't seem genuine at all though. When he spoke of his sympathy for Humphries, and how his life was over no matter how long a sentence he was given, it was impassioned.
Dunphys comments about the sex abuse victim who had called for a harsher sentence, being part of a lynch mob were disgusting. Dunphy is also clearly an intelligent man, as much as people like to laugh at him sometimes, so for him to be saying that the sentence was fair enough because as a respected journalist Humphries life was now over, was absolute nonsense. Dunphy and others mentioning the fact he was a journalist numerous times does not sit well with me at all. They are using it as a mitigating factor for a more lenient sentence when if anything the exact opposite should be the case.
This man groomed a child, and sexually abused her. He did so from a position of power as a sports coach. The sentence handed down was very disturbing but at least there is now a discussion about this. There's no real grey area in this situation so for Dunphy or anyone else to come out with the absolute bluster they have over the last while is hard to listen to. I've listened to Dunphy for years, be it sports or other programmes, I've laughed at him rising people. I've agreed with him on many things and disagreed with him on many others. All the while though, I would have had respect for the man. You just couldn't respect anyone who takes that stance though.
+100.
What really did it for me was reading what was in some of those texts which TH sent to that young girl. The sick **** sent her pictures of his genitalia when she was only fourteen, FFS! :mad: She deleted them. The only mercy in that was that his daughter did not have to see those! There were texts about getting laid, liking cock, 'eating meat', and asking her to be his whore. We are talking here about an almost fifty year old man and a 14-16 year old teenager.:mad: Dunphy and other apologists would have known about those when they were exoressing sympathy/empathy for Humphries after the case. THAT is what should have enraged Dunphy on The Tonight Show, not another rape victim expressing her very understandable opinion that the convicted rapist Humphries should have gotten life. It was curious how Dunphy was so controlled and restrained during most of the segment until the very end when he became almost apopleptic! I just don't understand the wiring of people like that.0 -
-
+100.
What really did it for me was reading what was in some of those texts which TH sent to that young girl. The sick **** sent her pictures of his genitalia when she was only fourteen, FFS! :mad: She deleted them. The only mercy in that was that his daughter did not have to see those! There were texts about getting laid, liking cock, 'eating meat', and asking her to be his whore. We are talking here about an almost fifty year old man and a 14-16 year old teenager.:mad: Dunphy and other apologists would have known about those when they were exoressing sympathy/empathy for Humphries after the case. THAT is what should have enraged Dunphy on The Tonight Show, not another rape victim expressing her very understandable opinion that the convicted rapist Humphries should have gotten life. It was curious how Dunphy was so controlled and restrained during most of the segment until the very end when he became almost apopleptic! I just don't understand the wiring of people like that.
Eamon Dunphy wasn't being an apologist for Tom Humphries.
I don't think anyone is speaking as an apologist for Tom Humphries. No one has tried to lessen the seriousness of what Tom Humphries did.
Eamon Dunphy clearly stated, on the show, that he had been misled as to what Tom Humphries had done, at the time that he had met him.
It sounds to me that, Eamon Dunphy and David Walsh did not know about the text messages that had been sent by Tom Humphries, at the time that Eamon Dunphy had met Tom Humphries. It sounds to me that David Walsh did not know about the text messages that had been sent by Tom Humphries, at the time that David Walsh had been interviewed by Matt Cooper. I think, that they did not know what Tom Humphries had been doing, and that they were misled to understand, a version of what had been occurring, that didn't tell the full story.
I think that is one of the reasons that Eamon Dunphy mentioned that he had been misled, and one of the reasons that Eamon Dunphy said that he thinks that Tom Humphries had misled David Walsh.
Paul Kimmage, in his article, indicates that, when he met Tom Humphries, that Tom Humphries gave him a version of what he (Tom Humphries) had been doing, that was untruthful.
I think, that Eamon Dunphy, was expressing a sense of sadness, about the issue. He wasn't apologising for Tom Humphries.
He did not become apoplectic on the show. I think what he was talking about was, that in general, it is concerning, that the judgements, made by Judges, can be called into question, for example by people on social media, in situations, where the Judges would have more information on the cases, over which they are presiding, than the members of the public, who are commenting on the cases.
https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/134122/0/The-Tonight-Show
https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/paul-kimmage/paul-kimmage-they-will-never-forget-his-name-the-paedophile-tom-humphries-36270205.html
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.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-With-Matt-Cooper/I-Find-It-Incredible-That-David-Walsh-Gave-A-Character-Reference-To-Tom-Humphries0 -
3 women on the panel tonight to counterbalance last nights show?0
-
horseburger wrote: »Eamon Dunphy wasn't being an apologist for Tom Humphries.
I don't think anyone is speaking as an apologist for Tom Humphries. No one has tried to lessen the seriousness of what Tom Humphries did.
Eamon Dunphy clearly stated, on the show, that he had been misled as to what Tom Humphries had done, at the time that he had met him.
It sounds to me that, Eamon Dunphy and David Walsh did not know about the text messages that had been sent by Tom Humphries, at the time that Eamon Dunphy had met Tom Humphries. It sounds to me that David Walsh did not know about the text messages that had been sent by Tom Humphries, at the time that David Walsh had been interviewed by Matt Cooper. I think, that they did not know what Tom Humphries had been doing, and that they were misled to understand, a version of what had been occurring, that didn't tell the full story.
I think that is one of the reasons that Eamon Dunphy mentioned that he had been misled, and one of the reasons that Eamon Dunphy said that he thinks that Tom Humphries had misled David Walsh.
Paul Kimmage, in his article, indicates that, when he met Tom Humphries, that Tom Humphries gave him a version of what he (Tom Humphries) had been doing, that was untruthful.
I think, that Eamon Dunphy, was expressing a sense of sadness, about the issue. He wasn't apologising for Tom Humphries.
He did not become apoplectic on the show. I think what he was talking about was, that in general, it is concerning, that the judgements, made by Judges, can be called into question, for example by people on social media, in situations, where the Judges would have more information on the cases, over which they are presiding, than the members of the public, who are commenting on the cases.
https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/134122/0/The-Tonight-Show
https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/paul-kimmage/paul-kimmage-they-will-never-forget-his-name-the-paedophile-tom-humphries-36270205.html
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.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-With-Matt-Cooper/I-Find-It-Incredible-That-David-Walsh-Gave-A-Character-Reference-To-Tom-Humphries
By the time Eamonn Dunphy sat on the panel last week, he knew all the ins and outs of this case. He repeatedly mentioned how Tom Humphries life is already over, implying that the 2 and a half year sentence was fair in such a case. Humphries life being over part implying that a top journalist now won't get to do anymore what he was so skilled at. He won't get to be with his his family anymore. So that in itself is a real punishment according to Dunphy. I'm sorry Eamonn but that is not a punishment whatsoever for the crimes that have taken place.
Tom Humphries was a brilliant writer. It shouldn't really have anything at all to do with what sentence is handed down though. Sinead O'Carroll was the only one to pull Dunphy on this correlation of how Humphries is already suffering etc. and his job and the sentencing, by mentioning if a nurse or Lidl worker had committed such a crime. Dunphies whole aim here was to play the 'poor me' on Humphries part. He seems to have done that quite well judging by certain comments on here.
I can't get my head around anyone having any time for what Dunphy said on this show. By Dunphys logic, why send Humphries to jail at all really? Humphries life is already over and he won't work again as a journalist according to Dunphy. His suffering is huge and forever. They are utter garbage comments and it's where the sentencing has fallen right down, in that it actually seems that because of Humphries profession, etc. that a lenient sentence was given by a judge.
This was a black and white case that involved grooming and sexual abuse of a child. The grooming was of the most disgusting manner over a long period of time. Correct me if I'm wrong but that crime can carry up to a life sentence? There's no doubt in my mind that in this case it should have carried such a sentence. For Dunphy then to bring a sexual abuse victim into the conversation, saying she asked for a life sentence for Humphries on air on radio earlier that day, and imply that is trial by media and lynch mob mentality was callous and moronic tbh. Simple black and white case, the judge was well within her rights to hand down a life sentence, yet Dunphy manages to have a pop at a previous sexual abuse victim for calling for that harsher sentence. 'That's top of the head stuff' was a line used. As in is she away with the fairies to be asking for such a sentence!
Nearly everything Dunphy said was in a tone of the 'poor me' for Humphries. It downplayed the gravity of it all. It's funny because the sexual abuse victim calling for a life sentence was simply calling for what should have happened within the law imo, yet Dunphy is the very man on another day who would lead a rabble looking for a life sentence for a crime of way less gravity. The man is an utter disgrace.0 -
By the time Eamonn Dunphy sat on the panel last week, he knew all the ins and outs of this case. He repeatedly mentioned how Tom Humphries life is already over, implying that the 2 and a half year sentence was fair in such a case. Humphries life being over part implying that a top journalist now won't get to do anymore what he was so skilled at. He won't get to be with his his family anymore. So that in itself is a real punishment according to Dunphy. I'm sorry Eamonn but that is not a punishment whatsoever for the crimes that have taken place.
Tom Humphries was a brilliant writer. It shouldn't really have anything at all to do with what sentence is handed down though. Sinead O'Carroll was the only one to pull Dunphy on this correlation of how Humphries is already suffering etc. and his job and the sentencing, by mentioning if a nurse or Lidl worker had committed such a crime. Dunphies whole aim here was to play the 'poor me' on Humphries part. He seems to have done that quite well judging by certain comments on here.
I can't get my head around anyone having any time for what Dunphy said on this show. By Dunphys logic, why send Humphries to jail at all really? Humphries life is already over and he won't work again as a journalist according to Dunphy. His suffering is huge and forever. They are utter garbage comments and it's where the sentencing has fallen right down, in that it actually seems that because of Humphries profession, etc. that a lenient sentence was given by a judge.
This was a black and white case that involved grooming and sexual abuse of a child. The grooming was of the most disgusting manner over a long period of time. Correct me if I'm wrong but that crime can carry up to a life sentence? There's no doubt in my mind that in this case it should have carried such a sentence. For Dunphy then to bring a sexual abuse victim into the conversation, saying she asked for a life sentence for Humphries on air on radio earlier that day, and imply that is trial by media and lynch mob mentality was callous and moronic tbh. Simple black and white case, the judge was well within her rights to hand down a life sentence, yet Dunphy manages to have a pop at a previous sexual abuse victim for calling for that harsher sentence. 'That's top of the head stuff' was a line used. As in is she away with the fairies to be asking for such a sentence!
Nearly everything Dunphy said was in a tone of the 'poor me' for Humphries. It downplayed the gravity of it all. It's funny because the sexual abuse victim calling for a life sentence was simply calling for what should have happened within the law imo, yet Dunphy is the very man on another day who would lead a rabble looking for a life sentence for a crime of way less gravity. The man is an utter disgrace.
Emon Dunphy was not lessening the seriousness of what had happened in any way. In no way was he attempting to act as an apologist for Tom Humphries.
He emphasised that he felt that he had been misled about the details of what had been occurring, at the time he visited Tom Humphries. He also said that he thinks that David Walsh had been misled by Tom Humphries.
When he spoke about Tom Humphries, and the circumstances whereby he visited him in hospital, I think Eamon Dunphy was expressing a sadness about the situation, about how if affects everyone involved.
He mentioned the case of the comments on radio, made earlier that day Tuesday 24th October, that called for a life sentence, after Barry White, Barrister, had stated that he expects that the sentence given to Tom Humphries, would be reviewed, as a result of public pressure, and public reaction to the length of the sentencing.
I think, Eamon Dunphy was giving a general opinion, that it would be concerning, if decisions made by Judges in court cases, could be influenced by members of the public, where members of the public might not have all the details relevant to a case, details that would be available to a Judge, in cases over which they preside.
He spoke in general about having a concern about the possibility that comments on social media, and remarks and reactions by members of the public, to decisions taken, could influence the decision of Judges.
A discussion on the length of the sentence given to Tom Humphries was discussed on The Last Word with Matt Cooper last week. on Tuesday 24th October.
NUIG law lecturer Conor Hanly addressed the issue of the length of the sentence, from the five minute mark in the interview. He was asked by Matt Cooper if he was surprised that the sentence was two and a half years in length.
He replied "Actually it doesn't. We need to look at this in two respects. There's the immediate case, of sentencing Tom Humphries in this case, for what he did. Then there's the broader issue of, are we getting sentencing policy right, more generally".
He also said "In terms of what faced Judge O'Connor, keep in mind, for example, that the defilement charge, which was treated as the more serious charge, the maximum sentence available under the legislation, was five years. The Judge set the headline figure, as it's called, at four years, which would be 80% of the maximum, subsequently then reduced because of mitigating factors, the principle one being guilty, the guilty plea. That is well within the established norms and established practice of sentence in court".
In his contribution to the discussion he said that "the Judge was faced with legislation that sets the maximum penalty at five years". He added that "it has actually been increased, since then, to seven years".
Matt Cooper mentioned that Tom Humphries pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation, which Matt Cooper said that he understands that that offence, carries a maximum term of life. Conor Hanly said "it does". Matt Cooper queried why Judge O'Connor started on the basis of a sentence of three years, for sexual expoitation, when the maximum sentence is life.
Conor Hanly replied that "Again, Judge O'Connor is bound by sentencing norms and I just did a quick review of some sentences imposed for sexual exploitation in 2016/2015, and these are cases that went through the court of appeal. Four years with two years suspended, four years with two years suspended, five years, three years with nine months suspended, one year but that was concurrent with a very serious rape, three and a half years with one year suspended. So, in that context, that is the context, the norms that have been established for that particular offence. A headline figure of three years is within those norms. And again, Judge O'Connor can't just ignore those norms. She is bound by them".
https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/Why-Did-Tom-Humphries-Only-Get-A-Two-And-A-Half-Year-Sentence0 -
I genuinely have no idea why you are quoting the norms of sentences around this case. I am well and truly versed in all of that.
I agree totally with what you are saying about why the length of the sentence was given, but even at that it was on the lenient side by most experts views. There is clearly a massive issue around rape, defilement and grooming sentences in general. If the judge had added on a year or 2 more by what I'm led to believe that would be around the norm in these circumstances, would it not? This is probably what will happen if the DPP appeal.
That is not to say that the sentences aren't an absolute joke. They clearly are. What has gone before is obviously relevant in the judges eyes, so they follow those sentences. In reality though, the length of these sentences are a disgrace and show where we are at as a country in our attitudes to such crimes. We simply don't take them seriously.
If we as a country took such crimes seriously, Tom Humphries would be looking at the possibility of a life sentence or not far off that. We do not take these crimes seriously and Dunphys attitude on the programme summed up where we as a country have gone horribly wrong. He practically sneered at the woman who called for a life sentence, which is actually available for this crime. He basically implied she was a moron with his 'top of the head stuff' comment. His attitude that Humphries is already suffering so he's already serving a life sentence is so idiotic it would be laughable only for the seriousness of what is actually going on.
We, as a country, do not take these disgusting crimes seriously. We do not protect our children by doing this. We will look back in time sometime in the future, and wonder how did we leave ourselves down so badly in this area in the past. Dunphys attitude on the show summed up everything wrong about where we are a country on this topic. I stand over every word I've said about the man. I thought his comments, and the tone of his comments were disgraceful on the show. I suggest people watch the few minutes of it again on the tv3 player online and see if they still feel the same way about him. I have watched it again, and it has hardened my stance on him.0 -
Advertisement
-
I genuinely have no idea why you are quoting the norms of sentences around this case. I am well and truly versed in all of that.
I agree totally with what you are saying about why the length of the sentence was given, but even at that it was on the lenient side by most experts views. There is clearly a massive issue around rape, defilement and grooming sentences in general. If the judge had added on a year or 2 more by what I'm led to believe that would be around the norm in these circumstances, would it not? This is probably what will happen if the DPP appeal.
That is not to say that the sentences aren't an absolute joke. They clearly are. What has gone before is obviously relevant in the judges eyes, so they follow those sentences. In reality though, the length of these sentences are a disgrace and show where we are at as a country in our attitudes to such crimes. We simply don't take them seriously.
If we as a country took such crimes seriously, Tom Humphries would be looking at the possibility of a life sentence or not far off that. We do not take these crimes seriously and Dunphys attitude on the programme summed up where we as a country have gone horribly wrong. He practically sneered at the woman who called for a life sentence, which is actually available for this crime. He basically implied she was a moron with his 'top of the head stuff' comment. His attitude that Humphries is already suffering so he's already serving a life sentence is so idiotic it would be laughable only for the seriousness of what is actually going on.
We, as a country, do not take these disgusting crimes seriously. We do not protect our children by doing this. We will look back in time sometime in the future, and wonder how did we leave ourselves down so badly in this area in the past. Dunphys attitude on the show summed up everything wrong about where we are a country on this topic. I stand over every word I've said about the man. I thought his comments, and the tone of his comments were disgraceful on the show. I suggest people watch the few minutes of it again on the tv3 player online and see if they still feel the same way about him. I have watched it again, and it has hardened my stance on him.
I cited what Conor Hanly stated in the interview, because he mentioned the examples, as a way of explaining how the Judge came to a decision, on the length of sentence given.
He gave these examples in response to questions by Matt Cooper, who asked why a longer sentence was not given.
Eamon Dunphy did not practically sneer at the woman who spoke on radio, who had called for a life sentence.
He spoke in general, about court cases, about a concern he had, of the possibility of decisions made by Judges, being influenced by comments from members of the public, who are not involved in specific court cases, where members of the public might not be familiar with the full details of cases - cases where the Judge would have all the relevant information about the cases, over which they are presiding.0 -
Dunphy did not speak in general when talking about the 2 and a half year sentence Humphries received. He was not speaking in general when he mentioned repeatedly that Humphries life was more or less over an the wouldn't work again, as if that was enough punishment for the poor chap.
On him sneering at the sexual abuse victim, I suggest you rewatch the show again. It is most definitely sneering. When he says about 'top of the head stuff' he's basically saying she is a moron for calling for a life sentence.
We could go in circles on this forever, so I'm going to leave it there anyway and let people get back to giving out about Matt and Ivan!! One thing I would definitely say to anyone who thinks Dunphy has done nothing wrong here, watch it again. Listen to the actual words, the tone of the words. The whole lot. As was mentioned on here, his mask slips during this interview.0 -
Dunphy did not speak in general when talking about the 2 and a half year sentence Humphries received. He was not speaking in general when he mentioned repeatedly that Humphries life was more or less over an the wouldn't work again, as if that was enough punishment for the poor chap.
On him sneering at the sexual abuse victim, I suggest you rewatch the show again. It is most definitely sneering. When he says about 'top of the head stuff' he's basically saying she is a moron for calling for a life sentence.
We could go in circles on this forever, so I'm going to leave it there anyway and let people get back to giving out about Matt and Ivan!! One thing I would definitely say to anyone who thinks Dunphy has done nothing wrong here, watch it again. Listen to the actual words, the tone of the words. The whole lot. As was mentioned on here, his mask slips during this interview.
I think that when Eamon Dunphy spoke about the length of the sentence, he was conveying a sadness about the issue. He didn't speak in sympathetic terms, about Tom Humphries, in the way that you are suggesting.
I think he was conveying a sadness about the issue, about the way the issue affects all involved, including members of both families, for example with regard to how the issue came to light.
Eamon Dunphy stated that Tom Humphries abused his "position of authority", "which he abused unforgivably". "He has been the cause of all of this, for his delinquent mind and the sickness of what he had..." (Eamon Dunphy was interrupted at this point and did not get a chance to finish what he was going to say).
Later Eamon Dunphy stated "I think David Walsh, was misled by Tom". He added "I think it is clear from what we learned during the trial that he (Tom Humphries) is a devious and manipulative person, and he has committed a very serious crime, against an innocent child".
On the programme, the issue of the references by David Walsh and Donal Óg Cusack was discussed. Ivan Yates asked Eamon Dunphy "Do you believe they (Donal Óg Cusack and David Walsh) were misled?"
Eamon Dunphy said, in response "I don't know if they were misled. I don't know. I believe in the early stages of this when I went to see Tom, I was misled by someone, who maybe, was misled themselves. If Tom Humphries is the man depicted, a devious, wicked, and guilty of these offences, he may well have misled people".
Later 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".
Eamon Dunphy said, at a different point on the programme, that "I think the person we have to think most about here, is the young girl, who was defiled, and her family. I think, after that, we have to think about Tom Humphries wife and his family, and lastly, we have to consider and reflect on the life he's had to live, with suicide attempts, refusing psychiatry, because he doesn't want to be happy, he doesn't feel he deserves happiness. The Judge said that she accepted he was remorseful, deeply remorseful. I don't believe, that we can, as human beings, excoriate somebody".
Ivan Yates then asked Eamon Dunphy "Do you believe in redemption and Eamon Dunphy answered "yes, I do believe in redemption" and "I believe in redemption for most people".
Eamon Dunphy added "I think Tom's life, now, is, by his own misdeeds and wrongdoing, is destroyed. He is the author of this tragedy, but it is a tragedy for a number of people. It makes me feel very, very sad for him, and all belonging to him".
Eamon Dunphy had been asked, on the show, about the length of the sentence and he replied by saying, that in court cases, judgements should be made by Judges.
Eamon Dunphy was speaking in general about the issue of public pressure, with regard to possibility of the decisions of Judges being influenced by the reactions of members of the public, to sentences given in specific cases.
That is the point he was making. He may have rephrased it, if he was writing it in an article, but on live tv, what is stated by panelists, isn't always phrased in the best way.
He made that general point, after Barry White, barrister, opined that he would expect that the sentence in this case, would be reviewed by the DPP, as a result of the reaction of members of the public, for example on social media. Matt Cooper had asked Barry White if he thought the sentence would be reviewed because of "public pressure" and he answered that he expects that will happen.
Matt Cooper asked "Barry can I ask you, as a former Judge, now practicing Barrister again, what are the chances, do you reckon of the Director of Public Prosecutions, appealing the length of this sentence, and of something happening as a result?"
Barry White replied "Well, I would say there's very little doubt, but that the Director will appeal, the sentence."
Matt Cooper asked "Is that because of public pressure?"
Barry White answered "I would say because of public pressure, because of the outcry there has been. Thereafter, it's going to be a matter, as I say, of a three man, or a three woman, or any combination thereof, determining what will be the sentence".
I think what Eamon Dunphy said, in general about court cases, is a valid concern, considering that the Judges that preside over cases would have all the relevant information on a case. Members of the public, who might comment on cases, would not necessarily have the same information, and evidence on specific cases, available to them.
In such a scenario, is the Judge's verdict, and opinion on the case, over which the Judge has presided, not more reliable, and more informed, than the opinions of members of the public?
Eamon Dunphy did not get hysterical. He made a point about public pressure, and comments by members of the public - members of the public who call into question the decisions taken by Judges, in cases where the Judge has more information on cases than the members of the public, who are commenting on specific cases.
He said, in reference to the call on radio earlier that day for a life sentence:
"There was a woman today, who came out, whose father had abused her, we know of this case, and she said Tom Humphries should have been put away for life, quote unquote. We don't want that kind of 'top of the head stuff' to govern our justice system".
Ivan Yates asked "are you saying it's a lynch mob?"
Eamon Dunphy replied "It is Ivan, somebody went on the national airwaves today, someone who had themselves been grievously abused by her own father. We know the case, the case was heard not too long ago and she was quoted as saying that he (Tom Humphries) should go to prison for life ".
"Now, If you whip up a fever over something like this, you are heading into dangerous territory. We're talking lynch mobs, we're talking people on the internet, governing the way the justice system works, and if Barry's right, the DPP, or whoever it is...."
At this point, Ivan Yates said, of the DPP, "which is independent, the DPP, in fairness, if she makes that decision, it would be entirely independent".
Eamon Dunphy replied "of course, but" and then finished what he had been saying by adding "Is that the way we really want to dispense justice?"
Then Matt Cooper concluded the discussion by thanking each of the four guests.
I think, that Eamon Dunphy was expressing a concern, about the possibility of a scenario, where decisions taken by Judges, could be called into question, by members of the public, who very often would be less informed - about specific cases being discussed - than the Judges who presided over those specific cases, who would be familiar with all the relevant information.
I think when he used the phrase about people talking off the 'top of the head', I don't think he intended to insult anyone specifically. I think he was talking about a concern about people making comments about court cases, after a court case has ended, and a sentence handed out - where the people commenting, might not know all the relevant details about a case, or have all the relevant details about a case available to them. I refer to information that a Judge, presiding over a case, would know - details on a case with which the Judge would be familiar, details which the Judge would have available to him/her, details and information, to which the Judge would have access, when required.
I thought an interesting section of the programme occurred where Ivan Yates was asking Barry White, Barrister and former High Court Judge, about how Judge's make sentencing decisions.
Barry White said that decisions are made by considering a number of issues, for example aggravating factors including "the nature of the offence itself and the affect it's had on the victim" and a "balancing of that gravity against whatever mitigating circumstances, if any, there might be". Ivan Yates then asked Barry White "And in this case?" Barry White replied "In this case, I haven't been in court, so I don't know. But I simply say this. In any case of a sexual nature, irrespective of the outcome, there are no winners, they're all losers".
It seems to me that Barry White was not inclined to give an opinion on the decision taken by the Judge, in a circumstance, where he was not in court, to hear all the evidence in a specific case.
https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1294/134122/0/The-Tonight-Show0 -
How any Minister can try and justify the misery that alcohol causes is beyond me. I think a minimum pricing structure on alcohol is a good start to address public health. And they should stop going on about rural Ireland and the pubs - we don't all live in the pubs and use that as our only form of entertainment in rural Ireland.0
-
I think they should put a minimum price on Michael Healy Raes head. The gobsh1te.0
-
It wasnt me123 wrote: »How any Minister can try and justify the misery that alcohol causes is beyond me. I think a minimum pricing structure on alcohol is a good start to address public health. And they should stop going on about rural Ireland and the pubs - we don't all live in the pubs and use that as our only form of entertainment in rural Ireland.
You look at other EU countries, we go on holiday to and marvel at how cheap the booze is there yet those folks don't have the issues we have. We'll simply say great I can drink twice as much for half as much :cool:
Price isn't an issue for us, attitude is.0 -
That was a classic show tonight. Don't call Kitty a lady, it is offensive.0
-
-
That was a classic show tonight. Don't call Kitty a lady, it is offensive.
I really don't understand why some female journos get worked up about this. Fiona Looney wrecks my head when she goes on about it.
Constantly bangs on about 'ladies' football', maintaining it should be called 'women's football'. I heard an actual footballer being interviewed
recently - at the end, she was asked 'ladies' football' or 'women's football'? She seemed a tad taken aback at the question before replying 'ladies'.
Kitty Holland at the same thing tonight, getting annoyed about nothing. :mad:0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement