Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

anna080 wrote: »

Is this meant to be some kind of defence for a paedophile? "Well Elvis did it, so....."

The reasoning seems to be

1) it was more socially acceptable in the past.

2) if the genders were reversed bluh blah blab bluh bluh

3) sure doesn't be feel really bad and he's had to face CONSEQUENCES FOR HIS ACTIONS, would you believe. He lost his job!!! His reputation!!!

4) it's not like she was like, three.

5) ?????

6) Everyone who's appalled by this and thinks this man is a piece of shít are stupid sheeple.

Outlaw Pete

Ishaan Stocky Flag wrote: »

The reasoning seems to be

5) ?????

How formulaic. Was there no meme you could have posted?

anna080 wrote: »

Is this meant to be some kind of defence for a paedophile? "Well Elvis did it, so....."

No, anna, it was not meant as some kind of defense of a paedophile.... but sure you got yourself a few backslaps.

The point was that you called the guy a "disgusting pig" but what have his looks got to do with anything? Now don't come back and tell me you were merely calling him a disgusting pig because you know that ain't the full truth. By the way, you're not alone in that. I see it when boys are abused too. Hot teacher shags some 14 year old boy and it's Niiiiice but if she's a fat cow then she gets lambasted and what she did is taken more seriously.

retro:electro

He's a disgusting pig irregardless of what he looks like, Pete. His behaviour tells me that much.

B0jangles

anna080 wrote: »

He's a disgusting pig irregardless of what he looks like, Pete. His behaviour tells me that much.

Yeah, I have to say I took the 'disgusting pig' remark as a critique of his behaviour, not his appearance. Couldn't give a flying feck what he looks like.

WinnyThePoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How formulaic. Was there no meme you could have posted?



No, anna, it was not meant as some kind of defense of a paedophile.... but sure you got yourself a few backslaps.

The point was that you called the guy a "disgusting pig" but what have his looks got to do with anything? Now don't come back and tell me you were merely calling him a disgusting pig because you know that ain't the full truth. By the way, you're not alone in that. I see it when boys are abused too. Hot teacher shags some 14 year old boy and it's Niiiiice but if she's a fat cow then she gets lambasted and what she did is taken more seriously.

Wow! This is screwed up.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How formulaic. Was there no meme you could have posted?

The "this child abuser is being subjected to a witch hunt" tune ain't exactly fresh either. Though what with it being Irish based you're tragically deprived of YouTube videos to spam the thread with so at least we're getting the same old shíte in your own words. Yay.

sbsquarepants

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Of course we are able to feel pity and compassion for those who have done wrong and who end up suffering terribly themselves as a result.

He deserves to be punished. I feel sorry for his victim and her suffering. Separately, I feel sorry for his utter degradation as a human being. They are not proportional in any way.

I think what's happening here is that in your attempt to showcase yourself as compassionate, erudite and enlightened, you are in fact coming across as a bit of a twat.

You shouldn't waste your time feeling sorry for him.
What he is, is a dirty sleazy old bastard, what he is not is a victim!

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

He's a disgusting pig irregardless of what he looks like, Pete. His behaviour tells me that much.

Fair enough but given that another user had just called him 'unpleasant looking' a few posts up from yours, I felt you calling him a 'disgusting pig' was in a similar vain to that. Apologies.

Ishaan Stocky Flag wrote: »

Though what with it being Irish based you're tragically deprived of YouTube videos to spam the thread with so at least we're getting the same old shíte in your own words. Yay.

Not sure why you're making this personal, but that would imply that if it were this thread about a UK case I'd be "spamming" it with videos, but for that comment to have any merit it would mean that I'd have had to have posted a rake of videos in the Adam Johnson thread, for example, but I don't recall doing so. From memory I just recall posting reasoned arguments that the usual suspects couldn't remotely retort. They were good at flinging around accusations of misogyny mind you but aren't they always.

As for the suggestion that I believe this is a witch hunt, I do not, but I do feel that the reaction has been ott and that calls from him to get 25 years are absurd. Spin and slice that anyway you wish.

nagdefy

Deusexmachina wrote: »

It’s reported that they exchanged 16000 texts, not that he sent 16000 texts. The actual physical sexual stuff happened when she was 17 I think?

Not excusing him for one second.

8,000 texts instead of 16,000 oh that's much better so. She was 14. Did you read some of the content of those text messages as posted on a Journal article here. Filthy, depraved language used by a person in authority to degrade another.

When she was 17 i think At least if you're making an argument have your facts straight, none of this 'i think' business. She was 14 in December 2008, the sexual defilement took place 2 years later.

He's a gross, detestable man who choose to act out his fantasies with a vulnerable girl. He had no remorse for over 2 years and then became suicidal when caught.

Why are you defending him so staunchly, do you know him, a friend of his?

Deusexmachina

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think what's happening here is that in your attempt to showcase yourself as compassionate, erudite and enlightened, you are in fact coming across as a bit of a twat.

You shouldn't waste your time feeling sorry for him.
What he is, is a dirty sleazy old bastard, what he is not is a victim!

You are probably right. He’s hardly a great candidate for sympathy. I apologise.

I suppose I just felt ‘Jaysus, imagine being him right now!!!’. We were all someone’s baby once.

Anyone who abuses children is beneath contempt.

I totally agree that our focus should be on the victim and not the perpetrator.

Omackeral

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You are probably right. He’s hardly a great candidate for sympathy. I apologise.

I suppose I just felt ‘Jaysus, imagine being him right now!!!’. We were all someone’s baby once.

Anyone who abuses children is beneath contempt.

I totally agree that our focus should be on the victim and not the perpetrator.

Glad to see you coming round. The girl was somebody's, not baby but, child when he groomed her. That's where my pity would go and only there. He made his bed, now he can lie in it. Every last bit of it was his own doing, hard to pity that. He lost his family and his job and his rep... only because of his own vile actions.

Shemale

anna080 wrote: »

Oh so he only bombarded her with 8000 texts then.
:rolleyes:
He groomed her.

8000 texts in 3 months, 88 a day.

My wife loves me but she would punch me in the face if I texted her 88 times in ONE DAY

Asus X540L

Not excusing Humphries but modern humans are around about two hundred thousand years and it's only in the last hundred that women wouldn't be married with kids by 16 or 17

In fact I was reading about Anglo Saxon culture lately and a 16 year old woman was considered past it if she wasn't married.

That said, if no sympathy for him he knew he was ****ed if and when he was caught.
Sounds like a mid life crisis to the extreme

pilly

Asus X540L wrote: »

Not excusing Humphries but modern humans are around about two hundred thousand years and it's only in the last hundred that women wouldn't be married with kids by 16 or 17

In fact I was reading about Anglo Saxon culture lately and a 16 year old woman was considered past it if she wasn't married.

That said, if no sympathy for him he knew he was ****ed if and when he was caught.
Sounds like a mid life crisis to the extreme

There's a huge difference between 2 people of the same age with the same power in a relationship together than one between 2 people where one has all the power.

Shemale

Asus X540L wrote: »

Not excusing Humphries but modern humans are around about two hundred thousand years and it's only in the last hundred that women wouldn't be married with kids by 16 or 17

In fact I was reading about Anglo Saxon culture lately and a 16 year old woman was considered past it if she wasn't married.

That said, if no sympathy for him he knew he was ****ed if and when he was caught.
Sounds like a mid life crisis to the extreme

But were people dead in their thirties and we are only here to keep the race going, if they had kids later than 20s they would die leaving kids under 10 to fend for themselves

valoren

Fair play to his daughter for actually doing something about it.
To her mother who contacted her brother and them all for confronting him.

Could very easily have been brushed under carpet when his daughter saw those messages initially.

I'm sure there are many incidents like this that are buried.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh

pilly wrote: »

There's a huge difference between 2 people of the same age with the same power in a relationship together than one between 2 people where one has all the power.

Although much older men marrying girls was a thing way back, but there are consent laws now which were brought in for a reason.

It is weird that women can become mothers at 12 when that's an horrific thing to happen. Sometimes the sociocultural and biological don't tally.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh

Uosdwis R. Dewoh wrote: »

It is weird that women can become mothers at 12 when that's an horrific thing to happen. Sometimes the sociocultural and biological don't tally.

Women don't become mothers at 12.

Sometimes 12 year old children give birth.

A 12 year old isn't a woman.

Asus X540L

Shemale wrote: »

8000 texts in 3 months, 88 a day.

My wife loves me but she would punch me in the face if I texted her 88 times in ONE DAY

Back when meteor started free texts for the month if you top up by twenty I sent 14,000 one month.

Just spam annoying my friends but it's possible

retro:electro

Asus X540L wrote: »

Back when meteor started free texts for the month if you top up by twenty I sent 14,000 one month.

Just spam annoying my friends but it's possible

Annoying friends (plural) is dramatically different to bombarding one person with explicit messages.
I know your point was that it can be done, but you admit you were spamming and being annoying- he wasn't.

blanch152

PeterParker957 wrote: »

If the teenager didn't want to engage in sexual shenanigans with a fairly unpleasant looking older man, then why did it go on for 18 months ???

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.

retro:electro

Asus X540L wrote: »

Not excusing Humphries but modern humans are around about two hundred thousand years and it's only in the last hundred that women wouldn't be married with kids by 16 or 17

In fact I was reading about Anglo Saxon culture lately and a 16 year old woman was considered past it if she wasn't married.

That said, if no sympathy for him he knew he was ****ed if and when he was caught.
Sounds like a mid life crisis to the extreme

"Not excusing Humphries but...." is excusing him.
You know he has admitted to grooming her, right?
He has also pleaded guilty to two counts of defilement.

He began texting her at 14.
Dick pics at 15. Which she warned never to send again.
Sexual conversations and engagement at 16.

Do you know what else is absolute bs of the highest order? The idea that he may have been suffering from "underlying neuro-cognitive deficiencies which could have impaired the client’s judgement during the period of his offending". Funny brain trauma that. One which you snap out of immediately upon confrontation of your acts when you have a breakdown and threaten suicide. Sick of these excuses being thrown out in cases like these in order to excuse or minimise any responsibility on behalf of the utterly depraved individual.

The only nice thing I can muster up to say about him is I'm glad he didn't kill himself. And that is only because I want him to feel the weight and the burden of his decisions for as long as he lives.

holyhead

nacho libre wrote: »

What? Ah yeah poor Tom and the hardship he must now endure, sure he could not help himself, lust is all consuming afterall.
Your post is ridiculously glib, and offensive to people who have been through similar experiences to the girl in question.

What your missing in your reply is that most normal people would not do what Humphreys did. Most people would not want to inflict the harm Humphreys inflicted on another human being. Deep down the likelihood is Humphreys knows what he did was wrong. Even though his actions suggest otherwise.

So in that sense this is a tragic situation for all parties involved. Humphreys has disgraced himself and if he has a conscience is most likely tormented by what he did. Of course the greatest harm has come the way of his victim.

Only Humphreys knows whether he could control his compulsion though his actions suggest otherwise.

As for glib you have brilliantly defined the meaning of, by the contents of your opening line.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh

holyhead wrote: »

What your missing in your reply is that most normal people would not do what Humphreys did. Most people would not want to inflict the harm Humphreys inflicted on another human being. Deep down the likelihood is Humphreys knows what he did was wrong. Even though his actions suggest otherwise.

So in that sense this is a tragic situation for all parties involved. Humphreys has disgraced himself and if he has a conscience is most likely tormented by what he did. Of course the greatest harm has come the way of his victim.

Only Humphreys knows whether he could control his compulsion though his actions suggest otherwise.

As for glib you have brilliantly defined it in your opening line.

If he has a conscience he wouldn't have done it in the first place. The remorse is because he feels bad for himself getting caught, and the consequences he faces.

There is no "deep down" about it - of course he knew it was wrong. And it was avoidable. Difficult for him no doubt, but still avoidable.

If the behaviour itself would cause him remorse... he wouldn't have conducted it. Remorse after the fact is hollow.

holyhead

Uosdwis R. Dewoh wrote: »

If he has a conscience he wouldn't have done it in the first place. The remorse is because he feels bad for himself getting caught, and the consequences he faces.

There is no "deep down" about it - of course he knew it was wrong. And it was avoidable. Difficult for him no doubt, but still avoidable.

If the behaviour itself would cause him remorse... he wouldn't have conducted it. Remorse after the fact is hollow.

It is possible that the compulsion overrides normal ethicals checks and balances people bring to bear before committing an act which would be deemed morally unacceptable.

Make no mistake what Humphries did was wrong on every level. There is no condoning what he did. Personally I would castrate someone who rapes or engages in other forms of sexual abuse.

If he doesn't feel remorse, except maybe on a self serving level, then he cannot truly understand what he did was wrong. Therefore his view of sex is, by societal norms, warped. Again reinforcing the argument for irreversible castration.

If society better understood what makes a person a sexual deviant then maybe we could take potential deviants out of circulation in the sexual sense via castration. The argument being that the better of society outweighs the person's right to harmfully express their sexual desires.

I agree it does beggar belief that a person whose journalistic output would suggest an intelligent mind would be blind to the reality that what they did was wrong. Compulsions be they sexual, gambling, drugs or drink can warp the logical thinking of any of us were we to fall prey to them.

Outlaw Pete

Asus X540L wrote: »

Not excusing Humphries but modern humans are around about two hundred thousand years and it's only in the last hundred that women wouldn't be married with kids by 16 or 17

Indeed and in many countries in Europe the age of consent is currently set at just 14. Many of them have Close-In-Age exemptions of course (like Italy and a few others) but countries such as Germany don't. In fact it's not too long since Spain raised it's age of consent to 16 from 13.

I'd say there's a certain brunette from Bath in the UK out there someplace (who must be in her mid 50's about now) that on hearing that news was quite thankful that they only got round to it now as opposed to doing so back in the late 80's, as she may very well have found herself doing time for seducing an underage Dublin lad in the Santa Ponsa area Bless her soul. I forgive you!

retro:electro

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Indeed and in many countries in Europe the age of consent is currently set at just 14. Many of them of have Close-In-Age exemptions of course (like Italy and a few others) but countries such as Germany don't. In fact it's not too long since Spain raised it's age of consent to 16 from 13.

I'd say there's a certain brunette from Bath in the UK out there someplace (who must be in her mid 50's about now) that on hearing that news was quite thankful that they only got round to it now as opposed to doing so back in the late 80's, as she may very well have found herself doing time for seducing an underage Dublin lad in the Santa Ponsa area Bless her soul. I forgive you!

In Ireland it's 17.
That's all that is relevant.

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

In Ireland it's 17.
That's all that is relevant.

My comment was relevant to what the user said.

Nobody's suggesting we should apply German or Spanish law in an Irish court.

anna080 wrote: »

"Not excusing Humphries but...." is excusing him

No, it really isn't. Why not just address what users' actual opinions are rather than what you want them to be.

If I say: "I'm not excusing Humphries but no way does he deserve 25 years" that is not excusing what he did. He broke the law with regards to our age-of-consent laws and he is facing the consequences for that but there is no way that what the guy did justifies someone unconnected with the case harbouring such strong feelings that the only reason they are glad they survived two suicide attempts is so that they can suffer some more.

Punishments should fit the crime and I hope Humphries' does but what you have in mind for him is highly disproportional to what the man is actually guilty of.

retro:electro

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

My comment was relevant to what the user said.

Nobody's suggesting we should apply German or Spanish law in an Irish court.



No, it really isn't. Why not just address what users' actual opinions are rather than what you want them to be.

If I say: "I'm not excusing Humphries but no way does he deserve 25 years" that is not excusing what he did. He broke the law with regards to our age-of-consent laws and he is facing the consequences for that but there is no way that what the guy did justifies someone unconnected with the case harbouring such strong feelings that the only reason they are glad they survived two suicide attempts is so that they can suffer some more.

Punishments should fit the crime and I hope Humphries' does but what you have in mind for him is highly disproportional to what the man is actually guilty of.

You can say "no way does he deserve 25 years" without prefacing that with "I'm not excusing what he did but...."
In this instance, personally, I feel when people preface their comment with that, they are minimising his actions whether they think they are or not.
"He broke the law with regards to our age of consent laws", would it kill you to say he sexually abused a minor?

He'll likely get a lenient sentence. Let's be honest. But she may carry this with her for the rest of her life. Why should she? He's the one who should feel the burden of his depravity for life- not her.

Shemale

Asus X540L wrote: »

Back when meteor started free texts for the month if you top up by twenty I sent 14,000 one month.

Just spam annoying my friends but it's possible

I am not saying it's not possible, but, he absolutely bombarded this young girl to try get his end away, assuming 8 hours sleep a night he was sending her 5 texts every waking hour (every 12 minutes) for 3 months

This is why I cannot fathom the sympathy for him.