Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

nagdefy

Shemale wrote: »

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.

It's an absolute wonder he wrote his sports column, trained teams, washed, ate and did normal activities. He was absolutely obsessed to such a degree that i can hardly fathom. No wonder his marriage broke down. How could he have a normal relationship with his children, friends (if he had any), work colleagues.

And the young girl, i know most teenagers are stuck in their phones, but you'd think people in her life might have noticed unusual behaviour that would have extricated her from that awful situation sooner. Easy say in hindsight of course.

Asus X540L

nagdefy wrote: »

It's an absolute wonder he wrote his sports column, trained teams, washed, ate and did normal activities. He was absolutely obsessed to such a degree that i can hardly fathom. No wonder his marriage broke down. How could he have a normal relationship with his children, friends (if he had any), work colleagues.

And the young girl, i know most teenagers are stuck in their phones, but you'd think people in her life might have noticed unusual behaviour that would have extricated her from that awful situation sooner. Easy say in hindsight of course.

He might have easily known the home environment of the girls he was stalking (given his situation as coach of this gaa club) - I'm sure troubled girls are easier for these sorts of guys.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh

I don't understand the mention of men marrying teenage girls in the past, or the very young age of consent in Spain and elsewhere.
That age of consent is for experimenting teens - it's not for much older people to be able to get away with having sex with them.
And as for men marrying young girls in times past - a stop was put to it for a reason. I know men can fancy teenage girls but not 14-year-olds - 17/18-year-olds yes (although I don't think it's as rampant as some like to claim).

But the above aren't relevant. He did wrong and broke the law, times past and other countries have no bearing on the matter.

holyhead wrote: »

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.

I think it's possible for someone to know full well what they're doing is wrong, but are too selfish to stop or get help. But then when they're caught, they want empathy because they feel bad that they got caught, and they want to try and deflect from what they've done. The wording that gets used, e.g. "If I could go back, I would never have done it" - yes, because they got caught!

I have no doubt, sexual obsession with the wrong person is an awful torment - but you seek help instead of indulging it. Because at least with alcohol, drugs, gambling, you are just harming yourself (although those who love you too) but if you have a longing for sex with children and act on this, you are dragging someone else into your personal hell, and creating a nightmare for them too.

I do agree with you that an understanding of what causes these desires is needed to figure out a way to treat them.

nacho libre

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.

.

If he was truly remorseful at any point, he would have stopped what he was doing and handed himself in before being caught, but he did not do that. So I feel no sympathy for him at all.
If he had shown genuine remorse or controlled his compulsion, as you put it, then I would.

_Dara_

Asus X540L wrote: »

He might have easily known the home environment of the girls he was stalking (given his situation as coach of this gaa club) - I'm sure troubled girls are easier for these sorts of guys.

That tends to be a modus operandi of many predators - finding the kids with less vigilant parents.

Ashbourne hoop

This is a very disturbing case. You have a guy who was very powerful and well known in GAA/Sportswriting circles, and he deliberately targeted a young child, and rumoured to be more, for his own sexual gratification. He knew exactly what he was doing and he also knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal, yet he continued to groom this girl. There are no mitigating circumstances in this case. The GAA have been very silent on this case and really need to examine their Child Protection Policies. Humphries got involved with coaching young girls for completely the wrong reasons, and in my opinion, is a vile, repulsive man who deserves NO sympathy. Its my opinion that if Humphries was coaching soccer there would be a bigger deal made of this, but I feel there is still a "he was a great GAA man" train of thought which has lessened the criticism in some quarters.

pilly

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

This is a very disturbing case. You have a guy who was very powerful and well known in GAA/Sportswriting circles, and he deliberately targeted a young child, and rumoured to be more, for his own sexual gratification. He knew exactly what he was going and he also knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal, yet he continued to groom this girl. There are no mitigating circumstances in this case. The GAA have been very silent on this case and really need to examine their Child Protection Policies. Humphries got involved with coaching young girls for completely the wrong reasons, and in my opinion, is a vile, repulsive man who deserves NO sympathy. Its my opinion that if Humphries was coaching soccer there would be a bigger deal made of this, but I feel there is still a "he was a great GAA man" train of thought which has lessened the criticism in some quarters.

Couldn't agree more. We need to get rid of this pillar of the community **** in Ireland. Just because someone is involved in the GAA and the church does not mean their a saint. In a lot of the cases the complete opposite.

There's a man in my community who has his nose into everything and goes out of his way to let everyone know what he does for the community. I would not be a bit surprised if he was caught doing something evil in the future, I get an awful creepy feel off him.

valoren

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

This is a very disturbing case. You have a guy who was very powerful and well known in GAA/Sportswriting circles, and he deliberately targeted a young child, and rumoured to be more, for his own sexual gratification. He knew exactly what he was going and he also knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal, yet he continued to groom this girl. There are no mitigating circumstances in this case. The GAA have been very silent on this case and really need to examine their Child Protection Policies. Humphries got involved with coaching young girls for completely the wrong reasons, and in my opinion, is a vile, repulsive man who deserves NO sympathy. Its my opinion that if Humphries was coaching soccer there would be a bigger deal made of this, but I feel there is still a "he was a great GAA man" train of thought which has lessened the criticism in some quarters.

It reminds me of Roman Polanski. An acclaimed director, who used his status to rape a 13 year old Samantha Geimer in 1977. (there have been even more allegations of rape against him in the intervening period). He went to prison for 42 days having pleaded guilty to statutory rape on a plea bargain deal. When the judge in question overturned the deal, he fled the US. He still made movies. Cate Blanchett named one of her sons after him. Hollywood awarded him the Best Director Oscar in 2003, with standing ovations from many, including Martin Scorsese and Meryl Streep.

And yet some will defend him. Sure didn't he lose his mother in the Holocaust, his wife Sharon Tate and her unborn child, was murdered. He only fled because of the judge etc etc.

Mia Farrow submitted a statement after Polanski’s arrest for raping Geimer describing him as “a loyal friend, important to me, a distinguished director, important to the motion picture industry, and a brave and brilliant man, important to all people.”

He raped a 13 year old girl. Whatever accomplishments he made, no matter what he is like as a man, that is a fact.

With Humphries we see similar behaviour. He was a great writer, a dedicated GAA man, he is important, he has status.

All of that is irrelevant. Anyone proclaiming as much is deflecting from reality which is that he used that same status and esteem to aggressively groom underage girls for his own sexual gratification. Any moral, conscientious person knows that is wrong.

joey100

I'm not involved in the GAA and have never played on a team or anything but wondering what changes to their child protection policies might have stopped this happening?

Opinionated Onion

valoren wrote: »

Samantha Geimer

I think Samantha Geimer should have some say on the matter, instead of you speaking on her behalf.

valoren wrote: »

With Humphries we see similar behaviour. He was a great writer, a dedicated GAA man, he is important, he has status.

Humphries clearly groomed his victim from an early age (her age, not his). His victim has clearly stated that she was appalled by what happened. This should be the most important thing.

The age of consent in Ireland is ridiculously high, but the concept of consent is not. Our age of consent should be brought in line with other progressive countries (like UK, France, Spain, Germany). At the very least it shouldn't be different if you go north of the border. Personal consent should be personal consent.

People focus on the sex as if that is the crux of what what Humphires did that was wrong. It wasn't, it was the manipulation (both electronic and real-world) and sexting of a very young teenager.

pilly

Opinionated Onion wrote: »

I think Samantha Geimer should have some say on the matter, instead of you speaking on her behalf.



Humphries clearly groomed his victim from an early age (her age, not his). His victim has clearly stated that she was appalled by what happened. This should be the most important thing.

The age of consent in Ireland is ridiculously high, but the concept of consent is not. Our age of consent should be brought in line with other progressive countries (like UK, France, Spain, Germany). At the very least it shouldn't be different if you go north of the border. Personal consent should be personal consent.

People focus on the sex as if that is the crux of what what Humphires did that was wrong. It wasn't, it was the manipulation (both electronic and real-world) and sexting of a very young teenager.

What???

Opinionated Onion

pilly wrote: »

What???

What part of that wasn't clear? Samantha Geimer has repeatedly stated she doesn't want Roman Polanski to be prosecuted, and found the way she was treated by the state to be far more abusive. It's pretty undignified to wheel her out in an internet debate. If you insist on using her as an example of anything at least quote her, and if she has to say doesn't suit you, don't use her as an example!

pilly

Opinionated Onion wrote: »

What part of that wasn't clear? Samantha Geimer has repeatedly stated she doesn't want Roman Polanski to be prosecuted, and found the way she was treated by the state to be far more abusive. It's pretty undignified to wheel her out in an internet debate. If you insist on using her as an example of anything at least quote her, and if she has to say doesn't suit you, don't use her as an example!

I didn't, so you've wasted your rant there. :rolleyes:

Opinionated Onion

pilly wrote: »

I didn't, so you've wasted your rant there. :rolleyes:

You're free to substitute 'you' with 'one' in the 'rant' if grammar means that much to you.

Ulysses Gaze

valoren wrote: »

It reminds me of Roman Polanski. An acclaimed director, who used his status to rape a 13 year old Samantha Geimer in 1977. (there have been even more allegations of rape against him in the intervening period). He went to prison for 42 days having pleaded guilty to statutory rape on a plea bargain deal. When the judge in question overturned the deal, he fled the US. He still made movies. Cate Blanchett named one of her sons after him. Hollywood awarded him the Best Director Oscar in 2003, with standing ovations from many, including Martin Scorsese and Meryl Streep.

And yet some will defend him. Sure didn't he lose his mother in the Holocaust, his wife Sharon Tate and her unborn child, was murdered. He only fled because of the judge etc etc.

Mia Farrow submitted a statement after Polanski’s arrest for raping Geimer describing him as “a loyal friend, important to me, a distinguished director, important to the motion picture industry, and a brave and brilliant man, important to all people.”

He raped a 13 year old girl. Whatever accomplishments he made, no matter what he is like as a man, that is a fact.

With Humphries we see similar behaviour. He was a great writer, a dedicated GAA man, he is important, he has status.

All of that is irrelevant. Anyone proclaiming as much is deflecting from reality which is that he used that same status and esteem to aggressively groom underage girls for his own sexual gratification. Any moral, conscientious person knows that is wrong.

Also another woman has come forward saying that Polanski allegedly raped her when she was 15.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-roman-polanski-accused-of-raping-german-1507133265-htmlstory.html

And yet Hollywood celebrities were clamouring to sign a petition to exonerate him a few years back....

WinnyThePoo

Opinionated Onion wrote: »

What part of that wasn't clear? Samantha Geimer has repeatedly stated she doesn't want Roman Polanski to be prosecuted, and found the way she was treated by the state to be far more abusive. It's pretty undignified to wheel her out in an internet debate. If you insist on using her as an example of anything at least quote her, and if she has to say doesn't suit you, don't use her as an example!

Your twisting Giemers words. Very dishonest of you.

Opinionated Onion

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your twisting Giemers words. Very dishonest of you.

No I'm not. I'm not using her at all. However if for some reason you choose to use her, pooh bear, do her the courtesy of actually quoting her.

pilly

Opinionated Onion wrote: »

No I'm not. I'm not using her at all. However if for some reason you choose to use her, pooh bear, do her the courtesy of actually quoting her.

Where are your actual quotes?

Omackeral

Opinionated Onion wrote: »

What part of that wasn't clear? Samantha Geimer has repeatedly stated she doesn't want Roman Polanski to be prosecuted, and found the way she was treated by the state to be far more abusive. It's pretty undignified to wheel her out in an internet debate. If you insist on using her as an example of anything at least quote her, and if she has to say doesn't suit you, don't use her as an example!

13 year children don't get to decide who prosecutes who. Also, it's unlikely Samantha is gonna pop up here herself in After Hours so you'll have to forgive people if they don't expect a reply from her.

blanch152

Opinionated Onion wrote: »

I think Samantha Geimer should have some say on the matter, instead of you speaking on her behalf.



Humphries clearly groomed his victim from an early age (her age, not his). His victim has clearly stated that she was appalled by what happened. This should be the most important thing.

The age of consent in Ireland is ridiculously high, but the concept of consent is not. Our age of consent should be brought in line with other progressive countries (like UK, France, Spain, Germany). At the very least it shouldn't be different if you go north of the border. Personal consent should be personal consent.

People focus on the sex as if that is the crux of what what Humphires did that was wrong. It wasn't, it was the manipulation (both electronic and real-world) and sexting of a very young teenager.

You are absolutely correct. The manipulation, the grooming, the preparation over years that Humphries did is the very serious part of the crime. As I said in an earlier post, this wasn't a one-off incident that could be contextualised and explained (but not justified), there was a serious amount of planning in this, that added to the trauma suffered by the victim and that leaves this man as a future threat to other children.

We sometimes forget that imprisonment isn't just as a punishment, it is also sometimes necessary for the protection of society. This case falls into that category.

mariaalice

His victim was probably vulnerable in the first place perpetrators know which victims to pick on.

Shemale

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1620409/ex-irish-times-sports-journalist-tom-humphries-groomed-teen-girl-he-met-through-gaa-volunteer-work-with-thousands-of-vile-sexually-explicit-texts/


"Over 16,000 messages were exchanged between December 2010 and March 2011, with 43 per cent sent after 10pm and before 6am."

Its was stated the texts were about 50:50, so he sent about 38 texts between 10 and 6 every night for 3 months. He knew she would have to go to school so was probably trying to sleep deprive her to make her easier to manipulate.

retro:electro

If he was suffering from "neuro- cognitive deficiencies which impacted his judgement", would he really only be texting her at night, when he likely knew she was in bed and away from her parents? He was very selective in his decisions and very shrewd in his judgement. He knew only too well well how and when to manipulate her.

blanch152

anna080 wrote: »

If he was suffering from "neuro- cognitive deficiencies which impacted his judgement", would he really only be texting her at night, when he likely knew she was in bed and away from her parents? He was very selective in his decisions and very shrewd in his judgement. He knew only too well well how and when to manipulate her.

Of course he knew.

I really can't understand the sympathy and support for him on this thread.

There are circumstances where you can have understanding and sympathy for criminals and for how they got themselves into trouble, this just isn't one of those.

fryup

item about it now on Today fm

JoeA3

Matt Cooper fairly slaughtered David Walsh just now on Today FM. Worth a listen back if you've missed it.

super_furry

JoeA3 wrote: »

Matt Cooper fairly slaughtered David Walsh just now on Today FM. Worth a listen back if you've missed it.

Fully deserved based on that interview and Walsh's actions. Defending the indefensible.

fryup

i have the utmost respect for Walsh after all the excellent investigating he did over the years ....but he's walking on thin ice here, he could ruin his own reputation if he's not careful

super_furry

https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/podcasts/78519/

Jesus Christ. Walsh is a scumbag, calls Humphries a "a fine man" and "great great man".

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^

scumbag is a bit harsh....he's a friend of the guy, he may be blinded by a sense of loyalty