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

Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

Options
1…1415171920…30

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    BoatMad wrote: »
    And if she was 17 ???? , or lived in the uk ? A sense of perspective is needed here

    She was 14 when the grooming started. Fourteen.


  • Options
    #483
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    holyhead wrote: »
    I suspect that those who gave character witness for Humphries may well regret doing so on reflection. Given the seriousness of the charges Im surprised the two men gave him character references

    Walsh gave his before he knew the full scale of the offences. He was half duped into giving it and put in a no-win situation. I would say he regrets it.


  • Options
    #484
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Shurimgreat wrote: »
    She was 14 when the grooming started. Fourteen.

    I am aware of the case, as i said I don't diminish his crimes , but to call it " heinous " is to abuse the term. A few years ago grooming wasn't a crime at all.

    The judge decided based on the facts and mitigation of this case. For me, that's sufficient , he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave


  • Options
    #485
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    twill wrote: »
    Courting a child for sex? Is that what you are calling it?

    Please dont bend my words

    I pointed out the differences in other jurisdictions. The world view is not the same everywhere.

    Humphries pleaded guilty to a serious crime and he is being punished for it. That should be sufficient for people in a democracy with Judicial separation of powers.

    Mob rule or vengeance has no part to play in a judicial system.


  • Options
    #486
    valoren
    Registered Users Posts: 5,462 ✭✭✭valoren


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Is there anything in the article materially incorrect ?

    It's incredibly tactless to publish what to me reads like a bizarre combination of an obituary (it reads in the past tense) and a celebration of Humphries the journo with a the final summation being an 'oh and by the way' he was today convicted of defilement of a child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Please dont bend my words

    I pointed out the differences in other jurisdictions. The world view is not the same everywhere.

    Humphries pleaded guilty to a serious crime and he is being punished for it. That should be sufficient for people in a democracy with Judicial separation of powers.

    Mob rule or vengeance has no part to play in a judicial system.

    Of course it doesn't. But its right to hold judges to account for very lenient sentencing. Unfortunately there is too much leeway available to judges in some of these cases.

    My understanding is there is/was a minimum sentence for grooming of a fairly long duration and that grooming is/was a very serious crime.


  • Options
    #488
    fishy_fishy
    Registered Users Posts: 452 ✭✭fishy_fishy


    BoatMad wrote: »
    For me, that's sufficient , he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave

    I think you have it the wrong way around. He'll go to prison and then get back out and move on in time. She will always carry it with her.


  • Options
    #489
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    valoren wrote: »
    It's incredibly tactless to publish what to me reads like a bizarre combination of an obituary and a celebration of Humphries where he is being lauded on the same day he is convicted with a the final summation being an 'oh and by the way' he was today convicted of defilement of a child.

    Tactless yes , but then again newspapers and the media was never tactful to begin with given the desire for salacious news amongst its consumers


  • Options
    #490
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    fishy_fishy wrote: »
    I think you have it the wrong way around. He'll go to prison and then get back out and move on in time. She will always carry it with her.

    To suggest he will shrug off the consequences of his actions upon release is naive at the very least. The inclusion in the Sex register will follow him for a long time


  • Options
    #491
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,980 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Please dont bend my words

    I pointed out the differences in other jurisdictions. The world view is not the same everywhere.

    Humphries pleaded guilty to a serious crime and he is being punished for it. That should be sufficient for people in a democracy with Judicial separation of powers.

    Mob rule or vengeance has no part to play in a judicial system.

    Are you for real?! He's not being punished severely enough for it FFS.

    He should do 10 years in jail with the judiciary sending out a very strong message that pedophilia will not be tolerated in this country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,980 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    BoatMad wrote: »
    A few years ago grooming wasn't a crime at all.

    Defending a sexual predator - so if it wasn't a crime a few years ago it's OK WTF :eek:


  • Options
    #493
    Goat the dote
    Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭Goat the dote


    BoatMad wrote: »
    she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave

    I can tell you now, as someone who was groomed and abused as a 14 year old that, 17 years later I have most definitely not moved on. My life was destroyed by what happened to me. I never reached my potential.

    Someone earlier (or on another thread) said she got justice, that he’s going to jail, what difference does it make if it’s “only” 2.5 years.
    It makes a hell of a difference when you’re living in fear that you’ll ever lay eyes on that person again. The longer they’re in jail the more time you won’t have to live in fear for.


  • Options
    #494
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,302 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I am aware of the case, as i said I don't diminish his crimes , but to call it " heinous " is to abuse the term. A few years ago grooming wasn't a crime at all.

    The judge decided based on the facts and mitigation of this case. For me, that's sufficient , he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave

    Good lord - this is a disturbing thought process. You should maybe sit down and read that post back to yourself. A good few times. And if you still don't get it - then try reading it a few more times.


  • Options
    #495
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Theboinkmaster wrote: »
    Are you for real?! He's not being punished severely enough for it FFS.

    He should do 10 years in jail with the judiciary sending out a very strong message that pedophilia will not be tolerated in this country.

    That's not the function of the judiciary in the first place. It's not there to act as " moral " guardians , it's there to adudicate on the law , that's all. That's the whole point of the criminal justice system , it's why the victim is not the appellant

    Personally I have no view on how long an individual sentence for any given crime should be. I leave that to individual judges etc and there is the judgement appeals process to boot if an argument can be sustained

    Otherwise your comments look like mob rule or vengeance justice.


  • Options
    #496
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I am aware of the case, as i said I don't diminish his crimes , but to call it " heinous " is to abuse the term. A few years ago grooming wasn't a crime at all.

    The judge decided based on the facts and mitigation of this case. For me, that's sufficient , he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave

    Jesus. You've got some bizarre thought process going on there.

    His life is ruined because of HIS actions and deservedly so.

    She will move on in time? How do you know this?.

    It's almost as if your saying she's got the better deal out of this.


  • Options
    #497
    D9Male
    Registered Users Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭D9Male


    BoatMad wrote: »
    he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave

    Of all the things I have read on boards.ie this is the most ridiculous.


  • Options
    #498
    Shurimgreat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭Shurimgreat


    He showed zero remorse for his crimes until he was caught and exposed for what he did.

    Then came the faux remorse. I'd question if people of that nature are ever truly remorseful. The only person he seems to feel sorry for is himself and only then because he was caught.


  • Options
    #499
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,302 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Shurimgreat wrote: »
    He showed zero remorse for his crimes until he was caught and exposed for what he did.

    Then came the faux remorse. I'd question if people of that nature are ever truly remorseful. The only person he seems to feel sorry for is himself and only then because he was caught.

    His family had to expose him.


  • Options
    #500
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I am aware of the case, as i said I don't diminish his crimes , but to call it " heinous " is to abuse the term. A few years ago grooming wasn't a crime at all.

    The judge decided based on the facts and mitigation of this case. For me, that's sufficient , he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave

    It's not so long ago that it was legal for a man to rape his wife but illegal for the same man to have sex with his male lover. So much for the law

    This POS deserves far more than the paltry sentence he received. What confidence would this inspire in any victim or parent of a victim that going to court is worth it?


  • Options
    #501
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,980 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    BoatMad wrote: »

    Otherwise your comments look like mob rule or vengeance justice.

    Congratulations on dismissing a completely valid view whilst defending a sexual predator.

    The judge has discretion in this case so I'm not giving out about our judiciary process. I'm saying the sentence is ridiculous and any normal person can see that.

    Per your own posts you think murder is heinous yet sexual assaults on children is not......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Are Am Eye
    Registered Users Posts: 2,166 ✭✭✭Are Am Eye


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I am aware of the case, as i said I don't diminish his crimes , but to call it " heinous " is to abuse the term. A few years ago grooming wasn't a crime at all.

    The judge decided based on the facts and mitigation of this case. For me, that's sufficient , he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave

    A Judge heard the cases of the Birmingham Six. And a Judge heard the case of Nicky Kelly. Facts, mitigation etc. And they got it wrong.
    "A Judge heard the case" isn't the be all and end all of everything.
    Simple common sense and the clear wishes of our community and society, for whom the law serves, would direct that the most severe punishment be handed down in such a case as this. To provide a fearful deterrent to potential predators. Twenty years minimum before the issue of parole even arises.


  • Options
    #503
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Good lord - this is a disturbing thought process. You should maybe sit down and read that post back to yourself. A good few times. And if you still don't get it - then try reading it a few more times.

    No, I don't need to, I have confidence in the judiciary and the system of checks and balances that are attached to it

    He pleaded guilty , whatever mitigations were present where no doubt presented by his defence , her victim impact statement is a counter to that

    The judge then ruled , I for one am horrified by mob rule and vengeance judtice , it wasn't so long ago in this country that the same people turned a blind eye to mothers and babies , clerical abuse and the laundries

    Protect me from the moral high ground , it usually turns out to be a swamp


  • Options
    #504
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    Shurimgreat wrote: »
    She was 14 when the grooming started. Fourteen.

    Incorrect. She was 14 when the contact started. It only became sexual after she turned 16.

    Creepy, but would have been a lot more difficult to prosecute.

    I'm on no way shape r form defenc#ding him, but you need to balance the hyperbole out there especially by the sensationalist indo group who have their own agenda.

    What I'm saying is the judge has given the correct sentence for the crime.

    Now, if she was 12, a sentence of 20 years would have been more appropriate.


  • Options
    #505
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    This enhances the theory that their is a code of understanding of when a child abuse case comes up in front of the judiciary.

    Keep sentences low because you never know when one of the lads slip up.


  • Options
    #506
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,302 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    Incorrect. She was 14 when the contact started. It only became sexual after she turned 16.

    Creepy, but would have been a lot more difficult to prosecute.

    I'm on no way shape r form defenc#ding him, but you need to balance the hyperbole out there especially by the sensationalist indo group who have their own agenda.

    What I'm saying is the judge has given the correct sentence for the crime.

    Now, if she was 12, a sentence of 20 years would have been more appropriate.

    Why do you think contact started at 14? Why do you think contact started at all?


  • Options
    #507
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Are Am Eye wrote: »
    A Judge heard the cases of the Birmingham Six. And a Judge heard the case of Nicky Kelly. Facts, mitigation etc. And they got it wrong.
    "A Judge heard the case" isn't the be all and end all of everything.
    Simple common sense and the clear wishes of our community and society, for whom the law serves, would direct that the most severe punishment be handed down in such a case as this. To provide a fearful deterrent to potential predators. Twenty years minimum before the issue of parole even arises.

    The legal system makes mistakes, ultimately that same legal system freed the B6.

    Simply because it makes mistakes , does not mean it can be discounted when it suits you or the moral righteous bridage

    " clear wishes of the community " , firstly the legal system is actually designed to ignore that , because they" clear wishes " of the community is also called mob rule.

    The judiciary is there to rule on the transgressions of the law and to decide in that context what the appropriate punishment should be.

    Personally I'd jail smokers for 20 years , but fortunately I'm not a judge


  • Options
    #508
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,302 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    BoatMad wrote: »
    No, I don't need to, I have confidence in the judiciary and the system of checks and balances that are attached to it

    He pleaded guilty , whatever mitigations were present where no doubt presented by his defence , her victim impact statement is a counter to that

    The judge then ruled , I for one am horrified by mob rule and vengeance judtice , it wasn't so long ago in this country that the same people turned a blind eye to mothers and babies , clerical abuse and the laundries

    Protect me from the moral high ground , it usually turns out to be a swamp

    utter waffle


  • Options
    #509
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,980 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I have confidence in the judiciary and the system of checks and balances that are attached to it

    Why? Where does that confidence come from?

    Because there's never been a single example in Ireland of a miscarriage of justice, someone getting off when guilty, innocent person going to prison, garlic importer being given ridiculous sentencing....


  • Options
    #510
    Ashbourne hoop
    Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Ashbourne hoop


    BoatMad wrote: »
    And if she was 17 ???? , or lived in the uk ? A sense of perspective is needed here

    But she wasn't and doesn't so your point is irrelevant. He knew exactly what age she was and what jurisdiction he was in.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    This enhances the theory that their is a code of understanding of when a child abuse case comes up in front of the judiciary.

    Keep sentences low because you never know when one of the lads slip up.

    Along with the two shooters conspiracy in Las Vegas and the existence of the yeti.


Advertisement