Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.

Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

13468930

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,300 ✭✭✭ Snickers Man


    Candie wrote: »
    I'm worried now that he'll get two years suspended because being shunned at his golf club is punishment enough, or some other nonsense that you sometimes see. :(

    Golf club???? You've never read any of his stuff have you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Were these in place at the time of Humphries' acts?

    Not really relevant as it was his daughters friend, no rules can prevent that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,491 ✭✭✭ Yamanoto


    Let's hope it's a very long time before Mr. Humphrie's utters the words "I'm Free".


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭ Red_Wake


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Were these in place at the time of Humphries' acts?

    Not really relevant as it was his daughters friend, no rules can prevent that.
    No, but if Humphries used the facilities of the club to conceal or enable his inaproppriate contact and abuse of this young lady, the club could certainly tighten up its regulations.

    Out of curiousity, why do you assume the GAA has no questions to answer? It's a perilous belief to assume an organisation which has such unfettered access to children is above scrutiny [a fact which Humphries himself supports in his article on predators].


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,300 ✭✭✭ Snickers Man


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    I wonder if the club in question has put any safeguards in place to prevent such predators doing this again?

    Knowing the GAA, I doubt it.

    When my son was at school I volunteered to help out with rugby coaching. I never played much, and certainly not to any level but I showed willing with imparting knolwedge of basic skills to the young lads.

    I was sent on an IRFU-designed course and the first thing that we all had to do was read and sign a document on code of practice to ensure child safety. It was full of basic common-sense and some not so common-sense rules about what to do and specifically what not to do.

    No going into a changing room alone with a kid who wasn't your own.
    No taking a child who wasn't your own anywhere in a car without somebody else.
    No inappropriate touching.
    No going into the showers etc etc

    This, I believe, was a government-mandated document that we all had to sign. I'm sure it would be the same for any school or club coaching kids at GAA too.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    No, but if Humphries used the facilities of the club to conceal or enable his inaproppriate contact and abuse of this young lady, the club could certainly tighten up its regulations.

    Out of curiousity, why do you assume the GAA has no questions to answer? It's a perilous belief to assume an organisation which has such unfettered access to children is above scrutiny [a fact which Humphries himself supports in his article on predators].

    I'm just making an assumption like everyone else here but I don't think he was that sort of person, a serial child abuser, maybe he was but I'm just not getting that from what i've read, to me it looks like an affair with his daughters friend.
    Sure the GAA need to ask who he coached but I presume that was done years ago and we've heard nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭ Red_Wake


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    No, but if Humphries used the facilities of the club to conceal or enable his inaproppriate contact and abuse of this young lady, the club could certainly tighten up its regulations.

    Out of curiousity, why do you assume the GAA has no questions to answer? It's a perilous belief to assume an organisation which has such unfettered access to children is above scrutiny [a fact which Humphries himself supports in his article on predators].

    I'm just making an assumption like everyone else here but I don't think he was that sort of person, a serial child abuser, maybe he was but I'm just not getting that from what i've read, to me it looks like an affair with his daughters friend.
    Sure the GAA need to ask who he coached but I presume that was done years ago and we've heard nothing.
    Presumption is a dangerous thing imo. There should at least be a clarification on whether an internal investigation occurred within the club.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,955 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    I'm just making an assumption like everyone else here but I don't think he was that sort of person, a serial child abuser, maybe he was but I'm just not getting that from what i've read, to me it looks like an affair with his daughters friend.
    Sure the GAA need to ask who he coached but I presume that was done years ago and we've heard nothing.


    there was more than one girl involved. the other decided not to proceed with a prosecution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    there was more than one girl involved. the other decided not to proceed with a prosecution.

    Maybe but we don't know why and never will, Possibly there was no case to proceed with. Again only an assumption.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Presumption is a dangerous thing imo. There should at least be a clarification on whether an internal investigation occurred within the club.

    There had to have been. Garda were probably involved. The club aren't going to make any statesment about a case in progress as it could influence the outcome.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭ Red_Wake


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Presumption is a dangerous thing imo. There should at least be a clarification on whether an internal investigation occurred within the club.

    There had to have been. Garda were probably involved. The club aren't going to make any statesment about a case in progress as it could influence the outcome.
    The case is no longer in progress.

    Again, probably isn't good enough. The club needs to conduct a public investigation in order to exonerate its other members.

    A full and open investigation into the actions of the RCC has been called for to investigate its child protection practices and to prevent the innocent from being tarred with the crimes of the guilty - why is this GAA club exempt?

    Would you be willing to send your child to a club in which a coach had been found to have been sexually abusing a child in this manner?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,724 ✭✭✭ nice_guy80


    you can train people up, provide all the protections and safeguards you can, but if somebody acts like a **** and goes after young children the main thing is that there is a clear reporting structure in the club and that every allegation is immediately reported to the Gardai and that the person involved is removed from all contact with children in the club and all club activities until the investigation has been concluded


    simple as that


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,300 ✭✭✭ Snickers Man


    there was more than one girl allegedly involved. the other state decided not to proceed with a prosecution in one other case.

    Amendments mine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,955 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    Amendments mine.


    not sure why you think those amendments were appropriate. the state entered a nolle prosequoi but that doesnt mean it was their decision. the existence of another girl is not in doubt. the only doubt is the extent of her involvement with Humphries.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 890 ✭✭✭ Sweet Science


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    No, but if Humphries used the facilities of the club to conceal or enable his inaproppriate contact and abuse of this young lady, the club could certainly tighten up its regulations.

    Out of curiousity, why do you assume the GAA has no questions to answer? It's a perilous belief to assume an organisation which has such unfettered access to children is above scrutiny [a fact which Humphries himself supports in his article on predators].

    There is garda vetting etc and strict rules you have to follow if you are to be involved in a gaa juvenile teams .

    All they can do is act quickly if an accusation is made


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,118 ✭✭✭✭ Water John


    There is a specific type of guy who targets young teenage girls. They hang around sports and social situations. Make smutty talk and 'accidentally' brush against on occasion.
    Ask any young woman. They'll have met the likes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 889 ✭✭✭ Murrisk


    Water John wrote: »
    There is a specific type of guy who targets young teenage girls. They hang around sports and social situations. Make smutty talk and 'accidentally' brush against on occasion.
    Ask any young woman. They'll have met the likes.

    Yes, any female poster here will, I guarantee you, have her own tales of receiving lewd comments or behaviour at a disgustingly young age. I first had a lewd comment uttered to me by a man when I was eleven years old. Eleven. I had started developing early and probably looked about thirteen. Still gives me the heebies to think about it. My mother was with me and he uttered it right in front of her. Brazen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,118 ✭✭✭✭ Water John


    What you describe, Murrisk, is par for the course. I have a daughter. Know girls who gave up sport because of the likes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭ B0jangles


    Murrisk wrote: »
    Yes, any female poster here will, I guarantee you, have her own tales of receiving lewd comments or behaviour at a disgustingly young age. I first had a lewd comment uttered to me by a man when I was eleven years old. Eleven. I had started developing early and probably looked about thirteen. Still gives me the heebies to think about it. My mother was with me and he uttered it right in front of her. Brazen.

    I was twelve, I was all on my own and it was a whole carful of men who started shouting comments at me while driving past .

    Apparently they liked my shorts :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,651 ✭✭✭ take everything


    Maybe but we don't know why and never will, Possibly there was no case to proceed with. Again only an assumption.

    Your reflexive minimisation of anything that happened in this case is disconcerting.

    This guy is no fool or angel.
    And an adult will always be the responsible one (no matter how much they are supposedly "led on" by an emotionally and sexually immature teenager).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    Your reflexive minimisation of anything that happened in this case is disconcerting.

    I'm not minimising anything, I'm just not making judgements based on some twisted fantasy going on in some people's heads.
    Very easy jump on the bandwagon and say rot in jail you monster and get loads of people thanking my post. That's bull**** though as there not rational comments people are making.
    When we know what happened I'll make my judgment and it may not be as fluffy as you assume.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,802 ✭✭✭ yosser hughes


    There always seems to be defenders of these inadequates when there is a hint of celebrity about them. Pathetic. I remember there were quite a few defending this creep at the time:
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/boys-were-damaged-by-sex-trysts-with-poet-26422334.html

    Humphreys bitter articles about sports he didn't like, particularly rugby, revealed a lot about him I always felt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,118 ✭✭✭✭ Water John


    Yosser, the defence of that guy by the intellegensia elite was dumbfounding.


  • Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭ the14thwarrior


    when you do it once it might be considered a lapse in judgement, silly old man,
    when you do it twice it might be considered a bit of a habit, dirty old man.
    when you do it a third time, there's no doubt. ........ old man

    he did at least three times with three different girls at club and county. he knew what he was doing.
    i know, i was there when the news broke, you could have picked me up off the floor. i had a long and difficult conversation with my daughter, having been coached at county level since she was 12 till she was 15 by him. i shudder to think what might have happened if I hadn't been 100% there for her. She never liked him anyway, and always thought there was something off with him. she knew, at an instinctive basic level, she knew. i threw up that night and didn't sleep at all, hoping she was telling me the truth and that she wasn't the one that it happened to.

    He was the hero, he was a maverick how he coached, how he thought, how he challenged the system of teamship and he got results. He was a God to most of those girls, they hero worshipped him. I know, i was there. what he said was the LAST WORD. they'd do anything to please him. hmm

    This is not a case of someone making a mistake, he went out of his way to get what he wanted. These groomers are not hanging around the club, trying to peak up the skirts and coping a feel during the team talk, arms sneaking to places during the huddle.
    cop yourselves on, he targeted young girls and did what he wanted to them.
    you don't see these people coming. wasn't he clever enough to get Roy Keane's side of the story before anyway else? says something about his tenacity


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,128 ✭✭✭ ceadaoin.


    I'm not minimising anything, I'm just not making judgements based on some twisted fantasy going on in some people's heads.
    Very easy jump on the bandwagon and say rot in jail you monster and get loads of people thanking my post. That's bull**** though as there not rational comments people are making.
    When we know what happened I'll make my judgment and it may not be as fluffy as you assume.

    You are making judgements though- maybe he "wasn't leading the dance", you've seen teenage infatuation etc. That says everything about what you think the circumstances were. Even faced with the fact that he was found guilty of grooming this girl and sent thousands of messages you still refuse to accept that he is the responsible party. What else do you need to know about what happened? He is an adult and she is an underage child. She was groomed. End of story.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    You are making judgements though- maybe he "wasn't leading the dance", you've seen teenage infatuation etc. That says everything about what you think the circumstances were. Even faced with the fact that he was found guilty of grooming this girl and sent thousands of messages you still refuse to accept that he is the responsible party. What else do you need to know about what happened? He is an adult and she is an underage child. She was groomed. End of story.

    Give it a rest, we now have a clearer picture from the poster above what happened not because of other posters assumptions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭ maudgonner


    I'm just making an assumption like everyone else here but I don't think he was that sort of person, a serial child abuser, maybe he was but I'm just not getting that from what i've read, to me it looks like an affair with his daughters friend.
    Sure the GAA need to ask who he coached but I presume that was done years ago and we've heard nothing.


    No. I'm sorry, but just no.

    Using language like that normalises what he did. It was not 'an affair'. It was child abuse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭ the14thwarrior


    more than one affair? you're wrong


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,300 ✭✭✭ Snickers Man


    not sure why you think those amendments were appropriate. the state entered a nolle prosequoi but that doesnt mean it was their decision. the existence of another girl is not in doubt. the only doubt is the extent of her involvement with Humphries.

    I'm not disputing the existence of another girl. :rolleyes: I'm only saying that in the absence of a court case to determine guilt or otherwise, whatever allegations were made by her or on her behalf remain just that: allegations. And it wasn't HER decision whether or not to proceed with the case. That's a matter for the state, or at least its legal representatives.

    Hold Mr Humphries to account for his crimes, which are serious. Not for unproven allegations.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 37,955 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    I'm not disputing the existence of another girl. :rolleyes: I'm only saying that in the absence of a court case to determine guilt or otherwise, whatever allegations were made by her or on her behalf remain just that: allegations. And it wasn't HER decision whether or not to proceed with the case. That's a matter for the state, or at least its legal representatives.

    Hold Mr Humphries to account for his crimes, which are serious. Not for unproven allegations.

    If the family decide they dont want a prosecution then the state cannot bring a prosecution. hence the nolle prosequoi.


Advertisement