Tom Humphries

Started by bottlethrower7, January 29, 2007, 09:35:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Itchy

Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 17, 2017, 01:21:45 AM
Quote from: Itchy on November 16, 2017, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 16, 2017, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now...
I'm afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can't half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can't half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can't pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn't.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke's abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don't know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who'd say a word in Clarke's favour.
In any event, the judge wasn't swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

7 years? Ask any man on the street and they will tell you what they think of 7 years for a child rapist.

I'm interested to know what you think of the victims Lar. Bad enough they have to live through the horror and then relive it in court but then to hear some stupid bollox give character reference to a rapist, fully aware of what he was just found guilty off. Does the victim get a thought at all?
No problem with that at all; I have unreserved sympathy with the victims. But I didn't give any sort of a personal opinion here. I'm just saying what the legal position is. Clarke had the right to have pleas for leniency entered on his behalf and no matter what any of us here might think, that's a legal right.
I'd be very reluctant to go any further as I don't know the full facts and I'm not referring to the verdict here. That seems clear enough; Clarke was found guilty as charged but I don't know why anyone would speak up on his behalf. However, if anyone chooses to do so,  I, or you, may disagree with his motive but not with his right.

What is allowed by law is not in question, we know that character references are allowed. I suppose we are debating our own opinions on whether they a) Should be allowed or b) Should be given in situations of child abuse. My opinion is no and no. Judge should only deal in the facts of the case and nothing else.

Interesting fact, I knew a woman once whose two children were abused by a neighbour. First child took neighbour to court as an adult and won. The man went to jail for child abuse for 5 years I think. Second child later took a case (previously was too afraid to), they case was taken to try and heal that victim. The court was not allowed to hear any evidence or word whatsoever on the facts of what had happened to the first child. Nor were they allowed to know he was in jail for child abuse. The guy was found innocent of the 2nd crime due to lack of evidence and the victim was so distraught they left Ireland forever. When he was found guilty in the 1st case he got a great character reference from the parish priest.

So the law says to me the odds are stacked against the victim and the perpetrator is getting all the leeway.

haranguerer

Your interesting fact has next to nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

The guy is in jail for the case in which he received a character reference. That's nothing to do with your other point which seems to be that each case shouldn't be heard on its own merits.

Defendants do get the leeway of being innocent til proven guilty. If you don't think that should be the basis for the legal system then there is little point in anyone trying to discuss anything regarding it with you.

Ciarrai_thuaidh

You'd imagine given the nature of the Humphries case the completely inadequate and farcical Garda vetting system of youth/child coaches would be revised and updated (this is the system in the 26 counties I'm talking about) but I wouldn't count on it.

I've been Garda vetted about 6 times in last 2 years and despite countless calls and contact with Croke park and Garda vetting unit, have no evidence (cert or otherwise) to prove it AND have never been asked to produce evidence either despite being involved with up to a dozen different groups of underage players. It's a joke and if this case doesn't get Croke park and the Government to improve things it's worse than a joke, it's scandalous.
"Better to die on your feet,than live on your knees"...

AZOffaly

Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

Owen Brannigan

In NI the problem is that if a person who is vetted by Access NI they have a certificate to show that they can work for a particular organisation with young people and vulnerable adults it is a once off check with no annual re-certification required.  In my last job, I held an Access NI certificate from they were first introduced until I left, period of around 20 years.  At no point was I required to be re-checked, this is general practice.  So, in NI, an organisation can only be sure that a person has been recently vetted when they first join.  An on-going checking system was planned to introduced to it became too complicated and was abandoned.

Avondhu star

Quote from: Ciarrai_thuaidh on November 17, 2017, 04:26:59 PM
You'd imagine given the nature of the Humphries case the completely inadequate and farcical Garda vetting system of youth/child coaches would be revised and updated (this is the system in the 26 counties I'm talking about) but I wouldn't count on it.

I've been Garda vetted about 6 times in last 2 years and despite countless calls and contact with Croke park and Garda vetting unit, have no evidence (cert or otherwise) to prove it AND have never been asked to produce evidence either despite being involved with up to a dozen different groups of underage players. It's a joke and if this case doesn't get Croke park and the Government to improve things it's worse than a joke, it's scandalous.

What will Garda vetting show? It may show that a person had been convicted of a crime
What good is that in cases like Humphreys where he had never been charged before
It may serve some purpose but it is back to parents to make sure that whoever they leave their kids With can be trusted. I see it every weekend. Parents drop their kids at the club and feck off. The kids are then driven to matches by other parents and often driven back to their houses. There may be some safety where the driver has his own child  in the car but occasions arise where that isn't the case. Any adult who allows a situation develop where he is in a car alone with someone else's child is leaving himself wide open to an allegation.
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Itchy

Quote from: haranguerer on November 17, 2017, 01:50:08 PM
Your interesting fact has next to nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

The guy is in jail for the case in which he received a character reference. That's nothing to do with your other point which seems to be that each case shouldn't be heard on its own merits.

Defendants do get the leeway of being innocent til proven guilty. If you don't think that should be the basis for the legal system then there is little point in anyone trying to discuss anything regarding it with you.

No you are missing the point.

1- A character reference for a rapist is admissible in a court of law to mitigate sentence.

2- The fact a guy is in jail for raping the sibling of a second victim was not admissible in court. Is that not a character reference in itself on the accused?

The law is stacked against the victim. 

haranguerer

I'm not missing the point at all, I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in it.

The prosecution equivalent of the character reference is the victim impact statement.

Neither the character refererence nor the victim impact statement have any bearing on whether the defendant is found guilty or not. They are merely for use in sentencing.

A criminals previous record is considered when they are being sentenced. So it is admissible in the terms you refer to.

Harold Disgracey

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 17, 2017, 07:52:25 PM
In NI the problem is that if a person who is vetted by Access NI they have a certificate to show that they can work for a particular organisation with young people and vulnerable adults it is a once off check with no annual re-certification required.  In my last job, I held an Access NI certificate from they were first introduced until I left, period of around 20 years.  At no point was I required to be re-checked, this is general practice.  So, in NI, an organisation can only be sure that a person has been recently vetted when they first join.  An on-going checking system was planned to introduced to it became too complicated and was abandoned.

Not quite true, I recently had to have vetting renewed through the club. Saying that I also have Access NI clearance through work which I completed perhaps about 10 years ago.

Rossfan

Hope I'm not trivialising this serious subject - but does Galbally recognise  Access NI?
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

Ciarrai_thuaidh

Quote from: AZOffaly on November 17, 2017, 04:55:57 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..
"Better to die on your feet,than live on your knees"...

twohands!!!

Quote from: Rossfan on November 18, 2017, 03:13:00 PM
Hope I'm not trivialising this serious subject - but does Galbally recognise  Access NI?

Quote"I will tell you a good one. If you take the fact that we have vetted over 130,000 since 2009, in all that time only one person came to me on the phone irate and said that he wouldn't be vetted. He would give up his job rather than be vetted. The reason he wouldn't be vetted is he did not recognise the Free State. He had a strong Republican background and as he said himself he would not bend the knee to the Free State."

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-constantly-tweaks-child-protection-measures-to-keep-pace-with-changing-times-36270213.html

Quote from: Ciarrai_thuaidh on November 18, 2017, 06:54:46 PM

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..

Would you not chase up the issue yourself?

Have to say I'm surprised by this - especially in terms of the underage county squads. I could see one club being a bit slack, but a county board being slack is very poor imo.


Owen Brannigan

Quote from: Harold Disgracey on November 18, 2017, 01:02:45 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 17, 2017, 07:52:25 PM
In NI the problem is that if a person who is vetted by Access NI they have a certificate to show that they can work for a particular organisation with young people and vulnerable adults it is a once off check with no annual re-certification required.  In my last job, I held an Access NI certificate from they were first introduced until I left, period of around 20 years.  At no point was I required to be re-checked, this is general practice.  So, in NI, an organisation can only be sure that a person has been recently vetted when they first join.  An on-going checking system was planned to introduced to it became too complicated and was abandoned.

Not quite true, I recently had to have vetting renewed through the club. Saying that I also have Access NI clearance through work which I completed perhaps about 10 years ago.

Correct, according to protocol, you must have a separate vetting by Access NI for every organisation that you are involved with that works with children and vulnerable adults.  However, I completed a CRB check for Dept of Education in 1990 when it was introduced in N.Ireland and I was never asked to renew the vetting until I left in 2016.  This is the norm for each organisation and a major weakness of the system.  An Access NI certificate will only be revoked if a person is convicted of a relevant offence.  Soft intelligence which would affect an Access NI vetting being approved will not cause one to to be revoked.

AZOffaly

Quote from: Ciarrai_thuaidh on November 18, 2017, 06:54:46 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 17, 2017, 04:55:57 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..

That's not been my experience. In fact this year we had to tell a coach he couldn't help out with us because he never got the vetting done. Our childrens officer would have your heart broken chasing up on stuff like that.

I have never been asked for it in a county squad right enough.

Avondhu star

Quote from: AZOffaly on November 20, 2017, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: Ciarrai_thuaidh on November 18, 2017, 06:54:46 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 17, 2017, 04:55:57 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..

That's not been my experience. In fact this year we had to tell a coach he couldn't help out with us because he never got the vetting done. Our childrens officer would have your heart broken chasing up on stuff like that.

I have never been asked for it in a county squad right enough.

That is down to having a concientious Child Protection Officer How many clubs will do that?
If County Boards refused to allow a club play matches until the Club could certify that all managers,coaches etc were vetted you might see some improvement.

Of course Child Protection should go beyond the sexual abuse issue. How many coaches etc exceed the speed limit when driving kids to games, carry more kids than they have seatbelts for etc. Admittedly this often happens because some parents use clubs as babysitting service
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you