Author Topic: Tom Humphries  (Read 18327 times)

magpie seanie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10564
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #150 on: October 10, 2017, 11:27:00 PM »
Seanie, was that interview yesterday not from 2012, or was he on again in 2017?


Sorry, seems I had the wrong end of the stick there.

Avondhu star

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 594
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #151 on: October 11, 2017, 12:02:53 AM »
Seanie, was that interview yesterday not from 2012, or was he on again in 2017?


Sorry, seems I had the wrong end of the stick there.

Ooooh Matron!
Warning. Don't try this at home unless in the company of a responsible adult

rosnarun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2815
  • Maigheo Abú
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #152 on: October 11, 2017, 11:33:58 AM »
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/david-walsh-tried-to-set-up-magazine-to-benefit-tom-humphries-36212576.html?utm_content=buffere5caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Journalist David Walsh planned to set up a magazine for the financial benefit of paedophile Tom Humphries, a best-selling author has claimed.
Paul Howard said he was approached by Mr Walsh about the proposed venture in 2011 or 2012. Mr Howard, a former sports writer, declined the approach and the magazine never got off the ground.
"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," he said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that. "I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."
Mr Walsh did not return a call seeking comment.
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?

According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association and the The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders for WHO:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Legal systems will determine their own age limits where someone may engage in sexual relations/acts with a young person. Such systems assume that there is an age limit below which a young person does not have the maturity to give consent to sexual activity.  This is commonly referred to as sexual abuse of a minor.

So, technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 
people juding from the the comment here do not seem to see it as a psychiatric disorder most as a pure evil. I can understand that when it comes to Serial prolific abusers of teenagers ETC but when you consider the though probes behind some one who thinks sext with a baby or very young  prepubescence  child and all the abhorrence that society consider those acts it hard not to see it that way.
I have often wondered are there a great many people with those proclivities walking around who do not act on them or is the forcing themselves on people part of the disorder?
and then there's the hard questions if Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder how does it differ from other Sexual conditions/choices/inclinations such as homosexuality gender fluidness trans gender transsexuals ETC not to mention the rarer one. Can these questions ever ne raised in a academic manner any more of it it too much of a political  hot potato .
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
If you make yourself understood, you're always speaking well. Moliere

Owen Brannigan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #153 on: October 11, 2017, 12:01:46 PM »
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/david-walsh-tried-to-set-up-magazine-to-benefit-tom-humphries-36212576.html?utm_content=buffere5caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Journalist David Walsh planned to set up a magazine for the financial benefit of paedophile Tom Humphries, a best-selling author has claimed.
Paul Howard said he was approached by Mr Walsh about the proposed venture in 2011 or 2012. Mr Howard, a former sports writer, declined the approach and the magazine never got off the ground.
"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," he said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that. "I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."
Mr Walsh did not return a call seeking comment.
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?

According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association and the The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders for WHO:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Legal systems will determine their own age limits where someone may engage in sexual relations/acts with a young person. Such systems assume that there is an age limit below which a young person does not have the maturity to give consent to sexual activity.  This is commonly referred to as sexual abuse of a minor.

So, technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 
people juding from the the comment here do not seem to see it as a psychiatric disorder most as a pure evil. I can understand that when it comes to Serial prolific abusers of teenagers ETC but when you consider the though probes behind some one who thinks sext with a baby or very young  prepubescence  child and all the abhorrence that society consider those acts it hard not to see it that way.
I have often wondered are there a great many people with those proclivities walking around who do not act on them or is the forcing themselves on people part of the disorder?
and then there's the hard questions if Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder how does it differ from other Sexual conditions/choices/inclinations such as homosexuality gender fluidness trans gender transsexuals ETC not to mention the rarer one. Can these questions ever ne raised in a academic manner any more of it it too much of a political  hot potato .
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19

rosnarun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2815
  • Maigheo Abú
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #154 on: October 11, 2017, 04:28:18 PM »
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/david-walsh-tried-to-set-up-magazine-to-benefit-tom-humphries-36212576.html?utm_content=buffere5caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Journalist David Walsh planned to set up a magazine for the financial benefit of paedophile Tom Humphries, a best-selling author has claimed.
Paul Howard said he was approached by Mr Walsh about the proposed venture in 2011 or 2012. Mr Howard, a former sports writer, declined the approach and the magazine never got off the ground.
"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," he said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that. "I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."
Mr Walsh did not return a call seeking comment.
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?

According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association and the The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders for WHO:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Legal systems will determine their own age limits where someone may engage in sexual relations/acts with a young person. Such systems assume that there is an age limit below which a young person does not have the maturity to give consent to sexual activity.  This is commonly referred to as sexual abuse of a minor.

So, technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 
people juding from the the comment here do not seem to see it as a psychiatric disorder most as a pure evil. I can understand that when it comes to Serial prolific abusers of teenagers ETC but when you consider the though probes behind some one who thinks sext with a baby or very young  prepubescence  child and all the abhorrence that society consider those acts it hard not to see it that way.
I have often wondered are there a great many people with those proclivities walking around who do not act on them or is the forcing themselves on people part of the disorder?
and then there's the hard questions if Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder how does it differ from other Sexual conditions/choices/inclinations such as homosexuality gender fluidness trans gender transsexuals ETC not to mention the rarer one. Can these questions ever ne raised in a academic manner any more of it it too much of a political  hot potato .
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19
as regards 3 the main reason would be the simple reason these are the easiest children to access. it takes a lot of preparation and cunning to groom some one as compared to abusing some one in their own home like wise social workers priests teachers coaches ETC.
and number 4 is these distinctions are political and liable to change. no funding would currently be made available to study Homosexuality V paedophilia that may turn up the wrong result. same goes for all the Various genders that are turning up week by week
If you make yourself understood, you're always speaking well. Moliere

Owen Brannigan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #155 on: October 11, 2017, 10:06:26 PM »

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19
as regards 3 the main reason would be the simple reason these are the easiest children to access. it takes a lot of preparation and cunning to groom some one as compared to abusing some one in their own home like wise social workers priests teachers coaches ETC.
and number 4 is these distinctions are political and liable to change. no funding would currently be made available to study Homosexuality V paedophilia that may turn up the wrong result. same goes for all the Various genders that are turning up week by week

You should note that the definition of paraphilic disorders comes from a world recognised medical reference and the same medical reference does provide information of sexual orientation and gender assignment.  You should use the search function at the site address listed above to read the medical references to homosexuality and gender assignment.  As a current medical reference you will find no political interference.

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2640
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #156 on: October 12, 2017, 04:46:46 AM »
I've often wondered about when a psychiatric disorder turns into diminished responsibility for someone who has committed a crime.

I looked it up and couldnt find anything concrete on it. Whats the difference between a sociopath and schizophrenic for example? Or more to the point why is one considered to have diminished responsibility and the other not if they both have mental disorders?

I guess you can apply the same concept to pedophiles, that if they are wired that way then is it really their fault?

But then where do you stop? Does a delinquent kid have diminished responsibility for anti social behaviour because he comes from a broken home and has had a lot of bad influences?

Does that same kid as a young man have diminished responsibility when he progresses to taking drugs, and then robbing shops and assault to feed his habit?

Take this a step further and it starts to turn into a freewill debate v our justice system
or...
We could look it another way the justice system if is nothing to do with freewill, bad choices, fairness or even justice itself its just about taking those that are deemed to be socially unacceptable out of society or a deterrent to keep them in line.

or....?

bennydorano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4631
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #157 on: October 12, 2017, 08:06:28 AM »
Government, Medical & Legal professionals  & Society's opinion in general decides where the lines in the sand are. The real debate is who agrees with them.

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2640
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #158 on: October 12, 2017, 08:00:10 PM »
Government, Medical & Legal professionals  & Society's opinion in general decides where the lines in the sand are. The real debate is who agrees with them.

No. the "real" (?) debate is actually the rationale for deciding when, where and how the line in the sand is drawn

bennydorano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4631
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #159 on: October 12, 2017, 10:01:59 PM »
Someone has to draw the line in the sand. The Government, Medical & Legal Professionals seems like a decent sort of place to start. Cant see lines in the sand by consensus working. The aforementioned institutions are the arbiters.

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2640
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #160 on: October 12, 2017, 11:31:17 PM »
Someone has to draw the line in the sand. The Government, Medical & Legal Professionals seems like a decent sort of place to start. Cant see lines in the sand by consensus working. The aforementioned institutions are the arbiters.

I dont really care who draws the line in the sand when  it comes to diminished responsibility so long as they have a criteria and rationale to back it up which I cant seem to find anywhere.
Im guessing tho that you have no idea what is by your diversion?

bennydorano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4631
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #161 on: October 12, 2017, 11:47:07 PM »
I'm happy to let the professionals do their stuff. Search harder, I'm sure the info is out there somewhere if you're really that interested.

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2640
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #162 on: October 13, 2017, 04:00:01 AM »
I'm happy to let the professionals do their stuff. Search harder, I'm sure the info is out there somewhere if you're really that interested.

Thanks for your advice benny your input on this has been invaluable.
I think what I can take from your lesson is trust the experts and don't seek out their reasoning cos their probably "right".
In fact I must try that in my own job when some questions my opinion.

Sionnach

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #163 on: October 13, 2017, 07:56:20 AM »
I've often wondered about when a psychiatric disorder turns into diminished responsibility for someone who has committed a crime.

I looked it up and couldnt find anything concrete on it. Whats the difference between a sociopath and schizophrenic for example? Or more to the point why is one considered to have diminished responsibility and the other not if they both have mental disorders?

If you're trying to look it up, the legal defence of "insanity" is originally based on the M'Naghten rules.  These are named after one Daniel M'Naghten, who tried to assassinate the British PM, Robert Peel, back in the 1840s, and ended up shooting Peel's secretary instead.  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, which caused major controversy, and the M'Naghten rules were formulated to provide clear criteria in any future such cases.  They state that

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong".

So in your example, the small minority of people with schizophrenia who commit a crime while in an acute psychotic episode may have acted because they have lost touch with reality to such an extent that they believe all sorts of paranoid delusions, and don't really know "the nature and quality of the act" or that it's "wrong". They aren't "just" influenced by previous experiences or unusual urges, their mental state is such that they have actually completely lost touch with the reality of the situation and don't fully understand what they are doing.  If that's found to be the case, there may be a defence in court.  On the other hand, a "sociopath" or "psychopath" (which BTW are not actually disorders listed in the standard psychiatric classifications) knows perfectly well what they are doing and that it is wrong.  They just don't care. 

It's not always that simple of course, and there are unavoidable grey areas and controversies.

rosnarun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2815
  • Maigheo Abú
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #164 on: October 13, 2017, 04:30:36 PM »

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19
as regards 3 the main reason would be the simple reason these are the easiest children to access. it takes a lot of preparation and cunning to groom some one as compared to abusing some one in their own home like wise social workers priests teachers coaches ETC.
and number 4 is these distinctions are political and liable to change. no funding would currently be made available to study Homosexuality V paedophilia that may turn up the wrong result. same goes for all the Various genders that are turning up week by week

You should note that the definition of paraphilic disorders comes from a world recognised medical reference and the same medical reference does provide information of sexual orientation and gender assignment.  You should use the search function at the site address listed above to read the medical references to homosexuality and gender assignment.  As a current medical reference you will find no political interference.

of course there is no reference, scientist could not let it be seen they produce anything that was not based on pure reason. but go back 50 or 100 years to similar publications and you'll find all sorts of things listed . such as similar but different condition of xenomelia(amputee identity disorder)
the change has been political.
scientist have been told the result is and their job is to back it up with theory
If you make yourself understood, you're always speaking well. Moliere