How? My point is that you could probably assume Tom was a decent enough chap as he had a steady job with a respectable newspaper while Gary was his own boss in a music industry which is rife with drugs, alcohol, sex, money and exploitation. I’m not making a big deal of it and can hardly remember what it’s in relation to exactly but I’m pretty sure it makes sense.
[quote=“Thrawneen, post: 576920”]
How? My point is that you could probably assume Tom was a decent enough chap as he had a steady job with a respectable newspaper while Gary was his own boss in a music industry which is rife with drugs, alcohol, sex, money and exploitation. I’m not making a big deal of it and can hardly remember what it’s in relation to exactly but I’m pretty sure it makes sense.[/quote]
Yeah - I think you’ve completely lost the run of yourself here. Take a deep breath and come back.
People probably would have thought Josef Fritzel was a ‘decent chap’.
Meanwhile there are several glam rockers out there who are probably complete gentlemen. I don’t know them personally but I don’t doubt that they are out there.
Thrawneen is making an interesting argument. He isn’t defending what Humphries is alleged to have done. If the allegations are true they are indefensible especially the violation of trust aspect and they’ll result in a jail sentence and deservedly so.
But Thrawneen is right that many 14 year olds are sexually active. The story in the Sunday World says the sex was consensual. There’s no evidence or hint in the story that this carry on ever happened with any other girls. Humphries coached for a good number of years without any known incident before the relationship with the girl started - don’t know how many exactly, but judging from his articles, I’d say at least six or seven. I think that should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t get into mentoring for the purposes of shagging young girls.
Some on this thread have compared Humphries to Josef Fritzl, Ian Huntley and Hitler. Read it back. I’ll leave it up to yourselves as to whether you think they are legitimate comparisons.
For the benefit of the more reactionary posters, none of this takes away from what was an unforgiveable error of judgement from Humphries and it isn’t a defence of him.
its not as if he drove uninsured or left the cooker when he went on holidays, this kind of thing is not an unforgivable error of judgement. its an opngoing breaking of the law that lasted 18 months
long story short sid and thraw, do you think it should be legal for a 47 year old to fuck a 14 year old, yes or no will suffice
I thought Sid was doing ok until he called it an “error of judgement.”
I’m not responding to any of Thrawneen’s posts because he’s clearly on a wind-up.
Anyway to address some of the more sane posts - I don’t think it matters that much to his character whether it was one girl or loads. I don’t even think it would matter if it was one girl once versus loads of girls but the fact he seems to have sustained this over 18 months just throws any justification or tolerance anyone could conceivably have out the window.
I couldn’t say yes or no Art. I’d have to research it. Sure how many teenage girls do any of us here know? Fuck all. Who am I to decide if it should be legal to fuck 14 year olds? I haven’t spoken to one since I was about 16, as far as I can remember. I’d like to understand the reasoning of the several Euro countries who have 14 as the legal age.
you’d be better off being on a wind up thraw. You are protraying this whole thing as a venus fly trap girl out to snare a poor old middle aged man who has mental probelms. You might not see it that way, but you are certainly making it look that way. And it is completley and utterly missing the point.
Are you not contradicting yourself there. Surely it does matter whether it was one girl once or whether he did it repeatedly with same girl? Completely inexcusable but as you point out fact it went on for 18 months means it is all the worse but you say in first part you don’t think it matters how many times he did it.
