Do you have to attack the poster every time? Itâs a bizarre trait you have. Itâs almost like youâre trying to deflect from something.
Remorse or lack of remorse is taken into account at sentencing time.
Do you think somebody who shows no remorse should get a longer sentence than somebody who does?
Weâre discussing an English Dub and you bring it back to Cork, youâre obsessed, the Cork commentators here have made no attempt to vindicate Cusack, it suited you to assume the other.
If youâd read the next line of the post you quoted you would have got the answer.
Iâm picturing a teardrop running down your face while typing that, try harder
Coming from somebody who believes Humphriesâ victim was to blame for her own abuse, Iâll take that as a compliment, thanks.
Are they showing remorse for doing the crime or remorse for getting caught?
If it was true remorse for the crime would he not have come forward and handed himself in and not waited for his daughter to find the evidence on the phone?
Anyway my initial response was to your referencing Eddie Halvey. One act was stupitity followed up by character referenced. The other was two years of planning followed up by character references.
2 Likes
Why are you asking me about what sort of remorse Humphries showed?
Iâm not his character reference.
But he does have two, as is his right - a defendant has every right to defend themselves.
The judge can choose to take those character references into account or not take them into account when judging whether he has showed remorse. The judge can also deem that the seriousness of the crime may outweigh any remorse.
The irony is that had Cusack said publicly that âdoes the victim bear no blame?â or âwhat did she expect?â, heâd have had a load of people on this forum defending him for that.
We already know this because of what certain posters said over the last few weeks in relation to George Hook.
And the biggest laugh is that some of these same posters are the ones pretending to be most outraged over this.
Sure thia bears no relation to whay hook said. He was talking about an adult female taking responisbility for their safety and not getting drunk and going to a strangers house.
TH groomed a vulnerable 14 year old
Did did not call for hooks head? Then surely he should be calling for Donal ogs too. Especially considering his reference lauded humphries for the activity he used as a cover to gain access to the victim.
Who?
Iv no idea what they are arguing about really just dont see this as same situation as hooks at all. Its far far worse
hook blamed the victim
cusack stood up for a nonce
100%, but words do not equate with actions, somebody who makes a stupid stupid comment out of idiocy or misplaced loyalty should not be spoken of in the same terms as the perp, it shouldnât matter what county theyâre from.
Hook blamed a rape victim for their own rape.
Several posters here have actually defended this.
Had somebody blamed Humphriesâ victim in this case, there would have been no difference to what Hook said.
But you are equating hook (who made a stupid comment about a rape) with a man who actually committed the offence repeatedly over a number of years.
1 Like
How so?
One can only presume that youâre deliberately misreading what Iâve written.
I actually agree with you on this Sidney.
1 Like
Was there not an acquittal in the case that hook was talking about and a hung jury on the other charge?
Cusack should get the same level as forgiveness as he have MON
1 Like
Hook acted as his own judge and jury when talking about the case. He brought his own verdict. Which is another reason why he should have been sacked.
The key point about Hookâs comments is that they are applicable to all cases where somebody is actually raped in a bedroom. They were also not a one off. They were the culmination of a litany of despicable comments which set out pretty clearly his attitude towards the crime of rape.
What Cusack has done here is not remotely comparable.