Tom Humphries thread

[Sidney]

@Bandage

According to the reports from the sentencing hearing, Cusack said that Humphries’ GGA coaching in a voluntary capacity should be considered a mitigating factor. That’s obscene stuff.

Actual link with the wording of such please.

[anon7035031]

It’s like saying voluntarily becoming a priest should be a mitigating factor for a child molesting priest.

[iron_mike]

Hypocritical stuff indeed.

[Horsebox]

No but Cusack did intervene in an actual case in order to try to get a child abuser a lighter sentence. That’s far worse than the ramblings of a bombastic idiot well into his 70’s.

[iron_mike]

@Sidney

@Horsebox

So Cusack was “misguided”. I don’t agree with that at all by the way but say he was. Is it possible Hook was “misguided” in his comments?

Cusack didn’t defend Humphries’ crime.

Hook not only stated that a woman can be to blame for her own rape, but sarcastically asked why she was even surprised at being raped.

Wrong . Hook asked the question but never answered it.

[Bandage]

It was referenced in The Irish Times, Irish Independent and The Journal links that were posted on this thread.

[Little_Lord_Fauntleroy]

Yet no criticism of the gga from you

Mind boggling

[Horsebox]

@Little_Lord_Fauntleroy

Yet no criticism of the gga from you

Mind boggling

[Sidney]

@iron_mike

Wrong . Hook asked the question but never answered it.

You clearly aren’t familiar with what a rhetorical question is.

[iron_mike]

I never said Hook was right. I said you were wrong.

[Sidney]

@iron_mike

I never said Hook was right. I said you were wrong.

A rhetorical question is a question in which the answer is so obviously implied that it does not require the answer to be stated.

What Hook said and meant is absolutely clear.

[alf_stewart]

You are equating people saying Hook should not be fired for his comments to people agreeing with his comments. They are two different things. It is possible to disagree with what he said but think he should not be fired over it. insisting someone be held accountable and punished (fired in hooks case) for something they say that you disagree with is the textbook definition of a witch hunt.

[iron_mike]

You can make the same argument then regarding Cusack and Walshs character references if that’s the way you want to put it.

[Sidney]

@alf_stewart

You are equating people saying Hook should not be fired for his comments to people agreeing with his comments. They are two different things. It is possible to disagree with what he said but think he should not be fired over it. insisting someone be held accountable and punished (fired in hooks case) for something they say that you disagree with is the textbook definition of a witch hunt.

I’m not.

I read a huge amount of the online debate about it across multiple sites. Roughly half of it was from people who thought what Hook said was actually correct or from people who wanted to deflect away from what he actually said.

You’re also forgetting that Hook made his comments in a professional capacity, therefore it was entirely legitimate to debate whether he should be sacked or not.

Cusack didn’t.

Strangely enough, there seems to be a very high crossover between those who defended Hook and those who expressed happiness at Dil Wickremasinghe losing her job.

[Juhniallio]

As @Rocko and others have stated, it’s absurd that you want to link disagreeing with Cusack to being pro-hook. The last hundred or so posts on this thread(about TH) are mostly about what you think people think about hook based on your own supposedly bulletproof logic. It’s farcical.
I’ve no idea why you’re doing it. It’s hardly a slow news day in Galway.

[alf_stewart]

@Sidney

You’re also forgetting that Hook made his comments in a professional capacity, therefore it was entirely legitimate to debate whether he should be sacked or not.

I dont agree. Fine to debate what he said but the matter of his employment is down to his employer. Some people tried to exert pressure on newstalk and advertisers to have him removed. And Newstalk chose not to sack him outright. Which is their prerogative. There are broadcasting standards in ireland and if you think Hooks comments were out of order make a complaint to the BAI.

Cusack made his comments in the capacity of a high profile GAA personality and pleaded for leniency for Humphries. It could be argued he has brought the name of the organisation in to disrepute. People are entitled to be disgusted by his actions. You seem to think they are not.

[Sidney]

@Juhniallio

As @Rocko and others have stated, it’s absurd that you want to link disagreeing with Cusack to being pro-hook.

I haven’t done that. You’ve chosen to take that reading of it. You’re wrong in that reading of it, but sure what’s new.

What I have done is point out the clear inconsistency and the utterly farcical position of those who defend Hook’s comments yet vilify Cusack, given that only one blamed a rape victim for her own abuse - and it wasn’t Cusack.

[gilgamboa]

@Juhniallio

think people think about hook

And not just people on here. People from a variety of other forums also

[backinatracksuit]

By the same token people are entitled to the opposite opinion as well, I think he made a huge mistake but I believe 100% that Cusacks personality, sexuality and birthplace have added hugely to the outrage on here.

[Gman]

No it doesn’t. At all. Fuck sake can people not be pissed off with some cunt who is helping a guilty child groomer and abuser without referencing his sexuality or any other shit. His birthplace? You are displaying traits of defence of cusack because of his birthplace.