Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I believe this victim blaming/shaming will be outlawed shortly.

What victim ? No rape took place.

What about the innocent man who’s life has been ruined ?

Is he not a victim ?

See this is the problem with Ciara and her buddies stirring the pot on these issues..

You’re all completely blinded by your rage.

The interview 2 days ago was a classic case in point..

Dick Swiveller

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The judge could be allowed to rule that her choice of underwear has no bearing on the case.

Yes, he could. But he didn't.

Sleeper12

Dick Swiveller wrote:

Yes, he could. But he didn't.

This will change.

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This will change.

Media stirring up a mob mentality which then goes on to influence our laws is not a good thing.

I see the minister is saying he’s now “open to changing the law”.

Quite incredible to see the Taoiseach and the minister attempt to influence our legal system at the behest of the latest mob formed on the topic of the day..

Terrifying to be honest..

Sleeper12

Rennaws wrote:

What victim ? No rape took place.

Hang on here. Stop the nonsense. No one is talking about this man being guilty. A court found him not guilty. We are talking about any court case where the way a young girl is dressed is used to show that she wanted sex.

It isn't allowed in a lot of other countries. We will outlaw it here eventually. We have already come a long way from the 80s where many men found guilty of rape got a tiny or suspended sentence. Judges no longer mention the way the victim was dressed while talking about mitigating circumstances and then giving a suspended sentence.

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Hang on here. Stop the nonsense. No one is talking about this man being guilty.

So why are you, Ciara and everyone else taking about victim blaming / shaming in relation to this case ?

You said it. Ciara said it.

So who’s the victim ?

I’d say it’s the lad who was wrongly accused of rape but neither you, Ciara nor any of the throng of perpetually outraged seem to take that into consideration.

Why is that ?

Sleeper12

Rennaws wrote:

Quite incredible to see the Taoiseach and the minister attempt to influence our legal system at the behest of the latest mob formed on the topic of the day..

We had a mob of the day with in 1913 with the "lock out", 1916 and again in the war of independence & many more times.

The mob of the day isn't always right but you are dead wrong to suggest that they are always wrong. Sometimes it's the mob of the day that gets real change. Do you forget that in 1916 they were hated by the general public and its only their executions that swayed public opinion. What you really mean by mob of the day is any group that has a different opinion to you. This does not make them wrong nor does putting a label like mob of the day on them win your argument & make you right

Dick Swiveller

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We had a mob of the day with in 1913 with the "lock out", 1916 and again in the war of independence & many more times.

The mob of the day isn't always right but you are dead wrong to suggest that they are always wrong. Sometimes it's the mob of the day that gets real change. Do you forget that in 1916 they were hated by the general public and its only their executions that swayed public opinion. What you really mean by mob of the day is any group that has a different opinion to you. This does not make them wrong nor does putting a label like mob of the day on them win your argument & make you right

Yes, but the leaders of the 1916 rebellion were intelligent, thoughtful people. I wouldn't exactly put Ciara and her friends on a par with them, tbh.

Sleeper12

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Yes, but the leaders of the 1916 rebellion were intelligent, thoughtful people. I wouldn't exactly put Ciara and her friends on a par with them, tbh.

See, you have no argument at all. I started off several posts back asking not posters not to confuse their dislike for Ciara with a genuine need to change the way women are treated in court. Someone actually tried to dismiss the whole thing as feminism! Hard to believe i know


I will point out that there was no mention of the defendants boxers, Y fronts, G string. I would have thought this as important. If he was going out to meet for prearranged sex would his underwear not be as telling? I mean according to the barristers logic if the gent had moth holes in his boxers then OBVIOUSLY he never intended to meet for prearranged sex. Did he get his hair cut that day? Did he have a shower before leaving the house? Did he put on aftershave? all of these are as relevant as her thong in a court case

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I will point out that there was no mention of the defendants boxers, Y fronts, G string. I would have thought this as important. If he was going out to meet for prearranged sex would his underwear not be as telling? I mean according to the barristers logic if the gent had moth holes in his boxers then OBVIOUSLY he never intended to meet for prearranged sex. Did he get his hair cut that day? Did he have a shower before leaving the house? Did he put on aftershave? all of these are as relevant as her thong in a court case

He didn’t falsely accuse anyone of rape.

Why would his underwear be relevant ?

He was the one forced defend himself in court for a crime he didn’t commit.

The Bishop Basher

We’re well off topic now so I’m done with this particular tangent.

Nody

Mod:
PC7 has been generous with not banning the posters who ignored his mod warning earlier today on dropping the knickers topic here; I'm not. This is your final warning to move the discussion of the use/or lack there of of panties in court should be moved to Legal/AH/Politics where it belongs.

JJayoo

Breaking news: solicitor tries any sh1te to win case.

Why isn't Ciara going have the female solicitor ??

Fann Linn

Nice civiliized debate on the tonight show regarding 'thonggate'with 4 guests, 2 commentators snd no one screaming like a banshee and getting their knickers in a twist like Ciara the other day.

nullzero

Fann Linn wrote: »

Nice civiliized debate on the tonight show regarding 'thonggate'with 4 guests, 2 commentators snd no one screaming like a banshee and getting their knickers in a twist like Ciara the other day.

Not allowing others to speak would appear to be part of the manifesto of these people (hypothetically of course).

SEPT 23 1989

Has she been removed from the hot seat?

Tell me how

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Has she been removed from the hot seat?

She said yesterday she'd be out today and Susan would be sitting in for her.

meeeeh

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Has she been removed from the hot seat?

You wish. She said yesterday Susan Keogh will be filling in today. Anyway considering they did more coverage on the issue of clothing in rape trials and she mentioned they had a lot of positive reaction I think it's safe to say the interview on Monday was a success.

Dick Swiveller

A video of Ciara at the protest. I wonder if Newstalk are slightly uncomfortable with a presenter being an activist? Should she really be using her platform on a national station to stir up a rabble - especially when she doesn't seem to understand the legal rules relating to evidence in a trial? Can anyone remember another presenter who has used their platform in this way?


https://twitter.com/NewstalkFM/status/1062817274338385921

Tell me how

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

A video of Ciara at the protest. I wonder if Newstalk are slightly uncomfortable with a presenter being an activist? Should she really be using her platform on a national station to stir up a rabble - especially when she doesn't seem to understand the legal rules relating to evidence in a trial? Can anyone remember another presenter who has used their platform in this way?


https://twitter.com/NewstalkFM/status/1062817274338385921

You don't get her point DS.

She is not questioning the outcome of this trial in any way. She is calling for a change in how tape and sexual assault cases are tried which seems to (in some people's opinion) allow for non relevant matters to be used as evidence against the female (usually) whose experience is the basis of the trial.

It's not a rabble either. It's a group you disagree with. There is a distinction.

dominatinMC

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

A video of Ciara at the protest. I wonder if Newstalk are slightly uncomfortable with a presenter being an activist? Should she really be using her platform on a national station to stir up a rabble - especially when she doesn't seem to understand the legal rules relating to evidence in a trial? Can anyone remember another presenter who has used their platform in this way?


https://twitter.com/NewstalkFM/status/1062817274338385921

I'd say Newstalk are delighted with this publicity. I don't like Ciara as a presenter, nor will I ever, but I think us posters on Boards are in the minority with our views towards her "interview" (and I use that word lightly) with the barrister. I had a quick look on Twitter and she seems to be soaring in popularity, everyone commending her. Granted, Twitter is a bit of a lefty platform, but she certainly is making an impact with that audience.

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

You don't get her point DS.

She is not questioning the outcome of this trial in any way. She is calling for a change in how tape and sexual assault cases are tried which seems to (in some people's opinion) allow for non relevant matters to be used as evidence against the female (usually) whose experience is the basis of the trial.

It's not a rabble either. It's a group you disagree with. There is a distinction.

That's not the point. She isn't interested in hearing any of the arguments in favour of using such clothing as evidence. She didn't listen to anything the Solicitor said on the matter. It's obvious she is just seeking attention (as usual) under the guise of defending the sisterhood.

Btw it is mainly a group of professional protesters. I recognise some of the faces there from other protests. Do they have jobs?

Dick Swiveller

dominatinMC wrote: »

I'd say Newstalk are delighted with this publicity. I don't like Ciara as a presenter, nor will I ever, but I think us posters on Boards are in the minority with our views towards her "interview" (and I use that word lightly) with the barrister. I had a quick look on Twitter and she seems to be soaring in popularity, everyone commending her. Granted, Twitter is a bit of a lefty platform, but she certainly is making an impact with that audience.

Twitter is a snowflake echo chamber. I wouldn't try and gauge public opinion by reading what's on there.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote: »

You don't get her point DS.

She is not questioning the outcome of this trial in any way. She is calling for a change in how tape and sexual assault cases are tried which seems to (in some people's opinion) allow for non relevant matters to be used as evidence against the female (usually) whose experience is the basis of the trial.

It's not a rabble either. It's a group you disagree with. There is a distinction.

Totally agree


I pointed out yesterday that the lads in 1916 were considered rabble by many. They were jeered & had things thrown at them as they were marched through the streets after being captured. History has shown them to be heros & not rabble.



No one here is trying to overturn a court decision. I respect the jurys decision. They heard all of the evidence & I didn't. The protests are about, as you say, how future cases are tried.

meeeeh

It's helping them to get rid of the image they have of being a bit male and stale. I never agreed with that impression because I think both Kenny and Yeats are very good presenters and there on merit. Coleman is capable too.

As for today's programme if I hear 'like' one more time I'm going to shoot someone. Any caller who says 'like' more than three times should be cut.

ghostdancer

the absolute fuc-king state of this thread.

bloodless_coup

ghostdancer wrote: »

the absolute fuc-king state of this thread.

What's wrong with it?

Allinall

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

That's not the point. She isn't interested in hearing any of the arguments in favour of using such clothing as evidence. She didn't listen to anything the Solicitor said on the matter. It's obvious she is just seeking attention (as usual) under the guise of defending the sisterhood.

Btw it is mainly a group of professional protesters. I recognise some of the faces there from other protests. Do they have jobs?

How is it in any way relevant whether they have jobs or not?

Sleeper12

I thought Ciara sounded unhinged in the interview a few days ago but Newstalk obviously feel she sounded good as they continue to broadcast the add. I think it will boost her expanding listening figures.

I also can't imagine why someone would thing Newstalk would try punish her for taking part in a perfectly peaceful & legal protest that the majority of the population agree with.

Dick Swiveller

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I thought Ciara sounded unhinged in the interview a few days ago but Newstalk obviously feel she sounded good as they continue to broadcast the add. I think it will boost her expanding listening figures.

I also can't imagine why someone would thing Newstalk would try punish her for taking part in a perfectly peaceful & legal protest that the majority of the population agree with.

That's usually a bad sign.