Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comhrá

Ruth Coppinger + thong. Not a pleasant thought by any stretch of the imagination.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/td-ruth-coppinger-holds-up-13584968

Roger Hassenforder

Comhra wrote: »

Ruth Coppinger + thong. Not a pleasant thought by any stretch of the imagination.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/td-ruth-coppinger-holds-up-13584968

Not opening that

Wheeliebin30

Hopefully wasn’t hers.

Agent Smith

Direct Link

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It was ln the news, and I'll be honest, I was waiting to see who would open a thread to get a cheap dig or laugh over what is ultimately a serious issue.

Hercule Poirot

Comhra wrote: »

Ruth Coppinger + thong. Not a pleasant thought by any stretch of the imagination.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/td-ruth-coppinger-holds-up-13584968

She has an extremely valid point - a person alleging rape should not be judged by their choice of underwear, and especially a thong which is fairly common place for girls/ladies these days

elperello

There was a very serious reason behind Ruth Coppinger's contribution in the Dail but it's not likely to be discussed on this thread.

Wheeliebin30

Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

alan partridge aha

I wouldn't like to be accused of a sexual offence and see that her on the jury. I know id be going down.

smelly sock

At least it wasnt on her at the time. In all honesty though what a girl wears gives no man a right to be forceful.

JP Liz V1

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

Was she?

I thought her point was about consent, stop victim blaming and sex education etc.,

Ulysses Gaze

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

Because she is a dope.

A serious issue and she blames the Taoiseach for a court decision to allow it.

Wheeliebin30

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Was she?

I thought her point was about consent, stop victim blaming and sex education etc.,

"How heroic do you have to be Taoiseach, to pursue a rape trial in this country?," she asked.

corner of hells

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I wouldn't like to be accused of a sexual offence and see that bit5h on the jury. I know id be going down.

I don't think she could be on a jury.

TheValeyard

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

Maybe he wore it better.

Yer Da sells Avon

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

She was addressing a wholly valid issue through the Taoiseach, which isn't the same as blaming the Taoiseach.

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I wouldn't like to be accused of a sexual offence and see that bit5h on the jury. I know id be going down.

You 'know' you'd be going down because of one person on the jury, despite the fact that the odds are already stacked very much in your favour? Are you planning on pleading guilty or something?

Hurrache

And how we thought it was bizzare when an Italian judge said a woman could not be unwilling raped whilst wearing jeans as it was not possible for her attacker to remove her jeans without her aid.

alan partridge aha

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

She was addressing a wholly valid issue through the Taoiseach, which isn't the same as blaming the Taoiseach.



You 'know' you'd be going down because of one person on the jury, despite the fact that the odds are already stacked very much in your favour? Are you planning on pleading guilty or something?

I'd be pleading for my life to be spared if she was on the jury.

DaintyDavy

Id say it was hers, it was a poxy looking thing. Looked like it was pulled from the bottom of a wash basket.

professore

Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?

Yer Da sells Avon

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I'd be pleading for my life to be spared if she was on the jury.

Yeah, I hate when individual jury members take it upon themselves to reintroduce the death penalty.

Roger Hassenforder

professore wrote: »

Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?

"Thankfully" it was a female Barrister who produced it

um7y1h83ge06nx

"The Dail... After Dark"

"Carry On Ruthing"

There a good porn there somewhere.

Hercule Poirot

professore wrote: »

Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?

Yes, that is their job after all, I think she's pointing to the fact that she was allowed to do it in a court of law - if wearing a thong is "asking for it" as she seemed to imply then the majority of women are in trouble, and it sets a very dangerous precedent for future rape trials

Hurrache

professore wrote: »

Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?

That's the point. It was insinuated she was out looking for it because of the underwear she was wearing.

SEPT 23 1989

Was it covered in gowl grease?

RIP The Bantam

Free advertising for a certain chain store. Classy. http://www.thejournal.ie/thong-dail-ruth-coppinger-4337275-Nov2018/

Outlaw Pete

She's in no position to be citing an aspect of some rape trials which she feels is unfair given how she doesn't even show fairness to those found not guilty in such trials.




https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/979725517946580998

Hurrache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She's in no position to be citing an aspect of some rape trials which she feels is unfair given how she doesn't even show fairness to those found not guilty in such trials.

?!? This has nothing to do with the person found not guilty.

smelly sock

DaintyDavy wrote: »

Id say it was hers, it was a poxy looking thing. Looked like it was pulled from the bottom of a wash basket.

I love those. Especially when they have crusty skid marks.

Outlaw Pete

Hurrache wrote: »

?!? This has nothing to do with the person found not guilty.

I never said it did.

My point is that she cited an aspect of rape trials which she feels is unfair to claimants, but yet she herself behaved in a manner which was unfair to the accused in such a trial, namely the Belfast one.

If her sense of fairness was as strong as she would like us all to think it is, then she'd be extending it to everyone involved in such trials, no matter their gender. All this #ibelieveher bollox undermines her position, which is a shame, as she might have a point (in some trials at least).

Hurrache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I never said it did.

And yet you brought them into it.

Roger Hassenforder

I wouldnt mind sniffing those panties"

Said no one

myshirt

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Was it covered in gowl grease?

RIP The Bantam

Ah man.... ffs.

Lackey

'Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

Quote taken from Irish Examiner:

This is what was said by defending barrister,

I don't know if this is why the jury found the defendant not guilty
Not commenting on weather the man is guilty or not...he was found not guilty by the jury

I will say the above statement and display of underwear is a dose of SH!TE and shouldn't be allowed.

We live in the west in 2018 where woman can wear whatever they want, and what they are wearing should never be a factor in a rape case.

Outlaw Pete

Hurrache wrote: »

And yet you brought them into it.

The person found not guilty in the Cork trial? No I didn't.

I am referencing Ruth's behaviour at the time of the Belfast rape trial to show that fairness is not always top priority for her when it comes rape trials.

Amirani

Lackey wrote: »

We live in the west in 2018 where woman can wear whatever they want, and what they are wearing should never be a factor in a rape case.

Sort of agree, but blanket banning the defense from introducing such material as evidence is a pretty dangerous thing to do legally.

Hercule Poirot

Amirani wrote: »

Sort of agree, but blanket banning the defense from introducing such material as evidence is a pretty dangerous thing to do legally.

Is it? A woman could be walking around in the nude, doesn't mean she's open to intercourse

Outlaw Pete

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Is it? A woman could be walking around in the nude, doesn't mean she's open to intercourse

There can be legitimate reasons for a jury asking to see an item of clothing.

Dr. Bre

It’s all gone pete thong

blue note

I've often heard if you get a girl's clothes off and she's wearing matching underwear it's not you who decided you're having sex. That's a funny thing to say because there's truth to it. Sometimes women intend to have sex later and dress for it, or they think they might or they could and dress in case they do with sexy underwear or the like.

In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.

Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc. But people get utterly hysterical at the mention of underwear and start throwing around phrases like it doesn't mean she was asking to be raped and stating that what she's wearing doesn't take away her ability to decide or doesn't give any man the right to have sex with her, etc. Well no sh1t, I've never heard anyone say any of that and mean it.

But I can understand why underwear can be evidence. Now, I can appreciate an argument that it shouldn't be admissible, but if I'm going to respect the argument it would at least have to acknowledge the actual reason it is used as evidence. And acknowledge that not allowing the jury see this evidence could be the difference between them finding a man innocent or guilty.

Lackey

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There can be legitimate reasons for a jury asking to see an item of clothing.

Absolutely
evidence etc

BUT it should never be used to judge whether the accuser was 'up for it' or not.

KevinCavan

Mary Lou has a leather thong

limnam

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

a thong which is fairly common place for girls/ladies these days

"these days"


I'd have thought a fashion faux pas "these days"


What is it, 1995.

DaintyDavy

smelly sock wrote: »

I love those. Especially when they have crusty skid marks.

Discharge central

blue note

blue note wrote: »

I've often heard if you get a girl's clothes off and she's wearing matching underwear it's not you who decided you're having sex. That's a funny thing to say because there's truth to it. Sometimes women intend to have sex later and dress for it, or they think they might or they could and dress in case they do with sexy underwear or the like.

In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.

Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc. But people get utterly hysterical at the mention of underwear and start throwing around phrases like it doesn't mean she was asking to be raped and stating that what she's wearing doesn't take away her ability to decide or doesn't give any man the right to have sex with her, etc. Well no sh1t, I've never heard anyone say any of that and mean it.

But I can understand why underwear can be evidence. Now, I can appreciate an argument that it shouldn't be admissible, but if I'm going to respect the argument it would at least have to acknowledge the actual reason it is used as evidence. And acknowledge that not allowing the jury see this evidence could be the difference between them finding a man innocent or guilty.

The only reason underwear should be used as evidence in a rape or sexual assault trial is as forensic evidence.
That's it.
No other reason.

Outlaw Pete

Lackey wrote: »

BUT it should never be used to judge whether the accuser was 'up for it' or not.

Of course it shouldn't, and as far as I am aware, it couldn't either.

In the Belfast rape trial, for example, that suggestion was made when underwear was admitted as evidence at one point... but from memory I believe it was about the location of a blood stain.

I really can't see any judge allowing underwear to be introduced as evidence on the basis that it implied consent and can't see any jury accepting it either.

Yer Da sells Avon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I am referencing Ruth's behaviour at the time of the Belfast rape trial to show that fairness is not always top priority for her when it comes rape trials.

Didn't you continue to defend that English footballer, Adam Johnson (the one who groomed and fingered a child, and then went on to claim that he wished he'd raped her), even after he was found guilty? Pretty sure fairness has never been anywhere close to the top of your priorities, tbh.

Roger Hassenforder

blue note wrote: »

In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.
...
Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc.

Is that not the whole point?

Lackey

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it shouldn't, and as far as I am aware, it couldn't either.

In the Belfast rape trial, for example, that suggestion was made when underwear was admitted as evidence at one point... but from memory I believe it was about the location of a blood stain.

I really can't see any judge allowing underwear to be introduced as evidence on the basis that it implied consent and can't see any jury accepting it either.

it was in this case anyway

'Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

Outlaw Pete

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Didn't you continue to defend that English footballer, Adam Johnson (the one who groomed and fingered a child, and then went on to claim that he wished he'd raped her), even after he was found guilty? Pretty sure fairness has never been anywhere close to the top of your priorities, tbh.

Nope, never defended Adam Johnson's actions, in fact I conceded he should receive a custodial sentence. I did make the argument that his sentence was extreme though and I stand by that. At the time I challenged anyone to find another person in the UK who had no previous and received a six year sentence for doing similar to him and they couldn't.

As for what he said, or didn't say, long after the trial.... I'm not Nostradamus.