Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Options
1…457910…61

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,505 ✭✭✭blue note


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    For all those who say it is acceptable to bring up the womens underwear i have one question to ask:


    If this is acceptable as a defence tactic do you think it is acceptable for the prosecution to say in court "The lady was wearing granny knickers on the night in question so the defendant must be guilty"?

    I'd say if the defence say that a girl was coming over to a guys place with the intention of having sex and wore granny knickers, or didn't shave her legs, it would be fair to point to those things as indicators that she didn't intend to have sex.


  • Options
    #183
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,158 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    blue note wrote: »
    I'd say if the defence say that a girl was coming over to a guys place with the intention of having sex and wore granny knickers, or didn't shave her legs, it would be fair to point to those things as indicators that she didn't intend to have sex.


    so if she was wearing them and then claimed she was raped that would make the man guilty?


  • Options
    #184
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    You're in Ireland, they're Hero Turtles here :)

    And we know from this case that underwear can talk. And my bloomers say otherwise. :)


  • Options
    #185
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    What's this protest about treatment of victims in rape cases?

    The man was found innocent, meaning the female wasn't a victim of anything.

    Is she going face consequences for the false alegation?


  • Options
    #186
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,158 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    doylefe wrote: »
    What's this protest about treatment of victims in rape cases?

    The man was found innocent, meaning the female wasn't a victim of anything.

    Is she going face consequences for the false alegation?


    way to miss the whole point of the thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    No misunderstanding

    Less than 2%

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/north-s-justice-system-failing-sexual-violence-victims-report-finds-1.3696246
    You've quoted that wrong Andrew.

    Less than 2% of reported rapes end up in a conviction. But a majority of cases which go to court end up in a conviction. This says that as a victim it's incredibly difficult to get your case to court, but it's likely that you'll win.

    That itself is shocking enough, but let's not mangle the numbers.

    There's a clear problem with bringing rape complaints to court. And in fact, our conviction rates are very poor in comparison; 90%ish for rape versus 98%+ for other types of headline crime.

    But let's get the numbers right before declaring where the problem lies.


  • Options
    #188
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    doylefe wrote: »
    What's this protest about treatment of victims in rape cases?

    The man was found innocent, meaning the female wasn't a victim of anything.

    Is she going face consequences for the false alegation?

    That's not what happened. He was found not guilty. That means there was not sufficent evidence to determine guilt. Trials don't actually ever say someone is innocent.

    Now you can believe whatever you want regarding this trial, and I certainly don't know enough about it to be able to say if I think he's innocent or guilty. But the courts never declare anyone innocent. The jury returns two verdicts, Guilty or not guilty and not guilty does not mean innocent. It just means they can't find them guilty.

    And they never determined that she made a false allegation, just that they didn't have enough evidence to find him guilty.


  • Options
    #189
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    doylefe wrote: »
    What's this protest about treatment of victims in rape cases?

    The man was found innocent, meaning the female wasn't a victim of anything.

    Is she going face consequences for the false alegation?

    Who said anything about innocence? He was found not guilty, which would imply there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the offense. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't mean he's innocent.


  • Options
    #190
    JMNolan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭JMNolan


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's not what happened. He was found not guilty. That means there was not sufficent evidence to determine guilt. Trials don't actually ever say someone is innocent.

    Now you can believe whatever you want regarding this trial, and I certainly don't know enough about it to be able to say if I think he's innocent or guilty. But the courts never declare anyone innocent. The jury returns two verdicts, Guilty or not guilty and not guilty does not mean innocent. It just means they can't find them guilty.

    And they never determined that she made a false allegation, just that they didn't have enough evidence to find him guilty.
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Who said anything about innocence? He was found not guilty, which would imply there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the offense. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

    We got there in the end. He's guilty regardless of the verdict. Not much debate possible in this case so. G'luck.


  • Options
    #191
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    No misunderstanding

    Less than 2%

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/north-s-justice-system-failing-sexual-violence-victims-report-finds-1.3696246

    Still garbage. 2% of REPORTED rapes led to a conviction.

    Did it enter your thoughts that perhaps, just perhaps the other 98% of REPORTS were just that ?

    No actual crime committed ? Thought not.

    Now the #IBelieveHer crowd have arrived and are making jokes to derail any criticism of their POV, I shall make my excuses and leave.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Who said anything about innocence? He was found not guilty, which would imply there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the offense. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

    Oh but it does.

    Innocent till proven guilty. Not proven guilty, ergo innocent.

    Though if some people on here have their way it will be innocent till proven male.


  • Options
    #193
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,040 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    So, sexy underwear now qualifies as a Yes and people think we don't need to bother with consent awareness classes?

    Just when you thought Ireland was becoming less socially conservative....

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #194
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    JMNolan wrote: »
    We got there in the end. He's guilty regardless of the verdict. Not much debate possible in this case so. G'luck.

    No one said anything about him being guilty. I don't care about him being guilty or not, its completely irrelevant. The barristers comments are what we are discussing, and are what people are outraged over.

    And you also selectively replied there, because those replies are nothing without context.
    And the context was that someone was suggesting the girl should be charged with making false allegations, when it wasn't proven that she was lying. It was proven that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

    Absolute shock horror that this thread is being twisted into being about something it isn't.


  • Options
    #195
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I don't care about him being guilty or not

    As long as she's believed and he's locked up and ruined eh ?


  • Options
    #196
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    doylefe wrote: »
    What's this protest about treatment of victims in rape cases?

    The man was found innocent, meaning the female wasn't a victim of anything.

    Is she going face consequences for the false alegation?

    Idiotic. In fairness dumb posts like this are far from unique in this thread. It seems to attract stupidity, ignorance and crassness.


  • Options
    #197
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so if she was wearing them and then claimed she was raped that would make the man guilty?

    Why are you being so black and white? It's a valid point and neither scenario 'proves' someone was raped or not, but it's contextual evidence that could be seen to lean more towards either claim.

    Let's not lose sight of common logic in all this.
    Who said anything about innocence? He was found not guilty, which would imply there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the offense. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

    I have to say I am concerned about the 'there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict the guilty bastard' mindset that comes out in every rape case.


  • Options
    #198
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    I have to say I am concerned about the 'there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict the guilty bastard' mindset that comes out in every rape case.

    And you'd be right to - two collegues refer to both Ched Evans and Paddy Jackson as "rapists who got away with it".

    Terrifying.


  • Options
    #199
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    Oh but it does.

    Innocent till proven guilty. Not proven guilty, ergo innocent.

    Though if some people on here have their way it will be innocent till proven male.
    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    As long as she's believed and he's locked up and ruined eh ?

    I know it would suit more people here to lament how awful the poor menfolk in Ireland have it, how they are continuously f*cked over by the evil women, every chance they get.

    But that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about the disgusting comments made by the defendants barrister.

    I genuinely don't care about the verdict. No one is outraged about the verdict. People are outraged at the comments.


  • Options
    #200
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    JMNolan wrote: »
    We got there in the end. He's guilty regardless of the verdict. Not much debate possible in this case so. G'luck.

    Did you read my post? I specifically said that I don't know enough to say if he's innocent or guilty. I merely pointed out that courts never declare people innocent. A court will only ever say if someone is guilty or not guilty. And that not guilty isn't the same as innocent. Not guilty means that the jury didn't have enough evidence to confict. That's in every single crime/court case. I'm saying that legally that's what the judgement means.

    I'm also saying that the jury never determined that the woman who made the complaint is lying. They don't determine that. It's well beyond the scope of the trial. And him being found not guilty doesn't mean that she was lying. Not guilty just means that the jury didn't have enough reason to think he was guilty. That doesn't imply she was lying. I know nothing about the case so it's possible she was, but a not guilty verdict doesn't mean that she was. It means nothing of the sort. It makes absolutely no judgement on the veracity of her claims.


  • Options
    #201
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    Now the #IBelieveHer crowd have arrived and are making jokes to derail any criticism of their POV, I shall make my excuses and leave.

    And you are here doing what you usually do. Whatever that is, still haven’t figured it out yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »


    I have to say I am concerned about the 'there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict the guilty bastard' mindset that comes out in every rape case.

    And again, I will repeat, the context of that remark was someone suggesting that the girl be charged for making false allegations against the defendant.
    It wasn't proven she was lying. That's what I was pointing out.


  • Options
    #203
    vonlars
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭vonlars


    There's a film that some people on this thread need to watch called 'Nymphomaniac'. Not to spoil it, but the main point being you can have all the sex you want, but that does not give anyone an entitlement to have sex with you.

    Underwear cannot point to consent. You don't consent to sex, you consent to sex with someone. For example, if I put sexy underwear on because I know I'll be seeing my boyfriend, yet I am in work in the interim - does that give every man I come across during the day a right to have sex with me?

    The notion that underwear can point to consent is ridiculous. It doesn't. The main issue in the majority of rape trials is the issue of consent, and the underwear you are wearing is wholly irrelevant to that point. Is it a 'worse' experience of rape if you're wearing granny pants?

    Go to any rape crisis centre in Ireland and they'll dissuade you from reporting. The whole system in Ireland is a joke. What girl would want to go through a Court system where their underwear will be held up as evidence?


  • Options
    #204
    SterlingArcher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,767 ✭✭✭SterlingArcher


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Who said anything about innocence? He was found not guilty, which would imply there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the offense. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

    What. The actual. F,uck.

    Hey just dispense with courts all together ya.

    God help your dad, brother, nephew, friend.


  • Options
    #205
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    And you'd be right to - two collegues refer to both Ched Evans and Paddy Jackson as "rapists who got away with it".

    Terrifying.

    Chef Evans did - he never spoke with the woman


  • Options
    #206
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I know it would suit more people here to lament how awful the poor menfolk in Ireland have it, how they are continuously f*cked over by the evil women, every chance they get.

    For your own sanity, stay away from many of the threads on the radio forum, that's where they hang out in groups, patting each other on their back, a circle jerk if you so wish, fighting the good fight against the wimmin fold with their feminine opinions.


  • Options
    #207
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    SterlingArcher wrote: »
    What. The actual. F,uck.

    Hey just dispense with courts all together ya.

    God help your dad, brother, nephew, friend.

    Oh please. Enough of the hysteria and putting words in my mouth.

    If I am wrong, please provide a link to exactly where it says the girl lied and made it all up, and that the defendant is innocent.

    The verdict is irrelevant. Stop trying to make this about the verdict.


  • Options
    #208
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    SterlingArcher wrote: »
    What. The actual. F,uck.

    Hey just dispense with courts all together ya.

    God help your dad, brother, nephew, friend.

    You have no understanding of our legal system, despite it pointed out several times on this thread.


  • Options
    #209
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »

    I have to say I am concerned about the 'there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict the guilty bastard' mindset that comes out in every rape case.

    Literally no-one is saying that. Read the posts. It's about the legal definition. Legally he wasn't found innocent. The jury don't say that he didn't do it, they say that they don't have enough evidence to convict. That goes for every single criminal case, for every crime, that goes before a jury in Ireland.

    You say you're concerned that people are saying there's not enough evidence to conflict the guilty bastard when no-ones saying that at all. However it is worrying that despite the posts being quite clear in what they're saying, you read what you want into them.


  • Options
    #210
    diceyriley
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭diceyriley


    Just want ti throw this out there. If a girl wears a thong and gets raped. And the defence uses that as evidence she was up for it. Would we not be confident that our peers would look past that and see its ridiculous.

    But should defences not have the freedom to use whatever they feel is evidence to clear a defendants name. To prohibit would be a clear injustice. My head is wrecked reading this thread. Ok its a ridiculous defence. But is it not a bit totalitarian to start saying what evidence may or may not be put to the court?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    No one said anything about him being guilty. I don't care about him being guilty or not, its completely irrelevant. The barristers comments are what we are discussing, and are what people are outraged over.

    I'm unclear what the Dail is supposed to do about how barristers defend their clients in court?


Advertisement