nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

[Deleted User]

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.

limnam

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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. 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.

I'd say if hed had his finger in your childs vagina, you would not consider the sentence extreme in the slightest.

demanufactured

Well I never.

bloodless_coup

What you wear projects your intentions. Of course it should be used in court in the defense of an innocent man.

Hurrache

doylefe wrote: »

What you wear projects your intentions. Of course it should be used in court in the defense of an innocent man.

Guys wearing military boots and combats should be shot on sight, only explanation for their clothing is they're about to shoot a bunch of people.

blue note

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is that not the whole point?

The point is that if the defence can point to many things that indicate the sex was consensual, on balance the jury may decide it was. One factor would be that the girl intended to have sex. And if she prepared for it, but dressing for it for one, then the jury should hear that and be able to make up their minds.

limnam

Hurrache wrote: »

Guys wearing military boots and combats should be shot on sight, only explanation for their clothing is they're about to shoot a bunch of people.

or on their way to a "dads army" porn shoot.

Outlaw Pete

Lackey wrote: »

'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."

Yeah, female solicitor too, and as soon as she said it, the jury should have been instructed to ignore her remarks.

I see law reform is being asked for but surely such laws already exist to ensure that juries can be instructed to ignore such a suggestion if it's made.

Yer Da sells Avon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

I didn't say you defended his actions (although I think it might be fair to say that you sought to downplay their severity). You certainly defended Adam Johnson against what you perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a miscarriage of justice. Which is objectively no different to what Ruth Coppinger did in the case of those Belfast rugby players - she railed against what she (and many others) believe was a miscarriage of justice.

[Deleted User]

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.
.

I wear matching underwear, always.
Sometimes it may even be described as sexy!!
Does that mean I'm up for sex? Really? Because I wear sexy matching underwear to work?
It's ridiculous. Any mention of underwear in a trial should only be for forensics, that's it. There is no other reason. At all.

ceadaoin.

bubblypop wrote: »

I wear matching underwear, always.
Sometimes it may even be described as sexy!!
Does that mean I'm up for sex? Really? Because I wear sexy matching underwear to work?
It's ridiculous. Any mention of underwear in a trial should only be for forensics, that's it. There is no other reason. At all.

Exactly. And even if you were wearing it because you were "up for sex", doesnt mean that you are up for it with every person you meet.