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

blue note

What sort of idiots do people think jurors are? I've never heard someone in real life say that what a girl is wearing removes her ability to decide whether or not she consents to sex. Yet judging by comments on this case some people seem to think the jurors do think like that. They hear the evidence in context. And make an informed decision.

Hurrache

Nobody has said that the jury think like that.

limnam

blue note wrote: »

What sort of idiots do people think jurors are?

You think they only pick the "clever" ones....

boardise

Ruth Coppinger's latest hit ...'A Thong For Ireland'

Fann Linn

She's a g0b****e who's hopping on the Ciara Kelly bandwagon.

All aboard.

nullzero

A good dose of sharia law would offer some well needed perspective at this stage.
Rape=honor killings is a distance from Liberal Ireland and its legal due process.

limnam

Fann Linn wrote: »

She's a g0b****e who's hopping on the Ciara Kelly bandwagon.

All aboard.

She sounds like she has a thong constantly riding er'

Hercule Poirot

blue note wrote: »

What sort of idiots do people think jurors are? I've never heard someone in real life say that what a girl is wearing removes her ability to decide whether or not she consents to sex. Yet judging by comments on this case some people seem to think the jurors do think like that. They hear the evidence in context. And make an informed decision.

The discussion isn't about the verdict or the way jury ruled on the case. That's not the issue here - it's the fact that a stunt like this was not only pulled in a court of law but was allowed to stand as evidence, and the dangerous precedent that it sets for future rape trials

limnam

bubblypop wrote: »

I wear matching underwear, always.

Ah c'mon now.

I'm sure there's the odd day the aul brdget jones go on and ye can't find the match.

Not having that.

Outlaw Pete

limnam wrote: »

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

Well, the girl was 15 and the age of consent in the UK is 16.

I feel consistent sentencing is important but you're right, of course I wouldn't consider the sentence extreme if I were related to the girl, but that's why we have courts made up of judges and juries unrelated to victims or the accused, as that way we are more likely to get a rational sentence given that they would be less likely to be blinded by emotion.

[Deleted User]

limnam wrote: »

Ah c'mon now.

I'm sure there's the odd day the aul brdget jones go on and ye can't find the match.

Not having that.

Nope.
Sorry.

Hurrache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, the girl here was 15 and he age of consent in the UK is 16.

So underage. You have different levels of rapeyness that you use as a yard stick?

limnam

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, the girl here was 15 and he age of consent in the UK is 16.

Ah, that makes it ok then.

He was _nearly_ not a sex offender.

blue note

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.

Sorry, maybe i wasn't clear in my opinions when i said "Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex." Although I'm not sure how that's unclear.

But for some women, they might pick particular underwear because they intend to, or think they might later want to, have sex. In a similar way to a guy sticking a condom in his wallet or getting flowers for his wife. And if a man's consent was ever in question of course the defence would point to things like him carrying a condom. But there are virtually no cases where men's consent is in question.

Rape cases are horrific. But for all people give out about them, I don't hear many suggestions about how to make them less traumatic while still giving the defendant a fair trial.

[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.

I’m heading towards old age and have to admit to wearing matching underwear every day. White bra and knickers or black. Sometimes lacy, sometimes not.

The only reason underwear should be relevant in rape cases is purely for scientific evidence. Nothing else.

I was horrified at the judges comments in this case and am putting my dislike of Ms Coppinger aside to support this campaign.

Outlaw Pete

limnam wrote: »

Ah, that makes it ok then.

Nope, far from okay, which again is why I conceded that Johnson should get a custodial sentence, just don't agree that six years for someone with no previous was appropriate.

Think I've indulged this nonsense enough. Any chance we could stick to the topic.

[Deleted User]

blue note wrote: »

Sorry, maybe i wasn't clear in my opinions when i said "Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex." Although I'm not sure how that's unclear.

But for some women, they might pick particular underwear because they intend to, or think they might later want to, have sex. In a similar way to a guy sticking a condom in his wallet or getting flowers for his wife. And if a man's consent was ever in question of course the defence would point to things like him carrying a condom. But there are virtually no cases where men's consent is in question.

Rape cases are horrific. But for all people give out about them, I don't hear many suggestions about how to make them less traumatic while still giving the defendant a fair trial.

Nope.
A man carrying a condom should never be evidence in a rape trial. Neither should his choice of sexy boxers or whatever underwear he likes.
The same as a womans choice of underwear is absolutely never a factor in whether she wants to have sex or not.
Oh & FYI, if a woman does or does not want sex, I'm going to guess she does not want to be raped.

Hurrache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Think I've indulged this nonsense enough. Any chance we could stick to the topic.

You were the first person to take it off topic.

Feisar

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

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

Agreed.

Myself and the wife are just in bed discussing this. Totally wrong however we both can see why the defending solicitor done it.

boardise

People ( especially men ! ) wearing 'sexy u/wear' might represent more an aspiration rather an intention to have sex.

Feisar

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

Rightly or wrongly the defending barrister was inferring the type of woman that was the accuser in the trial. I can see the ould fuddy duddies with there old caveman/woman mentality branding the poor woman a hussy for wearing a thong.

boardise

Tear gone thong a ---tear gone on 'im.

[Deleted User]

Feisar wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly the defending barrister was inferring the type of woman that was the accuser in the trial. I can see the ould fuddy duddies with there old caveman/woman mentality branding the poor woman a hussy for wearing a thong.

Exactly.
No barrister should be allowed to bring this kind of evidence into any kind of trial

Feisar

Also, crap like the below doesn't help the real issue:

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1060887160419696641

Hurrache

Nobody takes notice of that sort of nonsense, plus it's a pisstake account.

Feisar

bubblypop wrote: »

Exactly.
No barrister should be allowed to bring this kind of evidence into any kind of trial

The problem being we start to limit the defence one side is able to provide.

padd b1975

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Was it covered in gowl grease?

RIP The Bantam

Gusset like the start line at Brand's Hatch.

[Deleted User]

There was a report published in Northern Ireland yesterday showing that less than 2% of rape cases in Court result in successful convictions.

Why would anyone take on the huge risk of reporting a rape to the police in that environment?

suicide_circus

when defending yourself against allegations in court, everything is fair game.

Roger Hassenforder

blue note wrote: »

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.

Na bu11sh1t

If there's forensic value to them being produced, they're fair game. There's no other reason they should be produced, especially to try and demonstrate intention or hope of sex. That still isnt consent. In the interim between putting them on, and the alleged assault, is she not allowed change her mind?

Can a girl carrying a condon not be raped?