Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

ohnonotgmail · 14-11-2018 04:18PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Consent at any time - like withdrawing it the next morning ? A week later ? A month ?

There are advocates for that. And they are idiots.

any point up until the act itself. She can even withdraw consent during the act.

ohnonotgmail · 14-11-2018 04:19PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Verbatim quote in her closing statement:

“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.”

In other words "She was asking for it"

Triceratops Ballet · 14-11-2018 04:19PM

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Guy texts girl hey, I'm going tk wear my black leather pants with your gonna get it on them next time we meet up, he tells her she can take them off with her teeth.

They meet it goes south for what ever reason, ends up in court.

You think when the text is read out as evidence, that whether or not the guy wore that underware has no bearing in the case whatsoever.

Or can you dismiss it as clothing choice is irrelevant.

Again what was the context in this case.

Yeah his choice to wear underwear or not means nothing. His choice to wear leather pants means nothing(it might mean he makes terrible fashion choices, unless he has the ass and legs to pull them off, but it means nothing in terms of if they will have sex or not, or if they should expect sex or not). The only clothes that say anything are uniforms and the only things they say are "I belong to x organisation"

retro:electro · 14-11-2018 04:22PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In other words "She was asking for it"

I mean not just a regular old thong, a thong with lace. The horror!

vonlars · 14-11-2018 04:23PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Selective quoting to make one's point is highly suspect.

It's not selective quoting. It's just quoting something that was said, and allowed to be said, in a court of law as evidence.

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2018 04:23PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah his choice to wear underwear or not means nothing. His choice to wear leather pants means nothing(it might mean he makes terrible fashion choices, unless he has the ass and legs to pull them off, but it means nothing in terms of if they will have sex or not, or if they should expect sex or not). The only clothes that say anything are uniforms and the only things they say are "I belong to x organisation"

I’ll have to remember to tell anyone that in future when I’m in a shop and have people coming up to me asking where’s the loaves of bread, or where’s something else they’re looking for, and then being surprised when I tell them I don’t work there. I don’t wear a uniform btw, ever.

professore · 14-11-2018 04:25PM

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.

If some guy was on trial for being a neo-Nazi and beating up some poor unfortunate, should the commenting on him wearing jackboots or in fact any article of clothing including a thong with a swastika on it be disallowed a mention by the prosecution?

I agree the thong comment was inappropriate, however I am trying to make the point that banning the mention of selected things verboten could very easily backfire.

Triceratops Ballet · 14-11-2018 04:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll have to remember to tell anyone that in future when I’m in a shop and have people coming up to me asking where’s the loaves of bread, or where’s something else they’re looking for, and then being surprised when I tell them I don’t work there. I don’t wear a uniform btw, ever.

That's quite a tangent!

Captain Obvious · 14-11-2018 04:25PM

To be honest, whatever about the thing that was said, if the jury accepted it as a valid argument that may be indicative of a bigger issue.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 04:26PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

any point up until the act itself. She can even withdraw consent during the act.

And I'd agree - but not withdrawing up to or during but after, and in retrospect, is what I will always continue to have a problem with.

ohnonotgmail · 14-11-2018 04:27PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And I'd agree - but not withdrawing up to or during but after, and in retrospect, is what I will always continue to have a problem with.

Nobody has said any different.

Triceratops Ballet · 14-11-2018 04:27PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

To be honest, whatever about the thing that was said, if the jury accepted it as a valid argument that may be indicative of a bigger issue.

The fact that it was said means it was expected to be accepted as a valid point, which really is indicative of a much bigger issue

retro:electro · 14-11-2018 04:29PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And I'd agree - but not withdrawing up to or during but after, and in retrospect, is what I will always continue to have a problem with.

I think most rational minded people would have a problem with that

RWCNT · 14-11-2018 04:30PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Consent at any time - like withdrawing it the next morning ? A week later ? A month ?

There are advocates for that. And they are idiots.

Are people seriously advocating for that though? Any links? Personally I only feel consent can be withdrawn after the act if said consent was gained via deception - e.g. pretending to put a condom on and not doing so, invalidating said consent to begin with.

professore · 14-11-2018 04:30PM

blue note wrote: »

Where have you seen the reactions of people thinking she was a brazen hussy for wearing that underwear? I've heard people say that othersother have had this reaction, but I haven't actually seen anyone react like that myself. Any link to someone saying anything like that?

The point is if the barrister thought everyone on the jury would not react like that then she wouldn't have said it.

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2018 04:32PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That's quite a tangent!

It’s not. It’s directly related to your point that the only clothes that say anything are uniforms and the only things they say are "I belong to x organisation".

That’s simply not true. It may well be true from your perspective, but objectively, it’s simply not a statement of fact. People make assumptions about other people all the time based upon what they’re wearing. They may be wrong in their assumptions, but that comes after your point that the way a person is dressed or what they’re wearing doesn’t say anything about them to other people who are not them.

vonlars · 14-11-2018 04:32PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And I'd agree - but not withdrawing up to or during but after, and in retrospect, is what I will always continue to have a problem with.

That's probably why the legislation clearly states before or during. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

The notion of withdrawing after is ridiculous and I don't see anyone advocating for that.

Wabbit Ears · 14-11-2018 04:34PM

TBH The barrister in this case deserves a proper punch in the fcuking face.

No one deserves to be raped because of what cacks they wear, but saying someone perhaps did deserve to be raped because of it does warrant a free shot right in the kisser. No hit backs.

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2018 04:37PM

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

TBH The barrister in this case deserves a proper punch in the fcuking face.

No one deserves to be raped because of what cacks they wear, but saying someone perhaps did deserve to be raped because of it does warrant a free shot right in the kisser. No hit backs.

Nobody said anyone perhaps did deserve to be raped.

You can relax now.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 04:38PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I think most rational minded people would have a problem with that

I really do wish that were so and despite your disbelief, I have dealt with people who have said "no way could I have consented" and wanted to prosecute even when shown evidence they did in fact consent, and enthusiastically so.

I don't blame these girls, I really don't - they have been fed nonsense lately that all that matters is how something "feels", not "is".

I blame the staff who feed into their delusion instead of offering a valuable life lesson, namely that they alone are responsible for their safety and getting so drunk you sleep with someone you wouldn't have sober is never ever a good idea.

If the barrister had waved knickers round and said "what did you expect from someone who wears these ?" or similar then I'd find that abhorrent.

I'd just ask for it to be seen in context and look at the wider details of the case.

professore · 14-11-2018 04:39PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

To some, pass laws so that women who report rape are automatically believed until evidence (that you're not allowed to produce) clears you.

Luckily for Maurice McCabe there is a process otherwise he'd be serving a long stretch in jail for being a paedophile.

Bigbagofcans · 14-11-2018 04:39PM

rtgdfd wrote: »

Stuff of Nightmares that Harlot holding up knickers.

Seen the protesters on the street earlier, with all their socialist clobber and flags on them.

Genuine question. Do any of these protestors have jobs?.

Why can't they accept the decision of the jury?.

Pure fascism as far as I'm concerned to ignore the jury and presume guilt.

Not everyone works 9-5, they could have had a day off, they're students.

You're missing the whole point of it. They're protesting against clothing being used as consent.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 04:39PM

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

TBH The barrister in this case deserves a proper punch in the fcuking face.

No one deserves to be raped because of what cacks they wear, but saying someone perhaps did deserve to be raped because of it does warrant a free shot right in the kisser. No hit backs.

So rape bad but violence good ?

Wierd.

retro:electro · 14-11-2018 04:39PM

rtgdfd wrote: »

Why can't they accept the decision of the jury?.

Pure fascism as far as I'm concerned to ignore the jury and presume guilt.

I think most people are protesting against the comment, not the verdict. If the comments weren’t so outrageously offensive they would never have been made public and no one would be any the wiser about the case. The case and the verdict are irrelevant here really, it’s the comment and the implication that has upset people.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 04:40PM

vonlars wrote: »

That's probably why the legislation clearly states before or during. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

The notion of withdrawing after is ridiculous and I don't see anyone advocating for that.

Rosemary McCabe's article 15 years on springs to mind.

Wabbit Ears · 14-11-2018 04:40PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody said anyone perhaps did deserve to be raped.

You can relax now.

LOL, thats some quality "calm down" provocation right there!!

Ahhh AH, You never dissapoint!

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 04:43PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I think most people are protesting against the comment, not the verdict. If the comments weren’t so outrageously offensive they would never have been made public and no one would be any the wiser about the case. The case and the verdict are irrelevant here really, it’s the comment and the implication that has upset people.

I'm not that far away from agreeing with you on that point.

I just don't think the full context of the comments have been made public. If they have and they are of the "look at this what do you expect to happen ?" then I stand corrected and the barrister is very very wrong.

Triceratops Ballet · 14-11-2018 04:43PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not. It’s directly related to your point that the only clothes that say anything are uniforms and the only things they say are "I belong to x organisation".

That’s simply not true. It may well be true from your perspective, but objectively, it’s simply not a statement of fact. People make assumptions about other people all the time based upon what they’re wearing. They may be wrong in their assumptions, but that comes after your point that the way a person is dressed or what they’re wearing doesn’t say anything about them to other people who are not them.

Assumptions though aren't facts, if we all went around acting on assumptions then it would be utter chaos. Are you positing that our legal system should be based on the assumptions people make about other people based on their appearance?

vonlars · 14-11-2018 04:43PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Rosemary McCabe's article 15 years on springs to mind.

I'm in no way RMC's biggest fan, but read it.

We kissed. He tried to undress me. I said no. He tried again – my top came off. I told him I didn’t want to have sex. We kissed some more. He tried to take off my bottoms. I said no.

All before the act.

I know what you're saying, but that is a whole other question - what is consent? If you say no, but are going along with it, are you consenting?

rtgdfd · 14-11-2018 04:43PM

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Not everyone works 9-5, they could have had a day off, they're students.

You're missing the whole point of it. They're protesting against clothing being used as consent.

Day off my hoop. Seem to have a day off these lot Monday-Friday.
Dole heads, plain and simple and lifer students. Probably studying utter nonsense like gender identity and politics.

Who said clothing was consent?. The defence was making a point they never said clothing was consent.

Typical; taking a statement and running with it, making up all sorts of nonsense and embellishing like crazy.

Where did the defence say clothing was consent?. Please elaborate and reference.

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments