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

professore

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.

It's not clear at all that this was the basis of the acquittal.

spindex

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.”

I presume what the defence meant by this was, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck.

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

but it's like trying to herd cats trying to get reason in this thread so fair enough.

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.

One eyed Jack

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.

They’re protesting against an argument that nobody made then (which comes as no surprise to me personally tbh). I’m not missing the protesters point, it’s just another dishonest protest is all.

professore

vonlars wrote: »

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?

Really men should just dump women who behave like this. They are a nightmare. My top came off .... please. What about a good old "**** off you pervert?"

PlaneSpeeking

vonlars wrote: »

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?

I believe she did yes. I read that article and was stunned that someone could be so passive.

As a poster on here said once, there's difference betwen "NO" and "noooooooo giggle". Say yes if you want it, no if you don't.

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re protesting against an argument that nobody made then (which comes as no surprise to me personally tbh). I’m not missing the protesters point, it’s just another dishonest protest is all.

And nobody protesting the myriad of genuine issues in 2018 Ireland.

PlaneSpeeking

professore wrote: »

Really men should just dump women who behave like this. They are a nightmare. My top came off .... please. What about a good old "**** off you pervert?"

The day of my mother and father's first date in the 60s someone (not him!) grabbed her arse in a pub.

She turned round and decked him one. My dad said he knew then he'd found the woman to marry!

DEFTLEFTHAND

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.

Pure Socialist/Commie types in fairness don't pretend to be democratic, they're idealogues and can become very dangerous when they take a set against a person or a group. Think of what went on in Soviet Union courthouses.

They will only accept Democracy and the justice system if it goes with them. They don't if they lose, Brexit, Trump for eg.

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

but it's like trying to herd cats trying to get reason in this thread so fair enough.

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually I would because anyone who thinks that the type of clothing can indicate if one was rapped or rapped someone can't be trusted either way.

And once again, the point is missed.

At no point did I say the knickers gave an indication that she was not raped. I explained at length (pointlessly here) why in THIS CASE I could see why the item was allowed.

And FYI, the only reason I dealt with the case was that everyone else were of the mind that because the housemate had said she was raped, therefore she was. An independent person had to be brought in for him as no one would stand for him. I would.

She said she'd never shown any sexual interest to him whatsoever, none: "I don't even like him". Guards got the CCTV of her hanging all over him whilst he tried to walk home, grabbing bits of him below the waist and basically the entire act (was in the secure car park of their residence).

All he was guilty of was thinking a pretty girl was interested in him. Turned out she was making a point she could get anyone.

This is not typical. far from it - but it does happen and that lad has a guilty sign on him as far as many colleagues are concerned.

So grabbing a guy below the waist is considered consent to sex in your institution? Hopefully this is well advertised on your website so female students are well informed about the need to act like nuns if they don't want to be raped.

PlaneSpeeking

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.

You're the one lying dear.

You said 2% of RAPES led to a conviction. I said - correctly - it was 2% of REPORTS.

I did not say 98% were lying. There are shades of grey in everything, this included.

I demand you retract the false accusation.

vonlars

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I believe she did yes. I read that article and was stunned that someone could be so passive.

As a poster on here said once, there's difference betwen "NO" and "noooooooo giggle". Say yes if you want it, no if you don't.

I agree with you on that. I think RMC's situation is probably smack bang in the middle of a grey area and would come down to a lot of 'he said, she said'.

But in saying that, a lot of people are naturally passive. What makes their no mean any less? I know though, very grey area that I can see both sides of.

professore

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.
So grabbing a guy below the waist is considered consent to sex in your institution? Hopefully this is well advertised on your website so female students are well informed about the need to act like nuns if they don't want to be raped.

Posts like this make me even more adamant about the need to keep our current adversarial court system. Guilty until proven innocent is what you are looking for.

PlaneSpeeking

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.
So grabbing a guy below the waist is considered consent to sex in your institution? Hopefully this is well advertised on your website so female students are well informed about the need to act like nuns if they don't want to be raped.

Listen, could you try to follow for once ? I have made it clear and typically you are trying to cherry pick points to make an argument that someone did not make.

The female concerned said there had been no contact. None. Nothing sexual whatsoever. She claimed she was raped.

We then saw CCTV of her basically grabbing everything he had, unzipping him and riding him senseless in the open air.

Yeah he went along with it but she instigated and led the whole thing.

In that case, you're damned right she consented.

RWCNT

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.
So grabbing a guy below the waist is considered consent to sex in your institution? Hopefully this is well advertised on your website so female students are well informed about the need to act like nuns if they don't want to be raped.

Grabbing a guy below the waist out of the blue could easily be classed as sexual assault in and of itself tbh.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A promise does not constitute consent at a later date. The woman has every right to withdraw consent at any time. "Aww but you promised" doesnt wash.

That's all very well in the world of feminist theory. In the world of reality, though, a complainant who texted the accused all the things she planned to do to him that evening won't be viewed as sympathetically by a jury. She can claim that she withdrew consent, but the defense can still use her texts to create reasonable doubt.

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The day of my mother and father's first date in the 60s someone (not him!) grabbed her arse in a pub.

She turned round and decked him one. My dad said he knew then he'd found the woman to marry!

Fair play to her standing up for herself, although much easier to do so in a public place as opposed to just the two of them alone.

PlaneSpeeking

RWCNT wrote: »

Grabbing a guy below the waist out of the blue is an act of sexual assault in and of itself tbh.

Absolutely!

PlaneSpeeking

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Fair play to her standing up for herself, although much easier to do so in a public place as opposed to just the two of them alone.

God bless her she's been gone nearly 30 years but you know, she would have had the balls to do just that in private I'm sure.

The wold needs more here definitely!

One eyed Jack

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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?

I know assumptions aren’t facts. I was able to point out with facts that your assumptions that clothing says nothing is not a fact. We act on assumptions and expectations all the time, and depending upon your point of view, the world has not yet descended into chaos. It’s fine. The determining factor in the difference is context.

I’m not positing that our legal system should be based upon assumptions we make about other people based upon their appearance. I’m saying that your contention that clothes say nothing about a person is patently and provably false. I was able to do that by presenting evidence that is contrary to your personal belief.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

seamus wrote: »

I love how you omitted the last part of my post. Because I'm guessing you're a decent guy who would agree that wearing Ann Summers gear doesn't mean that your partner is automatically consenting to sex, but it just doesn't suit your point to answer that part.

The last part of your post said that she might be wearing the lingerie because she's planning to have sex with another man, or wearing it as a wind-up.

Both of those things are theoretically possible, but so highly improbable that I wouldn't even consider them, tbh.

Bigbagofcans

rtgdfd wrote: »

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.

Protest in Dublin was 13.00 - lunchtime. If I worked in town I could have popped out to join in for a few minutes.
Anyway, we all have the freedom to join in on whatever protests we want. Thank God for freedom of speech.

Oh and freedom for you to re-reg too

I never mentioned the defence. I said those protesting.

Feisar

The thread hasn't gone down this route, however is it acceptable for a TD to hold up a knickers in the Dáil?

Seems a bit cheap and done for shock value, reminded me of Khrushchev taking off his shoe and banging it at the UN.

Amirani

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.

Whilst there's been some disagreement in this thread from different sides, you seem to be the only one trying in an underhand way to deliberately misrepresent other posters. I'm not really in agreement with a lot of what the other poster said, but they never said what you're claiming. You're completely disingenuous.

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

God bless her she's been gone nearly 30 years but you know, she would have had the balls to do just that in private I'm sure.

The wold needs more here definitely!

I take it you haven't been assaulted before. But speaking from experience you don't know what way you're going to act in that situation.
Many freeze due to fear and what would come about if they put up a fight.

Grayson

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.

So what you're saying is that people infer something incorrect from your clothing? So therefore drawing assumptions from what someone wears is misleading?

Edit to add: and people shouldn't do it. Especially in court were facts should be presented.

One eyed Jack

Grayson wrote: »

So what you're saying is that people infer something incorrect from your clothing? So therefore drawing assumptions from what someone wears is misleading?

Grayson you know better than that

Grayson

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

[/B]

Pure Socialist/Commie types in fairness don't pretend to be democratic, they're idealogues and can become very dangerous when they take a set against a person or a group. Think of what went on in Soviet Union courthouses.

They will only accept Democracy and the justice system if it goes with them. They don't if they lose, Brexit, Trump for eg.

Err.. what? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Feisar

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Fair play to her standing up for herself, although much easier to do so in a public place as opposed to just the two of them alone.

If I decked every woman that grabbed my arse I'd have some rap sheet!

[Deleted User]

As the devil:

Any women I know says that thongs are very uncomfortable to wear. Is this not true?