Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

nullzero wrote: »

If you were genuinely raped you shouldn't be put off by anybody or any rhetoric.

I've been assaulted and had my life threatened by people with histories of violent behaviour, I didn't let them away with it and have had to attend court to deal with those issues.
When someone does something to hurt you you can let it go or fight, and I'm sorry but letting somebody away with rape because it's too much hassle allows them to re offend so there is a moral imperative to report a serious crime of any kind. Not having the stomach to deal with it isn't a valid excuse.

Everyone deals with trauma differently. Just because you had the mental strength to go through a court case doesn't mean every one else does.

Triceratops Ballet

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote:

Because even the Victoria's Secret lingerie retailer has a "

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote:

" that is exactly as it sounds -- sexy underwear for young women to wear on dates. You can even buy a

That's a marketing campaign to sell more thongs, they will tell you thongs mean anything you want if you'll only buy them. That is not evidence that thongs actually mean sex.
I would never wear a thong to be sexy (cos I don't think they're sexy at all) they're purely functional in my life and they are the same for many women, regardless of what the marketing folk at Victoria's Secret want you to believe

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

It's a lot more complex than that. There's the word of a man against the word of a woman. Then the character assassination of the woman, how many people have I slept with, do I seem to be promiscuous, how much had I to drink that night, what was I wearing? There's such a low rate of rape convictions I felt it wasn't worth putting myself through further trauma only to find out that a case wouldn't proceed or have it proceed and then have a not guilty verdict returned.

So your character is more important than the other women he will doubtless assault in the future.
I'm sorry you had that experience but you need to realise that you are allowing this person to re offend by not pursuing this.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Everyone deals with trauma differently. Just because you had the mental strength to go through a court case doesn't mean every one else does.

Sorry, that's a terrible argument.
Scumbags re offend exactly because of this type of attitude.

nullzero wrote: »

If you were genuinely raped you shouldn't be put off by anybody or any rhetoric.

I've been assaulted and had my life threatened by people with histories of violent behaviour, I didn't let them away with it and have had to attend court to deal with those issues.
When someone does something to hurt you you can let it go or fight, and I'm sorry but letting somebody away with rape because it's too much hassle allows them to re offend so there is a moral imperative to report a serious crime of any kind. Not having the stomach to deal with it isn't a valid excuse.

Are you for real?

Try being sexually abused for 10 years by a man 50 years your senior, going to a rape crisis centre and the guards at the age of 20 and being essentially told to fcuk off because there's no evidence.

I followed my moral imperative to report, so where did I go wrong? Why isn't he in jail?

retro:electro

nullzero wrote: »

If you were genuinely raped you shouldn't be put off by anybody or any rhetoric

Oh shut up.

seamus

nullzero wrote: »

So your character is more important than the other women he will doubtless assault in the future.
I'm sorry you had that experience but you need to realise that you are allowing this person to re offend by not pursuing this.

Or, by pursuing this and losing that may inadvertently give him more impetus to re-offend, seeing how easily he got away with it. At least with the sword of damocles hanging over his head he might be keeping a low profile.

You see? We can all make up insensitive bollox that suits a narrative.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

vonlars wrote: »

Being open to the possibility of sex does not being open to having sex.

We're talking about a court of law here, in which, to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

Going on a date, dressing up, wearing sexy underwear, etc., are all factors that a defense barrister can exploit to create reasonable doubt. If the complainant went out with the intent of having sex, it's inevitably going to be more difficult to convince a jury that the sex she ultimately had wasn't consensual.

nullzero wrote: »

Sorry, that's a terrible argument.
Scumbags re offend exactly because of this type of attitude.

Sorry, but you have a very narrow minded, self-centered view on the matter.
You are over simplifying what is an extremely complex issue.
A bit of perspective and compassion wouldn't go amiss here.

vonlars wrote: »

Are you for real?

Try being sexually abused for 10 years by a man 50 years your senior, going to a rape crisis centre and the guards at the age of 20 and being essentially told to fcuk off because there's no evidence.

I followed my moral imperative to report, so where did I go wrong? Why isn't he in jail?

With the amount of cases similar to that resulting in convictions recently I'm shocked you didn't get justice. There must be some awful failings in the system for that to occur.

joe40

nullzero wrote: »

vonlars wrote: »

Have you thought about taking up a job in a rape crisis centre? They could do with more people like you.

Go to any of them and they'll dissuade you from reporting unless you have ample evidence. They know the **** storm you're getting yourself in for.

If you were genuinely raped you shouldn't be put off by anybody or any rhetoric.

I've been assaulted and had my life threatened by people with histories of violent behaviour, I didn't let them away with it and have had to attend court to deal with those issues.
When someone does something to hurt you you can let it go or fight, and I'm sorry but letting somebody away with rape because it's too much hassle allows them to re offend so there is a moral imperative to report a serious crime of any kind. Not having the stomach to deal with it isn't a valid excuse.

What happened in court, was the defendant found guilty.
Imagine if it was simply your word against theirs, no other evidence, no witness, no physical injury.
I don't think I would go through with a case in those circumstances. Obviously everyone is entitled to a fair trial, but in many rape cases there is limited evil so convictions are difficult.

Cleopatra_

nullzero wrote: »

So your character is more important than the other women he will doubtless assault in the future.
I'm sorry you had that experience but you need to realise that you are allowing this person to re offend by not pursuing this.

The chances of this person being convicted are incredibly low, so I wasn't willing to risk further trauma for an outcome that would most likely be not guilty if it even went to trial. I only had a first name for him and I didn't even know if it was real, and no other information, so even tracking him down would have been difficult. I started a thread about it in personal issues and I was very much torn apart and told I just had ''buyers remorse'' and a lot of other comments along the same lines. Some posters were supportive but the vast majority weren't. It certainly made me realise I had absolutely no chance of getting a conviction. If he does it again, I'd certainly feel guilt for not reporting him but I just couldn't cope with the scrutiny. Even the boards thread left me in total turmoil at a very vulnerable time.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry, but you have a very narrow minded, self-centered view on the matter.
You are over simplifying what is an extremely complex issue.
A bit of perspective and compassion wouldn't go amiss here.

That's your opinion.
People need to report rapists, should the system fail you it's awful but allowing people away with it is not the answer.

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

We're talking about a court of law here, in which, to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

Going on a date, dressing up, wearing sexy underwear, etc., are all factors that a defense barrister can exploit to create reasonable doubt. If the complainant went out with the intent of having sex, it's inevitably going to be more difficult to convince a jury that the sex she ultimately had wasn't consensual.

That's the problem though. I've gone out looking awful with the intent of having sex. What bearing does that have on whether or not something becomes rape? None. Clothes should not be relevant. That's the first step in assessing whether or not evidence is admissible. There is no relevancy between clothes and consent. Perhaps clothes and intent, but not clothes and consent.

B0jangles

nullzero wrote: »

If you were genuinely raped you shouldn't be put off by anybody or any rhetoric.

I've been assaulted and had my life threatened by people with histories of violent behaviour, I didn't let them away with it and have had to attend court to deal with those issues.
When someone does something to hurt you you can let it go or fight, and I'm sorry but letting somebody away with rape because it's too much hassle allows them to re offend so there is a moral imperative to report a serious crime of any kind. Not having the stomach to deal with it isn't a valid excuse.

Apart from anything else, comparing violent assault with rape is stupid because very very few people get consensually beaten up, do they?

If you come in to a police station covered in bruises and tell them that X attacked you, no-one is going to ask you if you're sure you didn't want to to be beaten but are now regretting it because you're embarassed. Or say that your choice of underwear suggests that you went out looking to get punched in the head.

retro:electro wrote: »

Oh shut up.

We'll all shut up and let rapists run free.

nullzero wrote: »

That's your opinion.
People need to report rapists, should the system fail you it's awful but allowing people away with it is not the answer.

And I don't disagree with you, but I'm not thick skulled enough to insist that its as simple as insisting that everyone should report their assaults just because you did.
Not everyone is equipped to go through the process. We shouldn't judge them for this.

SusieBlue wrote: »

And I don't disagree with you, but I'm not thick skulled enough to insist that its as simple as insisting that everyone should report their assaults just because you did.
Not everyone is equipped to go through the process. We shouldn't judge them for this.

A rapist getting away with it for not being reported boils my blood.

nullzero wrote: »

We'll all shut up and let rapists run free.

No one is advocating that at all. Again with the over simplifying.

seenitall

nullzero wrote: »

Did I wake up this morning to an Ireland that has suddenly adopted sharia law?
A pair of underpants get shown around a court in a rape case(in which the jury found in favor of the defendant), and whilst it may have been in poor taste the ideological nightmare you've outlined above is ridiculously wide of the mark.

A rape accusation is a presumption of guilt until innocence is proven, we have a modern legal system in which due process is valued and this man faced a jury of his peers and was found to be innocent.

How a pair of underpants being displayed as part of the evidence in a rape case is barbaric I don't know.

I outlined my answers to your questions above upthread already (morning time), as have others, many, many times. Look it all up if you're interested in my personal view, I'm not repeating myself. And obviously you're welcome to disagree. This thread is just going round in circles now, I'm out.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That's a marketing campaign to sell more thongs, they will tell you thongs mean anything you want if you'll only buy them. That is not evidence that thongs actually mean sex.

The media, fashion, and music industries frequently associate thongs with sex. Some schools have even banned teenage girls from wearing thong underwear because it is too sexual, and thongs are banned from many family beaches.

It's a bit silly to pretend the association doesn't exist.

B0jangles

nullzero wrote: »

A rapist getting away with it for not being reported boils my blood.

Take your rage towards the criminal justice system then, don't blame rape victims for looking at what happens to the majority of people who try to get justice and saying 'no thanks, I'll pass on being humiliated in court, having every detail of my personal life scrutinized for evidence of having had sex with anyone at any time, all for the slim chance of them being convicted and receiving a couple of years in prison, out in 18 months with good behaviour'

SusieBlue wrote: »

No one is advocating that at all. Again with the over simplifying.

I was told to shut up by another poster. , I wasn't addressing you.

nullzero wrote: »

With the amount of cases similar to that resulting in convictions recently I'm shocked you didn't get justice. There must be some awful failings in the system for that to occur.

Yet you want to continue to allow victim blaming? Class.

ohnonotgmail

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

The media, fashion, and music industries frequently associate thongs with sex. Some schools have even banned teenage girls from wearing thong underwear because it is too sexual, and thongs are banned from many family beaches.

It's a bit silly to pretend the association doesn't exist.

and this has **** all to do with a rape trial.

joe40

nullzero wrote: »

vonlars wrote: »

Have you thought about taking up a job in a rape crisis centre? They could do with more people like you. Go to any of them and they'll dissuade you from reporting unless you have ample evidence. They know the **** storm you're getting yourself in for.

If you were genuinely raped you shouldn't be put off by anybody or any rhetoric. I've been assaulted and had my life threatened by people with histories of violent behaviour, I didn't let them away with it and have had to attend court to deal with those issues. When someone does something to hurt you you can let it go or fight, and I'm sorry but letting somebody away with rape because it's too much hassle allows them to re offend so there is a moral imperative to report a serious crime of any kind. Not having the stomach to deal with it isn't a valid excuse.

What happened in court, was the defendant found guilty.Imagine if it was simply your word against theirs, no other evidence, no witness, no physical injury. I don't think I would go through with a case in those circumstances. Obviously everyone is entitled to a fair trial, but in many rape cases there is limited eviidence so convictions are difficult.

vonlars wrote: »

Yet you want to continue to allow victim blaming? Class.

When did I blame victims?
Rape should be reported, saying so isn't victim blaming.

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't care that they were effective, because I don't care about the verdict.
The verdict is irrelevant. If the man had been found guilty I would be of the same opinion.
Her choice of knickers should never have been called into question to determine whether she was up for the ride or not.
A court of law is no place to be analysing the underwear of a 17 year old girl.

The only judge of whether it's relevant or not should be .... the judge !!!! Not you, me or anyone else. And seeing there isn't a law against it, it has to be allowed.

retro:electro

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

The media, fashion, and music industries frequently associate thongs with sex. Some schools have even banned teenage girls from wearing thong underwear because it is too sexual, and thongs are banned from many family beaches.

It's a bit silly to pretend the association doesn't exist.

Again something looking sexual and something implying sexual consent are two different things.