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

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

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

You're acting like you're conducting a consent class for teenagers. I assume most people on the thread understand what "sexual consent" means, and don't need to have it explained in every other post.

The problem here relates to the legal difficulty of securing a conviction in a court of law if the complainant can be shown to have had preexisting sexual intent toward the accused. If the defense can show that she left her home with the intent of having sex, the prosecution will find it hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sex she ultimately did have was non-consensual, especially in a he said / she said scenario. That makes it all the more likely that the accused will walk, even if he is guilty.

ceadaoin.

nullzero wrote: »

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

Ok so you report it. Then your previous sex life, how you were dressed, how you behaved, how you behaved in the past, how you behaved after the fact, how much you drank, if you used drugs etc will all be combed through, exposed and questioned. In the UK the police can take your phone and devices and comb through your internet history and messages if you allege rape. So in that case, if you ever sent a suggestive text or looked at anything online that shows you like sex, it will be used against you.

All that for only a miniscule chance of a case being brought to court and an even more miniscule chance of a conviction? No thanks

You ARE victim blaming. You'd be better off directing your rage at the system that enables rapists to walk free rather than the individuals who are reluctant to go through further trauma.

nullzero

vonlars wrote: »

Maybe next time try something like 'A rapist getting away with it because of the failings in our justice system boils my blood.'

The legal system has no chance of success if everybody is cowering in fear of reporting a rapist.
The notion that having your sexual history revealed in court as if it is something to be ashamed of puzzles me surely we've moved beyond these archaic notions of shame.

retro:electro

If the defense can show that she left her home with the intent of having sex, the prosecution will find it hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sex she ultimately did have was non-consensual

The knickers she decided to wear that evening are neither here nor there when it comes to her intention to have sex later on that night.

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

You're acting like you're conducting a consent class for teenagers. I assume most people on the thread understand what "sexual consent" means, and don't need to
have it explained in every other post

Hmmm that’s debatable.

ohnonotgmail

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

You're acting like you're conducting a consent class for teenagers. I assume most people on the thread understand what "sexual consent" means, and don't need to have it explained in every other post.

.

i dont think your assumption is valid.

ceadaoin.

nullzero wrote: »

The legal system has no chance of success if everybody is cowering in fear of reporting a rapist.
The notion that having your sexual history revealed in court as if it is something to be ashamed of puzzles me surely we've moved beyond these archaic notions of shame.

It's being exposed with the intent of justifying a rape and inferring that the person deserved it. The victim is questioned in minute detail in court about behaviour that in no way relates to the alleged crime. It's humiliating. There's something wrong with you if you really are "puzzled" as to why that's not something a lot of people want to go through.

One eyed Jack

Grayson wrote: »

Honestly, the thread is getting a bit confusing at this point.

I just think we shouldn't infer from someones underwear whether or not they consented to a sexual encounter. I don't think that argument should be allowed in court. I think that implying consent based on what pair of knickers someone put on hours before is just stupid. There's no logical connection between the two. If someone can make that logical connection, then sure it could be allowed. But Thong => Wants to shag you doesn't make any sense at all.

You’re making a perfectly valid argument if we were already certain that the accused was guilty of rape, and we know this because the accused admitted they intended to commit rape. In that case they could avoid a lengthy trial and spare their victim the trauma of having to give evidence for the States prosecution. However, the reason for a trial is because the accused maintains that they are innocent of the charge of rape. In a case like this where the defendant has plead not guilty to the charges against them, they are entitled to any evidence which the prosecution has, whether or not the prosecution intend to use it, in order to aid in their own defence. It’s very simply laid out with no jargon here -

In a criminal trial the prosecution is obliged to disclose to the defence, in advance of the trial, all relevant evidence which it has. If you are charged with a criminal offence, you have the right to be provided with the evidence the prosecution intends using at your trial, as well as the evidence which it has but does not intend to use, if that evidence could assist your defence.

This duty to disclose is based on natural and constitutional justice, case law and statutory principles. However, the duty differs between summary prosecutions, which are tried in the District Court before a judge without a jury, and prosecutions on indictment, which are tried before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court or the Central Criminal Court.

In short, it isn’t up to the prosecution to decide what evidence the defendant may use in their defence, and they may well choose to use the fact that the witness for the prosecution was wearing a thong which informed their honest belief that the encounter was consensual and that they had not been negligent in obtaining consent. It’s still the job of the prosecution to counter that defence and show that the defendant could not have been of the belief that the alleged encounter was consensual.

That’s not suggesting that anything someone is wearing gives another person any entitlement to commit rape, which appears to be the argument against the introduction into evidence of what some people regard as a piece of clothing like any other clothing used to cover the body, or what some people regard as an invitation to a consensual sexual encounter. We’re all agreed on the fact that a persons clothing is not an invitation to rape them. Where we appear to disagree is whether or not what took place was actually rape, which is a different argument entirely from the argument over clothing.

nullzero

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's being exposed with the intent of justifying a rape and inferring that the person deserved it. The victim is questioned in minute detail in court about behaviour that in no way relates to the alleged crime. It's humiliating. There's something wrong with you if you really are "puzzled" as to why that's not something a lot of people want to go through.

I don't see why sex should be seen as shameful in any context in 2018.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

The knickers she decided to wear that evening are neither here nor there when it comes to her intention to have sex later on that night.

So you keep saying. And yet the accused's barrister (who is a woman, btw) was able to use the aforementioned knickers effectively in her client's defense, so they're evidently not as "neither here nor there" as you believe.

retro:electro

nullzero wrote: »

I don't see why sex should be seen as shameful in any context in 2018.

It shouldn’t be. But when it’s framed in a way to discredit you, perhaps picked up on and reported in media, sexual encounters and internet history detailed aloud for your friends and family to hear, and punctuated with an effort to try and lay the blame for your rape square at your feet; it’s embarrasing, ridiculing and off putting.

Cleopatra_

nullzero wrote: »

I don't see why sex should be seen as shameful in any context in 2018.

I'm certainly no prude but perhaps I wouldn't want my family and friends to be made aware of all of my previous sexual exploits.

nullzero

retro:electro wrote: »

It shouldn’t be. But when it’s framed in a way to discredit you, perhaps picked up on and reported in media, sexual encounters and internet history detailed aloud for your friends and family to hear, and punctuated with an effort to try and lay the blame for your rape square at your feet; it’s embarrasing, ridiculing and off putting.

To be honest, from having been in court a number of times (albeit not for a rape case) if something is not relevant to the case at hand the judge will not waste any time in reprimanding a barrister for badgering a witness.
The notion that reporting a rape means you will have to give a blow by blow account of your sexual history is ridiculous and creates a myth that encourages people to not report rape.

irishgrover

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote:

You're acting like you're conducting a consent class for teenagers. I assume most people on the thread understand what "sexual consent" means, and don't need to have it explained in every other post.

Just read this paragraph in isolation and it got me thinking....and I'm genuinely not joking..

Should everyone involved (solicitors, barristers, judge, and Jury), be forced to receive a class on what defines consent at the beginning of a rape case....because for the ****ing love of everything good in the world I don't know how someone's underwear has any bearing, in any universe, on consent..... How at barrister or judge can think it relevent or appropriate I don't know...

B0jangles

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

So you keep saying. And yet the accused's barrister (who is a woman, btw) was able to use the aforementioned knickers effectively in her client's defense, so they're evidently not as "neither here nor there" as you believe.

You seem to be trying to counter an argument that no-one is making.

Has anyone here claimed that people don't make unwarranted assumptions about people based on their clothing?

If the barrister's suggestion that the alleged victim's choice of underwear implied that she was prepared to have sex with whoever happened around resonated with the jury, that is not a good thing.

That is not something that should be encouraged or played upon.

People have pointed out over and over and over again that wearing a thong doesn't actually tell you anything about whether a person had consented to have sex with anyone.

You are apparently arguing that some people believe that it does, therefore it's a good argument to make.

It'd be like a barrister in a very racist part of the US suggesting that because a defendant is black they are naturally more likely to commit violent acts. That is an argument that would probably resonate strongly with racists, it might well work in helping getting a conviction - it'd still be grossly untrue and a dangerous and evil thing to do.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

B0jangles wrote: »

You are apparently arguing that some people believe that it does, therefore it's a good argument to make.

I'm pointing out that the defense barrister was doing her job, which was to convince the jury to find her client not guilty.

If the barrister had not made the argument, and her client had gone to jail, she would have failed to represent him to the fullest of her ability.

Again, her job was to defend her client, not pander to feminism.

joe40

irishgrover wrote: »

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote:

You're acting like you're conducting a consent class for teenagers. I assume most people on the thread understand what "sexual consent" means, and don't need to have it explained in every other post.

Just read this paragraph in isolation and it got me thinking....and I'm genuinely not joking..

Should everyone involved (solicitors, barristers, judge, and Jury), be forced to receive a class on what defines consent at the beginning of a rape case....because for the ****ing love of everything good in the world I don't know how someone's underwear has any bearing, in any universe, on consent..... How at barrister or judge can think it relevent or appropriate I don't know...

I have to agree with that. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial but I cannot think of a single scenario where an accuser choice of underwear is in any way remotely relevant.
Court cases don't have to reach the truth, just influence the jury.

B0jangles

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the defense barrister was doing her job, which was to convince the jury to find her client not guilty.

If the barrister had not made the argument, and her client had gone to jail, she would have failed to represent him to the fullest of her ability.

Again, her job was to defend her client, not pander to feminism.

Objecting to the courtroom use of ugly myths about what a person's choice of underwear tell you about them, is not 'pandering to feminism', though it is quite revealing that you think that it is.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

irishgrover wrote: »

Should everyone involved (solicitors, barristers, judge, and Jury), be forced to receive a class on what defines consent at the beginning of a rape case....because for the ****ing love of everything good in the world I don't know how someone's underwear has any bearing, in any universe, on consent..... How at barrister or judge can think it relevent or appropriate I don't know...

Everyone involved will be briefed on the charges brought against the accused and the pertinent law(s) that he is alleged to have broken. Forcing them to take some kind of consent class in advance of the hearing would evidently be seen as an effort to prejudice the outcome of the trial.

retro:electro

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Again, her job was to defend her client, not pander to feminism.

Well she wasn’t pandering to reality either.

goose2005

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ok so you report it. Then your previous sex life, how you were dressed, how you behaved, how you behaved in the past, how you behaved after the fact, how much you drank, if you used drugs etc will all be combed through, exposed and questioned. In the UK the police can take your phone and devices and comb through your internet history and messages if you allege rape. So in that case, if you ever sent a suggestive text or looked at anything online that shows you like sex, it will be used against you.

All that for only a miniscule chance of a case being brought to court and an even more miniscule chance of a conviction? No thanks

You ARE victim blaming. You'd be better off directing your rage at the system that enables rapists to walk free rather than the individuals who are reluctant to go through further trauma.

in fairness, the same is done to the accused, as in the Paddy Jackson trial, where speaking about women in a "disrespectful" manner online was treated as evidence that he was a rapist

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

joe40 wrote: »

Court cases don't have to reach the truth, just influence the jury.

Finally, someone gets it.

That's exactly right.

The barrister's job was to influence the jury to find reasonable doubt, which she did effectively, since he was acquitted.

Feisar

nullzero wrote: »

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

I hear you however the person that suffered the trauma needs to deal with it in the best way for themselves not what some might consider the moral high ground.

Feisar

retro:electro wrote: »

Well she wasn’t pandering to reality either.

Quite right, she was pandering to the juries perception. Which at that point in time was reality.

nullzero

Feisar wrote: »

I hear you however the person that suffered the trauma needs to deal with it in the best way for themselves not what some might consider the moral high ground.

There are too many myths being thrown around here in relation to this.
A rape trial doesn't feature all of the plaintiffs sexual exploits, it isn't an opportunity for the plaintiff to be embarrassed and made to feel ashamed, those perpetuating that notion should be ashamed of themselves.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

B0jangles wrote: »

Objecting to the courtroom use of ugly myths about what a person's choice of underwear tell you about them, is not 'pandering to feminism', though it is quite revealing that you think that it is.

Pandering to feminism would have involved not saying anything about the underwear and possibly watching her client go to jail.

She decided to stand up for her client and pull out all the stops to secure an acquittal, which was the correct thing for her to do in that position.

padd b1975

Simple_Simone wrote: »

I wonder who precisely, other than Coppinger, will benefit from yesterday's cheap PR stunt.

For me it's reminiscent of Clare Daly and Mick Wallaces' nonsensical "invasion" of Shannon Airport a few years ago.

Loads of free publicity for the media savvy couple, (their media pals having been tipped off in advance of the stunt) but the number of lives that it saved is probably zilch.

The daft bint has rehashed her speech several times on her Facebook page, that tells me quite a bit about her intentions.

Feisar

nullzero wrote: »

There are too many myths being thrown around here in relation to this.
A rape trial doesn't feature all of the plaintiffs sexual exploits, it isn't an opportunity for the plaintiff to be embarrassed and made to feel ashamed, those perpetuating that notion should be ashamed of themselves.

Please reread what I wrote.

Triceratops Ballet

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote:

Pandering to feminism would have involved not saying anything about the underwear and possibly watching her client go to jail.

Not saying anything would have been pandering to the truth, which is that what underwear someone wears is not indicative of their intentions.
If the underwear was forensic evidence it valid that it would be raised, if not its not, its really simple.

nullzero

Feisar wrote: »

Please reread what I wrote.

I wasn't pointing the finger at you with what I said.
I was addressing the mob that were attacking me earlier, I appreciate what you said wasn't directly related to the reply I posted.

B0jangles

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Pandering to feminism would have involved not saying anything about the underwear and possibly watching her client go to jail.

She decided to stand up for her client and pull out all the stops to secure an acquittal, which was the correct thing for her to do in that position.

Would it have been equally justifiable for the defence to suggest that the client's hair colour or the length of her skirt implied that she was ready and willing to sleep with anyone, just as long as they were fairly certain the jury was likely to believe such things are relevant?