AndrewJRenko wrote: » Everything? Would you expect them to lie? Would you expect them to blame other family members for your crime? Are there any ethical limits as to what you expect your barrister to do?
retro:electro wrote: » The underwear a victim wears has no bearing on whether or not she intends to have sex, because it’s an item of clothing that’s put on before the possibility of sex is even on the table. She could have went for the laciest thong in Ireland because a) she felt hot in it or b) the rest was in the wash. It does not give anyone the right to assign meaning to them, and infer that sex was on the table cos Glamour magazine or whoever the fcuk said so.
Samuel Zealous Stereoscope wrote: » It was ln the news, and I'll be honest, I was waiting to see who would open a thread to get a cheap dig or laugh over what is ultimately a serious issue.
MonkieSocks wrote: » Did Ruth Coppinger take her own thong off in the D Jacks, before showing it off for all to see?
One eyed Jack wrote: » You’re jumping the gun there assuming that the alleged victim in this case was raped. The underwear a person wears can have a bearing on whether or not they intend to have sex, precisely because it’s an item that it’s not unreasonable to assume is put on for the express purpose of having sex. The style of underwear worn absolutely gives anyone the right to assign whatever meaning they like to them, not because Glamour magazine says so or you say so or anyone else says so, because that is every individuals right to make that determination for themselves. The idea of telling people what they are or aren’t supposed to think is basically thought policing, and the idea that evidence should be excluded because the argument is that the jury may form an opinion one way or the other of the alleged victim is literally a demonstration of saying that you don’t trust that the jury is of the same mind as you are. You don’t trust that they are capable of forming an opinion of their own without being told what to think. That’s really not going to work, because that’s not how you change people’s way of thinking.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » WTAF?
limnam wrote: » Do people actually use that phrase when they're talking. or is like lol, were you wouldn't actually say lol until those idiots who starting saying lawl popped up.
eviltwin wrote: » Whenever I went on the pull I wore my reinforced underwear, anything that would suck in my wobbly bits and make me look slimmer. So I don't buy the idea OEJ, that a woman looking for sex will wear the flimsy knickers you seem to think she will.
Fann Linn wrote: » Lots of women don't have wobbly bits!
One eyed Jack wrote: » You’re jumping the gun there assuming that the alleged victim in this case was raped. The underwear a person wears can have a bearing on whether or not they intend to have sex, precisely because it’s an item that it’s not unreasonable to assume is put on for the express purpose of having sex. The style of underwear worn absolutely gives anyone the right to assign whatever meaning they like to them, not because Glamour magazine says so or you say so or anyone else says so, because that is every individuals right to make that determination for themselves. .
eviltwin wrote: » Absolutely but my point is you can never assume what someones intentions are based on their undies.
limnam wrote: » Didn't the friend of the NI case say something like she obviously wasn't going out looking as she told me didn't shave her legs. It sounds like both sides of the coin offer up these "traits" to suggest one thing or another...
professore wrote: » Is there a report of the context of the thong reference? I couldn't find any, only hysterical clickbait articles.
Faugheen wrote: » It’s so alarming that so many people in this thread don’t get the message Coppinger was trying to convey. I can’t stand her as much as the next person, but she’s absolutely making a valid point here.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » WTAF? I have literally so many conversations from the group chat about outfits for the weekend and would it be better to wear thongs or no underwear to avoid vpl, depending on what they were planning on wearing. It would be subject to a lengthily discussion. I don’t know about what you have in mind Jack, when you put on your favorite matching underwear, but “these will get me laid” is not usually a thought I’d be thinking when rooting through my knickers drawer.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Maybe this girl put on a thong for sex , maybe because she didn't want a knicker line visible under a tight dress? Maybe because it was the first clean pair she found when getting ready? Maybe she just likes them? There are way more reasons to wear this type of underwear than for the "express purpose" of having sex, and even if she did, it does not mean that she wanted to have sex with this particular person does it? (Seems even less likely she would want to do it outside in the mud and with his hand to her throat as was witnessed but what do I know? No no, let's focus on her underwear. She must have been completely up for it based on that)
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I found 8% for Ireland.https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/sexual-offences-a-system-in-need-of-change-1.3443529 Would you be advising a family member to take on the intense trauma of a court case with an 8% chance of conviction?
The Annual Report of the Courts Service makes disturbing reading in relation to rape cases. During 2013, the Central Criminal Court dealt with a total of 567 rape cases. Seventy-three of the accused pleaded guilty, thereby saving the court valuable time, for which they would have received reduced sentences. Of the others charged before the court, 205 defendants were sent to trial. Those trials ended with 35 convictions, and 155 acquittals. In 15 instances, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict. One way of interpreting those figures would be that the jury convicted fractionally over 17% of those tried for rape and acquitted 76.6%. Those figures did not take into account 289 other cases. In 106 instances, the State entered a nolle prosequi, and the rape charge was listed as having been taken into consideration in the other 183 cases.
BoatMad wrote: » yes , but the opposite point is that a defendant has to be able to present an adequate defence and has to have the ability to present anything that might cast doubt in a juries mind Otherwise , what you and other's seem to be suggesting is the word of an appellant in a rape case carries more weight that then defendant ! in many sexual assault claims, there is typically no witness or third party evidence and this leaves defendants at a clear disadvantage for example how do you defend against post facto withdrawal of consent
tritium wrote: » Except those figures appear to be very deliberately pushed down, presumably by someone with an axe to grind. It’s easy to do by the way - most extreme case would be to take everyone who said they were raped, regardless of any evidential position and divide number of adversarial convictions by that number- there you go, an impossibly low number based on distorted statistics. (Actually Sweden, with one of the highest rape rates in the world, actually manages to top that by treating each instance of penetration as a separate rape in their statistics: a bit like treating every item stolen from a house as a separate burglary). For context, here’s some 2014 figures, with explanatory detail - this claims a 17% rate:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/editorial/rape-conviction-rate-offers-no-protection-276761.html Now 17% seems shockingly low, until you realize that actually these figures are also being deliberately dumbed down. In fact 108 out of 278 cases sent to a court were convictions with 155 acquittals. In another 183 cases the offense was taken into account in sentencing for other crimes. More interestingly however a large number didn’t get to court. It would be interesting to see the breakdown here between cases where the accuser wouldn’t proceed/ cooperate and where there simply wasn’t a hope of conviction based on the evidence. A hell of a lot higher than 2% or even 8%. Yet certain groups seem to have a pass to peddle certain rape myths.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Would the same logic apply to a low cut top or short skirt, as an indicator of a desire for sex. Jeez, theres regular enough discussions on topical rape trials, i'd be one of the first to condemn any attempt to have a conplainants word carry more weight than a defendants, but a line was crossed here. There is zero merit in producing these. She put them on hours before the alleged assault. His defence should be based on something more than "well Judge, she was wearing sexy knickers, so i assumed she was on for a shag" .
professore wrote: » It's alarming to me that so many people DO get the message she is trying to convey and don't realise it would destroy the concept of a fair trial. They also get the obvious double standards that would allow banter on a private WhatsApp group as evidence but not what the victim was wearing... Or maybe they would only allow evidence that made the accused look bad? And also they don't get that saying any of this does not make you a rape apologist. Or it doesn't stop you believing it's a ridiculous idea that just because you wear a thong you are looking for sex.
BoatMad wrote: » yes , but the opposite point is that a defendant has to be able to present an adequate defence and has to have the ability to present anything that might cast doubt in a juries mind
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Some can just see through her nonsense is all. She's just using this to further her non stop nauseating radical feminist agenda.
