Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Oh Jack, with the greatest of respect. I just cannot be arsed.

Did Ruth Coppinger take her own thong off in the D Jacks, before showing it off for all to see?


Or was a knock from that Ann Sumners shop on O'Connell st?

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.

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.

.

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)

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Some can just see through her nonsense is all. She's just using this to further her non stop nauseating radical feminist agenda. She's bound to touch upon a smidgen of truth once in awhile but I'd even question if she has really done that here tbh, given some of her remarks.

If she had just made the point about how she feels that some lines of defense should not be allowed during sexual assault trials, namely suggesting that what someone wore conveyed consent, then that would have been fine (and the recent Cork case certainly appears to have crossed a line in that regard) but she in fact said, and did, much more.............

Firstly, she began by citing the Belfast Rape Trial and claiming that the complainant had been mistreated and that her clothing had been passed around the jury (as a means of victim blaming). This is highly inaccurate and in fact the woman's clothing was entered into evidence by the prosecution themselves given that they were claiming that the accused men had injured her causing her to bleed on her clothing. The defense then attempted to rebut that evidence and in front of the jury questioned her as to why it was that there was blood stains on her underwear when she had said in her evidence that she had not put them on again after the alleged attack.

At no stage during the trial did anyone (to my knowledge) do what Coppinger has suggested, and merely displayed her underwear in some attempt at suggesting that if she wore such clothing then she must have been up for it.

She also prattled on about #metoo and spoke about it as if it was some kind of resistance movement and I suppose, in her head there is. Let's just forget that the metoo movement has led directly, and indirectly, to people taking their lives and being used as a political tool to try and prevent people from obtaining positions in Government which the left would rather they did not.

Ruth stood in the Dail and complained that she feels there is an aspect of sexual assault trials which is unfair and yet, with no sense of irony, then spoke about a movement which has shown total disregard for the concept of innocent until proven guilty, doesn't respect due process and demands action be taken against those who have merely being accused.

Yeah, I'm thinking Ruth is the last person who should be pontificating to the country on matters of judicial fairness.