Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

retro:electro wrote: »

Na you just need to be more articulate.

Okay, will we go to my initial statement and break it down?

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

I dont usually stoop to the level of Matt Coopers Journalism but last night I had to make an exception.

A high court judge appeared and he made a relevant point and I'm paraphrasing here.

If a man is charged with the crime of rape, and is acquitted, formally, its as though no crime has been committed. (certainly not been proven)

If you extend that logic one step further, if you accept that no crime has been committed (or proven) how can there be a victim?

If there is no conviction there is no victim as such. If there is a conviction then justice has been served.

Victim blaming is an utter nonsense. In the eyes of the law you are either guilty or not guilty and the courts verdict stands.

If the case had been poorly handled they'd have a point but then it wouldn't be victim blaming. It would be pointing out incompetence or negligence. But they didnt actually discuss the case on its merits. She waved a pair of knickers in the air and we all have to jump to attention.

The system isnt easy for anyone but youd never hear Ruth Coppinger acknowledge the fact that a man has been found not guilty of rape according to the law.

Recently we had a proposal that we have female only applications for third level professor jobs.

Where was Ruthie when this happened?

It was notable that Ruth Coppinger wouldn't let the man make his pint and kept interrupting him.

Bigbagofcans

nullzero wrote: »

It was intended as such.

I see you were having a little complain about my comment about you being great craic, jesus can you lighten up a bit?

And I see you're complaining about me complaining? We're even so!

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

And I see you're complaining about me complaining? We're even so!

Am I in a playground or something?

Is there anything to be said for changing the title of the thread ? It's really putting me off me choccy!

Bigbagofcans

Imagine how the girl felt having her thong held up in court.

In relation to the tonight show last night, it was obvious that the legal profession have taken offence to some of the allegations levelled at the feet in relation to this case.
I haven't seen it myself but the judge mentioned that the barrister in question had her name and address leaked online and had received a raft of abuse as a result.
Is this really how we conduct ourselves as a society?
Something appears on the surface to be immoral so therefor it is open season on those involved?
If we're talking about social justice issues surely people have the right to privacy and not be targeted for abuse and intimidation.

Lillybloom

Choice of underwear should be treated like choice of any other garment. If their is relevant evidence or probabilities inferred from the choice they should taken into account.

Conor McGregor's famous "red panty night" slogan became a meme for a reason.

orourkeda1977 wrote:

If a man is charged with the crime of rape, and is acquitted, formally, its as though no crime has been committed. (certainly not been proven)

A girl genuinely believes that she didn't give consent but a jury can't be 100 percent certain then the man is aquitted. The girl is still a victim. Remember that the jury might not be 100 percent sure that she did not give consent but they also might not be 100 percent that she did give consent. I'm not talking about the recent case but being aquitted is a long way away from being proved innocent.

We have lots of guilty people aquitted in Ireland because we don't want to lock up innocent people. This is the correct way to do things as we don't want innocent people in prison but never assume that aquitted means proven innocent. It means that they jury weren't 100 percent sure of guilt. Aquitted obviously doesn't mean guilty either.

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Imagine how the girl felt having her thong held up in court.

Sickened I say.

RWCNT

Rennaws wrote: »

This has become a really ugly thread..

Liberals always seem to get so personal when faced with alternative opinions.

And when faced with alternative opinions voices on the other side make daft posts about protesters hair colour, protesters apparently not having jobs or "real jobs", call people "leftards" etc. etc. It goes both ways, conservatives do tend to be more mopey about it despite being the ones to categorise their opponents as sensitive little snowflakes though.

Compared to the average thread on Muslims, Travellers, Tommy Robinson, Transgender People etc. I think this thread has actually been relatively civil and productive for the most part! What bits stood out to you as being particularly ugly?

nullzero wrote: »

In relation to the tonight show last night, it was obvious that the legal profession have taken offence to some of the allegations levelled at the feet in relation to this case.
I haven't seen it myself but the judge mentioned that the barrister in question had her name and address leaked online and had received a raft of abuse as a result.
Is this really how we conduct ourselves as a society?
Something appears on the surface to be immoral so therefor it is open season on those involved?
If we're talking about social juaiissues surely people have the right to privacy and not be targeted for abuse and intimidation.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A girl genuinely believes that she didn't give consent but a jury can't be 100 percent certain then the man is aquitted. The girl is still a victim. Remember that the jury might not be 100 percent sure that she did not give consent but they also might not be 100 percent that she did give consent. I'm not talking about the recent case but being aquitted is a long way away from being proved innocent.

We have lots of guilty people aquitted in Ireland because we don't want to lock up innocent people. This is the correct way to do things as we don't want innocent people in prison but never assume that aquitted means proven innocent. It means that they jury weren't 100 percent sure of guilt. Aquitted obviously doesn't mean guilty either.

Terrifying.

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

Terrifying.

But 100 percent factual

RWCNT wrote: »

What bits stood out to you as being particularly ugly?

Well for me, was a poster that don't understand a question mark and the concept of a follow on question.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But 100 percent factual

No it isn't, in fact it would be viewed as libelous.

One eyed Jack

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Because they are coming at this from as incorrect a perspective as anyone saying "all women ask for it". They're holding signs up talking about "victim blaming" - the lad was found not guilty, there was no victim in this case. If you make an accusation against someone then absolutely you should be questioned in court.

Worryingly there are some people, groups etc (probably some posters on here) who think we should believe every single woman when she says she has been raped.

Whatever about the rest of what you said PS, you certainly can’t say there was no victim in this case. The girl in this case believes she was the victim of rape. Nobody here can say whether she was or she wasn’t. I don’t worry at all about people who say that the victim, regardless of their gender, should be believed. I would also believe the person who says they didn’t rape someone. It’s possible to believe both parties are telling the truth.

This only becomes an issue in a court of law where the offence of rape is clearly defined in law. Then it’s a question of whether or not the accused is guilty of the offence of rape. I don’t worry that there will ever be a point where someone is convicted of an offence solely on the word of the victim. Finding a person or persons not guilty of rape isn’t suggesting that the victim is lying, it’s stating that the defendant did not commit rape. They’re two very different things - one judgement is focused on the victim, the other is focused on the person who is accused of rape. That person is on trial, not the victim.

I don’t think anyone has suggested, not in this thread at least, that the victim shouldn’t be questioned. They’re making the point that it’s the way in which the defence present their case is the issue. I can understand where they’re coming from, as it does make it difficult for the prosecution to make their case that would lead to a successful prosecution. What I disagree with is the implication of what they’re saying - that the accused should not also be believed, that they should not have the right to a fair trial.

There are no legal consequences for the victim if the defendant is found not guilty, as the victim was never on trial. There are legal consequences for the defendant if they are found guilty according to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. This could lead to innocent people being convicted of the offence of rape when they did not rape anyone.

I see the low conviction rate as a success of our judicial system, that we take the offence of rape so seriously that we do not convict people on a whim, that we give people a fair trial. Any attempt to interfere with that process in order to address some perceived imbalance would mean ensuring that the defendant did not receive a fair trial, and that in my mind at least, would be very wrong. It’s shìt for the victim of course, but the process isn’t at fault because the prosecution fails to make their case. Blaming the jury, or the defence, or the defendant for the prosecution failing to make their case, is wrong. It’s the prosecution are entirely responsible for whether or not they fail to make their case, and there is one simple way to address this - the prosecution shouldn’t take cases to trial unless they are guaranteed they can secure a conviction. I don’t see that happening no matter how much the judicial process is tinkered with in order to favour the prosecution. At the end of the day it will still come down to what the members of the jury believe about the defendant, as it is the defendant is on trial, not their accuser.

B0jangles

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Terrifying.

But that is quite literally true for every possible crime?

If I steal from you, and you know with 100% certainty that it was me, but I manage to come up with some convincing evidence that it wasn't me who did it; enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and secure an acquittal, would you turn around and proclaim my total and absolute innocence?

Even though you know I did it, you saw me do it - is the opinion of the court more valid that your own first-hand knowledge?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But 100 percent factual

Only if you have no belief in justice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of what you said PS, you certainly can’t say there was no victim in this case. The girl in this case believes she was the victim of rape. Nobody here can say whether she was or she wasn’t. I don’t worry at all about people who say that the victim, regardless of their gender, should be believed. I would also believe the person who says they didn’t rape someone. It’s possible to believe both parties are telling the truth.

This only becomes an issue in a court of law where the offence of rape is clearly defined in law. Then it’s a question of whether or not the accused is guilty of the offence of rape. I don’t worry that there will ever be a point where someone is convicted of an offence solely on the word of the victim. Finding a person or persons not guilty of rape isn’t suggesting that the victim is lying, it’s stating that the defendant did not commit rape. They’re two very different things - one judgement is focused on the victim, the other is focused on the person who is accused of rape. That person is on trial, not the victim.

I don’t think anyone has suggested, not in this thread at least, that the victim shouldn’t be questioned. They’re making the point that it’s the way in which the defence present their case is the issue. I can understand where they’re coming from, as it does make it difficult for the prosecution to make their case that would lead to a successful prosecution. What I disagree with is the implication of what they’re saying - that the accused should not also be believed, that they should not have the right to a fair trial.

There are no legal consequences for the victim if the defendant is found not guilty, as the victim was never on trial. There are legal consequences for the defendant if they are found guilty according to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. This could lead to innocent people being convicted of the offence of rape when they did not rape anyone.

I see the low conviction rate as a success of our judicial system, that we take the offence of rape so seriously that we do not convict people on a whim, that we give people a fair trial. Any attempt to interfere with that process in order to address some perceived imbalance would mean ensuring that the defendant did not receive a fair trial, and that in my mind at least, would be very wrong. It’s shìt for the victim of course, but the process isn’t at fault because the prosecution fails to make their case. Blaming the jury, or the defence, or the defendant for the prosecution failing to make their case, is wrong. It’s the prosecution are entirely responsible for whether or not they fail to make their case, and there is one simple way to address this - the prosecution shouldn’t take cases to trial unless they are guaranteed they can secure a conviction. I don’t see that happening no matter how much the judicial process is tinkered with in order to favour the prosecution. At the end of the day it will still come down to what the members of the jury believe about the defendant, as it is the defendant is on trial, not their accuser.

I disagree that she's a victim - feeling like one doesn't make you a victim - but I respect the rest of the post and agree.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

RWCNT wrote: »

Fair play to you for looking into it and changing your mind.

From reading your post this morning you seem to agree that went down here wasn't right, so what's your reason for feeling the protesters are idiots?

But if it's years after there is really no point going. That sounds harsh but without evidence what can people do ? I have a real problem with people my age claiming abuse in childhood and getting a conviction on nothing - it scares me that I could actually claim to have been abused by a nun, or a teacher and ruin their life as I would be believed.

Could you point to some examples of cases where a victim got a "conviction on nothing" please?

nullzero wrote:

No it isn't, in fact it would be viewed as libelous.

You just made that up. You can NOT be proven innocent. You can be acquitted but not proven innocent.

In a case where the girl didn't give consent the jury don't find that she did give consent. The jury might be 95 percent convinced that she didn't give consent but the 5 percent of uncertainty means that they must acquit.

Here we go

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But 100 percent factual

100% wrong he's innocent as is everyone till proven guilty and if not then there innocent your going back to medieval times where you had to prove your innocence

As for the garment in question does it imply consent no not at all

But 1 when someone's freedom is in the line they should be entitled to use all arguments they feel will prove there innocence
2 the garment alone dies not imply consent on its own when put forward with other events and circumstances could be worth considering as a whole

RWCNT

YFlyer wrote: »

Well for me, was a poster that don't understand a question mark and the concept of a follow on question.

I don't want to be rude with you but what you were actually asking and/or what your implication was quite unclear at first. The poster simply picked you up wrong and you can surely see where they were coming from if you were asking those questions in all sincerity, as opposed to rhetorical questions.

Neyite

nullzero wrote: »

In relation to the tonight show last night, it was obvious that the legal profession have taken offence to some of the allegations levelled at the feet in relation to this case.
I haven't seen it myself but the judge mentioned that the barrister in question had her name and address leaked online and had received a raft of abuse as a result.
Is this really how we conduct ourselves as a society?
Something appears on the surface to be immoral so therefor it is open season on those involved?
If we're talking about social justice issues surely people have the right to privacy and not be targeted for abuse and intimidation.

Her name and who she works for was in the original newspaper report, plus a photograph IIRC.

Doxxing her home address is reprehensible. Challenge her on her remarks made in a professional context but her personal life and that of her family should be off limits.

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

Only if you have no belief in justice.

I have great belief in the justice system. The justice system doesn't jail innocent people or at least tries not to. This is a great thing. However it does in some cases leave guilty people out on the streets. This is a fact of life.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have great belief in the justice system. The justice system doesn't jail innocent people or at least tries not to. This is a great thing. However it does in some cases leave guilty people out on the streets. This is a fact of life.

It doesn't though - that is the point!

If you believe that you get the moron I work with who routinely refers to Jackson and indeed Ched Evans as "rapists". They're none of the sort.

I believe OJ murdered his wife and Mr Brown - but I won't call him a murderer as he was found guilty. Do I like it ? No.

But that's the system.