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

Bigbagofcans

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Imagine how the guy felt being charged with rape if he genuinely thought it was consensual sex...

Well yes that too. BUT the thread is about the girl's thong being held up in court which I believe is wrong on all levels.

Riskymove

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn’t anything wrong or unreasonable in assuming anyone is interested in sex, or that anything they’re wearing indicates their interest in having sex with whomever or however many people they please.

the line of evidence suggested that as the woman wore a thong she was likely open to having sex that night with someone

so because she wore a thong it was more probable that she consented to sex than she didn't

that is the concept put forward at the trial

as I mentioned I have no idea what other evidence was put forward and if the jury actually accepted this line of evidence or not. But that was the idea suggested and is what people disagree with

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

*BEEP* Strawman Alert *BEEP*

Oh dear.

Roger Hassenforder

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Well yes that too. BUT the thread is about the girl's thong being held up in court which I believe is wrong on all levels.

I agree, I've (at least) 2 post condemning it.

But.... what about the man charged with rape. He was acquitted. Any sympathy for him?
He pleaded not guilty. I.e. "i didnt rape her Judge, it was consensual"

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s amusing because in a recent discussion about consent the topic of the WhatsApp messages being used as evidence was brought up. Plenty of posters objected to them being used as part of the prosecution. I’m not sure if you were one of them.

I wonder how many people have switched sides.

I was not one of them.

ceadaoin.

Riskymove wrote: »

the line of evidence suggested that as the woman wore a thong she was likely open to having sex that night with someone

so because she wore a thong it was more probable that she consented to sex than she didn't

that is the concept put forward at the trial

as I mentioned I have no idea what other evidence was put forward and if the jury actually accepted this line of evidence or not. But that was the idea suggested and is what people disagree with

From what I can gather the prosecutions case was

-accused claims they were kissing but no one witnessed this
-someone saw her being held by the neck and someone asked if everything was ok (not sure if this is the same person). Accused told them to **** off or similar
-the girl was a virgin and wouldn't have had sex down an alley in the mud
-she immediately said he had raped her

The defense

-she didn't cry
-they had kissed at length (but no witnesses to back this up)
-she was wearing a thong therefore was out for sex

Also, the accused said he couldn't get hard but then later said that they had sex. Seems contradictory.

Unless there is more that isn't reported in this article then I don't know how the jury reached the decision they did . I know how it looks to me

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews//ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html?fbclid=IwAR35TmZ4qXy2n1YHC0sHTl_37mqRM9EZE5Bs7d7ZC2-IZuR4UVrAT5h5FKA

One eyed Jack

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Well yes that too. BUT the thread is about the girl's thong being held up in court which I believe is wrong on all levels.

Where did you read that in this case her underwear was held up in court? Anything I’ve read suggests that what she was wearing at the time was considered in evidence presented by the prosecution against the defendant. There was no suggestion that her underwear was physically produced in the courtroom, which is why Ms. Coppingers stunt was just really just as distasteful as anything the barrister had said in defence of her client.

Ms. Coppingers stunt didn’t faze me in the slightest, I would still be of the opinion that the jury should be presented with all the evidence gathered in any criminal investigation in order to allow them to consider all the evidence against the defendant.

The barrister took an incredible risk in making the comments as she could have tanked her case for the defendant in just that statement alone if that was all the evidence the jury had to go on. Most people I know anyway would find comments like that reprehensible and it would be inclined to turn them against a defendant.

professore

Let's assume that instead of a thong she was wearing a pair of granny knickers. Should the prosecution be barred from using that as evidence she DIDN'T go out looking for sex, therefore weakening their case?

One eyed Jack

Riskymove wrote: »

the line of evidence suggested that as the woman wore a thong she was likely open to having sex that night with someone

so because she wore a thong it was more probable that she consented to sex than she didn't

that is the concept put forward at the trial

as I mentioned I have no idea what other evidence was put forward and if the jury actually accepted this line of evidence or not. But that was the idea suggested and is what people disagree with

You disregarded the rest of my post which was pointing out the difference in the fact that just because someone is up for sex, does not mean they want to be raped. Most people are capable of, and do understand the difference between the two very different things.

The Bishop Basher

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Unless there is more that isn't reported in this article then I don't know how the jury reached the decision they did . I know how it looks to me

There's a reason they didn't ask you how you thought it looked before coming to their unanimous verdict..

You weren't there.

For the sake of clarity though, are you suggesting that they're guilty ?

Riskymove

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You disregarded the rest of my post which was pointing out the difference in the fact that just because someone is up for sex, does not mean they want to be raped. Most people are capable of, and do understand the difference between the two very different things.

I didn't disregard anything, it was fairly clear. But there was no suggestion that wearing a thong means you want to be raped. that would be a fairly ridiculous position

I simply set out what was actually put forward at the trial which again, is the idea that being up for sex on a night out makes it more likely that you consented to sex than you didn't

professore

ceadaoin. wrote: »

From what I can gather the prosecutions case was

-accused claims they were kissing but no one witnessed this
-someone saw her being held by the neck and someone asked if everything was ok (not sure if this is the same person). Accused told them to **** off or similar
-the girl was a virgin and wouldn't have had sex down an alley in the mud
-she immediately said he had raped her

The defense

-she didn't cry
-they had kissed at length (but no witnesses to back this up)
-she was wearing a thong therefore was out for sex

Also, the accused said he couldn't get hard but then later said that they had sex. Seems contradictory.

Unless there is more that isn't reported in this article then I don't know how the jury reached the decision they did . I know how it looks to me

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews//ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html?fbclid=IwAR35TmZ4qXy2n1YHC0sHTl_37mqRM9EZE5Bs7d7ZC2-IZuR4UVrAT5h5FKA

On that evidence he is certainly guilty.

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

Let's assume that instead of a thong she was wearing a pair of granny knickers. Should the prosecution be barred from using that as evidence she DIDN'T go out looking for sex, therefore weakening their case?

It’s as I suggested earlier - you couldn’t just stop at the victims underwear if you’re attempting to exclude evidence. Any evidence could be excluded on the basis that the prosecution or the defence could argue its relevance, and just because the prosecution don’t want to introduce evidence doesn’t mean the defence should be prohibited from introducing it if they feel it would assist in their defence. It should be up to a jury to consider whether or not any evidence gathered during an investigation is relevant or irrelevant in determining whether or not the defendant should be found guilty.

SusieBlue

I live in Cork & the local radio discussions were covering this all week, from both sides, both on air and on social media.

Apparently the defendants wife rang one radio station and demanded the story be removed from their social media pages, because she was annoyed at the comments underneath the articles.

ceadaoin.

Rennaws wrote: »

There's a reason they didn't ask you how you thought it looked before coming to their unanimous verdict..

You weren't there.

For the sake of clarity though, are you suggesting that they're guilty ?

I'm suggesting that , in my opinion, after reading the case as put forward in that article, she was raped.

And either way, I don't think that the judge should have allowed her underwear to be considered as evidence of consent

One eyed Jack

Riskymove wrote: »

I didn't disregard anything, it was fairly clear. But there was no suggestion that wearing a thong means you want to be raped. that would be a fairly ridiculous position

I simply set out what was actually put forward at the trial which again, is the idea that being up for sex on a night out makes it more likely that you consented to sex than you didn't

It would, but it’s the basis upon which those people protesting against the introduction of the victims underwear in evidence are suggesting that the victims underwear alone was influential in the jury’s decision to find the defendant not guilty. That doesn’t make any sense because it doesn’t explain why in thousands of cases where the victims underwear is not introduced in evidence, the defendant is still found not guilty. There would have been no uproar about the introduction of the victims underwear in this particular case if the defendant been found guilty.

It’s nof unreasonable to suggest that if a person is up for sex, that having sex is the logical consequence of their actions. It’s unreasonable IMO to suggest that the defence should be prohibited from making that argument in defence of their client. A reasonable jury would see the inference of that claim for what it is - distasteful and damaging on the defendants behalf, as being up for sex is not a criminal offence, and the victim is not on trial.

The Bishop Basher

There’s quite a bit of libel on this thread..

I’d think twice about that in this day and age..

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There would have been no uproar about the introduction of the victims underwear in this particular case if the defendant been found guilty.
.

Yes, there would. If I recall correctly, the first article about this outrageous comment appeared before the verdict came out.

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s nof unreasonable to suggest that if a person is up for sex, that having sex is the logical consequence of their actions. .

Some big leaps you've made there, from:

- wearing a lace thong to being up for sex
- being up for sex to having sex
- having sex to being raped

Your post is actually a perfect example of the dangers of those comments.

RWCNT

Rennaws wrote: »

There’s quite a bit of libel on this thread..

I’d think twice about that in this day and age..

Any examples?

Someone was told they were being libellous earlier on for explaining basic facets of the justice system. There seems to be an enormous lack of ability to distinguish between "X person has not been proven innocent" and "X person is in fact guilty, despite having been acquitted" among many posters, it's unclear whether this is intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation or people just being a bit slow on the uptake, given that it's been explained umpty times with very simple to understand examples to boot.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, there would. If I recall correctly, the first article about this outrageous comment appeared before the verdict came out.

An article that was designed to generate uproar does not suggest IMO that there would have been uproar if the defendant had been found guilty. There are still thousands of cases which are never reported on and what’s put forward as a defence is far more distasteful IMO, and how the witness is treated is far more disgraceful than anything which has been published about this particular case. Yet those cases go largely unreported and ignored by the media.

For one piece of evidence that people are claiming should be irrelevant, it’s certainly proving to be very relevant for some people above all other evidence presented in this particular case.

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

I live in Cork & the local radio discussions were covering this all week, from both sides, both on air and on social media.

Apparently the defendants wife rang one radio station and demanded the story be removed from their social media pages, because she was annoyed at the comments underneath the articles.

Hold on a second .... the defendant is MARRIED ?????

LLMMLL

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I've worked with students who have been both accuser and accused in both the above cases and the statement from the former was very distinct - "I was raped by x..."; the latter fell more in the area of "I must have been raped", "The next morning he didn't seem my type so I wouldn't have slept with him" or "I might have said yes but I didn't mean it".

Telling. Very telling.

Funny how you always seem to work with someone whose behaviour ends up.proving your point. By my reckoning you work with about 3267 people at this point.

Bigbagofcans

professore wrote: »

Hold on a second .... the defendant is MARRIED ?????

So he cheated on his wife with a 17 year old girl? He's a pillar of society.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some big leaps you've made there, from:

- wearing a lace thong to being up for sex
- being up for sex to having sex
- having sex to being raped

Your post is actually a perfect example of the dangers of those comments.

I never made any such leap. In fact I have strenuously pointed out that there is no correlation between the two, so to use my post to further your own claims that what took place was rape, is entirely a contention based upon your own assumptions, not mine.

Your post is a perfect example of your own opinion regarding your own morals about other people’s sexual behaviours, it says fcukall about my opinion because your post doesn’t represent anything I actually said. It represents your interpretation of what I said.

I don’t consider your post presents any danger to anyone though, it’s just stupid.

professore

I cannot find any coverage online of anything other than the thong closing comments. No reference to the defendant other than he was 27. Certainly no mention he was married.

Can someone post a link to an actual description of the case?

No wonder there is such fear and paranoia around rape cases - they are covered in a very irresponsible way by the media.

professore

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

So he cheated on his wife with a 17 year old girl? He's a pillar of society.

Is there any account of the actual facts of the case anywhere online? Other than thonggate?

LLMMLL

Leaving aside the fact that someone intending to have sex does not necessarily.mean they consented to have sex, there is a basic flaw with the thing argument and its one of the most basic and clear logical flaws possible.

If A is true B is true does not imply that if B is true A is true.

So while it's probably the case that a woman intending to have sex will wear nice underwear (and generally.put more effort into her appearance) that doesn't mean that someone who puts effort into their appearance intends to have sex. As can be seen from the responses from.women on this thread, a huge number of women wear thongs as their standard underwear. It has zero evidentiary value.

I would also think it likely that a man going on a. Date would get a haircut. Can I infer that a random man having a haircut intends to have sex. Can I assume a man who gets a haircut before going on his bachelor party weekend is going to cheat on his fiancee?

It's pure nonsense.

Roger Hassenforder

professore wrote: »

On that evidence he is certainly guilty.

Notwithstanding he actually isnt guilty, how did you come to that conclusion?

tritium

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm suggesting that , in my opinion, after reading the case as put forward in that article, she was raped.

Which, given that article doesn’t present the evidence seen by a jury, might suggest that 12 reasonable people, in coming to a unanimous verdict, may have access to somewhat more evidence than reveled in the article

And either way, I don't think that the judge should have allowed her underwear to be considered as evidence of consent

Again I’d suggest that the judges decision on this may have been based on somewhat more than a newspaper summary. One poster has already indicated some possible reasons why this was allowed, specifically as rebuttal of a position the prosecution had presented.