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

The Bishop Basher

RWCNT wrote: »

Any examples?.

Well this is one.. there are others..

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

The man was found not guilty..

This poster is saying he raped that girl.

It’s about as blatantly libelous as it gets.

jimmycrackcorm

Roger Hassenforder wrote:

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

Because clearly jurors who have listened to the whole evidence made their incorrect decision on the basis that they aren't outraged internet commentators.

YFlyer

RWCNT wrote: »

I'm sorry mate, but your posts are quite difficult to understand. I'm genuinely not trying to be insulting here. Can you please rephrase what you've said to be a bit more clear?

Sorry, I was drunk.

mickrock

RWCNT wrote: »

Are we still seriously getting stuck over "Not Guilty" =/= "Innocent" - this has been explained dozens and dozens of times at this stage.

Yes, Not Guilty doesn't necessarily mean a rape didn't happen.

But on the other hand a Guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean a rape did happen. It works both ways.

Some people seem to be think that a Not Guilty verdict means he was probably guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to convict, which is a very dangerous mindset to have.

ceadaoin.

Rennaws wrote: »

Well this is one.. there are others..

The man was found not guilty..

This poster is saying he raped that girl.

It’s about as blatantly libelous as it gets.

In my opinion, after reading the article I linked.

Opinions are allowed aren't they? Otherwise what is the point of this site?

A Not guilty verdict does not mean a rape definitely didn't occur does it?

FishOnABike

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.

Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt whatsoever. If juries had to be 100% sure of guilt to find a person guilty we could close down almost every prison in the country as very few would ever be found guilty of anything.

Beyond reasonable doubt is higher than "more likely than not" but it does not require 100% certainty.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

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

Yes apparently so, during the talk show on 96fm covering the case it was said that she had rang in complaining about about the social media and demanding the story be removed.

Names of those involved are going around like wildfire, I’ve heard the same name a few times now, from a few different people.
If the defendant is this person, then yes, it would appear he is married.

(Don’t worry Mods, I wouldn’t dream of posting any names or indentifying info etc)

The Bishop Basher

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In my opinion after reading the article I linked. Opinions are allowed aren't they? Otherwise what is the point of this site?

A Not guilty verdict does not mean a rape didn't occur does it?

You are specifically accusing this man of rape.

He’d have every right to come after you for defaming his character and for posting it online in a public forum.

Your call but it’s a dangerous game your playing.

ceadaoin.

Rennaws wrote: »

You are specifically accusing this man of rape.

He’d have every right to come after you for defaming his character and for posting it online in a public forum.

Your call but it’s a dangerous game your playing.

If boards think my opinion about this unnamed person is libelous they can delete my post

eagle eye

If you sat through a court case and seen how pedantic defense barristers are allowed to you'd be shocked that anybody gets convicted. The amount of stuff that the jury don't get to hear about is quite large in a lot of cases and the reason it gets thrown out in a lot if cases is very flimsy.
In this instance I don't know enough to form an opinion but I am aware that the accused has previous. Obviously the jury are never allowed to know that.

Mrsmum

Personally I think showing or discussing a woman's underwear in a rape case (unless for forensic physical evidence)will one day soon be outlawed and the next generation will look back and shake their heads in bewilderment that this was once allowed in the same way as once it was thought a wife couldn't be raped by her husband but now we are more enlightened.

Women wear thongs for various reasons. it's a gigantic and incorrect leap to take it as a evidence of sexual intent as she could just as well be wearing it for the other reasons.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

So apparently the SC that shamed the 17 year old rape victim, and blamed her for her own rape due to the underwear she was wearing was also advocating for a No vote to repeal the 8th.

So not only are women to blame for their own rape, because they wore a thong, they should also be denied abortions from those rapes.

Don’t want to become pregnant? Don’t wear a thong!

Faugheen

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

So the implication that wearing a lacy thong means she was out to have sex, such as made by the defence council in this case, is a valid one to make in your view?

Do you honestly believe that?

Bigbagofcans

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

So apparently the SC that shamed the 17 year old rape victim, and blamed her for her own rape due to the underwear she was wearing was also advocating for a No vote to repeal the 8th.

So not only are women to blame for their own rape, because they wore a thong, they should also be denied abortions from those rapes.

Don’t want to become pregnant? Don’t wear a thong!

It's actually horrible to think people have these views. We've come a long way but there will always be that minority who will fault women.

What's the SC?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Sorry the barrister, senior counsel

Silentcorner

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

So apparently the SC that shamed the 17 year old rape victim, and blamed her for her own rape due to the underwear she was wearing was also advocating for a No vote to repeal the 8th.

So not only are women to blame for their own rape, because they wore a thong, they should also be denied abortions from those rapes.

Don’t want to become pregnant? Don’t wear a thong!

The SC did nothing wrong in any legal sense, she is entitled to have whatever opinions on Repeal just like the rest of us.

I thought the objection to her comments were justified, it is horrible that in this day and age a woman's underwear can be used against her.

But using her opinion on Repeal is just as bad....there is no right or wrong opinion on repeal whether you were male or female...there was a majority and that is it!

Faugheen

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.

If you want to use evidence, the WhatsApp group was used as evidence that the accused had sex with the complainant, which had been denied by the accused. It absolutely is relevant because their messages implied a different statement to the one they provided.

Saying someone wore lacy knickers so she must have been out for the ride is completely and utterly wrong, and is not evidence whatsoever.

When that statement was made it set a dangerous message out there that if you wear sexy knickers and get raped, then it’s your fault because the sexy knickers implied you wanted sex.

How on Earth can you even argue that?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Silentcorner wrote: »

The SC did nothing wrong in any legal sense, she is entitled to have whatever opinions on Repeal just like the rest of us.

I thought the objection to her comments were justified, it is horrible that in this day and age a woman's underwear can be used against her.

But using her opinion on Repeal is just as bad....there is no right or wrong opinion on repeal whether you were male or female...there was a majority and that is it!

Nothing wrong in any legal sense but it does show her opinion towards women, imo

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

You can infer what you like. Whether it’s reasonable or not would be a matter for the jury to decide how it relates to the defendant and whether or not the defendants contention that their belief that consent was present is reasonable or unreasonable. If the jury decides that the defendants contention that they believed the encounter was consensual, and that there was a reasonable basis for that belief, then they would take that into consideration in determining whether or not the defendant could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key point is whether or not the individual members of the jury were of the opinion that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable.

Legal arguments aren’t based upon absolute logic btw, they’re based upon an interpretation of the evidence gathered in an investigation - reasoning, to draw any conclusions about anything based upon the evidence. If any piece of evidence is excluded because it is deemed to be irrelevant, that immediately calls into question whether or not the defendant will receive a fair trial which they have the right to by law. Exclusion of evidence which could have assisted the defendant in their own defence at the original trial is one of the most common reasons why verdicts in the original trial are overturned on appeal.

Lillybloom

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If boards think my opinion about this unnamed person is libelous they can delete my post

I sense deep pain in you.

nullzero

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Nothing wrong in any legal sense but it does show her opinion towards women, imo

So are women not allowed to have opinions that differ to popular opinion?

Lillybloom

Some people don't seem to understand that a jury needs to balance the probabilities of the likelhood of a particular crime being committed by the defendant. Lots of seemingly insignificant details could be relevant for a jury to determine those probabilities in their heads.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

nullzero wrote: »

So are women not allowed to have opinions that differ to popular opinion?

Women can hold whatever opinions they like as long as their opinion doesn’t interfere or damage another person. The SC believes that women have no right to access terminations, which she’s entitled to believe, but not content at stopping there she blames and shamed a 17 year old victim for her own rape, because of the knickers she wore, and would happily deny her have a termination of a pregnancy resulting from said rape.

Do you know what that sounds awful like? Slut shaming.

Bigbagofcans

Lillybloom wrote: »

I sense deep pain in you.

What a ridiculous response.

[Deleted User]

FishOnABike wrote:

Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt whatsoever. If juries had to be 100% sure of guilt to find a person guilty we could close down almost every prison in the country as very few would ever be found guilty of anything.

Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the VICTIM is not telling the truth. She is still the victim. A not guilty verdict for the man does not mean that the victim is untruthful. If it did she would be prosecuted.

bloodless_coup

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

So apparently the SC that shamed the 17 year old rape victim, and blamed her for her own rape due to the underwear she was wearing was also advocating for a No vote to repeal the 8th.

Why are you saying she was raped when a court found that she wasn't?

The Bishop Basher

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Do you know what that sounds awful like? Slut shaming.

Who are you calling a slut ?

limnam

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Do you know what that sounds awful like? Slut shaming.

Louise? Is it you?

I thought he was found innocent of rape?

Mrsmum

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Women can hold whatever opinions they like as long as their opinion doesn’t interfere or damage another person. The SC believes that women have no right to access terminations, which she’s entitled to believe, but not content at stopping there she blames and shamed a 17 year old victim for her own rape, because of the knickers she wore, and would happily deny her have a termination of a pregnancy resulting from said rape.

Do you know what that sounds awful like? Slut shaming.

Ah look, as regards the SC, really she was just doing her job. Get the client off. Nothing personal about it. If the same SC was on the other side of the room she would have been arguing against the defendant and objecting to underwear being shown. Her view on Repeal is irrelevant.

SusieBlue

doylefe wrote: »

Why are you saying she was raped when a court found that she wasn't?

No it didn’t. A court found the defendant not guilty. There was nothing in the judgment about the rape never occurring or that the victim lying.