Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

nullzero · 15-11-2018 07:30PM

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.

It was determined by the court that no rape took place so the notion that she was blamed for her own rape is incorrect.

We also cannot say for sure that this barrister feels women should not have access to terminations as a lot of no voters wanted to repeal the eight but not have quite as Liberal an outcome after repealing it.

As for slut shaming, I don't think showing underpants as evidence in a court really qualifies although it's down to interpretation and a lot of people on your side of the argument would agree with it as it is a popular buzz word/slogan.

The Bishop Basher · 15-11-2018 07:32PM

doylefe wrote: »

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

Because they’re right and the jury are wrong. It’s as simple as that apparently.

Open and shut case..

nullzero · 15-11-2018 07:32PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

I addressed this earlier. The defendant was found not guilty, so the term victim is incorrect. Plaintiff or Complainant is what you're looking for. By referring to her as a victim you are conferring guilt upon the defendant, which makes your statement libelous and as such potentially in breach of the site rules.

The Bishop Basher · 15-11-2018 07:34PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

Innocent until proven guilty.

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 07:36PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

This is true, so how anyone can form the opinion that the encounter was rape when they weren’t witnesses to the encounter is based upon what they believe is a reasonable assumption. I don’t know and I don’t want to know how they can come to that conclusion, because it has no legal standing.

bloodless_coup · 15-11-2018 07:36PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

Unbelievable that for some, or even a lot of people, any and every alegation of rape is automatically believed and if a man is found not guilty, it's not because of innocent but because he got away with it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 15-11-2018 07:38PM

doylefe wrote: »

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

No the court didn’t find she wasn’t raped, the court couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was

nullzero · 15-11-2018 07:38PM

I have to say that a man of 27 who is in that situation with a 17 year old isn't a person who deserves much sympathy, in addition his being married is another strike in my book . However we have to accept that the evidence provided must have compelled the jury that no rape occurred, regardless of the immoral behaviour of this man.

bloodless_coup · 15-11-2018 07:40PM

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

No the court didn’t find she wasn’t raped, the court couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was

So what makes you so sure a rape occurred?

retro:electro · 15-11-2018 07:41PM

doylefe wrote: »

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

When someone is found not guilty of murder, does that mean that the murder never happened? Is the victim then brought back to life?

Not guilty= not enough evidence to prove the crime happened in the way the prosecution state it did. Not that it didn’t happen at all.

limnam · 15-11-2018 07:41PM

nullzero wrote: »

I have to say that a man of 27 who is in that situation with a 17 year old isn't a person who deserves much sympathy, in addition his being married is another strike in my book . However we have to accept that the evidence provided must have compelled the jury that no rape occurred, regardless of the immoral behaviour of this man.

Being 10 yrs older than someone doesn't make you a rapist.

Cheating on your wife doesn't make you a rapist.

The same way wearing a thong doesn't mean you're "looking for it"

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 15-11-2018 07:42PM

doylefe wrote: »

So what makes you so sure a rape occurred?

What makes you so sure it didn’t?

nullzero · 15-11-2018 07:43PM

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

No the court didn’t find she wasn’t raped, the court couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was

A medical examination would have been carried out to determine if penetration occurred which I would assume is most likely to have not be conclusive, in which case this would have been the most compelling evidence that rape did not occur, although this is supposition on my part it would seem to be consistent with the man's claim that he was unable to maintain an erection.

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 07:44PM

nullzero wrote: »

I have to say that a man of 27 who is in that situation with a 17 year old isn't a person who deserves much sympathy, in addition his being married is another strike in my book . However we have to accept that the evidence provided must have compelled the jury that no rape occurred, regardless of the immoral behaviour of this man.

Nope, nobody has to accept that because that was never the purpose of any trial. The purpose of any trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the commission of the criminal offence of rape as defined in Irish law.

Nothing in that statement provides for any assumptions as to whether or not the encounter was rape. It says that the defendant was found not guilty of the charge of rape of which they were accused, according to how the criminal offence of rape is defined in Irish law.

nullzero · 15-11-2018 07:44PM

limnam wrote: »

Being 10 yrs older than someone doesn't make you a rapist.

Cheating on your wife doesn't make you a rapist.

The same way wearing a thong doesn't mean you're "looking for it"

Precisely, his actions were immoral, not illegal.

bloodless_coup · 15-11-2018 07:45PM

retro:electro wrote: »

When someone is found not guilty of murder, does that mean that the murder never happened? Is the victim then brought back to life?

Not guilty= not enough evidence to prove the crime happened in the way the prosecution state it did. Not that it didn’t happen at all.

Same argument as the Belfast case.

Murder is because there's a dead person. Evidence. What evidence is there for a rape to have occurred in this case?

YFlyer · 15-11-2018 07:45PM

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!

You don't expect that in a so call First World Country.

retro:electro · 15-11-2018 07:48PM

doylefe wrote: »

Same argument as the Belfast case.

Murder is because there's a dead person. Evidence. What evidence is there for a rape to have occurred in this case?

I don’t know. I know very little about this case as there’s not much info available. I’m not speaking about this case anyway I’m speaking in general terms.
No proof that a rape occurred does not mean a rape didn’t occur.

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 07:50PM

nullzero wrote: »

A medical examination would have been carried out to determine if penetration occurred which I would assume is most likely to have not be conclusive, in which case this would have been the most compelling evidence that rape did not occur, although this is supposition on my part it would seem to be consistent with the man's claim that he was unable to maintain an erection.

Not necessarily, and it wouldn’t provide conclusive evidence of anything either, they generally don’t provide conclusive evidence of whether or not an encounter was either rape or consensual sex.

The man didn’t claim he was unable to maintain an erection either, he claimed that he was unable to get an erection, and that he wasn’t sure his penis had entered her vagina, but that it might have.

bloodless_coup · 15-11-2018 07:52PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t know. I know very little about this case as there’s not much info available.
No proof that a rape occurred does not mean a rape didn’t occur.

There's no proof that you aren't a pedophile, but...

Mod-Banned

retro:electro · 15-11-2018 07:52PM

doylefe wrote: »

There's no proof that you aren't a pedophile, but...

Really.. that low huh?

Also, courts rely on the proof of guilt, not innocence. You’re not asked to prove a negative.

Bye bye now.

nullzero · 15-11-2018 07:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not necessarily, and it wouldn’t provide conclusive evidence of anything either, they generally don’t provide conclusive evidence of whether or not an encounter was either rape or consensual sex.

The man didn’t claim he was unable to maintain an erection either, he claimed that he was unable to get an erection, and that he wasn’t sure his penis had entered her vagina, but that it might have.

It may have ruled out penetration occuring.
It was all supposition anyway.

Mrsmum · 15-11-2018 07:53PM

doylefe wrote: »

Same argument as the Belfast case.

Murder is because there's a dead person. Evidence. What evidence is there for a rape to have occurred in this case?

So let's say you yourself definitely got raped but you couldn't prove it - were you raped or not ?

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 07:56PM

nullzero wrote: »

It may have ruled out penetration occuring.
It was all supposition anyway.

It definitely wouldn’t have ruled out penetration occurring, and that’s not their purpose anyway. Their purpose is to provide evidence in an investigation, and they aren’t carried out without the victims consent.

batgoat · 15-11-2018 08:00PM

Lillybloom wrote: »

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.

Using her underwear as proof of wanting to have sex is trying to paint a picture. It is not a reasonable piece of proof. It's also incredibly humiliating for a woman who has been through an immense trauma.

Rennaws wrote: »

Because they’re right and the jury are wrong. It’s as simple as that apparently.

Open and shut case..

Many people don't think it was an open and shut case. The likes of underwear as proof of wanting to have sex is completely ridiculous and raises the question of the credibility of the actual trial, there's a legitimate argument that it should not have been allowed as evidence. I don't think she made up a rape btw.

8% of reported rapes reach trial and a conviction, it's incredibly stressful and difficult to even reach the point where there is a trial. While false accusations do occur, it amounted to 9% so there's a substantial that may not have enough evidence or the victim couldn't cope with the strain of going to trial. You might believe that 80% of those women weren't raped at all but that's a bat**** insane assumption to be frank.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/just-8-of-reported-rapes-result-in-convictions-1.756237

bloodless_coup · 15-11-2018 08:00PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Really.. that low huh?

Also, courts rely on the proof of guilt, not innocence. You’re not asked to prove a negative.

Bye bye now.

I see you didn't deny it. Suspicious.

nullzero · 15-11-2018 08:11PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

So let's say you yourself definitely got raped but you couldn't prove it - were you raped or not ?

Let's say you have a son or brother who is falsely accused of rape by somebody?

We can suppose all kinds of things.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-11-2018 08:14PM

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!

Toxic feminity

15-11-2018 08:23PM

nullzero wrote:

I addressed this earlier. The defendant was found not guilty, so the term victim is incorrect. Plaintiff or Complainant is what you're looking for. By referring to her as a victim you are conferring guilt upon the defendant, which makes your statement libelous and as such potentially in breach of the site rules.

You might feel that you have addressed it earlier you have only posted nonsense.

There is still a victim because no one has proved her wrong. To acquit someone only says that there is not enough proof to prosecute. As always I'm not talking about recent cases but I haven't seen any girl found guilty of telling lies or a conviction pending. There is a reason for this. There state of can't prove the victim wrong in a case no more can they pr reasonable doubt against a man.

How someone can find that a case proves that the man is innocent and the girl not innocent is beyond my. If the girl lies would she not be in court?

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 08:23PM

batgoat wrote: »

Using her underwear as proof of wanting to have sex is trying to paint a picture. It is not a reasonable piece of proof. It's also incredibly humiliating for a woman who has been through an immense trauma.

Many people don't think it was an open and shut case. The likes of underwear as proof of wanting to have sex is completely ridiculous and raises the question of the credibility of the actual trial, there's a legitimate argument that it should not have been allowed as evidence. I don't think she made up a rape btw.

8% of reported rapes reach trial and a conviction, it's incredibly stressful and difficult to even reach the point where there is a trial. While false accusations do occur, it amounted to 9% so there's a substantial that may not have enough evidence or the victim couldn't cope with the strain of going to trial. You might believe that 80% of those women weren't raped at all but that's a bat**** insane assumption to be frank.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/just-8-of-reported-rapes-result-in-convictions-1.756237

It’s as batshìt an assumption as your assumption that she didn’t make up a rape. You have no evidence for that belief about this specific case, and not only are you assuming that introducing her underwear into evidence was incredibly humiliating on her part, but you’re assuming that she has been through an immense trauma.

Yet according to you, evidence which consists of the type of underwear she was wearing at the time of the alleged events is not a reasonable piece of evidence that would assist the defendant in their own defence according to their right to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, which if they had been found guilty would have meant a criminal conviction, and then to be sentenced on top of that, all because of your batshìt assumptions for which you have no evidence about the accuser or the accused or the events in question in this particular case.

Does it sound reasonable to you that your opinion should trump that of the members of the jury in this particular case who were privy to all the evidence presented at trial and who were actually in the courtroom during the trial, and you weren’t?

I suppose it does. I wouldn’t think your assumptions are reasonable, but that’s exactly why it’s important for 12 people on a jury to hear all the evidence, so that they can make what they feel are reasonable conclusions about the defendant.

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments