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

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Stupid girl really for thinking people had the common sense to keep their hands to themselves. Do you ever get tired of posting such absolutely disgusting fcuking tripe? Your posts are a disgrace to this site.

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Seriously.

Now you're going on ignore as I really don't need the sanctions that would be forthcoming for any reply to the one sides views held.

Your attitude towards women and assaults is worrying.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think a suspended sentence is an absolute joke of a punishment for sexually assaulting someone.
I absolutely think someone who admits to doing it, or is found guilty of it, should be given a prison sentence.

Why, exactly?

In July, a man who "launched a vicious and sustained assault on his girlfriend which included banging her head off the floor and walls and kicking her in the head," was given a suspended sentence.

There are many other individuals being given suspended sentences in Ireland for crimes that are arguably far more serious than inserting two fingers in a sleeping girl's vagina.

So why should this man have gone automatically to prison?

tritium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

use your imagination. What possible context could make that relevant?

Thankfully court cases aren’t tried on imagination, they’re tried on evidence, with oversight to ensure the evidence is relevant and appropriate in its context to the case

vonlars

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Seriously.

Now you're going on ignore as I really don't need the sanctions that would be forthcoming for any reply to the one sides views held.

That’s not what happened though. She got into bed locked, then was sexually assaulted, then cried sexual assault. You missed a pretty big step in that sequence of events it seems.

ohnonotgmail

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Why, exactly?

In July, a man who "launched a vicious and sustained assault on his girlfriend which included banging her head off the floor and walls and kicking her in the head," was given a suspended sentence.

There are many other individuals being given suspended sentences in Ireland for crimes that are arguably far more serious than inserting two fingers in a sleeping girl's vagina.

So why should this man have gone automatically to prison?

Do you think a suspended sentence was appropriate in that case? I don't. I think some sort of custodial sentence was appropriate.

ohnonotgmail

tritium wrote: »

Thankfully court cases aren’t tried on imagination, they’re tried on evidence, with oversight to ensure the evidence is relevant and appropriate in its context to the case

You keep saying that there must have been some of context that made that relevant. Tellingly you cannot come up with what that context might possibly be. Somebody else, it might have been you, said that if counsel were wrong the judge would have done something. Because we all know that judges in this country never make mistakes.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Why, exactly?

In July, a man who "launched a vicious and sustained assault on his girlfriend which included banging her head off the floor and walls and kicking her in the head," was given a suspended sentence.

There are many other individuals being given suspended sentences in Ireland for crimes that are arguably far more serious than inserting two fingers in a sleeping girl's vagina.

So why should this man have gone automatically to prison?

Tougher sentencing is absolutely needed across the board, but seeing as the topic of this thread is sexual assault, I was focusing on those.

As for the bolded, that really isn't your place to say. You can't categorically say that getting the cr*p beaten out of you is more serious than waking up to find a random man has his fingers up you.
Try telling the victim of such a crime that it isn't that serious. Its a very serious matter to them.

If you violate a persons bodily integrity I believe a custodial sentence should be imposed. Its a very serious crime and the sentence should reflect that.

[Deleted User]

Boggles wrote:

TBF the more plausible reason that it is beyond you is because like all of us you know next to nothing about this case, you didn't sit through all the evidence and you are not an experienced criminal Judge. You are telling us what the Judge should have done based on a very clicky baity article with little to no detail and very selective quotes.

Boggles wrote:

You are open to the possibility that there could have been good legal reason why the defense barrister wasn't reprimanded for her comments? Just because nobody on an internet forum can give you a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Her comments were misleading and false. The judge should have stopped her.

I don't care if it came out in court that the 17 year old ate thongs for breakfast. Nothing said in court can explain why a judge allowed the barrister to imply that wearing a thong means that a woman wants sex. It is a false claim & should not have been allowed

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

use your imagination. What possible context could make that relevant?

So the context your using is your imagination.

Grand so..

Just wanted to clear that up..

ohnonotgmail

Rennaws wrote: »

So the context your using is your imagination.

Grand so..

Just wanted to clear that up..

Good job on the reading comprehension. Impressive.

[Deleted User]

tritium wrote:

Only if you claim never to cheat on your partner. You actually have zero evidence he lied to anyone about that, or indeed about his relationship with his wife.

Do you even know the vows taken when getting married?

Once he cheated he broke his vow and lied. He lied while standing on the alter or register office.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do you think a suspended sentence was appropriate in that case? I don't. I think some sort of custodial sentence was appropriate.

There's definitely a debate to be had about lenient sentencing in Ireland.

That said, every time someone "gets off lightly" in a sexual assault case, a specific contingent of posters appear on threads to argue that sexual assault is not taken seriously in Ireland, that judges are biased against women, or whatever. They don't appear to grasp the fact that people who commit arguably more serious offenses are also being given suspended sentences in the Irish courts.

Sexual abuse of two children? Suspended sentence.

Possession of child pornography? Suspended sentence.

Dangerous driving leaving the victim with a brain injury and unable to work? Suspended sentence.

Steals €721,000 from family members? Suspended sentence.

I could go on all day here, listing cases that are far more serious than that of the man who fingered a drunken girl after a party. The problem of lenient sentencing is far broader than is being acknowledged when people say that men who commit sexual assault are not being appropriately punished. Criminals in general are not being appropriately punished.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

There's definitely a debate to be had about lenient sentencing in Ireland.

That said, every time someone "gets off lightly" in a sexual assault case, a specific contingent of posters appear on threads to argue that sexual assault is not taken seriously in Ireland, that judges are biased against women, or whatever. They don't appear to grasp the fact that people who commit arguably more serious offenses are also being given suspended sentences in the Irish courts.

Sexual abuse of two children? Suspended sentence.

Possession of child pornography? Suspended sentence.

Dangerous driving leaving the victim with a brain injury and unable to work? Suspended sentence.

Steals €721,000 from family members? Suspended sentence.

I could go on all day here, listing cases that are far more serious than that of the man who fingered a drunken girl after a party. The problem of lenient sentencing is far broader than is being acknowledged when people say that men who commit sexual assault are not being appropriately punished. Criminals in general are not being appropriately punished.

I don't think anyone is denying that, and I don't think anyone bar yourself is making judgments on which crimes are more serious than others.
All of those cases are awful. I think we can all agree that tougher sentencing is needed across the board.
But seeing as the topic at hand here is sexual assaults, it makes sense that we are discussing sentencing in that context.

Saying "well it could be worse, yes she got sexually assaulted but this guy got the sh*t kicked out of him and that's more serious" is really unhelpful.

[Deleted User]

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

What would be a "proper sentence" for someone who, under the influence of drink and/or drugs, fingered a sleeping girl after a house party, fully regretted it, and pled guilty in court?

What do you think you would consider a proper sentence if you fell asleep after drinking and woke up to find a mans fingers inside you?

"Sorry mate, my bad"?

This thread is disappointing. The names might change but the same obdurate victim blaming remains, and also proof that women can be among the worst misogynists.

Bigbagofcans

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

There's definitely a debate to be had about lenient sentencing in Ireland.

That said, every time someone "gets off lightly" in a sexual assault case, a specific contingent of posters appear on threads to argue that sexual assault is not taken seriously in Ireland, that judges are biased against women, or whatever. They don't appear to grasp the fact that people who commit arguably more serious offenses are also being given suspended sentences in the Irish courts.

Sexual abuse of two children? Suspended sentence.

Possession of child pornography? Suspended sentence.

Dangerous driving leaving the victim with a brain injury and unable to work? Suspended sentence.

Steals €721,000 from family members? Suspended sentence.

I could go on all day here, listing cases that are far more serious than that of the man who fingered a drunken girl after a party. The problem of lenient sentencing is far broader than is being acknowledged when people say that men who commit sexual assault are not being appropriately punished. Criminals in general are not being appropriately punished.

Again, without her consent. How telling of people who blame victims change their language to suit their agenda. It was sexual assault no matter what way you try to word it.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

But seeing as the topic at hand here is sexual assaults, it makes sense that we are discussing sentencing in that context.

Well, then, in the case you mentioned, what do you personally believe would have been an appropriate sentence?

[Deleted User]

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Again, without her consent. How telling of people who blame victims change their language to suit their agenda. It was sexual assault no matter what way you try to word it.

It's not a zero sum game either, but it suits some to minimize the seriousness of sexual assaults as you can see by the dismissive language.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Again, without her consent. How telling of people who blame victims change their language to suit their agenda. It was sexual assault no matter what way you try to word it.

I haven't in any way, shape, or form disputed that it was sexual assault. The man involved pleaded guilty to sexual assault, and he received a two-year suspended sentence, which SusieBlue believes is inadequate. That's why I'm asking her what she believes the sentence should have been.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Well, then, in the case you mentioned, what do you personally believe would have been an appropriate sentence?

I've already answered that twice, I believe that if you violate someone in that way a custodial sentence should be imposed.
I don't believe a suspended sentence is sufficient punishment for assaulting someone in that manner.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

I've already answered that twice, I believe that if you violate someone in that way a custodial sentence should be imposed.
I don't believe a suspended sentence is sufficient punishment for assaulting someone in that manner.

So how long should the man have spent in prison, in your view?

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Good job on the reading comprehension. Impressive.

Yet again you resort to personal insults.

Seems like you have some sort of free pass to lash out personal insults with impunity.

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Her comments were misleading and false. The judge should have stopped her.

I don't care if it came out in court that the 17 year old ate thongs for breakfast. Nothing said in court can explain why a judge allowed the barrister to imply that wearing a thong means that a woman wants sex. It is a false claim & should not have been allowed

Again though what are you basing your knowledge about this case on?

Just because you and me or anyone else think an aspect of a criminal case is unsavory, that does not mean the Judge erred in anyway.

He was there for the whole trial, we are basing our assumptions on a select few quotes from second hand information, the rest is being fluffed up with outrage and imagination.

You do understand that right?

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

So how long should the man have spent in prison, in your view?

Well he is currently spending 0 days in prison, so anything more than that would be an improvement.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well he is currently spending 0 days in prison, so anything more than that would be an improvement.

After criticizing the judge for not imposing an "appropriate" sentence, why are you now evading telling us what sentence you personally would have considered appropriate in this case?

ohnonotgmail

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

After criticizing the judge for not imposing an "appropriate" sentence, why are you now evading telling us what sentence you personally would have considered appropriate in this case?

TBH it didnt matter what Susie said you would have criticised it.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

After criticizing the judge for not imposing an "appropriate" sentence, why are you now evading telling us what sentence you personally would have considered appropriate in this case?

Would you stop badgering me, I have now answered your question 3 times, I believe a custodial sentence would be appropriate.

And FYI, I know that no matter what length of time I suggest, you will scoff at it and dismiss it and criticise it. It would be a fruitless endeavor on my part and I won't entertain you.

The Bishop Basher

SusieBlue wrote: »

Would you stop badgering me, I have now answered your question 3 times, I believe a custodial sentence would be appropriate.

And FYI, I know that no matter what length of time I suggest, you will scoff at it and dismiss it and criticise it. It would be a fruitless endeavor on my part and I won't entertain you.

Is your context based on imagination as well ?

Or did you attend the trial ?

nullzero

It seems that there is a prevailing attitude here that if a man is accused of sexual assault/rape that he should be punished in some way.

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and the outcome should be accepted once the trial has been conducted correctly.

The issue of sentencing being lenient is something I would take issue with as needing to change but that is the same across the board in all criminal justice cases. Ireland is simply too lenient on all offenders, which is in part due to the lack of adequate prison space.

Sexual offences are horrific but we have way more violent offenders and other criminals who are roaming the streets, in and out of court or having half their sentences suspended or getting out early for being well behaved in prison. It's an issue which transcends this topic but is also indicative of the culture of overly lenient sentencing all over our criminal justice system and perhaps goes some way to dispel the myth that Ireland is easy on rapists. We're too easy on everyone.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

Would you stop badgering me, I have now answered your question 3 times, I believe a custodial sentence would be appropriate.

And FYI, I know that no matter what length of time I suggest, you will scoff at it and dismiss it and criticise it. It would be a fruitless endeavor on my part and I won't entertain you.

Your answer was a custodial sentence greater than 0 days.

But if the man had been imprisoned for 1 day, I'm sure you'd be giving out about that too. "One day in prison for sexual assault! This is disgraceful!"

If you can't tell us what sentence you personally would have believed appropriate in this case, then your protests about inappropriate sentencing don't carry much weight. You give out about judges treating sexual assault too leniently, but you don't seem to know what you want them to do instead.