Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

1…3233353738…61

Comments

  • #1022
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Rennaws wrote: »
    Is your context based on imagination as well ?

    Or did you attend the trial ?


    you do realise that post is not about the trial in the OP? I refer you to my previous reply.


  • #1023
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    nullzero wrote: »
    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.


    Nobody has said that. can you point to some posts that suggest it?


  • #1024
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Rennaws wrote: »
    Is your context based on imagination as well ?

    Or did you attend the trial ?

    In this case the defendant admitted guilt, there was no doubt about his culpability, so no, not based on my imagination.


  • #1025
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    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.

    I don't have to tell you anything, I don't owe you an explanation and I don't have to answer your Spanish inquisition.
    I gave a reasonable reply yet you are hounding me with the same question over and over again.

    I have been more than clear, I know what I want, I think custodial sentences should be imposed on those who admit or who are convicted of sexual offenses. If you are still failing to understand what I'm saying, I can't help you any further.


  • #1026
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


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

    Fao ohnonotgmail.

    EDIT. I see SusieBlue thanked your post, I'm not going to post a picture, just think of Jean luc Picard face-palm...


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Nobody has said that. can you point to some posts that suggest it?

    See above.


  • #1028
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    nullzero wrote: »
    Fao ohnonotgmail.
    nullzero wrote: »
    See above.


    Like your mate rennaws you seem to think those posts refer to the trial in the OP. they dont.


  • #1029
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Like your mate rennaws you seem to think those posts refer to the trial in the OP. they dont.

    My comment didn't refer to that trial either. Try reading it again, I'll wait.


  • #1030
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    nullzero wrote: »
    Fao ohnonotgmail.

    The man in the case in question admitted guilt, he fully admitted that he sexually assaulted the girl while she was asleep. So he was most definitely guilty.

    I think you need to read the case report. I think more than 0 days in prison is a reasonable expectation for someone convicted of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman.


  • #1031
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I don't have to tell you anything, I don't owe you an explanation and I don't have to answer your Spanish inquisition.
    I gave a reasonable reply yet you are hounding me with the same question over and over again.

    I have been more than clear, I know what I want, I think custodial sentences should be imposed on those who admit or who are convicted of sexual offenses. If you are still failing to understand what I'm saying, I can't help you any further.

    I asked you not what you believe should happen in general, but what specific sentence you would have imposed in the case you yourself cited. Man inserts fingers into a sleeping woman's vagina after a party, admits sexual assault in court, the victim says she is satisfied with his public admission of guilt, and the judge gives him a two-year suspended sentence.

    Your stance is that he got off too lightly -- and yet you won't say anything beyond that he should have received a custodial sentence of greater than 0 days.

    But if the judge had put him in jail for two weeks, I'm sure that would have caused outrage too, no?


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    In this case the defendant admitted guilt, there was no doubt about his culpability, so no, not based on my imagination.

    Nobody is saying an assault didn’t take place.

    But you seem to believe you know better then the judge with regard to sentencing in the case so you must have the same facts to hand to make that decision..

    Or are you basing it on the imaginary facts in your head ?


  • #1033
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Like your mate rennaws you seem to think those posts refer to the trial in the OP. they dont.

    I’m well aware of that.

    The only one getting confused about it is you.


  • #1034
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    nullzero wrote: »
    My comment didn't refer to that trial either. Try reading it again, I'll wait.

    Well then you are taking my reply out of context, because that post was in regards to the case where a man who was admitted guilt and was convicted of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman and received a suspended sentence.

    You used my reply to prove your point that people here were calling for people who are accused of sexual assault to be punished, when that's not what my post was about. My post was about someone who was actually convicted.
    You are being deliberately obtuse.


  • #1035
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Rennaws wrote: »
    Nobody is saying an assault didn’t take place.

    But you seem to believe you know better then the judge with regard to sentencing in the case so you must have the same facts to hand to make that decision..

    Or are you basing it on the imaginary facts in your head ?

    For goodness sake, would you cop yourself on, I never said I know better than the judge, enough with the backhanded insults.

    I simply said I believe a custodial sentence should be imposed, in my opinion. I'm entitled to an opinion, as much as you were rather I wasn't allowed.


  • #1036
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    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.

    how much tougher? 10 years is the current average for rape. Longer than most crimes bar murder. What should it be?


  • #1037
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    tritium wrote: »
    how much tougher? 10 years is the current average for rape. Longer than most crimes bar murder. What should it be?

    I'm not entertaining this.


  • #1038
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    tritium wrote: »
    how much tougher? 10 years is the current average for rape. Longer than most crimes bar murder. What should it be?

    Greater than 0 days is the prevailing answer.


  • #1039
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Well then you are taking my reply out of context, because that post was in regards to the case where a man who was admitted guilt and was convicted of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman and received a suspended sentence.

    You used my reply to prove your point that people here were calling for people who are accused of sexual assault to be punished, when that's not what my post was about. My post was about someone who was actually convicted.
    You are being deliberately obtuse.

    You didn't read the whole post then, just the part that triggered you.


  • #1040
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    Greater than 0 days is the prevailing answer.

    I did say before, the reason that certain posters will refuse to entertain a discussion on the sentences for rape, is that they genuinely would be satisfied only with castration.


  • #1041
    RWCNT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    nullzero wrote: »
    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.


    And that prevailing attitude comes entirely from your own imagination, in this thread at least. Nobody has said anything even approaching that. It's a handy way to misrepresent the other side of the argument and it feeds into your narrative though, so crack on I suppose.


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    I asked you not what you believe should happen in general, but what specific sentence you would have imposed in the case you yourself cited. Man inserts fingers into a sleeping woman's vagina after a party, admits sexual assault in court, the victim says she is satisfied with his public admission of guilt, and the judge gives him a two-year suspended sentence.

    Your stance is that he got off too lightly -- and yet you won't say anything beyond that he should have received a custodial sentence of greater than 0 days.

    But if the judge had put him in jail for two weeks, I'm sure that would have caused outrage too, no?

    My understanding is the Victim did not say she was satisfied.
    She said she was vindicated.

    Which could mean that she felt vindicated because her accusation of assault was proven correct.


  • #1043
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    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.


    How do you know when or where he got married or what vows he took? How do you know how he and his wife agree to live their marriage.

    Or do you just want to build a character assassination narriative? Would it be ok on your opinion to do the same with the accuser. Would it be ok to question if for example her drinking while underage called her integrity into question- “ after all judge, how could we trust someone who clearly doesn’t respect the law.....”

    Somehow I doubt you be ok with that, yet you’re perfectly ok with attacking the integrity of the personal life of an acquitted individual.


  • #1044
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    nullzero wrote: »
    You didn't read the whole post then, just the part that triggered you.

    I refer you to the below.
    You seem to be a bit confused.
    Which part didn't I read properly, because you seem to be using my post to prove people are calling for those accused to be punished when that is a total lie, I was talking about someone who had been convicted.
    nullzero wrote: »
    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.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Nobody has said that. can you point to some posts that suggest it?
    nullzero wrote: »
    Fao ohnonotgmail.

    Originally Posted by SusieBlue View Post
    Well he is currently spending 0 days in prison, so anything more than that would be an improvement.


  • #1045
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    A man stands up in front of a hundred of his family and friends & makes sworn promises to his wife. If he can lie in front of all of his friends then he can easily lie under oath. This is what the DPP would have been pushing in court.

    So much deflection on this thread. The thread is about why her thong & the barristers comment were allowed at All. This guy seems to be a complete dope but that is not what the thread is about.

    Still waiting for someone to come up with a genuine answer as to why the judge allowed this

    Most married people break their vows at some point, no contract can change the nature of human sexuality.


  • #1046
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    Most married people break their vows at some point, no contract can change the nature of human sexuality.

    You have such a negative and wholly incorrect view of marriage, it is seeping into every point of view you're expressing.


  • #1047
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Candie wrote: »
    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.

    Ah yeah, this ****e. If you don’t agree with us you’re just a misogynist. Was wondering when we’d get to this.

    Seriously, this isn’t a personal echo chamber in spite of the tendency on this thread for one side to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala to anything that doesn’t fit their world view of oppression.

    Whether you like it or not, we have a system that doesn’t just go around lynching the accused on the back of an accusation. Whatever the changes we want in the legal system, removing the right of a defendant to a fair trial isn’t one of them. Especially on the back of whipped up outrage based on a trial that few seem to know all the details about.

    If we hang on long enough I’m sure “rape culture” will make an appearance.


  • #1048
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tritium wrote: »
    Ah yeah, this ****e. If you don’t agree with us you’re just a misogynist. Was wondering when we’d get to this.

    Seriously, this isn’t a personal echo chamber in spite of the tendency on this thread for one side to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala to anything that doesn’t fit their world view of oppression.

    Whether you like it or not, we have a system that doesn’t just go around lynching the accused on the back of an accusation. Whatever the changes we want in the legal system, removing the right of a defendant to a fair trial isn’t one of them. Especially on the back of whipped up outrage based on a trial that few seem to know all the details about.

    If we hang on long enough I’m sure “rape culture” will make an appearance.


    Candies post is talking about a case where a man plead guilty. How is your response relevant to that?


  • #1049
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    My understanding is the Victim did not say she was satisfied.
    She said she was vindicated.

    Which could mean that she felt vindicated because her accusation of assault was proven correct.

    She said in a statement that she was "entirely vindicated."

    Therefore, I assume she was satisfied with the outcome, hair-splitting semantics aside.


  • #1050
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    She said in a statement that she was "entirely vindicated."

    Therefore, I assume she was satisfied with the outcome, hair-splitting semantics aside.


    vindicated <> satisfied.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    tritium wrote: »
    Ah yeah, this ****e. If you don’t agree with us you’re just a misogynist. Was wondering when we’d get to this.

    Seriously, this isn’t a personal echo chamber in spite of the tendency on this thread for one side to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala to anything that doesn’t fit their world view of oppression.

    Whether you like it or not, we have a system that doesn’t just go around lynching the accused on the back of an accusation. Whatever the changes we want in the legal system, removing the right of a defendant to a fair trial isn’t one of them. Especially on the back of whipped up outrage based on a trial that few seem to know all the details about.

    If we hang on long enough I’m sure “rape culture” will make an appearance.

    But in the case Candie was referring to, the defendent admitted guilt and was convicted for the assault.
    So yeah, your reply is irrelevant because it wasn't about someone who had been accused. It was about someone who had admitted responsibility for their crime.


Advertisement