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…3536384041…61

Comments

  • #1112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lillybloom wrote:
    So two people had legal consenting sex, get over it.

    Please point out where any poster said otherwise.
    Lillybloom wrote:
    Why do you feel the need to point out she's a minor then?

    Because she is not an adult. She is a minor. This is her legal title


  • #1113
    Cleopatra_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 812 ✭✭✭Cleopatra_


    Cleopatra_ wrote: »
    I have some mental health problems so I do occasionally get black out drunk and that is my issue, I take responsibility for that, my friends and family who have seen me in this condition in the past know that it's very obvious that I'm in a state of black out drunk. I don't make any sense, I talk rubbish, sometimes I can be a bit upset or aggressive, I have trouble walking.
    Lillybloom wrote: »
    Do you disagree that you can be "black out" drunk and seem merely a bit tipsy to others?

    Do you just want the world to agree with everything you say, people have different viewpoints.


    See above.


  • #1114
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    If I had a penny for everytime someone posted this on this thread I could buy myself a pint.


    Why bring up the age of consent? You are hurting this poor guy by doing so. NO ONE said that he had underage sex. I've read the thread twice & no one has claimed this.


    The girl is a minor that doesn't mean that it was underage sex. It's simple really

    People are brining up consent because some seem to be trying to attack the man's character for having sex with a 17 year old. It seems perfectly reaonable to then establish the fact that 17 is in fact legal for having sex.


  • #1115
    Peter Denham
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Peter Denham


    Horrible case. And disrespectful to place relevance on the underwear I think.

    On the flip side, there's a lot of scumbags out there on the lookout for drunk women specifically and recently encouraging people to drink responsibly is seen as victim blaming.

    Unfortunately we don't live in a fairytale and people will assault, steal and even kill and it's up to us to do our best to avoid those situations because "telling men not to rape" just won't cut it. I think it's really irresponsible to dismiss advising people to be careful as victim blaming.


  • #1116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote:
    This is hilarious, coming from the poster who reminds us at every turn that the complainant was a minor.


    It is what she is.

    Why do you want me to invent a new title for her when the term minor has been in existence for hundreds of years. She is not an adult so I can't call her an adult. When she turns 18 I'll call her an adult. For now she is a minor


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    Cleopatra_ wrote: »
    See above.

    Yes I see above, this doesn't negate my point, plenty of people get "black out" drunk and are perfectly coherent. "Black out" drunk is a term dislike as it is often interpreted differently. Some people think it means unconscious, for others it just means unable to remember.


  • #1118
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    tritium wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?

    It has nothing to do with being raped.

    The defence never implied it did (and would have been extraordinarily dumb if they had)
    You know it was a rape trial?


  • #1119
    Cleopatra_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 812 ✭✭✭Cleopatra_


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    Yes I see above, this doesn't negate my point, plenty of people get "black out" drunk and are perfectly coherent. "Black out" drunk is a term dislike as it is often interpreted differently. Some people think it means unconscious, for others it just means unable to remember.


    Well let me clear it up for you. I was ''black out'' drunk and I couldn't remember. Then I actually passed out. Do you think maybe he realised I was too drunk to consent when I passed out while he was having sex with me?


  • #1120
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    This is hilarious, coming from the poster who reminds us at every turn that the complainant was a minor.

    You’re the one who is conflating the two terms and implying that it means he has sex with someone underage. You’d want to be careful there. Very litigious people reading apparently.


  • #1121
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »

    If we can suggest that girls / women should be careful & not to drink too much or walk alone at night, can we not also say that 27 year old married men should be careful about the age of girls they have sex with. As George says is there no personal responsibility? This man dodged a bullet. She could have lied about her age & he could be in a mess of trouble.

    If?

    Can we actually suggest that?

    As I recall George got into a lot of trouble and lost his job for saying that. There was also a fairly long thread, with many of the same posters as on this one. Does a different rule apply here then because it’s a man being victim blamed?

    That’s not to say he didn’t take a risk btw, he may have. We have a very lax attitude to young people drinking for example and we don’t know if the question of age cane up in their conversation. But saying he took a risk doesn’t make him a rapist and shouldn’t be used to besmirch his character after he’s acquitted


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    It is what she is.

    Why do you want me to invent a new title for her when the term minor has been in existence for hundreds of years. She is not an adult so I can't call her an adult. When she turns 18 I'll call her an adult. For now she is a minor

    You see you're purposely using that term repeatedly to attempt attack the man's character, and then feigning ignorance, "but that's what she is" she says innocently.

    The truth is you despise the man in question and you love making any attack on his character that you can.


  • #1123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,219 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cleopatra_ wrote: »
    Well let me clear it up for you. I was ''black out'' drunk and I couldn't remember. Then I actually passed out. Do you think maybe he realised I was too drunk to consent when I passed out while he was having sex with me?

    You don't have to justify yourself to anyone. You don't owe anyone an explanation.


  • #1124
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You know it was a rape trial?

    You know the defence is trying (successfully here) to show a rape wasnt committed, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt


  • #1125
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    tritium wrote: »
    You know the defence is trying (successfully here) to show a rape wasnt committed, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt

    The verdict did that, unless you prefer kangaroo courts and lynch mob "justice"?


  • #1126
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
    It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
    Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.


  • #1127
    Peter Denham
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Peter Denham


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
    It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
    Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

    I know very little about this case, only the headline really. Was the verdict outrageous given whatever evidence was presented in court?


  • #1128
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
    It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
    Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

    Because some people are so determined to show that every rape complaint is in fact true they are failing to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"


  • #1129
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    The verdict did that, unless you prefer kangaroo courts and lynch mob "justice"?

    And what kind of court would you like? One where men were automatically let off the hook for copping feels left right and centre and women punished by default for “lying”?
    I know I’m on ignore at this stage but the irony and lack of self awareness is amazing.


  • #1130
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Peter Denham wrote: »
    I know very little about this case, only the headline really. Was the verdict outrageous given whatever evidence was presented in court?

    Not in the slightest but I guarantee it will be answered differently by some.


  • #1131
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
    It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
    Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

    Likewise when someone is convicted it doesn't mean the person convicted isactually commited the crime, plenty of people are in prison who were wrongfully convicted.


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    retro:electro wrote: »
    You’re the one who is conflating the two terms and implying that it means he has sex with someone underage.

    Eh? :confused:

    I haven't done anything of the sort. I've noted several times that having sex with a 17-year-old is perfectly legal in Ireland. I've even said that whether the alleged victim was 17, 25, or 45 makes no difference in regard to the charges brought.

    Nowhere have I insinuated that the defendant had sex with an underage girl. Another poster is trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that she could have been a 15-year-old posing as a 17-year-old.


  • #1133
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    This may be a hard for some to understand, but some rape accusations are true and some are false. To automaticlly believe an accusation is true or false is idiotic.


  • #1134
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    Because some people are so determined to show that every rape complaint is in fact true they are failing to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"

    Who are these people, where are they on this thread?
    Who is calling for mandatory punishments for men who are accused and complained? Because I don't see anyone here in favour of it.


  • #1135
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lillybloom wrote: »
    You see you're purposely using that term repeatedly to attempt attack the man's character, and then feigning ignorance, "but that's what she is" she says innocently.

    The truth is you despise the man in question and you love making any attack on his character that you can.


    I'm going to try this one last time, then I'm going for a Friday pint. :)


    The man was never charged with underage sex because he didn't have underage sex. The man was found not guilty of rape.


    With that out of the way the thread is about the thong, the comments made by the barrister & the way this girl was treated. For this purpose its very important to keep telling everyone that she was a minor. Nothing to do with sex. It's important to point out that they treated a minor in such a terrible manor.



    None of this changes the fact that the defendant is not guilty, nor does it suggest that he had underage sex. The first poster using the term pedophile was someone trying to stick up for this poor chap. No one is attacking him. The term minor has nothing to do with sex it just means that she was 17.


    Anyone wanting to fight this poor chaps corner should stop talking about age of consent & definitely stop using terms like pedophile. No one is attacking him & this type of defending him is actually doing more harm then good.



    Time for the pup :)


  • #1136
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Peter Denham wrote: »
    I know very little about this case, only the headline really. Was the verdict outrageous given whatever evidence was presented in court?

    I don't disagree with the verdict, the point I'm making is that many here are saying that the rape never happened and the victim was telling lies, and using the fact that the defendant was found not guilty to back that up.

    I'm simply stating that the fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean it never happened and it doesn't mean she's telling lies.


  • #1137
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    tritium wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?
    It has nothing to do with being raped.The defence never implied it did (and would have been extraordinarily dumb if they had)
    You know it was a rape trial?
    tritium wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You know it was a rape trial?

    You know the defence is trying (successfully here) to show a rape wasnt committed, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt
    So why did you say that it was nothing to do with being raped? It was specifically intended to get him off the rape charge?


  • #1138
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    Eh? :confused:

    I haven't done anything of the sort. I've noted several times that having sex with a 17-year-old is perfectly legal in Ireland. I've said that whether the alleged victim was 17, 25, or 45 makes no difference in regard to the charges brought.

    It is being hoped desperately by some that if he can't be convicted in court then he should be convicted in the public arena.

    It's why the #MeToo nonsense on social media was allowed to flourish and whilst you get "you don't have to explain hun" rubbish - courts demand proof, evidence, a coherent story etc etc - social media just requires a hashtag.

    Sadly there are people on this very threads who equate the two and subscribe to the theory that all rape accusers be believed.

    No they shouldn't, neither party to an accusation should be - (and there should be anoymity for all parties) - they should all be listened to, dealt with sensitively and offered a fair and impartial trial of the accused. No more, and no less.


  • #1139
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    It's important to point out that they treated a minor in such a terrible manor.

    Oh, come on -- the state of her house has absolutely nothing to do with this.


  • #1140
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
    It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
    Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

    Because some people are so determined to show that every rape complaint is in fact true they are failing to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"
    No one suggested that every rape complaint is true, as you well know.


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
    It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
    Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

    Let’s break this down a bit

    First “prosecute for the assault” implies there was an assault- legally there is not enough evidence to conclude there was an assault- the verdict of the jury was not guilty

    Secondly please don’t take what I wrote selectively - I noted that the objective was set at “at least the level of reasonable doubt”. That’s important here aince that is the standard for acquittal. It’s not necessarily an easy bar to reach either. If there isn’t reasonable doubt that a rape happened then there can’t be an acquittal.

    The only place where the question of is there sufficient evidence to prosecute an (alleged) crime arises is in the DPPs decision as to whether to bring the trial in the first case.

    The courts role is whether the evidence warrants conviction. In this case they decided it didn’t

    In a nutshell your post is horribly wrong


Advertisement