Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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.

Please back up that claim with proof.
No one is suggesting that - no one at all.
You are hysterically trying to rebut a point that no one is making. No one is suggesting all rape accusers be believed on principle.

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.

Likewise. It's why I haven't had a drink in nearly 4 years. Point remains though, you can't always tell when someone is blacking out on alcohol, especially if they're on medication as well.

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that would be an abject waste of time since nothing defamatory was said. Stop trying to see things that aren’t there.

This is one of many examples..

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

From a legal perspective, a rape did not happen.

The court cannot simultaneously find the defendant not guilty and state that a rape happened. If there's no rapist, there's no rape.

I'm sure the #IBelieveHer brigade will continue to insist that a rape happened, as they do in every such case, but they have no factual or legal basis for that claim now that the defendant has been acquitted.

Completely incorrect, please see excellent post by PP which sums it up better than I would have.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, it's the fairest system which puts the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt without reasonable doubt. But the fact remains with any trial for any crime the state believes that there is enough evidence against the defendant to warrant a trial, it's not like a girl can say someone raped them and the trial of that person starts the next day, there'll be a investigation at the end of which the Gardai will decide whether there is enough evidence to arrest and charge, it's a lengthy and thorough process. A not guilty verdict does not mean the plainant lied, it does not mean there was no investigation or due process, it does not mean a crime was not convicted and it does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means there was not sufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. This is not my or anyone's individual interpretation of the justice system, that's how it is.

tritium wrote: »

Saying that it was a rape trial and saying that the thong had anything to do with being raped are two entirely different things.

The defence s position was that there was no rape. Why then would they connect a thong to a rape? They connected a thong to consensual sex, they made no connection to rape, actually quite the (important) opposite.

and what exactly is the connection between the wearing of a thong and consenting to sex?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what exactly is the connection between the wearing of a thong and consenting to sex?

Have we come full circle at this point?

Can’t you just read the extensive commentary in the many pages up to now?

Is repetition somehow gone to make you open to a change of view?

I mean, I and others have repeatedly detailed how the thong is one element of a wider defence case and evidence set. How by itself it would be far short of reasonable doubt. How many small pieces of innocuous evidence may in the round tell a much more compelling tale. How the absence Of detailed trial transcripts mean none of us know the rest of the evidence presented in conjunction. One poster who seemed familiar with the case even detailed why the approach was taken, and likely permitted, in response to the prosecution strategy employed.

SusieBlue wrote: »

There must have been a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest guilt to say the case even made it to court in the first place.
There just wasn't enough to prosecute.

It was prosecuted- that’s what the trial was

The verdict was not guilty, I.e. there was no conviction

BENDYBINN wrote: »

In today’s independent,Monica says she used her thong to seduce Bill.......attracted his attention and then went for hanky panky. Seems these thongs do have a purpose.

But once again, if you want sex on a particular night, does that mean you automatically consent to sex with any random person? Even if someone wore clothing which did explicitly say "I want to get the ride", that individual still has the right to choose who they ride, which to my mind is the central issue being missed in this thread.

Going out wanting to hook up with someone is not synonymous with going out and wanting to hook up with anyone. Just because someone wants sex, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say "I'm not into this person so I'm not riding him or her". This isn't rocket science FFS. This is the primary reason such arguments in court are total BS - the intention at the start of a night to bring someone home and ride them does not equate with consent to sex with any person in any context. You still get to decide which particular person you want to hook up with, and reject others.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, no one at all.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/980158258773192704?s=09

PlaneSpeaking said people on this thread, that's what I was clearly referring to. Nice try at deflection, though.

retro:electro wrote: »

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.

It's funny how the poster you are responding to is hairsplitting when he has been complaining about me hairsplitting.

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. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this thread. Someone who is raped has no responsibility whatsoever for their being raped, no matter what they were wearing or doing or behaving or anything else. The responsibility for their being raped is entirely on the person who raped them. Is that clear enough for you?


@Susie, about that other case in Cork, the article you linked to suggests that he was sentenced to two years, and that it was suspended. It doesn’t say how long the sentence was suspended for, so I have to assume it was indefinitely. This means if he is convicted of an offence at any point in the future, he would immediately serve the two years in prison, plus any jail time imposed by the Judge for the new conviction. A criminal conviction for sexual assault is by no means “a slap on the wrist”. It will have a negative effect on his career prospects and his life generally and at the end of the article it suggests that he was suicidal after what he had done. The fact that he acknowledged what he had done and plead guilty, saving everyone involved a lengthy trial, would have been a mitigating factor in sentencing.