Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Options
1…4243454748…61

Comments

  • Options
    #1322
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You have no objective basis for that assertion. I have an objective basis for my assertion given her most recent publicity stunt, to support my assertion that she is ignorant of the law. We have no way of knowing for certain whether or not she is actually ignorant of the law, or if she is simply feigning ignorance because it goes down well with a certain cohort of the Irish public who appear to be just as ignorant of the law and court procedures as she is.

    I’m certainly not irritated by anything Ms. Coppinger does, the woman has what is practically the opposite of the Midas touch - everything she associates herself with turns to shìt, IMO (your opinion will undoubtedly differ), and I have no reason to regard her as being capable of anything more than shìt-stirring to further her own political aims for herself.
    Can you illustrate the ignorance? Eg what she brought up is the exact same sort of stuff that the rape crisis center have bringing up for years. Do you think they are also ignorant of the law?

    Here's two law lecturers from Ucc calling for reform of rape trials, are you now classifying them as ignorant of the law? But you are far more of an expert? Neither view it as one occurrence and rather an ongoing issue in rape trials...
    https://www.irishlegal.com/article/experts-back-rape-trial-reform-after-cork-trial-protests
    Homer wrote: »
    Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

    Wonder if Rennaws will be rushing in to shout "defamation" at this user. Not enough evidence does not amount to lying, Homer....


  • Options
    #1323
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,745 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    What I meant is when both parties admit sex took place then DNA plays very little part in the case & it becomes he said, she said. It's very difficult to get a conviction in such cases.
    Ms Justice Carmel Stewart thanked the jury in a case dominated by the issue of consent.

    That is the most obvious question for me, why was it dominated by the issue of consent?

    Also there seemed to have been a key witness named in court who was not called. Why not?


  • Options
    #1324
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,414 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    I know juries don't have to (or should have to) quantify their degree of certitude but it makes sense that 100% is beyond reasonable doubt and anything below that should technically lead to a not guilty verdict, I merely chose 99% as an arbitrary number to make a point. In the same way that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", I find it hard to equate "there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict" with "there was no rape". It just doesn't feel right that as a result of the acquittal, the victims therefore weren't raped ... but I'm aware that that may just be down to my own personal feelings.

    Can you elaborate on the crime statistics; if from a legal standpoint a rape can only be classified as rape once someone has been convicted, then that must mean Ireland has a 100% conviction rate :confused:

    It might surprise you to find that research has shown " reasonable doubt" to be as low as 50% by some.

    ://www.lawcom.govt..._76_159_PP37Vol2.pdf
    - page 54

    Quote:
    However, many jurors said that they, and the jury as a whole, were uncertain
    what “beyond reasonable doubt” meant. They generally thought in terms of
    percentages, and debated and disagreed with each other about the percentage
    certainty required for “beyond reasonable doubt”, variously interpreting it as
    100 per cent, 95 per cent, 75 per cent, and even 50 per cent. Occasionally this
    produced profound misunderstandings about the standard of proof.

    While 100% is definitely beyond reasonable doubt, depending on who you ask (and who is on a jury) it could be anything from 50% up.


  • Options
    #1325
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Homer wrote: »
    Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.
    Jesus fu*kin christ; shameful post


  • Options
    #1326
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Rennaws wrote: »
    And there you go again..

    Posting on a discussion board isn't attention seeking.

    If it is, you have a lot more posts on this thread then I do.

    You also have 5 times my post count despite joining boards 5 year later.

    You know, it is possible to debate without getting personal.

    Are those your debating skills? Amazing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1327
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Homer wrote: »
    Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

    Do you have proof they were false? You need to get in touch with the Gardai if so. And by proof I don’t mean “he was found innocent”, because as well as that term being technically incorrect, it’s also moronic to assume his acquittal implies she’s a liar. A bit like assuming her knickers imply she wants sex. But there you go.


  • Options
    #1328
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    He was found Not Guilty. He wasn't found to be Innocent.

    Learn the difference because it's very important.

    He was acquited, found not guilty, therefore he is innocent.
    He walked into court innocent, and walked out innocent.


  • Options
    #1329
    Homer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭Homer


    Zulu wrote: »
    Jesus fu*kin christ; shameful post

    It was a tongue in cheek reply to the poster that claimed he had brought shame on his family :rolleyes: you can put your toys back in your pram now


  • Options
    #1330
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Are those your debating skills? Amazing.

    And the personal insults just keep coming..


  • Options
    #1331
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Homer wrote: »
    It was a tongue in cheek reply to the poster that claimed he had brought shame on his family :rolleyes: you can put your toys back in your pram now

    You need to work on your wit, Homer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1332
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    retro:electro wrote: »
    You need to work on your wit, Homer.

    You need to work on debating without constantly resorting to personal attacks.


  • Options
    #1333
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,745 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Do you have proof

    Speaking of which.
    Boggles wrote: »
    Do you feel for the defendant?
    retro:electro wrote: »
    For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat?

    Nope.
    Boggles wrote: »
    You know there has been absolutely no proof presented on here that he was married, it came from one poster, there was also a claim it wasn't his first time been accused of rape. Again no proof.

    There is absolutely no difference between that unsubstantiated rubbish and someone coming on here suggesting the girl has had multiple sexual partners and this isn't her first time alleging rape. It's equally as disgusting and absolutely pointless.

    Would you agree?

    Well would you agree?

    Since then he has been upgraded to a convicted rapist in another case.

    Does your outrage meter only going in one direction?


  • Options
    #1334
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Rennaws wrote: »
    And the personal insults just keep coming..

    He was actually responding to your personal insults. In fact you seem to use this topics for insult or just simply attempt to shut down discussion with defamation claims.


  • Options
    #1335
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Do you have proof they were false? You need to get in touch with the Gardai if so. And by proof I don’t mean “he was found innocent”, because as well as that term being technically incorrect, it’s also moronic to assume his acquittal implies she’s a liar. A bit like assuming her knickers imply she wants sex. But there you go.

    Or a prosecutor trying to imply that the fact he’s already married makes him a rapist? Would that also be moronic and outrageous?


  • Options
    #1336
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Rennaws wrote: »
    You need to work on debating without constantly resorting to personal attacks.

    Are you just going to follow me around stalking my posts and post count? Report my posts if you have an issue.


  • Options
    #1337
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    batgoat wrote: »
    He was actually responding to your personal insults.

    Which insults ?


  • Options
    #1338
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Are you just going to follow me around stalking my posts

    This is a discussion board.

    Posting on one is neither stalking nor attention seeking.

    As a rule, I don't report posts and I don't use the ignore function.

    I've made an exception for you with regard to reporting posts.

    I won't respond to you again.


  • Options
    #1339
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Thanks for letting me know.


  • Options
    #1340
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    batgoat wrote: »
    Can you illustrate the ignorance? Eg what she brought up is the exact same sort of stuff that the rape crisis center have bringing up for years. Do you think they are also ignorant of the law?


    Yes, I can illustrate the ignorance in that in my opinion at least, Ms. Coppingers stunt was an attempt to undermine the fundamental right to fair procedures in our Constitution, a right which every citizen is entitled to -


    The right to fair procedures

    The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

    •The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.

    •You must be given an adequate opportunity to present your case. You must be informed of the matter and you must be given a chance to comment on the material put forward by the other side.


    And Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -


    Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

    Here's two law lecturers from Ucc calling for reform of rape trials, are you now classifying them as ignorant of the law? But you are far more of an expert? Neither view it as one occurrence and rather an ongoing issue in rape trials...
    https://www.irishlegal.com/article/experts-back-rape-trial-reform-after-cork-trial-protests


    I’m getting a 404 on that link. However I was talking specifically about Ms. Coppingers actions. The opinions of law lecturers (and I’m familiar with plenty of them) who are not Ms. Coppinger, is an entirely separate matter, and trying to turn it round on me, is also a separate matter. We were discussing indications of Ms. Coppingers ignorance of the law, not anyone else’s, and that’s what you asked for my opinion on, and that’s all you’re getting my opinion on. Focusing on anyone else’s opinion is a completely separate matter. They are not who we were discussing.

    In saying that, I have no doubt that in person Ms. Coppinger is lovely, I would have no issue with her in a personal capacity, but as a public representative, she has a responsibility to respect the law and the decisions of the Courts, and Irish citizens, all of them, especially those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. She did not do that in these circumstances when she used her public platform to undermine the Irish Constitution and human rights law, and gave the appearance at least, that IMO she is ignorant of the law.


  • Options
    #1341
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yes, I can illustrate the ignorance in that in my opinion at least, Ms. Coppingers stunt was an attempt to undermine the fundamental right to fair procedures in our Constitution, a right which every citizen is entitled to -


    The right to fair procedures

    The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

    •The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.

    •You must be given an adequate opportunity to present your case. You must be informed of the matter and you must be given a chance to comment on the material put forward by the other side.


    And Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -


    Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).





    I’m getting a 404 on that link. However I was talking specifically about Ms. Coppingers actions. The opinions of law lecturers (and I’m familiar with plenty of them) who are not Ms. Coppinger, is an entirely separate matter, and trying to turn it round on me, is also a separate matter. We were discussing indications of Ms. Coppingers ignorance of the law, not anyone else’s, and that’s what you asked for my opinion on, and that’s all you’re getting my opinion on. Focusing on anyone else’s opinion is a completely separate matter. They are not who we were discussing.

    In saying that, I have no doubt that in person Ms. Coppinger is lovely, I would have no issue with her in a personal capacity, but as a public representative, she has a responsibility to respect the law and the decisions of the Courts, and Irish citizens, all of them, especially those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. She did not do that in these circumstances when she used her public platform to undermine the Irish Constitution and human rights law, and gave the appearance at least, that IMO she is ignorant of the law.

    Link works fine for me,just clicked on it via my browser. The case is of public interest as it highlights how rape trials are conducted. It is concluded so a politician commenting doesn't undermine it. We already withhold evidence when it's viewed as not pertinent to the case. What a woman is wearing is not pertinent to a rape. You may think it is but it categorically is not. Irish legal scholars have supported her on the issue.

    I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.

    I would also suggest that you really reconsider your own ignorant assumptions on how and why women dress as they choose to. Thongs don't represent some big desire to have sex. Likewise skirts etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1342
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    batgoat wrote: »
    I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.

    "Conducted differently"...

    So how should a rape trial be run to protect the enotional well being of a complainant without impacting on the emotional wellbeing of a defendant who may well believe they are 100% innocent?

    Would you afford these same protections to alleged victims of nonsexual violence..?

    Genuinely curious...


  • Options
    #1343
    Bigbagofcans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Bigbagofcans


    JohnCreedon81 wrote: »
    tenor.gif?itemid=10649704

    Those aren't even thongs :eek:


  • Options
    #1344
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,819 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    He got protection. The trial was conducted 'in camera' which means no names are released unless a guilty verdict is reached and the victim agrees to release particular names.


  • Options
    #1345
    JohnCreedon81
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 428 ✭✭JohnCreedon81


    Bigbagofcans wrote: »
    Those aren't even thongs :eek:

    Feckin Sisco I tellz ya!

    source.gif


  • Options
    #1346
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    "Conducted differently"...

    So how should a rape trial be run to protect the enotional well being of a complainant without impacting on the emotional wellbeing of a defendant who may well believe they are 100% innocent?

    Would you afford these same protections to alleged victims of nonsexual violence..?

    Genuinely curious...

    Do you get equally outraged when paedophilia cases get conducted differently to product victims.

    Seems to be some genuinely warped views towards rape when people think this thong evidence is viewed as fine...


  • Options
    #1347
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    batgoat wrote: »
    Link works fine for me,just clicked on it via my browser. The case is of public interest as it highlights how rape trials are conducted. It is concluded so a politician commenting doesn't undermine it. We already withhold evidence when it's viewed as not pertinent to the case. What a woman is wearing is not pertinent to a rape. You may think it is but it categorically is not. Irish legal scholars have supported her on the issue.


    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as are the law lecturers whom you agree with. However, in this specific case, the barrister who was representing the defendant is also familiar with the law, as was the barrister representing the State, and they disagreed, so I’m not sure what point you think you’re making by pointing out that your google skills are better than mine. I’ll stake money on it that even though you said they were both law lecturers in UCC, one of them likely to be Susan Leahy, who is a lecturer in law in UL, and writes regularly on Irish law regarding sex offences and criminal trial procedures.

    I have categorically stated numerous times btw that what a woman wears is not pertinent to rape. However, that does not apply in a criminal case where a person is on trial accused of rape. In those circumstances, what a complainant was wearing at the time of the alleged offence committed by the defendant, forms part of the evidence, and whether it’s a description of the evidence in question, or physical evidence, it forms part of the evidence which the defendant may use to assist in their own defence.

    You may regard specific evidence which is regarded as relevant in each specific case, as irrelevant in all cases, but that doesn’t make your opinion any more factual than it wasn’t already.

    I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.


    I at least am perfectly aware of how other judicial systems operate, and on that basis I don’t share your suspicions. We do it to various degrees here too, just not to the degree you would like, as it’s often determined that the exclusion of evidence which would assist the defendant in their own defence is prejudicial to their right to a fair trial. That’s why we don’t often prohibit evidence which the defendant maintains would aid in their own defence, and why it’s exactly the same procedures in other Common Law jurisdictions.

    I would also suggest that you really reconsider your own ignorant assumptions on how and why women dress as they choose to. Thongs don't represent some big desire to have sex. Likewise skirts etc.


    I’ve taken your suggestion into consideration, and dismissed it as the utter nonsense it is. How a person dresses is often a representation of their desire to have sex. It is never an indication however, that anyone has any permission to commit rape. There’s a big distinction between the two concepts that I feel you’re feigning ignorance of in order to support your position and claim that it’s my assumptions about something else entirely are ignorant, in spite of all the evidence in the real world that suggests how a person dresses is an indication of how they wish to be perceived.


  • Options
    #1348
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    One eyed Jack wrote: »

    I’ve taken your suggestion into consideration, and dismissed it as the utter nonsense it is. How a person dresses is often a representation of their desire to have sex. It is never an indication however, that anyone has any permission to commit rape. There’s a big distinction between the two concepts that I feel you’re feigning ignorance of in order to support your position and claim that it’s my assumptions about something else entirely are ignorant, in spite of all the evidence in the real world that suggests how a person dresses is an indication of how they wish to be perceived.

    You said that the majority of women want to have sex if they're wearing a thong.... So yep that's pretty ignorant and using choice of clothing in a rape trial is a disgrace.


  • Options
    #1349
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    batgoat wrote: »
    You said that the majority of women want to have sex if they're wearing a thong.... So yep that's pretty ignorant and using choice of clothing in a rape trial is a disgrace.


    I never said any such thing.


  • Options
    #1350
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s not my logic. All of your hypothetical scenarios are based upon events preceding the encounter, whereas any disagreement over whether or not consent was present is argued after the encounter.

    Determining whether or not consent is present preceding any encounter is irrelevant to any argument regarding whether or not consent was present after the encounter.

    In a case where the defendant claims that the encounter was consensual, then we are obligated to investigate the basis for their belief, by asking them, and allowing them the opportunity to explain themselves. Whatever criteria the defendant explains as the basis for their honest belief can only be determined as reasonable or unreasonable only after we hear their justification for their honest belief. If the defence for their honest belief relates to what the complainant was wearing, then what the defendant was wearing at the time of the encounter is relevant evidence in assisting the defendant in their own defence, whether or not that makes the complainant uncomfortable and casts doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant.

    Can you show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants belief?

    Because you seem to be making this up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1351
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Can you show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants belief?

    Because you seem to be making this up.


    Her comment relates directly to the defendants belief, as she was, y’know, representing the defendant.


Advertisement