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

eagle eye

One eyed Jack wrote:

Yes, the accuser is often granted the right to anonymity (itâ€™s not an automatic entitlement) to protect their identity in certain cases. The accused has no such right as the idea is a public hearing before a jury of their peers. I donâ€™t think the accused should have that right either as it would undermine the publicâ€™s confidence in our judicial system.

The victim has the right for the whole case and even the accusers name nit to he released if he is found guilty.
This option became available due to the many paedophile cases which involved family members.

Mrsmum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, the accuser is often granted the right to anonymity (it’s not an automatic entitlement) to protect their identity in certain cases. The accused has no such right as the idea is a public hearing before a jury of their peers. I don’t think the accused should have that right either as it would undermine the public’s confidence in our judicial system.

Ok. I thought he couldn't be named in newspapers etc during the trial and not afterwards unless found guilty.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Damn right it has..... multiple times at this stage and Ruth has undeniably played her part in it too:

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1045379137291128833

The mask slipping moment for them all was when Asia Argento was accused of statutorily raping an underage boy and their reaction was either to largely ignore the allegation or laughingly ask for people to hold back and allow due process.

https://www.thewrap.com/alyssa-milano-asia-argento-accusations-undermine-metoo-movement/

Arguably the most prominent me too campaigners are Alyssa Milano and rose.mcgowan. The above link shows Alyssa Milano neither ignored the allegation or made any mention of due process. I remember McGowan making similar comments at the time. You're full of it.

Not that even due process is enough for these people as they (as we are seeing on this thread) will after a not guilty verdict then just say 'Well, being found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it'.

Not that I have a problem with anyone questioning a verdict. Sure I've questioned enough myself (mostly correctly, given later acquittals) but that's not what appears to be happening here at all. People are not emphasizing that 'not-guilty doesn't equal innocent' because they feel strongly that an incorrect verdict was reached in a specific trial. They are emphasizing it purely to keep the statistical narrative in place that 1 in 40 rapes have an inappropriate punishment.

If these people accepted that when someone walks into a court they are presumed innocent and so when they then they walk they should still be presumed such if found not guilty, that would largely disarm them given that they have historically weaponized such stats. They are pedantic about how a not guilty verdict doesn't prove innocence but yet have no problem whatsoever referring to complainants as rape victims. To call them philosophically inconsistent would be too kind.

The posts you mentioned have usually been in response to.posts asking why the complainant hasn't been prosecuted for.makijg false statements, or posters such as planespeeking who confidently describe the complainant in the Belfast trial as regretting it the next day. These people seem to assume that a not guilty verdict means that the complainant has been found to be lying. There is no attempt to tar defendants by pointing out the basic truth that a not.guilty verdict does not.mean that the complainant was lying.

One eyed Jack

eagle eye wrote: »

The victim has the right for the whole case and even the accusers name nit to he released if he is found guilty.
This option became available due to the many paedophile cases which involved family members.

No they don’t, and it didn’t.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ok. I thought he couldn't be named in newspapers etc during the trial and not afterwards unless found guilty.

Yep, that’s exactly right, but the whole issue of anonymity is much more complex than it simply anonymity itself being assumed to be an automatic right for either the complainant or the defendant. There’s a good article which explains the nuances of it here in the context of Irish law (slightly different again in the UK) -

Untangling the vexed question of anonymity in sex cases

mickrock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "gagging for it" defence hasn't been used?
That there hasn't been instances when the (alleged) victim wasn't characterised as "up for it" or "asking for it" - unless the (alleged) victim has given consent it is rape and yes - defence lawyers can do do state they were asking or it. In fact - that is often the entire case for the defence.

If a complainant was truly "up for it" or "gagging for it" or "asking for it" and sex happens then it seems very likely it was consensual, and the defence are right to take this line of inquiry.

LLMMLL

batgoat wrote: »

Pete, just to clarify I very much view Asia Argento in the same vein as Weinstein. I think most tend to... It was also pretty heavily reported but not to the same degree as Weinstein because it's lower profile.

It was widely reported, and I'm sure if she assaulted the number of people that Weinstein did it would have gotten even more.

At the time the only people in the thread on boards who voiced any concern or support for the victims were feminists.

The two most prominent me too campaigners have not.ignored the allegation as Pete has claimed.

batgoat

mickrock wrote: »

If a complainant was truly "up for it" or "gagging for it" or "asking for it" and sex happens then it seems very likely it was consensual, and the defence are right to take this line of inquiry.

How would you define any of the above? Seems like some pretty dodgy guess work based on what? Clothing, kissing? It comes across as more of an unhealthy attitude towards women and sex.

LLMMLL wrote: »

It was widely reported, and I'm sure if she assaulted the number of people that Weinstein did it would have gotten even more.

At the time the only people in the thread on boards who voiced any concern or support for the victims were feminists.

The two most prominent me too campaigners have not.ignored the allegation as Pete has claimed.

Pete is of the view that the "grab em by the pussy" remark by Trump wasn't remotely creepy or dodgy if memory serves correctly.

The Bishop Basher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no wish to continuing discussing this with a person who argues that it is fair and just in a rape trial for the (alleged) victim's character and clothing to be called into question in the way it so often is.

What that amounts to is that you want to remove the defendants right to a fair trial by removing any avenues of defense that you deem off limits because you think they’re a bit nasty and mean..

Court isn’t pleasant and is sometimes unfair..

Sometimes a persons prevous conduct will shed light on their character..

It’s one of many things that might be used against you..

That’s life..

You can’t tip the balance in favour of the defendant in the manner your proposing..

You’re on a hiding to norhing.

I know Lord Leo made all the right virtue signaling noises and the herd all believed him but Leo doesn’t follow through on anything so in reality nothing will change on the back of this. Absolutely nothing.

Bannasidhe

Rennaws wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to remove the defendants right to a fair trial by removing any avenues of defense that you deem off limits because you think they’re a bit nasty and mean..

Court isn’t pleasant and is sometimes unfair..

Sometimes a persons prevous conduct will shed light on their character..

It’s one of many things that might be used against you..

That’s life..

You can’t tip the balance in favour of the defendant in the manner your proposing..

You’re on a hiding to norhing.

I know Lord Leo made all the right virtue signaling noises and the herd all believed him but Leo doesn’t follow through on anything so in reality nothing will change on the back of this. Absolutely nothing.

What that amounts to is that you want to deny the complainants right to a fair hearing by allowing any avenues of defense that lawyers deem fit if they make the victim appear a bit nasty and slutty..

We must tip the balance in favour of the defendant even if it destroys the complainant.

I couldn't give a flying about Leo but he is a master as reading which way the political zeitgist is blowing.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to deny the complainants right to a fair hearing by allowing any avenues of defense that lawyers deem fit if they make the victim appear a bit nasty and slutty..

We must tip the balance in favour of the defendant even if it destroys the complainant.

I couldn't give a flying about Leo but he is a master as reading which way the political zeitgist is blowing.

The complainant doesn’t have the right to a fair hearing in the context of the defendants right to a fair hearing when it is the defendant is accused of a criminal offence, not the complainant.

Roger Hassenforder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to deny the complainants right to a fair hearing by allowing any avenues of defense that lawyers deem fit if they make the victim appear a bit nasty and slutty..

I think this is part of the problem

We can go back to the days of chaperones, or we can accept that women enjoy sex as much as men, can be the predator, can initiate the hunt. Unfortunately, if things go south, the nature of sex, means its usually a woman who feels they were raped.

So we have this consent dilemma. He might have reasonably assumed he had it.

So if a defence can show that "she was up for it", "gagging", came onto the defendant, even a history of promiscuity or similar behaviour, then it opens the question did/could the defendant have reasonably believed he had consent, without it being expressedly given/asked. So past behaviour and history may be relevant*.

Therefore, i dont think its unreasonable for a man to avoid a charge of rape, to obtain consent. It doesnt have to be a notary stamped affidavit...

*the thong crossed a line though.

[Deleted User]

If it's not unreasonable to bring up a womans sexual history then it shouldn't be unreasonable to bring up any prior convictions of the defendants.

Both are unreasonable imo. Prior behaviour doesn't prove guilt in this particular instance for the defendant, and a history of multiple partners while swinging from a chandelier in the lobby of the Hilton while wearing a thong that says 'do me immediately' doesn't mean that the complainant has given consent to this particular man, in that particular place, that particular time.

Also when I wear skinny jeans I wear a thong to avoid VPL. It in no way signals that I'm out looking for sex and for anyone to imply that a womans underwear is giving consent on her behalf is simply ridiculous.

The Bishop Basher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying about Leo but he is a master as reading which way the political zeitgist is blowing.

He’s one of the twitter mob yes..

Not good for a the country but sure his tweets keeps the herd happy..

One eyed Jack

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I think this is part of the problem

We can go back to the days of chaperones, or we can accept that women enjoy sex as much as men, can be the predator, can initiate the hunt. Unfortunately, if things go south, the nature of sex, means its usually a woman who feels they were raped.

So we have this consent dilemma. He might have reasonably assumed he had it.

So if a defence can show that "she was up for it", "gagging", came onto the defendant, even a history of promiscuity or similar behaviour, then it opens the question did/could the defendant have reasonably believed he had consent, without it being expressedly given/asked. So past behaviour and history may be relevant*.

Therefore, i dont think its unreasonable for a man to avoid a charge of rape, to obtain consent. It doesnt have to be a notary stamped affidavit...

*the thong crossed a line though.

If it wasn’t the underwear in this case, it would simply be something else about the complainant that could be pointed to, such as in cases where the complainant is an adult male, his sexual orientation is questioned.

Candie wrote: »

If it's not unreasonable to bring up a womans sexual history then it shouldn't be unreasonable to bring up any prior convictions of the defendant.

It’s not unreasonable at all, in fact it can often demonstrate a pattern of previous behaviour of the defendant -

Man pleads guilty to raping woman he met on Tinder

Roger Hassenforder

Candie wrote: »

If it's not unreasonable to bring up a womans sexual history then it shouldn't be unreasonable to bring up any prior convictions of the defendants.

Both are unreasonable imo. Prior behaviour doesn't prove guilt in this particular instance for the defendant, and a history of multiple partners while swinging from a chandelier in the lobby of the Hilton while wearing a thong that says 'do me immediately' doesn't mean that the complainant has given consent to this particular man, in that particular place, that particular time.
.

yes and no

Innocent until proven guilty it must be. In every case. Every seperate trial. History is used in sentencing. If we dont, it assumes a criminal cant be rehabilitated.
If the cops come accross a rape, just round up a few of the local offenders. One of them will be sketchy enough to pin it on. "Sure Judge, he did it before, he must have done it again"
We could dispense with the law eventually. Just have kangaroo courts

But behaviour can be the issue where consent is contested.
Its not double standards. A defendant may genuinely believe he had consent, whether she gave consent or not. Thats the key thing. Not whether she gave it. Its whether he thought he had it.

Which is why i dont think its too onerous to obtain it. Its a fairly simple concept.
Dont drink and drive.
About to have sex? Ask if its ok

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If it wasn’t the underwear in this case, it would simply be something else about the complainant that could be pointed to, such as in cases where the complainant is an adult male, his sexual orientation is questioned.

I agree with a lot if what you're saying in this thread, but I see the thong differently. It has no relevance to the issue of giving or inferring consent. None. Its about as relevant as what hat she wore.
No relevance to sexual predeliction, interest or otherwise. None.
Which is why its all the more galling that it was a woman barrister that mentioned it.

uptherebels

Rennaws wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to remove the defendants right to a fair trial by removing any avenues of defense that you deem off limits because you think they’re a bit nasty and mean..
.

Except how is a woman's choice of underwear any form of defence for a rape/ sexual assault?

IMO there is difference between mounting a defence and flinging mud in the hope that some sticks.

[Deleted User]

Oh I agree that getting a verbal, clear, go ahead is an easy thing to do. There's always a few who'll go on about having a solicitor present but a quick 'is this okay?' or 'Are you sure?' isn't going to ruin the moment. I think most would be very appreciative of that small courtesy.

The underwear isn't indicative of any behaviour other than wearing underwear though, and I think the tactic of bringing them up was quite possibly unethical as the barrister was trying to bring the complainants character into question by leading the jury to infer something from her wearing a thong, which is hardly evidence of anything other than she wore a thong.

Use evidence to introduce doubt by all means, don't use myths about easy girls in slutty undies being up for it with anyone. If that's acceptable then anything is. If you can use misdirection to sully someones character then it would be okay for the prosecutor to ask the defendant if he's ever abused a child. Even if he says an adamant NO the question is out there, the connection made, and humans find it very hard to disregard impressions regardless of any judges direction. None of that is okay, and there has to be some standard of evidence to ensure the rights of both parties. Either side introducing irrelevant claims either directly or by implication is nothing short of slinging mud and hoping enough sticks to get their conviction or acquittal, and nothing to do with fairness or justice.

The Bishop Basher

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I find it mildly creepy how quick people are to say that somebody has "issues with women" especially when arguing. As its kind of like likening somebody to abusive behavior.

That was aimed at me and I felt likewise.

If only the poster knew the great relationships I have with all the women in my life from my mother to my wife to my daughters and many female friends and colleagues etc.

My daughters are 15 and 20 so in the thick of this stuff and we can all chat about issues without any raised voices, personal insults or name calling..

But then we usually all agree.

The poster couldn’t have been more wrong in their ignorant assumption but it was just one of a number of cheap personal jibes aimed at undermining me.

The same poster accused me of making personal attacks a few days ago and as yet they’ve been unable to support it with any evidence.

He’s just one in a long line of posters who’ve taken the same approach..

They run out of steam in the end..

Reason always wins out..

[Deleted User]

Comment from my wife last night: "how did you know that a woman wanted sex before thongs were invented?"

nullzero

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Comment from my wife last night: "how did you know that a woman wanted sex before thongs were invented?"

Did you meet in an insufferable bores only bar?

[Deleted User]

nullzero wrote:

Did you meet in an insufferable bores only bar?

In my local filling station this morning I noticed the a female worker stocking shelves was wearing a thong. I couldn't believe my luck on a Monday morning but was shocked & disappointed, when I asked her where we were going to have sex, she bared me from the store.

Doesn't make sense.

Sweetemotion

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In my local filling station this morning I noticed the a female worker stocking shelves was wearing a thong. I couldn't believe my luck on a Monday morning but was shocked & disappointed, when I asked her where we were going to have sex, she bared me from the store.

Doesn't make sense.

I think you need to stop watching porn

nullzero

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In my local filling station this morning I noticed the a female worker stocking shelves was wearing a thong. I couldn't believe my luck on a Monday morning but was shocked & disappointed, when I asked her where we were going to have sex, she bared me from the store.

Doesn't make sense.

Pics or gtfo...

[Deleted User]

Sweetemotion wrote:

I think you need to stop watching porn

Wearing a Thong means out looking for sex. I guess just not with me

Mrsmum

Discussed on Claire Byrne tonight. 88% on Amarach poll disagree with clothing being used as sign of consent. Charlie Flanagan on and he seems up for making some changes.

[Deleted User]

Mrsmum wrote:

Discussed on Claire Byrne tonight. 88% on Amarach poll disagree with clothing being used as sign of consent. Charlie Flanagan on and he seems up for making some changes.

Change has to come. Our justice system is discouraging victims from reporting crimes. The nonsense over the thong is sending out the wrong message to would be offenders & victims alike. Obviously this cant continue

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

Discussed on Claire Byrne tonight. 88% on Amarach poll disagree with clothing being used as sign of consent. Charlie Flanagan on and he seems up for making some changes.

Charlie’s “clothes don’t rape women, rapists rape women” was as stupid an attempt to ride on the coat tails of publicity that this case has generated, as Ruth Coppingers effort. It was particularly stupid in light of the fact that the defendant in this case was found not guilty of having committed rape.

That being said, it doesn’t surprise me that Charlie as the Minister for Justice had to come up with a “profound” sound-bite for the media, as he’s still done nothing in the months that followed his last promises in light of the trial in Belfast where those men were found not guilty of having committed rape -

Alleged rape victims to get support in court in wake of Belfast case

As for the polls on the Claire Byrne show, and the deluge of women posting pictures of their underwear on social media with the hashtag #ThisIsNotConsent, nobody has ever actually argued that the the complainants underwear was any indication of consent. It was argued as an indication that the complainant was interested in having sex, and whatever 88% of people believed about a completely different question is neither here nor there. The only thing that matters is what the jury believed that the defendant believed about the encounter between himself and the complainant.

You can’t simply make a blanket ban on prohibiting specific evidence which the defendant is of the opinion would aid in their own defence, and that’s why you’ll see politicians using cases like these to give the appearance that they’re making all the right moves and saying all the right things - because they know their job is contingent upon maintaining a high level of public support for their ideas. It has nothing to do with caring about women’s welfare or caring about the complainants in rape trials, because that’s literally beyond the scope of their political powers. They have no power to change criminal trial proceedings. It will always be ultimately up to the Judge in any specific trial whether or not specific evidence should be admitted, not politicians, thankfully, IMO.

The Bishop Basher

Is this the same Charlie who said he’s going to make it lillegal to film the Guards while on duty..

He’s clearly from the Kim Jong-un school of thought when it comes to the fundamental democratic rights of our citizens.

Im not sure how that squares with the hard left perspective given that they have a propensity to film the Gardai while out protesting.

Charlie doesn’t care though.. he’ll chase any hash tag going once it gives him an opportunity for a spot of virtue signaling.

One eyed Jack

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Change has to come. Our justice system is discouraging victims from reporting crimes. The nonsense over the thong is sending out the wrong message to would be offenders & victims alike. Obviously this cant continue

The only way any justice system would be seen to function properly from the some peoples perspective is if the person who the complainant accuses of having committed a criminal offence is immediately punished severely as possible.

That’s not justice. Justice has to be impartial in order to function properly, for both the person who accuses another person of a crime, and for the person who is accused of a criminal offence. Take the case I presented to you earlier in the thread of the woman who falsely accused a man of raping her when he was nowhere near her at the time.

According to how you imagine justice should operate, that man would be doing serious time now even though he was innocent of any wrongdoing, or according to how you’ve tried to present it in this case - the investigating officers just didn’t have sufficient evidence to prove he raped her, but they can’t say he didn’t, therefore implying that the man had committed rape, but got away with it. In Irish law, people have the right to their good name, and so accusations outside of a court of law are simply unfounded allegations and an attempt to ruin a persons reputation, and that sort of behaviour can land an accuser in all sorts of legal hot water.