Sleeper12 wrote: » It's also what they admitted to doing in court. Threesome, spitroast etc. These guys are supposed to be role models. Parents no longer wanted their posters on their children's bedroom walls At the end of the day if the public feel that they won't pay to see them them it's game over. George Hook sponsors dropped him & his show got dropped. Now he is in the bold boy corner and I can't see him getting out of it.
Boggles wrote: » The bold boys corner means you don't get to play or participate. That was his suspension. He may not be pupil of the week but he is firmly out of a the bold boys corner. I don't listen to him, never have, can't really fathom why people would. But I image his new show has ad breaks, therefore sponsors. So your claim of "game over" is fundamentally wrong, no? Twitter outrage is finite it has a limited shelf life, there is always another fight to move on to, George could easily sneak back onto Prime Time.
Sleeper12 wrote: » Not quite. He was on 10 hours per week & now only 2 hours per week He did have an official sponsor but now just regular ad breaks The advertisers did pay a perineum for his lunchtime slot now they pay a much cheaper rate He had 100,000 listeners now less than half of that The station did promote his High Noon show throughout the day & night & now they hardly promote his Saturday show .at all. He did have free rein to be outspoken & now he is castrated barely touching on topics he was outspoken on before. Most of the country don't even know that he's still on the radio. He is definitively in the bold boys corner playing all on his own. I like George but he has been silenced by Newstalk. It's a little sad tbh
ohnonotgmail wrote: » pretty sure you didnt mean perineum though it might be an apt word to describe George.
One eyed Jack wrote: » There’s no difference at all L, ultimately it does come down to a Judge, and I was making the point that what you were suggesting in that an application would have to be made to introduce the complainants underwear as evidence is similar to a Section 3 application. Under that application, complaining witnesses can be asked whether they use a dildo or are they on the pill, and those are just examples. You think a Judge that allows an application for those purposes would stop an application to question the complainant about their underwear?
It doesn’t matter how many convictions have been overturned on the basis of a section 3 application being denied, the point is that it can happen, and the complainant has to be made aware of that possibility.
Sleeper12 wrote: » Not quite. He was on 10 hours per week & now only 2 hours per week He did have an official sponsor but now just regular ad breaks
Sleeper12 wrote: » At the end of the day if the public feel that they won't pay to see them them it's game over. George Hook sponsors dropped him & his show got dropped. Now he is in the bold boy corner and I can't see him getting out of it.
Sleeper12 wrote: » He had 100,000 listeners now less than half of that
Sleeper12 wrote: » He was dropped from 10 hours of prime time radio to two hours on a Saturday morning when most are still in bed.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » It depends on the girl! Some might be, some might not be. There is no way that an item of clothing indicates intent to do anything - even my football shirt, I'll wear it to the match Saturday - someone could wear theirs at the same time to go the shops. Even that doesn't indicate intent, so knickers don't. Like I said at the outset, if the complainant had said that she never wore them and they were mentioned as a rebuttal, I could see why that was. That wasn't the case though and the barrister was out of line saying what she did. However I don't want to go the route where we dictate what defences can and can't be used.Do we have a Rape Shield Law like the US does ? We should but perhaps someone can tell me ?
LLMMLL wrote: » There is a major difference in allowing a judge free reign and allowing him to make a final decision with a restricted framework. The fact that you can point to one or two cases where an individual judge allowed irrelevant evidence proves my point. That section 3 limits the possibility of introducing that kind of evidence. Nobody expects a perfect judiciary. Some judges make dodgy decisions. Were all aware of that. But this idea of yours that a judge will have zero regard to particular legislation in an area where he has to make a decision is pure fantasy.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Is that what you think I’m arguing? Because I never said that, or anything even like it. The fact is I can point to cases where you would argue that particular evidence was irrelevant, however the whole point of Section 3 is to allow the defence to introduce evidence it regards as relevant, and whether not allowing the defence to introduce said evidence would lead to them not being able to receive a fair trial, and therefore could leave a conviction open to being overturned on appeal. How many convictions were overturned based upon an appeal that the defendant did not receive a fair trial is not relevant to my pointing out that it can happen.
Therefore it’s not a solid piece of legislation as it means the defence can go for a second bite of the cherry if they lose the first time, and unless the Judge refuses grounds for leave to appeal, you can be guaranteed they will do just that if they have the money to pay for the lawyers to represent them.
As an aside btw, where were all these women’s rights and women’s welfare championing politicians when Margaret Cash was being torn apart in public and her private live was scrutinised to the nth degree? Not a fcuking peep out of any single one of them, because Margaret Cash was easy to throw under the bus as she didn’t suit their purposes.
LLMMLL wrote: » Quite the bizarre aside but I was quite active in the Margaret Cash thread pointing out that the details on her FB page were irrelevant.
One eyed Jack wrote: » We could argue back and forth over the purpose of Section 3 L, we both interpret it’s purpose differently. However the point of me mentioning the above isn’t a bizarre aside, it goes directly to the point you’re making in trying to suggest that politicians have anyone else’s interests at heart but their own. I know where you were, and that’s why I made the point, because you were in the thick of it and it’s probably the only time we’ve ever agreed on anything. My point wasn’t about where you were though, it was about where were the politicians who are using this particular case to signal their claimed support for women, when Margaret Cash was being thrown under the bus and humiliated in public? They were nowhere to be seen, so you’ll have to forgive me that I’m as cynical as I am that they have any regard, let alone motivation to introduce the kind of legislation you would wish for. They will of course as I said make all the right moves, pronounce all the appropriate soundbites and condemnations, but really they’ll do fcukall that would make any difference if it didn’t first suit their own personal circumstances. I would also suggest on that basis that it won’t be long before we see barristers receiving death threats on social media when people disagree with their conduct as reported by the media in cases where people disagree with the outcome of any trial, as reported by the media. EDIT: Just heard about this on the 9 o clock news just now, worth a read -Preliminary report into the law and procedures in serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland Executive Summary & Key Recommendations Sir John Gillen
LLMMLL wrote: » The case we're current discussing relates to procedures of the state, in particular the courts. The Margaret Cash case relates to the proclamations of private citizens on public forums.You're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m comparing politicians reactions (or lack thereof) on the basis of their claims to care about women’s rights and women’s welfare. It’s quite clear from their different reactions in both circumstances that it has nothing to do with any interest in women’s rights and women’s welfare, but rather more to do with using people’s circumstances in cases where they see those circumstances as useful to promoting themselves and their own ideas, such as Ruth Coppingers stunt in the Dail, as opposed to not a peep out of her in the case of Margaret Cash. Ms. Coppinger is no more a liberal or a socialist than I am
LLMMLL wrote: » But a politician can potentially influence court procedure.
They can't influence what's said on boards.
This is just another lame "if they're really feminists why aren't they protesting about the treatment of women in Africa" argument.
One eyed Jack wrote: » EDIT: I don’t regard Ms. Coppinger as a feminist either, that would be assuming she has any interest in anyone else’s welfare but her own.
Candie wrote: » 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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » They can’t. They can try and gain public support for their sex education bills using silly publicity stunts in the Dail, but politicians cannot influence court procedures. One politician alone can certainly attack the right to due process, but they cannot interfere in court procedures.
They certainly can, and you know I was referring to the fact that they made no public comment when Margaret Cash was being torn apart in public, not just on Boards. They offered no support whatsoever. There were no pithy soundbites or publicity stunts from Ms. Coppinger in spite of the fact that only three years ago she pulled another publicity stunt in support of the homeless -In September 2015, she joined homeless families from Blanchardstown, in occupying a Nama-controlled property as part of a campaign to raise awareness of the housing crisis. In October 2015, she joined families in their occupation of a show house in her constituency, to protest at the lack of availability of affordable social housing. She has also supported the tenants of Tyrrelstown, who were made homeless when a Goldman Sachs vulture fund sold their houses.
No L, this is nothing like that. This is politicians doing exactly what I expect them to do. I don’t ever expect them to look after anyone else’s interests but their own. In that regard at least, Ms. Coppinger hasn’t disappointed. She’s doing exactly what I expect any politician would do. You’re expecting them to do more than they’re capable of, and I think you’ll be disappointed. EDIT: I don’t regard Ms. Coppinger as a feminist either, that would be assuming she has any interest in anyone else’s welfare but her own.
LLMMLL wrote: » They can and have through legislation. Where do you think section 3 comes from?
In none of those cases you have given examples of was Coppinger fighting against public opinion voiced on forums and comments sections. Again you're comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to say that protesting homelessness is the same as protesting the public vilification of a particular homeless person who was perceived as gaming the system and by protesting homelessness but not defending Margaret cash she's being hypocritical. Nonsense.
I'm not expecting them to do anything. I'm saying that it's possible to do something similar to section 3 legislation.
Boggles wrote: » Really?https://www.newstalk.com/Hooks-Saturday-Sit-In
Sleeper12 wrote: » Bold boy corner now for sure. His contract isn't being renewed https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/newstalk-announces-george-hooks-retirement-13627624
One eyed Jack wrote: » That’s not politicians having any influence on court procedures, and any legislation you’re suggesting could be introduced, it would still be at the discretion of the Judge in any specific case as to whether or not the evidence should be allowed or not as long as it wasn’t prejudicial to the defendants right to receive a fair trial. Under section 3 which relates to a complainants previous sexual history, there have been many examples of it being given a fairly broad scope, and any new legislation would have to be given an equally broad scope, rendering it IMO, as ineffective as Section 3 in relation to the complainant.
For the third time now - I’m comparing politicians reactions in relation to the fact that they were able to make public comments about the treatment of women in one case, but remained decidedly silent in the case of a woman who was vilified in public, in both the media and on social media and they simply chose not to intervene on her behalf to help her in any way, shape or form whatsoever, and there is no evidence that Ms. Cash was guilty of any wrongdoing. Her life was (and still is) viciously scrutinised in public, yet Ms. Coppinger chose to wave a thong about in the Dail. I don’t think her actions were hypocritical btw, I think she was just very true to form based upon her previous actions where she chose to act in her own self-interest. A hypocrite is someone who contradicts themselves, Ms. Coppinger hasn’t contradicted herself in always acting in her own self-interest. I doubt she sought consent from the girl involved in this particular case or thought about the consequences for her either before using her circumstances to gain public support for her own cause.
You’ve argued that they should introduce legislation similar to section 3 in an attempt to exclude specific evidence from an investigation at trial, and the whole basis for your argument is that you personally consider the underwear worn by the complainant at the time of the encounter should be regarded as irrelevant in assisting a defendant in their own defence. That’s simply not your call to make, and it’s not for politicians to decide either. It’s a call for the defendant in any trial to make, and it’s at the discretion of the Judge to allow it if it can be demonstrated that not allowing it could lead the jury to find the defendant guilty.
4ensic15 wrote: » The barrister did not do anything unethical.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » She suggested that wearing a thong is an indication of consent, or of an intention to have sex.
Silentcorner wrote: » Some more details on the case, you can see now why the DPP felt they had a reasonable chance of conviction.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/she-fears-she-wasnt-believed-new-details-on-cork-rape-trial-expose-ordeal-endured-by-complainants-37560842.html I can't fathom how the judge allow the barrister use the young ladies underwear as part of the defendants case. I can understand the anger this has provoked.
4ensic15 wrote: » What is unethical about that? The thong was shown to the jury in evidence. She was entitled to ask the jury to consider it in their deliberations.
4ensic15 wrote: What is unethical about that? The thong was shown to the jury in evidence. She was entitled to ask the jury to consider it in their deliberations.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Wearing a thong is not consent. She's undoubtedly a smart lady if she is an SC, so she appears to have put a proposition that she knows to be untrue to the jury. That is not ethical.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6984b3dff155c34b5a9498bb42f9c13.svg)
