Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Roger Hassenforder · 20-11-2018 2:56pm

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.

You've moved goal post slightly.
I think they're absolute dispicable shîts.

However, as discussed in the Belfast Rape trial ad nauseam, these "sportstars" operate in a world of women throwing themselves at them. A world of casual sex, where women compete to be with them, to fcûk and be fcûked by them. (And before anyone strawmans, no, that doesnt mean they deserved to be raped)
But lets remind ourselves. They were very quickly acquitted of all charges after a 9 week trial , where a witness said she saw a threesome...

Their whatsapp "banter" was simply used by a mob to punish them. Gilroy should have faced sanction if the reason they were drummed out of Ireland was their whatsapp behaviour. The sponsors couldnt be seen to be associated wuth them, and they were jettisoned.

If the country was emptied of all young men who engage in casual consensual sex, and boasted about it afterwards in private, we'll need more rabbits.

Sleeper12 · 20-11-2018 3:02pm

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.

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 · 20-11-2018 3:04pm

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

pretty sure you didnt mean perineum

though it might be an apt word to describe George.

PlaneSpeeking · 20-11-2018 3:09pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

pretty sure you didnt mean perineum

though it might be an apt word to describe George.

Beat me to it!

I don't mind George as it goes but that's one good typo!

LLMMLL · 20-11-2018 3:33pm

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?

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.

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.

Of course it matters. If section 3 generally leads to overturned convictions then it would either have to be scrapped or replaced.

If it doesn't generally lead to overturned convictions then it's a solid piece of legislation.

Boggles · 20-11-2018 3:39pm

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

Jaysus you are some man for moving the goalposts.

I never contested he wasn't moved or has less hours.

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.

So it isn't game over, sponsors are still paying and he is back on the radio. Correct?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He had 100,000 listeners now less than half of that

TBF that is fairly impressive given.

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.

That would lead me to believe he has more chance of getting back into the Prime Time.

Fair fooks to George, I still won't be listening to him though.

Sleeper12 · 20-11-2018 5:46pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

pretty sure you didnt mean perineum

though it might be an apt word to describe George.

I'm dyslexic and rely on spellcheck. Sometimes it gets it wrong .I had to google the meaning of that & spilt my coffee as I read the meaning.

vonlars · 20-11-2018 5:57pm

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 ?

We have http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1981/act/10/section/3/enacted/en/html. You can apply for it to be allowed in evidence basically.

One eyed Jack · 20-11-2018 7:38pm

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.

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 · 20-11-2018 9:30pm

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.

The point of section 3 is not to allow the defense to introduce evidence it considers relevant. The defense were already doing that prior to section 3. The whole point of introducing it was to PREVENT them introducing certain evidence, not ALLOW them to introduce certain evidence.

The number of convictions overturned is relevant if your point about it potentially happening is to have any meaning. See below.

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.

An appeal isn't a second bite of the cherry. It's not a new trial. Verdicts are appealed all the time. It doesn't mean any legislation an appeal relates to is in any way faulty. That would only follow if numerous appeals were successful.

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.

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 · 20-11-2018 9:48pm

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.

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 · 20-11-2018 10:33pm

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

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 · 20-11-2018 11:05pm

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.

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 · 21-11-2018 2:37am

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

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 · 21-11-2018 9:08am

LLMMLL wrote: »

But a politician can potentially influence court procedure.

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 can't influence what's said on boards.

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.

This is just another lame "if they're really feminists why aren't they protesting about the treatment of women in Africa" argument.

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.

mynamejeff · 21-11-2018 3:14pm

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.

this

4ensic15 · 21-11-2018 9:39pm

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.

The barrister did not do anything unethical. It would be unethical not to bring up anything which would help the clients case. The general consensus is that a thong does not show consent. Why then is it assumed that a jury of 12 people chosen at random differs from majority opinion. The defence was based on consent, not that anyone did anything wrong. If there was sex with someone wearing bloomers the defence might ask how there was non-consensual sex without them being torn.

LLMMLL · 22-11-2018 4:02am

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 can and have through legislation. Where do you think section 3 comes from?

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.

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.

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.

I'm not expecting them to do anything. I'm saying that it's possible to do something similar to section 3 legislation.

One eyed Jack · 22-11-2018 5:20am

LLMMLL wrote: »

They can and have through legislation. Where do you think section 3 comes from?

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.

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.

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.

I'm not expecting them to do anything. I'm saying that it's possible to do something similar to section 3 legislation.

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.

Sleeper12 · 22-11-2018 7:17pm

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

https://www.newstalk.com/Hooks-Saturday-Sit-In

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.

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

Boggles · 22-11-2018 8:32pm

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

He is not far off 80.

Hardly a surprise TBF.

Kenny would want to watch himself.

LLMMLL · 23-11-2018 4:55am

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.

Politicians brought in a direct change to court procedures. Just because it's your opinion that that procedure is ineffective doesn't mean they did not change court procedure.

Previously a barrister did not have to apply to bring up a complainants sexual history, now they do. That's a change. Politicians brought it in.

Therefore politicians can and do affect court procedure.

You have no idea if section 3 has been ineffective or not. The only way to know that would be to know the reasons for introducing sexual history prior to the existence of section 3.

Is sexual history quantitatively as much a part of trials as it was.prior to section 3? Are the reasons sexual history is introduced the same? For instance in the IT article it is said that the vast majority of applications on section 3 grounds were related to two things: previous sexual history with the defendant and previous claims of sexual assault. Was that the same prior to section 3?

Do you have any evidence to support your certainty that section 3 has had no effect?

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.

The case of Margaret cash has nothing in common with the rape trial case.

They're two completely different scenarios.

Coppinger is perfectly free to comment publically.on one case and not another, without being hypocritical or self serving or whatever negative adjective you choose to use.

You could easily say "oh why didn't she comment on some case in France is she really cares". The obvious answer being because it's in France and she can't comment on everything.

Equally, the Margaret Cash case has no feature that makes it a negative reflection on Copoinger if she doesn't.comment.

Now if you could point to Coppinger generally.supporting people who have ended up in the public eye being torn apart then maybe her lack of comment on Margaret cash would be significant.

Otherwise it's just nonsense.

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.

It's not a call for the defendant to make. It's a call for the judge to make guided by precedent, guidelines, and potentially legislation if it was introduced.

And your last line is not the test of whether evidence can be introduced under section 3.

AndrewJRenko · 24-11-2018 1:31pm

4ensic15 wrote: »

The barrister did not do anything unethical.

She suggested that wearing a thong is an indication of consent, or of an intention to have sex.

Silentcorner · 24-11-2018 7:04pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

She suggested that wearing a thong is an indication of consent, or of an intention to have sex.

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.

SusieBlue · 24-11-2018 7:09pm

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.

I’m actually in tears reading that.
I would urge anyone who was defending this mans actions to give it a read.
Another predator left wandering the streets, regardless of this case he has proven with his past offenses that he is a violent individual.

His wife should be ashamed of her life for standing by him. Disgraceful.

Sleeper12 · 25-11-2018 11:31am

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

A little bit more details in todays paper

4ensic15 · 25-11-2018 11:33am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

She suggested that wearing a thong is an indication of consent, or of an intention to have sex.

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 · 25-11-2018 11:34am

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.

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.

Sleeper12 · 25-11-2018 11:39am

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.

You can't see how implying to the jury that because see wore a thong, that see set of out that evening looking for sex, might be seen as unethical?

4ensic15 · 25-11-2018 11:53am

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.

It is a matter for the jury to consider if a thong is not consent. It is not for her to decide what is consent or not. It would have been unethical for her not to invite the jury to consider it, if she thought that it might help her client. the jury is composed of randomly chosen people who presumably are able to form their own views. Why do you assume that the only 12 people in the country who think a thong is evidence of consent were the ones on the jury?

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments