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…5556575860

Comments

  • Options
    #1772
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Rennaws wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree.

    Feeling aggrieved is very much the preserve of the left..

    But call them what you want..

    They’re the screechy whiny bunch. Usually women. Always on about some cause and generally hate men. They’re incredibly annoying and seem to permeate every aspect of our society..

    Left, Illiberal, liberal, whatever..

    Still the same crew screeching at the rest of us and trying to influence our thoughts, words and actions..
    There's a fair few non left wing in this thread that are pretty outraged by the treatment of a woman. A woman who was a virgin had her neck in a choke hold in an alley and says she was raped. Then her clothing is used to denigrate her in a court room as if it were proof that she wanted it. Pretty reasonable to be outraged and not left wing.


  • Options
    #1773
    paw patrol
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    Samuel Vimes wrote: »
    So now the baying mob have so overstepped the mark in their commentary that a judge has had declare a mistrial due media comment.

    Hope the baying mob are happy
    https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1126/1013461-rape-trial-collapse/

    some blowhard just had to have their opinion, received the kudos from the mob and now has hurt one of the very people they "claim" to support.

    This is outrageous and unfair on both parties.

    Sometimes I would if these campaigner/commentators care about their subject or is it just to have their ego stroked.
    Absolute dirt.


  • Options
    #1774
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You're just posting soundbytes now. We're all aware she's familiar with court procedures, Jack.


    I’m making the point that there is nothing laughable about the barristers argument from her perspective.

    Well, from what we have read (and remember, your opinion so far has been on the evidence presented) the fact the girl wore lace underwear on the night was irrelevant and you haven't remotely provided anything to counter that view.


    I have. You don’t accept it. That’s fair enough.

    You're wrong.........

    Firstly, you can be fair to both the accused and the complainant at the same time (they are not mutually exclusive) and all trials are conducted with that objective. Secondly, many retrials are have been carried out when it's felt that has not occurred, in the cases of both defendant and alleged victim.

    Here's one such case where a priest from Wicklow was being tried for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl and the judge felt that a line of questioning line was not correct and that to proceed would be unfair on her.


    Yeah that’s not even remotely the same thing as the defendants right to a fair trial. The outcome of that case btw is that the defendant in that case too was found not guilty -


    Court clears priest of assaulting girl


  • Options
    #1775
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Rennaws wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree.

    Feeling aggrieved is very much the preserve of the left..

    But call them what you want..

    They’re the screechy whiny bunch. Usually women. Always on about some cause and generally hate men. They’re incredibly annoying and seem to permeate every aspect of our society..

    Left, Illiberal, liberal, whatever..

    Still the same crew screeching at the rest of us and trying to influence our thoughts, words and actions..

    You sound fairly feeling aggrieved there yourself.

    Tell me - on a scale of Corbyn to Trotskey - how aggrieved do you feel?


  • Options
    #1776
    BBFAN
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭BBFAN


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    the big news story of the year by column inches was the reporting about an ongoing rape case

    That's because it was in a different jurisdiction to us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1777
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    batgoat wrote: »
    There's a fair few non left wing in this thread that are pretty outraged by the treatment of a woman. A woman who was a virgin had her neck in a choke hold in an alley and says she was raped. Then her clothing is used to denigrate her in a court room as if it were proof that she wanted it. Pretty reasonable to be outraged and not left wing.

    Theres two things being conflated: the thong and the evidence

    Im pretty right wing, and think it was wholly irrelevant to use the complainants underwear to suggest she consented to that which the defendant was accused of.


    However, the dragging is denied by the defendant. A witness wasnt alarmed and testified she was worried about her dress in the muck. that she was a virgin prior to the alleged rape is as irrelevant to her underwear.

    We'll never know the exact truth of what happened.
    But the thong crossed a line IMO.


  • Options
    #1778
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I’m making the point that there is nothing laughable about the barristers argument from her perspective.

    It's a point that doesn't need to be made as I never claimed it was laughable from the perspective of the barrister, as well you know. Sheesh.
    I have. You don’t accept it. That’s fair enough.

    Nope, you haven't, you just keep asserting that what the barrister said was relevant to the man's defense but we all know that, Jack. It's not the relevancy to the man's testimony that people are questioning though, it's the relevancy to whether or not he had received consent or not which people are taking issue with..... and it has none.
    Yeah that’s not even remotely the same thing as the defendants right to a fair trial.

    Same thing as what? What are ****eing about?

    I said the the line of argument was unfair to her (lace underwear = being up for it) and then you started waffling about how the complaint was not 'on trial' and added:
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    There’s no such thing as a trial being unfair on the complainant

    Now I've just shown you that a trial can be unfair to a complainant and where a judge ordered a retrial on that very basis... and you're still trying to say you're right??


  • Options
    #1779
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    .......and you're still trying to say you're right??

    84.gif

    I don’t know why you’re bothering Pete!
    On another note though it’s been ages since the two of ye have had a good old multi-quote marathon. Feels like the good old days! :pac:


  • Options
    #1780
    Reviews and Books Galore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You sound fairly feeling aggrieved there yourself.

    Tell me - on a scale of Corbyn to Trotskey - how aggrieved do you feel?

    Stalin.


  • Options
    #1781
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    It's a point that doesn't need to be made as I never claimed it was laughable from the perspective of the barrister, as well you know. Sheesh.


    I thought that’s exactly what you were claiming seeing as it was the barrister made the point you said was laughable.

    Nope, you haven't, you just keep asserting that what the barrister said was relevant to the man's defense but we all know that, Jack. It's not the relevancy to the man's testimony that people are questioning though, it's the relevancy to whether or not he had received consent or not which people are taking issue with..... and it has none.


    It’s relevant because it goes to support the idea that the defendant did not believe they had committed any wrongdoing - they were of the belief that the sex was consensual on the basis of what the complainant was wearing. Whether that belief was reasonable or not was a matter for the jury to decide when taken in the context of the evidence which according to the barrister didn’t outrule the possibility that the complainant was wearing sexy underwear because they intended to have sex.


    Same thing as what? What are ****eing about?

    I said the the line of argument was unfair to her (lace underwear = being up for it) and then you started waffling about how the complaint was not 'on trial' and added:

    Now I've just shown you that a trial can be unfair to a complainant and where a judge ordered a retrial on that very basis... and you're still trying to say you're right??


    Unbunch those panties Pete. Yes I’m still right that the defendant has the right to a fair trial, whereas the complainant does not. The judge in that case ruled that to allow the trial to continue would be unfair on the alleged victim -

    The Judge then stated that the line of cross-examination by defence counsel in relation to the date may not have been correct, and 'therefore leaves the testimony of the victim fundamentally undermined and damaged'. As the situation only arose after the victim had finished her testimony, Justice McCartan said the position could not be put right.


    The trial collapsed because of a number of errors which would have meant that the defendant could not have received a fair trial. That wasn’t the case here, or the trial would have gone the same way and collapsed. Instead, the trial was allowed to continue, and there won’t be any retrial of the defendant in this case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1782
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,542 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Rennaws wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree.

    Feeling aggrieved is very much the preserve of the left..

    But call them what you want..

    They’re the screechy whiny bunch. Usually women. Always on about some cause and generally hate men. They’re incredibly annoying and seem to permeate every aspect of our society..

    Left, Illiberal, liberal, whatever..

    Still the same crew screeching at the rest of us and trying to influence our thoughts, words and actions..
    The misogynist veil slips.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w


    I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the rush to blame the 'obstreperous women' for the impact of an article they had nothing to do with.


  • Options
    #1783
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I thought that’s exactly what you were claiming seeing as it was the barrister made the point you said was laughable.

    So, because I found a point the barrister made 'laughable'........ you thought I was claiming the point was laughable from the perspective of the barrister??

    What's happening :confused:
    It’s relevant because it goes to support the idea that the defendant did not believe they had committed any wrongdoing - they were of the belief that the sex was consensual on the basis of what the complainant was wearing.Whether that belief was reasonable or not was a matter for the jury to decide...

    A preposterous belief, but yes I agree that it should be left to the jury to decide if the accused honestly believed they had consent or not.
    the evidence which according to the barrister didn’t outrule the possibility that the complainant was wearing sexy underwear because they intended to have sex.

    No, the barrister put that to the jury in the form of a question, it wasn't a statement. After she asked the question she then suggested that when determining the answer they had to:
    "...look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front"

    And besides, just because the accused says something prosperous on the stand, or in a statement, doesn't mean that their defense have to repeat it.

    For example: if while being cross examined he had said that he had inferred consent because: "She looked at him with her filthy eyes" does that then mean the barrister should say in their closing arguments: "Did the defendant have a honest belief that he had received consent? Well, you have to look at those come to bed eyes".
    Unbunch those panties Pete. Yes I’m still right that the defendant has the right to a fair trial, whereas the complainant does not.

    I don't wear panties.... oh I wonder what that barrister would say that suggests of me.
    The judge in that case ruled that to allow the trial to continue would be unfair on the alleged victim -

    Yeah, I told you that :rolleyes:
    The trial collapsed because of a number of errors which would have meant that the defendant could not have received a fair trial. That wasn’t the case here, or the trial would have gone the same way and collapsed. Instead, the trial was allowed to continue, and there won’t be any retrial of the defendant in this case.

    Sigh. It makes not one iota of a difference what went on to happen in that trial. It's neither here nor bloody there. As I have said to you that was just one example of a retrial being ordered when a court felt something had occurred which was unfair to the complainant and now instead of admitting that you were wrong you are waffling on about that one example.

    In fact there was a notorious case two years back where a retrial was ordered after a judge asked the complainant why she couldn't just keep her knees together:
    When a Canadian judge asked the complainant in a sexual assault trial why she couldn’t just keep her knees together, his comments provoked outrage across the country and resulted in a new trial.

    Now don't come back with another bunch of mini-strawmans saying that the above case is the same as this one either as that went on to have x verdict and then y and the judge got socks for Christmas... all immaterial to the point I was making which was that trials can be unfair to complainants.


  • Options
    #1784
    BBFAN
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭BBFAN


    Is anyone else bored with the multi-quotes posts?


  • Options
    #1785
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BBFAN wrote: »
    Is anyone else bored with the multi-quotes posts?

    Another thread bogged down with multi-quote marathons endlessly repeating the same points that few others agree with. It kills discussion when it becomes all about one poster and their minority opinion.


  • Options
    #1786
    BBFAN
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭BBFAN


    Candie wrote: »
    Another thread bogged down with multi-quote marathons endlessly repeating the same points that few others agree with. It kills discussion when it becomes all about one poster and their minority opinion.

    And their opposing partner who really doesn't agree with them but just wants to enter a debating battle.

    Boring in the extreme, certainly not what I look for in After Hours. Fcuk off to politics with you lads. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1787
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Candie wrote: »
    Another thread bogged down with multi-quote marathons endlessly repeating the same points that few others agree with. It kills discussion when it becomes all about one poster and their minority opinion.
    Every single time


  • Options
    #1788
    BBFAN
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭BBFAN


    Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »
    Every single time

    Can it be classed as showboating? I think so?


  • Options
    #1789
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    And now it's a chat room.

    Scroll past long posts if you don't want to read them.


  • Options
    #1790
    BBFAN
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭BBFAN


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    And now it's a chat room.

    Scroll past long posts if you don't want to read them.

    It's AH Pete, not designed for lengthy posts. If you don't like it post elsewhere.


  • Options
    #1791
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »
    Stalin.

    Can't wait until he goes full Mao.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1792
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Now don't come back with another bunch of mini-strawmans saying that the above case is the same as this one either as that went on to have x verdict and then y and the judge got socks for Christmas... all immaterial to the point I was making which was that trials can be unfair to complainants.


    A point of view which you’re perfectly entitled to put forward of course, but the reality is you’ll be no more correct than you weren’t before, no matter how many cases you put forward they are immaterial to the outcome of this one in which the barrister followed proper procedures and the media and Ms. Coppinger tried to suggest was unfair on the complainant. They failed, and you didn’t do any better.

    Btw I think it’s actually a good thing for the public to see that should they ever find themselves accused of committing rape, they’re far more likely to receive a fair trial rather than the Courts allowing mob justice and witch hunts to influence the outcome of any trial. That’s not justice. It actually undermines the principles of justice. In spite of the efforts of Ms. Coppinger, the media, and a handful of posters here, public confidence in our judicial system increases when the public know they would receive a fair trial when they are accused of any wrongdoing. That’s one of the fundamental rights people in this country have, that people in many other countries don’t. I don’t want to live in a society where Ms. Coppingers opinions, or the opinions of a handful of people on social media ever undermine that fundamental right.


  • Options
    #1793
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The misogynist veil slips.

    There it is..

    How incredibly predictable..

    My wife and daughters disagree but sure you obviously know me better..

    It's a popular word these days.

    It's the first time i've had the honor..

    Cheers :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1794
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    is it interesting or uninteresting that we en masse accept that a defence barrister/solicitor can behave in any way they see fit in performing their role and they are immune from full judgement of society.

    I don't think there's an equivalent profession for getting away with such consistently disgusting behaviour under "oh it's their job", and it's contributing to the delays, expense and general ****tiness of getting anything done in their realm.

    When our politicians have to do the dirty work in their field, you can't breathe in here for the outrage.

    The carte-blanche-by-proxy of these cnuts ought to be up for debate. The barrister in this case is a disgusting human being.


  • Options
    #1795
    22michael44
    Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭22michael44


    Rennaws wrote: »
    There it is..

    How incredibly predictable..

    My wife and daughters disagree but sure you obviously know me better..

    It's a popular word these days.

    It's the first time i've had the honor..

    Cheers :rolleyes:

    I love women my mother is one! Got any more of these? it's hilarious.


  • Options
    #1796
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Dail privilege is not a reason to influence a criminal trial going on in the courts


  • Options
    #1797
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    22michael44 wrote: »
    I love women my mother is one! Got any more of these? it's hilarious.

    If I had the slightest inkling of what you're on about I might be in a position to oblige but for now it's a negative..


  • Options
    #1798
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    Rennaws wrote: »
    There it is..

    How incredibly predictable..

    My wife and daughters disagree but sure you obviously know me better..

    It's a popular word these days.

    It's the first time i've had the honor..

    Cheers :rolleyes:

    "my" wife and daughters.

    Dig up, stupid.


  • Options
    #1799
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Assetbacked wrote: »
    "my" wife and daughters.

    Just so i'm sure...

    are you suggesting using the word "my" is the problem ?


  • Options
    #1800
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,683 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Assetbacked wrote: »
    "my" wife and daughters.

    Dig up, stupid.

    WTF? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1801
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    is it interesting or uninteresting that we en masse accept that a defence barrister/solicitor can behave in any way they see fit in performing their role and they are immune from full judgement of society.

    I don't think there's an equivalent profession for getting away with such consistently disgusting behaviour under "oh it's their job", and it's contributing to the delays, expense and general ****tiness of getting anything done in their realm.

    When our politicians have to do the dirty work in their field, you can't breathe in here for the outrage.

    The carte-blanche-by-proxy of these cnuts ought to be up for debate. The barrister in this case is a disgusting human being.


    They’re clearly not immune from the full judgement of society, as this thread alone shows :pac:

    It’s just that society generally doesn’t give a shìte about an issue unless as individuals they’re directly affected by it.


Advertisement