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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

«13456737

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Comhra wrote: »
    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

    Not opening that


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Hopefully wasn’t hers.


  • Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 21,504 Mod ✭✭✭✭Agent Smith




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    It was ln the news, and I'll be honest, I was waiting to see who would open a thread to get a cheap dig or laugh over what is ultimately a serious issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,231 ✭✭✭Hercule Poirot


    Comhra wrote: »
    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

    She has an extremely valid point - a person alleging rape should not be judged by their choice of underwear, and especially a thong which is fairly common place for girls/ladies these days


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,568 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    There was a very serious reason behind Ruth Coppinger's contribution in the Dail but it's not likely to be discussed on this thread.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭alan partridge aha


    I wouldn't like to be accused of a sexual offence and see that her on the jury. I know id be going down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    At least it wasnt on her at the time. In all honesty though what a girl wears gives no man a right to be forceful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87,485 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

    Was she?

    I thought her point was about consent, stop victim blaming and sex education etc.,


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

    Because she is a dope.

    A serious issue and she blames the Taoiseach for a court decision to allow it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    Was she?

    I thought her point was about consent, stop victim blaming and sex education etc.,

    "How heroic do you have to be Taoiseach, to pursue a rape trial in this country?," she asked.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,408 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    I wouldn't like to be accused of a sexual offence and see that bit5h on the jury. I know id be going down.

    I don't think she could be on a jury.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,716 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

    Maybe he wore it better.

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Why is she blaming the Taoiseach????

    She was addressing a wholly valid issue through the Taoiseach, which isn't the same as blaming the Taoiseach.
    I wouldn't like to be accused of a sexual offence and see that bit5h on the jury. I know id be going down.

    You 'know' you'd be going down because of one person on the jury, despite the fact that the odds are already stacked very much in your favour? Are you planning on pleading guilty or something?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    And how we thought it was bizzare when an Italian judge said a woman could not be unwilling raped whilst wearing jeans as it was not possible for her attacker to remove her jeans without her aid.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭alan partridge aha


    She was addressing a wholly valid issue through the Taoiseach, which isn't the same as blaming the Taoiseach.



    You 'know' you'd be going down because of one person on the jury, despite the fact that the odds are already stacked very much in your favour? Are you planning on pleading guilty or something?

    I'd be pleading for my life to be spared if she was on the jury.


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭DaintyDavy


    Id say it was hers, it was a poxy looking thing. Looked like it was pulled from the bottom of a wash basket.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    I'd be pleading for my life to be spared if she was on the jury.

    Yeah, I hate when individual jury members take it upon themselves to reintroduce the death penalty.


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


    professore wrote: »
    Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?

    "Thankfully" it was a female Barrister who produced it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    "The Dail... After Dark"

    "Carry On Ruthing"

    There a good porn there somewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,231 ✭✭✭Hercule Poirot


    professore wrote: »
    Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?

    Yes, that is their job after all, I think she's pointing to the fact that she was allowed to do it in a court of law - if wearing a thong is "asking for it" as she seemed to imply then the majority of women are in trouble, and it sets a very dangerous precedent for future rape trials


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    professore wrote: »
    Wasn't it the defence that used the thong as evidence? Surely this is normal to do everything you can for the defendent?

    That's the point. It was insinuated she was out looking for it because of the underwear she was wearing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Was it covered in gowl grease?

    RIP The Bantam


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Free advertising for a certain chain store. Classy. http://www.thejournal.ie/thong-dail-ruth-coppinger-4337275-Nov2018/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    She's in no position to be citing an aspect of some rape trials which she feels is unfair given how she doesn't even show fairness to those found not guilty in such trials.




    https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/979725517946580998


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    She's in no position to be citing an aspect of some rape trials which she feels is unfair given how she doesn't even show fairness to those found not guilty in such trials.

    ?!? This has nothing to do with the person found not guilty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    DaintyDavy wrote: »
    Id say it was hers, it was a poxy looking thing. Looked like it was pulled from the bottom of a wash basket.

    I love those. Especially when they have crusty skid marks.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Hurrache wrote: »
    ?!? This has nothing to do with the person found not guilty.

    I never said it did.

    My point is that she cited an aspect of rape trials which she feels is unfair to claimants, but yet she herself behaved in a manner which was unfair to the accused in such a trial, namely the Belfast one.

    If her sense of fairness was as strong as she would like us all to think it is, then she'd be extending it to everyone involved in such trials, no matter their gender. All this #ibelieveher bollox undermines her position, which is a shame, as she might have a point (in some trials at least).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    I never said it did.

    And yet you brought them into it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    I wouldnt mind sniffing those panties"

    Said no one


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    Was it covered in gowl grease?

    RIP The Bantam

    Ah man.... ffs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Lackey


    'Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

    Quote taken from Irish Examiner:

    This is what was said by defending barrister,

    I don't know if this is why the jury found the defendant not guilty
    Not commenting on weather the man is guilty or not...he was found not guilty by the jury

    I will say the above statement and display of underwear is a dose of SH!TE and shouldn't be allowed.

    We live in the west in 2018 where woman can wear whatever they want, and what they are wearing should never be a factor in a rape case.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Hurrache wrote: »
    And yet you brought them into it.

    The person found not guilty in the Cork trial? No I didn't.

    I am referencing Ruth's behaviour at the time of the Belfast rape trial to show that fairness is not always top priority for her when it comes rape trials.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,533 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Lackey wrote: »
    We live in the west in 2018 where woman can wear whatever they want, and what they are wearing should never be a factor in a rape case.

    Sort of agree, but blanket banning the defense from introducing such material as evidence is a pretty dangerous thing to do legally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,231 ✭✭✭Hercule Poirot


    Amirani wrote: »
    Sort of agree, but blanket banning the defense from introducing such material as evidence is a pretty dangerous thing to do legally.

    Is it? A woman could be walking around in the nude, doesn't mean she's open to intercourse


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Is it? A woman could be walking around in the nude, doesn't mean she's open to intercourse

    There can be legitimate reasons for a jury asking to see an item of clothing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,741 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    It’s all gone pete thong


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭blue note


    I've often heard if you get a girl's clothes off and she's wearing matching underwear it's not you who decided you're having sex. That's a funny thing to say because there's truth to it. Sometimes women intend to have sex later and dress for it, or they think they might or they could and dress in case they do with sexy underwear or the like.

    In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.

    Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc. But people get utterly hysterical at the mention of underwear and start throwing around phrases like it doesn't mean she was asking to be raped and stating that what she's wearing doesn't take away her ability to decide or doesn't give any man the right to have sex with her, etc. Well no sh1t, I've never heard anyone say any of that and mean it.

    But I can understand why underwear can be evidence. Now, I can appreciate an argument that it shouldn't be admissible, but if I'm going to respect the argument it would at least have to acknowledge the actual reason it is used as evidence. And acknowledge that not allowing the jury see this evidence could be the difference between them finding a man innocent or guilty.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Lackey


    There can be legitimate reasons for a jury asking to see an item of clothing.

    Absolutely
    evidence etc

    BUT it should never be used to judge whether the accuser was 'up for it' or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 612 ✭✭✭KevinCavan


    Mary Lou has a leather thong


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭limnam


    a thong which is fairly common place for girls/ladies these days




    "these days" :confused:


    I'd have thought a fashion faux pas "these days"


    What is it, 1995.


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭DaintyDavy


    I love those. Especially when they have crusty skid marks.

    Discharge central


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    blue note wrote: »
    I've often heard if you get a girl's clothes off and she's wearing matching underwear it's not you who decided you're having sex. That's a funny thing to say because there's truth to it. Sometimes women intend to have sex later and dress for it, or they think they might or they could and dress in case they do with sexy underwear or the like.

    In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.

    Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc. But people get utterly hysterical at the mention of underwear and start throwing around phrases like it doesn't mean she was asking to be raped and stating that what she's wearing doesn't take away her ability to decide or doesn't give any man the right to have sex with her, etc. Well no sh1t, I've never heard anyone say any of that and mean it.

    But I can understand why underwear can be evidence. Now, I can appreciate an argument that it shouldn't be admissible, but if I'm going to respect the argument it would at least have to acknowledge the actual reason it is used as evidence. And acknowledge that not allowing the jury see this evidence could be the difference between them finding a man innocent or guilty.

    The only reason underwear should be used as evidence in a rape or sexual assault trial is as forensic evidence.
    That's it.
    No other reason.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Lackey wrote: »
    BUT it should never be used to judge whether the accuser was 'up for it' or not.

    Of course it shouldn't, and as far as I am aware, it couldn't either.

    In the Belfast rape trial, for example, that suggestion was made when underwear was admitted as evidence at one point... but from memory I believe it was about the location of a blood stain.

    I really can't see any judge allowing underwear to be introduced as evidence on the basis that it implied consent and can't see any jury accepting it either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    I am referencing Ruth's behaviour at the time of the Belfast rape trial to show that fairness is not always top priority for her when it comes rape trials.

    Didn't you continue to defend that English footballer, Adam Johnson (the one who groomed and fingered a child, and then went on to claim that he wished he'd raped her), even after he was found guilty? Pretty sure fairness has never been anywhere close to the top of your priorities, tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    blue note wrote: »


    In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.
    ...
    Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc.

    Is that not the whole point?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Lackey


    Of course it shouldn't, and as far as I am aware, it couldn't either.

    In the Belfast rape trial, for example, that suggestion was made when underwear was admitted as evidence at one point... but from memory I believe it was about the location of a blood stain.

    I really can't see any judge allowing underwear to be introduced as evidence on the basis that it implied consent and can't see any jury accepting it either.

    it was in this case anyway

    'Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Didn't you continue to defend that English footballer, Adam Johnson (the one who groomed and fingered a child, and then went on to claim that he wished he'd raped her), even after he was found guilty? Pretty sure fairness has never been anywhere close to the top of your priorities, tbh.

    Nope, never defended Adam Johnson's actions, in fact I conceded he should receive a custodial sentence. I did make the argument that his sentence was extreme though and I stand by that. At the time I challenged anyone to find another person in the UK who had no previous and received a six year sentence for doing similar to him and they couldn't.

    As for what he said, or didn't say, long after the trial.... I'm not Nostradamus.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement