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…89111314…61

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,507 ✭✭✭blue note


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    But how does it do that?

    Because sometimes people plan to have sex and wearing sexy lingerie can be part of that plan. If I go home later and my girlfriend is wearing something from Ann Summers I'll know she's planning to have sex. Things might happen in the meantime that could alter those plans, but the fact that she was wearing that would of course indicate that she was intending to have sex.

    People seem convinced that there's loads of people out there who believe that what you wear is giving consent. I don't know any of these people and can't even find them on boards, so I can only think that they're extremely rare. In which case I'm not worried about juries finding guys innocent because wearing a thong counts as consent.

    I am concerned with how traumatic it is for the claimants, but we can't discuss whether or not it's justified without acknowledging why it's relevant as evidence.


  • Options
    #303
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,184 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    this thread is really a depressing read.


  • Options
    #304
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    A good defense barrister is going to use anything and everything at her disposal to get her client off. The barrister wasn't holding a referendum on women's choices of underwear -- she was doing her utmost to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. I'm sure she didn't exactly take pride in exhibiting a 17-year-old's knickers to the court, but she did her job well and he was found not guilty.

    That's the kind of lawyer I would want on my side if I were ever up in court on serious criminal charges, not someone who would hem and haw and say "Maybe questioning her choice of underwear wouldn't be appropriate." A defense barrister's job isn't to decide what's appropriate -- it's to keep her client out of jail.

    Same with me. But I also think the rules of evidence shouldn't allow such a defense. Defenses should be based on evidence and not playing on prejudices.


  • Options
    #305
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    A t-shirt can’t consent for a person.
    If they say No to sex, you can’t just go ahead anyway and use a slogan on a T-shirt for your defense.
    I can’t believe this point is even being argued.
    Clothing can’t consent on behalf of people.

    Interesting argument. So you reckon that the tee-shirt forced itself upon the unsuspecting (or illiterate) wearer without their consent? It's really amazing what sophisticated items of clothing can get up nowadays.

    My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?


  • Options
    #306
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    blue note wrote: »
    If I go home later and my girlfriend is wearing something from Ann Summers I'll know she's planning to have sex.

    Ha! Off to consent classes with you, young man! Her sexy Ann Summers lingerie says NOTHING about her intentions!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,184 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    Interesting argument. So you reckon that the tee-shirt forced itself upon the unsuspecting (or illiterate) wearer without their consent? It's really amazing what sophisticated items of clothing can get up nowadays.

    My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?


    stupid argument is stupid


  • Options
    #308
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?
    So if I run up to your man with a crunching tackle and slam him to the ground, he can't complain, right?

    After all, he's wearing a rugby jersey therefore he is open to playing a game of rugby anywhere, any time. Right?


  • Options
    #309
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »
    Ha! Off to consent classes with you, young man! Her sexy Ann Summers lingerie says NOTHING about her intentions!
    Yes, please do head off there to consent classes.

    His wife may be intending to have sex with someone else, or indeed her intention may simply be to wind him up. Or she may simply enjoy feeling sexy in her Ann Summers gear.

    Do you think if said person had sex with his wife and she accused him of rape, that her wearing of lingerie should be considered in defence? "She never said anything your honour, it was a bit of struggle, but I assumed, you know, with the sexy gear an all, that she was up for it".


  • Options
    #310
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    seamus wrote: »
    Yes, please do head off there to consent classes.

    His wife may be intending to have sex with someone else, or indeed her intention may simply be to wind him up. Or she may simply enjoy feeling sexy in her Ann Summers gear.

    Do you think if said person had sex with his wife and she accused him of rape, that her wearing of lingerie should be considered in defence?

    That's potentially relevant in establishing whether or not he believed that consent was being given (which I understand is a legally valid defense), particularly if that lingerie was something that was normally worn in advance of having sex for that couple?

    This is very different from the case in the news.


  • Options
    #311
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,428 ✭✭✭tritium


    retro:electro wrote: »
    The fact that your underwear could be the cause of even a smidgen of doubt is what’s depressing.
    I wonder what kind of knickers the barrister had on that day and what kind of character judgment we should infer on to her and assume her sexual intentions on her behalf

    The standard is reasonable doubt. To assume a smidgen of doubt created by frilly knickers led to this outcome is just wrong- a smidgen is not “reasonable doubt” and you can be sure the defense presented more evidence than that. The notion that barristers holding up knickers is getting rapists off the hook left right and Centre is just plain wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,184 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tritium wrote: »
    The standard is reasonable doubt. To assume a smidgen of doubt created by frilly knickers led to this outcome is just wrong- a smidgen is not “reasonable doubt” and you can be sure the defense presented more evidence than that. The notion that barristers holding up knickers is getting rapists off the hook left right and Centre is just plain wrong.


    the issue is that a choice of knickers has any bearing on doubt AT ALL. I could go out with a shirt that says "Stick your cock in my mouth big boy" and that in no way gives any consent to anybody to do what the shirt says.


  • Options
    #313
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,428 ✭✭✭tritium


    seamus wrote: »
    So if I run up to your man with a crunching tackle and slam him to the ground, he can't complain, right?

    After all, he's wearing a rugby jersey therefore he is open to playing a game of rugby anywhere, any time. Right?

    No but if it formed part of a wider argument based on him being on th pitch at a Munster rugby game and I was also their as a member of the other team, that might begin to build into a reasonable argument for that action.

    Which isn’t a bad analogy for building a defense based on a variety of, by themselves innocuous, elements


  • Options
    #314
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    Interesting argument. So you reckon that the tee-shirt forced itself upon the unsuspecting (or illiterate) wearer without their consent? It's really amazing what sophisticated items of clothing can get up nowadays.

    My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?

    My brother had a really cool polo jersey by Diesel with All Blacks, New Zealand logos and similar. I can guarantee you that he never watched even a part of rugby game but he always liked designer clothing.


  • Options
    #315
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    tritium wrote: »
    The standard is reasonable doubt. To assume a smidgen of doubt created by frilly knickers led to this outcome is just wrong- a smidgen is not “reasonable doubt” and you can be sure the defense presented more evidence than that. The notion that barristers holding up knickers is getting rapists off the hook left right and Centre is just plain wrong.

    I wasn’t speaking about this case. I’m talking about the precedent that the comments in this case could set for future trials. The result of this case has no bearing on how I feel about underwear implying consent. People should be free to wear Bridget Jones’ or Sisqo thongs or nothing at all without having them used against you.
    And your last line, i never said that :confused:


  • Options
    #316
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    Interesting argument. So you reckon that the tee-shirt forced itself upon the unsuspecting (or illiterate) wearer without their consent? It's really amazing what sophisticated items of clothing can get up nowadays.

    My man sometimes wears a Munster Rugby jersey - but your logic would suggest that he doesn't necessarily support Munster rugby. Perhaps he's a closet Leinsterman?

    This has to be the stupidest argument I've ever read.

    Clothing can't consent or imply consent to anything on behalf of its owner.

    Stop tying yourself in knots trying to think up a scenario where an inanimate object can consent to something on behalf of the living, breathing person wearing it.


  • Options
    #317
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    JMNolan wrote: »
    So you're saying the judge was wrong to allow it?

    Whether or not the judge was right or wrong to allow it depends on whether it's in the rules of evidence.

    I think what we're both arguing would be whether the judge should have to dismiss it or have to allow it.

    I think a barrister should not be able to introduce anything into evidence unless it can definitely be shown to have relevance.

    In this case they are saying that her underwear is evidence of engaging in consensual sex. It's not anything of the sort. It's incidental to the fact. Underwear does not imply consensual sex with anyone, let along consensual sex with a particular person.


  • Options
    #318
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    This has to be the stupidest argument I've ever read.

    Clothing can't consent or imply consent to anything on behalf of its owner.

    Stop tying yourself in knots trying to think up a scenario where an inanimate object can consent to something on behalf of the living, breathing person wearing it.

    I'm wearing this today.
    united-states-space-force-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-37160960.png

    I should point out, I'm not in the US space force. Likewise when I wear by batman tee shirt I'm not saying I'm batman.

    I have pacman boxer shorts. They do not imply there's anything ghosty about my groin.


  • Options
    #319
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    tritium wrote: »
    No but if it formed part of a wider argument based on him being on th pitch at a Munster rugby game and I was also their as a member of the other team, that might begin to build into a reasonable argument for that action.

    Which isn’t a bad analogy for building a defense based on a variety of, by themselves innocuous, elements
    And what if he was standing on the pitch, but wearing a jacket over his Munster jersey, and you didn't know he was wearing one? What would that tell you? ;)

    That he really wants to play for Munster? Or that he doesn't want to be mistaken for someone who is playing? Or both?

    Thanks for that, because it illustrates just why the clothing thing is so crazy, and ultimately irrelevant in court - anything could be inferred from a person's clothing choice.


  • Options
    #320
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Grayson wrote: »
    I have pacman boxer shorts. They do not imply there's anything ghosty about my groin.

    Does it imply pills make you grow stronger though?

    :pac:


  • Options
    #321
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    wexie wrote: »
    Does it imply pills make you grow stronger though?

    :pac:

    I just had to google to make sure they weren't blue pills on pacman .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    Grab All Association wrote: »
    Absolutely ridiculous these leftards protesting. The defence is entitled to question and challenge the character/behaviour of the plaintiff. Nobody should be immune from suspicion/criticism/scrutiny.
    It may not be a perfect system but everyone is entitled to fair due process and representation.

    She was found to be not believable, whereas he was not guilty by a jury of his peers. Where’s the people questioning how an innocent man was brought to court and charged with a crime he did not commit? Where’s the people calling for charges to be pressed against this girl for making a false allegation? It’s a two way street. Why was a 15 year old wearing underwear that’s marketed to adults?

    Of course the defence are entitled to do this, these "leftards" as you so eloquently put it are protesting because they believe questioning someone's character and behaviour on the basis of what knickers they have on is ridiculous, rightly so IMO.

    Any time someone is brought to court they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, so your question of "How did an innocent man end up in court?" applies to literally any case where someone has been charged, tried and not convicted. I'd be very keen to hear your idea for a completely new justice system to this and how that would all work in practise. I think you'd benefit from reading some of the earlier contributions to the thread where posters have explained the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" in a legal context. As well as how a not guilty verdict does not automatically mean a false accusation has been made. Understanding of these basic facets of the justice system would serve you well before you decide to call anyone else a "leftard" or similar pejoratives.


  • Options
    #323
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,379 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    professore wrote: »
    Why stop there? All sorts of stereotypes are promoted in courts when defending and prosecuting. Like only men commit domestic violence. Only women can be good parents, people from "good families" can't be criminals etc.

    I really think its going down a bad path if you start restricting what barristers can say in a trial.
    But what a barrister can say in court is already restricted. Hearsay is not allowed (though sometimes it appears to be), A judge can refuse to hear a witness or accept a sworn affidavit.

    Without consistent rules and consistent application of those rules too much us left to personal whim.

    It is said a good barrister knows the law, a great barrister knows the judge.

    A common community acceptable set of ground rules are needed, which allow factual evidence to be introduced but prevents prejudicial appeals to emotion or bias by either the prosecution or defense. Cases should be decided on facts and evidence not bias and prejudice.


  • Options
    #324
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    tritium wrote: »
    No but if it formed part of a wider argument based on him being on th pitch at a Munster rugby game and I was also their as a member of the other team, that might begin to build into a reasonable argument for that action.

    Which isn’t a bad analogy for building a defense based on a variety of, by themselves innocuous, elements

    To continue the analogy if the person was indicating quite strongly that they were indeed up for playing a game of rugby and were wearing a Munster jersey and after being hurt in the scrum sued the team - if they were later to claim they were wearing an Aran jumper and never intended any kind of rugby game, the jersey would be justifiable evidence.

    I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios:

    Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum.

    However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion.

    I've worked with students who have been both accuser and accused in both the above cases and the statement from the former was very distinct - "I was raped by x..."; the latter fell more in the area of "I must have been raped", "The next morning he didn't seem my type so I wouldn't have slept with him" or "I might have said yes but I didn't mean it".

    Telling. Very telling.


  • Options
    #325
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    seamus wrote: »
    Yes, please do head off there to consent classes.

    His wife may be intending to have sex with someone else, or indeed her intention may simply be to wind him up. Or she may simply enjoy feeling sexy in her Ann Summers gear.

    I'm not sure how things work chez Seamus, but the average man who comes home to find his girlfriend or wife waiting for him in lingerie would be able to read her intent loud and clear. To claim otherwise is just silly.


  • Options
    #326
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,184 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    To continue the analogy if the person was indicating quite strongly that they were indeed up for playing a game of rugby and were wearing a Munster jersey and after being hurt in the scrum sued the team - if they were later to claim they were wearing an Aran jumper and never intended any kind of rugby game, the jersey would be justifiable evidence.

    I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios:

    Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum.

    However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion.

    I've worked with students who have been both accuser and accused in both the above cases and the statement from the former was very distinct - "I was raped by x..."; the latter fell more in the area of "I must have been raped", "The next morning he didn't seem my type so I wouldn't have slept with him" or "I might have said yes but I didn't mean it".

    Telling. Very telling.




    It is a stupid analogy so pointless continuing it.


  • Options
    #327
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is a stupid analogy so pointless continuing it.

    Not sure that's your call but it's like trying to herd cats trying to get reason in this thread so fair enough. Have at the echo chamber.


  • Options
    #328
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    To continue the analogy if the person was indicating quite strongly that they were indeed up for playing a game of rugby and were wearing a Munster jersey and after being hurt in the scrum sued the team - if they were later to claim they were wearing an Aran jumper and never intended any kind of rugby game, the jersey would be justifiable evidence.

    I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios:

    Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum.

    However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion.

    I've worked with students who have been both accuser and accused in both the above cases and the statement from the former was very distinct - "I was raped by x..."; the latter fell more in the area of "I must have been raped", "The next morning he didn't seem my type so I wouldn't have slept with him" or "I might have said yes but I didn't mean it".

    Telling. Very telling.


    What has any of the above got to do with whether its acceptable or not use a 17 year olds choice of knickers to determine whether she was raped or not?


  • Options
    #329
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    What has any of the above got to do with whether its acceptable or not use a 17 year olds choice of knickers to determine whether she was raped or not?

    Read it. With an open mind.


  • Options
    #330
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    I've worked with students who have been both accuser and accused in both the above cases and the statement from the former was very distinct - "I was raped by x..."; the latter fell more in the area of "I must have been raped", "The next morning he didn't seem my type so I wouldn't have slept with him" or "I might have said yes but I didn't mean it".

    Telling. Very telling.
    I think it's very worrying that anyone with attitude like yours is dealing with rape accusations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios:

    Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum.

    However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion.

    You’ve a very black and white view of rape. What about the woman who goes out with every intention of having consensual sex, but ends up getting raped? Do you care about her no? Also, how do you differentiate between the two cases you have above there?
    There isn’t only “two scenarios”. Your way of speaking in absolutes show you haven’t actually the foggiest. Your posts have no empathy, ever, and have a remarkable lack of seeing nuance and finer detail in case to case. I swear when threads like this are started I just know which way your posts are going to go.


Advertisement