Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

limnam · 13-11-2018 11:43pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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. 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.

I'd say if hed had his finger in your childs vagina, you would not consider the sentence extreme in the slightest.

demanufactured · 13-11-2018 11:44pm

Well I never.

bloodless_coup · 13-11-2018 11:46pm

What you wear projects your intentions. Of course it should be used in court in the defense of an innocent man.

Hurrache · 13-11-2018 11:48pm

doylefe wrote: »

What you wear projects your intentions. Of course it should be used in court in the defense of an innocent man.

Guys wearing military boots and combats should be shot on sight, only explanation for their clothing is they're about to shoot a bunch of people.

blue note · 13-11-2018 11:49pm

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is that not the whole point?

The point is that if the defence can point to many things that indicate the sex was consensual, on balance the jury may decide it was. One factor would be that the girl intended to have sex. And if she prepared for it, but dressing for it for one, then the jury should hear that and be able to make up their minds.

limnam · 13-11-2018 11:50pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Guys wearing military boots and combats should be shot on sight, only explanation for their clothing is they're about to shoot a bunch of people.

or on their way to a "dads army" porn shoot.

Outlaw Pete · 13-11-2018 11:53pm

Lackey wrote: »

'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."

Yeah, female solicitor too, and as soon as she said it, the jury should have been instructed to ignore her remarks.

I see law reform is being asked for but surely such laws already exist to ensure that juries can be instructed to ignore such a suggestion if it's made.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-11-2018 11:53pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

I didn't say you defended his actions (although I think it might be fair to say that you sought to downplay their severity). You certainly defended Adam Johnson against what you perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a miscarriage of justice. Which is objectively no different to what Ruth Coppinger did in the case of those Belfast rugby players - she railed against what she (and many others) believe was a miscarriage of justice.

13-11-2018 11:53pm

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.
.

I wear matching underwear, always.
Sometimes it may even be described as sexy!!
Does that mean I'm up for sex? Really? Because I wear sexy matching underwear to work?
It's ridiculous. Any mention of underwear in a trial should only be for forensics, that's it. There is no other reason. At all.

ceadaoin. · 13-11-2018 11:55pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I wear matching underwear, always.
Sometimes it may even be described as sexy!!
Does that mean I'm up for sex? Really? Because I wear sexy matching underwear to work?
It's ridiculous. Any mention of underwear in a trial should only be for forensics, that's it. There is no other reason. At all.

Exactly. And even if you were wearing it because you were "up for sex", doesnt mean that you are up for it with every person you meet.

blue note · 13-11-2018 11:55pm

What sort of idiots do people think jurors are? I've never heard someone in real life say that what a girl is wearing removes her ability to decide whether or not she consents to sex. Yet judging by comments on this case some people seem to think the jurors do think like that. They hear the evidence in context. And make an informed decision.

Hurrache · 13-11-2018 11:56pm

Nobody has said that the jury think like that.

limnam · 13-11-2018 11:57pm

blue note wrote: »

What sort of idiots do people think jurors are?

You think they only pick the "clever" ones....

boardise · 13-11-2018 11:58pm

Ruth Coppinger's latest hit ...'A Thong For Ireland'

Fann Linn · 13-11-2018 11:58pm

She's a g0b****e who's hopping on the Ciara Kelly bandwagon.

All aboard.

nullzero · 13-11-2018 11:58pm

A good dose of sharia law would offer some well needed perspective at this stage.
Rape=honor killings is a distance from Liberal Ireland and its legal due process.

limnam · 13-11-2018 11:59pm

Fann Linn wrote: »

She's a g0b****e who's hopping on the Ciara Kelly bandwagon.

All aboard.

She sounds like she has a thong constantly riding er'

Hercule Poirot · 14-11-2018 12:00am

blue note wrote: »

What sort of idiots do people think jurors are? I've never heard someone in real life say that what a girl is wearing removes her ability to decide whether or not she consents to sex. Yet judging by comments on this case some people seem to think the jurors do think like that. They hear the evidence in context. And make an informed decision.

The discussion isn't about the verdict or the way jury ruled on the case. That's not the issue here - it's the fact that a stunt like this was not only pulled in a court of law but was allowed to stand as evidence, and the dangerous precedent that it sets for future rape trials

limnam · 14-11-2018 12:01am

bubblypop wrote: »

I wear matching underwear, always.

Ah c'mon now.

I'm sure there's the odd day the aul brdget jones go on and ye can't find the match.

Not having that.

Outlaw Pete · 14-11-2018 12:03am

limnam wrote: »

I'd say if hed had his finger in your childs vagina, you would not consider the sentence extreme in the slightest.

Well, the girl was 15 and the age of consent in the UK is 16.

I feel consistent sentencing is important but you're right, of course I wouldn't consider the sentence extreme if I were related to the girl, but that's why we have courts made up of judges and juries unrelated to victims or the accused, as that way we are more likely to get a rational sentence given that they would be less likely to be blinded by emotion.

14-11-2018 12:05am

limnam wrote: »

Ah c'mon now.

I'm sure there's the odd day the aul brdget jones go on and ye can't find the match.

Not having that.

Nope.
Sorry.

Hurrache · 14-11-2018 12:05am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, the girl here was 15 and he age of consent in the UK is 16.

So underage. You have different levels of rapeyness that you use as a yard stick?

limnam · 14-11-2018 12:05am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, the girl here was 15 and he age of consent in the UK is 16.

Ah, that makes it ok then.

He was _nearly_ not a sex offender.

blue note · 14-11-2018 12:08am

bubblypop wrote: »

I wear matching underwear, always.
Sometimes it may even be described as sexy!!
Does that mean I'm up for sex? Really? Because I wear sexy matching underwear to work?
It's ridiculous. Any mention of underwear in a trial should only be for forensics, that's it. There is no other reason. At all.

Sorry, maybe i wasn't clear in my opinions when i said "Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex." Although I'm not sure how that's unclear.

But for some women, they might pick particular underwear because they intend to, or think they might later want to, have sex. In a similar way to a guy sticking a condom in his wallet or getting flowers for his wife. And if a man's consent was ever in question of course the defence would point to things like him carrying a condom. But there are virtually no cases where men's consent is in question.

Rape cases are horrific. But for all people give out about them, I don't hear many suggestions about how to make them less traumatic while still giving the defendant a fair trial.

14-11-2018 12:08am

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.

I’m heading towards old age and have to admit to wearing matching underwear every day. White bra and knickers or black. Sometimes lacy, sometimes not.

The only reason underwear should be relevant in rape cases is purely for scientific evidence. Nothing else.

I was horrified at the judges comments in this case and am putting my dislike of Ms Coppinger aside to support this campaign.

Outlaw Pete · 14-11-2018 12:12am

limnam wrote: »

Ah, that makes it ok then.

Nope, far from okay, which again is why I conceded that Johnson should get a custodial sentence, just don't agree that six years for someone with no previous was appropriate.

Think I've indulged this nonsense enough. Any chance we could stick to the topic.

14-11-2018 12:21am

blue note wrote: »

Sorry, maybe i wasn't clear in my opinions when i said "Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex." Although I'm not sure how that's unclear.

But for some women, they might pick particular underwear because they intend to, or think they might later want to, have sex. In a similar way to a guy sticking a condom in his wallet or getting flowers for his wife. And if a man's consent was ever in question of course the defence would point to things like him carrying a condom. But there are virtually no cases where men's consent is in question.

Rape cases are horrific. But for all people give out about them, I don't hear many suggestions about how to make them less traumatic while still giving the defendant a fair trial.

Nope.
A man carrying a condom should never be evidence in a rape trial. Neither should his choice of sexy boxers or whatever underwear he likes.
The same as a womans choice of underwear is absolutely never a factor in whether she wants to have sex or not.
Oh & FYI, if a woman does or does not want sex, I'm going to guess she does not want to be raped.

Hurrache · 14-11-2018 12:27am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Think I've indulged this nonsense enough. Any chance we could stick to the topic.

You were the first person to take it off topic.

Feisar · 14-11-2018 12:29am

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

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

Agreed.

Myself and the wife are just in bed discussing this. Totally wrong however we both can see why the defending solicitor done it.

boardise · 14-11-2018 12:33am

People ( especially men ! ) wearing 'sexy u/wear' might represent more an aspiration rather an intention to have sex.

Feisar · 14-11-2018 12:34am

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

Rightly or wrongly the defending barrister was inferring the type of woman that was the accuser in the trial. I can see the ould fuddy duddies with there old caveman/woman mentality branding the poor woman a hussy for wearing a thong.

boardise · 14-11-2018 12:37am

Tear gone thong a ---tear gone on 'im.

14-11-2018 12:42am

Feisar wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly the defending barrister was inferring the type of woman that was the accuser in the trial. I can see the ould fuddy duddies with there old caveman/woman mentality branding the poor woman a hussy for wearing a thong.

Exactly.
No barrister should be allowed to bring this kind of evidence into any kind of trial

Feisar · 14-11-2018 12:44am

Also, crap like the below doesn't help the real issue:

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1060887160419696641

Hurrache · 14-11-2018 12:47am

Nobody takes notice of that sort of nonsense, plus it's a pisstake account.

Feisar · 14-11-2018 12:47am

bubblypop wrote: »

Exactly.
No barrister should be allowed to bring this kind of evidence into any kind of trial

The problem being we start to limit the defence one side is able to provide.

padd b1975 · 14-11-2018 7:04am

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Was it covered in gowl grease?

RIP The Bantam

Gusset like the start line at Brand's Hatch.

AndrewJRenko · 14-11-2018 7:25am

There was a report published in Northern Ireland yesterday showing that less than 2% of rape cases in Court result in successful convictions.

Why would anyone take on the huge risk of reporting a rape to the police in that environment?

suicide_circus · 14-11-2018 8:17am

when defending yourself against allegations in court, everything is fair game.

Roger Hassenforder · 14-11-2018 8:20am

blue note wrote: »

The point is that if the defence can point to many things that indicate the sex was consensual, on balance the jury may decide it was. One factor would be that the girl intended to have sex. And if she prepared for it, but dressing for it for one, then the jury should hear that and be able to make up their minds.

Na bu11sh1t

If there's forensic value to them being produced, they're fair game. There's no other reason they should be produced, especially to try and demonstrate intention or hope of sex. That still isnt consent. In the interim between putting them on, and the alleged assault, is she not allowed change her mind?

Can a girl carrying a condon not be raped?

King of Kings · 14-11-2018 8:24am

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

this is nonsense. every situation is different and sometime underwear can be important evidence beyond the forensic.

for example
more than once in my experience a lady has left the room and returned in sexy underwear or a robe revealing sexy underwear.
Had any complaint been made of course stating she came back wearing sexy gear is important. its bloody crucial.
I'm not saying it proves consent absolutely but it can add to the context and is strong circumstancial evidence.
People has been conviced of murder on circumstancial evidence alone so it is valid.

rape is probably the 2nd worst crime after murder , the comsequences for all can be brutal.
denying evidence that may be important to adhere to some doctrine is very worrying.

Its worrying that you and other (particularly that dope in the dail cant see that) and are happy to call for banning evidence.

lawred2 · 14-11-2018 8:32am

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.

It's only evidence if you've got your head filled such 'matching underwear = sex' notions

Roger_007 · 14-11-2018 8:34am

There seem to be an assumption by the Ruth Coppingers of this world, that in rape trials the defendant is always guilty but 'gets away with it' if the jury decide that he is not guilty.
In any criminal trial the jury are supposed to decide the case on the basis of the evidence. It is up to the judge to decide what can, or cannot, be introduced as evidence. Ms Coppinger seems to think that no defence should be allowed in rape trials. She also omitted to mention that the barrister involved was a woman. If it had been a male barrister she would be claiming mysogny and sexism.

professore · 14-11-2018 8:38am

Hurrache wrote: »

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

Well I'm sure the prosecution portrayed the guy as a sex crazed lunatic and exaggerated wildly anything he ever did... That's how a trial works.

If the jury are any good they will see the thong defence as grasping at straws. It would strengthen the case for the prosecution if I were on there.

blue note · 14-11-2018 8:39am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was a report published in Northern Ireland yesterday showing that less than 2% of rape cases in Court result in successful convictions.

Why would anyone take on the huge risk of reporting a rape to the police in that environment?

Are you saying that 2% if cases that go to trial result in conviction? If so I think you've misunderstood the report. Have you a link?

Here's an article quoting conviction rates in court of 64% this year and 74% last year in rape trials in northern Ireland. People keep peddling the myth that even if it goes to trial you've still got a tiny chance of seeing him convicted. This myth is extremely unhelpful and encourages people not to come forward and report to the police.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/conviction-rates-for-rape-and-sexual-offences-in-northern-ireland-drop-37408463.html

professore · 14-11-2018 8:41am

Hurrache wrote: »

So underage. You have different levels of rapeyness that you use as a yard stick?

If the girl is 15 and the guy is 16 that's a WAAAY different level than the girl 15 and the guy 35.

professore · 14-11-2018 8:44am

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope.
A man carrying a condom should never be evidence in a rape trial. Neither should his choice of sexy boxers or whatever underwear he likes.
The same as a womans choice of underwear is absolutely never a factor in whether she wants to have sex or not.
Oh & FYI, if a woman does or does not want sex, I'm going to guess she does not want to be raped.

If you start making lists of what solicitors can and cannot say during a trial it will end up that they will just say "jury, you decide if he looks guilty or not." This is a total red herring and he media fell for it.

RabbleRouser2k · 14-11-2018 8:47am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was a report published in Northern Ireland yesterday showing that less than 2% of rape cases in Court result in successful convictions.

Why would anyone take on the huge risk of reporting a rape to the police in that environment?

The problem with those statistics is that one can look at them and say '2 percent of legit rape cases see a conviction'.
Those statistics ignore cases where it was proven to be a false claim, or where neither party could legit say no consent was given.
Even in cases of male on male rape, when one can prove the victim was straight, it still doesn't mean a case will see court, or that there will be a conviction.

The stats for other crimes, such as burglaries or thefts, aren't much better-somewhere in the region of 7 percent. And in those cases, one can possibly hold up stolen property and say 'they took that from me'. Not so with rape.

seenitall · 14-11-2018 8:54am

So. When my daughter is older and starts going out, should I as a conscientious mother, be telling her: "And remember to wear those ugly knickers I got you! God forbid something bad happens, you know it would be your own fault..."?

Can you even hear yourselves, defending this medieval carry on? Disgraceful stuff.

titan18 · 14-11-2018 9:07am

You shouldn't limit what a defense can use as evidence. It's up to the jury to decide whether to agree with it or not, not the lynch mob.

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments