Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Triceratops Ballet · 14-11-2018 9:12am

limnam wrote:

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

If all your underwear is black with lace it will match every day!

boardise wrote:

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

What about a straight bloke in a gay bar, if he's wearing his best undies what does that mean? You know in this world where underwear sends messages. Worse still what if he also has a condom in his wallet?

King of Kings · 14-11-2018 9:12am

seenitall wrote: »

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.

you bringing emotion into this and emotion and the law dont mix well.

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so.
Did you think of that in your post above?

it should be about balance for all not just one side.

Triceratops Ballet · 14-11-2018 9:14am

King of Kings wrote:

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so. Did you think of that in your post above?

What is is evidence of?

If its forensic evidence fair game, if not what exactly can underwear prove?

lawred2 · 14-11-2018 9:18am

King of Kings wrote: »

you bringing emotion into this and emotion and the law dont mix well.

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so.
Did you think of that in your post above?

it should be about balance for all not just one side.

Sure isn't that exactly what the defense counsel did? The waving of underwear was to appeal to the juror's emotional side. It wasn't evidence of a forensic nature.

So emotion and adversarial court rooms do indeed mix all the time.

professore · 14-11-2018 9:20am

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What is is evidence of?

If its forensic evidence fair game, if not what exactly can underwear prove?

It's not evidence, it's a plea to the emotions of the jury. This is common in trials and as we can see by the hysterical reactions to this incident it clearly works. For every outraged person there is a corresponding auld one "disgusted" at the brazen hussy wearing that underwear. And probably the jury was full of auld biddies. Since working people have no time for jury duty.

Funnily enough the coverage of this trial is all about the underwear - no mention of any other evidence whatsoever. Maybe there was a weight of other evidence proving the defendants innocence? We'll never know because of the stupid coverage of the trial.

And Ruth Coppinger went off on a rant about feminism after showing the knickers - proving once again it was purely a political football for her.

seenitall · 14-11-2018 9:21am

King of Kings wrote: »

you bringing emotion into this and emotion and the law dont mix well.

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so.
Did you think of that in your post above?

it should be about balance for all not just one side.

Ugh

If my son was in a position of having been accused of rape, the last thing I would be interested in is what kind of knickers the girl was wearing.

And no, this isn't about emotion, although full marks on condescension. The authorities of the state, including the judiciary, have a responsibility to the public not to nurture and feed victim-blaming crap like this in society, by firstly ensuring it is not being promoted in the court of law, of all places.

Outlaw Pete · 14-11-2018 9:22am

lawred2 wrote: »

The waving of underwear was to appeal to the juror's emotional side.

In this particular case I believe the underwear were just referenced.

The judge should have instructed the jury to ignore the solicitor.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an appeal for a mistrial is lodged.

WinnyThePoo · 14-11-2018 9:26am

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Tom humphries grooming was downplayed by the outlaw aswell

professore · 14-11-2018 9:27am

seenitall wrote: »

Ugh

If my son was in a position of having been accused of rape, the last thing I would be interested in is what kind of knickers the girl was wearing.

And no, this isn't about emotion, although full marks on condescension. The authorities of the state, including the judiciary, have a responsibility to the public not to nurture and feed victim-blaming crap like this in society, by firstly ensuring it is not being promoted in the court of law, of all places.

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.

whiskeyman · 14-11-2018 9:29am

What the defending barrister said was appalling, but it also highlights another key issue - that of the jury.
She wouldn't make such a comment unless she knew it would impact their decision.
We may think we've moved on from our past and are a modern thinking nation, but clearly not everyone is.

sbsquarepants · 14-11-2018 9:29am

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

She has a perfectly valid point.

If that was my daughter, that barrister would have gotten herself an almighty kick in the fanny on the steps outside the court.

She should be absolutely ashamed of herself.

seenitall · 14-11-2018 9:32am

professore wrote: »

Why stop there? All sorts of stereotypes are promoted in courts. Like only men commit domestic violence. Only women can be good parents etc.

I really think its going down a bad path if you start restricting what barristers can say in a trial.

Really? Give me some examples? When did a barrister utter that only men commit domestic violence, or that only women can be good parents? Cos yes, that would be very wrong, too. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. I would not be in favour of anything that promotes inequality or injustice or a medieval bias in the public sphere.

professore · 14-11-2018 9:32am

whiskeyman wrote: »

What the defending barrister said was appalling, but it also highlights another key issue - that of the jury.
She wouldn't make such a comment unless she knew it would impact their decision.
We may think we've moved on from our past and are a modern thinking nation, but clearly not everyone is.

As I said before the jury was probably full of retired conservative catholics, as no one else has time to attend a trial. This was the defence playing to that audience.

Dakota Dan · 14-11-2018 9:33am

Samuel Zealous Stereoscope wrote: »

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.

Does she think nobody knows what a thong looks like? Someone said it was a thong that Mary Harney left behind ðŸ˜€

professore · 14-11-2018 9:37am

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Does she think nobody knows what a thong looks like? Someone said it was a thong that Mary Harney left behind ðŸ˜€

She actually said "a pair of thongs"

blue note · 14-11-2018 9:39am

professore wrote: »

It's not evidence, it's a plea to the emotions of the jury. This is common in trials and as we can see by the hysterical reactions to this incident it clearly works. For every outraged person there is a corresponding auld one "disgusted" at the brazen hussy wearing that underwear.

Where have you seen the reactions of people thinking she was a brazen hussy for wearing that underwear? I've heard people say that othersother have had this reaction, but I haven't actually seen anyone react like that myself. Any link to someone saying anything like that?

sbsquarepants · 14-11-2018 9:39am

professore wrote: »

She actually said "a pair of thongs"

Mary needed one for each leg:D

professore · 14-11-2018 9:44am

seenitall wrote: »

Really? Give me some examples? When did a barrister utter that only men commit domestic violence, or that only women can be good parents? Cos yes, that would be very wrong, too. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. I would not be in favour of anything that promotes inequality or injustice or a medieval bias in the public sphere.

Just look at the coverage of the Tina Cahill case - all of it is about how violent he allegedly was, yet she already had a criminal record for attacking him.

Like it or not there is a medieval bias in the court system because the jurors tend to be medieval.

Outlaw Pete · 14-11-2018 9:51am

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Tom humphries grooming was downplayed by the outlaw aswell

Because I didn't think he should be hung like the rest of you? Ha.

Look, at the end of the day, the courts agreed with me and like I said at the time:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

2 and half years sounds about right. Was ludicrous to be suggesting he should get 25 years or anything like it.

This trip down memory lane with a few of you has been lovely.

What's next, the Ched Evans case? Oh wait, best not, he was acquitted like I said he would be and all :P

Hector Savage · 14-11-2018 9:55am

ah jaysus, probably ****ing skid marks on it and all ...

seamus · 14-11-2018 9:59am

professore wrote: »

Just look at the coverage of the Tina Cahill case - all of it is about how violent he allegedly was, yet she already had a criminal record for attacking him.

You see, that's false equivalence.

When your defence against a murder charge is self-defence, it's very relevant to discuss whether or not the deceased was an ordinarily violent person. Obviously.

When you're defending a rape charge on the basis that consent existed, it's of less relevance whether the victim had sex before, or wanted sex that night, or was ordinarily flathuileach with the aul sex.
Because previously consenting to sex doesn't imply consent was forthcoming in that instance.
It's the same as the "he had an erection, so it couldn't have been rape" defence, which has been successfully used to defend against male rape charges.

seenitall · 14-11-2018 10:07am

professore wrote: »

Just look at the coverage of the Tina Cahill case - all of it is about how violent he allegedly was, yet she already had a criminal record for attacking him.

Like it or not there is a medieval bias in the court system because the jurors tend to be medieval.

Apples and oranges here. If there is actual evidence, like witnesses corroborating he was violent (I'm not familiar with that case) over a period of time, that's very different than a single instance of an item of clothing being worn being taken as evidence of someone's sexual availability, and the sexual availability TO A SPECIFIC PERSON at that. One of these is pure bunkum and wrong.

I don't doubt there are other instances of all sorts of prejudice playing out in the system, and they should be challenged. These rape cases somehow seem to be the most contentious ones for, IMO, some pretty glaring reasons.

ETA: what seamus said. I've to go to work!

Feisar · 14-11-2018 10:09am

whiskeyman wrote: »

What the defending barrister said was appalling, but it also highlights another key issue - that of the jury.
She wouldn't make such a comment unless she knew it would impact their decision.
We may think we've moved on from our past and are a modern thinking nation, but clearly not everyone is.

The jury prpbobly was filled with young women, I'm sure it was more the older type, barrister was playing to the audience.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 10:20am

I don't know whether the whole transcript has been released but the best mate's bro worked for the CPS in the UK for a time and basically said that defence barristers see a win for their client if any of the accuser's story can be questioned.

The "case" isn't a whole entity, it's a series of points - that can be proved or disproved.

If the woman in question had said "I was wearing grey, saggy boxers, and had zero intention of getting laid" - the defence can (and should) use whatever legaly obtained evidence they can to disprove that.

Two points tho - if it was just "she was wearing this - clearly she's a tart" - that is very very wrong. and also, I truly believe there are feminists in this world who want a rape trial to be "believe the woman" - and that is equally as wrong.

Though not as wrong as "2% of rape trials end with a conviction". That's utter garbage.

Outlaw Pete · 14-11-2018 10:33am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If the woman in question had said "I was wearing grey, saggy boxers, and had zero intention of getting laid" - the defence can (and should) use whatever legaly obtained evidence they can to disprove that.

Precisely and a similar point of contention arose during the Ched Evans case as the law in the UK states that a complainants’ sexual history cannot be used as evidence in sex offence trials (and so in his first trial it wasn't) but in the retrial it was allowed as his defense team managed to successfully argue that the complainants’ sexual history was of relevance when it came to rebutting evidence which the prosecution/complainant themselves had entered.

Padraig Mor · 14-11-2018 10:42am

professore wrote: »

Funnily enough the coverage of this trial is all about the underwear - no mention of any other evidence whatsoever. Maybe there was a weight of other evidence proving the defendants innocence? We'll never know because of the stupid coverage of the trial.

This is a very important point. For all the outrage, it seems to have been widely missed that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in an hour and a half - they were hardly in the room before they were back out again! Suggests to me that there was plenty of other - convincing but unreported - evidence in the case.

seamus · 14-11-2018 10:47am

Padraig Mor wrote: »

This is a very important point. For all the outrage, it seems to have been widely missed that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in an hour and a half - they were hardly in the room before they were back out again! Suggests to me that there was plenty of other - convincing but unreported - evidence in the case.

Or lack of, more likely.

Proving that something didn't happen is virtually impossible. Generally cases rest on the prosecution proving what did happen rather the defence proving that it didn't. People are generally acquitted because there's not enough convincing evidence of guilt rather than ample evidence that they're innocent.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 10:55am

seamus wrote: »

Or lack of, more likely.

Proving that something didn't happen is virtually impossible. Generally cases rest on the prosecution proving what did happen rather the defence proving that it didn't. People are generally acquitted because there's not enough convincing evidence of guilt rather than ample evidence that they're innocent.

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

King of Kings · 14-11-2018 11:01am

seenitall wrote: »

Ugh

If my son was in a position of having been accused of rape, the last thing I would be interested in is what kind of knickers the girl was wearing.
.

that maybe you which i find really weird tbh cos a normal parent would what their child to have the best defence possible.

maybe we have different views of parenthood.

ceegee · 14-11-2018 11:07am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

I'd rather not have you on a jury, if innocent until proven guilty seems like an outlandish concept to you

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 11:09am

ceegee wrote: »

I'd rather not have you on a jury, if innocent until proven guilty seems like an outlandish concept to you

Oh please read my post again and the preceding one eh ?

I'm arguing that exact point!!!

The other poster was arguing that being found not guilty doesn't mean innocence. Which is wrong.

It's very much what it means.

williestroker1 · 14-11-2018 11:11am

Could she not have brought up what is a very serious issue without holding up her knickers. The usual grandstanding from Coppinger.

sbsquarepants · 14-11-2018 11:11am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

That's the very basis of the legal system in practically any democratic country.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You can't just go convicting people of serious crimes in the absence of any proof!

ohnonotgmail · 14-11-2018 11:12am

williestroker1 wrote: »

Could she not have brought up what is a very serious issue without holding up her knickers. The usual grandstanding from Coppinger.

Well people are talking about it and that is the point. The mental image doesn't sit well with me mind.

seamus · 14-11-2018 11:13am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

Right back at you. "Even though there's no evidence, clearly he's guilty, so let's send this guy to jail".

Jesus wept, you belong back in the middle ages :rolleyes:

King of Kings wrote: »

that maybe you which i find really weird tbh cos a normal parent would what their child to have the best defence possible.

maybe we have different views of parenthood.

As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect.

I would certainly look at the range of options available to us to try and drive for the best possible outcome, but the best possible honest outcome. Throwing money at the case to secure a not guilty verdict when I know they committed the crime, is not an honest outcome.

I understand parents who take this route, like the parents in the Annabelle's case, but I cannot respect them.

lawred2 · 14-11-2018 11:15am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In this particular case I believe the underwear were just referenced.

The judge should have instructed the jury to ignore the solicitor.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an appeal for a mistrial is lodged.

ah yeah sorry - t'was Ruth that was waving her undies

FunLover18 · 14-11-2018 11:15am

Padraig Mor wrote: »

This is a very important point. For all the outrage, it seems to have been widely missed that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in an hour and a half - they were hardly in the room before they were back out again! Suggests to me that there was plenty of other - convincing but unreported - evidence in the case.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone was acquitted based purely on what the alleged victim was wearing, merely that introducing what the alleged victim was wearing feeds into a culture of victim blaming and is one of the reason why sexual crimes are not reported.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 11:16am

seamus wrote: »

Right back at you. "Even though there's no evidence, clearly he's guilty, so let's send this guy to jail".

Jesus wept, you belong back in the middle ages :rolleyes:

As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect.

I would certainly look at the range of options available to us to try and drive for the best possible outcome, but the best possible honest outcome. Throwing money at the case to secure a not guilty plea when I know they committed the crime, is not an honest outcome.

For the love of God - THAT WAS SARCASM! That was me putting words int he mouths of those who spout the crap heard doing the Jackson/Olding trial - and since "well, they were found not guilty but it doesn't make them innocent".

YES IT DOES!

There are points you think you might have to explain and ones you don't. Clearly I misjudged the audience.

lawred2 · 14-11-2018 11:18am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

For the love of God - THAT WAS SARCASM! That was me putting words int he mouths of those who spout the crap heard doing the Jackson/Olding trial - and since "well, they were found not guilty but it doesn't make them innocent".

YES IT DOES!

There are points you think you might have to explain and ones you don't. Clearly I misjudged the audience.

Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.

While making no comment as to the Olding and Jackson - escaping justice does not mean innocent. Just means you weren't convicted.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-11-2018 11:19am

lawred2 wrote: »

Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.

I give up.

lawred2 · 14-11-2018 11:20am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I give up.

I'm not sure what you're so upset about. But feel free to flounce about the place like a teenager.

joe40 · 14-11-2018 11:21am

If a defendant is found "not guilty" then by definition they are innocent since that is the presumption before the verdict.

The thing is though, a "not guilty" verdict does not mean the victim/accuser whatever is lying. It just means there is not enough evidence to convict.

wexie · 14-11-2018 11:24am

lawred2 wrote: »

Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.

While making no comment as to the Olding and Jackson - escaping justice does not mean innocent. Just means you weren't convicted.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I give up.

I think you're all getting a bit confused over the difference between 'innocent in the eyes of the law' and 'actually, didn't commit the crime they were charged with'.

JMNolan · 14-11-2018 11:25am

I wonder how far away are we from relaxing the requirement that the jury must decide whether or not the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime. Perhaps for rape cases it will be reduced to balance of probabilities? Would Ruth Coppinger be in favour of this?

Or perhaps for certain crimes the accused will be constrained from the defense that can be put forward?

lawred2 · 14-11-2018 11:28am

wexie wrote: »

I think you're all getting a bit confused over the difference between 'innocent in the eyes of the law' and 'actually, didn't commit the crime they were charged with'.

I'm not

wexie · 14-11-2018 11:29am

lawred2 wrote: »

I'm not

No, I should have phrased that a bit differently. Apologies.

King of Kings · 14-11-2018 11:30am

seamus wrote: »

As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect.

I understand parents who take this route, like the parents in the Annabelle's case, but I cannot respect them.

Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence. the best defence doesnt rule out punishment....merely they get to argue their case and mitigate their punishment

anything less is disowning your child...
which isnt for me and sounds like a unnatural concept.

charlietheminxx · 14-11-2018 11:34am

King of Kings wrote: »

Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence.
the best defence doesnt rule out punishment....merely they get to argue their case...
having their day in court would be the common terms.....anything less is disowning your child...
which isnt for me and sounds like a unnatural concept.

If my child was a rapist, like an admitted one, I would urge them to get serious psychological help and then I would have nothing further to do with them. Maybe you’re a very forgiving person, but I’ve seen someone repeatedly try to take their own life in dealing with the aftermath of being raped. It ruins lives. I couldn’t stand by anyone who would do such a thing and I would not want them getting off scot free for it either.

wexie · 14-11-2018 11:34am

King of Kings wrote: »

Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence.

No but I think the whole argument in this thread is that it seems to have become normal for the 'best defense' to have become an attack on the other party.

That's not a defense, whether or not this girl was wearing a thong has no bearing on whether she was intending to have sex, or intending to have it with any person in particular whatsoever.

Plenty times (during the summer) that I don't wear any underwear at all, does that mean I'm looking to get lucky? Hell no it doesn't, means I don't like sweaty arsecrack.

Literally the only thing this girl wearing a thong proves is that she was wearing a thong, as thousands of women all over the country do every day.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 14-11-2018 11:40am

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. 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 might get lucky tonight so I will put on some sexy undies" - That doesn't mean she was asking for it, or that she wanted to have sex with everybody and anybody. The defending barrister could have asked, "Did you go out tonight with the intention of having sex?, then if so how could you have been raped by my client?"

doylefe wrote: »

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

Ho-lee-fuk.

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

No, not it's not.

Roger_007 wrote: »

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.

The argument is that the judge shouldn't have complete control of what should and should not be allowed in court.

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.

Stereotypes shouldn't have any place in court. If you murder somebody, the sentence shouldn't depend on what kind of family you were born to. Your contribution to society is another thing.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

It's quite ironic that you don't understand how it works yourself. You are the one that should never sit on a jury as it seems that you judge with emotions rather than facts.

How can he be clearly guilty if there's no proof he's guilty? What does logical mean on your planet? Because it's quite the opposite to what I know.

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments