Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

nullzero wrote:

Did you meet in an insufferable bores only bar?

In my local filling station this morning I noticed the a female worker stocking shelves was wearing a thong. I couldn't believe my luck on a Monday morning but was shocked & disappointed, when I asked her where we were going to have sex, she bared me from the store.

Doesn't make sense.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In my local filling station this morning I noticed the a female worker stocking shelves was wearing a thong. I couldn't believe my luck on a Monday morning but was shocked & disappointed, when I asked her where we were going to have sex, she bared me from the store.

Doesn't make sense.

Pics or gtfo...

Mrsmum wrote: »

Discussed on Claire Byrne tonight. 88% on Amarach poll disagree with clothing being used as sign of consent. Charlie Flanagan on and he seems up for making some changes.

Charlie’s “clothes don’t rape women, rapists rape women” was as stupid an attempt to ride on the coat tails of publicity that this case has generated, as Ruth Coppingers effort. It was particularly stupid in light of the fact that the defendant in this case was found not guilty of having committed rape.

That being said, it doesn’t surprise me that Charlie as the Minister for Justice had to come up with a “profound” sound-bite for the media, as he’s still done nothing in the months that followed his last promises in light of the trial in Belfast where those men were found not guilty of having committed rape -

Alleged rape victims to get support in court in wake of Belfast case


As for the polls on the Claire Byrne show, and the deluge of women posting pictures of their underwear on social media with the hashtag #ThisIsNotConsent, nobody has ever actually argued that the the complainants underwear was any indication of consent. It was argued as an indication that the complainant was interested in having sex, and whatever 88% of people believed about a completely different question is neither here nor there. The only thing that matters is what the jury believed that the defendant believed about the encounter between himself and the complainant.

You can’t simply make a blanket ban on prohibiting specific evidence which the defendant is of the opinion would aid in their own defence, and that’s why you’ll see politicians using cases like these to give the appearance that they’re making all the right moves and saying all the right things - because they know their job is contingent upon maintaining a high level of public support for their ideas. It has nothing to do with caring about women’s welfare or caring about the complainants in rape trials, because that’s literally beyond the scope of their political powers. They have no power to change criminal trial proceedings. It will always be ultimately up to the Judge in any specific trial whether or not specific evidence should be admitted, not politicians, thankfully, IMO.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Change has to come. Our justice system is discouraging victims from reporting crimes. The nonsense over the thong is sending out the wrong message to would be offenders & victims alike. Obviously this cant continue

The only way any justice system would be seen to function properly from the some peoples perspective is if the person who the complainant accuses of having committed a criminal offence is immediately punished severely as possible.

That’s not justice. Justice has to be impartial in order to function properly, for both the person who accuses another person of a crime, and for the person who is accused of a criminal offence. Take the case I presented to you earlier in the thread of the woman who falsely accused a man of raping her when he was nowhere near her at the time.

According to how you imagine justice should operate, that man would be doing serious time now even though he was innocent of any wrongdoing, or according to how you’ve tried to present it in this case - the investigating officers just didn’t have sufficient evidence to prove he raped her, but they can’t say he didn’t, therefore implying that the man had committed rape, but got away with it. In Irish law, people have the right to their good name, and so accusations outside of a court of law are simply unfounded allegations and an attempt to ruin a persons reputation, and that sort of behaviour can land an accuser in all sorts of legal hot water.

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are going to suggest that the person was looking for it based on the clothes she was wearing then you are basically calling her a slut.
Should the defendant's previous criminal history be read to the jury?

I’m not calling anyone anything, those are your words, not mine.

Also, your point has come up in the thread already, and I’ve already said that it should, and it did in a recent trial which showed that the defendant had a particular modus operandi -


APPSOLUTE DEGENERATE Tinder rape fiend Patrick Nevin unmasked as vile past of Irishman who sexually assaulted three women he met on dating app revealed

eagle eye wrote: »

The jury are never told about his previous history unless the defense opens the door to it being discussed during the case.
The court will be told about it prior to sentencing by the dpp.

You asked me this -

Should the defendant's previous criminal history be read to the jury?


I said it should, and then you go on to make a different point again completely, a point which in and of itself isn’t true either. There’s none of that “the defence opened the door” nonsense goes on in an actual criminal trial in Irish Courts. It’s a myth from watching Law & Order: SVU or something.

The jury in that case weren’t told about his previous convictions because he plead guilty to the latest charges, so there was no need for a trial, jury were told they could go home.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I honestly think there will be changes. Women will not put up with this & will protest more and more against these humiliations women suffer in rape trials and you just can't hold back a tidal wave of opposition. I heard Regina O Doherty on radio today also and she was saying her daughter came to her and said fix this mom, this is not right. Young women just will not accept this and unlike before can mobilise through social media nowadays. It's a bit like the water charges & the way P Jackson and S Olding had to leave the country - that was purely people power. Enough of a tsunami behind something and it's gone. Rape laws have and will continue to evolve like everything else in life. No one is saying throw the man under the bus. We all have male relations and friends but the system has to treat the claimant decently also.

Yeah, that was people power - mob justice, and to be perfectly honest I have no sympathy whatsoever for the men in that case, none. They absolutely deserved to be dropped by their employers and hounded out of the country, not because of the outcome of any trial, but because of their behaviours and their attitudes that came out during the trial. They took the risk of maintaining they were innocent, put the complainant and everyone else through a lengthy public trial and they absolutely should have to be made to pay heavily for that. Their application to recoup their legal costs (which is something that applies specifically to NI) should be refused too.

The system absolutely does already treat the complainant fairly IMO in relation to their accusations against someone who is presumed to be innocent of any wrongdoing. Certainly there should be better support for complainants in any criminal case, whether they’re a men, women or children, and Charlie Flanagan’s sound-bites won’t change that, because he was very clear to point out that any advocate for the complainant wouldn’t be the same as having their own legal representation. The complainant doesn’t need their own legal representation because they aren’t on trial, but what they absolutely do need is greater support, in order to prepare them as best as they can possibly be prepared to give evidence against the accused, and prepare them for appearing in Court, and prepare them for the defences questions which will be brutal, and nasty, and humiliating, and disgusting to them, and will make them feel like they’re on trial, because their credibility is just as much in question for 12 strangers to them, as the defendants credibility.

It’s only one of the many, many reasons why I personally have never made a complaint - because I know I would be absolutely torn to shreds, apart from any other potential repercussions in the aftermath of any trial. I’ve been on the other side of that fence too where I was falsely accused, and mob justice meant I was left for dead in an alleyway had it not been for a stranger who happened to be passing by and saw me in a heap on the ground.

You’re right, the system absolutely does need to change in order to support people who have been raped and sexually abused and assaulted, regardless of their sex though, regardless of their age, otherwise what this looks like to me at least is a small group of people using other people’s circumstances for their own political and social gain, rather than any regard given to the victims of rape, child sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual violence.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Most definitely not the only thing that matters. It also matters whether the jury believe sex took place at all, or of the complainant actually consented.



You may be right that a blanket ban on a certain kind of evidence would be unsuccessful.

However, that doesn’t lead to what you conclude. For example, a defendant has to make application to use a complainants counselling records and provide a reason for his application. The judge will decide whether to allow this or not.

This condition was not introduced by the judiciary or precedent, it was introduced by the oireachtas...... politicians.

So it’s very possible for the oireachtas to introduce legislation that would require a legal team to have to apply to be able to use certain kinds of evidence, and provide reasons for doing so.

The same is true of Section 3 applications already?


3.—(1) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence shall be adduced and no question shall be asked in cross-examination at the trial, by or on behalf of any accused person at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that accused.

(2) (a) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of subsection (1) for any evidence or question except on an application made to him, in the absence of the jury, by or on behalf of an accused person.

(b) The judge shall give leave if, and only if, he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the accused person to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked, that is to say, if he is satisfied that, on the assumption that if the evidence or question was not allowed the jury might reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty, the effect of allowing the evidence or question might reasonably be that they would not be so satisfied.

(3) If, notwithstanding that the judge has given leave in accordance with this section for any evidence to be adduced or question to be asked in cross-examination, it appears to the judge that any question asked or proposed to be asked (whether in the course of so adducing evidence or of cross-examination) in reliance on the leave which he has given is not or may not be such as may properly be asked in accordance with that leave, he may direct that the question shall not be asked or, if asked, that it shall not be answered except in accordance with his leave given on a fresh application under this section.

(4) Nothing in this section authorises evidence to be adduced or a question to be asked


Ultimately it is still up to the Judge in any specific trial to determine what evidence shall be permitted to be introduced by either the prosecution or the defence. Creating more unnecessary and meaningless legislation is within the remit of the Oireachtas alright, they do plenty of that. It’s still a matter for the Judge to decide in any specific case though. Politicians have no power over that process.


EDIT: Also relevant -


Documents seen by The Irish Times show lawyers are advised to tell complainants that successfully fighting a section-three application could lead to any conviction being overturned on appeal.


Source: Many rape victims still face court questioning on sexual history

One eyed Jack wrote:

The only way any justice system would be seen to function properly from the some peoples perspective is if the person who the complainant accuses of having committed a criminal offence is immediately punished severely as possible.

That's not true nor is it what anyone wants. We just need the victim shaming to stop. We need judges to stop barriers from making ridiculous statements. It's not a lot to ask.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If it is true that women wearing thongs does not mean that they are out for sex then stopping the barrier from making such claims can not stop the defendant getting a fair trial.

We have special criminal courts taking away someones right to a trial by jury. Thats pretty wild yet no one bat's an eyelid. There's a big difference between that and treating the complaint with respect and dignity

And there is no way of knowing that in individual cases, so anyone is entitled to make such claims, and it’s allowed precisely for the reason that to prohibit it could mean that the defendant could argue on appeal that their right to a fair trial was compromised by the Judge not allowing evidence which they could argue would have assisted in their own defence.

That’s not what the Special Criminal Court is for either. You want to deny the defendant their right to a fair trial? You couldn’t, as it would be a violation of their human rights.

Respect and dignity aren’t standards for cross-examination of a complaining witness, they’re not even standards that apply to the defendant who is on trial. If they were, we’d immediately be in a situation where neither the defendant, nor the complaining witnesses could be questioned because any and questioning at all could be argued as not treating the defendant or the complaining witnesses with respect and dignity.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Section 3 does not cover all evidence, just sexual history of the complainant. That type of legislation could be extended to the victims clothing as evidence.

It’s also not completely up to the judge as you claim. The legislation you posted sets out the limits of what a judge can consider when assessing a section 3 application.

So it’s not pointless or meaningless legislation.

...

There is a clear difference between giving a judge full discretion on a matter and giving him final say in a matter that has legislative restrictions.

There’s no difference at all L, ultimately it does come down to a Judge, and I was making the point that what you were suggesting in that an application would have to be made to introduce the complainants underwear as evidence is similar to a Section 3 application. Under that application, complaining witnesses can be asked whether they use a dildo or are they on the pill, and those are just examples. You think a Judge that allows an application for those purposes would stop an application to question the complainant about their underwear?

How many convictions have been overturned based on section 3 applications being denied?

It doesn’t matter how many convictions have been overturned on the basis of a section 3 application being denied, the point is that it can happen, and the complainant has to be made aware of that possibility.

One eyed Jack wrote:

And there is no way of knowing that in individual cases, so anyone is entitled to make such claims, and it’s allowed precisely for the reason that to prohibit it could mean that the defendant could argue on appeal that their right to a fair trial was compromised by the Judge not allowing evidence which they could argue would have assisted in their own defence.

Simple question here, do you believe that a girl wearing a thong means that she wants sex or is thinking about sex?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Simple question here, do you believe that a girl wearing a thong means that she wants sex or is thinking about sex?

Not always of course, it depends upon context. It can mean that, and, and I must stress this explicitly so I’m not misinterpreted - there is nothing wrong IMO with a girl or a woman wanting to have sex. Nothing.

The motivation for trying to ban that perception or call it a myth is precisely what feeds into the stigma that the same people protesting against it, are feeding into and making a thing of. That’s why when I said what I said earlier, I had a poster try to claim I was “slut shaming”, when I have never done anything of the sort, or “victim blaming”, and trying to ban this perception is exactly what implies there’s something inherently “wrong” for girls and women to enjoy sex and look for sex and want to have sex.

It’s an attempt to create a perception that girls and women don’t want to have sex, and that’s a myth, they do. I know very few women who don’t want to have sex and don’t enjoy sex and seek out even more sex. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

That clear enough for you?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You provided a link to the bold boys corner that I was talking about.

The bold boys corner means you don't get to play or participate. That was his suspension.

He may not be pupil of the week but he is firmly out of a the bold boys corner.

I don't listen to him, never have, can't really fathom why people would.

But I image his new show has ad breaks, therefore sponsors.

So your claim of "game over" is fundamentally wrong, no?

Twitter outrage is finite it has a limited shelf life, there is always another fight to move on to, George could easily sneak back onto Prime Time.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Of course girls & want & enjoy sex. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise tbh.

If you agree that a thong can be worn 7 day a week all of year round no matter what her mood is then what point is the defence making with the barristers comments?

If a thong doesn't = wanting sex then why was she allowed to infer that it does? It's like assuming a defendant is out breaking the law because they have a hoodie on.

I didn’t agree to either of those things you’re suggesting.

It’s not like assuming a defendant is out breaking the law because they have a hoodie on, it’s like assuming that anyone with a hoodie on is out to break the law. They could be wearing the hoodie for an infinite number of other reasons known only to themselves, but their reasons are irrelevant to the point that the vast majority of people who are out breaking the law, wear hoodies. It’s one of the reasons why I hate that my own young lad wears hoodies 24/7, because I don’t want him perceived to be someone who is out breaking the law.

That’s not a myth, and what you’re suggesting would be like trying to suggest that the prosecution shouldn’t be allowed to introduce a defendants hoodie into evidence because it would could prejudice the jury against the defendant and would compromise the defendants right to a fair trial. That’s assuming the members of the jury think like you do that there’s something wrong with a girl wearing a thong, and there’s something wrong with girls and women looking for sex.

All these women justifying themselves and saying thongs don’t equal consent is a red herring. They’re speaking of themselves, and in a completely different context to a complainant who has accused someone of rape.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I heard Regina O Doherty on radio today also and she was saying her daughter came to her and said fix this mom, this is not right.

Ya, that probably didn't happen.

But if it did, I would hope Regina explained to her daughter that you can't just legislate because something is emotive.

One eyed Jack wrote:

There’s none of that “the defence opened the door†nonsense goes on in an actual criminal trial in Irish Courts. It’s a myth from watching Law & Order: SVU or something.

It has happened, I've witnessed it happening on a couple of different occasions. Three times the Jury got dismissed and the case put back for dpp directions which is basically a new trial, once it lead to the jury being told from the witness box about the defendant's previous convictions.

Boggles wrote: »

The bold boys corner means you don't get to play or participate. That was his suspension.

He may not be pupil of the week but he is firmly out of a the bold boys corner.

I don't listen to him, never have, can't really fathom why people would.

But I image his new show has ad breaks, therefore sponsors.

So your claim of "game over" is fundamentally wrong, no?

Twitter outrage is finite it has a limited shelf life, there is always another fight to move on to, George could easily sneak back onto Prime Time.

Not quite.


He was on 10 hours per week & now only 2 hours per week


He did have an official sponsor but now just regular ad breaks


The advertisers did pay a perineum for his lunchtime slot now they pay a much cheaper rate



He had 100,000 listeners now less than half of that


The station did promote his High Noon show throughout the day & night & now they hardly promote his Saturday show .at all.


He did have free rein to be outspoken & now he is castrated barely touching on topics he was outspoken on before.



Most of the country don't even know that he's still on the radio.



He is definitively in the bold boys corner playing all on his own.


I like George but he has been silenced by Newstalk. It's a little sad tbh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not quite.


He was on 10 hours per week & now only 2 hours per week


He did have an official sponsor but now just regular ad breaks

Jaysus you are some man for moving the goalposts.

I never contested he wasn't moved or has less hours.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

At the end of the day if the public feel that they won't pay to see them them it's game over. George Hook sponsors dropped him & his show got dropped. Now he is in the bold boy corner and I can't see him getting out of it.

So it isn't game over, sponsors are still paying and he is back on the radio. Correct?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He had 100,000 listeners now less than half of that

TBF that is fairly impressive given.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He was dropped from 10 hours of prime time radio to two hours on a Saturday morning when most are still in bed.

That would lead me to believe he has more chance of getting back into the Prime Time.

Fair fooks to George, I still won't be listening to him though.