Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Sleeper12

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It's being pointed out because some posters are stressing "minor" to try and sully the waters and imply that instead of an innocent man who may have cheated on his partner (her concern, not ours) he's actually some kind of paedophile who got lucky.

No. I'm stressing the fact that she is a minor because she is a minor. This the legal title for someone under the age of 18 in Ireland. She is not a woman she is a girl of 17 years of age.Her official title in minor. Why would I make up a different title for her?


I have never suggested that he went after a child though I do think him foolish as it could have turned out that she was younger not known to him.This was a huge risk he took. Some 13 & 14 year olds pretend to be 17 or 18.



If we can suggest that girls / women should be careful & not to drink too much or walk alone at night, can we not also say that 27 year old married men should be careful about the age of girls they have sex with. As George says is there no personal responsibility? This man dodged a bullet. She could have lied about her age & he could be in a mess of trouble.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This girl was a minor. Not under the age of consent but a minor all the same

So what?

Having sex with a 17-year-old is not an offence in Ireland.

retro:electro

Rennaws wrote: »

If i was the defendant in that case and my name was ever released, I’d be taking a civil case against a number of posters on this thread.

Well that would be an abject waste of time since nothing defamatory was said. Stop trying to see things that aren’t there.

Lillybloom

It's quite common for people to be "black out" drunk and nobody they were talking to would realise they were anything more than a bit tipsy or merry.

neonsofa

nullzero wrote: »

Hang on a minute, where the hell do you get off jumping down my neck like that?
Rape should be reported, that isn't in theory because rapists are a danger to other members of society.
Get down off of your soap box and while you're at it have a rummage for your manners, I think you dropped them somewhere.

Jumping down your neck?

I made an observation, in response to a comment you made telling someone what they "should have" done. I explained that sometimes it's easier said than done, despite knowing in theory that it is the correct thing to do (for the reasons you outline above), in practice, when you're in shock and traumatised, it's not that black and white.

Hardly jumping down your throat so chill out.

Sleeper12

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

So what? Surely the question is whether he had non-consensual intercourse with the girl in question, not whether he was married?

NO!
He was found not guilty


The question & the thread is about the thong & why the barrister was allowed to show it & make the statement she made.


As has been noted, she was of legal age when it comes to sex. Her being 17 years old doesn't change the charges brought against the defendant. The charges would have been exactly the same had she been 19, 25, or 45.

The man was found not guilty. Why are you bringing up his charges? Or legal age? Let me just point out the only posters commenting on the age of consent seem to be guys trying to stick up for the guy. It's not helping.him. He is not guilty and was never charged with underage sex. You bringing this up is actually dirtying him name.




You aren't really reading the thread at all are you?

Cleopatra_

newmember? wrote: »

How can you say what would have been obvious to anyone?
What's to say the other party may not have been in any position to gauge how drunk you were? Two people drunk, one moreso, they have sex and it's automatically rape? You relinquish all responsibility and the person with you assumes all responsibility?

Lillybloom wrote: »

It's quite common for people to be "black out" drunk and nobody they were talking to would realise they were anything more than a bit tipsy or merry.

Nullzero, I refer you to these posts. This would be the attitude I'd face if I tried to prosecute.

Sleeper12

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

So what?

Having sex with a 17-year-old is not an offence in Ireland.

If I had a penny for everytime someone posted this on this thread I could buy myself a pint.


Why bring up the age of consent? You are hurting this poor guy by doing so. NO ONE said that he had underage sex. I've read the thread twice & no one has claimed this.


The girl is a minor that doesn't mean that it was underage sex. It's simple really

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He is not guilty and was never charged with underage sex. You bringing this up is actually dirtying him name.

This is hilarious, coming from the poster who reminds us at every turn that the complainant was a minor.

Lillybloom

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

Nullzero, I refer you to these posts. This would be the attitude I'd face if I tried to prosecute.

Do you disagree that you can be "black out" drunk and seem merely a bit tipsy to others?

Do you just want the world to agree with everything you say, people have different viewpoints.

Sleeper12

Lillybloom wrote:

So two people had legal consenting sex, get over it.

Please point out where any poster said otherwise.

Lillybloom wrote:

Why do you feel the need to point out she's a minor then?

Because she is not an adult. She is a minor. This is her legal title

Cleopatra_

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I have some mental health problems so I do occasionally get black out drunk and that is my issue, I take responsibility for that, my friends and family who have seen me in this condition in the past know that it's very obvious that I'm in a state of black out drunk. I don't make any sense, I talk rubbish, sometimes I can be a bit upset or aggressive, I have trouble walking.

Lillybloom wrote: »

Do you disagree that you can be "black out" drunk and seem merely a bit tipsy to others?

Do you just want the world to agree with everything you say, people have different viewpoints.

See above.

Lillybloom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If I had a penny for everytime someone posted this on this thread I could buy myself a pint.


Why bring up the age of consent? You are hurting this poor guy by doing so. NO ONE said that he had underage sex. I've read the thread twice & no one has claimed this.


The girl is a minor that doesn't mean that it was underage sex. It's simple really

People are brining up consent because some seem to be trying to attack the man's character for having sex with a 17 year old. It seems perfectly reaonable to then establish the fact that 17 is in fact legal for having sex.

Peter Denham

Horrible case. And disrespectful to place relevance on the underwear I think.

On the flip side, there's a lot of scumbags out there on the lookout for drunk women specifically and recently encouraging people to drink responsibly is seen as victim blaming.

Unfortunately we don't live in a fairytale and people will assault, steal and even kill and it's up to us to do our best to avoid those situations because "telling men not to rape" just won't cut it. I think it's really irresponsible to dismiss advising people to be careful as victim blaming.

Sleeper12

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote:

This is hilarious, coming from the poster who reminds us at every turn that the complainant was a minor.

It is what she is.

Why do you want me to invent a new title for her when the term minor has been in existence for hundreds of years. She is not an adult so I can't call her an adult. When she turns 18 I'll call her an adult. For now she is a minor

Lillybloom

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

See above.

Yes I see above, this doesn't negate my point, plenty of people get "black out" drunk and are perfectly coherent. "Black out" drunk is a term dislike as it is often interpreted differently. Some people think it means unconscious, for others it just means unable to remember.

AndrewJRenko

tritium wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?

It has nothing to do with being raped.

The defence never implied it did (and would have been extraordinarily dumb if they had)

You know it was a rape trial?

Cleopatra_

Lillybloom wrote: »

Yes I see above, this doesn't negate my point, plenty of people get "black out" drunk and are perfectly coherent. "Black out" drunk is a term dislike as it is often interpreted differently. Some people think it means unconscious, for others it just means unable to remember.

Well let me clear it up for you. I was ''black out'' drunk and I couldn't remember. Then I actually passed out. Do you think maybe he realised I was too drunk to consent when I passed out while he was having sex with me?

retro:electro

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

This is hilarious, coming from the poster who reminds us at every turn that the complainant was a minor.

You’re the one who is conflating the two terms and implying that it means he has sex with someone underage. You’d want to be careful there. Very litigious people reading apparently.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If we can suggest that girls / women should be careful & not to drink too much or walk alone at night, can we not also say that 27 year old married men should be careful about the age of girls they have sex with. As George says is there no personal responsibility? This man dodged a bullet. She could have lied about her age & he could be in a mess of trouble.

If?

Can we actually suggest that?

As I recall George got into a lot of trouble and lost his job for saying that. There was also a fairly long thread, with many of the same posters as on this one. Does a different rule apply here then because it’s a man being victim blamed?

That’s not to say he didn’t take a risk btw, he may have. We have a very lax attitude to young people drinking for example and we don’t know if the question of age cane up in their conversation. But saying he took a risk doesn’t make him a rapist and shouldn’t be used to besmirch his character after he’s acquitted

Lillybloom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It is what she is.

Why do you want me to invent a new title for her when the term minor has been in existence for hundreds of years. She is not an adult so I can't call her an adult. When she turns 18 I'll call her an adult. For now she is a minor

You see you're purposely using that term repeatedly to attempt attack the man's character, and then feigning ignorance, "but that's what she is" she says innocently.

The truth is you despise the man in question and you love making any attack on his character that you can.

Cleopatra_

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

Well let me clear it up for you. I was ''black out'' drunk and I couldn't remember. Then I actually passed out. Do you think maybe he realised I was too drunk to consent when I passed out while he was having sex with me?

You don't have to justify yourself to anyone. You don't owe anyone an explanation.

tritium

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You know it was a rape trial?

You know the defence is trying (successfully here) to show a rape wasnt committed, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt

PlaneSpeeking

tritium wrote: »

You know the defence is trying (successfully here) to show a rape wasnt committed, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt

The verdict did that, unless you prefer kangaroo courts and lynch mob "justice"?

SusieBlue

The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

Peter Denham

SusieBlue wrote: »

The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

I know very little about this case, only the headline really. Was the verdict outrageous given whatever evidence was presented in court?

PlaneSpeeking

SusieBlue wrote: »

The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

Because some people are so determined to show that every rape complaint is in fact true they are failing to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The verdict did that, unless you prefer kangaroo courts and lynch mob "justice"?

And what kind of court would you like? One where men were automatically let off the hook for copping feels left right and centre and women punished by default for “lying”?
I know I’m on ignore at this stage but the irony and lack of self awareness is amazing.

PlaneSpeeking

Peter Denham wrote: »

I know very little about this case, only the headline really. Was the verdict outrageous given whatever evidence was presented in court?

Not in the slightest but I guarantee it will be answered differently by some.

Lillybloom

SusieBlue wrote: »

The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

Likewise when someone is convicted it doesn't mean the person convicted isactually commited the crime, plenty of people are in prison who were wrongfully convicted.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re the one who is conflating the two terms and implying that it means he has sex with someone underage.

Eh?

I haven't done anything of the sort. I've noted several times that having sex with a 17-year-old is perfectly legal in Ireland. I've even said that whether the alleged victim was 17, 25, or 45 makes no difference in regard to the charges brought.

Nowhere have I insinuated that the defendant had sex with an underage girl. Another poster is trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that she could have been a 15-year-old posing as a 17-year-old.

Lillybloom

This may be a hard for some to understand, but some rape accusations are true and some are false. To automaticlly believe an accusation is true or false is idiotic.

SusieBlue

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Because some people are so determined to show that every rape complaint is in fact true they are failing to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"

Who are these people, where are they on this thread?
Who is calling for mandatory punishments for men who are accused and complained? Because I don't see anyone here in favour of it.

Sleeper12

Lillybloom wrote: »

You see you're purposely using that term repeatedly to attempt attack the man's character, and then feigning ignorance, "but that's what she is" she says innocently.

The truth is you despise the man in question and you love making any attack on his character that you can.

I'm going to try this one last time, then I'm going for a Friday pint.


The man was never charged with underage sex because he didn't have underage sex. The man was found not guilty of rape.


With that out of the way the thread is about the thong, the comments made by the barrister & the way this girl was treated. For this purpose its very important to keep telling everyone that she was a minor. Nothing to do with sex. It's important to point out that they treated a minor in such a terrible manor.



None of this changes the fact that the defendant is not guilty, nor does it suggest that he had underage sex. The first poster using the term pedophile was someone trying to stick up for this poor chap. No one is attacking him. The term minor has nothing to do with sex it just means that she was 17.


Anyone wanting to fight this poor chaps corner should stop talking about age of consent & definitely stop using terms like pedophile. No one is attacking him & this type of defending him is actually doing more harm then good.



Time for the pup

SusieBlue

Peter Denham wrote: »

I know very little about this case, only the headline really. Was the verdict outrageous given whatever evidence was presented in court?

I don't disagree with the verdict, the point I'm making is that many here are saying that the rape never happened and the victim was telling lies, and using the fact that the defendant was found not guilty to back that up.

I'm simply stating that the fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean it never happened and it doesn't mean she's telling lies.

AndrewJRenko

tritium wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?

It has nothing to do with being raped.The defence never implied it did (and would have been extraordinarily dumb if they had)

You know it was a rape trial?

tritium wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You know it was a rape trial?

You know the defence is trying (successfully here) to show a rape wasnt committed, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt

So why did you say that it was nothing to do with being raped? It was specifically intended to get him off the rape charge?

PlaneSpeeking

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Eh?

I haven't done anything of the sort. I've noted several times that having sex with a 17-year-old is perfectly legal in Ireland. I've said that whether the alleged victim was 17, 25, or 45 makes no difference in regard to the charges brought.

It is being hoped desperately by some that if he can't be convicted in court then he should be convicted in the public arena.

It's why the #MeToo nonsense on social media was allowed to flourish and whilst you get "you don't have to explain hun" rubbish - courts demand proof, evidence, a coherent story etc etc - social media just requires a hashtag.

Sadly there are people on this very threads who equate the two and subscribe to the theory that all rape accusers be believed.

No they shouldn't, neither party to an accusation should be - (and there should be anoymity for all parties) - they should all be listened to, dealt with sensitively and offered a fair and impartial trial of the accused. No more, and no less.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's important to point out that they treated a minor in such a terrible manor.

Oh, come on -- the state of her house has absolutely nothing to do with this.

AndrewJRenko

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

SusieBlue wrote: »

The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

Because some people are so determined to show that every rape complaint is in fact true they are failing to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"

No one suggested that every rape complaint is true, as you well know.

tritium

SusieBlue wrote: »

The verdict did not show a rape wasn't committed.
It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault. The judgment was not guilty, not that it never happened.
Why are people not getting this, its been done to death now.

Let’s break this down a bit

First “prosecute for the assault” implies there was an assault- legally there is not enough evidence to conclude there was an assault- the verdict of the jury was not guilty

Secondly please don’t take what I wrote selectively - I noted that the objective was set at “at least the level of reasonable doubt”. That’s important here aince that is the standard for acquittal. It’s not necessarily an easy bar to reach either. If there isn’t reasonable doubt that a rape happened then there can’t be an acquittal.

The only place where the question of is there sufficient evidence to prosecute an (alleged) crime arises is in the DPPs decision as to whether to bring the trial in the first case.

The courts role is whether the evidence warrants conviction. In this case they decided it didn’t

In a nutshell your post is horribly wrong

joe40

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Not in the slightest but I guarantee it will be answered differently by some.

Are the details of the case in the public domain.
I'm just asking because I don't have any knowledge about the case apart from the Thong been used as evidence for some reason. (genuine question I don't know)

SusieBlue

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It is being hoped desperately by some that if he can't be convicted in court then he should be convicted in the public arena.

It's why the #MeToo nonsense on social media was allowed to flourish and whilst you get "you don't have to explain hun" rubbish - courts demand proof, evidence, a coherent story etc etc - social media just requires a hashtag.

Sadly there are people on this very threads who equate the two and subscribe to the theory that all rape accusers be believed.

No they shouldn't, neither party to an accusation should be - (and there should be anoymity for all parties) - they should all be listened to, dealt with sensitively and offered a fair and impartial trial of the accused. No more, and no less.

Please back up that claim with proof.
No one is suggesting that - no one at all.
You are hysterically trying to rebut a point that no one is making. No one is suggesting all rape accusers be believed on principle.

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sadly there are people on this very threads who equate the two and subscribe to the theory that all rape accusers be believed.

It’s okay. You manage to balance it out with your vitriolic bile that no woman should ever be believed.


*btw I’m pretty sure most here subscribe to the notion that men should be innocent until proven guilty, and women given the benefit of the doubt. Nobody should automatically assume anything of anyone male or female, just because. Things should be proven. It’s called fairness.

The Bishop Basher

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I have some mental health problems so I do occasionally get black out drunk and that is my issue, I take responsibility for that, my friends and family who have seen me in this condition in the past know that it's very obvious that I'm in a state of black out drunk. I don't make any sense, I talk rubbish, sometimes I can be a bit upset or aggressive, I have trouble walking.

Likewise. It's why I haven't had a drink in nearly 4 years. Point remains though, you can't always tell when someone is blacking out on alcohol, especially if they're on medication as well.

FunLover18

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Because some people are so determined to show that every rape complaint is in fact true they are failing to understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, it's the fairest system which puts the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt without reasonable doubt. But the fact remains with any trial for any crime the state believes that there is enough evidence against the defendant to warrant a trial, it's not like a girl can say someone raped them and the trial of that person starts the next day, there'll be a investigation at the end of which the Gardai will decide whether there is enough evidence to arrest and charge, it's a lengthy and thorough process. A not guilty verdict does not mean the plainant lied, it does not mean there was no investigation or due process, it does not mean a crime was not convicted and it does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means there was not sufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. This is not my or anyone's individual interpretation of the justice system, that's how it is.

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that would be an abject waste of time since nothing defamatory was said. Stop trying to see things that aren’t there.

This is one of many examples..

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm suggesting that , in my opinion, after reading the case as put forward in that article, she was raped.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't disagree with the verdict, the point I'm making is that many here are saying that the rape never happened and the victim was telling lies, and using the fact that the defendant was found not guilty to back that up.

From a legal perspective, a rape did not happen.

The court cannot simultaneously find the defendant not guilty and state that a rape happened. If there's no rapist, there's no rape.

I'm sure the #IBelieveHer brigade will continue to insist that a rape happened, as they do in every such case, but they have no factual or legal basis for that claim now that the defendant has been acquitted.

Cleopatra_

Rennaws wrote: »

Likewise. It's why I haven't had a drink in nearly 4 years. Point remains though, you can't always tell when someone is blacking out on alcohol, especially if they're on medication as well.

Good on you for not having a drink in nearly 4 years, that's a great achievement. I know that you can't always tell if someone is blacking out on alcohol but from what friends and family have told me, it's very obvious when I get to that stage. I won't derail the thread further because it isn't about me, it's about a separate topic.

tritium

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You know it was a rape trial?
So why did you say that it was nothing to do with being raped? It was specifically intended to get him off the rape charge?

Saying that it was a rape trial and saying that the thong had anything to do with being raped are two entirely different things.

The defence s position was that there was no rape. Why then would they connect a thong to a rape? They connected a thong to consensual sex, they made no connection to rape, actually quite the (important) opposite.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

From a legal perspective, a rape did not happen.

The court cannot simultaneously find the defendant not guilty and state that a rape happened. If there's no rapist, there's no rape.

I'm sure the #IBelieveHer brigade will continue to insist that a rape happened, as they do in every such case, but they have no factual or legal basis for that claim now that the defendant has been acquitted.

Completely incorrect, please see excellent post by PP which sums it up better than I would have.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, it's the fairest system which puts the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt without reasonable doubt. But the fact remains with any trial for any crime the state believes that there is enough evidence against the defendant to warrant a trial, it's not like a girl can say someone raped them and the trial of that person starts the next day, there'll be a investigation at the end of which the Gardai will decide whether there is enough evidence to arrest and charge, it's a lengthy and thorough process. A not guilty verdict does not mean the plainant lied, it does not mean there was no investigation or due process, it does not mean a crime was not convicted and it does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means there was not sufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. This is not my or anyone's individual interpretation of the justice system, that's how it is.