Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I did read up on it
It was in fact he said & she said or at least that's all that was reported.

You just quoted the opinion of the court reporter.

How does that negate the actual allegation?

Boggles

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I have an idea. The jury being advised to consider that she was wearing a thong helped him. The fact that the judge has to give the jury warnings during his charge helped him too as it leads to confusion for some jurors.

Da Fuq?

What has that got to do with you stating as a fact he has a previous conviction for rape.

I think if you explain yourself on that one first it could help.

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

Warped attitude now is it ?

You just can't help getting personal can you..

Yes we are now ruled by twitter..

I don't see that as a good thing.

Except we've pointed out a case where a woman killed herself as a result of a similar situation in a trial. My statement is based on your remark that you view a woman as the "boy who cried wolf" if there isn't a successful conviction. Even though it's notoriously difficult to get a conviction and failing to do so does not equate to lying.

Bannasidhe

I think it should be quite simple. The onus should be on the defence to prove that consent was definitively given.
Currently it seems that the system requires the plaintiff to prove they said No it should be on the defendant to prove she (or indeed he) said Yes.

Past sexual history, what was worn by whom when, defendant's beliefs or expectations etc should play no part.

"Did the person you had sex with say Yes to having sex!" That should be the question - not did they say No.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

You just quoted the opinion of the court reporter.

I quoted the prosecution too or did you miss this?

Sleeper12

We have reasonable doubt in Ireland and I wouldn't want it any other way. Unfortunately it means that we have some guilty people walking the streets but that's better than having innocent people in jail.

The Bishop Basher

batgoat wrote: »

My statement is based on your remark that you view a woman as the "boy who cried wolf"

Jesus put the outrage and aggro away.

My comments were not in relation to the woman involved in this case.

I view a "movement" as crying wolf. The following sentence clarified that.

I'm still waiting on examples of those personal insults you accused me of..

As you sling the personal digs my way one by one..

One eyed Jack

tmh106 wrote: »

Surely, the whole point is that their underwear is not evidence, irrespective of what style it is, and the reason so many people, myself include, are so appalled by this is that the defence tried to introduce something that is clearly not evidence as evidence - and succeeded.

No, that may well be a point you want to make, but it’s not an opinion I share.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think it should be quite simple. The onus should be on the defence to prove that consent was definitively given.
Currently it seems that the system requires the plaintiff to prove they said No it should be on the defendant to prove she (or indeed he) said Yes.

Past sexual history, what was worn by whom when, defendant's beliefs or expectations etc should play no part.

"Did the person you had sex with say Yes to having sex!" That should be the question - not did they say No.

And that suggestion would fly in the face of every persons right to the presumption of innocence.

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I quoted the prosecution too or did you miss this?

Again, nothing to with the allegation.

You keep repeating that this case was about "he said, she said".

The actual allegation was not of that nature.

It was an allegation of brutal physical and sexual assault.

It may have came down for a finish to "he said, she said".

But like I said to you previously. Why did it?

That's rhetorical by the way, obviously there is no way, you or me or anyone on here could possibly know because their is virtually no details about this case.

Boggles

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Past sexual history
.

I completely agree on this. Didn't stop the prosecution bringing it up and entering it as evidence though.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

That's rhetorical by the way, obviously there is no way, you or me or anyone on here could possibly know because their is virtually no details about this case.

My guess is that there were no whiteness, CCTV footage etc, to her being dragged anywhere. So taking that element away the case might have focused on what they both agreed, that a sex act took place. He had consent or no he didn't. Just a guess of course

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

My guess is that there were no whiteness, CCTV footage etc, to her being dragged anywhere. So taking that element away the case might have focused on what they both agreed, that a sex act took place. He had consent or no he didn't. Just a guess of course

But the element wasn't taken away.

It was put to the defendant under cross examination by the prosecutor.

Outlaw Pete

Rennaws wrote: »

I view a "movement" as crying wolf.

Damn right it has..... multiple times at this stage and Ruth has undeniably played her part in it too:


https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1045379137291128833


The mask slipping moment for them all was when Asia Argento was accused of statutorily raping an underage boy and their reaction was either to largely ignore the allegation or laughingly ask for people to hold back and allow due process.

Not that even due process is enough for these people as they (as we are seeing on this thread) will after a not guilty verdict then just say 'Well, being found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it'.

Not that I have a problem with anyone questioning a verdict. Sure I've questioned enough myself (mostly correctly, given later acquittals) but that's not what appears to be happening here at all. People are not emphasizing that 'not-guilty doesn't equal innocent' because they feel strongly that an incorrect verdict was reached in a specific trial. They are emphasizing it purely to keep the statistical narrative in place that 1 in 40 rapes have an inappropriate punishment.

If these people accepted that when someone walks into a court they are presumed innocent and so when they then they walk they should still be presumed such if found not guilty, that would largely disarm them given that they have historically weaponized such stats. They are pedantic about how a not guilty verdict doesn't prove innocence but yet have no problem whatsoever referring to complainants as rape victims. To call them philosophically inconsistent would be too kind.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that suggestion would fly in the face of every persons right to the presumption of innocence.

No, it wouldn't.

In many cases defendants are required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are being charged with - is their presumption of innocence gone?

The problem with how rape trials are conducted is that it is the plaintiff who seems to be required to prove they are an innocent when the fact of the matter is the number of sexual partners that have had in their lives, what underwear the chose to wear. whether or not the defendant bought them a meal are immaterial. All that should matter is if the plaintiff consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant or not.
The best way for the defendant to prove his or her (in the case of sexual assault) is to demonstrate the plaintiff agreed to have sex as opposed to didn't disagree.



Seriously - is it really so hard to require (presumably) adults to get a Yes to sex rather than a "wasn't a No"?

Bannasidhe

Boggles wrote: »

I completely agree on this. Didn't stop the prosecution bringing it up and entering it as evidence though.

And it should be inadmissible.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

But the element wasn't taken away.

Agreed but with no evidence at all (I assumed) on the assault I can't see them dwelling on it for too long. They were curtain that a sex act took place so I'm guessing this is w they focus on.

batgoat

Pete, just to clarify I very much view Asia Argento in the same vein as Weinstein. I think most tend to... It was also pretty heavily reported but not to the same degree as Weinstein because it's lower profile.

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Agreed but with no evidence at all (I assumed) on the assault I can't see them dwelling on it for too long. They were curtain that a sex act took place so I'm guessing this is w they focus on.

The time they take to dwell on it is moot. We have no idea how long it took or what evidence was presented.

If it is part of the allegation surely it would be part of what he was charged with.

The allegation we know was brought up in the trial.

Roger Hassenforder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

In many cases defendants are required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are being charged with - is their presumption of innocence gone?

The problem with how rape trials are conducted is that it is the plaintiff who seems to be required to prove they are an innocent when the fact of the matter is the number of sexual partners that have had in their lives, what underwear the chose to wear. whether or not the defendant bought them a meal are immaterial. All that should matter is if the plaintiff consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant or not.
The best way for the defendant to prove his or her (in the case of sexual assault) is to demonstrate the plaintiff agreed to have sex as opposed to didn't disagree.



Seriously - is it really so hard to require (presumably) adults to get a Yes to sex rather than a "wasn't a No"?

I dont think its unreasonable in this day and age, for a chap to ensure he has consent.
"You ok with this"? isnt exactly a passion killer in most circumstances.

There'll possibly be a few cases where consent wasnt freely given though.

Bannasidhe

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I dont think its unreasonable in this day and age, for a chap to ensure he has consent.
"You ok with this"? isnt exactly a passion killer in most circumstances.

There'll possibly be a few cases where consent wasnt freely given though.

Or for a chapess.

Basically, regardless of gender keep your body parts to yourself unless the other person has agreed you may touch them.
No copping a feel.
No sex.
Unless they say Yes.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

In many cases defendants are required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are being charged with - is their presumption of innocence gone?

Nobody is ever required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are charged with, it’s for the prosecution to present their evidence that the defendant who is presumed innocent, committed the crime. People here appear to be starting from the presumption that the defendant is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. There are legitimate defences against criminal charges, and in a case where the defendant is accused of rape, it is a legitimate defence to that charge to put forward the argument that the defendant is of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual. It’s up to a jury to determine on the basis of the evidence presented, whether the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual was reasonable.

The problem with how rape trials are conducted is that it is the plaintiff who seems to be required to prove they are an innocent when the fact of the matter is the number of sexual partners that have had in their lives, what underwear the chose to wear. whether or not the defendant bought them a meal are immaterial. All that should matter is if the plaintiff consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant or not.

Yeah, ‘seems to be required to prove their innocence’. However, the reality is that the complaining witness doesn’t have to prove anything. Counsel representing the States prosecution has to prove everything, as it is the State has taken a case against the defendant, not the complaining witness.

The best way for the defendant to prove his or her (in the case of sexual assault) is to demonstrate the plaintiff agreed to have sex as opposed to didn't disagree.

The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything either. The obligation for the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence. The prosecution has to demonstrate that the defendant could not have been of the belief that the encounter was consensual, or that the defendant was reckless in obtaining consent, or that the defendants contention that their honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is unreasonable.

The defendant is on trial because they maintain their innocence, it’s up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant had the foresight to know they would be charged with rape. That is the whole point of all of us, everyone, is entitled to the right to the presumption of innocence, it’s founded on the principles of natural justice. We don’t assume everyone is guilty of something and we just don’t know what they’re guilty of... yet. That’s generally called a witch-hunt. It’s a presumption that fuels mob justice.

Seriously - is it really so hard to require (presumably) adults to get a Yes to sex rather than a "wasn't a No"?

Yes it is, because everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence - the assumption that they aren’t guilty of committing any wrongdoing. If someone accuses a person of wrongdoing, then it should absolutely be up to that person to present evidence of any wrongdoing they claim an innocent person has done.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is ever required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are charged with, it’s for the prosecution to present their evidence that the defendant who is presumed innocent, committed the crime. People here appear to be starting from the presumption that the defendant is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. There are legitimate defences against criminal charges, and in a case where the defendant is accused of rape, it is a legitimate defence to that charge to put forward the argument that the defendant is of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual. It’s up to a jury to determine on the basis of the evidence presented, whether the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual was reasonable.





Yeah, ‘seems to be required to prove their innocence’. However, the reality is that the complaining witness doesn’t have to prove anything. Counsel representing the States prosecution has to prove everything, as it is the State has taken a case against the defendant, not the complaining witness.





The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything either. The obligation for the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence. The prosecution has to demonstrate that the defendant could not have been of the belief that the encounter was consensual, or that the defendant was reckless in obtaining consent, or that the defendants contention that their honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is unreasonable.

The defendant is on trial because they maintain their innocence, it’s up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant had the foresight to know they would be charged with rape. That is the whole point of all of us, everyone, is entitled to the right to the presumption of innocence, it’s founded on the principles of natural justice. We don’t assume everyone is guilty of something and we just don’t know what they’re guilty of... yet. That’s generally called a witch-hunt. It’s a presumption that fuels mob justice.





Yes it is, because everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence - the assumption that they aren’t guilty of committing any wrongdoing. If someone accuses a person of wrongdoing, then it should absolutely be up to that person to present evidence of any wrongdoing they claim an innocent person has done.

Yes - it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt - this should never grant licence to the defence to prove their client's innocence by calling into question the lifestyle or clothing of the claimant.

Yet, it is the (alleged) victim whose character is called into question.
Where the "defence" is often a thinly veiled = or outright = they were "asking for it.
Or they "led" the defendant on so "deserved" it.

Do we do this with murder trials?
And I do not mean manslaughter - I mean murder.
Does the defence employ a tactic to convince the jury the victim was "asking for it!"?

No = because it would be demonstrably unjust.

Nobody asks to be raped just as nobody asks to be murdered, yet in a rape trial the (alleged) victims life and clothes become grist for the defence's mill. This is not justice. This is a bitch-hunt.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone would want any woman to go through this.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes - it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt - this should never grant licence to the defence to prove their client's innocence by calling into question the lifestyle or clothing of the claimant.

Yet, it is the (alleged) victim whose character is called into question.
Where the "defence" is often a thinly veiled = or outright = they were "asking for it.
Or they "led" the defendant on so "deserved" it.

Do we do this with murder trials?
And I do not mean manslaughter - I mean murder.
Does the defence employ a tactic to convince the jury the victim was "asking for it!"?

No = because it would be demonstrably unjust.

Nobody asks to be raped just as nobody asks to be murdered, yet in a rape trial the (alleged) victims life and clothes become grist for the defence's mill. This is not justice. This is a bitch-hunt.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone would want any woman to go through this.

Why are you making the point that nobody asks to be raped? Who ever said they do? That is not what is in question in any trial where the defendant is accused of committing rape.

The point is that the defendant is accused of committing rape. You’re arguing as though it has already been established that the defendant has committed rape. If it has been established already that the defendant committed rape, there would be no need for a trial.

The Bishop Basher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I honestly cannot understand how anyone would want any woman to go through this.

Nobody wants a women to go through this but it’s an adversarial situation in a court of law.. it’s not going to be kittens and rainbows for either party and you can’t trample over the rights of the accused in your rush to defend the rights of the accuser who enjoys the privaledge of anonymity and can walk away regardless when it’s all over and done with.

The accused meanwhile has everything to lose and if I was ever in the situation myself I’d instruct my legal people to use whatever means necessary to get me off and free so I could at least attempt to rebuild my life.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why are you making the point that nobody asks to be raped? Who ever said they do? That is not what is in question in any trial where the defendant is accused of committing rape.

The point is that the defendant is accused of committing rape. You’re arguing as though it has already been established that the defendant has committed rape. If it has been established already that the defendant committed rape, there would be no need for a trial.

Seriously?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "gagging for it" defence hasn't been used?
That there hasn't been instances when the (alleged) victim wasn't characterised as "up for it" or "asking for it" - unless the (alleged) victim has given consent it is rape and yes - defence lawyers can do do state they were asking or it. In fact - that is often the entire case for the defence.

You may not like it - but this will change because women have had enough.
You may try to dismiss it as "feminism" or such other kneejerking but that is the reality.

Women. have. had. enough.

Now good day to you Jack. I have no wish to continuing discussing this with a person who argues that it is fair and just in a rape trial for the (alleged) victim's character and clothing to be called into question in the way it so often is.

Boggles

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do we do this with murder trials?
And I do not mean manslaughter - I mean murder.
Does the defence employ a tactic to convince the jury the victim was "asking for it!"?

No = because it would be demonstrably unjust.

Well yeah, it happens all the time in murder trials, it is happening right now in a pretty high profile one.

It's called self defense.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "gagging for it" defence hasn't been used?
That there hasn't been instances when the (alleged) victim wasn't characterised as "up for it" or "asking for it" - unless the (alleged) victim has given consent it is rape and yes - defence lawyers can do do state they were asking or it. In fact - that is often the entire case for the defence.

“It” of course, referring to sex, not rape.

It is the defendants contention that the encounter was consensual, that it was not rape, that they did not commit rape, and they are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing until such a time as they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the wrongdoing of which they are accused.

You may not like it - but this will change because women have had enough.
You may try to dismiss it as "feminism" or such other kneejerking but that is the reality.

Women. have. had. enough.

Sorry? It’s not a question of whether I like it or not, it’s a question of whether or not our judicial system functions as it should, and in my opinion it does. It will stay the same as it is now whether the accuser is a man, woman or child, because I don’t believe anyone should have the right to accuse people of any wrongdoing and for that person to suffer consequences based solely upon the word of their accuser. That is not justice, that is tyranny, which would lead to anarchy.

I don’t dismiss it btw as feminism because your ideas to me are not feminism, they are a poor attempt coming from an authoritarian dictatorship mindset, and as soon as you disagree with anyone higher up the chain of command than you are - under the bus you go, as has been demonstrated by some women when they feel they get a sniff of power over other people - they are no different to the men they criticise.

Now good day to you Jack. I have no wish to continuing discussing this with a person who argues that it is fair and just in a rape trial for the (alleged) victim's character and clothing to be called into question in the way it so often is.

Good day to you too.

Mrsmum

Rennaws wrote: »

Nobody wants a women to go through this but it’s an adversarial situation in a court of law.. it’s not going to be kittens and rainbows for either party and you can’t trample over the rights of the accused in your rush to defend the rights of the accuser who enjoys the privaledge of anonymity and can walk away regardless when it’s all over and done with.

The accused meanwhile has everything to lose and if I was ever in the situation myself I’d instruct my legal people to use whatever means necessary to get me off and free so I could at least attempt to rebuild my life.

Isn't the accused also anonymous ? If he doesn't walk away afterwards that obviously because he's been found guilty.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

Isn't the accused also anonymous ? If he doesn't walk away afterwards that obviously because he's been found guilty.

Yes, the accuser is often granted the right to anonymity (it’s not an automatic entitlement) to protect their identity in certain cases. The accused has no such right as the idea is a public hearing before a jury of their peers. I don’t think the accused should have that right either as it would undermine the public’s confidence in our judicial system.

eagle eye

One eyed Jack wrote:

Yes, the accuser is often granted the right to anonymity (it’s not an automatic entitlement) to protect their identity in certain cases. The accused has no such right as the idea is a public hearing before a jury of their peers. I don’t think the accused should have that right either as it would undermine the public’s confidence in our judicial system.

The victim has the right for the whole case and even the accusers name nit to he released if he is found guilty.
This option became available due to the many paedophile cases which involved family members.

Mrsmum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, the accuser is often granted the right to anonymity (it’s not an automatic entitlement) to protect their identity in certain cases. The accused has no such right as the idea is a public hearing before a jury of their peers. I don’t think the accused should have that right either as it would undermine the public’s confidence in our judicial system.

Ok. I thought he couldn't be named in newspapers etc during the trial and not afterwards unless found guilty.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Damn right it has..... multiple times at this stage and Ruth has undeniably played her part in it too:


https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1045379137291128833


The mask slipping moment for them all was when Asia Argento was accused of statutorily raping an underage boy and their reaction was either to largely ignore the allegation or laughingly ask for people to hold back and allow due process.

https://www.thewrap.com/alyssa-milano-asia-argento-accusations-undermine-metoo-movement/

Arguably the most prominent me too campaigners are Alyssa Milano and rose.mcgowan. The above link shows Alyssa Milano neither ignored the allegation or made any mention of due process. I remember McGowan making similar comments at the time. You're full of it.

Not that even due process is enough for these people as they (as we are seeing on this thread) will after a not guilty verdict then just say 'Well, being found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it'.

Not that I have a problem with anyone questioning a verdict. Sure I've questioned enough myself (mostly correctly, given later acquittals) but that's not what appears to be happening here at all. People are not emphasizing that 'not-guilty doesn't equal innocent' because they feel strongly that an incorrect verdict was reached in a specific trial. They are emphasizing it purely to keep the statistical narrative in place that 1 in 40 rapes have an inappropriate punishment.

If these people accepted that when someone walks into a court they are presumed innocent and so when they then they walk they should still be presumed such if found not guilty, that would largely disarm them given that they have historically weaponized such stats. They are pedantic about how a not guilty verdict doesn't prove innocence but yet have no problem whatsoever referring to complainants as rape victims. To call them philosophically inconsistent would be too kind.

The posts you mentioned have usually been in response to.posts asking why the complainant hasn't been prosecuted for.makijg false statements, or posters such as planespeeking who confidently describe the complainant in the Belfast trial as regretting it the next day. These people seem to assume that a not guilty verdict means that the complainant has been found to be lying. There is no attempt to tar defendants by pointing out the basic truth that a not.guilty verdict does not.mean that the complainant was lying.

mickrock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "gagging for it" defence hasn't been used?
That there hasn't been instances when the (alleged) victim wasn't characterised as "up for it" or "asking for it" - unless the (alleged) victim has given consent it is rape and yes - defence lawyers can do do state they were asking or it. In fact - that is often the entire case for the defence.

If a complainant was truly "up for it" or "gagging for it" or "asking for it" and sex happens then it seems very likely it was consensual, and the defence are right to take this line of inquiry.

One eyed Jack

eagle eye wrote: »

The victim has the right for the whole case and even the accusers name nit to he released if he is found guilty.
This option became available due to the many paedophile cases which involved family members.

No they don’t, and it didn’t.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ok. I thought he couldn't be named in newspapers etc during the trial and not afterwards unless found guilty.

Yep, that’s exactly right, but the whole issue of anonymity is much more complex than it simply anonymity itself being assumed to be an automatic right for either the complainant or the defendant. There’s a good article which explains the nuances of it here in the context of Irish law (slightly different again in the UK) -

Untangling the vexed question of anonymity in sex cases

LLMMLL

batgoat wrote: »

Pete, just to clarify I very much view Asia Argento in the same vein as Weinstein. I think most tend to... It was also pretty heavily reported but not to the same degree as Weinstein because it's lower profile.

It was widely reported, and I'm sure if she assaulted the number of people that Weinstein did it would have gotten even more.

At the time the only people in the thread on boards who voiced any concern or support for the victims were feminists.

The two most prominent me too campaigners have not.ignored the allegation as Pete has claimed.

batgoat

mickrock wrote: »

If a complainant was truly "up for it" or "gagging for it" or "asking for it" and sex happens then it seems very likely it was consensual, and the defence are right to take this line of inquiry.

How would you define any of the above? Seems like some pretty dodgy guess work based on what? Clothing, kissing? It comes across as more of an unhealthy attitude towards women and sex.

LLMMLL wrote: »

It was widely reported, and I'm sure if she assaulted the number of people that Weinstein did it would have gotten even more.

At the time the only people in the thread on boards who voiced any concern or support for the victims were feminists.

The two most prominent me too campaigners have not.ignored the allegation as Pete has claimed.

Pete is of the view that the "grab em by the pussy" remark by Trump wasn't remotely creepy or dodgy if memory serves correctly.

The Bishop Basher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no wish to continuing discussing this with a person who argues that it is fair and just in a rape trial for the (alleged) victim's character and clothing to be called into question in the way it so often is.

What that amounts to is that you want to remove the defendants right to a fair trial by removing any avenues of defense that you deem off limits because you think they’re a bit nasty and mean..

Court isn’t pleasant and is sometimes unfair..

Sometimes a persons prevous conduct will shed light on their character..

It’s one of many things that might be used against you..

That’s life..

You can’t tip the balance in favour of the defendant in the manner your proposing..

You’re on a hiding to norhing.

I know Lord Leo made all the right virtue signaling noises and the herd all believed him but Leo doesn’t follow through on anything so in reality nothing will change on the back of this. Absolutely nothing.

Bannasidhe

Rennaws wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to remove the defendants right to a fair trial by removing any avenues of defense that you deem off limits because you think they’re a bit nasty and mean..

Court isn’t pleasant and is sometimes unfair..

Sometimes a persons prevous conduct will shed light on their character..

It’s one of many things that might be used against you..

That’s life..

You can’t tip the balance in favour of the defendant in the manner your proposing..

You’re on a hiding to norhing.

I know Lord Leo made all the right virtue signaling noises and the herd all believed him but Leo doesn’t follow through on anything so in reality nothing will change on the back of this. Absolutely nothing.

What that amounts to is that you want to deny the complainants right to a fair hearing by allowing any avenues of defense that lawyers deem fit if they make the victim appear a bit nasty and slutty..



We must tip the balance in favour of the defendant even if it destroys the complainant.



I couldn't give a flying about Leo but he is a master as reading which way the political zeitgist is blowing.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to deny the complainants right to a fair hearing by allowing any avenues of defense that lawyers deem fit if they make the victim appear a bit nasty and slutty..

We must tip the balance in favour of the defendant even if it destroys the complainant.

I couldn't give a flying about Leo but he is a master as reading which way the political zeitgist is blowing.

The complainant doesn’t have the right to a fair hearing in the context of the defendants right to a fair hearing when it is the defendant is accused of a criminal offence, not the complainant.

Roger Hassenforder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to deny the complainants right to a fair hearing by allowing any avenues of defense that lawyers deem fit if they make the victim appear a bit nasty and slutty..

I think this is part of the problem

We can go back to the days of chaperones, or we can accept that women enjoy sex as much as men, can be the predator, can initiate the hunt. Unfortunately, if things go south, the nature of sex, means its usually a woman who feels they were raped.

So we have this consent dilemma. He might have reasonably assumed he had it.

So if a defence can show that "she was up for it", "gagging", came onto the defendant, even a history of promiscuity or similar behaviour, then it opens the question did/could the defendant have reasonably believed he had consent, without it being expressedly given/asked. So past behaviour and history may be relevant*.

Therefore, i dont think its unreasonable for a man to avoid a charge of rape, to obtain consent. It doesnt have to be a notary stamped affidavit...


*the thong crossed a line though.

If it's not unreasonable to bring up a womans sexual history then it shouldn't be unreasonable to bring up any prior convictions of the defendants.

Both are unreasonable imo. Prior behaviour doesn't prove guilt in this particular instance for the defendant, and a history of multiple partners while swinging from a chandelier in the lobby of the Hilton while wearing a thong that says 'do me immediately' doesn't mean that the complainant has given consent to this particular man, in that particular place, that particular time.

Also when I wear skinny jeans I wear a thong to avoid VPL. It in no way signals that I'm out looking for sex and for anyone to imply that a womans underwear is giving consent on her behalf is simply ridiculous.

The Bishop Basher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying about Leo but he is a master as reading which way the political zeitgist is blowing.

He’s one of the twitter mob yes..

Not good for a the country but sure his tweets keeps the herd happy..

One eyed Jack

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I think this is part of the problem

We can go back to the days of chaperones, or we can accept that women enjoy sex as much as men, can be the predator, can initiate the hunt. Unfortunately, if things go south, the nature of sex, means its usually a woman who feels they were raped.

So we have this consent dilemma. He might have reasonably assumed he had it.

So if a defence can show that "she was up for it", "gagging", came onto the defendant, even a history of promiscuity or similar behaviour, then it opens the question did/could the defendant have reasonably believed he had consent, without it being expressedly given/asked. So past behaviour and history may be relevant*.

Therefore, i dont think its unreasonable for a man to avoid a charge of rape, to obtain consent. It doesnt have to be a notary stamped affidavit...


*the thong crossed a line though.

If it wasn’t the underwear in this case, it would simply be something else about the complainant that could be pointed to, such as in cases where the complainant is an adult male, his sexual orientation is questioned.

Candie wrote: »

If it's not unreasonable to bring up a womans sexual history then it shouldn't be unreasonable to bring up any prior convictions of the defendant.

It’s not unreasonable at all, in fact it can often demonstrate a pattern of previous behaviour of the defendant -

Man pleads guilty to raping woman he met on Tinder

Roger Hassenforder

Candie wrote: »

If it's not unreasonable to bring up a womans sexual history then it shouldn't be unreasonable to bring up any prior convictions of the defendants.

Both are unreasonable imo. Prior behaviour doesn't prove guilt in this particular instance for the defendant, and a history of multiple partners while swinging from a chandelier in the lobby of the Hilton while wearing a thong that says 'do me immediately' doesn't mean that the complainant has given consent to this particular man, in that particular place, that particular time.
.

yes and no

Innocent until proven guilty it must be. In every case. Every seperate trial. History is used in sentencing. If we dont, it assumes a criminal cant be rehabilitated.
If the cops come accross a rape, just round up a few of the local offenders. One of them will be sketchy enough to pin it on. "Sure Judge, he did it before, he must have done it again"
We could dispense with the law eventually. Just have kangaroo courts

But behaviour can be the issue where consent is contested.
Its not double standards. A defendant may genuinely believe he had consent, whether she gave consent or not. Thats the key thing. Not whether she gave it. Its whether he thought he had it.

Which is why i dont think its too onerous to obtain it. Its a fairly simple concept.
Dont drink and drive.
About to have sex? Ask if its ok

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If it wasn’t the underwear in this case, it would simply be something else about the complainant that could be pointed to, such as in cases where the complainant is an adult male, his sexual orientation is questioned.

I agree with a lot if what you're saying in this thread, but I see the thong differently. It has no relevance to the issue of giving or inferring consent. None. Its about as relevant as what hat she wore.
No relevance to sexual predeliction, interest or otherwise. None.
Which is why its all the more galling that it was a woman barrister that mentioned it.

uptherebels

Rennaws wrote: »

What that amounts to is that you want to remove the defendants right to a fair trial by removing any avenues of defense that you deem off limits because you think they’re a bit nasty and mean..
.

Except how is a woman's choice of underwear any form of defence for a rape/ sexual assault?

IMO there is difference between mounting a defence and flinging mud in the hope that some sticks.

Oh I agree that getting a verbal, clear, go ahead is an easy thing to do. There's always a few who'll go on about having a solicitor present but a quick 'is this okay?' or 'Are you sure?' isn't going to ruin the moment. I think most would be very appreciative of that small courtesy.

The underwear isn't indicative of any behaviour other than wearing underwear though, and I think the tactic of bringing them up was quite possibly unethical as the barrister was trying to bring the complainants character into question by leading the jury to infer something from her wearing a thong, which is hardly evidence of anything other than she wore a thong.

Use evidence to introduce doubt by all means, don't use myths about easy girls in slutty undies being up for it with anyone. If that's acceptable then anything is. If you can use misdirection to sully someones character then it would be okay for the prosecutor to ask the defendant if he's ever abused a child. Even if he says an adamant NO the question is out there, the connection made, and humans find it very hard to disregard impressions regardless of any judges direction. None of that is okay, and there has to be some standard of evidence to ensure the rights of both parties. Either side introducing irrelevant claims either directly or by implication is nothing short of slinging mud and hoping enough sticks to get their conviction or acquittal, and nothing to do with fairness or justice.

The Bishop Basher

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I find it mildly creepy how quick people are to say that somebody has "issues with women" especially when arguing. As its kind of like likening somebody to abusive behavior.

That was aimed at me and I felt likewise.

If only the poster knew the great relationships I have with all the women in my life from my mother to my wife to my daughters and many female friends and colleagues etc.

My daughters are 15 and 20 so in the thick of this stuff and we can all chat about issues without any raised voices, personal insults or name calling..

But then we usually all agree.

The poster couldn’t have been more wrong in their ignorant assumption but it was just one of a number of cheap personal jibes aimed at undermining me.

The same poster accused me of making personal attacks a few days ago and as yet they’ve been unable to support it with any evidence.

He’s just one in a long line of posters who’ve taken the same approach..

They run out of steam in the end..

Reason always wins out..

Sleeper12

Comment from my wife last night: "how did you know that a woman wanted sex before thongs were invented?"