Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Quite the bizarre aside but I was quite active in the Margaret Cash thread pointing out that the details on her FB page were irrelevant.

We could argue back and forth over the purpose of Section 3 L, we both interpret it’s purpose differently. However the point of me mentioning the above isn’t a bizarre aside, it goes directly to the point you’re making in trying to suggest that politicians have anyone else’s interests at heart but their own.

I know where you were, and that’s why I made the point, because you were in the thick of it and it’s probably the only time we’ve ever agreed on anything. My point wasn’t about where you were though, it was about where were the politicians who are using this particular case to signal their claimed support for women, when Margaret Cash was being thrown under the bus and humiliated in public?

They were nowhere to be seen, so you’ll have to forgive me that I’m as cynical as I am that they have any regard, let alone motivation to introduce the kind of legislation you would wish for. They will of course as I said make all the right moves, pronounce all the appropriate soundbites and condemnations, but really they’ll do fcukall that would make any difference if it didn’t first suit their own personal circumstances.

I would also suggest on that basis that it won’t be long before we see barristers receiving death threats on social media when people disagree with their conduct as reported by the media in cases where people disagree with the outcome of any trial, as reported by the media.


EDIT: Just heard about this on the 9 o clock news just now, worth a read -

Preliminary report into the law and procedures in serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland

Executive Summary & Key Recommendations

Sir John Gillen

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We could argue back and forth over the purpose of Section 3 L, we both interpret it’s purpose differently. However the point of me mentioning the above isn’t a bizarre aside, it goes directly to the point you’re making in trying to suggest that politicians have anyone else’s interests at heart but their own.

I know where you were, and that’s why I made the point, because you were in the thick of it and it’s probably the only time we’ve ever agreed on anything. My point wasn’t about where you were though, it was about where were the politicians who are using this particular case to signal their claimed support for women, when Margaret Cash was being thrown under the bus and humiliated in public?

They were nowhere to be seen, so you’ll have to forgive me that I’m as cynical as I am that they have any regard, let alone motivation to introduce the kind of legislation you would wish for. They will of course as I said make all the right moves, pronounce all the appropriate soundbites and condemnations, but really they’ll do fcukall that would make any difference if it didn’t first suit their own personal circumstances.

I would also suggest on that basis that it won’t be long before we see barristers receiving death threats on social media when people disagree with their conduct as reported by the media in cases where people disagree with the outcome of any trial, as reported by the media.


EDIT: Just heard about this on the 9 o clock news just now, worth a read -

Preliminary report into the law and procedures in serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland

Executive Summary & Key Recommendations

Sir John Gillen

The case we're current discussing relates to procedures of the state, in particular the courts.

The Margaret Cash case relates to the proclamations of private citizens on public forums.

You're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

The case we're current discussing relates to procedures of the state, in particular the courts.

The Margaret Cash case relates to the proclamations of private citizens on public forums.

You're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid.

I’m comparing politicians reactions (or lack thereof) on the basis of their claims to care about women’s rights and women’s welfare. It’s quite clear from their different reactions in both circumstances that it has nothing to do with any interest in women’s rights and women’s welfare, but rather more to do with using people’s circumstances in cases where they see those circumstances as useful to promoting themselves and their own ideas, such as Ruth Coppingers stunt in the Dail, as opposed to not a peep out of her in the case of Margaret Cash.

Ms. Coppinger is no more a liberal or a socialist than I am

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m comparing politicians reactions (or lack thereof) on the basis of their claims to care about women’s rights and women’s welfare. It’s quite clear from their different reactions in both circumstances that it has nothing to do with any interest in women’s rights and women’s welfare, but rather more to do with using people’s circumstances in cases where they see those circumstances as useful to promoting themselves and their own ideas, such as Ruth Coppingers stunt in the Dail, as opposed to not a peep out of her in the case of Margaret Cash.

Ms. Coppinger is no more a liberal or a socialist than I am

But a politician can potentially influence court procedure.

They can't influence what's said on boards.

This is just another lame "if they're really feminists why aren't they protesting about the treatment of women in Africa" argument.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

But a politician can potentially influence court procedure.

They can’t. They can try and gain public support for their sex education bills using silly publicity stunts in the Dail, but politicians cannot influence court procedures. One politician alone can certainly attack the right to due process, but they cannot interfere in court procedures.

They can't influence what's said on boards.

They certainly can, and you know I was referring to the fact that they made no public comment when Margaret Cash was being torn apart in public, not just on Boards. They offered no support whatsoever. There were no pithy soundbites or publicity stunts from Ms. Coppinger in spite of the fact that only three years ago she pulled another publicity stunt in support of the homeless -


In September 2015, she joined homeless families from Blanchardstown, in occupying a Nama-controlled property as part of a campaign to raise awareness of the housing crisis. In October 2015, she joined families in their occupation of a show house in her constituency, to protest at the lack of availability of affordable social housing. She has also supported the tenants of Tyrrelstown, who were made homeless when a Goldman Sachs vulture fund sold their houses.

This is just another lame "if they're really feminists why aren't they protesting about the treatment of women in Africa" argument.

No L, this is nothing like that. This is politicians doing exactly what I expect them to do. I don’t ever expect them to look after anyone else’s interests but their own. In that regard at least, Ms. Coppinger hasn’t disappointed. She’s doing exactly what I expect any politician would do. You’re expecting them to do more than they’re capable of, and I think you’ll be disappointed.


EDIT: I don’t regard Ms. Coppinger as a feminist either, that would be assuming she has any interest in anyone else’s welfare but her own.

mynamejeff

One eyed Jack wrote: »

EDIT: I don’t regard Ms. Coppinger as a feminist either, that would be assuming she has any interest in anyone else’s welfare but her own.

this

4ensic15

Candie wrote: »

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.

The barrister did not do anything unethical. It would be unethical not to bring up anything which would help the clients case. The general consensus is that a thong does not show consent. Why then is it assumed that a jury of 12 people chosen at random differs from majority opinion. The defence was based on consent, not that anyone did anything wrong. If there was sex with someone wearing bloomers the defence might ask how there was non-consensual sex without them being torn.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can’t. They can try and gain public support for their sex education bills using silly publicity stunts in the Dail, but politicians cannot influence court procedures. One politician alone can certainly attack the right to due process, but they cannot interfere in court procedures.

They can and have through legislation. Where do you think section 3 comes from?

They certainly can, and you know I was referring to the fact that they made no public comment when Margaret Cash was being torn apart in public, not just on Boards. They offered no support whatsoever. There were no pithy soundbites or publicity stunts from Ms. Coppinger in spite of the fact that only three years ago she pulled another publicity stunt in support of the homeless -


In September 2015, she joined homeless families from Blanchardstown, in occupying a Nama-controlled property as part of a campaign to raise awareness of the housing crisis. In October 2015, she joined families in their occupation of a show house in her constituency, to protest at the lack of availability of affordable social housing. She has also supported the tenants of Tyrrelstown, who were made homeless when a Goldman Sachs vulture fund sold their houses.

In none of those cases you have given examples of was Coppinger fighting against public opinion voiced on forums and comments sections.

Again you're comparing apples and oranges.

You're trying to say that protesting homelessness is the same as protesting the public vilification of a particular homeless person who was perceived as gaming the system and by protesting homelessness but not defending Margaret cash she's being hypocritical. Nonsense.

No L, this is nothing like that. This is politicians doing exactly what I expect them to do. I don’t ever expect them to look after anyone else’s interests but their own. In that regard at least, Ms. Coppinger hasn’t disappointed. She’s doing exactly what I expect any politician would do. You’re expecting them to do more than they’re capable of, and I think you’ll be disappointed.


EDIT: I don’t regard Ms. Coppinger as a feminist either, that would be assuming she has any interest in anyone else’s welfare but her own.

I'm not expecting them to do anything. I'm saying that it's possible to do something similar to section 3 legislation.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

They can and have through legislation. Where do you think section 3 comes from?

That’s not politicians having any influence on court procedures, and any legislation you’re suggesting could be introduced, it would still be at the discretion of the Judge in any specific case as to whether or not the evidence should be allowed or not as long as it wasn’t prejudicial to the defendants right to receive a fair trial. Under section 3 which relates to a complainants previous sexual history, there have been many examples of it being given a fairly broad scope, and any new legislation would have to be given an equally broad scope, rendering it IMO, as ineffective as Section 3 in relation to the complainant.

In none of those cases you have given examples of was Coppinger fighting against public opinion voiced on forums and comments sections.

Again you're comparing apples and oranges.

You're trying to say that protesting homelessness is the same as protesting the public vilification of a particular homeless person who was perceived as gaming the system and by protesting homelessness but not defending Margaret cash she's being hypocritical. Nonsense.

For the third time now - I’m comparing politicians reactions in relation to the fact that they were able to make public comments about the treatment of women in one case, but remained decidedly silent in the case of a woman who was vilified in public, in both the media and on social media and they simply chose not to intervene on her behalf to help her in any way, shape or form whatsoever, and there is no evidence that Ms. Cash was guilty of any wrongdoing. Her life was (and still is) viciously scrutinised in public, yet Ms. Coppinger chose to wave a thong about in the Dail.

I don’t think her actions were hypocritical btw, I think she was just very true to form based upon her previous actions where she chose to act in her own self-interest. A hypocrite is someone who contradicts themselves, Ms. Coppinger hasn’t contradicted herself in always acting in her own self-interest. I doubt she sought consent from the girl involved in this particular case or thought about the consequences for her either before using her circumstances to gain public support for her own cause.

I'm not expecting them to do anything. I'm saying that it's possible to do something similar to section 3 legislation.

You’ve argued that they should introduce legislation similar to section 3 in an attempt to exclude specific evidence from an investigation at trial, and the whole basis for your argument is that you personally consider the underwear worn by the complainant at the time of the encounter should be regarded as irrelevant in assisting a defendant in their own defence. That’s simply not your call to make, and it’s not for politicians to decide either. It’s a call for the defendant in any trial to make, and it’s at the discretion of the Judge to allow it if it can be demonstrated that not allowing it could lead the jury to find the defendant guilty.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

https://www.newstalk.com/Hooks-Saturday-Sit-In

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.

Bold boy corner now for sure. His contract isn't being renewed



https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/newstalk-announces-george-hooks-retirement-13627624

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Bold boy corner now for sure. His contract isn't being renewed



https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/newstalk-announces-george-hooks-retirement-13627624

He is not far off 80.

Hardly a surprise TBF.

Kenny would want to watch himself.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not politicians having any influence on court procedures, and any legislation you’re suggesting could be introduced, it would still be at the discretion of the Judge in any specific case as to whether or not the evidence should be allowed or not as long as it wasn’t prejudicial to the defendants right to receive a fair trial. Under section 3 which relates to a complainants previous sexual history, there have been many examples of it being given a fairly broad scope, and any new legislation would have to be given an equally broad scope, rendering it IMO, as ineffective as Section 3 in relation to the complainant.

Politicians brought in a direct change to court procedures. Just because it's your opinion that that procedure is ineffective doesn't mean they did not change court procedure.

Previously a barrister did not have to apply to bring up a complainants sexual history, now they do. That's a change. Politicians brought it in.

Therefore politicians can and do affect court procedure.

You have no idea if section 3 has been ineffective or not. The only way to know that would be to know the reasons for introducing sexual history prior to the existence of section 3.

Is sexual history quantitatively as much a part of trials as it was.prior to section 3? Are the reasons sexual history is introduced the same? For instance in the IT article it is said that the vast majority of applications on section 3 grounds were related to two things: previous sexual history with the defendant and previous claims of sexual assault. Was that the same prior to section 3?

Do you have any evidence to support your certainty that section 3 has had no effect?

For the third time now - I’m comparing politicians reactions in relation to the fact that they were able to make public comments about the treatment of women in one case, but remained decidedly silent in the case of a woman who was vilified in public, in both the media and on social media and they simply chose not to intervene on her behalf to help her in any way, shape or form whatsoever, and there is no evidence that Ms. Cash was guilty of any wrongdoing. Her life was (and still is) viciously scrutinised in public, yet Ms. Coppinger chose to wave a thong about in the Dail.

I don’t think her actions were hypocritical btw, I think she was just very true to form based upon her previous actions where she chose to act in her own self-interest. A hypocrite is someone who contradicts themselves, Ms. Coppinger hasn’t contradicted herself in always acting in her own self-interest. I doubt she sought consent from the girl involved in this particular case or thought about the consequences for her either before using her circumstances to gain public support for her own cause.

The case of Margaret cash has nothing in common with the rape trial case.

They're two completely different scenarios.

Coppinger is perfectly free to comment publically.on one case and not another, without being hypocritical or self serving or whatever negative adjective you choose to use.

You could easily say "oh why didn't she comment on some case in France is she really cares". The obvious answer being because it's in France and she can't comment on everything.

Equally, the Margaret Cash case has no feature that makes it a negative reflection on Copoinger if she doesn't.comment.

Now if you could point to Coppinger generally.supporting people who have ended up in the public eye being torn apart then maybe her lack of comment on Margaret cash would be significant.

Otherwise it's just nonsense.

You’ve argued that they should introduce legislation similar to section 3 in an attempt to exclude specific evidence from an investigation at trial, and the whole basis for your argument is that you personally consider the underwear worn by the complainant at the time of the encounter should be regarded as irrelevant in assisting a defendant in their own defence. That’s simply not your call to make, and it’s not for politicians to decide either. It’s a call for the defendant in any trial to make, and it’s at the discretion of the Judge to allow it if it can be demonstrated that not allowing it could lead the jury to find the defendant guilty.

It's not a call for the defendant to make. It's a call for the judge to make guided by precedent, guidelines, and potentially legislation if it was introduced.

And your last line is not the test of whether evidence can be introduced under section 3.

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

The barrister did not do anything unethical.

She suggested that wearing a thong is an indication of consent, or of an intention to have sex.

Silentcorner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

She suggested that wearing a thong is an indication of consent, or of an intention to have sex.

Some more details on the case, you can see now why the DPP felt they had a reasonable chance of conviction.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/she-fears-she-wasnt-believed-new-details-on-cork-rape-trial-expose-ordeal-endured-by-complainants-37560842.html

I can't fathom how the judge allow the barrister use the young ladies underwear as part of the defendants case.

I can understand the anger this has provoked.

SusieBlue

Silentcorner wrote: »

Some more details on the case, you can see now why the DPP felt they had a reasonable chance of conviction.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/she-fears-she-wasnt-believed-new-details-on-cork-rape-trial-expose-ordeal-endured-by-complainants-37560842.html

I can't fathom how the judge allow the barrister use the young ladies underwear as part of the defendants case.

I can understand the anger this has provoked.

I’m actually in tears reading that.
I would urge anyone who was defending this mans actions to give it a read.
Another predator left wandering the streets, regardless of this case he has proven with his past offenses that he is a violent individual.

His wife should be ashamed of her life for standing by him. Disgraceful.

Sleeper12

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/she-fears-she-wasnt-believed-new-details-on-cork-rape-trial-expose-ordeal-endured-by-complainants-37560842.html

A little bit more details in todays paper

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

She suggested that wearing a thong is an indication of consent, or of an intention to have sex.

What is unethical about that? The thong was shown to the jury in evidence. She was entitled to ask the jury to consider it in their deliberations.

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

What is unethical about that? The thong was shown to the jury in evidence. She was entitled to ask the jury to consider it in their deliberations.

Wearing a thong is not consent. She's undoubtedly a smart lady if she is an SC, so she appears to have put a proposition that she knows to be untrue to the jury. That is not ethical.

Sleeper12

4ensic15 wrote:

What is unethical about that? The thong was shown to the jury in evidence. She was entitled to ask the jury to consider it in their deliberations.

You can't see how implying to the jury that because see wore a thong, that see set of out that evening looking for sex, might be seen as unethical?

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wearing a thong is not consent. She's undoubtedly a smart lady if she is an SC, so she appears to have put a proposition that she knows to be untrue to the jury. That is not ethical.

It is a matter for the jury to consider if a thong is not consent. It is not for her to decide what is consent or not. It would have been unethical for her not to invite the jury to consider it, if she thought that it might help her client. the jury is composed of randomly chosen people who presumably are able to form their own views. Why do you assume that the only 12 people in the country who think a thong is evidence of consent were the ones on the jury?

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is a matter for the jury to consider if a thong is not consent. It is not for her to decide what is consent or not. It would have been unethical for her not to invite the jury to consider it, if she thought that it might help her client. the jury is composed of randomly chosen people who presumably are able to form their own views. Why do you assume that the only 12 people in the country who think a thong is evidence of consent were the ones on the jury?

It's not a matter for the jury. It's not a matter for anyone to consider.


Wearing a thong is not consent.


How can wearing a thong possibly be consent?

Sleeper12

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is a matter for the jury to consider if a thong is not consent. It is not for her to decide what is consent or not. It would have been unethical for her not to invite the jury to consider it, if she thought that it might help her client. the jury is composed of randomly chosen people who presumably are able to form their own views. Why do you assume that the only 12 people in the country who think a thong is evidence of consent were the ones on the jury?

THE VAST MAJORITY of people believe a person’s underwear should not be discussed during a court case relating to rape.

Almost nine in 10 people (88%) said No, 7% said Yes, and 5% said Don’t Know.

https://www.thejournal.ie/rape-trial-underwear-4348391-Nov2018/

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wearing a thong is not consent.

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact. What a barrister can't do is run a defence of consent if the accused admitted to her or her solicitor that it was rape. If consent is claimed anything that could assist the accused must be put to the jury. If 12 people on the jury think the same as you then they will ignore the thong as a factor in any consent defence.

batgoat

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact. What a barrister can't do is run a defence of consent if the accused admitted to her or her solicitor that it was rape. If consent is claimed anything that could assist the accused must be put to the jury. If 12 people on the jury think the same as you then they will ignore the thong as a factor in any consent defence.

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

BBFAN

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

Extremely worrying.

batgoat

BBFAN wrote: »

Extremely worrying.

The poster thinks that it's a matter of opinion that a thong indicates consent, I would classify that as a pretty worrying view.

Edit: Scratch that, think we agree on this? Emoticons confused me.

4ensic15

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

That is your opinion. Some people might think otherwise. Is there any legal authority for your proposition that a thong is not a form of consent? Where is it written down?

SusieBlue

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact. What a barrister can't do is run a defence of consent if the accused admitted to her or her solicitor that it was rape. If consent is claimed anything that could assist the accused must be put to the jury. If 12 people on the jury think the same as you then they will ignore the thong as a factor in any consent defence.

Please explain how an inanimate item of clothing can consent on behalf of the living, breathing person wearing it.
What faculties does a pair a knickers possess in order to be able to do so?

If this is the case then maybe we really do need to segregate underwear into ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ sections.
I mean it’s frightening and disgraceful that we’d have to do this, and frankly an insult to the 99.9% of decent respectful men in society.
But if a lace thong can consent on behalf of the woman wearing it, and some men actually seem to believe that they can have sex with a woman based purely on her choice of underwear, maybe it’s necessary.

I never want to see a case like this again.
That poor girl must be in bits.

BBFAN

batgoat wrote: »

The poster thinks that it's a matter of opinion that a thong indicates consent, I would classify that as a pretty worrying view.

Edit: Scratch that, think we agree on this? Emoticons confused me.

I'm totally agreeing with you.

That anyone thinks an item of underwear is a form of consent is worrying in the extreme.

batgoat

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is your opinion. Some people might think otherwise. Is there any legal authority for your proposition that a thong is not a form of consent? Where is it written down?

Are you considering what you're saying? A person can give consent, an item of clothing cannot.

Sardonicat

4ensic15 wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

That is your opinion. Some people might think otherwise.

Some people like rapists?

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact.

No, it is a matter of fact.


Please explain how wearing a thong or any item of clothing, even perhaps a t-shirt saying 'I want to have sex tonight' is consent to have sex in a muddy laneway with a man ten years older.

El_Duderino 09

BBFAN wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

Extremely worrying.

Giving the poster the benefit of the doubt, I presume they're highlighting the difference between the law and justice.

Saying a thong might be consent is about as classy as a defence barrister in a sexual abuse case saying the child was asking for it.

If you can convince the jury then the law is satisfied. Justice is not.

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it is a matter of fact.


Please explain how wearing a thong or any item of clothing, even perhaps a t-shirt saying 'I want to have sex tonight' is consent to have sex in a muddy laneway with a man ten years older.

It is in the mind of the beholder. Maybe some people think it indicates consent. The jury are capable of deciding for themselves. You are trying to claim your own opinions are facts.

4ensic15

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Giving the poster the benefit of the doubt, I presume they're highlighting the difference between the law and justice.

Saying a thong might be consent is about as classy as a defence barrister in a sexual abuse case saying the child was asking for it.

If you can convince the jury then the law is satisfied. Justice is not.

Presumably, if you were on the jury you would be able to convince your fellow jurors of your position. Justice is satisfied when a person gets a fair trial. A fair trial is when, evidence is presented, a person is allowed to put their defence and the jury are properly directed. What the end result is doesn't matter.

SusieBlue

Armadildo wrote: »

Girl should not have been drunk and walking home alone at that hour.

Man should have had some self control, some consideration for his wife and children, and his previous suspended sentences for his violent crimes.
Man also should haven taken No for an answer and had no business approaching a teenager 10 years his junior.

Raheem Euro

In a case where there is no witnesses or physical injury marks and it is one persons word against the other on consent - the court and jury always look at everything both parties said or did before, during and after. That day, that night. Everywhere they went. Everyone they spoke to. How they acted or were perceived to act. What they said. What they wore. What they drank. Its all put before the jury. The jury decide what if anything to take into consideration from whats put in front of them.
They then make a judgement call on which party they find more credible. So you cannot isolsate one single factor of the multitude put in front of them and say "_____of so that means consent"
Each individual thread just becomes a small part of the overall fabric.
The alternative would be to throw out every case because "beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar to reach in one persons word against another.

batgoat

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is in the mind of the beholder. Maybe some people think it indicates consent. The jury are capable of deciding for themselves. You are trying to claim your own opinions are facts.

Consent is legally defined, it's not in the mind of the beholder. Do you think a short skirt can be consent in the mind of the beholder as well?

4ensic15

batgoat wrote: »

Consent is legally defined, it's not in the mind of the beholder. Do you think a short skirt can be consent in the mind of the beholder as well?

Where is it defined legally? It is up to the jury to decide on the evidence if there was consent. It is not up to me or anybody else to decide.

Sleeper12

Armadildo wrote:

Girl should not have been drunk and walking home alone at that hour.

The defendant was also drinking and out alone. There is definitely responsibility for the situation he landed himself into or at least as much responsibility as the girl who let's not forget was a minor. Minors aren't exactly known for common sense. A 27 year old should have known better and not left himself open in such a way

4ensic15

Sleeper12 wrote: »

. A 27 year old should have known better and not left himself open in such a way

He got away with it though, didn't he?

batgoat

4ensic15 wrote: »

Where is it defined legally? It is up to the jury to decide on the evidence if there was consent. It is not up to me or anybody else to decide.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

Note how it repeatedly describes how 'a person consents', it doesn't describe consent being offered based on clothing.. How one dresses isn't a person consenting, it's clothing and that's all it amounts to. If you think a piece of clothing can be an act of consent, that is really worrying.

El_Duderino 09

4ensic15 wrote: »

Presumably, if you were on the jury you would be able to convince your fellow jurors of your position. Justice is satisfied when a person gets a fair trial. A fair trial is when, evidence is presented, a person is allowed to put their defence and the jury are properly directed. What the end result is doesn't matter.

Yeah. I get your point of view. The end result doesn't matter.

Sleeper12

4ensic15 wrote:

He got away with it though, didn't he?

Not suggesting that he got away with a crime as the verdict is the verdict but I don't think he got away with leaving himself open. There has been two trials for this case. The first being in Dublin. This has been hanging over his head for three years. His wife says she's sticking by his but his family live must have suffered no end for the last three years.

I don't think he got away with it at all and the stress of the last three years are down to stupidly

4ensic15

batgoat wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

Note how it repeatedly describes how 'a person consents', it doesn't describe consent being offered based on clothing.. How one dresses isn't a person consenting, it's clothing and that's all it amounts to. If you think a piece of clothing can be an act of consent, that is really worrying.

It defines consent as "A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act" but sub-section 2 repeatedly defines what is not consent. There is no clause to the effect that the clothing a person wears can never be defined as constituting consent.
It is a matter for the jury to hear the evidence and decide if the was consent or not.

batgoat

4ensic15 wrote: »

It defines consent as "A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act" but sub-section 2 repeatedly defines what is not consent. There is no clause to the effect that the clothing a person wears can never be defined as constituting consent.
It is a matter for the jury to hear the evidence and decide if the was consent or not.

So by your logic, a person leaving the home while wearing some pieces of clothing is offering consent to have sex. Doesn't matter who it is. Because the clothing acts as the consent, do you realise how stupid and messed up that sounds?

4ensic15

batgoat wrote: »

So by your logic, a person leaving the home while wearing some pieces of clothing is offering consent to have sex. Doesn't matter who it is. Because the clothing acts as the consent, do you realise how stupid and messed up that sounds?

I never said that. All I said was that if the person was raped the alleged rapist could offer that explanation to the jury.

batgoat

4ensic15 wrote: »

I never said that. All I said was that if the person was raped the alleged rapist could offer that explanation to the jury.

That's the logical conclusion if you're claiming that one's clothing can be consent... What you're using are rape myths of 'she was asking for it'....

4ensic15

batgoat wrote: »

That's the logical conclusion if you're claiming that one's clothing can be consent... What you're using are rape myths of 'she was asking for it'....

You don't understand what I am saying. Maybe some people t6hink clothing can be consent. Until I am on a jury my opinion doesn't matter.

enfant terrible

Sleeper12 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/she-fears-she-wasnt-believed-new-details-on-cork-rape-trial-expose-ordeal-endured-by-complainants-37560842.html

A little bit more details in todays paper

Have any details been released of why the jury acquitted him, couldn't see any details on any of the reports I've read.