Post: #1

http://time.com/5456712/ireland-thong-ra...-protests/

'You Have to Look at the Way She Was Dressed.' Ireland Protests After Lawyer Cites a Thong as Consent

Scores of demonstrators have taken to the streets across Ireland this week to protest after a defense lawyer held up a teenager’s lacy thong in a rape trial to indicate consent, the Guardian reports.

In her closing argument, lawyer Elizabeth O’Connell asked the jury to consider a 17-year-old’s underwear as an indication that she was “open to meeting someone.” Prosecutors said the teen was raped in a muddy ally by a 27-year-old man.

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,” O’Connell said.

The defendant was unanimously acquitted by a jury of eight men and four women at Cork’s Central Criminal Court on November 6.

But the lawyer’s remarks sparked outrage far beyond the trial. Women’s rights activists and others took to social media to protest victim blaming, and posted photos of underwear on Twitter with the hashtags #IBelieveHer and #ThisIsNotConsent. Protests also erupted in Belfast, Cork, Dublin and Limerick with hundreds of women and men calling for a national reckoning over how sexual assault cases are handled.

Post: #2

The female lawyer made a stupid remark...punish the accused man, even though the evidence is not supporting the rape claim

If anything they should demand that women are not allowed to become defence attorney`s.

Post: #3

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the evidence that set him free, just something that the media picked up on to create click bait.

Post: #4

(11-22-2018 04:59 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that wasn't the evidence that set him free, just something that the media picked up on to create click bait.

Lack of evidence would be more likely than evidence to the contrary I guess. But anyway, why would you want to punish the accused like these demonstrators try to do, due to something his lawyer said in court? That`s pretty insane!

Post: #5

This is how it is here now lads, feminism is on steroids in this country and everything is a trigger for these useful idiots. There was a high profile case up north under UK law where some rugby lads were found innocent and they came out on the streets in the republic baying for blood. Wasnt even under our court system, total insanity.

Post: #6

If a girl shows up to my crib with matching lingerie underneath, I know it’s on. Wonder if courts would see it that way. Haha, hell no.

Post: #7

Jesus, I hope the lassies in that video went to O'walmart and bought some new underpants to wave around.

They all appear to have some hygiene issues.

Aloha!

Post: #8

Pics or it didn't happen.

Post: #9

I agree with the protesters that "clothes are not consent." But this isn't about that. This is about crafting laws (and a society) where women have no responsibility.

How do we know?

Because there are cases of men getting beaten up at sports games when they're wearing jerseys of rival teams. Yet these women don't protest that.

Consider this real life example:

There is a long-running feud between Baltimore Orioles fans and New York Yankees fans. When the Yankees come to Baltimore, tension runs high in Camden Yards. O's fans HATE the Yankees.

Back in 2013, a Yankees fan was in Baltimore and went to an Orioles-Yankees game wearing a Yankees cap (news story here). He was nearly beaten to death by two crazed Orioles fans.

Mention this event without the larger context to any female. They'll inevitably say he was asking for trouble wearing a Yankees cap in Baltimore because what you wear has an influence on the way people treat you.

Hm. So he was "asking for it," huh? And clothes send a message, do they? Does that sound familiar? But I thought "clothes are not consent."

Post: #10

“Raped in a muddy alley”

So it was anal?

Post: #11

(11-22-2018 04:59 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that wasn't the evidence that set him free, just something that the media picked up on to create click bait.

Yep. It's just used for the click bait title.

If you actually read into the detail it's not why he was acquitted.

I don't think they're stirred up by him getting off, but by the fact that "clothing as consent" is still being used by defence lawyers, which is quite wrong IMO.
What someone is wearing doesn't give cause for violence, whether it's a mini skirt or thong or a different sports teams jersey.