Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.

[Raoul Duke III]

I think he's a dick of the highest order. Zero respect for him and how he has ruined Russia's opportunities. But I also think assigning all the rest of the world's problems to him is silly and doesn't address the cause of why those countries have these problems. It's very convenient to assume a country wouldn't have voted for Trump if it wasn't for Putin, but we all know exactly how racist America has always been, and the UK. And trying to link it to Ireland's abortion referendum is an exercise in pure lunacy.

Inability to answer simple question noted.

[Raoul Duke III]

I don't see how the jury could possibly have done anything else in light of the judge's summing-up.

[Raoul Duke III]

I have no idea if they are active in this referendum but why wouldn't they be?

Do you doubt that the kremlin are working to to sow discord and political instability across Europe?
Sure we are right to doubt and to look for evidence that they are active in any specific campaign regardless of how hard it will be to find but the idea that those kind of operations would be bounded by strict moral principals is ridiculous.

Imagine one of the unintended consequences of Brexit turns out to be a border poll.

Now imagine the fun some malevolent Putin-bots could have with that little potato.

[Denny Crane]

Strange take. I'd have thought a quick turnaround would have meant all were united in opinion of not guilty?

Not impressed with the hot takes (senator O'Rioirdan in particular) on twitter. They all believe her and consider the jury who sat through 8 weeks of excruciating detail to be unanimously wrong.

High threshold for a conviction though.

[Raoul Duke III]

I made a gnomic reference to this previously: her father is a very well-connected man. Best buddies with the Chief Constable apparently.

Now justice is blind and all that but it might shed some light on why a prosecution (which could never realistically have succeeded) might have been taken.

[Emmet]

High threshold for a conviction though.

Yeah it really is.

Not even really sure how you could ever be so certain without forensic evidence tbh.

[Strewelpeter]

Best of luck to him

[Theresa]

I don’t know why but Optometrists always feel shticky to me. I always question their qualifications and diplomas. Then when I get there it’s alway more of a sale than a health/vision motivation.

[BennyHiFi]

Best advert ive seen in years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ItpotxmU8Q

Jack, Denny and Hitch probably should avoid watching it

Soundtracked very effectively by Slayer's Raining Blood no less.

[Strewelpeter]

You're sharper than this.

Your man crush obviously isn't

SPOILER

The scandal won’t go away, largely because Donald Trump and his lawyers have propelled it forward. Here’s how they have managed it so far:

1. Go to a celebrity golf tournament, and decide how to spend your free time. You could just watch an old movie, and end the story there; if not, go to Step 2.

2. At the first sign that a woman has a story to tell, treat her as an enemy.
Or have your lawyer take care of that. In 2011, Michael Cohen, a lawyer at the Trump Organization, got a call from Life & Style magazine, seeking comment on an account of an alleged affair from Stormy Daniels, a.k.a. Stephanie Clifford. Cohen threatened to sue, former employees at the magazine told “60 Minutes,” so the magazine backed down, and didn’t give Clifford the fifteen thousand dollars it had offered. A few weeks later, Clifford alleges, a man who her lawyer later refers to as a “goon” approached her in a Las Vegas parking lot, while she was taking her baby out of a car seat, and issued a threat, in which he invoked Trump’s name, and added, “That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.” If it’s true, and if Cohen had any knowledge of it—which he denies—it’s quite a way to destroy any good will that might exist.

3. Spend five years ignoring reality. In this case the reality that, via gossip sites, the basics of the story are made public.

4. When you run for President, be sure to claim that women who may have such stories about you are liars. Put aside questions that, by exposing them to the anger of your supporters, you are practically obliging them to defend themselves. When, in the resulting public conversation, there are murmurs that Clifford might speak, have your lawyer pursue a hush agreement in exchange for a payment of a hundred and thirty thousand dollars.

5. Threats involving big numbers are more your style than legally grounded ones. Include a provision saying that the “liquidated damages” would amount to a million dollars for each time that Clifford violates the agreement. Your lawyer seemingly ignores the restrictions on using liquidated damages in this way, for a contract such as this, which may make the provision unenforceable. But knowledge of such arcana—that is, the basics of the law—is not the first thing you look for in a lawyer.

6. Some lawyers would draft such an agreement in a way that does not require your signature. Not your lawyer! Instead, several provisions effectively render the agreement invalid unless you personally sign the agreement, albeit using an alias, “David Dennison,” specified in a side letter that you also have to sign, this time with your real name.

7. Don’t bother to sign it. Your lawyer got the money to Clifford less than two weeks before the election. We’re done here, right?

8. But do you know exactly what your lawyer is doing? The Wall Street Journal reports that Cohen had trouble getting you on the phone during this period. Yes, you are running for President. But put aside the thought that this might be a moment to be careful about who is handing out money to whom in your name.

9. When your lawyer starts telling implausible stories about the deal, let him keep talking. It’s January, 2018. The Wall Street Journal has published a story about the hush agreement. Cohen says that he put up the money for it in a “personal transaction,” which, if true, will trigger questions about (a) whether the payment is an undeclared in-kind campaign contribution, and (b) whether he is violating his ethical obligations to his client by acting without his authority, or (c) whether he or you defrauded Clifford by pretending that you had agreed to everything—including commitments, written into the agreement, that under certain circumstances you won’t sue her. Cohen has been interviewed in the Russia investigation, and he is someone whom Robert Mueller, the special counsel, might be interested in trying to flip if he sees that Cohen is in legal jeopardy. But Cohen is totally loyal to you, so why worry?

Also, stand by while Cohen says, “Just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean that it can’t cause you harm or damage,” thus suggesting that Clifford is a liar—that’s sure to make her go away. Cohen adds, “I will always protect Mr. Trump,” which you always like to hear.

10. Let your lawyer take actions that guarantee that your involvement in the hush agreement will come to light. By now, the interview from 2011, which was not covered by the hush agreement, has been published, in InTouch. This might be the moment to let things go. Instead, Cohen gets a restraining order from an arbitrator threatening Clifford with one of those million-dollar penalties if she talks. (But see Step 5.) As a bonus, a second Trump Organization lawyer files some of the papers for Cohen.

11. Don’t think about what her next move might be. You’ve threatened Clifford with a million-dollar penalty, and, for some reason, she is trying to fight you, and asking a California court to void the agreement. Her new lawyer has attached a copy of the hush agreement to that filing. He’s also noticed that you didn’t sign it.

12. Make it twenty million dollars, then! Hire more lawyers, and have them not only join Cohen’s effort to enforce the agreement but ask to move the case to federal court—where, your filing says, you will pursue all legal remedies. Put aside the thought that legal remedies often involve things like discovery and depositions. And, by asking to move the case to federal court, you give Clifford an opening to file an amended complaint: the new version includes a defamation claim against Cohen and arguments about possible campaign-finance violations.

13. Maybe just call her a liar? Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House spokesperson, doesn’t comment on whether you watched Clifford on “60 Minutes,” but does say that you think that everything Clifford said on the show was untrue. Sanders also confirms that you and Cohen had dinner the night before the broadcast. But you haven’t tweeted about Clifford by name—not yet.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-the-stormy-daniels-story-keeps-escalating-a-thirteen-step-guide?mbid=social_twitter

[Guest]

Soundtracked very effectively by Slayer's Raining Blood no less.

Ooohhh don't worry, I knew exactly who was soundtracking it

[Guest]

Dunphy talking to developer Michael O'Flynn

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamondunphy/ep-145-michael-oflynn-not-optimistic-on-the-housing-crisis

Going over old ground for some, but worth a listen

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Tar.Aldarion]

Just when you thought the world couldn't get more hipster, fresh from hipster farm:

[luckforsome]

...Sold all of my Amazon and Visa Shares late on Monday, convinced that the magic of trump will fuck it up in a massive way...
...It's come out today that he is targeting Amazon, nearly 40billion wiped off it's value...Feel like I got one up on the market and trump, 😂😂...

[Theresa]

This is a good idea:

I'm not sure. On the balance of things, and effects on society, I think end of a court case should be black and white.

Allowing some sort of grey area of "not proven" gives no one closure on chapters that are the darkest in most peoples lives, and a lot of cases are so nuanced that a grey verdict just opens up so much more problems. The grey verdict assures that all parties are victims for the rest of their lives.

Just when you thought the world couldn't get more hipster, fresh from hipster farm:

If its made from recycled and recyclable material then this is quite clever. Most multi pack avocados I see are packaged in plastic nets.

[Tar.Aldarion]

I have a pack at home that my friend bought, looking up the company who pack them and they are very environmentally focused, as much as you can be while selling avolcadoes in ireland. (Greencell ltd - www.greencell.com). They come from spain, which is better than the rest of the ones we get here from half way around the world.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Theresa]

I see FF coming out with the bright plan of giving €200m so teachers can start on €42k instead of €36k. The current €36k is an extremely generous starting salary, quite a bit higher than most other grads would get.

What's in their heads though? How are they thinking that's a popular political strategy given it involves taking away €200m from something else than much more people would benefit from?

Aren't a large number of politicians former teachers?

#sincewearealltinfoilhatting

Teachers are the Cambridge Analytica of the non tech world. They have the ability to influence minds in a certain direction. A political party favouring teachers means that those teachers will favour it and potentially influence students to support it too.

#tinfoilhatoff

[mcnugget]

I see FF coming out with the bright plan of giving €200m so teachers can start on €42k instead of €36k. The current €36k is an extremely generous starting salary, quite a bit higher than most other grads would get.

What's in their heads though? How are they thinking that's a popular political strategy given it involves taking away €200m from something else than much more people would benefit from?

Seems a strange priority allright, guess it wins the teaching vote and most of the remaining population won’t notice or care. Mícheál used leaders’ questions to raise the issue this week instead of brexit, SCU, Woulfe, Coveney etc

[mcnugget]

I see FF coming out with the bright plan of giving €200m so teachers can start on €42k instead of €36k. The current €36k is an extremely generous starting salary, quite a bit higher than most other grads would get.

What's in their heads though? How are they thinking that's a popular political strategy given it involves taking away €200m from something else than much more people would benefit from?

Also, the teaching unions’ concerted campaign on equal pay for equal work is bullshit of the highest order. Those people really need to spend some time in the private sector / real world.

[jack90210]

Surely the decision to take to court by the CPS is subject to judicial review? 9 week case for 3hr 45 min deliberation. Wonder how much that cost per minute of deliberation.

[Theresa]

Surely the decision to take to court by the CPS is subject to judicial review? 9 week case for 3hr 45 min deliberation. Wonder how much that cost per minute of deliberation.

Why is cost per minute of deliberation an important metric if the goal is justice?

[balfejohn]

Surely the decision to take to court by the CPS is subject to judicial review? 9 week case for 3hr 45 min deliberation. Wonder how much that cost per minute of deliberation.

£1.33

[MrsFlushdraw]

Any of you people out there try the varifocal contacts yet?

I find normal lenses a pain in the hole now. I use them for vanity purposes only and when I wear them I need reading glasses the exact opposite prescription as my lenses to cancel them out so I can read.

I don't use my glasses much anymore. Not for reading, working on comp or cooking. It would be purely distance.

It drives me mad when I wear lenses! but don't want to go for a night out wearing glasses. I have just discovered the last box of my lenses gone now (cheers eldest daughter lol) and need to think about getting something.

[jack90210]

Why is cost per minute of deliberation an important metric if the goal is justice?

If it was guilty verdict it wouldn't but this would appear to be a huge waste of public funds.

[Lazare]

Surely the decision to take to court by the CPS is subject to judicial review? 9 week case for 3hr 45 min deliberation. Wonder how much that cost per minute of deliberation.

What's your angle on this one Jack?

Are you following the line of fellow catholics calling for her to be named and shamed?

People that claim to argue from a position of compassion with regard to the eighth.

[Lazare]

Just asking.

[6starpool]

Also, the teaching unions’ concerted campaign on equal pay for equal work is bullshit of the highest order. Those people really need to spend some time in the private sector / real world.

It isn't really. In the private sector people can negotiate their own wages to a large extent, and move job to a different company that pays more if they are able to secure such a job. Teachers can't. The whole idea of paying people who graduated one year and subsequent years less than those that came before them was utterly flawed, and the unions were complicit in it. Any of those cuts should have come across the board from the higher levels down to grads inclusive, not just focus on one area of them.

[jack90210]

What's your angle on this one Jack?

Are you following the line of fellow catholics calling for her to be named and shamed?

People that claim to argue from a position of compassion with regard to the eighth.

No angle. Just thought all along obviously without the benefit of directly hearing the evidence that there never appeared to be any tangible proof it is head puzzler as to why the case was brought with such a lack of evidence. What's your line on it?

I have compassion for the innocent party which as a result of the verdict we can see is the falsey accused.

[Guest]

Just when you thought the world couldn't get more hipster, fresh from hipster farm:

The most hipster thing about avocado's is that people in meat is murder hemp shirts live on them and they are absolutely killing the planet.

[Guest]

This is a good idea:

Person who has been all over media before trial walking around with a "not proven" aka "guilty but" hanging over them for the rest of their life?

As she herself is doing here by calling the girl the victim in a case where the lads were let go!




...what theresa said

[Lazare]

No angle. Just thought all along obviously without the benefit of directly hearing the evidence that there never appeared to be any tangible proof it is head puzzler as to why the case was brought with such a lack of evidence. What's your line on it?

I have compassion for the innocent party which as a result of the verdict we can see is the falsey accused.

My line is a little different to yours.

I have a lot of compassion for the victim.

The problem with this case, and with society is neither party were lying.

The accused didn't believe they raped her, she believed they did.

That's evident by what she put herself through.

They weren't found innocent, they were found not guilty. There's a subtle but profound difference.

They weren't falsely accused either.

It's not a huge shock though to hear catholics blame her. That's their schtick.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[jack90210]

My line is a little different to yours.

I have a lot of compassion for the victim.

The problem with this case, and with society is neither party were lying.

The accused didn't believe they raped her, she believed they did.

That's evident by what she put herself through.

They weren't found innocent, they were found not guilty. There's a subtle but profound difference.

They weren't falsely accused either.

It's not a huge shock though to hear catholics blame her. That's their schtick.

How can you call her a victim after the verdict of the court? Complainant appears to be the correct term.

The prosecution called a third party witness who had never met any of the parties before and she witnessed the event and testified that to her it didn't look like rape. Surely the CPS knew she would say this, the commentary I've listening to said this basically was the key point of the trial.

[Lazare]

How can you call her a victim after the verdict of the court? Complainant appears to be the correct term.

The prosecution called a third party witness who had never met any of the parties before and she witnessed the event and testified that to her it didn't look like rape. Surely the CPS knew she would say this, the commentary I've listening to said this basically was the key point of the trial.

[Guest]

Nothing wrong with setting a new pay scale, and then grandfathering in older workers on whatever their payscale was. The old payscale included a bonus for people who got a third class degree - just to illustrate how flawed it was.

There's a decent argument to be made that top of the pay scale needs to be raised, but that needs to be based on merit and pedagogic leadership, not automatic increments each year.

On another note: I personally think it's not a good idea that kids are only being taught by women.

The raise in pay might attract more men!?

[dobby]

What's your angle on this one Jack?

Are you following the line of fellow catholics calling for her to be named and shamed?

People that claim to argue from a position of compassion with regard to the eighth.

The naming thing is sticking out to me. The 4 lads were named from the off even though it's innocent until proven guilty. I don't agree with naming and shaming a potential victim but I also don't think the 4 lads should have been named until found guilty. Think somebody said the same or similar earlier.

That goes for any type of case tbh, not just serious ones.

[jack90210]

Ugh are you really basing your opinion on that? There is some good commentary and radio pieces doing the rounds at the moment I suggest you select a better source for your information.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Theresa]

Nah. Come on Conor. So much of that is subjective, could corroborate both sides or is irrelevant.

[jack90210]

Do have an issue with this particular sentence (not the rest of the post). I've seen this written a few places, and it's really just not right to use.

They weren't found innocent indeed, but also there was no way for them to be found innocent. A court is not able to find anyone innocent, and has never found anyone innocent. So it doesn't seem correct to use that.

Agreed.

They were acquitted in under an hour each after a 9 week case. That's as close a message the jury can send as to their belief in their innocence.

[dobby]

Few things wrong with that, it was posted into a Facebook group earlier, have been avoiding the twitter machine. Glad I did now.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Lazare]

Nah. Come on Conor. So much of that is subjective, could corroborate both sides or is irrelevant.

It seems to be missed that I've stated I don't think either party is lying.

Do you think she's lying?

[Lazare]

The naming thing is sticking out to me. The 4 lads were named from the off even though it's innocent until proven guilty. I don't agree with naming and shaming a potential victim but I also don't think the 4 lads should have been named until found guilty. Think somebody said the same or similar earlier.

That goes for any type of case tbh, not just serious ones.

If it happened in this jurisdiction that would have been the case.

[Guest]

lol that tweet is some horseshit.

88% of porn contains violence against women...ergo everyone's a rapist.

[Theresa]

It seems to be missed that I've stated I don't think either party is lying.

Do you think she's lying?

I think both parties are lying in some ways.

edit: but I also think both parties are telling the truth in some ways.

[Lazare]

lol that tweet is some horseshit.

88% of porn contains violence against women...ergo everyone's a rapist.

I don't agree with that either tbh, but I stopped reading after the first six lines of it.

[dobby]

If it happened in this jurisdiction that would have been the case.

Really?

The 4 lads wouldn't have been named unless they were found guilty?

Genuine question, I've no idea about these things. I don't remember a case where the defendant wasn't named publicly though

[Guest]

It's not starting pay that is putting men off - that's easily demonstrable as they generally pick jobs that have lower starting pay (which is most jobs that aren't teaching). It's the longer term pay that is the issue. Why if you are smart and have a few options of what to do, would you pick a job where the salary maxes out at €55k? I think men in particular are focused on the long-term earnings when choosing a career due to their traditional mindset of need to be the breadwinner, hence why they avoid teaching like the plague.

I have a few smart male teacher friends and they wouldn't change their lifestyle whatsoever.
Outside of the Dublin/Cork you can have a very good life imo.
Two friends teacher couple, both permanent 6th payscale, 200k house in Waterford which gets you quite a lot. Both do a bit of tutoring on the side, nice cars, 2-3 hols a year. 30 hours a week, never losing your jobs, always get finance and all the hols, could be alot worse.

[Theresa]

It seems to be missed that I've stated I don't think either party is lying.

Do you think she's lying?

I think both parties are lying in some ways.

edit: but I also think both parties are telling the truth in some ways.

I also realize this is entirely unhelpful.

[V for Vendetta]

It's not starting pay that is putting men off - that's easily demonstrable as they generally pick jobs that have lower starting pay (which is most jobs that aren't teaching). It's the longer term pay that is the issue. Why if you are smart and have a few options of what to do, would you pick a job where the salary maxes out at €55k? I think men in particular are focused on the long-term earnings when choosing a career due to their traditional mindset of need to be the breadwinner, hence why they avoid teaching like the plague.

We live in a society where the majority of women primarily raise kids and pay a financial price for this. A teaching career is very compatible with rearing kids with the “financial hit” being taken by male and female teachers alike. Teaching is so much more attractive to females as a result. Very hard to overcome this without addressing the wider societal issues.

[Lazare]

Really?

The 4 lads wouldn't have been named unless they were found guilty?

Genuine question, I've no idea about these things. I don't remember a case where the defendant wasn't named publicly though

Media would have been forbidden to name them. It would most definitely leak though via social media, but it wouldn't get anything close to the coverage.

[Tar.Aldarion]

Really?

The 4 lads wouldn't have been named unless they were found guilty?

Genuine question, I've no idea about these things. I don't remember a case where the defendant wasn't named publicly though

Once a case goes to trial the papers can talk about their identity here, but not in case for sex related trials:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/untangling-the-vexed-question-of-anonymity-in-sex-cases-1.1708235

The recent prosecutions of British celebrities for sex offences have highlighted the differences between UK anonymity laws and those in Ireland, which prohibit the identification of rape accused before conviction.

The failed prosecutions of two Coronation Street actors have reignited a debate in the UK about whether rape accused should continue to be named pre-conviction. And while Ireland shows little desire to adopt the UK system, our anonymity laws are not without their problems.

Irish law states that those accused of rape can only be identified publicly if convicted.

However data shows that even after conviction, the majority of rapists are never named publicly, due to our strict rules protecting complainant’s identities.

An analysis of data from 2011 to present shows that 59 per cent of those convicted of sex crimes in the Central Criminal Court are not named in the media after conviction.

This is because identifying such people could lead to the identification of the victim, either because the offender was a relative, or could be easily linked to the victim in the mind of the public.

It is a feature of Irish sex crime that a huge proportion of sex offences occur within the family. In the data studied, 34 per cent of victims were abused by family members. In other words, naming the abuser in the media could very easily lead to victim identification.

However, sometimes victims will allow their abuser to be named even if it might identify them; the data shows that 15 per cent of those abused by a family member consented to their abuser being identified after conviction.

Irish law has a long established practice of demanding complete anonymity in rape cases before conviction. On the face of it, it appears to be an uncontroversial system; someone is only named if guilty and then only if it doesn’t identify the victim.

However an examination of the UK debate shows there are arguments to be made for removing automatic anonymity for accused. Victim campaigners claim that naming an alleged offender can lead to other complainants coming forward, as shown in the case of Jimmy Savile. They also see the granting of anonymity for accused rapists as perpetuating the myth that many women make false rape claims.

These arguments are curiously absent from the Irish debate; in fact there is little debate at all. One reason for this could be the size of our population.

Caroline Counihan of Rape Crisis Network Ireland (RCNI) feels that pre-trial anonymity for accused is vital in this country because Ireland is so small and many rape cases come from small rural communities.

“It can be difficult enough for the complainant who finally plucks up enough courage to go to the guards. It’s a nightmare, and it’s just not going to help if their rapist is named and shamed in the local or national press even before conviction,” she said.

Ms Counihan also believes our Constitution is a factor. The right to a citizen’s good name means that stripping anonymity pre-conviction “is simply not a runner here”. The Rape Crisis Centre takes the same position, while even Fiona Doyle, who was raped by her father for 10 years and went public after his conviction, is conflicted on the issue.

“I’m kind of for it and against it, I think my father was protected too much,” she said. “But I actually think it would be unfair to name them, because mistakes do happen and people have been accused in the wrong and I think it would be very unfair to label them as a rapist or paedophile.”

While it appears there isn’t much appetite for naming rape accused here, there are other issues in our anonymity laws which many would like to see changed, such as the seemingly arbitrary granting of anonymity for some sex crimes and not others.

Rape, defilement and incest offences are the only sex crimes that carry automatic pre-conviction immunity. There is no doubting rape is one of the most damaging crimes on the statute book, however in terms of violence and depravity it is often matched by the supposedly lesser offence of sexual assault.

This leaves us with the strange situation where a man accused of violently sexually assaulting a woman can be named while a man accused of raping her retains his anonymity. Surely both crimes are just as damaging to the good name of a person who is innocent until proven guilty.

Barrister and legal academic Tom O’Malley believes that when the law was introduced, the thinking was that sexual assault was seen as a more minor offence.

“The reasoning at the time was that in the hierarchy of sexual cases, it was seen as less serious, as reflected in the fact that at the time the sentence was five years,” he said.

“In recent years they’ve ratcheted up the seriousness of it and the penalties but they still haven’t seen fit to include the anonymity for the accused,” Mr O’Malley, of NUI Galway School of Law, added. “It’s something that could be looked at in future in any review of the sexual offences law.”

Senior counsel Sean Gillane has acted in many such cases and believes the current system “makes no sense at all”. “It just seems to be something that was overlooked,” he said. “They extended the protection for complainants from rape to include sexual offences generally but they never extended that protection for accused. There are many sexual assault cases which are, for want of a better phrase, worse than some of the rape cases you see.”

A second area for possible examination concerns the misconception that rape victims have a legal right to go public after their attacker is convicted.

Although the phrase “the victim waived their right to anonymity” is often seen in news reports, it is not entirely accurate. The Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 and its amendments grant no right to a victim to allow themselves be identified.

According to a document from the Law Reform Commission there are two reasons the law doesn’t include this provision. Firstly, it was thought that adding it could “sow confusion in the minds of complainants generally as to whether they could protect their identities in a rape prosecution”.

Secondly, it was thought that giving victims the option to go public might leave them open to “pressure or inducement to allow their identity to be revealed”.

Of course victims can, and often do, go public. A practice has arisen where a barrister for the DPP will tell the court at conviction that the victim wishes to “waive their right” and the judge consents.

Speaking from experience, Ms Doyle believes the decision shouldn’t be made by the judge.

“It’s a very personal choice,” she said. “I was quite annoyed and angered that I didn’t have the right to make the decision; it was put in someone else’s hands.”

Mr Gillane agrees that it shouldn’t be a decision for the court: “The odd feature of it is that it tends to be indicated in open court by counsel for the DPP. What has counsel for the DPP got to do with it?” he said. “Or indeed what has the court got to do with it? It’s just one of those practices that have grown up.”

Ms Counihan believes the system should be examined but points out that judges don’t tend to interfere with victim’s decisions. She said it would be better if the right was explicitly granted to the complainant and that the upcoming Victim’s Charter and the new Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill might provide the opportunities to do that.


The Rape Crisis Centre operate a 24-hour confidential support service on 1800 77 88 88.



In numbers: Sex crime convictions at Central Criminal Court from 2011 to February 7, 2014
150
Number of cases in total


59%
of those convicted (88) were not named


41%
of those convicted (62) were named


3%
of victims (5) consented to themselves being named


34%
of rapists (52) were related to the victim

[jack90210]

In ROI the accused can be named in sexual cases if the complainant gives up their right to not be named. Obviously a far better system.

[Lazare]

Do have an issue with this particular sentence (not the rest of the post). I've seen this written a few places, and it's really just not right to use.

They weren't found innocent indeed, but also there was no way for them to be found innocent. A court is not able to find anyone innocent, and has never found anyone innocent. So it doesn't seem correct to use that.

I was responding to them being termed 'the innocent party'

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Denny Crane]

No angle. Just thought all along obviously without the benefit of directly hearing the evidence that there never appeared to be any tangible proof it is head puzzler as to why the case was brought with such a lack of evidence. What's your line on it?

I have compassion for the innocent party which as a result of the verdict we can see is the falsey accused.

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent and falsely accused.