John Leslie Trial - Accused of touching woman's bum in nightclub

Olsky

In my opinion the puritanism and sexual repression demanded by the #metoo movement has begun to exceed anything achieved by the catholic church at the height of their powers or the victorian puritans centuries ago. Having largely succeeded in getting rid of any flirting or physical contact "in the workplace" they have now turned their attention to "inappropriate" touching in nightclubs. Any like any orthodoxy people are terrified of challenging it. Read the court report on the trial below and give your opinion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/18/john-leslie-goes-trial-accused-nightclub-sex-assault/

Your Face

Yet the electricity is still on.

Chaos Tourist

Was the Cheeky Girls song playing in the nightclub?

nullzero

What qualifies somebody as a "minor contributor" when the inside of a woman's underpants are concerned?

Brae100

There's more to this. There's possibly very serious previous.

Conservatory

He went for it she said no chance bucko. It’s not like he ran out from under a park bench and pulled at her hoop. He misread a few signals.

Every teenage boy in the country has tried to put his hands down a girls trousers only for her to grab the hand and put it somewhere less fun. Should we lock them all up?

nullzero

Brae100 wrote: »

There's more to this. There's possibly very serious previous.

Previous?

Conservatory

Brae100 wrote: »

There's more to this. There's possibly very serious previous.

Oh right.

There’s more to this somebody might have previously done something.

odyssey06

This is like trying to get Al Capone for tax evasion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrika_Jonsson#Autobiography_and_John_Leslie_scandal

Olsky

Olsky wrote: »

In my opinion the puritanism and sexual repression demanded by the #metoo movement has begun to exceed anything achieved by the catholic church at the height of their powers or the victorian puritans centuries ago. Having largely succeeded in getting rid of any flirting or physical contact "in the workplace" they have now turned their attention to "inappropriate" touching in nightclubs. Any like any orthodoxy people are terrified of challenging it. Read the court report on the trial below and give your opinion.

If you can't tell the difference between sexual assault and flirting, then maybe it's indeed for the best that you don't do either.

Conservatory

odyssey06 wrote: »

This is like trying to get Al Capone for tax evasion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrika_Jonsson#Autobiography_and_John_Leslie_scandal

Ulrika has a terrible time with every man that left her didn’t she.

Olsky

bluewolf wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between sexual assault and flirting, then maybe it's indeed for the best that you don't do either.

There is no objective difference according to #metoo orthodoxy.

The subjective interpretation of the woman is what is to be used to decide on whether punishment is merited.

Oasis1974

That guy was close friends with Jimmy Saville its been alleged many weekends they spent in that Looney bin hospital in Leeds. Dirty Den also named and shamed is being brought back from the dead so to speak. Watch this space.

nullzero

bluewolf wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between sexual assault and flirting, then maybe it's indeed for the best that you don't do either.

From the description he was knocked back immediately, it doesn't sound like he made a concerted effort to rape this woman or assault her in any demonstrable manner. Yes he should have kept his hands to himself but men and women touch each other in inappropriate ways in nightclubs all the time.
In this case the definition of sexual assault is being taken to an extreme. He needed to be told to keep his hands to himself and if he had continued his behavior then he would have been guilty of harassment. We're not talking about flirting of sexual assault here, we're talking about somebody reading a situation incorrectly. Frankly statements like yours are not helpful in clarifying situations like this. When a man you care about is accused incorrectly of sexually assaulting a woman you may feel differently.
Situations like this serve to set divisions between men and women at a point in time when we should be moving beyond such petty nonsense to real equality.

Conservatory

Oasis1974 wrote: »

That guy was close friends with Jimmy Saville its been alleged many weekends they spent in that Looney bin hospital in Leeds. Dirty Den also named and shamed is being brought back from the dead so to speak. Watch this space.

Is this how trials work now? Just make stuff up in the hope the jury see it?

Olsky

Brae100 wrote: »

There's possibly very serious previous.

odyssey06 wrote: »

This is like trying to get Al Capone for tax evasion?

Oasis1974 wrote: »

That guy was close friends with Jimmy Saville

Agree he's not the nicest character. How about though we stick to the facts of the case. He is on trial for allegedly touching a woman's bum in a nightclub.

sabat

Why would you choose Leslie as your stage name?

Ipso

Oasis1974 wrote: »

That guy was close friends with Jimmy Saville its been alleged many weekends they spent in that Looney bin hospital in Leeds. Dirty Den also named and shamed is being brought back from the dead so to speak. Watch this space.

There were some murders in 1974 and you have that year in your username, care to explain yourself?

Conservatory

sabat wrote: »

Why would you choose Leslie as your stage name?

According to people in Germany close friends of Hitler called themselves Leslie. The facts are coming out soon but not now.

soups05

#metoo takes o a different light when you realise that the symbol #, commonly called hashtag was once known as the pound symbol.

but pound me too has a totally different connotation to it.

odyssey06

Olsky wrote: »

Agree he's not the nicest character. How about though we stick to the facts of the case. He is on trial for allegedly touching a woman's bum in a nightclub.

Taking a step back from that, I think people are a little dubious and thinking that if this was some random Joe Bloggs this might not have ended up in court.

So he is, and isn't, on trial for that.

And I know jury members are supposed to ignore rumours about past conduct but... well, will they?

Oasis1974

Ipso wrote: »

There were some murders in 1974 and you have that year in your username, care to explain yourself?

Its in remembrance of Coal Mining Strike in blighty actually the auld fellow was working there.

soiseztomabel

I wonder will Abi Titmuss weight in...

Tom Mann Centuria

No idea of his guilt or innocence in this, but I do know his filming of his famous " home movie" was substandard.

Tom Mann Centuria

No idea of his guilt or innocence in this, but I do know his filming of his famous " home movie" was substandard. A crime against pornography.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Oasis1974 wrote: »

Its in remembrance of Coal Mining Strike in blighty actually the auld fellow was working there.

Your auld fella was working in the mines during the strike?
Scab.

Olsky

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

No idea of his guilt or innocence in this, but .....

The question is though, should touching a woman's bottom after she has asked you to dance with her in a nightclub be a criminal offence worthy of a trial by jury and a custodial sentence for sexual assault.

The priests and nuns of auld Ireland would be very proud and envious of the achievements of #metoo

.

soiseztomabel

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

No idea of his guilt or innocence in this, but I do know his filming of his famous " home movie" was substandard. A crime against pornography.

Seconded .....Woeful.

kylith

Here's an idea: check if it's ok before putting your hand down someone's underwear.

AllForIt

In the current climate NOW is the best time to bring retrospective cases to court.

I wonder what kind of nightclub is was btw. I recall Paul Daniels (the deceased magician) on some TV show I can't recall what it was, but he was taken to a nightclub and he said he hated those sorts of places - it's just a pick up joint - a dive. I think he understood what the whole place was about and he's right.

I would have though touching someone on the bum in a dive would be on the lower end of the spectrum of what goes on in those types of places. Now, it may have been some classy joint - but believe me a classy joint can still be a dive. No one really goes to nightclubs to listen to pumping music for hours on end.

Paddy Cow

Olsky wrote: »

The question is though, should touching a woman's bottom after she has asked you to dance with her in a nightclub be a criminal offence worthy of a trial by jury and a custodial sentence for sexual assault.

The priests and nuns of auld Ireland would be very proud and envious of the achievements of #metoo

.

No it shouldn't. It's ridiculous the amount of money that will have been spent on this. Man and woman dance together intimately in nightclub. Man touches woman's bottom. Woman breaks away from dancing and leaves him. End of situation. Now if he had acted aggressive and started pawing her or trying to French kiss her after she made it clear she wasn't interest, that would be different.

It's nonsense like this that is going to do more harm to victims than good. If his name wasn't John Leslie would it have even warranted police intervention after the woman spoke to the bouncers? If we believe everything in the op, then the woman's story doesn't add up. She said her friend pulled her away but CCTV doesn't support this. How did this even end up in court?

Losty Dublin

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

No idea of his guilt or innocence in this, but I do know his filming of his famous " home movie" was substandard. A crime against pornography.

"Blue" Peter?

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Here's an idea: check if it's ok before putting your hand down someone's underwear.

Maybe a consent form on black paper written in UV ink? Get one of the bouncers' stamps then to make it real official like.

Outlaw Pete

kylith wrote: »

Here's an idea: check if it's ok before putting your hand down someone's underwear.

---

She said Mr Leslie touched her skin but she was not sure if he put his hand beneath her underwear.

RacoonQueen

Maybe it wasn't reported well by the journalist but this seems a little...extreme. Must be pretty crappy for 'famous' men as everything they do seems to be put down as sexual assault / harassment. Some men do and say inappropriate things regularly, so do some women...you tell them its inappropriate / tell them to go f*ck themselves. Going to court over it is a little extreme.

Based on a lot of these stories there is not one woman out there who hasn't been sexually assaulted numerous times, which is a little insulting to people who have actually had traumatic experiences.

edit: More here so he told er 'careful you're getting married' so probably thought she was coming on to him. CCTV footage goes not show a friend intervening.

ash23

He put his hand into her trousers. Possibly over her underwear, possibly under.

How anyone thinks it's ok to ask someone to dance and without any encouragement from them to take it further (like a kiss) to just stick their hand down your trousers?

Just because it was a niteclub doesn't mean it was ok. Women and men don't sign away their right to not be groped when they enter a bar or club.

The sooner people stop downplaying this kind of crap the sooner it will stop. She consented to dance with him. That doesn't automatically give him the right to put his hand up her top, down her trousers or anywhere else.
Should it end up in court? I'm not sure. It seems a bit extreme but then again, if it's just dismissed as a rejection he will carry on behaving that way.
He will get a slap on the wrist if found guilty. But at least it will show society that this kind of behaviour is not at all acceptable and not just harmless flirtation

ConnyMcDavid

He's not going to be found guilty. Already a proven lie/exaggeration in the story. She said her friends dragged her away from him but video shows she left voluntarily.

nullzero

ash23 wrote: »

He put his hand into her trousers. Possibly over her underwear, possibly under.

How anyone thinks it's ok to ask someone to dance and without any encouragement from them to take it further (like a kiss) to just stick their hand down your trousers?

Just because it was a niteclub doesn't mean it was ok. Women and men don't sign away their right to not be groped when they enter a bar or club.

The sooner people stop downplaying this kind of crap the sooner it will stop. She consented to dance with him. That doesn't automatically give him the right to put his hand up her top, down her trousers or anywhere else.
Should it end up in court? I'm not sure. It seems a bit extreme but then again, if it's just dismissed as a rejection he will carry on behaving that way.
He will get a slap on the wrist if found guilty. But at least it will show society that this kind of behaviour is not at all acceptable and not just harmless flirtation

How to we implement ways of dealing with people not seeking permission for a kiss?
Should we have people sign consent forms witnessed by independent adjudicators prior to a dance?

The thing is that downplaying this type of crap is exactly what should be done. When an adult enters a nightclub they are in an environment where other people are present many of whom are attempting to pick up another person. If you dance closely with somebody there is a chance they might attempt to kiss you etc... We are all aware of this, we don't need our hands held walking into these places and we are all old enough to know what goes on in them.
What is described in this case is a man making an advance and being denied, had he perused the situation he would have changed the dynamic to where he was actively engaging in harassment and would deserve to be punished.
Saying this type of situation needs to be brought through court just to give somebody a slap on the wrist is completely out of touch with reality, do you invision a world in which all such situations are dealt with in this manner? Do you understand how ridiculous that notion is?

padser

ash23 wrote: »

He will get a slap on the wrist if found guilty. But at least it will show society that this kind of behaviour is not at all acceptable and not just harmless flirtation

That's a pretty cavalier attitude to a man being convicted of sexual assault which could carry a prison sentence. Particularly given you admit your own uncertainty over whether he has done something worthy of ending up in court.

I certainly wouldn't regard it as a "slap on the wrist" if I was convicted of it.

Men convicted of sexual offences are rightly stripped of their reputations. The fact this is going to happen means that two things really need to be true

1) the offence should be worthy of that repercussion
2) the offence should be proved beyond reasonable doubt

Based on the OP - it's really difficult to believe either of those are true here.

razorblunt

I've seen him out and about Edinburgh alright, hitting on anything at the bar.
The wife came back from the bar one night saying "why do I know yer man?". I told her who he was and she replied "he's a bit of a creep".

Hanging around the bride on a hen though. With his profile too!

Tigger

ash23 wrote: »

If it were a workplace and someone hugged a person and slipped their hand into their trousers would that be ok? We should just shrug it off?
Why should we accept someone over stepping the mark in a bar or a club?

Clubs are the absolute pits for this kind of stuff. Being pinned against walls, having your attempt to get to the bar or toilet blocked by someone who won't take no for an answer, actively struggling to get away from someone.
But that's all deemed as fine because you chose to go there so you must be looking for something? It is acceptable?
Nope, sorry, will never think that kind of behaviour is ok.

Did he do any of those things ?

Canis Lupus

ash23 wrote: »

He put his hand into her trousers. Possibly over her underwear, possibly under.

How anyone thinks it's ok to ask someone to dance and without any encouragement from them to take it further (like a kiss) to just stick their hand down your trousers?

Just because it was a niteclub doesn't mean it was ok. Women and men don't sign away their right to not be groped when they enter a bar or club.

The sooner people stop downplaying this kind of crap the sooner it will stop. She consented to dance with him. That doesn't automatically give him the right to put his hand up her top, down her trousers or anywhere else.
Should it end up in court? I'm not sure. It seems a bit extreme but then again, if it's just dismissed as a rejection he will carry on behaving that way.
He will get a slap on the wrist if found guilty. But at least it will show society that this kind of behaviour is not at all acceptable and not just harmless flirtation

Weird... I've had cases where I was dancing, woman comes up, dances closer, hands go places during the dance, you score. I mean.... that's how it works. But that's sexual assault in your eyes..... I'm glad I'm well out of the dating game. I'd want to bring a solicitor and 2 witnesses with camera it seems nowadays.

Olsky

kylith wrote: »

Here's an idea: check if it's ok before putting your hand down someone's underwear.

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe a consent form on black paper written in UV ink? Get one of the bouncers' stamps then to make it real official like.

The exact action being consented to would also have to be specified on the form. In the it s case ,"touching bum" Breathalyzer tests would also be required before the dance to ensure that it was "informed" consent.

Canis Lupus

ash23 wrote: »

No I don't believe that is how it works. I don't remember anyone ever going from dancing to hands down pants.
It was usually dancing, getting closer, going in for a kiss and either bring rejected or getting the kiss. Then maybe after a bit of kissing a hand might wander lower and either get the green light or the red.

Someone sticking their hand down your trousers straight off the bat is just plain aggressive and unwarranted.

So we have different life experiences. What a crazy world we live in.

nullzero

ash23 wrote: »

No I don't believe that is how it works. I don't remember anyone ever going from dancing to hands down pants.
It was usually dancing, getting closer, going in for a kiss and either bring rejected or getting the kiss. Then maybe after a bit of kissing a hand might wander lower and either get the green light or the red.

Someone sticking their hand down your trousers straight off the bat is just plain aggressive and unwarranted.

You don't remember?
Seriously, you need to get real.
This notion of petty issues like this being treated as sexual assault and being brought through the judicial system is ridiculous.
As for arguing that if it happened in an office what would the response be, I have heard some weak arguments in my time but this is particularly poor. We also have a vague understanding of the time line involved here so making assumptions that things happened straight off the bat is potentially inaccurate as well.

nullzero

ash23 wrote: »

So one woman might want your advances. Another woman might not. If you stick your hands down someone's trousers and that person does not want that to happen, you're leaving yourself open to exactly what happened here.

No man or woman should stick their hands down anyone elses trousers without knowing that attention is warranted. It's pretty straightforward really.

I'm not saying this is what happened. That's up to a court to decide

But for those saying it's too extreme, how should we then deal with men or women who grope or grab people inappropriately? Just let them move on to the next person who doesn't want their advances? As long as it's not me it's ok?

You've convinced me, let's get all people who touch inappropriately up in front of a judge right away, there is no other logical way of dealing with this epidemic.

ash23

nullzero wrote: »

You don't remember?
Seriously, you need to get real.
This notion of petty issues like this being treated as sexual assault and being brought through the judicial system is ridiculous.
As for arguing that if it happened in an office what would the response be, I have heard some weak arguments in my time but this is particularly poor. We also have a vague understanding of the time line involved here so making assumptions that things happened straight off the bat is potentially inaccurate as well.

She was talking to him. Then she agreed to dance with him. Then he put his hands inside of her trousers. Whether she danced with him for ten seconds or ten minutes, it's a bit much to go from dancing to hand down trousers without any preamble.

ash23

nullzero wrote: »

You've convinced me, let's get all people who touch inappropriately up in front of a judge right away, there is no other logical way of dealing with this epidemic.

That's not an answer. How do we deal with it if not through the courts? Ignore it?
On the spot fine? Or the person who was touched when they didn't want to be just chalks it up to something acceptable?

ceadaoin.

PSA -Most women in a nightclub would not like a man they've just met to stick his hands down her pants, even if she has previously been dancing with him. If this constitutes part of your flirting routine then you might want to rethink that.

How is randomly groping women like this not being a sex pest? I mean the strike rate must be pretty high. As someone said earlier, do they just keep trying women until someone doesn't push them away?

I don't know about going to court with it but it's pretty dire behaviour that should stop really

nullzero

ash23 wrote: »

That's not an answer. How do we deal with it if not through the courts? Ignore it?
On the spot fine? Or the person who was touched when they didn't want to be just chalks it up to something acceptable?

The person it happened to in this case got away from the man in question. I have been touched inappropriately by women and yes I have had to chalk it up to being unacceptable, and anecdotally I've had women do things in the workplace as well which I've had to say I wasn't happy with and move past.
Going to court for this type of thing is not realistic in every case and I think you should realise that even though you are re arguing for it.
Real sexual assault cases deserve to not be trivialized by this nonsense.

nullzero

ash23 wrote: »

So something is wrong and not acceptable. But we should just ignore it and of anyone chooses to not ignore it, they are vilified and told they should just put up with it. And the person continues to do it because they can.

So while court might seem excessive, that is the legal system. It's how we decide if someone did something wrong and if they should be punished for it.
If there is another way that offers a better solution and isn't "ignore it" I'm all for it.

When it happens the person it happens to says it isn't acceptable, that is how human interaction works.
You are proposing a situation in which the criminal courts should be full of cases of people groping in nightclubs which will clog up the judicial system and prevent real criminals from being prosecuted, including sexual offenders.
You need to realize the gravity of what you are proposing and realize that people do have to make their own stand on such relatively trivial issues. You aren't proposing something that can be implemented so I would like to hear a real solution from you instead of you taking the moral high ground and pontificating ad naseum about wanting other solutions.