nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sbsquarepants

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. .

John Leslie (John fúcking Leslie of all people!) shoves his hand down a strangers trousers and your issue is with the metoo movement?

Has to be a wind up!

But sure I'll bite anyway. Em, no Olsky, it's just not acceptable to go shoving your hands wherever you feel like. John Leslie is a naughty boy.
I've noticed a lot of women are quite choosy about whose hand's they will and will not allow down their trousers, probably best to make sure you're on the list first before just sliding them on in there. Save yourself an awkward faux pas.

Ashbourne hoop

Conservatory wrote: »

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?

Absolute nonsense!!!

valoren

There's a major difference between squeezing someones bum while your dancing with them and actually putting your hand inside their clothes to do the same. A complaint about the former is a bit OTT but for the latter completely warranted.

sbsquarepants

razorblunt wrote: »

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".

That missus of yours, she's got quite the knack for understatement

Ashbourne hoop

valoren wrote: »

There's a major difference between squeezing someones bum while your dancing with them and actually putting your hand inside their clothes to do the same. A complaint about the former is a bit OTT but for the latter completely warranted.

This. Surely this isn't difficult to understand.

s7ryf3925pivug

This is one case where the concept of education about consent actually makes sense. In most contexts it strikes me as a nonsensical idea. But here there is a clear difference between what people have learned is acceptable and what is now deemed acceptable. (And not just Harvey Weinstein type acceptable in the sense people accepted it but it was clearly obviously wrong.)

Wibbs

kylith wrote: »

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

valoren wrote: »

There's a major difference between squeezing someones bum while your dancing with them and actually putting your hand inside their clothes to do the same.

Yep, there is to a point, though squeezing someones bum while your dancing with them? Did you seek consent? Only half joking.

Anyway this was apparently so traumatic and required the involvement of the police and court system yet yer wan can't even remember if he did what she's accusing him of doing? I quote: She said Mr Leslie touched her skin but she was not sure if he put his hand beneath her underwear. So not sure if said "crime" was committed. OK, well that's conclusive... Then claims her mates pulled her away from him which CCTV of the event shows to be untrue. She's about as reliable a witness to a crime she can't even remember happening as Stevie Wonder wearing headphones.

I would bet the farm if it had been John Smith of 1 Everyman Road, this would not be happening. She saw Mr Leslie when they entered the club and recognised him from TV.
Indeed. This is a nuisance case IMHO based entirely on his public profile and her looking for attention with her friends revving up the hysteria.

Yer man Leslie comes across as more than bit of a gobshite and creep going on his past. Hell he's so thick and lacking in self awareness that he ignores the fact his professional and personal life has gone around the U-Bend because he's seen a sleaze, yet puts himself in situations like that? Bloody moron.

However, that doesn't mean in this case he's not being hung out to dry on the back of this latest hashtag hysteria. The hashtag MeToo movement started out as a good thing IMHO, but as I predicted when it came out it would soon enough descend into farce as people egged each other on to feel the dopamine hit of being included as another "victim". Double hit if the accused is famous, if only Z list. And so it seems to have come to pass.

RacoonQueen

ash23 wrote: »

I can't believe that you think putting a hand on a shoulder is giving a green light to a hand in your trousers

I didn't say that. I said putting your hand on his shoulder while dancing with him is a green light that you're interested. He made a move that many people would not like, but you can be sure that plenty of women who were just up for sex wouldn't have been bothered by that move. He made a bad judgement on whether she how interested she was, his 'move' was a bit stupid but jeez I had guys do worse groping to me in clubs, I'd be pretty sure most women have.

If a man did that to me, he'd be pushed away, but I'd never turn around and call it assault.

ash23 wrote: »

Thankfully my boyfriend wouldn't dream of putting his hands into my trousers in public.

I think you missed my point. My point was does a partner get explicit consent before they puts the moves on or before putting their hands on you while you sit on the couch? Of course not.

Wibbs

ash23 wrote: »

And my point was that there is no way I would tolerate a man who, without so much as a kiss showing my interest, would stick his hands in my trousers and grope my arse.

I would agree.

If he put his arm around me on the sofa and i held his hand, I wouldn't expect his next move to be sticking his hand in my trousers.
It's not a logical or reasonable escalation of intimacy imo

I would hope that doesn't include your boyfriend.

Olsky

ash23 wrote: »

If he put his arm around me on the sofa and i held his hand, I wouldn't expect his next move to be sticking his hand in my trousers.
It's not a logical or reasonable escalation of intimacy imo

So your boyfriend requires explicit informed consent before he touches your bum while ye are sitting on the sofa. Would you consider a formal complaint for sexual assault if he touched your bottom without your consent?

ash23

Olsky wrote: »

So your boyfriend requires explicit informed consent before he touches your bum while ye are sitting on the sofa. Would you consider a formal complaint for sexual assault if he touched your bottom without your consent?

Sigh. I've been quite clear that I don't think it's acceptable to go from a level of touching such as hand holding to a level of touching such as hands in trousers without some sort of encouragement on my part.

And back to what is actually being discussed which is a relative stranger in a public place putting his hands in a woman's trousers where the only "encouragement" she has given to reciprocate his physical contact is to agree to dance and put a hand on his shoulder.

Canis Lupus

ash23 wrote: »

If he put his arm around me on the sofa and i held his hand, I wouldn't expect his next move to be sticking his hand in my trousers.
It's not a logical or reasonable escalation of intimacy imo

I won't lie to you Marge, that's weird.

Maxpfizer

Wibbs wrote: »

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

claims her mates pulled her away from him which CCTV of the event shows to be untrue

That's the most amazing thing to me about the case even making it to court.

The CCTV evidence proves that her story is false and doesn't prove that what she says happened even happened.

She even says herself that she is not sure if he did what she is accusing him of doing.

Wouldn't she be the key witness here?

How does that even become a legitimate court case?

Wibbs

Maxpfizer wrote: »

How does that even become a legitimate court case?

In a time of witch hunts, everything starts to look like and is treated as if witches are everywhere. It's cultural hysteria 101 and history is full of examples of it. About the two biggest drivers of culture in history are the Mob(tm) and the Money(tm), so it can be a handy filter to view any current movement. A more fitting example would be the communist witch hunts of 1950's America. Were there communists in the US at the time? Yes, there were, but the hysteria of the mob egged on by vested interests and a few loonies saw them everywhere. Add in a bit of a swing back to "victorian values" after the sexual revolution, Tumblr "feminists" wanting to have their cake and eat it and flicking their bean thinking The Handmaid's Tale is a documentary and so here were are today with our own reds rapists under the bed.

Paddy Cow

ash23 wrote: »

It's up to the court to decide if it happened or not.
I was just commenting in response to the "no big deal, its to be expected in a club etc" comments.
I have no idea if he did it or if she is lying. The court will decide.

In terms of the work situation I meant if the hug was consensual does it mean it's ok to then progress to hands down trousers. And of course it isn't. So why would a woman agreeing to dance with a man mean hands down trousers is an ok next move. It's quite the leap and bang out of order to assume a person who talked to you and agreed to dance with you then wants your hands in their pants.

There might be a situation where someone is trying to suss someone out and thinks they like them but then changes their mind and doesn't want to kiss them or be with them. Them spending time talking, dancing or even flirting with someone doesn't give an open door to that kind of physical contact.

How on earth can you say that? She exaggerated the situation and said her friend dragged her away after he assaulted her. CCTC clearly shows them dancing and she leaves him. No one should have their lives destroyed by being convicted of a sexual assault based on lies.

I absolutely despise people who a) sexually assault others and b) wrongly accuse others of sexual assault. Both deserve their convictions and jail terms. This particular case should not have ended up in court. The star witness is a liar who doesn't even know where he put his hands. This is not someone who was clearly assaulted. We only have her word to go on and she can't even get her story straight.

All women should not be automatically believed. They should be heard but a story as flimsy as this should not lead to a conviction for sexual assault.

Maxpfizer

ash23 wrote: »

If someone who didn't pay their TV licence or who stole a twenty quid bottle of booze from an off licence can end up in court, surely someone who groped someone without consent can't be seen as too trivial for court?

That's not a true representation here though is it.

It would be like the TV License collectors saying "maybe he did pay his license, we think maybe he didn't but we can't say for sure" then the cops looking at the evidence and seeing it's inconclusive but still proceeding with a prosecution anyway.

Or maybe the shop owner says "I think one bottle of booze is missing from our stock but I'm not sure but if it was taken then I am sure it was taken by the accused" then they say "the accused quickly ran out of the shop at 3pm without buying anything". When the cops look at the CCTV they see the accused paying for some goods and calmly leaving the shop but they still go to trial because who knows... maybe a jury will just decide that the accused stole the bottle of booze with no evidence?

In this case what is going on?

John Leslie, a former Blue Peter presenter has gone on trial accused of putting his hand down a woman’s trousers and touching her buttocks as they danced in a nightclub in Edinburgh in June 2017.

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

a mixed profile was found on the trouser waistband likely made up of touch DNA from the woman, Mr Leslie and two other “minor contributors”.

DNA could be passed indirectly from holding hands during by dancing but said direct contact with the inside of the waistband was more likely.

The results from the pants and tutu were inconclusive

it's possible for Mr Leslie’s DNA to be passed from one item of clothing to another (secondary transfer).

The woman told the court a friend pulled her away and then danced briefly with her hen party to “pretend it hadn’t happened”.

CCTV of the pair dancing in the busy club was played to the court and the woman said it could not be seen exactly when the alleged sexual assault happened.

the CCTV footage showed the dance with Mr Leslie ended “voluntarily” rather than with a friend’s intervention.

What's going on? She's not really sure if he did it and her story is contradicted by the CCTV footage but it still goes to trial? Why?

Wibbs

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I won't lie to you Marge, that's weird.

You need consent classes Ted. Off to the gulag for reeducation. Again only half joking.

I am fully behind the levels of WTF when any stranger takes advantage and liberties, but when it gets to that kinda level within a romantic relationship? Jesus. If any partner of mine had expected my permission for her to escalate intimacy I'd have thought them more than odd. Vice versa would have had me looking to the door in short order. Talk about taking the spontaneity, fun and basic joy out of it. I must now seek out that panacea of the modern western world counselling for those times girlfriends had roused me from my slumber with some happy mouth time. Though mustering and sustaining a straight face would be beyond impossible.

Maxpfizer

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.

Here's an idea: Learn to read.

TerrorFirmer

Asked by fiscal depute Fiona Nairn how she feels now, the woman said it had affected her relationship with her husband, friends and work.

Even though she can't even get her own story straight and her claims are not supported by CCTV.

This case seems nonsensical to me and only pursued because of who he is.

Wibbs

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What's going on? She's not really sure if he did it and her story is contradicted by the CCTV footage but it still goes to trial? Why?

#alwaysbelievewomen(except when they don't fit the narrative).

Court scene earlier.

johnnyskeleton

kylith wrote: »

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

This is how male female intimate relations is to work from now on:

wakka12

Seems like a huge over reaction

Wibbs

"Asked by fiscal depute Fiona Nairn how she feels now, the woman said it had affected her relationship with her husband, friends and work."

A "crime" she can't even remember occurring, a story she spun that CCTV makes a lair of her and she's "traumatised" to the degree its affecting her life to that extent? Peak hysterics right there and what happens when culture celebrates victimhood and paints women as weak neurotics who are too delicate to survive without constant support and oversight. This trial would have worked in Victorian times and it's crazy how this view of women by too damned many is so current and so believed. Irony all over the bloody place.

Canis Lupus

Wibbs wrote: »

You need consent classes Ted. Off to the gulag for reeducation. Again only half joking.

I am fully behind the levels of WTF when any stranger takes advantage and liberties, but when it gets to that kinda level within a romantic relationship? Jesus. If any partner of mine had expected my permission for her to escalate intimacy I'd have thought them more than odd. Vice versa would have had me looking to the door in short order. Talk about taking the spontaneity, fun and basic joy out of it. I must now seek out that panacea of the modern western world counselling for those times girlfriends had roused me from my slumber with some happy mouth time. Though mustering and sustaining a straight face would be beyond impossible.

And who creates these consent classes? Ash who thinks she needs a step by step process from hand holding through to kissing before allowing her partner to touch her bum

Or me who literally can't sleep unless I'm grabbing my GFs ass

Maxpfizer

ash23 wrote: »

His DNA is on the inside of her pants which backs up her accusation.

Except it doesn't back up her accusation.

1 - Secondary transfer of DNA is possible. Meaning that if his DNA is on other items of clothing close to or in contact with the item in question (which it was) then there could be some transfer.

2 - a mixed profile was found on the trouser waistband likely made up of touch DNA from the woman, Mr Leslie and two other minor contributors. So there are 2 other people who should be involved in this also?

3 - The presence of the DNA is not proof that there was no consent. They have to prove that the DNA got there as a result of a non-consensual interaction.

EagererBeaver

Ipso wrote: »

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?

I heard some guy got killed in New York City and they never solved the case. But you wouldn't know anything about that now, would you, Steve?

Wibbs

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Or me who literally can't sleep unless I'm grabbing my GFs ass

Late evening in the Lupus household.

Define%2Bthe%2Bterm%2Bcontract%2Band%2Bagreement%2Bdiscuss%2Bthe%2Bessential%2Bof%2Bvalid%2Bcontract%2Bor%2Bdescribe%2Bthe%2Brequirements%2Bof%2Ba%2Bvalid%2Bcontract.jpg

Define%2Bthe%2Bterm%2Bcontract%2Band%2Bagreement%2Bdiscuss%2Bthe%2Bessential%2Bof%2Bvalid%2Bcontract%2Bor%2Bdescribe%2Bthe%2Brequirements%2Bof%2Ba%2Bvalid%2Bcontract.jpg

[Deleted User]

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not a hope. Sure look at the Game of Thrones actress who claimed she was sexually assaulted to a degree which was an impossibility. Astonishing that it ever seen the inside of a court.

That guy's name was Mark Pearson. Unbelievable what he had to go through. Did the CPS ever apologise to him I wonder? Whoever in the CPS thought that this was worth a court case deserves to lose their job quite frankly.

[Deleted User]

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said putting your hand on his shoulder while dancing with him is a green light that you're interested. He made a move that many people would not like, but you can be sure that plenty of women who were just up for sex wouldn't have been bothered by that move. He made a bad judgement on whether she how interested she was, his 'move' was a bit stupid but jeez I had guys do worse groping to me in clubs, I'd be pretty sure most women have.

If a man did that to me, he'd be pushed away, but I'd never turn around and call it assault.

I think you missed my point. My point was does a partner get explicit consent before they puts the moves on or before putting their hands on you while you sit on the couch? Of course not.

I don't think "someone who wanted it would have wanted it" is reasonable to apply to someone who didn't

10000maniacs

Conservatory wrote: »

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

Ulri Ka-Ka-Ka-Ka -Ka -Ka
As she downs a pint of lager in one gulp.