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

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Embarrassing stuff from the usual neanderthals on here.

Is it ok to stick your hands down someone's pants after you've danced with them, without invitation or any preceding escalation in the, em, courtship? No. Absolutely not. Is that what happened here? Who knows? That's why it's in court.

Stop saying "the CCTV proves she lied" about how the encounter ended. Nothing has been proven. The defence barrister has put it to her that CCTV contradicts her version of events that she was pulled away from him by friends. If you are unable to understand the difference, I'd suggest you're a bit of a mouth-breathing moron.

I think only one person said he did nothing wrong. The rest of us were saying that while it was inappropriate, it was hardly a matter for court.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think only one person said he did nothing wrong. The rest of us were saying that while it was inappropriate, it was hardly a matter for court.

Plenty saying she was asking for it by being in a nightclub

s/plenty/a couple posters/

Mokuba

bluewolf wrote: »

Plenty saying she was asking for it by being in a nightclub

More like by flirtatiously dancing with him and admittedly touching him herself.

He tried to progress the situation, in a way she can't even remember and she turned him down.

That should be the end of it.

bluewolf wrote: »

Plenty saying she was asking for it by being in a nightclub

Ah here we go folks. Pack your bags for the Victim Blaming Bus. Took long enough to come as busses often will.

What some said was that nightclubs are well known by all but the most naive as meat markets as much as dance spaces and that this sort of thing was far more likely to happen in a nightclub. We'll ignore the ones who said imagine if this happened at work as if they're the same kind of environment... Nobody and I mean nobody said she was "asking for it". That's just more of your usual misrepresentative nonsense on such matters.

sbsquarepants

Cienciano wrote: »

Out of interest, suppose he 100% did put his hand down her waistband while dancing with her. What do you think the punishment for should be?

I honestly don't know.

A good kick in the bollox I think would be appropriate, but I'm not sure how the court would view that!

What do you think the punishment should be?
Or should there even be one?

Cienciano wrote: »

I didn't expect an answer

Sorry, I only copped your post looking back over the thread.

nullzero wrote: »

I have been groped by women, do I consider it sexual assault? No, because it isn't.
It isn't right that somebody should grope you but it isn't in the category of sexual assault and to say it is dilutes the meaning on the term.

If someone puts hands or other body parts on you without your permission it's assault. If the person gropes you ie uses hands or other body parts on you without your permission to make indecent contact for their sexual gratification it's legally sexual assault.
You may not consider that it as sexual assault but legally it is.
Most people who are charged with serious sexual assaults don't start off by jumping on someone who has to fight them off. It would normally start with not respecting that the other person has a right not to be touched.

I don't get the weird idea that it's wrong to check that a partner is ok with what is happening by using words. If the person can't do that, then prehaps they need to question if they should be doing what they are doing with the person they are doing it with.

bluewolf wrote: »

Plenty saying she was asking for it by being in a nightclub

s/plenty/a couple posters/

Please quote one person who said "she was asking for it for being in a nightclub".

Glass fused light wrote: »

I don't get the weird idea that it's wrong to check that a partner is ok with what is happening by using words. If the person can't do that, then prehaps they need to question if they should be doing what they are doing with the person they are doing it with.

A partner? So in a previous post I noted girlfriends who woke me up from sleep in a sexual manner. I didn't ask them to do so, I certainly didn't extend any vocalised permission to them, or have some back and forth consent debate on what I would or wouldn't be into. Have I been sexually assaulted? If I did similar with a girlfriend would she have a case?

TBH I would view anybody who would suggest I was within an asses roar of being sexually assaulted as addled in the head.

nullzero wrote: »

Please quote one person who said "she was asking for it for being in a nightclub".

Same poster as the dunne was referring to, on reading back. "tacit understanding that nightclubs are for mating rituals"

Another saying men are just sleazy in clubs and that's how it is. Seems a bit unfair

nullzero wrote: »

Please quote one person who said "she was asking for it for being in a nightclub".

bluewolf wrote: »

Same poster as the dunne was referring to, on reading back. "tacit understanding that nightclubs are for mating rituals"

I'd suggest not taking up any role as a translator in the EU anytime soon as even within your native language it's not quite there yet.

Glass fused light wrote: »

If someone puts hands or other body parts on you without your permission it's assault. If the person gropes you ie uses hands or other body parts on you without your permission to make indecent contact for their sexual gratification it's legally sexual assault.
You may not consider that it as sexual assault but legally it is.
Most people who are charged with serious sexual assaults don't start off by jumping on someone who has to fight them off. It would normally start with not respecting that the other person has a right not to be touched.

I don't get the weird idea that it's wrong to check that a partner is ok with what is happening by using words. If the person can't do that, then prehaps they need to question if they should be doing what they are doing with the person they are doing it with.

Some people are tactile and use touch as a part of their communication. Not every touch that hasn't been signed off on a consent form is assault. Not every indiscretion is sexual assault.

Look up the non lethal offenses against the person act 1997 for clarification.

Canis Lupus

bluewolf wrote: »

Same poster as the dunne was referring to, on reading back. "tacit understanding that nightclubs are for mating rituals"

Another saying men are just sleazy in clubs and that's how it is. Seems a bit unfair

Question. If you went into a nightclub and danced with a bloke you didn't know would you expect him to think:

A: You saw him dancing, really liked his moves and thought your dancing would compliment his nicely.

B: Likely interested in him with intentions to take it further than a dance.

bluewolf wrote: »

Same poster as the dunne was referring to, on reading back. "tacit understanding that nightclubs are for mating rituals"

Another saying men are just sleazy in clubs and that's how it is. Seems a bit unfair

You haven't quoted what I asked for. Don't be obtuse, answer the request please.

Pintman Paddy Losty

nullzero wrote: »

You haven't quoted what I asked for. Don't be obtuse, answer the request please.

Course she won't because she was talking out her hole.

kylith

Mokuba wrote: »

More like by flirtatiously dancing with him and admittedly touching him herself.

_On the shoulder_. In what world is putting your hand on someone’s shoulder an invitation for them to put their hand down your trousers?

nullzero wrote: »

Some people are tactile and use touch as a part of their communication. Not every touch that hasn't been signed off on a consent form is assault. Not every indiscretion is sexual assault.

Look up the non lethal offenses against the person act 1997 for clarification.

Yes well as I explained to an old tactile boss who used touch as part of communication, I was not a tactile person and had a large personal body space around me and that my unfortunate but reflex action to having someone pat my knee could result in facial injury for that someone. Funny enough we came to an agreement that he would work on his communication skills and I should sit out of arms reach.

Is indiscretion one of those PC words like happy slapping and collatral damage?

Glass fused light wrote: »

Yes well as I explained to an old tactile boss who used touch as part of communication, I was not a tactile person and had a large personal body space around me and that my unfortunate but reflex action to having someone pat my knee could result in facial injury for that someone. Funny enough we came to an agreement that he would work on his communication skills and I should sit out of arms reach.

Is indiscretion one of those PC words like happy slapping and collatral damage?

Your boss was a creep so you assaulted him and he had to agree to work on his communication skills?

Edit re-read your post whilst not walking and trying to read my phone screen.

It seems that your boss got the message after you threatened him.

Wibbs wrote: »

A partner? So in a previous post I noted girlfriends who woke me up from sleep in a sexual manner. I didn't ask them to do so, I certainly didn't extend any vocalised permission to them, or have some back and forth consent debate on what I would or wouldn't be into. Have I been sexually assaulted? If I did similar with a girlfriend would she have a case?

TBH I would view anybody who would suggest I was within an asses roar of being sexually assaulted as addled in the head.

Legally, unless you had an agreement and had consented to the wake up activity the night before, it is clear that when the your partner began her actions you were incapable of giving any form of consent. So legally you were sexually assaulted, the fact that you were in a relationship would suggest that it is unlikely that while either party could, that either party was going to make a official complaint/statement.

There have been a number of cases in the last few years where a partner was convicted (both here and in the UK).

Glass fused light wrote: »

Legally, unless you had an agreement and had consented to the wake up activity the night before, it is clear that when the your partner began her actions you were incapable of giving any form of consent. So legally you were sexually assaulted, the fact that you were in a relationship would suggest that it is unlikely that while either party could, that either party was going to make a official complaint/statement.

There have been a number of cases in the last few years where a partner was convicted (both here and in the UK).

Do you feel that prefacing a statement with the word "legally" gives your opinions a greater level of gravity? Because you are in reality talking nonsense.

EagererBeaver

Wibbs wrote: »

The unblinking and unbiased eye of CCTV directly contradicts her testimony. It doesn't prove she lied, certainly doesn't prove

Where is your evidence of this?!

nullzero wrote: »

Your boss was a creep so you assaulted him and he had to agree to work on his communication skills?

Edit re-read your post whilst not walking and trying to read my phone screen.

It seems that your boss got the message after you threatened him.

I dont think he was a creep just he was tactile and would pat a back or a leg as a good boy/girl thing to both sexes and said as much. (it was kind of allowed back then) I am not tactile with "non" friends, I did not threaten him I just took the chair from the side of his desk and sat facing him and explained I appear to have a fight before flight instinct. We both agreed to work within our comfort zones.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Where is your evidence of this?!

From your last post:

Your own words. Earlier wrote:

The defence barrister has put it to her that CCTV contradicts her version of events that she was pulled away from him by friends.

If you are unable to understand the difference, I'd suggest you're a bit of a mouth-breathing moron.

kylith wrote: »

_On the shoulder_. In what world is putting your hand on someone’s shoulder an invitation for them to put their hand down your trousers?

A man can't even put his hand down a womans trousers uninvited anymore without being labelled a creep and being asked to explain himself in court. Where will it all end?

She's obviously an attention seeking social media 'ho, and he's just a guy who might have misread a signal - and if he did it's her fault for touching his shoulder to begin with.

We all know who to blame for this scenario, and it's not the man who put his hand down a womans trousers uninvited. Of course not.

EagererBeaver

Wibbs wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Where is your evidence of this?!

From your last post:

Your own words. Earlier wrote:

The defence barrister has put it to her that CCTV contradicts her version of events that she was pulled away from him by friends.

If you are unable to understand the difference, I'd suggest you're a bit of a mouth-breathing moron.

You are proving my point. The defence barrister has claimed the video shows X. She claims that's "not how she sees it." This is not proof of X. How do you not understand this?! Especially in light of your comments that the "unblinking and unbiased eye of CCTV directly contradicts her testimony." You have not seen this video. You have no idea what it shows.

The barrister may very well be correct, the video may very well contradict her testimony, but for the Muppets on here to run around shouting about "proof" when there's no proof whatsoever to date, shows the mindset of what we're dealing with here.

Glass fused light wrote: »

Legally, unless you had an agreement and had consented to the wake up activity the night before, it is clear that when the your partner began her actions you were incapable of giving any form of consent. So legally you were sexually assaulted, the fact that you were in a relationship would suggest that it is unlikely that while either party could, that either party was going to make a official complaint/statement.

Good. Jumping. Jesus.

Candie wrote:

A man can't even put his hand down a womans trousers uninvited anymore without being labelled a creep and being asked to explain himself in court. Where will it all end?

She's obviously an attention seeking social media 'ho, and he's just a guy who might have misread a signal - and if he did it's her fault for touching his shoulder to begin with.

We all know who to blame for this scenario, and it's not the man who put his hand down a womans trousers uninvited. Of course not.

Yep, because that's exactly what people have been saying. Not.

You must be running the same browser translation plug in as Bluewolf. I'd respectfully suggest installing another one. Maybe avoid any app that has "skewed narrative" in the install notes.

Candie wrote: »

A man can't even put his hand down a womans trousers uninvited anymore without being labelled a creep and being asked to explain himself in court. Where will it all end?

She's obviously an attention seeking social media 'ho, and he's just a guy who might have misread a signal - and if he did it's her fault for touching his shoulder to begin with.

We all know who to blame for this scenario, and it's not the man who put his hand down a womans trousers uninvited. Of course not.

Nice of you to pop in and misinterpret the case at hand and at the same time misrepresent vast swathes of the posters here, but hey men are bad /thread.

nullzero wrote: »

Do you feel that prefacing a statement with the word "legally" gives your opinions a greater level of gravity? Because you are in reality talking nonsense.

Prefacing the legally because i was asked question as to whether or not Wibbs was sexually assaulted. Wibbs clearly did not believe or feel that the acts preformed on his(?) sleeping body fell under the sexual assault legistation. Recently In the irish courts, lack of consent due to the partner being asleep resulted in a 1year+ jail sentence. I dont expext that Wibbs will be off out to the Gardai to make a complaint. But to reduce the gravity of my opinion I could stick in a sound bite of an ass roar.

Wibbs wrote: »

Good. Jumping. Jesus.

You do know blasphemy is still an no-no in legal terms too?:D

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You are proving my point. The defence barrister has claimed the video shows X. She claims that's "not how she sees it." This is not proof of X. How do you not understand this?! Especially in light of your comments that the "unblinking and unbiased eye of CCTV directly contradicts her testimony." You have not seen this video. You have no idea what it shows.

Well one presumes a) said video is or will be included as evidence in the case and b) said barrister would hardly mention it if it didn't support his client's case. She can claim it's not as she sees it and he can claim it is. When it is shown it'll settle the matter.

One hopes. The case of the guy in the London tube station who was accused by some actress or other of digitally penetrating her also had video evidence which showed he merely walked by her and with some distance between them and that took nearly a year before his name was cleared.