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

nullzero wrote: »

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.

How is it misrepresented?

[Deleted User]

Absolutely no context. It was represented as no different to a man walking up to a woman in the street and putting his hand down her jeans.

But you already knew that.

nullzero wrote: »

Did the case in question deal exclusively with a situation exactly like what Wibbs had described or were more serious acts also involved?

exclusively : no
with a situation: yes
exactly: no
like what Wibbs had described : unknown as Wibbs has not made a full disclosure of what "noted girlfriends who woke me up from sleep in a sexual manner" involved. (PS Wibbs, no additional disclosure is requested by me.)
or were more serious acts also involved : unknown as above and the court case was reported in a newspaper so the 'facts' are third hand accounts.

nullzero

Glass fused light wrote: »

exclusively : no
with a situation: yes
exactly: no
like what Wibbs had described : unknown as Wibbs has not made a full disclosure of what "noted girlfriends who woke me up from sleep in a sexual manner" involved. (PS Wibbs, no additional disclosure is requested by me.)
or were more serious acts also involved : unknown as above and the court case was reported in a newspaper so the 'facts' are third hand accounts.

So what you cited wasn't relevant.

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely no context. It was represented as no different to a man walking up to a woman in the street and putting his hand down her jeans.

But you already knew that.

We all already know the context of this incident.

nullzero wrote: »

So what you cited wasn't relevant.

Yeah every case of sexual assault is exclusively and exactly the same.

kylith wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely no context. It was represented as no different to a man walking up to a woman in the street and putting his hand down her jeans.

But you already knew that.

We all already know the context of this incident.

And does the fact that she was dancing with him mitigate the fact that he put his hand down her trousers uninvited?

nullzero

Glass fused light wrote: »

Yeah every case of sexual assault is exclusively and exactly the same.

But Wibbs felt he hadn't been sexually assaulted and the case you cited failed to back up your point, which leaves me wondering what your argument is beyond your own prejudice.

sbsquarepants

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

What was the story there? I only came across it earlier today - did she invent the whole thing, or mistake him for someone else?

Either way, how it can take a year and get to a courtroom before somebody with some authority and cop on says "no, this guy clearly didn't do that" is unbelievable.
In fact in the story I read it says the prosecution actually slowed the video to make it appear that he had the time to do it - that's shocking!

Wibbs

Glass fused light wrote: »

like what Wibbs had described : unknown as Wibbs has not made a full disclosure of what "noted girlfriends who woke me up from sleep in a sexual manner" involved. (PS Wibbs, no additional disclosure is requested by me.)or were more serious acts also involved

Short of in the wee hours a girlfriend shoving an ungreased pineapple up my fundament for the lulz, I can't see how serious it could get TBH GFL. They are my girlfriends; life, romantic and sexual partners and part of that for me is that my tingly parts are on the menu whenever they might desire that. If I'm not in the humour for whatever reason, or don't like something in particular then I'd say it and would expect and know them to be cool with that. And that goes vice versa.

The thoughts of having to go through some series of constant consent shite with a lover, or that same lover would take umbrage because I woke up with my hand on her naked posterior would have me out the door faster than a cat in a rocking chair showroom. In my experience it's either a major sexual incompatibility(which is fine, folks differ, but a dead loss longterm), a sign of "delicateness", or a power/control trip. The latter would almost guarantee No Access signage up for sexy time after the relationship got locked down. Twice a year and a begrudged puritan hand shandy for Xmas for being a good little boy. I have seen men and yep women in relationships like that almost begging for intimacy or even *gasp* a good root. Feck that noise.

Wibbs

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What was the story there? I only came across it earlier today - did she invent the whole thing, or mistake him for someone else?

Invented the whole thing because it seems she's as mad as a hatter.

Either way, how it can take a year and get to a courtroom before somebody with some authority and cop on says "no, this guy clearly didn't do that" is unbelievable.
In fact in the story I read it says the prosecution actually slowed the video to make it appear that he had the time to do it - that's shocking!

Shocking indeed. It was one of the earliest cases after UK police chiefs decided to automatically believe accusers over accused as a baseline. Unless the latter were "Asian" from the Midlands. They seemed to be blind to that alright.

jmayo

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.

Can I ask what you, and indeed a lot of posters here, what you think the punishment should be for this offense?

Should he put on the sex offenders register like paedophiles and rapists?

Should he face mandatory counseling?

Should he face a custodial sentence?

upandcumming

jmayo wrote: »

Can I ask what you and indeed a lot of posters here what they think the punishment should be for this offense?

Should he put on the sex offenders register like paedophiles and rapists?

Should he face mandatory counseling?

Should he face a custodial sentence?

Kill him.

We get this in every thread of this kind. Do some people really have difficulty telling the difference between a loved and trusted romantic partner’s actions and a virtual or complete stranger’s actions?

ohnonotgmail

kylith wrote: »

We get this in every thread of this kind. Do some people really have difficulty telling the difference between a loved and trusted romantic partner’s actions and a virtual or complete stranger’s actions?

Yes, yes they do.

Outlaw Pete

Anyone know what sentences these women received?

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?

You must be watching the World Cup thinking there’s people being assaulted and kicked around the place! Imagine someone doing that to you in the workplace!!!
Context. Look it up.

Wibbs

ash23 wrote: »

Context is what you're missing. I was replying to a post that basically said it was to be expected in a club. My point was that we don't go into a club and leave our rights at the door.
If it's not acceptable to do that to a person in a workplace or a shop or park or any other place then it should not be ok in a pub or club.

Perfect world Versus Real world. All too common in such debates. There is a difference. It's not a positive, but that's reality. I prefer to deal with realities of a context. There is more than a bit of a difference between a night club, which is a mixture of dance venue, socialising venue and meat market with usually drunk people feeling each other up in the mix, and an office. You're not drinking and dancing and shouting and consensually snogging in an office either. Maybe in the office of Hustler... Again I didn't say it was a positive, but it is more than naive to expect the same behavioural norms or to equate the two. That's context.

TomOnBoard

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.

And let's go back 50+ years and apply todays standards of touch- crime to the dances at the crossroads...

TomOnBoard

Here's a solution that they could rent out at the door of the nightclub... To be worn on front not rear...

ash23 wrote: »

Context is what you're missing. I was replying to a post that basically said it was to be expected in a club. My point was that we don't go into a club and leave our rights at the door.
If it's not acceptable to do that to a person in a workplace or a shop or park or any other place then it should not be ok in a pub or club.

Wrong. You introduced the workplace.
Nobody has said you lose your rights, you are introducing that yourself.
And you continue to miss the context. It’s not the workplace. It’s not a shop or park. It’s a club. People are out on the pickup.
The typical PC brigade stuff, trying to out PC others. No wonder the extreme right like Trump/Brexit are winning when the extreme left are focused on stuff like this.
The money/resources wasted on this when there are real victims that need help.

One eyed Jack

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.

You don't imagine you're over-reacting at all?

Read the court report on the trial below and give your opinion.

...

The trial before continues.

That's not a court report, it's a tabloid media report, of which I would expect nothing less than the aim of whipping some people up into a hysterical frenzy. You appear to have missed the last bit there where it says the trial continues, and so the accused maintains their innocence until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's the job of the defence barrister in the case to create that reasonable doubt by putting it to the witness that the CCTV doesn't support her recollection of events. That doesn't actually prove anything one way or the other, it's simply a tactic to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, and it appears to have worked here too to some extent.

As for this idea of a hierarchy of genuine victims vs non-genuine victims, it's not a subjective standard. Anyone who makes a complaint to the authorities that they have been the victim of wrongdoing has their complaint considered, has to make a statement and so on, and it's up to the investigating officers to carry out their duties, and it's then the DPP who decides whether or not a case is worth pursuing. It's not the alleged victim who has any say in the matter as to whether or not a case is brought against the accused. The alleged victim will only ever appear as a witness for the State.

When people make allegations of this nature on social media, they are often criticised for not going to the authorities and questioned as to why didn't they go to the authorities. Their reasoning is often that they feel that their complaint won't be taken seriously. This case should be an example to anyone that these cases actually are taken seriously. People are following the advice they have seen given to others that they should make a complaint to the authorities, and when they do, they're now being criticised for going to the authorities and making a complaint? How is that supposed to work?

Aren't the authorities still the objective party here, or are they only objective depending upon an individuals subjective opinion based on their judgement of the witnesses credibility after reading a media report about the case in a tabloid rag?

Perhaps the more appropriate hashtag in this case is #mediatoo

ash23

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Wrong. You introduced the workplace.
Nobody has said you lose your rights, you are introducing that yourself.
And you continue to miss the context. It’s not the workplace. It’s not a shop or park. It’s a club. People are out on the pickup.
The typical PC brigade stuff, trying to out PC others. No wonder the extreme right like Trump/Brexit are winning when the extreme left are focused on stuff like this.
The money/resources wasted on this when there are real victims that need help.

Just because someone is out on "the pickup" doesn't give them the right to put their hands in someone's trousers.

I wouldn't have thought that it was too much to expect of people that they don't stick their hands down other people's trousers, no matter what the location.

ash23 wrote: »

Just because someone is out on "the pickup" doesn't give them the right to put their hands in someone's trousers.

Again, cause you don't seem to realise this; who is claiming otherwise? You can keep coming out with this statement, but you are arguing with yourself.

Context. They've been chatting. She accepts his request to go dancing together. Hands on each other. He pulls her closer, but she doesn't backoff. He gets the wrong idea. She shoots him down. He doesn't go nuts, no further actions, no forcing himself on her.
This isn't some random encounter such as two people passing on the street or two people in the workplace. How you can't try equate the scenarios/locations is just mind boggling.

ash23 wrote: »

An attempted kiss is easily enough avoided. A hand down trousers groping your bottom is not.

If you’re that easily upset (she has said it’s one of the worst years of her life), then it kinda is. Don’t go dancing, touching another man (that isn’t your husband to be), not immediately pushing away when he pulls you close.
I go to clubs, and I don’t dance with other women, cause that isn’t what my wife would appreciate.

Leslie may have been a creep and advanced in an inappropriate manner. But a court case, when her account contradicts the CCTV footage?
The real victims who don’t get this sympathy, assistance, support; they lose out.

nullzero wrote: »

But Wibbs felt he hadn't been sexually assaulted

Thats what he stated, but he also asked 2 questions.

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.

nullzero wrote: »

and the case you cited failed to back up your point,

No the case sited did back up my point that consent can not be given by a person who is asleep, so Wibbs could have a case as could his girlfriend.

nullzero wrote: »

Did the case in question deal exclusively with a situation exactly like what Wibbs had described or were more serious acts also involved?

You asked this question ^

nullzero wrote: »

which leaves me wondering what your argument is beyond your own prejudice.

That legally Wibbs has a case and so would his girlfriend.

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017

48. The Act of 1990 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 9:

“9. (1) A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act.

(2) A person does not consent to a sexual act if—

(a) ....,

(b) he or she is asleep or unconscious,