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

kylith wrote: »

Or, y'know, don't go dropping the hand or groping her without invitation.

He did neither.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Luckily for the John there was CCTV footage.

For some, even that's not enough.

Olsky wrote: »

Well at least this thread has allowed us to get the femaie perspective on interactions in nightclubs. It has been very informative.

It's not the greatest study to be honest. Every one of these threads awakens the same crowd from their slumber who obviously have an axe to grind because of something that happened in their past, disregarding any innocent verdict as simply a lack of evidence. It wouldn't be reflective of the balanced majority.

Pac1Man wrote: »

It's not the greatest study to be honest. Every one of these threads awakens the same crowd from their slumber who obviously have an axe to grind because of something that happened in their past, disregarding any innocent verdict as simply a lack of evidence. It wouldn't be reflective of the balanced majority.

I'd like to think you're right but jaysys, that whole #suemepaddy got a hell of a lot of support and it was basically just people wanting a guilty verdict rather than actually believing it should have been one.

Olsky wrote: »

Do you mean...the #metoo Feminazis?

Yes. The whole movement has been diluted and is now a farce.

Olsky wrote: »

I think that one of the saddest "accomplishments" of #metoo is that they have largely succeeded in ending touch between people in our society. I remember being in work environments not so long ago and people were hugging and touching one another all the time. Now granted there were always those with phobias about human contact and that was respected but in general there was touch. And another thing. It wasn't really sexual. It was just touch between people.
That is now largely gone. People are terrified of the potential consequences of touching someone and a lot of people have no human touch in their lives and I think that's very sad.

It hasn't done any such thing, and claims that it has are simply giving it credibility and legitimacy it doesn't deserve, as it hasn't achieved anything like your claims. Your claims of it's influence are just as much exaggerated as the claims you're poorly attempting to criticise.

People still hug and are tactile with each other and aren't at all terrified of any "potential consequences" that you appear to be so desperate to claim are true, even when the example you used to make your claims in the first place turned out to invalidate your claims!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sorry, Jack, have to disagree with you there, have had numerous friends over the past while tell me that they have become super vigilant around women they don't know, to make damn sure they don't so much as make the slightest contact with them which could be misconstrued or twisted. Even Bill Burr said at his gig recently that he walked into a waitress a few months ago and accidentally touched her behind and he immediately started over apologizing.

I've no doubt there are some people who are hypersensitive to these sorts of things that they do indeed become paranoid to the point where it's debilitating, but I don't agree that it had the influence on society or people in general that the OP claims it has had.

I imagine Bill Burr was likely exaggerating to take the piss out of the "movement" with that story, I can't imagine he actually took it that seriously, like most people who carried on with their lives and it had no influence on them whatsoever.

Olsky wrote: »

Really. I think the movements influence has been pernicious and pervasive. And this trial. Centered on a man touching a woman in a night club is very much part of that agenda

By that same token, it's also part of your agenda to use this case as an example of why men should all be afraid, be very afraid, when the reality is that it's only a minority of fearmongerers on either side will use anything to further their own agenda to attempt to induce paranoia and fear in people. Most people aren't like that and don't care about it either, they'll still go out and enjoy themselves and interact with the opposite sex and have a good time and ignore the nonsense from the minority trying to further their own agendas.

Olsky wrote: »

Oh. Like for example you are in a nightclub and a woman that you had been chatting to earlier approaches you and asks if you would like to have a dance with her?

Yeah, what about it?

So, these cases are only reported cause they are rare? Yeah, nothing to do with the fact that Leslie is/was a celeb. Truth is, if he was a nobody, it wouldn't have made the papers. We most likely only hear of a fraction of such cases, in the same way most rape trials go unreported, unless there is a celeb involved.

Course I highly doubt you'd say a woman being more vigilant around strange men at night was being paranoid. Men doing so though, just irrational fools.

Olsky wrote: »

glass fused light wrote:

If someone puts hands or other body parts on you without your permission it's assault.  

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.

Well at least this thread has allowed us to get the femaie perspective on interactions in nightclubs. It has been very informative.

If you are going to quote me please try quote me in context rather than try to win some kind of point by editing what I wrote and then attempt to attribute it as being my perspective.

This is what I was responding to and what i wrote:

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.

I was replying to nullzero's post where he used the word groped which was having been fondled by a women uninvited, for her sexual pleasure without his consent and then he said that it is not in the category of sexual assault.  

So let's go back to your opening post:

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. 

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.

And note that the charge was putting his hand down a woman’s trousers and touching her buttocks.  

As for my opinion, I don't know what clubs you hang in where the social norm is to stick your hands under the clothing of the person you just met to cop an uninvited feel but it's not the social normally acceptable behaviour in anywhere I have been recently.  If you want to redefine that as "appropriate" touching, please note I am happy to hang out in clubs where puritanism and sexual repression are still a thing.

FYI, I have an opinion on the court case too.

Can't believe this went to court. I feel sorry for single men today - interacting with the opposite sex appears to be like navigating a landmine field (with similar consequences).