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

One eyed Jack

Sweetemotion wrote: »

We didn't see the video but we do know it contradicted her version of events no matter "how she saw it" There is no better evidence for the defence than that.

No, all we know is that the defence put it to the witness that the CCTV contradicted her version of events. That's a whole different thing from actually having seen any CCTV footage and whether or not it actually did or didn't contradict her version of events. It wasn't made explicit in the article (no surprise really) whether or not the CCTV footage actually did contradict her version of events.

He's innocent and now with this crap of not proven. That only provides ammunition for people like Kylith to still cast doubt of his innocence, he may as well have been found guilty.

I don't like the idea of "the Scottish verdict" any more than you do, particularly because it allows for an acquittal that's not really an acquittal. The accused is supposed to maintain the presumption of innocence provided the prosecution can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore leading to either a not guilty or guilty verdict, and this "not proven" shyte means that the accused will indeed always have the presumption that they aren't innocent of the charges of which they are accused, but that there is insufficient evidence to prove the accused is guilty.

The intent is to acknowledge for the alleged victim that the events did happen as they suggested, but that there wasn't enough evidence to find the accused guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. It's the verdict itself casts doubt on the presumption that the accused is innocent, which flies in the face of their right to the protection of their reputation. I would argue that it's a serious enough allegation as far as I can see to come under the remit of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Conservatory

What kind of horrible person tries to publicly find a guy guilty of groping after he is cleared by a jury of his peers who have all the evidence solely for the reason that he is a man and the complainant is a woman?

What happened these people that made them like this?

Outlaw Pete

I have no problem with people disagreeing with a verdict, sure God knows I've disagreed enough myself (Ched Evans, Philip Queree etc). So I'd be a hypocrite to if I said your average Joe/Jane should accept a court's verdict.

However, it's one thing to disagree with a verdict and then flesh out the reasoning for why they feel the verdict should have went the other way, and to just disagree with it and say little else. As with the latter it just comes across as if the verdict is being objected to only because it doesn't suit someone's chosen ideology or whatever particular societal narrative it is which they subscribe to. As, I feel, was the case with many who took issue with the verdict in the Belfast rape trial.

So if someone think's John should have been found guilty, grand, let's hear some reasoning behind it.... otherwise, pointless discussion.

[Deleted User]

It pisses me off that biased clowns like kylith could end up on a jury and ruin a man's life for the sake of their own beliefs.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

It pisses me off that biased clowns like kylith could end up on a jury and ruin a man's life for the sake of their own beliefs.

I don't think that the verdict was wrong. They did not have enough evidence to convict so they did not convict, this was the correct choice.

What pisses me off in that clowns like Proffessore continue to peddle dangerous ideas that women are responsible for being assaulted because they dance with a man or because of what they were wearing, and also complain that women exagerrate issues like being groped or harassed on nights out.

That is a dangerous attitude to have.

s7ryf3925pivug

Ever dance with the devil
In the pale moonlight?

BattleCorp

kylith wrote: »

I don't think that the verdict was wrong. They did not have enough evidence to convict so they did not convict, this was the correct choice.

What pisses me off in that clowns like Proffessore continue to peddle dangerous ideas that women are responsible for being assaulted because they dance with a man or because of what they were wearing, and also complain that women exagerrate issues like being groped or harassed on nights out.

That is a dangerous attitude to have.

Give me your opinion on this scenario please.

I see a woman in a nightclub that I fancy. I ask her to dance. I think she fancies me. I put my hand on her ass while dancing. She's not interested and moves my hand back up.

Should I be charged with sexual assault?

RacoonQueen

Ardent wrote: »

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).

Feel sorry for the normal single women too who have to deal with it as well because men are afraid to pursue normal interactions with someone they're interested in for fear of being labelled a sex pest.

kylith

BattleCorp wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

I don't think that the verdict was wrong. They did not have enough evidence to convict so they did not convict, this was the correct choice.

What pisses me off in that clowns like Proffessore continue to peddle dangerous ideas that women are responsible for being assaulted because they dance with a man or because of what they were wearing, and also complain that women exagerrate issues like being groped or harassed on nights out.

That is a dangerous attitude to have.

Give me your opinion on this scenario please.

I see a woman in a nightclub that I fancy. I ask her to dance. I think she fancies me. I put my hand on her ass while dancing. She's not interested and moves my hand back up.

Should I be charged with sexual assault?

I have no opinion in that because it is a purely hypothetical situation. I’m not going to say anything because each person will react differently; one woman may be grand with it, one may slap you in the face, one may find it agressive or threatening.

Do you think that a person should not report what they view as an assault because a third party doesn’t think it’s that bad?

Do you think that dancing with a woman automatically gives you the right to put your hand on her bum?

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Ardent wrote: »

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).

Feel sorry for the normal single women too who have to deal with it as well because men are afraid to pursue normal interactions with someone they're interested in for fear of being labelled a sex pest.

And the women who are afraid to interact with men because if they are assaulted some people will say it was their own fault or they’re looking for attention.

One eyed Jack

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Feel sorry for the normal single women too who have to deal with it as well because men are afraid to pursue normal interactions with someone they're interested in for fear of being labelled a sex pest.

That has to be the most bizarre rationale I've heard in a long time, and I've heard some doozys! That someone could be so full of their own self-importance that they think it's unfair on women to deny them the 'pleasure' of being made to feel uncomfortable is quite something :pac:

Women are surely better off if men who think like that choose to avoid them, surely?

[Deleted User]

kylith wrote:

While you are right, I donmt think iâ€™m 100% wrong either. â€˜Not proven is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict.

You said he wasn't acquitted. You are 100% wrong

[Deleted User]

kylith wrote:

Do you think that dancing with a woman automatically gives you the right to put your hand on her bum?

kylith wrote:

I have no opinion in that because it is a purely hypothetical situation. Iâ€™m not going to say anything because each person will react differently; one woman may be grand with it, one may slap you in the face, one may find it agressive or threatening.

How can you ask questions like that when you answer it yourself. Nobody thinks that you have an automatic case. Its about reading the situation and context.

If a woman who perceives getting her arse felt as a sexual assault, then perhaps she shouldn't put herself in the position where she could be viewed as a willing recipient. It is not unreasonable for a man to innocently believe he has implied consent in certain circumstances.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How can you ask questions like that when you answer it yourself. Nobody thinks that you have an automatic case. It's about reading the situation and context.

If a woman who perceives getting her arse felt as a sexual assault, then perhaps she shouldn't put herself in the position where she could be viewed as a willing recipient. It is not unreasonable for a man to innocently believe he has implied consent in certain circumstances.

You say it's about reading the situation and context, but then you still go on to at least try and hold the woman in that scenario responsible for the man's actions.

Whether or not it's reasonable by his standards to believe he has implied consent to do anything, isn't in any way relevant, because it is up to the individual woman in question whether he actually has her consent.

To give you an example by way of illustration, say a woman thought it was perfectly reasonable to assume she had implied consent to kick men in the nads because every man she's ever met before was kinda kinky like that. Would you say it was the man's fault for putting himself in the position where the woman has a reasonable belief that she has his implied consent to kick him in the nads?

I would certainly hope not, and the same applies when a person, regardless of their gender, assumes they have implied consent to do anything. It might be entirely reasonable to them, but the person they're doing it to, may disagree, and may indeed make a complaint to the authorities, who will then be the arbiters of what a person could or couldn't have reasonably believed given the circumstances of each individual case.

RacoonQueen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That has to be the most bizarre rationale I've heard in a long time, and I've heard some doozys! That someone could be so full of their own self-importance that they think it's unfair on women to deny them the 'pleasure' of being made to feel uncomfortable is quite something :pac:

Women are surely better off if men who think like that choose to avoid them, surely?

You're interpreted that incorrectly. Intentionally.

kylith wrote: »

And the women who are afraid to interact with men because if they are assaulted some people will say it was their own fault or they’re looking for attention.

Nah.

One eyed Jack

RacoonQueen wrote: »

You're interpreted that incorrectly. Intentionally.

Interesting, isn't it? Here we are in a discussion about intent, consent and misinterpretation, and I interpreted your post in a way that seems entirely reasonable to me. Now you're saying I didn't interpret your post as you intended it, which is not unlike the way a person would interpret an invitation to dance.

Using your rationale, it's not my fault I misinterpreted your post, it's yours. It's a good thing for women that they would avoid a man who would misinterpret their invitation to dance as an invitation to be felt up and groped, particularly when that same man was only after reminding her to be careful as she was getting married in the morning, and she invited him to dance with the expectation that he wasn't going to attempt to try and take liberties, given his earlier comments to her to be wary of other men who might try and take liberties.

johnnyskeleton

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't like the idea of "the Scottish verdict" any more than you do, particularly because it allows for an acquittal that's not really an acquittal. The accused is supposed to maintain the presumption of innocence provided the prosecution can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore leading to either a not guilty or guilty verdict, and this "not proven" shyte means that the accused will indeed always have the presumption that they aren't innocent of the charges of which they are accused, but that there is insufficient evidence to prove the accused is guilty.

I don't agree. The historical origins of it suggest that "not proven" is the same as "not guilty" in Ireland and England&Wales. When a Scottish Jury delivers a "not guilty" verdict, that means that they are satisfied that the person is actually innocent. So in a strange way it is like they have a Guilty, Not Guilty and Innocent verdict. A not proven verdict cannot prejudice someone in terms of jobs, police vetting, previous convictions etc. Also, a "not guilty" verdict seems to be an exceptional measure.

To give an example, as I understand it anyway, let's say that there is a case where no one identifies the accused person so there is no evidence that they were involved. A Scottish Jury here would find the charge not proven even though there is no reason to think they did anything at all or were even there. Whereas if there was a case where the accused gave evidence that they were on holidays at the time and the jury accepted that, they might be persuaded to find him "not guilty".

The problem comes with how people interpret the distinction. Some people will say that "not proven" means that there is some substance to the charge. But to be honest, as we have seen in Ireland, even when there is a not guilty verdict here some people still think that.

The intent is to acknowledge for the alleged victim that the events did happen as they suggested, but that there wasn't enough evidence to find the accused guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. It's the verdict itself casts doubt on the presumption that the accused is innocent, which flies in the face of their right to the protection of their reputation.

I'm not sure that is the case. Scottish Juries were notorious for not finding people guilty during British occupation so the verdicts were changed from guilty and not guilty to proven and not proven, as it was easier to get verdicts that way. But they retained a historical right to find someone "not guilty". The modern "proven" has been changed to "guilty", but they have kept the three verdict system in place.

It is more there by reason of historical accident rather than any acknowledgement of the complainant.

RacoonQueen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Interesting, isn't it? Here we are in a discussion about intent, consent and misinterpretation, and I interpreted your post in a way that seems entirely reasonable to me. Now you're saying I didn't interpret your post as you intended it, which is not unlike the way a person would interpret an invitation to dance.

Using your rationale, it's not my fault I misinterpreted your post, it's yours. It's a good thing for women that they would avoid a man who would misinterpret their invitation to dance as an invitation to be felt up and groped, particularly when that same man was only after reminding her to be careful as she was getting married in the morning, and she invited him to dance with the expectation that he wasn't going to attempt to try and take liberties, given his earlier comments to her to be wary of other men who might try and take liberties.

Wow.

One eyed Jack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To give an example, as I understand it anyway, let's say that there is a case where no one identifies the accused person so there is no evidence that they were involved. A Scottish Jury here would find the charge not proven even though there is no reason to think they did anything at all or were even there. Whereas if there was a case where the accused gave evidence that they were on holidays at the time and the jury accepted that, they might be persuaded to find him "not guilty".

The problem comes with how people interpret the distinction. Some people will say that "not proven" means that there is some substance to the charge. But to be honest, as we have seen in Ireland, even when there is a not guilty verdict here some people still think that.

That's what I don't like about it though, is the ambiguity of it. Even when there is a not guilty verdict here, people can still hold fast to their belief that the defendant is guilty, but their moral judgement of wrongdoing has no legal standing, and is rarely based on any interpretation of the law.

If a person is found not guilty in a court of law, then their reputation is protected by law, and they have legal recourse such as defamation laws (deep pocket laws

) if for example they felt that a journalist (or a particular Senator through the medium of twitter) were attempting to sully their reputation.

In circumstances where a verdict of not proven is returned, and the majority of cases where not proven is returned have been cases of a sexual nature, then that leaves room for interpretation as to the fact that the accused is guilty of some form of moral wrongdoing, but they not guilty of the charges of which they are accused.

I believe that if someone is charged with an offence, then it is only that allegation which they should be on trial for, and either found not guilty or guilty, regardless of how that may affect the conviction rates for those specific offences. Of course that isn't politically palatable, but the Courts should serve the interests of justice, not politics (Idealism, I know :pac:).

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You say it's about reading the situation and context, but then you still go on to at least try and hold the woman in that scenario responsible for the man's actions.

Whether or not it's reasonable by his standards to believe he has implied consent to do anything, isn't in any way relevant, because it is up to the individual woman in question whether he actually has her consent.

To give you an example by way of illustration, say a woman thought it was perfectly reasonable to assume she had implied consent to kick men in the nads because every man she's ever met before was kinda kinky like that. Would you say it was the man's fault for putting himself in the position where the woman has a reasonable belief that she has his implied consent to kick him in the nads?

I would certainly hope not, and the same applies when a person, regardless of their gender, assumes they have implied consent to do anything. It might be entirely reasonable to them, but the person they're doing it to, may disagree, and may indeed make a complaint to the authorities, who will then be the arbiters of what a person could or couldn't have reasonably believed given the circumstances of each individual case.

That is in no way comparable.

BattleCorp

kylith wrote: »

I have no opinion in that because it is a purely hypothetical situation. I’m not going to say anything because each person will react differently; one woman may be grand with it, one may slap you in the face, one may find it agressive or threatening.

Bit of a cop-out there. Of course you have an opinion, you just don't want to say it because it doesn't support your argument.

Do you think that a person should not report what they view as an assault because a third party doesn’t think it’s that bad?

Yes, if you feel you were assaulted, then you should report it. That doesn't mean that you were assaulted though. It means you believe you were assaulted. The facts would need to be investigated.

Do you think that dancing with a woman automatically gives you the right to put your hand on her bum?

No, it doesn't. Nobody has any right to put their hand on anyone's bum. But under certain circumstances, it might be ok, and quite welcome at times if both people are attracted to each other. And yes, some people misread signs and mistakenly touch someone's bum thinking their advances will be welcome. If someone did this in a nightclub while dancing with someone, I wouldn't consider it assault (as long as the person stopped when told to stop). If someone walked up to you in work and groped your ar5e, then that's different. I would consider that assault. Circumstance is key here.

Personally, I think this case shouldn't have made it to court.

I also disagree with the not proven thing they have in Scotland. You should be either guilty or not guilty.

Hagar7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That has to be the most bizarre rationale I've heard in a long time, and I've heard some doozys! That someone could be so full of their own self-importance that they think it's unfair on women to deny them the 'pleasure' of being made to feel uncomfortable is quite something :pac:

Women are surely better off if men who think like that choose to avoid them, surely?

Jack,for God sake open your eye,regardless of what you think about Scots Law it works perfectly for us,if not,then it would have been changed years ago.

One eyed Jack

Hagar7 wrote: »

Jack,for God sake open your eye,regardless of what you think about Scots Law it works perfectly for us,if not,then it would have been changed years ago.

Ahh no don't get me wrong like, I'm not actually all that put out that it exists in Scotland, I just wouldn't like to see it ever introduced in Ireland, which very well could happen if those people arguing for it's introduction as part of a broader agenda with regard to law reform, were ever successful.

blinding

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.

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

If your man was a ‘ Nobody ‘ would She have bothered ?

Are women and men going to have to bring their solicitors and a jury with them where ever they go ?

professore

kylith wrote: »

So it's her fault because of what she was wearing? And dancing is an invitation to sexual assault now?

Seriously? How is 'don't grope people' somehow a statement worthy of such outrage?

There you go putting words in my mouth. A hen dancing with a strange man a few days before getting married is an invitation to something. Just as a stag dancing in a bar with a strange woman is. That much is obvious.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

There you go putting words in my mouth. A hen dancing with a strange man a few days before getting married is an invitation to something. Just as a stag dancing in a bar with a strange woman is. That much is obvious.

it is. It is an invitation to dance.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote:

it is. It is an invitation to dance.

If I am dancing with a girl and I am reading non verbal cues that she is interested and would be willing for me to go further and I put my hand on her arse, that is not a criminal offence. If she refuses and objects to my advances, I'd apologise and not attempt again. Its hardly sexual assault.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

If I am dancing with a girl and I am reading non verbal cues that she is interested and would be willing for me to go further and I put my hand on her arse, that is not a criminal offence. If she refuses and objects to my advances, I'd apologise and not attempt again. Its hardly sexual assault.

true but an invitation on its own is an invitation to dance and nothing else.

professore

Some of the posters live in a cloud cuckoo land where relations between the sexes are totally transparent from the man's side while the woman reserves the right to be as mysterious and indirect as she wants.

Normal human sexual interactions are messy and full of grey areas by their nature. A straight woman asking a strange man at a bar to dance is quite unusual - this implies some sort of sexual interest in him. If she then dances close to him it would be expected for him to try to feel her arse. If you can't see that then you are totally blind. It's quite difficult to feel a woman's arse if she is dancing in the nuns approved arms locked on your chest mode - this is only practical if she has her arms around you and her body against yours.

If he is the polite type and asks "Is this OK" for every interaction then I can tell you now this guy is never getting laid. Biggest turnoff in the world. Anyway she can deny he ever asked her in the first place and then it's her word against his, and in a reversal of the Sharia law tradition, a woman's word is worth the word of two men.

What is going to happen is that normal guys with decent careers and something to lose are going to stay away from women altogether - far too risky - and the aggressive toxic unemployed types that feminists pretend to hate will be the only ones left.

[Deleted User]

professore wrote: »

Some of the posters live in a cloud cuckoo land where relations between the sexes are totally transparent from the man's side while the woman reserves the right to be as mysterious and indirect as she wants.

Normal human sexual interactions are messy and full of grey areas by their nature. A straight woman asking a strange man at a bar to dance is quite unusual - this implies some sort of sexual interest in him. If she then dances close to him it would be expected for him to try to feel her arse. If you can't see that then you are totally blind. It's quite difficult to feel a woman's arse if she is dancing in the nuns approved arms locked on your chest mode - this is only practical if she has her arms around you and her body against yours.

If he is the polite type and asks "Is this OK" for every interaction then I can tell you now this guy is never getting laid. Biggest turnoff in the world. Anyway she can deny he ever asked her in the first place and then it's her word against his, and in a reversal of the Sharia law tradition, a woman's word is worth the word of two men.

What is going to happen is that normal guys with decent careers and something to lose are going to stay away from women altogether - far too risky - and the aggressive toxic unemployed types that feminists pretend to hate will be the only ones left.

I genuinely wonder how long it is since many of these people have been single, dating, etc. It's almost as if its a completely different world.

The important distinction that should be made, and reinforced is where the person declares a behavior as being unwelcome, and the other person continues doing so. Should the person stop the behavior, no harm done. That is what we should be focusing on. Not before the behavior is even suggested. This isn't rape. This isn't violence. It's touching another persons body slightly. This attempt to connect everything to serious abuse is dangerous...

In the world of dating and ons, men make "leaps of faith" hoping that the other person feels the same way. Or I suppose we could encourage a culture where women make all the moves... but I seriously doubt that's going to happen. In 25 years of actively dating in bars/clubs, I've rarely seen a woman initiate anything beyond the initial encounter. (including where it relates to male friends far better looking than me)

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

Some of the posters live in a cloud cuckoo land where relations between the sexes are totally transparent from the man's side while the woman reserves the right to be as mysterious and indirect as she wants.

Normal human sexual interactions are messy and full of grey areas by their nature. A straight woman asking a strange man at a bar to dance is quite unusual - this implies some sort of sexual interest in him. If she then dances close to him it would be expected for him to try to feel her arse. If you can't see that then you are totally blind. It's quite difficult to feel a woman's arse if she is dancing in the nuns approved arms locked on your chest mode - this is only practical if she has her arms around you and her body against yours.

Context, to be fair. Leslie had already reminded the woman that she was getting married in the morning and that she should be wary of other men who may try and take liberties. They chatted for a while and then she asked him to dance. It's not an unreasonable expectation that given his earlier warning, he would restrain himself from taking liberties.

If he is the polite type and asks "Is this OK" for every interaction then I can tell you now this guy is never getting laid. Biggest turnoff in the world.

That may well be true in your experience, but it's hardly universal, clearly.

Anyway she can deny he ever asked her in the first place and then it's her word against his, and in a reversal of the Sharia law tradition, a woman's word is worth the word of two men.

And yet, clearly as the charges were found to be not proven and Leslie was acquitted of all charges, then we can safety say that reversal of Sharia law didn't happen in this case, and is unlikely ever to happen.

What is going to happen is that normal guys with decent careers and something to lose are going to stay away from women altogether - far too risky - and the aggressive toxic unemployed types that feminists pretend to hate will be the only ones left.

Aaaaaand that's not going to happen at all.