John Leslie - AIBU to agree that men accused of sexual assault should have anonymity until charged?

[FauxFurCoatAndBigKnickers]

Having 3 sons myself (and a daughter), cases like this are really worrying as people will always think ‘there’s no smoke without fire’.

I don’t understand why John Leslie didn’t sue the arse off that jibbering imbecile Wright or why Jonsson started the witch hunt then refused to speak out. That was what started off all the rest of the allegations and if, as it seems, he is entirely innocent, it is a disgusting travesty and has totally ruined his life.

Non DM link below:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/john-leslie-trial-not-guilty-a4572176.html%3famp

My questions aren't for @AnneElliott, of course, they're for the indignant on his behalf brigade. Like they could ever ever ever know that he did not rape her (and a few others it seems)

@aridane

But actually if half an hour later, you text to say what an amazing time you had and suggest meeting up again, of course that’s relevant to the defence!

But why would a victim of child sexual abuse need to provide their current phone?, when they didn’t own a phone at the time of their rape, (because they were a child.)

It’s used to taint their character.
Eg You couldn’t have been a victim of CSA because you sent nudes as an 18 year old etc

You forgot Weinstein @BiBabbles.

I left out many people that came to mind. I cross posted Gancanny who made a far better list. Whenever the question 'why would people stand by...' comes up, I think particularly of Polanski, but entertainment industries - like many others - has pages we could list and even more pages of people who've stood by that should be asked that question. It's not like it's anything new or unusual.

There is an issue with social media mob justice but really, I don't think those accused of rape are really exceptionally hard done by in this, especially when it comes to celebrities and really, just because some on here thinks someone is guilty who hasn't (yet) been convicted, that doesn't really matter. What I think of anyone that's been listed doesn't matter at all. It only matters what those that have the power to do something with their opinions think.

I don't see anonymity as a good thing for reasons a pp who obviously works in law has stated (other victims seeing it & coming forward etc). Also the first time, a huge number of TV support staff , makeup people etc backed up his reputation for being inapropriate: & aggressive with it. So maybe Ulrika decided she'd done her bit just bringing it to people's attention & didn't want any more of something so traumatic. There was a clip of her interviewing him a while after it happened & she's quite obviously not a fan & is quite hostile. He even laughs & makes a comment that she's got it in for him. She also visibly can't get far enough away, curling her legs up & onto the sofa. Once is happenstance,twice is someone's default behaviour pattern ( best advice someone ever gave me).

@Pumperthepumper

I'm not going to name those men here but if that poster comes back I know for a fact which men they will use to prove that 'false accusations ruin lives'.

I know. I’m still waiting, but I know exactly who those examples will be.

I'm just surprised none of them have been mentioned yet. They are normally trotted out fairly early on.

I don't see anonymity as a good thing for reasons a pp who obviously works in law has stated (other victims seeing it & coming forward etc)

But the 'other victims' could come forward if the man was found guilty and identified after the trial.

This thread makes me want to weep with despair. The reason people don’t report rapes is because they don’t think they’ll be believed.
I just find it mind-boggling that there are so many people who use the fact that there are a minuscule amount of false accusations to essentially dismiss or cast doubt on the rest.
If a someone said they’d been mugged most people would believe them, there would be no shame in reporting it, and their character would most likely not be ripped apart in court. Why is it different for sexual assaults? I would hazard a guess that it’s because women are the primary victims of these crimes, with men the primary perpetrators.
To those of you worried about your sons, I suspect you would feel differently if you had daughters or had ever been a victim yourselves.
To those of you who have experienced a sexual assault - I am so sorry that we live in a society that dismisses such a hideous crime. I believe you, and I am devastated that this happened to you and that it is still such a common event in our society.

Sorry I mentioned him because he is the most recent man who once his accuser came forward, so many other people said 'oh yeah, we knew he was a total sleaze'

Not directed at anyone in particular but there are myriad reasons why someone defends a man accused of sexual assault.

www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/alison-boshoff-with-women-around-john-leslie-will-always-be-trouble-6924913.html

This is what was published in 2008.

Completely agree @FeelinSpendy, well said.

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/john-leslie-my-behaviour-was-at-times-inappropriate-6108501.html

An interview where he gives his side of things in 2006.

I imagine in the weekend papers there will be another sob story from him about these "false allegations" - probably pictured with his ageing parents. Guilty as sin.

I just find it mind-boggling that there are so many people who use the fact that there are a minuscule amount of false accusations to essentially dismiss or cast doubt on the rest

Evidence is needed to get a case to trial. At trial, evidence is needed to secure a conviction. It's all a jury has to go on - and all they should go on - not percentages of guilt/false claims.

I can't imagine that Leslie is anything other than a sleaze ball, but if I was on the jury, it's the evidence put before me I'd be judging him on for a particular crime.

Ultimately you can not prosecute someone when there is no evidence. That’s shit for women who have been raped but still innocent until proven guilty.

Pollynextdoor
The issue is that it is that ingrained is our rape culture that even women with evidence are being denied justice.

I have a confession. I can't get justice. What better evidence do you need?

I just Googled the man who at 18 locked 15 yo me in a room with him and tried to sexually assault me. He mostly failed thank me goodness. Didn't stop him telling all his friends I was a slut and deserved exactly what I got.

He's doing GREAT. His LinkedIn is awesome, he seems to be happily married with a lovely family. I bet he could find hundreds of great women to give him a character reference. He certainly has lots of friends. What a guy!

It wouldn't even have occurred to me to report that. I wouldn't even have called it sexual assault at the time. If I'd seen him named and some poor girl said he raped her I would have come forward, though. To corroborate her assertions.

The conviction rate is utterly shameful and plenty of actual, convicted rapists have long, illustrious careers. Let's for once try to help women? Please?

Innocent until proven guilty is a mainstay of our justice system.

Innocent within the justice system, not guilty according to the state, juries have to weigh up all the evidence - that's never applied to personal opinion. We can think whatever we want about anyone, it's what is done with that thinking that matters & most of us can't do much. We already have defamation laws if comments hurts their reputation or business and we already have anonymity protection for vulnerable accused of all crimes.

Many accusations are publically made -- should people not be allowed to publically accuse others before they're convicted in case it ends up googleable? Legal anonymity would cause a lot of complications and potential consequences if we applied it to all who haven't been convicted of a crime.

For those who want anonymity for this or all crimes, would you include court records? Should there be no court records with names attached until someone is found guilty? Because we can google those too - it takes a lot more effort, in most places you need to know the exact court someone was seen in, go through the court websites which aren't always intuitive and it's the only way to see most crimes as few just pop up if you google someone's name and even the few that end up in papers get lost in the internet noise celebrities and unusual cases tend to be outliers in this but they are public records anyone can look at. It's not uncommon for young victims to be encouraged to view them when older and working through the situation.

The only 'justice' I got, the only acknowledgement that my life was in danger, is a charge on a court record. When I first saw that years after the event, it was an incredibly healing experience. Even if the charge was dropped, even if no one else wanted to talk about, it's there, preserved, someone acknowledged me, someone acknowledged that happened even if it was just a line on a document that's been uploaded to the internet. If she was given anonymity because she wasn't convicted, there would be no public record. That record gave me strength, just as many find public accusations gives them strength to come forward.

I understand and and agree that there needs to be evidence to convict someone, but in many of these cases it’s one person’s word against another. Hence most cases not resulting in a conviction.
My main frustration is that, outside of a court, on threads like this, and in everyday life, the automatic assumption from many people is that the victim is lying.
And I am in no way defending anyone who makes a false accusation, but I would say that nobody of sound mind would do that and there must be something more going on within that person.

Leading up to his prosecution the first time around in 2002 police received over 30 complaints of indecent assault by John Leslie though only 3 were brought to court. This was ten years before Operation Yewtree and the allegations about Jimmy Savill, Rolf Harris, Max Clifford and the like.

Poor John Leslie. Even he admitted in the interview above that he had behaved inappropriately towards women.

Still can’t think of anyone who’s life has been ‘destroyed’ by false allegations. Maybe John Leslie and Michael Barrymore? A couple of people I can think of who stood trial and were found not guilty are currently appearing regularly on the nation’s favourite soap.

So we’re basically talking about changing the law to protect Leslie and Barrymore at the expense of open justice. No ta.

I can't imagine that Leslie is anything other than a sleaze ball, but if I was on the jury, it's the evidence put before me I'd be judging him on for a particular crime.
Yes the jury can only make a judgement on what's put before them

Don’t worry, a rape allegation rarely results in the accused’s life being ruined. Even if found guilty and convicted. Particularly if they’re celeby or sporty.

All these posters that know JL and have heard rumours/thought he is sleazy................................................ , anybody can write anything on here, who's to know........................
The man has been found not guilty, end of......................

Ha ha yes