Anyone read the John Les;ie interview last week

[Monkeytrousers]

it's here if not.

He doesn't coem across well in it at all, in my opinion. Admitting that he "disrespected" and was "not proper" with women in the past...

Regardless of the whole rape allegation thing - which seems like a huge, sorry mess for all involved - he just comes across as such an unlikeable, arrogant cock of a man.

Fair enough Benieb.

For me, and a lot of people his rep will never be restored.

I wonder if opinion is split between people who have had some experience (or knowledge from other - personal of professional - ) of sexual assault fromt he victims prespective and the other of people who have experienced it from an accused man's prespective.

If it is so common as to be believe, there must be lost of women with husbands, boyfriends, brothers, uncles, fathers or friemds who have found themselves accused - officially or not.

I have met colin Stagg and know a great number of people who knew him prior to, during and after the whole investigation.

He was known to boast thathe had killed nicole, so i don't think he deserves a payoput at all...nor was he a victim.

sorry iknow that was off topic but couldn't hold it in.

it's not fair though is it, that his reputation is in tatters. He was never charged or tried...

I don't think you need to have experience of sexual assault to know that it's wrong to believe someone guilty without any evidence, unless of course you are suggesting that victims of abuse should be allowed to get away withi making wild judgments about people based upon gossip and tabloid journalism.

I like to think that the attempt someone made to sexually assault me as a child still wouldn't cloud my judgement so much I would follow the no smoke without fire route!

How did you meet Colin Stagg Mamazon? Did you spoend much time in his company? Was this before or after the trial?

I disagree. It may very well be 'fair enough' - in a system so unfair against victims.

Well considering that 90% of rapists get away with it, those who had no previous form and were known to already be respectful to women would be able to escape 'without a stain of their character'.

For the rest the social disapprobation, might be their just deserts where the criminal justice system fails.

and the presuption of innocence is a guide only. It is there because people are in teh habit of forming opinions. One look at MN will aptly demonstrate this, for better and worse

That may not be how it should be, but that's how it is.

the perverse anomaly in this justice system is that burden of proof... You need evidence to convict someone.
Those cases of note most recently overturned prove the system is flawed, esp it would seem in highly emotive or public interest cases.
However with rape it's not so much a man proving he didn't, instead the onus is upon the victim (usually a woman) to prove she was actually raped.

Going to the cops with a rape claim is brave.
Personally I preferred to tell an old friend with good connections
Justice served.
That's a verdict I can live with!

John leslie just detracts from a system which is heavily weighted against victims.
As for him... Fanny rat of highest order, I should know I've met a fair few. Narcissists nearly.

"However with rape it's not so much a man proving he didn't, instead the onus is upon the victim (usually a woman) to prove she was actually raped."

but that's how it is for all crimes, not just rape.and that's exactly how it should be for all crimes.
what is the alternative?
forcing those accussed to prove they didn't commit a crime? in law you have the right to presumption of innocence.unfortunately with rape it is very hard to prove as except in circumstances where there has been a physical confrontation or a set of circumstances have left physical evidence, it is one persons word against another.
i agree that something needs to be done to improve conviction rates, but for the life of me i can't figure out what can be done without mitigating the rights of the accussed which is paramount not only to justice, but also to make convictions stick.

"and that's exactly how it should be for all crimes."

Should it really?

For instamce people seem to believe that the jury system is infallable and prefereable to a judge or judges - when it's known that one or two dominent persoanlites can determine the result of a jury. That is is not actually '12 men (sic) good and true', but one or two dominent ones who lead the others.

There are people working on these quandies.

actually what I meant to infer was that the rape prosecution case technically becomes a defence in many cases ( I speak from knowledge and sadly experience)
In which case the accused becomes the perceived victim.
That's not justice not in any sense.
I do however believe anonymity should be considered for the accused in most cases, until convicted at least.

No, I think that is correct Piffle. I am working on an idea like this at the moment.

That in many cases that do not pertain to sexual assault, that there is a presumtion of innocence - but when it comes to sexual assault there is actually a presumption in the jury (and population at large) that someone is lying.

This is then complicated by the fact that people them percieve a man being accused of rape as being a worse 'crime' than being raped itself - this is bound up in many inherent predjudices and myths about female sexuality and duplicity.

Female sexuality has been so misrepresented to both men and women to the point where people genuienly beleive women ask to be raped - nto verbally of cousre, but by their general demenour (acting too sexy or being cock tease i.e being attracticve but not putting it about - take you pick)

This confusion and plain ignorance of what rape is may just lead many into a confusion and as they just don;t know, they think the lesser of the two evils is to aquit the man.

Even women who have been sexually assaulted themseves may be less sympathestic to a woman who has the courage to go through the system, in a kind of 'I just got on with it, why can't you?' way.

and I should have added, even in cases of child abuse - this dual perception of guilt raises it's ugly head. It is indeed a real taboo - but not in the way we would think at first - for the real taboo seems to be calling masclinity or a man's honour into question, not the fact that a woman or child may have been assaulted.

i remember that John Leslie thread, it was staggering the amount of stories that were circulting about him. and bad ones, from well-known posters with no noticeable axe to grind. (including moi, as JL himself might say).

even if 'not protecting the brand' was his only crime, it does suggest that he really couldn't control himself or his cock. which is a bit fookin' stoopid for a daytime tv presenter. there's no room for edgy in that career, poor old fern took a roasting for having a tummy staple or two, so i think kinky sex and coke was never going to go down well.

Yes, that was a eye opening thread indeed.

AND i SHOULD ADD THAT THE orthopedic pants WERE VERY EXPENSIVE.

Beanieb - He lived next door to a family friend.
I met him prior to the trial but i was only young. he became a minor celeb after the trial though and he would often be in teh same bar/pub as friends and i.

he really was a total moron. he would walk around with a very arrogant air about him, and would often walk up to tables saying "yeah thst right, im the bloke they reckin killed Rachel Nikell...what you want? an autograph?" as though it were something to be proud of.

he did make me feel uncomfortable.

whether he was guilty for the nikell killing or not i don't know but i would not put anything past him.

">>that's how it is for all crimes, not just rape

No it most certainly is not. If you are mugged, no one will cross examine you, drag up your entire previous history of (say) charitable donations, and argue that because you have given money away previously, you must have consented to being mugged then changed your mind. Or suggest that you wanted to be mugged because you were carrying a designer handbag. Or bring up previous mental illness you may have suffered, and make out that you are an attention seeking unreliable witness because of this. etc etc etc etc. "

did you even read the post you took the quote from? it had absolutely nothing to do with the practices of defending barristers when cross examining the victim in a rape case. it was referring solely to the burden of proof and standard of proof in a rape case which is, no matter how dramatic and emotional you make your rant against me, exactly the same as in all criminal cases.
the burden of proof is on the prosecution (except in certain mental health defences) and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
and if you are mugged and it got to court i'd imagine you would be cross examined as otherwise there would be very little case for the prosecution and the defence barrister would most crtainly use dubious tactics to invalidate your testimony with questions designed to make you contradict yourself or to point out why your testimony is unreliable.
there was absolutely nothing emotive or judgmental about the post you quoted it was a simple statement of fact that in law all criminal cases should be tried in the same manner.

ew, i read it too.
i thought ; fair enough, lets hear it, see what he has to say, keep an open mind...

got down to the bit where it says that 30 women came forward with ellegations following the publicity around the ulrika thing. 30.
innocent men do not get accused of rape 30 times.
no fucking way.

they do by fucking slags kiss and tell girls, happy. oh no, they don't. you're right.

although that's clearly what JL would like us to think.

If someone who was a public figure raped you on a date and you knew it would come down to a trial with your entire sexual history being made public and a high chance of the accused being let off and you were also a public figure would you
a) go to court anyway and trust justice to win out or

b) have a friend out the accused, watch said rapist lose job, respect, be hounded by the media and tarnished forever, potentially warning other women of his character - which option would you take?