John Leslie programme

[Nutjob]

Anyone planning on watching?!

when is it on?

Tomorrow at 9 on Sky One. Think I'll give it a go if dh will let me!!

I would love to watch it but we don't have Sky. Give us an update. I can't make up my mind about him but then I only have the news in the papers to rely on and reporting, no matter what the medium, is always biased.

I watched it, the programme didn't make him look guilty at all really, even that Anne whateverhernameis has dropped all charges, but then again after seeing the 2 different programmes on Michael Jackson I think that I wont even believe a programme like this again.

I watched it and I don't think he's guilty at all. I think Ulrika is just out for as much fame as she can get and doesn't mind if it harms someone else's career in the process. John Leslie probably just chatted her up at the time or something like that and now she's decided to target him.

She always seems to me like she'll do anything just to get in the papers eg, dating loads of people, causing a row over Sven, making allegations, making a huge fuss over her rubbish autobiography.

I thought Ulrika had not named anyone over her rape allegations it was someone else who named him - or has she now named him?

She didn't name him in her book but she must have known it would come out some how. People wouldn't just let something like that drop and there'll always be someone who finds that sort of thing out. She's not stupid - she knew it wouldn't stay a secret and so just mentioning that he's a TV presenter is almost as bad as mentioning him by name, but now of course she can't get sued because she didn't actually say who.

If he is innocent then I feel really sorry for him - his career is in ruins!

But If she hasn't named him how do we know that he was the one she was referring to in her book?

As it said in the programme, the detail she gave about the mystery man led everyone who was close enough to work it out to all come to think it was John Leslie. All the major paper editors knew it but they couldn't print a thing becuase they's get sued.

Also, if it wasn't him she was meaning and everyone got it wrong, surely she would have said so when his career was on the line and he was getting loads of stick for it.

IMO she's just a vindictive, greedy b*h who's out for whatever she can get. If something really did happen to her, then I feel really sorry for her but everything I've read and seen just says otherwise. Also, I don't think she's helping other women in similar situations, by throwing around sob stories about her 'ordeal', then dropping the whole subject when she gets as much fame as she can squeeze out about it.

I find the who issue really difficult - I think if she was raped and wanted to write about it in a book about her life story then she was right to do so. As far as I know, she has always said that she will not name her alleged attacker and it was those in the media who decided to name him - presumeable without confirmation from her that he was her attacker - who acted in an irresponsible manner.

I don't think that she was obliged to say it wasn't him - assuming that it wasn't him - when his job/career was on the line as that would result in all tv presenters being accused, one by one, until she did NOT say that he wasn't her attacker. Also other people had made allegations about him which I understand were being investigated and these are the matters that he is not going to be charged with so she could not really interfere in their allegations.

I don't know whether the attack happened or not and if it did happen, I don't know who the attacker was but I do think that if it did happen and she wanted to write about it in a book about her life, she had every right to do so. Just as we have every right not to read/buy the book.

oops, so many typos in my posts! it should be 'the whole issue' not 'the who issue' in the first line.

I thought the reason all the meejah people knew it was him right away is that he is (or was) a notorious lech?

Just thought I would revive this thread in view of this latest development.

Do you think that as the CPS have investigated for this long before bringing charges the charges will stand up in court?

I just wondereed why this wasnt brought about while he was working on blue peter? If you were raped you wouldnt wait until that person got a more high profile job would you?

My meighbour wnet out with J L for a month and said he was a gentleman. He was horny but a gent and no rapist. I have seen Ulrika though on a plane and she was the most flirtatious and insatiable woman!!!!

By the way Pie how do you a link??? You clever girl you!

actually one of my old school friends is shacked up with one of ulrikas exs(not going to name anyone might get sued) and she is supposed to be very dirty.

oh god just read that back didnt mean it to sound so crude

I can also endorse Quackers comment about our Ulrika being v.v.'flitatious' - i have a friend who was on a TV prog with her and this was her view totally. (this doesn't make John Leslie any better - just thought i'd add my own second hand experience)

Hope to God none of you are in the jury if I ever get raped!! Yes I was wearing a short skirt, I like sex, I flirt alot and I am really dirty (am none of these things really) - oh well deserved it then obviously!!

Someone may be pretty. flirtatious and up for it with anyone but when they say no - they mean no!!
If a prostitute gets raped do you think that is ok??

Quackers, not clever, just read the instructions under 'Getting Started' at the top of the page

He hasn't been charged with rape has he? I thought they could only charge him with 2 counts of indecent assault on one woman?

2 charges of indecent assualt yep...generally question about this charge, does that include anal rape???

Not saying that this applies here, just curious.

A friend of mine guessed that the anonymous TV presenter that Ulrika referred to was John Leslie, before it was announced. Why ? Because she had a friend who worked in TV who had had a bad experience with John Leslie.

Guess there probably is some truth in the accusations - though not necessarily rape.