Jump to content

John Leslie


Sith Happens

Recommended Posts

Sith Happens

Found not guilty again of sexual assault. Isnt it about time there was anomyity for the accused as well as the accuser?

His career has been ruined by false allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Found not guilty again of sexual assault. Isnt it about time there was anomyity for the accused as well as the accuser?

His career has been ruined by false allegations.

You’re not wrong. But I didn’t actually know anything about it until you mentioned it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
7 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

You’re not wrong. But I didn’t actually know anything about it until you mentioned it. 

Ooops. I meant john erm lewis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An old work colleague of mine went for his honeymoon to a Sandals resort a few years ago and there was a chap who he meet at the resort who was there with his partner who had previously been a nurse , he said the bloke was an hard drinking lech who constantly made other women's stay there a misery with his pestering and innuendo

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JG400 said:

An old work colleague of mine went for his honeymoon to a Sandals resort a few years ago and there was a chap who he meet at the resort who was there with his partner who had previously been a nurse , he said the bloke was an hard drinking lech who constantly made other women's stay there a misery with his pestering and innuendo

 

 

Was the lech a tall Scottish gentleman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Found not guilty again of sexual assault. Isnt it about time there was anomyity for the accused as well as the accuser?

His career has been ruined by false allegations.

He was found 'not proven' not ' not guilty.

It wasn't proven that the allegations were false.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
6 hours ago, sage said:

He was found 'not proven' not ' not guilty.

It wasn't proven that the allegations were false.

 

Issuing that sort of statement makes it worse, there is no 'a bit guilty', if not proven it means there wasnt proof he did it, isnt that the case for pretty much most people found not guilty...no proof you committed the crime you were accused of?

People tend to judge, and thats why its not fair to those accused for it to be made public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Issuing that sort of statement makes it worse, there is no 'a bit guilty', if not proven it means there wasnt proof he did it, isnt that the case for pretty much most people found not guilty...no proof you committed the crime you were accused of?

People tend to judge, and thats why its not fair to those accused for it to be made public.

It is the Scottish law.

There are 3 verdicts a jury can give. Guilty, not guilty or not proven.

If the jury thought it was a false allegation as you stated they would have found him not guilty.

A not proven verdict means there is enough evidence to suggest he may be guilty, but not sufficient to say he is definitely guilty.

It would seem it was one person's word against another and they both had a friend there who backed up their story.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
28 minutes ago, sage said:

It is the Scottish law.

There are 3 verdicts a jury can give. Guilty, not guilty or not proven.

If the jury thought it was a false allegation as you stated they would have found him not guilty.

A not proven verdict means there is enough evidence to suggest he may be guilty, but not sufficient to say he is definitely guilty.

It would seem it was one person's word against another and they both had a friend there who backed up their story.

 

 

Whatever the terminology, unless he (or any other person for that matter) is found guilty they shouldnt be named.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And cctv that supported his case and dna evidence that suggested that the lowest his hand went was the waist belt of her trousers. 

To go back to the original point why can’t both parties be anonymous until a verdict is reached? If you’re guilty then the press can report it but not until.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

 

Whatever the terminology, unless he (or any other person for that matter) is found guilty they shouldnt be named.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with that point, just the false allegation comment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
2 minutes ago, sage said:

I wasn't disagreeing with that point, just the false allegation comment.

 

Ok, maybe i should change it to His career has been ruined by allegations which have not been substantiated or proven?

You get my point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens

I would just like to point out I am not defending people who commit crimes like this, but its not just famous people who have had lives ruined by being named.

If found guilty throw the book at them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
5 minutes ago, Gritters said:

How long can it be before a woman can't press charges? 

I've had a few slowies with some birds and they've never kicked up a fuss. May be it's the type of bird he was dancing with. I bet she wasn't up for it.

Don't think there is a time limit here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...