Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Angus Deayton sacked

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, look at what my comments provoked…bear with me because I’m going to answer them all – you lucky people!
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Because what Leslie is accused of is probably the second most serious crime there is.

    The emphasis there is accused whereas Deyton doesn’t deny the allegations. If anything not only were the media wrong to name Leslie, but Granada were wrong to sack him.

    That said, he could hardly argue against the cocaine video
    So why the sacking?

    Apart from lying to his bosses you mean?

    Apart from making his position as chair of a satirical game show hard because he was the news…the programme should be about the issues of the day, not its chairman.
    Originally posted by the girl with sharp teeth
    oh ffs mok, the 20 or so alleged victims have all susequently made themselves know to the sun or max fucking clifford. .

    If you ignore that four of them have gone to the Police with their allegations.

    There is an expression about smoke and fire. In this case I would suggest that there is a lot of smoke.

    if ulrika jonsson was raped then i'm a sprig of broccoli. she's a manipulative little bitch and i've never liked her, but now i actually loathe her. she should either confirm or deny that it was john leslie instead of leaving everything in limbo like this whilst smiling so smugly.

    I’ll accept that Ulrika was remiss not to have reported the crime at the time, but many women don’t. What you fail to mention is that it is still conjecture that Leslie is the man who attacked her because she still hasn’t named her attacker.

    The fact that you say you have never liked her appears to reflect in your condemnation of her, and that is sad.

    I haven’t liked her either, but that doesn’t mean that I will instantly dismiss her rape claim as a fabrication, nor do I believe that she should name the attacker unless she wishes to.
    Originally posted by Kermit
    Well now that you mention it...

    They didnt report themselves to the police, they reported themeslves to Max Clifford, a publicist. Like the "woman" who was "raped" by "Christine Hamilton".

    See above, but four women, to date, actually have.

    Its also worth noting that most of these women have remained anonymous, and have not actually sought any personal publicity.
    Its not been proven about John Leslie, so they shouldnt have reported it.

    They didn’t. Channel Five did. So attack the newspapers for sure, but remember that it wasn’t they who broke the story.
    Itis defamation, but he has no way of proving he didnt do it because of the way Ulrika Jonsson has acted. The papers have acted illegally, but he has no comeback against it because he has no way to argue it is defamation unless Jonsson brings a trial. Which she wont.

    Because she hasn’t named him.

    He could sue several organisations right now and Matthew Wright personally. It will be interesting to see if he does, in view of the effect.
    Johnny Vaughan. Who, incidentally, has convictions for drug dealing. Doesnt stop him working, does it?

    Who, incidentally, served jail time for his crime, and didn’t do it while he was a presenter on national TV.
    Originally posted by DJP
    Just a question. John Leslie. Right, this guy dated Catherine Zeta Jones. If you can manage that, why would you *need* to rape anyone, let alone Ulrika

    I’m surprised at this.

    I thought it was only Steelgate who saw rape as a need for sex. Most “experts” believe it is about power.

    Next question, have you considered that he may not have understood that some women could resist his charms? A well known, rich, “handsome” man, why wouldn’t they find him attractive. At least that could be what he thought...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But you forget MoK...Leslie has to prove that he was defamed, i.e. had lies spread about him, and he is in no position tyo do so. The only way that he can prove that five and the newspapers (I never said Jonsson did say anything, which is my point) are libellous is by proving that he didnt rape Jonsson- and he cant do that because Jonsson didnt bring a claim and its unlikely a court would cross-examine Jonsson as she has said nothing about Leslie publically. Very coniving, very clever, and very scummy.

    Oh, and the newspapers reported it as Leslie who did it. they didnt say 'five says its Leslie', the headlines and the stories insinuated that it was Leslie. Matthew Wright was barely, if at all, mentioned.

    Oh, and normally you are very against trial by media, but you seem to have left your morals at the door this time MoK. Yes, Leslie has taken charlie (if you accept grainy, blurred photos as proof), so the sacking is maybe understandable, but the fact that he snorts coke and likes bedding young girls is no proof as a rapist. Youve judged him in his character, and that means nothing.

    Oh, and 'no smoke without fire'? I refer you to the cases of Craig Charles, the university professor who marked two girls essays as fails so they stalked him before crying rape, the Hamilton case and the case of the pharmacist who was jailed for bringing a malicious rape claim against a student who dumped her. There was lots of smoke there, especially in the Hamilton and Charles cases, yet one never reached court because it was too ludicrous and the other one was so unfounded the judge threw it out in the space of hours.

    Just a few points to consider.

    Oh, and I did quite like Jonsson, but I still dont think she was raped. The way shes dealt with it, and her past history of screwing over Stan Collymore and Sven Goran Eriksson, among others, when they stopped liking her, is an indication that her word should be taken with a pinch of salt. And, yes, thats a character judgment too, but I wouldnt like to dismiss the theory unless it comes to court. Which it wont.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    I’m surprised at this.

    I thought it was only Steelgate who saw rape as a need for sex. Most “experts” believe it is about power.

    Next question, have you considered that he may not have understood that some women could resist his charms? A well known, rich, “handsome” man, why wouldn’t they find him attractive. At least that could be what he thought...

    Remarkably, it was humorous.

    Or at least, intended that way.

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    The only way that he can prove that five and the newspapers (I never said Jonsson did say anything, which is my point) are libellous is by proving that he didnt rape Jonsson

    That's not actually the case; they have accused him of rape and thus if he brought a case for defamation against them it would be up to them to provide proof that he was guilty. And, as it was a criminal offence that they accused him of, they would have to provide proof to the standard normally used in a criminal trial, not simply in terms of "balance of probabilities", which is normally used in litigations.

    The downside to him bringing a case for defamation is that he'd have to have his entire private life dragged out into public.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit,

    At no point have I said that I think he is guilty, I just believe that this much smoke means that he needs to do something. His silence damns him more.

    As Vox says, he could easily sue for Libel, especially based on these allegations, and he doesn't need to sue Jonsson, because he could start with Five, and then sue most newspapers. The onus of prrof is on them to show that he DID do it...

    I don't agree with trial by media, but it has happened, and like it or not no newspaper would have reported his name if five hadn't done so first.

    What interests me is that people are blaming Jonsson for this. Especially when it is based on stories in the very tabloids you complain about. The important issue here is that Ulrika has never named her attacker, people have made assumptions and surprisingly another 30 or so women have suggested that similar things have happened to them and tha John Leslie was responsible. The same day that the papers named him, they also referred to several other similar cases where the victim had named him. Still no confirmation from Ulrika.

    As for Collymore, well Stan beat the shit out of her, I'd hardly suggest that she has managed to screw him over.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think one of the tabloids WOULD have named him if someone hadnt let it slip. Strange how they knew within minutes that Matthew Wright (a journalist for The Mirror, as far as Im aware) "dropped the clanger" on some obscure daytime TV talk show. Itd have been out in the News of the Screws on Sunday, without a doubt.

    I also dont think it matters what Leslie does now, his career is in tatters. People always claim 'no smoke without fire', so even if he conclusively proves he didnt, then even that wont make a difference. Personally I think hes a womaniser who lieks a bit of charlie every now and again, but that means hell never work as a family entertainer again. Even though I have my doubts about the coke pictures in the tabloids.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I must say Anne Robinson was better on HIGNFY than I thought she would be. Still, it was even weirder than last week without Deayton.

    BRING BACK ANGUS!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The tabloids... what an advertisement for this great country!:lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.