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 ✨
John Leslie
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112347.stm
So....what do you recon? should he get his job back? After all thee are no charges now so fairness would say give it back to him and let him carry on with his life.
So....what do you recon? should he get his job back? After all thee are no charges now so fairness would say give it back to him and let him carry on with his life.
0
Comments
why shouldn't he get his job back (or another job on the telly), so many celebrities get accused of things and end up back on our screens - matthew kelly, michael barrymore...
but do we want him back?
But I'd rather see him back on TV than that nutcase Michael Barrymore.
But now he's just flipped and he was overated anyway.
Its people like you who cause peoples careers to be destroyed. Theres no smoke without fire is a ridiculous statement- most of these lasses reported their "ordeals" to Max Clifford instead of, say, the police, and Ulrika fucking Jonsson would say ANYTHING to get her ugly mush on the telly, the little slag. Are you telling me Craig Charles shouldnt have a job because "theres no smoke without fire"?
The guy was unbdoubtedly a cad and a womaniser, but that doesnt make him a rapist. And those women who went to Max Clifford first should get the same treatment that Nadine Milroy-Sloane got.
As for TV celebrities that shouldnt have a job, why do people forget that Johnny Vaughan is a CONVICTED DRUG DEALER? The Yanks have the right attitude with him, and wont let him in the country.
I don't think he was fired it was a mutal decision at the time based upon what was going on.
I think that that guy who revealed his name should get sued - what was it Mark Allright?
I do think it's suspect when a woman goes to someone like Max clifford to sell her story rather then the police.
But the thing is now there are always gonna be doubts in the back of many people's minds and TV producers know that.
Anyway Leslie looks a wreck at the moment .. you can see the stressed got othim and he's piled on the weight too, so maybe he needs to get away for a while.
Those reasons should have gone now.
Ulrika Jonnson didnt even mention it was john leslie, she knew it couldnt be proved so long after the event. I dont know about the other girls, but a person getting off with rape, isnt the same as him being innocent of the deed. Ok we dont know for sure he did it, but a lot of people said he did so why are you thinking theyre all liars and hes completely truthful???? The vast majority of rapists get away with it for some reason or another, im sure you know this as well as i do. it doesnt mean it didnt happen.
If anyone should be blamed then its the man who blurted his name out on the TV. Ulrika Jonson has never made the name public and the only reason that we all 'know' who she was talking about is because that channel 5 bloke mentioned John leslies name. So basically lay off Ulrika, it is possible she was assaulted and its possibly very hard for her.
I agree with the view that he should be allowed to go back to work.
When people say things like that it makes me so angry. Who the hell are you to say how she should behave?! I don't blame her for saying nothing and I think that if he hadn't done it she would have come out and say so. If he did it I think it I think that the way he was treated by the press is too bloody good for him.
"I hate any man that hits a woman but Ulrika is stupid for getting involved with abusive men all the time, remember Stan Collymore?"
yes cos obviously when you start to go out with someone you can tell straight away that they are abusive. Most men can hide it very well. plus its a fact that women who have been raped or sexually abused tend to find themselves in abusive relationships later in life.
Anyway, John Leslie wasn't up for charges against Ulrika jonsson, it was against other women. ulrika hasn't pressed charges.
If it was him, but because of time unprovable in a court of law, then she was right not to confirm it. It would have opened her up to a claim of libel/slander...
But if it wasn't him she should have denied it - and probably would have done so.
Surely, from her perspective, that could be a form of justice?
I'm not going to defend her decision not to go to the police when it happened (but then so many victims don't) but by letting his career die like that she must have felt that natural justice had been served to a degree?
OK. Lets assume the man did do it (something I seriously doubt).
She did not go to the police. I fully understand this decision, it is something that is too painful to talk about for most, if not all, victims of rape. In an ideal world she would have done, but if we were in an ideal world people wouldnt get raped. Thats not the issue.
However, she was obviously too traumatised to go to the police. So what does she do instead? She puts it in a book and sells it, in a blatant ploy to make money. If she was too disgusted to talk to the police, why is she not too disgusted to write it all in a book and rake the money in. And whilst we are at it, a woman who shags a famous man then sells the story of it is obviously a woman without any morals or scruples, and is someone whose word cannot be trusted.
No-one knows whether he did it or not, except the parties involved. But Ulrika Jonsson has, in the past, proved herself a less-than-reliable witness. And as for Collymore, he belted her cos she was flirting with any bugger with a knob in that bar. An unfortunate reaction, and one I detest, but an understandable one.
Let's remember that the case John Leslie was cleared of today is unconnected with Ulrika Jonsson, they are different cases so let's not just assume because he was cleared of this one he's clear of them all. Also these cases went through Max Clifford after it was revealed by Matthew Wright on Channel 5 that Leslie was the one Ulrika was accusing.
So back to Ulrika's claims of rape. She did not go to the police when she says the attack happened in 1988. I think this is perfectly understandable, she would have been frightened and possibly traumatised. Also she must have been considering the impact on her career as well, we all know at the time she was a TV-am weather girl but her career went on to bigger things - would they have happened if she had gone to the police? With a less sympathetic treatment of rape victims in 1988 Leslie could concievably have got off by saying she agreed to have sex with him then changed her mind afterwards, meanwhile Ulrika's personal life would have been dragged through the courts and the tabloids and if that judgement had occurred she would have been blasted as a liar as well.
Then fast forward to when she's writing her autobiography, fifteen or so years later, it would be very difficult to find evidence for the rape with so much time gone past. Yet she's older now and has learnt to cope with the effect the rape had on her and so can talk about it in her autobiography - I think a rape is a big enough part of someone's life to be mentioned in their autobiography. However, she has no evidence and so, probably with legal advice decides to leave the name blank. Then a media witchhunt begins to find the person she mentions, Matthew Wright blurts out John Leslie's name on Channel 5 and then these other cases just happen to come out of the woodwork against him.
So if you're going to blame anyone blame Matthew Wright and his colleagues in the media who orchestrated the witchhunt that pinned the blame on John Leslie. Not Ulrika a woman who, through her bad choice of men, is an easy target for villification for being a "slag" and a "tart" on forums like this where no-one knows the people in involved or knows anything about what happened between them.
Incidentally, lots of men have flirtatious girlfriends, they don't all kick the shit out of them - there is such a thing as self control and there is no excuse for violence.
GWST, I respect what you're saying about your horrible personal experience but don't you think people handle the effects of being raped in different ways? Also I don't feel it's very helpful to just accuse her of lying, you and I weren't there that night so we have no right to accuse either party of lying without evidence. For all we know she could have been raped and if she was - what kind of an impression does it make on other rape victims when she was just accused of being a lying slag? Ulrika's made some bad choices where men are concerned but we all make mistakes and she can't be blamed for falling in love with the wrong men. Although you wouldn't put your rape in your autobiography, doesn't mean Ulrika wouldn't - you're different people, maybe she thought it would help other rape victims to know you can get through it and move on. Also she's been in the media spotlight for virtually all her adult life so making these claims public when you live in the media goldfish bowl is not as big a deal as it would be to you.
I agree with you on the other women, I think the fact they all crawled out of the woodwork after John Leslie was named by Channel 5 and went straight to Max Clifford reveals their intentions and destroys their credibility. In fact only 3 of these women were found to have enough grounds to warrant a prosecution and only this one woman went ahead and this woman is not Ulrika. They are two different cases therefore because he was cleared of this case does not mean he should be automatically cleared from the original allegation by Ulrika.
I respect your decision not to believe her but I don't think she should be subject to the kind of vitriol that was expressed earlier in this thread and by the media. The only people who know what happened are Ulrika Jonsson and John Leslie and so none of us can say. I do think it's harsh to say the least of people to accuse her of lying and I think that could have a negative impact on other rape victims. I doubt that anyone in your support group was a celebrity, Ulrika has been in the media spotlight for all her adult life and I think maybe she did put the claim into her book to show other rape victims that you can go on and achieve things. Most alcoholics I suspect wouldn't go around shouting it from the rooftops but that didn't stop Anne Robinson making it one of the main points of her autobiography. Celebrities have a tendency to publicise things most of us would keep hidden.
I remind you that the case had nothing to do with Ulrika Jonsson - it was only when Matthew Wright blurted out John Leslie's name on Channel 5 that all these other women crawled out of the woodwork and went to Max Clifford. I would also assume that Ulrika took legal advice about the rape when writing her autobiography - it would be extremely difficult to prove a rape that occurred fifteen years ago and would be her word against his and given the kind of reception her word has recieved here and in the press I wouldn't be surprised if she felt it would be a waste of time pursuing a case because a lot of people who didn't know anything about her or the case had already made up their minds she was a cheap little tart. I don't think you have any right to say whether her claims are false or otherwise - you don't know the two parties and you don't know what happened that night.
I don't think it was manipulative - I don't think she could pursue the case because of the amount of time passed and because it would be her word against his and certain people already have formed their own opinions about her; hence the name was left blank.
So what's happening?
Yes rape is an awful thing, but throw in a few washed-out "celebs" and there's simply a sun front page to be had. Who cares? really?
Actually to throw light on John Leslie - one of my best friends - her cousin is an actress and was approached by him in a bar, so much that her friends had to drag him away from her. :eek2: