[shirt-n-tie-boy]

John Lesley is denying another rape allegation. Just how many times is that he has been accused of various sexual assaults?

As far as I am aware he has never actually been found guilty of any sexual assault related offences. I am also a big believer in innocent until proven guilty.

So do you think there is no smoke without fire? Or is John Lesley just an easy target who unfairly gets a hard time of it.

[fiddlestix]

I believe in innocent till proven guilty too but it's a fact that rape is one of the hardest things to prove. Why does this keep turning up?

[rodneyT]

the poor mans probably done nothing and some silly tart is out to get a name for herself. okmabi titmass wasnt 'done over' but look at her she was a nothing until les boy appeared in her pants.

[Panda Bear]

Rape is quite hard to disprove too.

[Thally]

Hang the fckr ..............

[fiddlestix]

THE END.

[Hi again]

Actually, the FIRST time he was accused, my son, who works as a doorman said he (John Leslie, not my son!) was always pawing at women's intimate places in bars and several of them had complained about him so I think there is some likliehood...................

[badjesse]

I've seen him out in edinburgh a few times and he always struck me as a bit of a sex pest...

[Panda Bear]

I'm always suspicious when women take so long to complain. It doesn't help their case at all.

[shirt-n-tie-boy]

[hypnoscot]

Legally it may be hard to make it stick. Like many rape cases, it's very hard to prove when it's one person's word against another, particularly after a long delay.

But I think the court of public opinion (other than similar macho numbskulls) will have made up its mind that, on balance, he's almost certainly guilty as hell. The fact he's clearly such an unpleasant bullying arrogant character certainly doesn't help his case, and such a temperament usually derives from basic feelings of emotional insecurity which are also strongly associated with sexual violence. He'd certainly be a long LONG way down my dinner party list.

[.?]

why should he have to be named but the accuser remains anonymous

[wobblekins]

Ulrika should have prosecuted

[.?]

seems a bit rich to throw an accusation like this after what is it - 13 yrs

[Panda Bear]

[shirt-n-tie-boy]

[prufrock]

I dont see the fact that the girl waited 13 years is a problem except in the evidential aspect. But that favours the accused not the victim. i.e. if memories are blurred .
Leslie is priapic to excess, but hes no rapist.
The truth is the police now feel obliged to investigate with due diligence any allegation of rape etc, and the judiciary feel that cases should go to trial even when common sense would indicate otherwise.
If you wonder why so many rapists are cleared attend a high court trial or two, most of the time its just another case of two drunks staggering home in the rain from some club or party,
if this case goes to court I suspect the encounter will have commenced in a club or a party. Both parties will have been paralytic, just a gu

[hypnoscot]

[Hi again]

[rodneyT]

all bollocks! 13years my arse..... what do these women expect coming forward 13years after the incident..... send them packing. its like me going back to my high school today and saying 13years ago the canteen charged me 50p for a plate of chips instead of 45p...ah p*** off would be the response. leslie is innocent...lets put her in front of a court for wasting time and causing distress to poor old L.

[.?]

the simple fact is that if people are going to be named then the accuser should also be named

[fiddlestix]

[prufrock]

Leslie lost his job because a mate of his went to the paper with pictures of him taking cocaine, the allegations of rape etc came after that.

[rodneyT]

yeap to this very day i curse every canteen lady i see, and scream out 'how much are your bleeding chips'!?

[Mr Page]