Time for a full and open apology?

[sft42]

With all the charges against John Leslie now being dropped does anyone think it's time the guy was re-instated in his previous TV presenting Job(s) and Matthew Wright should be made to publicly apologise for his defamation on the guy's character, not to mantion numerous newspapers being made to publish front page retractions? If any one of us was accused of these crimes bad though it may be we could go back to a near normal life......this would appear to be a nigh on impossible task for Mr Leslie. Thoughts folks.

[darth vader]

The report says that charges have been dropped - it doesn't necessarily make him innocent - remember that 20 women came forward with complaints about him and i find it hard to believe that all 20 were lying - anyway they say it's unlikely he will be back on screen as a presenter due to him being caught snorting coke

[sft42]

Em Darth WRONG! In British law you are Innocent until proven guilty and this seems to have been forgotten by lots of people in the recent spate of celebrities who have transgressed.......one of the points that need discussing is the trial by tabloids that seems to be happening these days.

[brawburd]

John Leslie. A rapist - only Ulrikka had the power to say aye or nae, and she chose not to or couldn't? A guy who likes rough sex - no offence committed there if partner willing? Cocaine user - an excuse for tv bosses to get rid of him, avoiding any other distasteful attention if he was to be re-employed? All of this - important? No. Whatever John Leslie is or isn't, he is entitled to same trial process as any one of the rest of us. I have first hand experience, from working in a care setting, of how badly awry things can go when an accusation of sexual assault is made. This set of cirumstances almost destroyed a man and his family, his face plastered over Scottish national newspapers when he was going in and out of court. When the accusers involved admitted they had lied. there was a brief few lines in the paper. damage well and truly done. Darth, there for the grace goes each of us!

[bazwillrun]

As far as I am concerned all charges were dropped so he is innocent. He should be compensated and reinstated by his ex employers, that is if he wants to go back. Johnny Vaughn served 1 year, i think, at one of HM's guest houses for drugs offences and hes doing fine now Leslie Grantham seved time for killing someone and hasnt done him any harm If all the people that were doing drugs were taken off of TV or kicked out of their jobs there wouldnt be anybody left to even turn out the lights. The words hypocrasy and double standards spring to mind here As for Mathew Wright, i used to work at the Mirror when he was there and he had that stupid grin then. John Leslie should sue him and hang him out to dry, that would wipe the stupid grin off his smug face

[answerbok]

Well, John Leslie, as you were, minus career, that's life. We all got a cross to bear. Matthew Kelly recovering okay, Witch trials - Bah! and double standards, if the face fits, Brazilwilrun; ok for Grantham et al.. and Boy George, role model for kids.. he should be barred from tv fame for all his crimes even though he served his time for the heroin.

[andy hughes]

The full facts may come out in time, but the obvious fact that stares us in the face is the 'trial be media' that John Leslie has undergone. No matter what he has, or hasn't done, he is vindiciated in a legal sense - and the media slant on proceedings will lead a proportion of the public to adopt a 'no smoke without fire' attitude, which must surely add weight to the argument for anonimity for accused people to remain until conviction.

[j2buttonsw]

I have no opinion on John Leslie but fame is a double edged sword: celebs certainly don't mind the good publicity (cover of Hello = good) so they can't complain about the bad (cover of The Skum = bad). If you live by the sword etc etc

[paulz]

Yes I think he ought to get his job back, and the judge said, "you can leave this court without a single stain on your character." If that doesn't make him innocent then what does? He ought to be able to sue the smug master wright, is this yet another high profile mess up, joining the ranks of Paul Burrell, Matthew Kelly and others?

[comloulou]

I have no facts before me to pass any kind of judgement on Mr Leslie but my God if anyone deserves to be ruined its Matthew Wright. What an odious character he is. What he did basically amounts to slander and it should be him with a wrecked career and mounting legal fees.

[RCP]

He should certainly be re-instated or compensated. Also, what the 'media' seem to forget with their witch hunts is that sometime in the future a genuinely guilty person is going to get off as their defence will rightly state that their client cannot possibly receive a fair trial due to the jurors being prejudiced as a result of a mountain of adverse publicity. Apologies for no full stops or commas - was in rant mode!

[stephen.hove]

why should mathew wright be sued? he didnt lie.just said that john leslie was accused. wright didnt make the charges and leslie wasnt declared not guilty.he hasnt proved himself innocent. yes legally he is innocent until proven guilty. but legally innocent doesnt mean he didnt do it.just that it cant be proved he did it.

[sft42]

Em again I am afraid Mr. Hove....Legally innocent means exactly that....no accusation of guilt whatsoever...you mey be getting confused with the wonderful decision we can have in Scotland called "Not proven" but as the judge summing up said and as paulz quoted earlier "you can leave this court without a single stain on your character." How much clearer does this have to be? Don't get me wrong on this folks I am not J. Leslie's biggest fan by any means but we have to respect the rule of law and as if looks the case that these charges may have been possibly brought due to false testimony then he should be re-instated and his other accusers in the media should have their wrist slapped for berating an innocent man. No?

[stephen.hove]

did you actually read and understand what i wrote sft? i understand he is legally innocent,but i am saying this DOES NOT mean he didnt do it. he claims he cleared his name,but this did not happen. he wasnt found guilty, so officially he is innocent. but i find his protestations hollow sounding.

[sft42]

I read and understood fully but i don't think you are taking onboard the whole meaning of innocent in law....as far as the judiciary are concerned this man is innocent of these "alleged" crimes....this means exactly that, he didn't do it and if you insist to protest to the contrary, regardless of the fact that you don't think he's a good actor, you leave your self open to be sued for libel and defamation of character.

[stephen.hove]

im not saying he did it. im just saying he hasnt proved he didnt do it in a court of law.i dont know if he did it,and frankly i dont really care. i know its the onus of the court to prove you did something, rather than you prove your innocence. the point i was trying to make is that he made a song and dance about 'clearing his name' which clearly HE didnt do.and he wasnt found not guilty was he, rather the charges were dropped.to clarify, i accept he is not guilty of the crime.

[Toglet]

I think in cases like this that both accused and accuser should have the same degree of anonymity until it comes to court and a judgement made. Either both named and photoed, or neither.

[the_dipsey_1]

i think that it is correct that in the current climate the accused should have there name with held, at least until trial - i felt very sorry for people such as chraig charles and mathew kelly ( who i think were innocent) who have had allegations dropped if they are innocent the same for john leslie if he is innocent - i have to say that there is something about john leslie that makes me think he did it! but thats just a feeling and has nothing to do with the press and theres no way you can convict someone on a feeling!!! lol - and it is true that the cases were dropped and he was no acquitted - so why he keeps saying ive been proved innocent i dont know but if he is innocent i feel truely sorry for him

[the_dipsey_1]

actually sft since he is writing it it would only be libel

[the_dipsey_1]

before you say it sft (lol) i am now referring to the fact that i thought john leslie went to caught and the judge actually found that there was no case to answer - which means only the prosecutions evidence was heard and the judge decided it was not enough - i also remember that the news said there was something about the plaintiff that they did not releas for fear of making her look bad which was the reason for the case being dropped?? does anyone know what this was? maybe she pulled out? or maybe she had previously complained of the same thing? unfortunately as far as i know they have not changed the way (yet, although they are going to) that the prosecution can interview victims on the stand ie what they were wearing, there sexual history etc - maybe there was something there