John Leslie

  • pistol 18 Jun 2003 14:35:08 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    I think you can safely say this guy's career is over
  • ssuellid 18 Jun 2003 14:38:21 19,141 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    I don't think his relationship with Charles did him much good either - splashed all other the front pages as it was. Not rape tho - and the same woman twice?
  • sheepfish 18 Jun 2003 14:39:08 1,168 posts
    Registered 18 years ago
    IF he is found innocent, how much can he sue that slag Ulrika Jonsson for? A career of lost earnings must add up to a lot.
  • CerealKey 18 Jun 2003 14:39:49 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    If he gets off though his career will be back on track, exclusive story deals and what not.
  • ssuellid 18 Jun 2003 14:40:35 19,141 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    She has never named him. There was a programme on Sky a few weeks ago and there were a few people in the music business who were shocked when Leslie was accused as they were expecting it to be someone else that has yet to be named.
  • mentat 18 Jun 2003 14:41:40 5,613 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    sheepfish wrote:
    IF he is found innocent, how much can he sue that slag Ulrika Jonsson for? A career of lost earnings must add up to a lot.
    Nothing.
    She never named him as the one - it was matthew wright on the wright stuff, channel 5.

    Edit: Mang, i need to improve my leet posting skillz.

    Edited by mentat at 13:42:20 18-06-2003
  • pistol 18 Jun 2003 14:42:08 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    sheepfish wrote:
    IF he is found innocent, how much can he sue that slag Ulrika Jonsson for? A career of lost earnings must add up to a lot.

    She's not my favourite person either and it does amaze me that she talked about being raped in her book and that she ended up in hospital because it it, but wouldn't mention who it was or press charges against them.
  • ssuellid 18 Jun 2003 14:43:22 19,141 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Apparently its too private to talk about but not too private to print in her autobiography - do you think it helped book sales at all? ;)
  • CerealKey 18 Jun 2003 14:44:01 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    But she has never corrected the accusation against him and said: "No, it wasn't John Leslie!"
  • sheepfish 18 Jun 2003 14:44:44 1,168 posts
    Registered 18 years ago
    I know she was not the one that named him but she made it clear who it was. She appeared on chat shows and in papers and was bleating on about it in order to shift a few books. Never charged anyone has she? Why not?

    If there is justice, IF Leslie is found inncocent (big if) then he should be able to sue her.
  • pistol 18 Jun 2003 14:44:53 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    WOPR wrote:
    ssuellid wrote:
    Apparently its too private to talk about but not too private to print in her autobiography - do you think it helped book sales at all? ;)
    I was in a bookshop on holiday and they had the hardback of her book going for 1.99 LOL!

    Shit!! that much?
  • CerealKey 18 Jun 2003 14:45:54 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    There was far more interesting stuff in the papers about Leslie, if anything her not naming him really boosted up mystery of who it was and it not being in the book really didn't help.
  • Wretched-Chin 18 Jun 2003 14:47:24 745 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    sheepfish wrote:
    IF he is found innocent, how much can he sue that slag Ulrika Jonsson for? A career of lost earnings must add up to a lot.

    He *is* innocent at the moment. 'Till proven guilty.

    Still, his career is down the pan for sure...
  • Marcus 18 Jun 2003 14:51:15 1,646 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    sheepfish wrote:
    I know she was not the one that named him but she made it clear who it was. She appeared on chat shows and in papers and was bleating on about it in order to shift a few books. Never charged anyone has she? Why not?

    If there is justice, IF Leslie is found inncocent (big if) then he should be able to sue her.
    Well, for starters, the charges are unrelated to the allegations in Ulrikas' book, but as far as I know, she has never publically commented on the issue of the rapists' identity either way (my guess is that the papers/Mathew Wright fingered the wrong guy, but it suits Ulrika to have his name and career trashed).
    Any suit would have to be for slander (he isn't named in her book, so it isn't libel), and any slander has to be public (as far as I know, any legal types care to inform me ?).
    Justice is a rare commodity and is rarely delivered well.

    Edited by Marcus at 13:53:25 18-06-2003
  • pistol 18 Jun 2003 14:52:33 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Wretched Chin wrote:
    sheepfish wrote:
    IF he is found innocent, how much can he sue that slag Ulrika Jonsson for? A career of lost earnings must add up to a lot.

    He *is* innocent at the moment. 'Till proven guilty.

    Still, his career is down the pan for sure...

    I'm not saying he is, but unfortunately mud sticks. He's had a bit of a reputation anyway, so this just adds to it. Max Clifford (another twat) was on TV this morning going on about how fickle the entertainment industry is and how competitive these jobs are. Any negative press is going to cause problems for him, especially something as serious as this. Barrymore's started again in New Zealand as he knew the game was up for him in the UK as far as being as big as he was.
  • sheepfish 18 Jun 2003 15:01:01 1,168 posts
    Registered 18 years ago
    This whole John Leslie thing erupted from nowhere. He has lost a lucrative career. IF he is found innocent, someone is to blame for that. Be it Ulrika or Matthew Wright, IF he is innocent he should try to destroy either/both of them like they have done to him.

    Ulrika did not mention his name. She wrote about the incident in her book and then went on chatshows to promote the book. Why did she not mention Leslie? She started the whole thing, she destroyed him by what she wrote and by the cowardly appearences on chatshows where she laughed off opportunities to name him? Why because she would be taken to the cleaners IF he was innocent. Which is what should happen anyway. She instigated it all.
  • Marcus 18 Jun 2003 15:24:19 1,646 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    sheepfish wrote:
    This whole John Leslie thing erupted from nowhere. He has lost a lucrative career. IF he is found innocent, someone is to blame for that. Be it Ulrika or Matthew Wright, IF he is innocent he should try to destroy either/both of them like they have done to him.

    Ulrika did not mention his name. She wrote about the incident in her book and then went on chatshows to promote the book. Why did she not mention Leslie? She started the whole thing, she destroyed him by what she wrote and by the cowardly appearences on chatshows where she laughed off opportunities to name him? Why because she would be taken to the cleaners IF he was innocent. Which is what should happen anyway. She instigated it all.
    Much as I agree with your sentiments, I don't think that there is any basis for a lawsuit - I don't think you can defame someone by not saying anything, and Matthew Wright simply said the name that had been going around fleet street over that weekend. Unless there is a quoted source for the rumour, then there's nothing that Leslie can do.
    Sometimes, the law's an ass (not arse).
  • pjmaybe 18 Jun 2003 16:22:14 70,666 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Oh well, he can always go into politics.

    Peej
  • Deleted user 18 June 2003 17:15:56
    otto wrote:
    I like this attitude where the person who's allegedly been raped is a "slag". What's it called? Oh yes, "misogyny".

    And before someone comes back with a predictable "political correctness" retort, labelling something as PC is a cheap and sleazy way out of an argument.
    To be fair, Ulrika is hardly virtuous, she has been around. I think what's happened to her is terrible but she is hardly a virginal beaty. I could put about thirty disclaimers here but I think you all know me well enough so I don't have to. My point being that calling her a slag in the sense of "slapper" or any other term you want to label her with aren't necessarily that far from the truth, not that she should be raped or that she deserved it or wanted it...why am I not avoiding this minefield?

    Edited by Mr Sleep at 16:18:44 18-06-2003
  • Deleted user 18 June 2003 17:27:03
    otto wrote:
    Sorry but her "virginal" nature or lack of it is neither here nor there. I do find it incredibly distasteful not to mention two-faced when men glorify sexual appetite in other men but denigrate it in women. Especially when the "fact" that a woman enjoys sex herself is seen as mitigation for a man who rapes her.
    I Never do glorify the sexual appetie of men. I would never say that either, that's ridiculous. My point was that she had been around, which she has, I never made a judgement on that.

    One last point, I know this sounds like I'm backing out but it's late in the day and I'm too tired to really give anyone anything constructive so if I come off half arsed you can blame that.

    Edited by Mr Sleep at 16:30:14 18-06-2003
  • Deleted user 18 June 2003 17:34:04
    otto wrote:
    Yeah, OK, I've made me point. :)

    /me gets off high horse
    On a more specific note Ulrika did make a big point of her dalliance with Erricson which makes her look a bit shabby.

    Unfortunately we're arguing a subject generally with the same general sensibilities when it refers to a specific woman who doesn't represent the average or even most women that I know or have known.

    Off home now, sleep need, have a nice day, all. One last thing, I think you are right but circumstances for her are different, maybe I'll return to the subject tomorrow when I'm more mentally tactile.

    Edited by Mr Sleep at 16:35:14 18-06-2003
  • CerealKey 18 Jun 2003 17:41:08 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Not only that but the key selling point of her biography was that she had been raped.

    I understand the fact that it is tough to go through a court trial, especially so late after the event, but the fact is she's traded off her rape and done nothing to protect those women who could also be targets by not naming the person who did it.

    I think that is remarkable.
  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    I like this attitude where the person who's allegedly been raped is a "slag". What's it called? Oh yes, "misogyny".

    And before someone comes back with a predictable "political correctness" retort, labelling something as PC is a cheap and sleazy way out of an argument.
  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Sorry but her "virginal" nature or lack of it is neither here nor there. I do find it incredibly distasteful not to mention two-faced when men glorify sexual appetite in other men but denigrate it in women. Especially when the "fact" that a woman enjoys sex herself is seen as mitigation for a man who rapes her. Sorry to get all po-faced about this but we as men can't expect fair treatment from women if we don't dish it out ourselves.

    Edited by otto at 16:20:38 18-06-2003
  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Yeah, OK, I've made me point. :)

    /me gets off high horse
Sign in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.