Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 597802)

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 597808)

think summat smells:eek:

Originally Posted by Lilly (Post 597790)

I don't think that people should be able to make allegations of rape 13 years after the event

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy;597804[SIZE=2

I think the allegation of rape should be able to be made irrespective of the time lapse between offence and reporting.
[/SIZE]

Originally Posted by Lilly (Post 597822)

How can the accused be expected to recall their actions on a random night 13 years ago though? :confused:

John Leslie says he doesn't know who this woman is.

Put yourself in his situation.

Imagine the police came to your house tomorrow and said that you had been accused of raping me 13 years ago. They would tell you my name which would mean nothing to you and ask what you were doing on, for example, 24th June 1995.

Obviously you will struggle to recall and then they will probably accuse you of being unsure of your facts.....well you would be unsure of your facts wouldn't you? Apart from one fact, that you hadn't raped me because you've never met me.

We are on the front page of the Observer. Well, I'm not because I'm anonymous but your photograph and name are there for all your friends, family and colleagues to see. We'll probably be discussed on here too.

People are talking about you all over, a lot of people won't speak to you again except to hiss insults at you as you pass them. Your friends and family will be very upset, as will your children.

All this and no wrong doing has been proved.

Wouldn't you be very angry with me?

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 597827)

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy (Post 597829)

Originally Posted by Lilly (Post 597843)

It certainly would.

I'm not saying for a second that I condone rape, quite the opposite.

I'm just saying that it's a very difficult thing to prove and it's not made easier by women making false allegations.

If this woman has made false allegations then she ought to be suitably punished.

If John Leslie has raped this woman then he should be suitably punished but I agree with Willow when she says that the John Leslie case was massive in 2003. Why didn't this woman speak up when all the other allegations were in the spot light?

I'm very dubious about this one to say the least and feel sorry for John Leslie. I wouldn't feel sorry for him if I thought he'd raped this woman but I'm doubtful that he has.

Originally Posted by katex (Post 597846)

I don't think anyone can speculate on something like this. Although know we all will.

Even saying can't remember 13 years ago ... sure you would remember if you had raped someone .. unless drugged up to the eye balls (or lower balls).

This guy obviously has a problem with an overactic genital area, however, difference between heavy seduction and rape.

We have no profile whatsoever on the accuser .. so again how can we speculate on the circumstances ??

Let's wait and see shall we ?

Originally Posted by Lilly (Post 597856)

It was more 'Do we think that people should be able to make rape allegations 13, 20, 25 years after the alleged event?'

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 597863)

in answer to the original question, i do not think there should be a time limit on any crime, thin end of the wedge i reckon, like well the murder was 20 yrs ago, so its out of time, let em off, that or somewhere like it, this could lead.:(

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy (Post 597860)

Originally Posted by katex (Post 597862)

Yes .. look at that case in the Channel Islands at the moment .. though they were children then, now adults and can speak .. so are special circumstances. This may be one of those special circumstances ... who knows ?

Originally Posted by katex (Post 597862)

Yes .. look at that case in the Channel Islands at the moment .. though they were children then, now adults and can speak .. so are special circumstances. This may be one of those special circumstances ... who knows ?

Originally Posted by Lilly (Post 597866)

When you come back then.....I don't think that rape charges should be able to be made say 13 years later because the evidence is even more shaky than it was at the time.

People's memories fade and you will have a hell of a lot of unreliable witnesses. How can the accused be expected to recall their actions from 13 years ago? You'd know that you hadn't raped anyone but how could you prove it?

You couldn't prove that you hadn't raped anyone and the prosecution couldn't prove that you had because there'd be no evidence.

When a recent rape is reported all sorts of evidence / samples are taken....from the scene, from the woman, the man, clothes and posessions are seized for forensic purposes. You can't do this 13 years later.

There'll be no evidence and if you can't prove a man guilty then he must be found innocent so he'll get off.

All that police time, money, upset, trauma etc for nothing. :(

Why do you think that rapes should be able to be investigated no matter how long ago they were?

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 597868)

i think anyone accused of rape should not be named until found guilty simply because even when found innocent the dammage is done

in cases of rape i would have a closed court so its only people relative to the case and proceedings present , no media and no public gallery and a gagging oprder on the alleged victim not to speak of it until a guilty verdict is decided but if the verdict is not guilty then the gagging order preventing her discussing the case stays in place

dont get me wrong here rape is a serious crime but how many innocent men are walking around under suspicion because they were found innocent but because their name and picture were in the news and in the papers people still think they either got lucky in court or must have done somthing

its time the accused were protected as well , we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but often assumed guilty way before a trial because of the press

plenty of women have walked away from court free after owning up and saying they made it up because they were angry but by that time the poor blokes life is destroyed

somthing needs to change not only to protect men from vicious lies but also to protect genuine victims who fear coming forward because of these dispicable women who lie

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 597874)

monica lewinsky managed to keep bill clintons semen safe for years on her dress

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 597876)

Of course rape should be investigated from however long ago the alleged rape happened. It is not just children who are scared of reporting rape for fear of the consequnces but also a lot of adults. People who commit this horrific act often use threats to keep their victims quiet and very often this threat works for many years. It is only when the victim realises that they can report these rapes and feel safe that the evil perpetrators are brought to justice IMHO

Originally Posted by emamum23 (Post 597878)

after a rape the womans clothes are taken for proof..i doubt she would still have these after so long, and it will have been washed or, more likely thrown away/burnt!!!
the private area is checked for certain types of bruising only seen with rape... that wont be there
the place the rape took place is tested for bodily fluids, signs of a struggle etc
and photos are taken of everything.....
after so long all there is is what the accused says and thats not really evidence..

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 597874)

monica lewinsky managed to keep bill clintons semen safe for years on her dress

just a thought to how a woman can see an opportunity and sit on it for a few years

Originally Posted by katex (Post 597879)

That didn't prove rape though Accyman, just that he was a fibber for denying he had any sexual contact with her.

Originally Posted by Lilly (Post 597880)

As I said in a previous post, I can see how long term, regular rapes / abuse can be detected and prosecuted but what evidence would there be of a rape that only happened once, many years ago? :confused:

Originally Posted by Royboy39 (Post 597882)

Ye but......In your younger days...if a young attractive woman crawled under your desk and took charge of proceedings....who are we to look a gift horse in the mouth?....would you thow your shreddies away?

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 597885)

Not to sure about that Roy.. known a few dogs..but a Horse? ..sounds a bit pervy mate!

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 598037)

Hummmm, so here is a man who has been found guilty of no crime, but has lost his career and is now an outcast. Mr Leslie's personal and sex life are no ones concern, as long as it is all consenting adults...but he is hated by many people????
However a certain Mr Barrymore is still loved, by some and trying to resurrect his career.
Hollywood film producer the Late Don Simpson was a brutal sexual predator, had a great career (produced The Rock, Flashdance, Top Gun...) heavy drug user, but his career was never in doubt.
The mind boggles

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 598078)

if this woman is lying she shoud be made an example of by the courts , have her family dragged through the gutter in the tabloids and maybe just maybe it will make anyone else whos thinking of accusing him of rape think twice before trying to cash in

unlrika johnson could have put a stop to all this years ago by saying it wasnt him who raped her but she kept quiet because all the controversy sold her book even more and to be quite honest i doubt she was ever raped at all but as long as we only have her word for it we will never know but im inclined to think the slapper made it up to make her book more juicy

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 598078)

if this woman is lying she shoud be made an example of by the courts , have her family dragged through the gutter in the tabloids and maybe just maybe it will make anyone else whos thinking of accusing him of rape think twice before trying to cash in

unlrika johnson could have put a stop to all this years ago by saying it wasnt him who raped her but she kept quiet because all the controversy sold her book even more and to be quite honest i doubt she was ever raped at all but as long as we only have her word for it we will never know but im inclined to think the slapper made it up to make her book more juicy

Originally Posted by emamum23 (Post 598082)

If that happened no body would ever report rapes in case they were accused of lying.....

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 598707)

It's probably not politically correct to say this but I think there should be very different distinctions made between rape and forced sex.

Rape - is something brutal and unexpected. It is when a man rarely or has never met the woman involved i.e. has attacked her in the street. It is when the woman has no choice, no options and has not been involved with the attacker.

Forced sex - is also wrong shouldn't be tolerated or allowed to be a lesser charge but some responsibility must be placed on the woman involved too. No means no! But some consideration should be made for the alcohol involved, the relationship and the prior contact between the two.

I say this because I too, believe it's wrong that a man can be accused of rape and his name made public when the woman can hide her identity. Forced sex should be treated as a dispute and both parties should be treated equally.

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 598707)

It's probably not politically correct to say this but I think there should be very different distinctions made between rape and forced sex.

Rape - is something brutal and unexpected. It is when a man rarely or has never met the woman involved i.e. has attacked her in the street. It is when the woman has no choice, no options and has not been involved with the attacker.

Forced sex - is also wrong shouldn't be tolerated or allowed to be a lesser charge but some responsibility must be placed on the woman involved too. No means no! But some consideration should be made for the alcohol involved, the relationship and the prior contact between the two.

I say this because I too, believe it's wrong that a man can be accused of rape and his name made public when the woman can hide her identity. Forced sex should be treated as a dispute and both parties should be treated equally.

Originally Posted by Lilly (Post 598710)

Good post, Gayle. :)

I tried to send you karma just then but it wouldn't let me.

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 598739)

Who is John Leslie:confused:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 598807)

Don't let it bother you Eric you've not missed anything in Canada, John Leslie is easily forgettable, but he still doesn't deserve his nme being dragged through the mud again. He was accused of Rape a few years ago Eric, he was somewhat a TV peresnality over here, started on Blue Peter, and was on This Morning on ITV at the time an although he cleared his name it ruined his TV career

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 598816)

Blue Peter stil going!!!!!!!! My god, it's older than Coronation Street.:eek:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 598876)

It's been going for two years longer than Corrie, and celebrates it's fiftieth anniversary this October.

They recently had a Weakest Link for past and present presenters, in which Anne Robinson made John Noakes cry, when she asked him about his dog Shep.

I think it was won by Auntie Val Singleton, who let slip in the programme that her and Peter Purves once got it on in Mexico, on a 'special assignment'.:eek::D

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 610499)

It appears the John Leslie has been cleared of all charges by the CPS, yet his name has been plastered al over the press and his name blackened again, whilst his so callaed accuser walks away scott free. It appears the police couldn't find any evidence to back up this womans claim. isnt it time that people in these rape cases were both afforded the same rights to privacy until after any trial.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 598723)

well said, it wouldn't let me either.;)