It has brought tears to my eyes - the decent people prepared to back up John Leslie's attack by the False Allegations Industry. Admittedly it's not as brave as being willing to give evidence for somebody falsely accused of child abuse but it's still very courageous. I had 25 people signed up to appear in my defence during my 2018 trial - aborted, so not needed (thanks to Judge Taylor - the same judge looking after the Leslie case). Many had specific evidence against lies told by false accusers. Some were friends, some ex employees, some almost or complete strangers. It is wonderful when honourable people are willing to step into the witness box and face the slings and arrows of the prosecution. John Leslie should, hopefully, be declared Not Guilty (presumption of innocence and, really, who cares anyway whether he groped someone at a party 12 years ago?) but his real joy, like mine, must be the loyalty of friends, acquaintances and even honest strangers.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8843641...-went-2008-bash.html

Without assuming anything about the truth of this case, I have noticed that an awful lot of accusations which turn out to be false are ridiculously far fetched.

I wonder if part of "whatever syndrome or illness" that causes people to make false claims is to push the boundaries of what they can make people believe?

Do they get a thrill from gullible people swallowing it?

Honey wrote:
Without assuming anything about the truth of this case, I have noticed that an awful lot of accusations which turn out to be false are ridiculously far fetched.

I wonder if part of "whatever syndrome or illness" that causes people to make false claims is to push the boundaries of what they can make people believe?

Do they get a thrill from gullible people swallowing it?
That seems plausible. Many years ago I came across a site about boiler room fraudsters and their psychology and motivations. It included input from former fraudsters. Unfortunately it doesn't exist any more. From what I recall they had an utter contempt for the people who fell for their lies and thought they deserved to lose money because they seemed so gullible and greedy.

I don't think the truth of the case really matters. There is a broader question: Do we want to live in a society where a minor behavioural transgression carries a indefinite future risk of police prosecution? I'd argue not but this is effectively what we have now.

Mr Flintstone wrote:
I don't think the truth of the case really matters. There is a broader question: Do we want to live in a society where a minor behavioural transgression carries a indefinite future risk of police prosecution? I'd argue not but this is effectively what we have now.

I think a crime if committed should carry an indefinite risk of future prosecution, if the crime is still current to the statute book. To argue otherwise would be to argue for the abolition of criminal justice.

The real question I think you pose is: should grabbing a woman's breasts without her consent be seen as a crime, or as you have it a "minor behavioural transgression".

This is to make no comment on why this is coming out now so many years later/celeb/money etc etc which other people cover on here very fully and with far more insight than I could muster.

I met him in Oz at a Jackie Collin's book launch and whipped out my Box Brownie to snap the pair together (I sort of knew his name but none of his history).

The poor man was startled, suspicious and even a bit frightened.

someone later told me his history. I felt so sorry for the poor man,

some really evil people out there.

I think a crime if committed should carry an indefinite risk of future prosecution, if the crime is still current to the statute book. To argue otherwise would be to argue for the abolition of criminal justice.

A clear statute of limitations could be worth exploring. I recognise this is unlikely to happen though - my belief is that each political party attempts to outdo the other in terms of being seen to be "tough" on crime.

Mr Flintstone wrote:
[quote]

A clear statute of limitations could be worth exploring. I recognise this is unlikely to happen though - my belief is that each political party attempts to outdo the other in terms of being seen to be "tough" on crime.

Yes statute of limitations are rare in common law countries; we are no outlier there. It is an interesting subject from both arguments. With regard to this site particularly in getting a balance between the significant body of evidence showing that victims of sexual abuse are slower in coming forward than for other crimes (for fairly obvious reasons, I would have thought) and protecting the innocent from malicious allegations.

But as you say, any debate - and this one in particular - will be so politicised in the UK - it would hardly be worth having.