Talk:John Leslie (TV presenter)

message: Isn't The Wright Stuff IAN Wright (ex-footballer)s show, and not that journo? Its also not the kind of show that would name someone as a suspected rapist, so I think theres something wrong in the article --Kiand 16:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. It was Matthew Wright, and it is said that he named Leslie by mistake, and no-one has contradicted that. If you like, you can verify it very easily. Pcb21| Pete 17:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, got it confused with All Wright On The Night, or whatever Ian Wrights show is called. Channel 5 doesn't appeal to me enough to ever watch it in the first place, and considering only 1 TV in my house can get it (the one with a Dodgybox and a british card, I've never seen or heard of the show. --Kiand 18:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wright Stuff

message: You'll have to explain why you don't think he belongs in it. There is nothing in the category definition to indicate otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought it was obvious. "Individuals acquitted in a court or tribunal of any sex crime, incuding rape, incest, sexual abuse, child pornography, etc." It clearly doesn't apply here. --John (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er??? He went to trial on a charge of rape, and won. The article & sources are unclear as to the process, but he was cleared after the charges reached court. I thought that was obvious. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources, if you read them, are very clear indeed that Leslie was not acquitted but that the prosecution dropped the case. --John (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not clear at all, but what is is that the case reached court.  Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please either remove the category from the article or seek consensus to widen the scope of the category. "Acquitted" is a legal term with a clear definition. --John (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - try this link  Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and this from the Telegraph "Leslie, of Sheen, south-west London, learned on Wednesday that the Crown was to drop the case. When he formally denied the two allegations, the judge directed verdicts of not guilty on both counts."  Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  acquitted category 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Leslie (TV presenter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081117102340/http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_1563952.html?menu=entertainment.television to http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_1563952.html?menu=entertainment.television
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As of the date and time of this my typewritten comment, this article contains the text "He was cleared of this charge by a jury on 19 October 2020". That's wrong. Juries in England can't "clear" a Defendant of charges. A juror in England (and in the U.S.A.) can vote for "not guilty", but cannot vote for "innocent". An English jury cannot issue a verdict that someone did not commit the offense that the Prosecution has alleged they committed. An English jury can issue a verdict that the Defendant DID commit the offense, or they can issue a verdict that says that they don't know, to the point of certainty required by law, whether the Defendant committed the offense or not. A jury in a criminal trial cannot clear the Defendant of the accusation. After any trial, subsequent work by journalists or private investigators, or new witnesses coming forward with new information can clear the person in the court of public opinion, but there's no such thing as a jury "clearing" a Defendant of charges.
::And, honestly, Wikipedia, as you continue to ask me for money, this is the KIND of thing that constantly "trashes your 'brand'", when you allow ANYONE to write such drivel as "cleared by a jury" referring to a U.S. or English trial. Have you NO mechanism for internal review? I am constantly finding good FACTS in Wikipedia, well-sourced articles written by professional responsible EXPERT people whose footnotes don't lead to tabloid journalists, but the minute I mention that I read it in Wikipedia people pounce on me saying "Good Heavens! Who would EVER believe ANYTHING written in Wikipedia?". Well, I do, when it's credible, and I don't, when it's not. But when it's not, it undermines the cases where it is. You're doing a disservice when you don't maintain standards.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s the Wikipedia article anyone can edit, so go ahead and remedy the situation. Seasider53 (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Juries in England don't "clear" people of charges