Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Mark reports nothing on Beech guilt
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Randall |
Sheba Bear wrote:
At the very least Rolf Harris's so-called youngest victim should have been made to pay back the £22,000 that she received for telling a lucrative pack of lies.
In my view she was just a less extreme version of Carl Beech.
This is what I've been going on about, in several threads about Carl Beech.
He's been prosecuted for making fantastic accusations without any supporting evidence. But plenty of other people, almost exclusively women, make accusations without any supporting evidence. Some of these are equally fantastic. The woman who accused Mark Pearson for example. Or the HIV positive woman who accused registered blind man Sikhonzile Sibanda of rape.
How fantastic does an uncorroborated accusation have to be before #YouWillNotBeBelieved? |
|
Sheba Bear |
At the very least Rolf Harris's so-called youngest victim should have been made to pay back the £22,000 that she received for telling a lucrative pack of lies.
In my view she was just a less extreme version of Carl Beech. |
|
Randall |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...the Nick claims were no dafter than many of the Savile stories, or the now disproved attack on the eight year old, by Rolf Harris,(at the event that never happened) which MWT has previously appeared to support.
Oh dear, Honey... You should be well aware that women can never be lying about sexual abuse but men can.
That's because the Feminists' Little Red Book (11th edition foreword by Alison Saunders) designates women as goodies. Nothing they do is wrong. Men are designated baddies, and can be prosecuted and jailed for anything, but really only for one thing: being a man.
Lots of the ridiculous Savile claims were from men, and they were ALL believed.
Who is believed is not the issue. I'm talking about who can be prosecuted when found to be telling porkies. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...the Nick claims were no dafter than many of the Savile stories, or the now disproved attack on the eight year old, by Rolf Harris,(at the event that never happened) which MWT has previously appeared to support.
Oh dear, Honey... You should be well aware that women can never be lying about sexual abuse but men can.
That's because the Feminists' Little Red Book (11th edition foreword by Alison Saunders) designates women as goodies. Nothing they do is wrong. Men are designated baddies, and can be prosecuted and jailed for anything, but really only for one thing: being a man.
Lots of the ridiculous Savile claims were from men, and they were ALL believed. |
|
Randall |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...the Nick claims were no dafter than many of the Savile stories, or the now disproved attack on the eight year old, by Rolf Harris,(at the event that never happened) which MWT has previously appeared to support.
Oh dear, Honey... You should be well aware that women can never be lying about sexual abuse but men can.
That's because the Feminists' Little Red Book (11th edition foreword by Alison Saunders) designates women as goodies. Nothing they do is wrong. Men are designated baddies, and can be prosecuted and jailed for anything, but really only for one thing: being a man. |
|
|
|
