cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Go to bottomPost New TopicPost Reply
TOPIC: More rape discussion
#200674
More rape discussion 5 Days, 19 Hours ago  
As rape cases drop astonishingly it still appears that the false accuser enablers cannot see that the majority of sex abuse claims are exaggerated or totally invented. That's why Carl Beech got as far as he did until his absurd quest for cash collapsed. People refused to see that most people make it up in order to get money or revenge or were drunk or drugged or deluded or mad. One woman urging more prosecutions on behalf of an enabling society quoted the Liam Allan case as an example of where prosecution failed because of failure to disclose evidence. RUBBISH. The case collapsed because the woman lied. How DARE enablers twist the truth? Liars should not be believed. Yes, claims should be investigated but if, as now usual, they are found to be liars or mistaken, they should be prosecuted.

For God's sake, has society gone bonkers? (Answer; yes).
 
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
#200677
Jo

Re:More rape discussion 5 Days, 18 Hours ago  
The BBC says the case collapsed because of the police failure to disclose evidence.

A man wrongly accused of rape says he will sue the Metropolitan Police over its failure to disclose vital evidence that led to the collapse of the trial.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42399802

No mention of lies, lying or liars in it at all. Would she even be classified as a liar in law?
 
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
#200678
Re:More rape discussion 5 Days, 18 Hours ago  
Media, of course, doesn't like innocence (NOT a good story). But the fact is that a woman lied about being raped and was proved to have lied. There can be many ways of proof - most not as obvious as Carl Beech and that ghastly man who sent David Bryant to jail and killed his wife. Sadly the vast majority of false accusers got away with it, often assisted by cops. Times, thank God, are changing. It is dawning - most "victims" are lying for various reasons and more and more are revealed as such. The fantastic latest trend is the unearthing of ghastly skeletons in the liars' closets; like my recent false accuser who never thought the fact he raped his 10 year old sister when he was 20 would emerge.
 
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
#200682
Honey

Re:More rape discussion 5 Days, 14 Hours ago  
JK2006 wrote:
As rape cases drop astonishingly it still appears that the false accuser enablers cannot see that the majority of sex abuse claims are exaggerated or totally invented. That's why Carl Beech got as far as he did until his absurd quest for cash collapsed. People refused to see that most people make it up in order to get money or revenge or were drunk or drugged or deluded or mad. One woman urging more prosecutions on behalf of an enabling society quoted the Liam Allan case as an example of where prosecution failed because of failure to disclose evidence. RUBBISH. The case collapsed because the woman lied. How DARE enablers twist the truth? Liars should not be believed. Yes, claims should be investigated but if, as now usual, they are found to be liars or mistaken, they should be prosecuted.

For God's sake, has society gone bonkers? (Answer; yes).


I disagree. I believe it was perfectly obvious from the start that Carl Beech was lying and they chose to "believe" it for their own reasons.

I do wish you wouldn't call accusers liars unless it is screamingly obvious, Mr King. Absolutely, assume innocence until the truth is found, but it can apply to both parties simultaneously.
 
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
Go to topPost New TopicPost Reply