The spectre of False Accusations – Is it possible that some accusers lie?!

One of our commenters has suggested we write about two recent cases in Northern Ireland (one has been concluded, the other is ongoing.) We will not ignore his suggestion.

We have heard about these cases as we live in NI and did not need our commenter to inform us about them. We are not ostriches, we do not bury our heads in the sand.
We do not know if Mr.David Tweed is innocent or guilty. We do know that a court has pronounced the verdict of “guilty” upon him. However, only Almighty God, and Mr.Tweed, and his accusers know the truth!  IF  he is guilty, then of course he must be imprisoned and the length of sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crimes.

However, IF he has been falsely accused of crimes he did not commit, then his accusers should be on trial AND they should lose their right to anonymity! If this is the case,we trust their consciences will trouble them to such a degree that they cannot live a normal life unless and until the truth is told.

We do know of cases of innocent men who have gone to prison because they were (falsely) accused of sexual offences by women. If a woman accuses a man of a sexual offence, in virtually every case, the woman is believed and sometimes an innocent man finds himself in a desperate situation. This is because Feminism portrays ALL men as potential abusers and rapists. One feminist has actually stated that it might be good for men to be falsely accused!
It has also been known for “Counsellers” to use the power of suggestion to cause women (and children) to believe they were abused as children! We have heard of the “false memories syndrome.”

In conclusion, we want to reiterate that we believe truly guilty men (and women) should be behind bars but we feel enormous sympathy for any individual presently languishing in prison because someone lied through their teeth.

11 thoughts on “The spectre of False Accusations – Is it possible that some accusers lie?!

  1. All men ARE potential abusers, etc. And just because they’re innocent of one crime does not mean they’re innocent, which is impossible.

    • This article makes me sick. Guess it just highlights double standards. If it was a gay guy accused if this there would have been gloating and condemnation but because it is one of their own there is attempts to cast doubt on the the conviction and a strong hint that these poor abused girls are lying. Shame on you!

      • Also forgot to say, it is interesting that in previous articles God is trusted to such a degree that as a response to prayer that he would cause injury to innocent police officers, fire fighters etc but you do not trust him enough to ensure that justice is done in our courts. Interesting… do you trust that God will answer your prayers that justice will be done and the righteous verdict delivered in the case of the free P minister putting a camera in a toilet?

      • Susan,

        Please can you post this to make it clear to readers that my posts are being edited by you and are not my own unalterated words! This is important as I feel the intent of what I am putting forward is being changed!

        • Rob,
          We have not altered in any way the sentiments you expressed in your comments. However, you are not at liberty to refer to me in disrespectful terms, and we have already drawn your attention to this matter. So, it is our right to edit out your disrespectful form of address.

          We believe the name of God requires a capital G, so we changed your comment accordingly.

          You accused us of having double standards in your comment. We refute this entirely. In your comment, when you made this claim, you again referred to me in unacceptable terms, therefore we could not let the comment stand in its present form.

    • To change the letter g to G to fit in with your beliefs (and not what the writer intended) is indeed to change the sentiments expressed in the original comment.

      In order for you to refute the accusation of double standards it is necessary for you to actually address the comment. Just saying you refute it does not refute it. I agree with Rob that you have attempted to cast doubt on the guilt in the case cited, presumably because you share a religious belief, and in other areas you simply condemn out of hand especially with those you vehemently oppose such as LGBT folk or women who do not succumb to your version of biblical interpretation. The double standards are clear to be seen.

  2. You present a false front on this blog Susan because you sanitise what people write to suit yourself. When you appear to be something then don’t be surprised when people interpret you as such. I interpret you to be a frustrated harridan, sexually and otherwise, and you will ‘edit’ that of course because you are not honest here. You represent what I hate about religion and that myth you worship….it is all edited and it is all a lie. Just like yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s