Our own court of laws work on two witness rule, when it is one person's word against another they use forensic or gathered evidence as the second witness, the basic thought on the two witness rule is to stop false accusations.
What utter rubbish.
Please show me the legal precedent in Britain that estalishes your claim. Please note, I am not disputing the use of forensics, DNA evidence, etc., merely that British law mandates two witnesses to establish rape, incest or sexual abuse.
You make the assertion. Back it up or else you are a liar.
And as many forget it does originate with the bible.
I've confronted you on this issue before. Naturally, as with 99.9% of Jehovah's Witnesses, you refuse to respond. The silence speaks a great deal as to the veracity, Biblical authority as well as moral authority of your inane assertions.
Once again, please show me one scripture in the Bible wherein Jehovah requires a child who has been raped, sexually assaulted or made to perform sexual acts on an adult, must present 2 eyewitnesses to "prove" the rape occurred. Additionally, as you point out above, to prove they are not lying. After all we all know how children lie about oral sex, anal sex, the taste of semen and so on ... right?
Please note, Jehovah's Witnesses have, in the past, demanded eye witness testimony. This requires the 2 people to stand by and watch the child being raped and do nothing to stop it (otherwise, or so I was informed by a circuit overseer), no rape occurred, therefore no crime occurred. Please show me one scripture that supports this teaching.
Please also show me one scripture in the Bible wherein Jehovah punishes the child, or the child's family, with banishment (or under the Mosaic Law stoning I would presume) if the child were unable to present 2 eyewitnesses and yet still spoke out about the child's sexual assault. I would accept any sort of Biblical precedent or experience that would back up the Witnesses position on this. You do understand, that if the child is unable to present two eyewitnesses, or if the rapist/pedophile does not confess, the child is forbidden to repeat the story because that would be slander. And we can't slander, not even against a pedophile.
Please explain to me why Jehovah made a provision for an adult woman, who had been raped in the field, and therefore no eyewitnesses, and yet did not provide the same provision for an innocent child? Does that mean Jehovah cares less for children than an adult woman? Why would Jehovah make such a specific exception for an adult woman, and yet not go to the trouble for a child?
Could it be because even the most blind, most backward, most idiotic person in the history of this planet understand such an exception is not needed? How many 6 year old children can describe sex acts unless they had experienced them?
Once again, I will say again and again I will say, NOWHERE in the Bible does anyone anywhere at any time put such a burden of proof on a child as do Jehovah's Witnesses.
You make the claim -- well then PROVE IT! Otherwise you and this weird little sect you have such a fascination for are little more than monstrous liars who shield predatory sexual offenders whilst hurting an innocent who has already been traumatized and suffered a loss you cannot imagine. Or, judging from your posts, much less give a damn about.