We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
How is it hard to understand? There's a reason why the concept of "degree of proof" exists in evidentiary law and the new BSA.
Also, if you want to speak about perjury or malicious prosecution, look at the ground reality, people are rarely punished or have trial initiated against them for such offences, courts in fact are reluctant to prosecute or hear cases related to such matters.
Being a woman doesn't mean they are not prone to lying, you can lie irrespective of the gender you are.
In fact there are numerous such cases which by appeals in HCs have found the statements of alleged "victims" in such cases to be purely malicious and hearsay to frame their men partner.
Moreover, "—" using this emdash only goes to show that you have used AI to generate such a response. Please be unbiased as a legal professional, it's the least expected thing from you.