another cowdung who doesn't read. taking the easy way out!
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Ravi wants police to return HHH's notebook by Wednesday 4pm
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
another cowdung who doesn't read. taking the easy way out!
...........yes..........
His law knowledge come from Hong Kong movies which all not suitable for Singapore...
Ha ha.......you're funny.
Too late, their computer forensic poodle dogs have probably siphoned all the data, hoping to retain some incriminating evidence and use it against her in future.
When the law enforcement thugs knock on your door, hide, move away or destroy the storage devices which may contain sensitive data.
They can confiscate the computer, but that'll be without the hard disks.
Salt water is the best to destroy the drives. Anyway, if you are an activist, you should consider storing in cloud
Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
The Singapore Police has agreed to return the note book it had seized from Han Hui Hui during an interview on 10 October.
Ms Han was being interviewed as part of the police’s investigation into “an offence of unlawful assembly” on 27 September at Hong Lim Park during the fourth “Return Our CPF” protest which Ms Han had organised.
She was later reported to have been at the police interview for more than seven hours, and emerged from the police station at about 10pm that night.
Confirming the return of Ms Han’s note book, the office of her lawyer, M Ravi, said, “Police have confirmed in their letter addressed to us today [16 Oct] that they are releasing Han Hui Hui’s notebook and personally delivering the notebook to our office at 3 pm today.”
Mr Ravi had sent a letter to the police about 2 days after the police’s interview with Ms Han to demand that the authorities returned the note book to his client.
The letter by M Ravi said that Ms Han had made a written record of the questions and her answers put to her during the interview with Senior Investigation Officer, Inspector Wong Yu Wei, on 10 October 2014 at the Central Police Division.
“This personal record was prepared so that she would have accurate details of the matters in question for her legal advisers, and as such it constituted a privileged legal communication,” Mr Ravi said in his letter.
“It is a matter of the gravest concern that it appears this personal record was seized from her at the interview and had not been returned to her,” he added.
Mr Ravi’s letter also requested “an explanation for the wrongful seizure of private property from our client.”
“It is crystal clear that the police have no basis to confiscate the note book, and it was a wrongful seizure,” Mr Ravi told The Online Citizen on Thursday.
“We maintain our position that the note book is a confidential document covered by legal professional privilege,” Mr Ravi added. “It is also jealously safeguarded by litigation privilege. The notes taken by Hui Hui are meant to prepare her defence (if she should be charged for any offence). It’s time that our citizens know their rights.”
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/police-to-return-activists-note-book-after-lawyers-demands/
The Singapore Police has agreed to return the note book it had seized from Han Hui Hui during an interview on 10 October.
Ms Han was being interviewed as part of the police’s investigation into “an offence of unlawful assembly” on 27 September at Hong Lim Park during the fourth “Return Our CPF” protest which Ms Han had organised.
She was later reported to have been at the police interview for more than seven hours, and emerged from the police station at about 10pm that night.
Confirming the return of Ms Han’s note book, the office of her lawyer, M Ravi, said, “Police have confirmed in their letter addressed to us today [16 Oct] that they are releasing Han Hui Hui’s notebook and personally delivering the notebook to our office at 3 pm today.”
Mr Ravi had sent a letter to the police about 2 days after the police’s interview with Ms Han to demand that the authorities returned the note book to his client.
The letter by M Ravi said that Ms Han had made a written record of the questions and her answers put to her during the interview with Senior Investigation Officer, Inspector Wong Yu Wei, on 10 October 2014 at the Central Police Division.
“This personal record was prepared so that she would have accurate details of the matters in question for her legal advisers, and as such it constituted a privileged legal communication,” Mr Ravi said in his letter.
“It is a matter of the gravest concern that it appears this personal record was seized from her at the interview and had not been returned to her,” he added.
Mr Ravi’s letter also requested “an explanation for the wrongful seizure of private property from our client.”
“It is crystal clear that the police have no basis to confiscate the note book, and it was a wrongful seizure,” Mr Ravi told The Online Citizen on Thursday.
“We maintain our position that the note book is a confidential document covered by legal professional privilege,” Mr Ravi added. “It is also jealously safeguarded by litigation privilege. The notes taken by Hui Hui are meant to prepare her defence (if she should be charged for any offence). It’s time that our citizens know their rights.”
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/police-to-return-activists-note-book-after-lawyers-demands/
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
HHH's note book is a physical paper note book. Every interviewee giving a statement to the police is allowed to bring in a notepad or note book to record questions asked and any evidence of duress or torture. You're also entitled to a copy of the signed statement.
Our police are deliberately taking advantage of the average Sinkie's lack of aware of his/her own constitutional rights to overstep their boundaries and intimidate activists. HHH can actually sue the SPF for abrogating her rights. This is a good example of why we're literally a police state.
HHH's note book is a physical paper note book. Every interviewee giving a statement to the police is allowed to bring in a notepad or note book to record questions asked and any evidence of duress or torture. You're also entitled to a copy of the signed statement.
Our police are deliberately taking advantage of the average Sinkie's lack of aware of his/her own constitutional rights to overstep their boundaries and intimidate activists. HHH can actually sue the SPF for abrogating her rights. This is a good example of why we're literally a police state.
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
1.Crowd fund to take SPF to court, or
2, Demand Min of Home Affair to resign, or
3. Protest to demand LHL to resign.
1.Crowd fund to take SPF to court, or
2, Demand Min of Home Affair to resign, or
3. Protest to demand LHL to resign.
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
Human rights have to be fought for to be earned. You can't roll over and hope the powers that be generously give them to you.
LKY's gangster dark arts from the bad old days have no place in today's society... the poodles had better not push their luck. Or else.
Human rights have to be fought for to be earned. You can't roll over and hope the powers that be generously give them to you.
LKY's gangster dark arts from the bad old days have no place in today's society... the poodles had better not push their luck. Or else.
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
That's why (non-violent) civil activism has to go hand-in-hand with electoral politics if we want things to change in Singapore. Fight for your rights and everything else will follow. Something that many Sinkies don't understand. Civil activism is seen as a (moral?) taint here: both HHH and RN are now seen as politically unelectable, as was CSJ before them.
Human rights have to be fought for to be earned. You can't roll over and hope the powers that be generously give them to you.
That's why (non-violent) civil activism has to go hand-in-hand with electoral politics if we want things to change in Singapore. Fight for your rights and everything else will follow. Something that many Sinkies don't understand. Civil activism is seen as a (moral?) taint here: both HHH and RN are now seen as politically unelectable, as was CSJ before them.
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
Past 50 years of Singapore can be seen as The Dark Age of Singapore?
Under LKY is no different than King James 1 (King James Bible) period where protesters of the regime have to write messages in small pieces of paper slipped between bricks and walls, hide underneath flower pots and etc.
Past 50 years of Singapore can be seen as The Dark Age of Singapore?
Under LKY is no different than King James 1 (King James Bible) period where protesters of the regime have to write messages in small pieces of paper slipped between bricks and walls, hide underneath flower pots and etc.
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
Oh yes, young backside itchy troublemakers disturb the peace, chase away investors, drive the value of your HDB flat down, cause unemployment, slow down economic growth, and Singapore will revert to a fishing village in one generation. It's damn scary.
Oh yes, young backside itchy troublemakers disturb the peace, chase away investors, drive the value of your HDB flat down, cause unemployment, slow down economic growth, and Singapore will revert to a fishing village in one generation. It's damn scary.
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
There are sheep out there who rather focus on the alleged heckling behaviour rather than on the core issue, which is the CPF. And mind you, many of such sheep themselves have CPF locked up.
Civil activism is looked down on by Singaporeans in general, even by certain segments of the opposition. If a civil activist gets into trouble with the authorities, people automatically assume he or she must have something wrong, and avoid that person like the plague. This is the kind of mental conditioning that is so hard to combat.
There are sheep out there who rather focus on the alleged heckling behaviour rather than on the core issue, which is the CPF. And mind you, many of such sheep themselves have CPF locked up.
Civil activism is looked down on by Singaporeans in general, even by certain segments of the opposition. If a civil activist gets into trouble with the authorities, people automatically assume he or she must have something wrong, and avoid that person like the plague. This is the kind of mental conditioning that is so hard to combat.
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
60%: Mai lah! Scaly lose coolie rice bowl how? *hee*hee*
60%: Mai lah! Scaly lose coolie rice bowl how? *hee*hee*
Re: Police to return activist’s note book after lawyer’s demands
It's a paper note book, not a computer lah. That's why it's such a gross abuse of power. It's within her constitutional rights to bring it to the police station and to demand it back after providing the statement.
It's a paper note book, not a computer lah. That's why it's such a gross abuse of power. It's within her constitutional rights to bring it to the police station and to demand it back after providing the statement.
M ravi: Seizure of ms han’s notebook was unlawful and a serious breach of her rights
[h=1]M RAVI: SEIZURE OF MS HAN’S NOTEBOOK WAS UNLAWFUL AND A SERIOUS BREACH OF HER RIGHTS[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
17 Oct 2014 - 9:47pm
<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
The police returned blogger and activist Ms Han Hui Hui’s notebook to her after they had seized it during her interrogation and her lawyer, M Ravi has now written to the Police again to highlight that their seizure of the notebook was unlawful.
Ms Han Hui Hui was summoned to the Police Cantonment Complex last Friday for questioning regarding a possible case of unlawful assembly which allegedly occurred during the Return Our CPF protest which was held last month at Hong Lim Park.
Ms Han had brought a notebook with her and taken notes of all the questions and answers which she gave police for her personal records and also to act as an accurate record of the questions for her lawyers.
However, her notebook was confiscated by police officers during her interview and was not returned to her despite her highlighting that they had no right to do that.
Following her interview, Ms Han’s lawyer M Ravi wrote a strongly worded letter to the Police demanding that they return her notebook which they had unlawfully seized.
The Police complied and returned Ms Han her notebook yesterday.
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Today, M Ravi wrote another strongly worded letter to the Police emphasising that they had no right to seize her notebook and they were acting unlawfully.
He referred to the statement of a Police Spokesperson as quoted by the Straits Times, which claimed that the police had seized the notebook under section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code but he rebutted this argument saying this law was inapplicable.
Under Section 35, police can only seize property which is suspected to be evidence of an offence.
As Ms Han was only taking notes of the questions police had asked her, her notes could not be considered evidence of any offence. Therefore, Section 35 did not apply and the police had “seriously infringed” Ms Han’s rights.
Here is the full letter sent to the Police by M Ravi:
Tags:
Editorials
[h=1]M RAVI: SEIZURE OF MS HAN’S NOTEBOOK WAS UNLAWFUL AND A SERIOUS BREACH OF HER RIGHTS[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
17 Oct 2014 - 9:47pm
<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
The police returned blogger and activist Ms Han Hui Hui’s notebook to her after they had seized it during her interrogation and her lawyer, M Ravi has now written to the Police again to highlight that their seizure of the notebook was unlawful.
Ms Han Hui Hui was summoned to the Police Cantonment Complex last Friday for questioning regarding a possible case of unlawful assembly which allegedly occurred during the Return Our CPF protest which was held last month at Hong Lim Park.
Ms Han had brought a notebook with her and taken notes of all the questions and answers which she gave police for her personal records and also to act as an accurate record of the questions for her lawyers.
However, her notebook was confiscated by police officers during her interview and was not returned to her despite her highlighting that they had no right to do that.
Following her interview, Ms Han’s lawyer M Ravi wrote a strongly worded letter to the Police demanding that they return her notebook which they had unlawfully seized.
The Police complied and returned Ms Han her notebook yesterday.
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Today, M Ravi wrote another strongly worded letter to the Police emphasising that they had no right to seize her notebook and they were acting unlawfully.
He referred to the statement of a Police Spokesperson as quoted by the Straits Times, which claimed that the police had seized the notebook under section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code but he rebutted this argument saying this law was inapplicable.
Under Section 35, police can only seize property which is suspected to be evidence of an offence.
As Ms Han was only taking notes of the questions police had asked her, her notes could not be considered evidence of any offence. Therefore, Section 35 did not apply and the police had “seriously infringed” Ms Han’s rights.
Here is the full letter sent to the Police by M Ravi:
Tags:
Editorials
Similar threads
