Why is thread "Prime Minister of Singapore = Paedophile?" deleted?

[laksaboy]

hell , find it in youtube..hahahah

** *** *** ***

join this together.

Just search for 'singapore prime minister pedophile' on youtube, it's on the first page of the search results.

Already I see some additional new sources of the video.

 

[frenchbriefs]

i just googled PM Lee wearing a leotard and this is what came back

oh gawddddddddddddd!!!!!!!

i have no idea why he stuck a dildo in there though,im confused

[video=youtube;_KyxDqo3BAo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KyxDqo3BAo[/video]

 

[JHolmesJr]

I have cut you some slack because besides your caplock problem, large fonts and constant spam of the same old shit, you have contributed positively in other sections.

However, you are beginning to try my patience. If you continue in the same vein, you will soon be history in this forum. Don't push your luck too far.

LOL.....escher got leonged!

I swear when i readhis rants, he sounds like the male version of wendy...esp the yoo hoo bits.

 

[HK14K]

Why is thread "Prime Minister of Singapore = Paedophile?" deleted?
Leongsam even commented in that thread and now that thread gone.

Arseloon got his thugs to beat Leongsam up is it?
Got his fucking kangaroos to threaten Leong to get that deleted?

See the video

[video=youtube;***********]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=***********[/video]

Arseloon and his fucking kangaroos only got balls to whack singaporeans like Roy and Toa Payoh heros and lau ah pek of singapore
Arseloon dare not sue anyone overseas as he know he will lose

Arseloon towgay same size as towgay and need little boys and girls to excite his pathetic towgay

ARSELOON - SUE SUE SUE
BUT DARE NOT SUE

HA HA HA HA

Becoz all your threads n post are cheap!!! As cheap as your mother.... Dun u even know it????

 

[kryonlight]

I'm not nervous or upset. It's just that there are certain things that I find disgusting and I don't like such content in my forum.

I don't believe that's the reason. I don't find anything disgusting about that YouTube video. "Disgusting" is a subjective opinion, and you are forcing your opinion on us.

That's the trouble with hosted forums, which can be targeted for destruction into oblivion by governments.

I really hope for the day where we can have a peer-to-peer forum where contents are not stored in a single point, but distributed across all forum members stored on their hard drives encrypted. There will be no single point of failure, whether technical or otherwise.

 

[palden]

This type of thread, must be those Chou Bo LAN oppo. To lazy to do proper work spend free time spread nonsense and expect a minimum wage.

 

[da dick]

I don't believe that's the reason. I don't find anything disgusting about that YouTube video. "Disgusting" is a subjective opinion, and you are forcing your opinion on us.

That's the trouble with hosted forums, which can be targeted for destruction into oblivion by governments.

I really hope for the day where we can have a peer-to-peer forum where contents are not stored in a single point, but distributed across all forum members stored on their hard drives encrypted. There will be no single point of failure, whether technical or otherwise.

i found it disgusting but for different reasons.

- angmo tuaki especially ah pek ones are always disgusting

-the angmo said HO ching, that name always make me vomit blood

- he said cambodia. cambodians are shit people eat rotten bugs for food. bloody disgusting as hell, man!

yes! that video is extremely disgusting. but since THIS IS SBF! the most offensive forum on the wide world nets, i don't see why must censor leh.

 

[Leongsam]

I don't believe that's the reason. I don't find anything disgusting about that YouTube video. "Disgusting" is a subjective opinion, and you are forcing your opinion on us.

I'm not forcing any opinion. Neither have I prevented anyone from going to youtube and doing their own search. I just don't want this sort of shit embedded in my forum. As the host of the forum, it's up to me to decide what I don't like.

Other stuff I would treat the same way would be videos showing disgusting cruelty, scat, x rated stuff. I'd remove the embed code.

If you want to view the video, find it yourself.

I have received no instructions from anyone to delete anything yet.

 

[nirvarq]

Original was uploaded 2011 3yrs ago. By deleting.....it cause more hype. Just like CPF. The more you stir the more it ...... ? ! It's creating more awareness. Leave it alone.

Think out of the box.

 

[escher]

Original was uploaded 2011 3yrs ago. By deleting.....it cause more hype. Just like CPF. The more you stir the more it ...... ? ! It's creating more awareness. Leave it alone.

Think out of the box.

Think why Arseloon dare not sue that American

Arseloon enjoyed that 9 year old Cambodian little girl who did not dare to laugh at his miserable towgay

 

[Froggy]

I'm not forcing any opinion. Neither have I prevented anyone from going to youtube and doing their own search. I just don't want this sort of shit embedded in my forum. As the host of the forum, it's up to me to decide what I don't like.

Other stuff I would treat the same way would be videos showing disgusting cruelty, scat, x rated stuff. I'd remove the embed code.

If you want to view the video, find it yourself.

I have received no instructions from anyone to delete anything yet.

Must thank you for doing us a favour with that geylanguncle chap

 

[independentdirect]

I'm not forcing any opinion. Neither have I prevented anyone from going to youtube and doing their own search. I just don't want this sort of shit embedded in my forum. As the host of the forum, it's up to me to decide what I don't like.

Thank you for stating your moderation policy in no uncertain terms.

Please look at Escher's latest posting in this thread. Not only has he adopted a defiant attitude, he has repeated the defamatory remarks yet again. This constitutes grave aggravation

Such characters must be censured.

 

[escher]

Thank you for stating your moderation policy in no uncertain terms.

Please look at Escher's latest posting in this thread. Not only has he adopted a defiant attitude, he has repeated the defamatory remarks yet again. This constitutes grave aggravation

Such characters must be censured.

Wow! Sue me then.
And in meantime, what is your neck measurement?
Heck! nebbermind.

Piano wire fit all size necks
Necklace of burning car tyres also fit any kind of neck

And people here should go to facebook therealsingapore to read what people around the world say of
Arseloon and that 9 year old Cambodian girl

A lot of smoke = A lot of fire

Singaporeans know we got a sick regime screwing and raping and tiewing all of us
Never imagine the tiewing go to Cambodia too

Using a 9 year old girl so his tiny towgay and his sick heart can be entertained




https://www.facebook.com/therealsingapore/posts/774135809298255

 

[independentdirect]

Escher,

You continue to hide cowardly behind your anonymity and abuse your anonymity to hurl defamatory and disgusting remarks at another human being.

Not only that, you have continued to repeatedly disobey the forum host by posting links to the defamatory video. You are incorrigible and unrepentant, despite having been told that what you are doing constitutes a criminal offence under the Singapore Penal Code Chapter 224.

CHAPTER XXI
DEFAMATION​

Defamation
499. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company, or an association or a collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative, or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

[51/2007]​

Explanation 5.—An imputation may be made or published in written, electronic or other media.

[51/2007]​

Illustration​

(a)​

A says, “Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”, intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

(b)​

A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Zstole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

(c)​

A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Zstole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.




Imputation of any truth which the public good requires to be made or published
Exception 1.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Public conduct of public servants
Exception 2.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Conduct of any person touching any public question
Exception 3.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustration​

It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such a meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties in which the public is interested.



Publication of reports of proceedings of courts of justice, etc.
Exception 4.—It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice, or of Parliament, or of the result of any such proceedings.

Explanation—A Magistrate or other officer holding an inquiry in open court preliminary to a trial in a court of justice, is a court within the meaning of the above section.

Merits of case decided in a court of justice; or conduct of witnesses and others concerned therein
Exception 5.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a court of justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, a witness or an agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustration​

(a)​

A says, “I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.

(b)​

But if A says, “I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial, because I know him to be a man without veracity”, A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.




Merits of a public performance
Exception 6.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.

Explanation—A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.

Illustration​

(a)​

A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.

(b)​

A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.

(c)​

An actor or a singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.

(d)​

A says of a book published by Z, “Z’s book is foolish, Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent, Z must be a man of impure mind”. A is within this exception, if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.

(e)​

But if A says, “I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine”, A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses ofZ’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book.




Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another
Exception 7.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law, or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Illustration​

A judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness or of an officer of the court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for his conduct as such cashier — are within this exception.



Accusation preferred in good faith to a duly authorised person
Exception 8.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of the accusation.

Illustration​

If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct ofZ, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father — A is within this exception.



Imputation made in good faith by a person for the protection of his interests
Exception 9.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

Illustration​

(a)​

A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business, “Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty”. A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.

(b)​

A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith and for the public good, A is within the exception.




Caution intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good
Exception 10.—It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that the caution is intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

Explanation to Exceptions
Explanation—In proving the existence of circumstances as a defence under the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth or Tenth exception, good faith shall be presumed unless the contrary appears.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 499]​

Punishment for defamation
500. Whoever defames another shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 500]​

Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory
501. Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 501]​

Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter
502. Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance, containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 502]​

 

[independentdirect]

Escher,

I humbly entreat you to procure intimate carnal knowledge of the reproductive organs of the females who are of immediate biological relation to you, to procreate with those females forthwith, and to spend the remainder of your natural life rearing such offspring as borne by those females.

 

[laksaboy]

Escher,

I humbly entreat you to procure intimate carnal knowledge of the reproductive organs of the females who are of immediate biological relation to you, to procreate with those females forthwith, and to spend the remainder of your natural life rearing such offspring as borne by those females.

Oh please, stop getting so emotional. If you or an IB whom you know is highly upset about the video, go sue the Mike Milken guy. Maybe he was mentally ill or he did have some proof. Who cares.

Besides, you'll never know if it's true or not. Many people in positions of power do fuck children or have other assorted distasteful hobbies.

Take note that the video is about three years old.

 

[independentdirect]

Oh please, stop getting so emotional. If you or an IB whom you know is highly upset about the video, go sue the Mike Milken guy. .

My response would be the same regardless of who was targeted in the video.

If you're not disgusted by such allegations, you lack a moral centre.

 

[butoh6050]

I think some singaporean paid a homeless guy to carry the placard and say all sort of things.
At one point you can hear a "sinkie" laugh.
But overall, a very funny clip. made me laugh esp the mention of "HO"

 

[Leongsam]

Wow! Sue me then.

You are not as anonymous as you think. Don't say I have not warned you.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Thank you for stating your moderation policy in no uncertain terms.

Please look at Escher's latest posting in this thread. Not only has he adopted a defiant attitude, he has repeated the defamatory remarks yet again. This constitutes grave aggravation

Such characters must be censured.

Boss already stated his position.
No need for your fear mongering tactics posting the penal code here.