• 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.

[Sg] - Which of these 2 chiobu MPs would you rather make love to?

UltimaOnline

UltimaOnline

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
28,286
Points
113
1768860008485.png



 
metanoia said:
Definitely Cheng Li Hui.
Click to expand...
The comparisons are misplaced and unfair. In the other cases cited, the individuals concerned made admissions of wrongdoing, thereby establishing the relevant factual occurrences. An admission operates as confirmation of fact. In contrast, in Pritam’s case, no such factual occurrence was ever established or independently confirmed.

The prosecution’s case rested entirely on an alleged oral statement attributed to a witness who herself admitted to having lied to Parliament on the same subject matter. The alleged statement—namely that Pritam told her to “take it to the grave”—was not contained in any contemporaneous record, such as a WhatsApp message, but was said to have been made orally. The trial judge elected to accept the testimony of a witness who had acknowledged prior falsehoods on the very issue in question, and that acceptance formed the basis of the conviction.

At its highest, the finding that Pritam lied was a credibility determination made by the trial judge; it was not a fact established through scientific evidence or through an admission by Pritam himself.​
 
Dreamliner787 said:
The comparisons are misplaced and unfair. In the other cases cited, the individuals concerned made admissions of wrongdoing, thereby establishing the relevant factual occurrences. An admission operates as confirmation of fact. In contrast, in Pritam’s case, no such factual occurrence was ever established or independently confirmed.
The prosecution’s case rested entirely on an alleged oral statement attributed to a witness who herself admitted to having lied to Parliament on the same subject matter. The alleged statement—namely that Pritam told her to “take it to the grave”—was not contained in any contemporaneous record, such as a WhatsApp message, but was said to have been made orally. The trial judge elected to accept the testimony of a witness who had acknowledged prior falsehoods on the very issue in question, and that acceptance formed the basis of the conviction.
At its highest, the finding that Pritam lied was a credibility determination made by the trial judge; it was not a fact established through scientific evidence or through an admission by Pritam himself.​
Click to expand...
Politics is a dirty game, and the ruling party doesn't believe in playing fair.
 
Dreamliner787 said:
The comparisons are misplaced and unfair. In the other cases cited, the individuals concerned made admissions of wrongdoing, thereby establishing the relevant factual occurrences. An admission operates as confirmation of fact. In contrast, in Pritam’s case, no such factual occurrence was ever established or independently confirmed.

The prosecution’s case rested entirely on an alleged oral statement attributed to a witness who herself admitted to having lied to Parliament on the same subject matter. The alleged statement—namely that Pritam told her to “take it to the grave”—was not contained in any contemporaneous record, such as a WhatsApp message, but was said to have been made orally. The trial judge elected to accept the testimony of a witness who had acknowledged prior falsehoods on the very issue in question, and that acceptance formed the basis of the conviction.

At its highest, the finding that Pritam lied was a credibility determination made by the trial judge; it was not a fact established through scientific evidence or through an admission by Pritam himself.​
Click to expand...

That said, I fully support the Prime Minister’s decision to remove Pritam from the office of Leader of the Opposition. The Workers’ Party is now left with a stark choice. It can either remove Pritam as Secretary-General and put forward a new leader to assume the role of Leader of the Opposition, or it can accept that it no longer has a credible claimant to the post and forgo it altogether.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Have a young chiobu crush that rather spend time texting a ceca than me
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
bisdak
B
P
Who says young sinkie chiobu dosent love our health minister OYK
Replies
0
Views
411
pleasehelpme120
P
UltimaOnline
[Video] -EDMWer says this chiobu's voice makes him sexually aroused and gives him a raging erection, you also get erection?
Replies
0
Views
365
UltimaOnline
UltimaOnline
UltimaOnline
[Sg] - Man stabs knive into woman's forehead at Jurong West HDB void deck in jealous rage
Replies
15
Views
1K
crimsondue
C
UltimaOnline
[Sg] - 2 men (1 half-naked) MMA fight at hawker centre at Ang Mo Kio over woman, SPF chiobu(?) officer called to scene
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Boonsiong
B
Back
Top