You have insulted cobras. Animals rights groups and PETA are going to sue you, you better watch out.
You mean this cobra?
-
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.
Latest: MP Vikram Nair wants to sue TOC's E-Jay Ng!
- Thread starter Rogue Trader
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pap
There's a difference between intentional and unintentional misrepresentation of facts leading to the defamation of one's reputation. If a lawsuit is filed, the difference is in the quantum of damages. Facts and only full facts are absolute defense against defamation.
For example, I saw you walking into a hotel with a woman. I went on to tell your wife and friends about it. But actually, you were just a corporate repsentative bringing a client to a restaurant in the hotel. It's still defamation because I didn't have full facts and evidence. But the damages may be migitated since I actually saw something and acting out of goodwill or in this case scenario, sense of domestic and social justice, i.e. I felt sorry for them and had to tell them.
Example 2, you somehow offended me and I cooked up a story about you having extramarital affairs. That's straightforth unmitigable malicious defamation.
Example 3, I saw you bringing a woman into a hotel all the way up into a room overnight and checking out only next morning. I go tell your wife, relatives and friends. It'd be indefensible since all hotels have check-in and check-out records and CCTV all the way to outside room doors. Sue me for defamation?
I wonder nobody brought up the unintentional or intentional attempt to defame CSM by equating his proposal to a Nigerian scam. If you look at the illustrious legal and business career background of CSM, the implications to all those organizations associated to him and of him being implied as a swindler or a intellectually inferior is immeasurable. I am wondering if there is any legal merit to raise a case against the accuser of CSM being involved in Nigerian scams.
Vikram was obviously trying to impress his master that all dirty words can be used as attack without going through his head. Baey on the other hand tried to act neutral but ended up criticising his own people. Both are screwed. How did they even pass the tea session? The only reason is, LHL is also screwed.
You are giving Vikram too much credit. ＂Without going through his head？＂ He must have thought it over thoroughly; just that he is not that smart after all.
this is called SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. after silencing critiques from the real world, they have to do the same to the cyberworld. the latter now is overpowering the real world and more effective to spread the words. whether believeable or not, the paps realise that it's negatively affecting their supports.
This Arrogant Clown thinks is he is now V K Nair LEE.
See how arrogant he was when he told the Sembawang peasants that if corpse water is good enough for him who are those peasants to complain!
who's gonna represent the defendants?
in the past record, my pet snake might succumb to PG without putting up any strong defence. perhaps this is the real meaning when pinky once said if there were too many opps in parliament, his job would be to "fix them". he isn't fixing them now. he leaves that to his dobermans or rotweilers to do it. sigh! there are more dogs than humans in parliament.
in the past record, my pet snake might succumb to PG without putting up any strong defence. perhaps this is the real meaning when pinky once said if there were too many opps in parliament, his job would be to "fix them". he isn't fixing them now. he leaves that to his dobermans or rotweilers to do it. sigh! there are more dogs than humans in parliament.
Mr Vikram Nair said this in parliament where he is protected by parliamentary privilege - he can't be sued. His parliamentary colleagues can, though, refer him to the disciplinary committee to exact a penalty, like they did to JBJ many years ago for not declaring his "pecuniary interests" in a matter before he took part in a debate on it.
Also these are expected in any exchange or debate and I sure that CSM would not mind if these were said outside parliament.
Vikram is just thin skinned. He likes to dish it out but can't take it himself. He should stick to drinking water from tanks where dead bodies are found to display his brand of bravery.
Vikram is just thin skinned. He likes to dish it out but can't take it himself. He should stick to drinking water from tanks where dead bodies are found to display his brand of bravery.
He tried to act brave in front of his master in parliament and under TV. Unfortunately to him, the cyber world will scrutinise his piece of shit until he cry foul. He is nothing but maggot.
Actually this is a standard PAP tactic..if dont like what they hear and read will just sue..why dont he type a reply and ask TOC to publish? if that does not silence his critics means its true...I believe that soon such gangster tactics will back fire and once the law suite is in place and it goes on trial, the incompetence and compliant Judiciary will be in greater spotlight... and it will be a real Kangaroo court...Vikram and the PAP will be even more exposed as everything he says will be under the microscope...
Go ahead and sue and exposed even more PAP shit
Go ahead and sue and exposed even more PAP shit
Something wrong here. He cannot be sued but he can sue. What kind of fuckup tyrannical law is this?
Is he above the law? Is there no one to stop him?
Maybe at home he drank and ponded his stomach with alcohol first, then go on stage......
lianbeng asked, "is he that ahneh who drank corpse water from rooftop tank?"
lianbeng asked, "is he that ahneh who drank corpse water from rooftop tank?"
he is also the one that says, "Don't focus too much on the 40 percent that didn't vote for you. We have to remember and keep in mind the interests of the 60 percent that did." all pap like to do is hit below the belt against all their opponents. this present batch all exhibit ungentlemanly behavior like their boss who commented that "WP has let Hougang voters down in its handling of Yaw's alleged affair".
Does Vikram dare to vote against his own party ?
In the wrong ward, it could be 70% agst you with 30% asslickers. Remember well my words little boy.
The most important lesson S'poreans should learn from these episodes of the 'The Family' and ilk suing people is : to elect as many opposition MP's as possible who dare to speak up and ask tough questions .Until the time comes when people wake up and deny them the 2/3 majority, its the duty of the opposition MP's to ask questions like what the TOC contributor is doing.
Last edited:
The immunity granted to MPs speaking in parliament allows them to speak without fear of reprisal and harassment, and when fairly applied, is a good one. And it is up to an MP's peers to correct and where needed punish him. But as indicated in my example, Singaporean's refusal to elect a meaningful opposition has allowed the PAPzis to abuse this process, as they have with so many other aspects of politics in Singapore.
And they will continue to do this as long as they have more than 2/3 of the seats in parliament.
And they will continue to do this as long as they have more than 2/3 of the seats in parliament.
Similar threads
