different punishment for similar offence - why?

[pirate]

Nah. The sting is the implicit allegation of bias in favour of WW allegedly because he was well-known. Inconsistency in sentencing has always been around, simply because cases are dealt with by different judges at different times, and sometimes a particular judge may have gotten it wrong but the accused did not appeal for whatever reason. It was never reason for it to become a political issue, just an interesting thing for law students (or lawyers in the case of more obscure provisions) to debate about until it finally gets settled by an appeal as to which one was right. So what if you do manage to find a case where someone was sent to jail before the Penal Code provision was amended?


This particular horse is well and truly dead. People should stop flogging it and move on, unless they have a different agenda from what they say is their agenda. Like that has never happened before.

[verykiasu2010]

pirate:

Nah. The sting is the implicit allegation of bias in favour of WW allegedly because he was well-known. Inconsistency in sentencing has always been around, simply because cases are dealt with by different judges at different times, and sometimes a particular judge may have gotten it wrong but the accused did not appeal for whatever reason. It was never reason for it to become a political issue, just an interesting thing for law students (or lawyers in the case of more obscure provisions) to debate about until it finally gets settled by an appeal as to which one was right. So what if you do manage to find a case where someone was sent to jail before the Penal Code provision was amended?


This particular horse is well and truly dead. People should stop flogging it and move on, unless they have a different agenda from what they say is their agenda. Like that has never happened before.

yes yes dead horse meat made into luncheon meat, anyone ? :evil: :evil:

alamak, agreeing with a pirate again :rotflmao:

[pirate]

verykiasu2010:

alamak, agreeing with a pirate again :rotflmao:

Ack! This is :censored: bad.

[3Boys]

pirate:

Nah. The sting is the implicit allegation of bias in favour of WW allegedly because he was well-known. Inconsistency in sentencing has always been around, simply because cases are dealt with by different judges at different times, and sometimes a particular judge may have gotten it wrong but the accused did not appeal for whatever reason. It was never reason for it to become a political issue, just an interesting thing for law students (or lawyers in the case of more obscure provisions) to debate about until it finally gets settled by an appeal as to which one was right. So what if you do manage to find a case where someone was sent to jail before the Penal Code provision was amended?


This particular horse is well and truly dead. People should stop flogging it and move on, unless they have a different agenda from what they say is their agenda. Like that has never happened before.

The reason why it was politicized (and will continue to be) is precisely because WW is rich and famous.

Amen to the dead horse.

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

I see, so the rabid masses is incorruptible and have no hidden agenda then? I should trust the garbage on some websites more than our elected officials then. Transparency and Accountability only seems to work in one direction.

So, do You think there was bias in this case?

What is there so corrupted about questioning a seeming irregularity? I still don't get it.

The idea is free competition of ideas/info and cyberworld seems to provide a level field for this. I still prefer free competition of ideas over censored/filtered info. Is not about new media against mainstream media.

In a previous post, if I don't remember wrongly, you mentioned a few examples such as open SMRT door etc....in my opinion, I feel that those examples illustrate how free competition of idea and free flow information refutes wrong ideas/information quickly, rather than sustaining falsehood. So, it really shouldn't be framed as question of whether accountability and transparency only seems to work one way.

Bias? Because of the principle of free competition of ideas in the cyberworld, falsehood will be debunked quickly..so I don't see any biasness. I don't follow wolf's case closely so I didn't say and won't say much.

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

Hmm....sarcasm is when I say something when I intend to mean something else. Not sure I was being sarcastic at all.


And yes, I don't trust the web, at least from non-verifiable sources.

Last, Weihan, contempt of court is still valid in all major legal jurisdictions, including the USA and The UK.

You speak so authoritatively but often you pass on false information. I strongly suggest you double check your sources and verify because I think wherever you get your info from, you are seriously being misled.d

Contempt of court in the form of law on scandalising the judiciary to silence critics is longer practiced in UK and USA.

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/using-power-to-give-immunity-to-the-powerful-part-2/

\"You speak so authoritatively but often you pass on false information\". In the spirit of free competition of ideas, anyone can refute my false information. More than once, I have asked fellow forumner to challenge the facts.

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

3Boys:

Hmm....sarcasm is when I say something when I intend to mean something else. Not sure I was being sarcastic at all.


And yes, I don't trust the web, at least from non-verifiable sources.

Last, Weihan, contempt of court is still valid in all major legal jurisdictions, including the USA and The UK.

You speak so authoritatively but often you pass on false information. I strongly suggest you double check your sources and verify because I think wherever you get your info from, you are seriously being misled.d

Contempt of court in the form of law on scandalising the judiciary to silence critics is longer practiced in UK and USA.

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/using-power-to-give-immunity-to-the-powerful-part-2/

Well, it behooves you to make clear the distinction and nuance as opposed to merely making a sweeping statement that contempt of court no longer applies universally. One can only assume that you are parroting Alex Au without understanding the real context, for he frames it within the situation of political persecution, and not that contempt of court itself is determined to be irrelevant (at least not as far as I read, only that article).

I quote (prob out of context, you have to read it yourself), from yawningbread \"Late April, Hain’s lawyer, David Dunlop, said the contempt of court proceedings may have no basis in common law. He also questioned if it complied with the European Convention on Human Rights. Responding, Larkin said that while he was not arguing that all criticism of judges was contempt of court, such criticism that undermined public confidence in the administration of justice should not be permitted – basically, the first justification I described above.\"

At the very least, up till 2012, the issue still appears to still generate debate even in the UK. I don't see that it's a slam dunk at all, and who is to say that it is then a superior approach?

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

What is there so corrupted about questioning a seeming irregularity? I still don't get it.

The idea is free competition of ideas/info and cyberworld seems to provide a level field for this. I still prefer free competition of ideas over censored/filtered info. Is not about new media against mainstream media.

In a previous post, if I don't remember wrongly, you mentioned a few examples such as open SMRT door etc....in my opinion, I feel that those examples illustrate how free competition of idea and free flow information refutes wrong ideas/information quickly, rather than sustaining falsehood. So, it really shouldn't be framed as question of whether accountability and transparency only seems to work one way.

Bias? Because of the principle of free competition of ideas in the cyberworld, falsehood will be debunked quickly..so I don't see any biasness. I don't follow wolf's case closely so I didn't say and won't say much.

Perhaps there is no corruption, but would you agree that there are those with vested interest who will seek to exploit the situation for their own political gain, or further their agenda?

In the SMRT case, if SMRT had not conducted a thorough investigation themselves to debunk the accusation, who in cyberspace would have leapt to their defence? If it happened it escaped my attention, for the prevailing sentiment was overwhelmingly against SMRT, and I fail to see how that is an example of an untruth correcting itself in cyberspace.

Last, the contention that somehow a free market of ideas somehow leads to a quick debunking of falsehood completely fails to account for the fact that MOST people only have time to read a fraction of what's on the internet. I.e. once a falsehood is out there, it perpetuates and is not corrected in a large number of people minds even if the prevailing opinion changes. This unnecessarily and unfairly maligns the reputation of the people and institutions upon the falsehoods have been inflicted. If you think this is unimportant, wait till you become a victim of this situation, then you will see how frustrating it is.

Far better that false opinions are not out there in the first place.

[pirate]

WeiHan:

What is there so corrupted about questioning a seeming irregularity? I still don't get it.

Are we supposed to pretend not to understand what everybody else does - that \"questioning a seeming irregularity\" actually means alleging bias in favour of the rich and famous?

[WeiHan]

pirate:

WeiHan:

What is there so corrupted about questioning a seeming irregularity? I still don't get it.

Are we supposed to pretend not to understand what everybody else does - that \"questioning a seeming irregularity\" actually means alleging bias in favour of the rich and famous?

Although I don't follow the case closely, it has been clear to me that the alleging bias mean favouritism of the rich and power.

It has indeed crossed my mind that, perhaps, there is closer scrutiny because of widening wealth gap and maybe because of that it has become fertile ground for politicising.

I was just waiting for the law minister to clarify. If it is a false allegation, it can surely be easily debunked.

Now, i am waiting for the explanation for our sovereign fund accusation.