Calling all cool guys

[nallajamoon]

biggest joke @Rushabhi is that the arsehole who proclaims to be their savior is comfortably sitting in canada living on tax payers money while preaching equality. what a delusion fcukwit.

[uttermost]

1 minute ago, nallajamoon said:

these are called facts, not the rants of some random arsehole in the DB who has daddy issues because his dad never loved him. lol

what are the 'facts'? lol.

did you read it before posting, or do you want me to waste my time reading it, when you're going to run away the minute I start posting about it? lol.

first tell what that thing you posted is about, and what is the point you want to make. 

learn how to argue. lol.

[uttermost]

1 minute ago, nallajamoon said:

these are called facts, not the rants of some random arsehole in the DB who has daddy issues because his dad never loved him. lol

what are the 'facts'? lol.

did you read it before posting, or do you want me to waste my time reading it, when you're going to run away the minute I start posting about it? lol.

first tell what that thing you posted is about, and what is the point you want to make. 

learn how to argue. lol.

[nallajamoon]

36 minutes ago, uttermost said:

everything I say is true ra. can you prove that they are not? 

akkada court lo chaala ne cases unnayi ra choothiye ga fake sc/st atrocity cases vi, poyi eppudanna court ki velli choodu. i am sure you support misusing the law, anti social terrorist munda nayala vu kada

[nallajamoon]

Just now, uttermost said:

what are the 'facts'? lol.

did you read it before posting, or do you want me to waste my time reading it, when you're going to run away the minute I start posting about it? lol.

first tell what that thing you posted is about, and what is the point you want to make. 

learn how to argue. lol.

fake sc/st atrocity cases statistics vesa poi chaduvuko ra half baked arsewipe. neeku adi rakunte sankalu gudduko ikkadedo argument gelicha ani 5 year bacha gadila. fcuk off dickkhead

[uttermost]

6 minutes ago, nallajamoon said:

these are called facts, not the rants of some random arsehole in the DB who has daddy issues because his dad never loved him. lol

I didn't love my dad. My dad was proud of me. I did't love him because he was unkind to my mom.

and the 'facts'. what are those? lol. pls tell. did you read the thing you posted? haha..

i want you to pick 'facts' from what you posted, and make your case. It actually makes my case, better than yours. in fact it spits on you.

[nallajamoon]

2 minutes ago, uttermost said:

I didn't love my dad. My dad was proud of me. I did't love him because he was unkind to my mom.

and the 'facts'. what are those? lol. pls tell. did you read the thing you posted? haha..

i want you to pick 'facts' from what you posted, and make your case. It actually makes my case, better than yours. in fact it spits on you.

i don't care about your dad or your family ra, firstly they should be  to the world for giving birth to a piece of shitt like u. so nee family dabba naaku akkarle siggu leni yedhava, spit antava ikkada andaru ummithey ade teertham la puchukune labbe gadevado kothaga cheppakkarle joker yedava. 

poi aa articles calm ga chaduko first, nee lanti yedavalu aa sc/st act ni ela misuse chestunnaro. meeku endukivvali ra rent adigithey eggotti fake cases pedatham ani dabainchatanika. LOL first learn to live in a civilized manner(which u r incapable of) and come back to debate with me, fcuk face. 

[uttermost]

4 minutes ago, nallajamoon said:

fake sc/st atrocity cases statistics vesa poi chaduvuko ra half baked arsewipe. neeku adi rakunte sankalu gudduko ikkadedo argument gelicha ani 5 year bacha gadila. fcuk off dickkhead

did you read the thing you posted? haha.. 

----------------------

While the Supreme Court expressed fear that automatic arrests under the Atrocities Act could lead to innocents being framed, crime data indicates that police investigations find such cases to be false only 9% or 10% of the time. The vast majority of atrocities cases investigated by the police result in chargesheets being filed.

 

Similarly, of the 23,408 cases of atrocities against Scheduled tribes heard in courtrooms that year, 2,895 trials were completed with a conviction rate of 20.8.

In comparison, the conviction rate for all crimes under the Indian Penal Code in 2016 was 46.8.

------------------

I was talking about conviction rates in KA, which is 2% from the article you posted.

basically you are making my point, and calling it 'facts'. thank you. lol.

[uttermost]

Just now, nallajamoon said:

i don't care about your dad or your family ra, firstly they should be  to the world for giving birth to a piece of shitt like u. so nee family dabba naaku akkarle siggu leni yedhava, spit antava ikkada andaru ummithey ade teertham la puchukune labbe gadevado kothaga cheppakkarle joker yedava. 

poi aa articles calm ga chaduko first, nee lanti yedavalu aa sc/st act ni ela misuse chestunnaro. meeku endukivvali ra rent adigithey eggotti fake cases pedatham ani dabainchatanika. LOL first learn to live in a civilized manner(which u r incapable of) and come back to debate with me, fcuk face. 

nuvvu chaduvu first. lol.

chadavakunda post chesi.sollu 10guthunnav.

notice how I respond, and how you respond.. Its obvious whose parents have to apologise to the world. lol. silly boi, talking silly things.

[nallajamoon]

1 minute ago, uttermost said:

did you read the thing you posted? haha.. 

----------------------

While the Supreme Court expressed fear that automatic arrests under the Atrocities Act could lead to innocents being framed, crime data indicates that police investigations find such cases to be false only 9% or 10% of the time. The vast majority of atrocities cases investigated by the police result in chargesheets being filed.

 

Similarly, of the 23,408 cases of atrocities against Scheduled tribes heard in courtrooms that year, 2,895 trials were completed with a conviction rate of 20.8.

In comparison, the conviction rate for all crimes under the Indian Penal Code in 2016 was 46.8.

------------------

I was talking about conviction rates in KA, which is 2% from the article you posted.

basically you are making my point, and calling it 'facts'. thank you. lol.

lol 20.8 percent conviction rate aa, ante 80/100 fake anega. 

stupid boi

[nallajamoon]

Just now, uttermost said:

nuvvu chaduvu first. lol.

chadavakunda post chesi.sollu 10guthunnav.

notice how I respond, and how you respond.. Its obvious whose parents have to apologise to the world. lol. silly boi, talking silly things.

i am not the one wishing death to all people belonging to one category, or goes online hoping for that nation to go down the drain. poll pedatha lets' see what the people in DB say, lol. i don't even have to ra, it's obvious. 

[uttermost]

2 minutes ago, nallajamoon said:

poi aa articles calm ga chaduko first, nee lanti yedavalu aa sc/st act ni ela misuse chestunnaro. meeku endukivvali ra rent adigithey eggotti fake cases pedatham ani dabainchatanika. LOL first learn to live in a civilized manner(which u r incapable of) and come back to debate with me, fcuk face. 

asalu idhi post chesi, you are claiming victory na?/ lol ra nuvvu. looks like you don't have basic reading skill too. GRE ela pass ayyavu?

“It’s not that there are no false cases reported under the Act – some false cases are made under every law,” said Mihir Desai, a human rights lawyer in the Bombay High Court. “But one can’t come to a conclusion without doing a proper study. The highest court of the country should not be applying the method of anecdotal evidence.”

Unlike popular perception, low conviction rates do not mean the rest of the cases that ended in acquittals were false cases. Desai said there are often procedural lacunae in the process of investigation and prosecution that delegitimise many of the cases heard in courts. “For example, investigation under this law has to be done by certain high-level officials as per the law,” the lawyer said. “But the police often allow lower-ranking officials to investigate these crimes, and courts strike the whole case down.”

[uttermost]

2 minutes ago, nallajamoon said:

lol 20.8 percent conviction rate aa, ante 80/100 fake anega. 

stupid boi

haha.. migatha antha fake kaadhu bujji. andukey chadavaali post chesey mundu. lol. you are making a fool of yourself. like every guy who tried to trip me in this db. haha.. I already know all these NCRB stats vaguely.

Unlike popular perception, low conviction rates do not mean the rest of the cases that ended in acquittals were false cases. Desai said there are often procedural lacunae in the process of investigation and prosecution that delegitimise many of the cases heard in courts. “For example, investigation under this law has to be done by certain high-level officials as per the law,” the lawyer said. “But the police often allow lower-ranking officials to investigate these crimes, and courts strike the whole case down.”

-------------

These are serious cases.. not cases like vaadu nannu aa maata annadu, ee maata annadu.

 

[nallajamoon]

2 minutes ago, uttermost said:

asalu idhi post chesi, you are claiming victory na?/ lol ra nuvvu. looks like you don't have basic reading skill too. GRE ela pass ayyavu?

“It’s not that there are no false cases reported under the Act – some false cases are made under every law,” said Mihir Desai, a human rights lawyer in the Bombay High Court. “But one can’t come to a conclusion without doing a proper study. The highest court of the country should not be applying the method of anecdotal evidence.”

Unlike popular perception, low conviction rates do not mean the rest of the cases that ended in acquittals were false cases. Desai said there are often procedural lacunae in the process of investigation and prosecution that delegitimise many of the cases heard in courts. “For example, investigation under this law has to be done by certain high-level officials as per the law,” the lawyer said. “But the police often allow lower-ranking officials to investigate these crimes, and courts strike the whole case down.”

stupid delusional fcukface

The Supreme Court directs that public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority.

The anti-atrocities law, which protects Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from casteist slurs and discrimination, has become an instrument to “blackmail” innocent citizens and public servants, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment on Tuesday.

Issuing a slew of guidelines to protect public servants and private employees from arbitrary arrests under the Atrocities Act, the court directed that public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned should allow it.

Besides this precaution, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the FIR is registered to check whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and if it is frivolous or motivated.

The past three decades have seen complainants — who belong to the marginalised sections of society — use the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 to exact “vengeance” and satisfy vested interests, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit said in their 89-page judgment.

“Innocent citizens are termed accused, which is not intended by the legislature. The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance,” the Supreme Court observed.

False complaints

Instead of blurring caste lines, the Act has been misused to file false complaints to promote caste hatred, the apex court said. The current working of Atrocities Act may even “perpetuate casteism” if it is not brought in line and the court needs to intervene to check the “false implication of innocent citizens on caste lines.”

“The Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by the police for extraneous reasons against other citizens. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred,” the Supreme Court held.

Penal provisions

The 1989 Act penalises casteist insults and even denies anticipatory bail to the suspected offenders. The law is therefore used to rob a person of his personal liberty merely on the unilateral word of the complainant, the court said. Justice Goel wrote that anticipatory bail should be allowed if the accused is able to prima facie prove that the complaint against him is malafide.

The court referred to how public administration has been threatened by the abuse of this Act. Public servants find it difficult to give adverse remarks against employees for fear that they may be charged under the Act.

[nallajamoon]

Just now, uttermost said:

haha.. migatha antha fake kaadhu bujji. andukey chadavaali post chesey mundu. lol. you are making a fool of yourself. like every guy who tried to trip me in this db. haha.. I already know all these NCRB stats vaguely.

Unlike popular perception, low conviction rates do not mean the rest of the cases that ended in acquittals were false cases. Desai said there are often procedural lacunae in the process of investigation and prosecution that delegitimise many of the cases heard in courts. “For example, investigation under this law has to be done by certain high-level officials as per the law,” the lawyer said. “But the police often allow lower-ranking officials to investigate these crimes, and courts strike the whole case down.”

-------------

These are serious cases.. not cases like vaadu nannu aa maata annadu, ee maata annadu.

 

The Supreme Court directs that public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority.

The anti-atrocities law, which protects Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from casteist slurs and discrimination, has become an instrument to “blackmail” innocent citizens and public servants, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment on Tuesday.

Issuing a slew of guidelines to protect public servants and private employees from arbitrary arrests under the Atrocities Act, the court directed that public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned should allow it.

Besides this precaution, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the FIR is registered to check whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and if it is frivolous or motivated.

The past three decades have seen complainants — who belong to the marginalised sections of society — use the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 to exact “vengeance” and satisfy vested interests, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit said in their 89-page judgment.

“Innocent citizens are termed accused, which is not intended by the legislature. The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance,” the Supreme Court observed.

False complaints

Instead of blurring caste lines, the Act has been misused to file false complaints to promote caste hatred, the apex court said. The current working of Atrocities Act may even “perpetuate casteism” if it is not brought in line and the court needs to intervene to check the “false implication of innocent citizens on caste lines.”

“The Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by the police for extraneous reasons against other citizens. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred,” the Supreme Court held.

Penal provisions

The 1989 Act penalises casteist insults and even denies anticipatory bail to the suspected offenders. The law is therefore used to rob a person of his personal liberty merely on the unilateral word of the complainant, the court said. Justice Goel wrote that anticipatory bail should be allowed if the accused is able to prima facie prove that the complaint against him is malafide.

The court referred to how public administration has been threatened by the abuse of this Act. Public servants find it difficult to give adverse remarks against employees for fear that they may be charged under the Act.