DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Tey's Boss is Tony Tan's Son-in-Law!

**TorryJens** · 09-01-2012, 12:21 PM

Dear Rumple

Professor Teh has only possible limbs for his defence but all are tied to Darrine's testimonies , statements and her demeanor on the stand under cross examination.

.........................

Which limb to chose depends on what evidence has , on hand kept for purposes of the affair. If he has deleted the past SMSes from darrine . private forensic data recovery can and will do wonders. But if I had to take a rational bet, I would chose b, and chose not to discredit the sole witness for the prosecution.

Dear Locke,

If one googles "Trial by Media", you will get 518 million hits! So, it is not a phenomenon unique to SINKIELAND. What is unique to SINKIELAND is that the MSM is controlled directly or indirectly by the government (or the PAP to be exact). To find out more about how it is controlled, I recommend Francis Seow's "The Media Enthralled". In USA, UK, etc, the "trial by media" phenomenon is driven by competititon for readership and the advertising revenue that comes with it - if newspaper A is the first to report juicy details about whatever case, it gains a business edge over others. Here, it is driven by something else.

I will not answer the points raised in your post because that would amount to participating in trial by media, which can take many forms such as:

- biased reporting
- media conducting parallel investigations thereby interfering with those conducted by police
- speculating about evidence or lack thereof, etc

All these have an effect on the subconscious and the most powerful way to influence public opinion is through this medium. The much talked about "Climate of Fear" is largely a subconscious phenomenon. And as I mentioned before, if one is minded to fix somebody by damaging his credibility, you don't need a conviction to do that. Biased media reporting alone will achieve that. The end result being the accused is acquitted in a court of law but his reputation and standing in society is irreparably damaged, not to mention that he has to spend money to hire lawyers to defend himself whereas the prosecution is funded with taxpayers' money!

"Trial by Media" occurs basically because human beings are curious. They also have base instincts. It is fun to watch the powerful suffer. It proves to us that despite their palaces and luxurious lifestyle (real or imagined), they too are like us - eat, shit and die. That's face it, we all have schadenfreude (pleasure derived from the suffering of others). Human beings' base instincts cannot be legislated away.

In the US, where the constitutional right to freeedom of expression is largely unfettered, an accused's choice of lawyer is also informed by the various candidates' perceived skill at handling the media in highly publicised trials. If you are OJ Simpson, you hire a lawyer not just based on his courtroom skills but also on the basis of how good his skills are at handling and even making use of the media. However, "technically" we follow the UK model, which grants less freedom to the press, believing that an accused's person right to a free trial is equally important.

If one were to click on some of the links generated by Google, you will note that in UK, NZ, Aus, etc, there have been cases where the media has gone overboard in the run-up to the trial and the Attorney General ("AG") of those FIRST WORLD countries has intervened and charged the culprits for contempt of court and/or obtained restraining orders to prevent future contraventions. The AG in those FIRST WORLD countries is the one prosecuting the accused, yet the AG is also charging the media for contempt in denying the accused a fair trial - that is the sort of fair minded CIVIL SERVANT that we need. That is the sort of "balancing of interests" that we seek so that our human rights will not be trampled upon, but I suspect our chaps in the AGC are more interested in balancing their bums on those $600 Herman Miller chairs!

09-01-2012, 12:21 PM	#27
TorryJens Join Date Nov 2008 Posts 4,494 Senior Member	Dear Rumple Professor Teh has only possible limbs for his defence but all are tied to Darrine's testimonies , statements and her demeanor on the stand under cross examination. ......................... Which limb to chose depends on what evidence has , on hand kept for purposes of the affair. If he has deleted the past SMSes from darrine . private forensic data recovery can and will do wonders. But if I had to take a rational bet, I would chose b, and chose not to discredit the sole witness for the prosecution. Dear Locke, If one googles "Trial by Media", you will get 518 million hits! So, it is not a phenomenon unique to SINKIELAND. What is unique to SINKIELAND is that the MSM is controlled directly or indirectly by the government (or the PAP to be exact). To find out more about how it is controlled, I recommend Francis Seow's "The Media Enthralled". In USA, UK, etc, the "trial by media" phenomenon is driven by competititon for readership and the advertising revenue that comes with it - if newspaper A is the first to report juicy details about whatever case, it gains a business edge over others. Here, it is driven by something else. I will not answer the points raised in your post because that would amount to participating in trial by media, which can take many forms such as: - biased reporting - media conducting parallel investigations thereby interfering with those conducted by police - speculating about evidence or lack thereof, etc All these have an effect on the subconscious and the most powerful way to influence public opinion is through this medium. The much talked about "Climate of Fear" is largely a subconscious phenomenon. And as I mentioned before, if one is minded to fix somebody by damaging his credibility, you don't need a conviction to do that. Biased media reporting alone will achieve that. The end result being the accused is acquitted in a court of law but his reputation and standing in society is irreparably damaged, not to mention that he has to spend money to hire lawyers to defend himself whereas the prosecution is funded with taxpayers' money! "Trial by Media" occurs basically because human beings are curious. They also have base instincts. It is fun to watch the powerful suffer. It proves to us that despite their palaces and luxurious lifestyle (real or imagined), they too are like us - eat, shit and die. That's face it, we all have schadenfreude (pleasure derived from the suffering of others). Human beings' base instincts cannot be legislated away. In the US, where the constitutional right to freeedom of expression is largely unfettered, an accused's choice of lawyer is also informed by the various candidates' perceived skill at handling the media in highly publicised trials. If you are OJ Simpson, you hire a lawyer not just based on his courtroom skills but also on the basis of how good his skills are at handling and even making use of the media. However, "technically" we follow the UK model, which grants less freedom to the press, believing that an accused's person right to a free trial is equally important. If one were to click on some of the links generated by Google, you will note that in UK, NZ, Aus, etc, there have been cases where the media has gone overboard in the run-up to the trial and the Attorney General ("AG") of those FIRST WORLD countries has intervened and charged the culprits for contempt of court and/or obtained restraining orders to prevent future contraventions. The AG in those FIRST WORLD countries is the one prosecuting the accused, yet the AG is also charging the media for contempt in denying the accused a fair trial - that is the sort of fair minded CIVIL SERVANT that we need. That is the sort of "balancing of interests" that we seek so that our human rights will not be trampled upon, but I suspect our chaps in the AGC are more interested in balancing their bums on those $600 Herman Miller chairs!
	Quote