I am in Sadistic mood today

[Sachin=GOD]

A crazy old ego-maniac is shouting over and ranting uncontrollably in a show of appalling arrogance and contempt against a interviewer who was remarkably civil and respectful and all here we have people making comments like 'skull-effed..'' date= 'he tore her a new one...' Great going guys! :hatsoff:

agreed 100%.

Yup' date=' it is that kind "remarkably civil and respectful" journalists that are responsible for the great pedigree of Indian news media. Btw maybe you and I have different understanding of "respectful", but questioning [b']the most esteemed lawyer in the country on his integrity and moral positions because he excercises his right granted by the constitution and Indian penal code i.e. to defend Manu Sharma is not exactly repectful in my book. The interviewer personalizes the discussion rather than focussing on the issue.

For your kind information, this "most esteemed lawyer of India" has defended people like Afzal Guru - the man who attacked the parliament of India and he also defended the killers of Indira Gandhi and he defended Harshad Mehta -the man behind the biggest stock market scam in the history of India (and so severe was the nature of the crimes commited by Arshad Mehta that he was later charged with 72 criminal offenses and more than 600 civil action suits were filed against him.) and he also defended Sanjay Dutt - one of the accused (later also convicted and jailed after accepting his crime and being proved guilty) in the Bombay blasts case and later on when Sanjay Dutt was convicted and jailed, the same Ram Jethmalani who had defended him earlier on, now said that Dutt was a security risk to the country. I know that defending a person accused of a crime is within the laws of the country and is a right given to the lawyers by the constitution, but when a person continuously, over a period of 10-20 years, defends such people like Afzal Guru, Harshad Mehta etc then he cannot be considered as an esteemed lawyer under any circumstances. A brilliant legal mind no doubt, but an esteemed lawyer, no way.

[hari504504]

A crazy old ego-maniac is shouting over and ranting uncontrollably in a show of appalling arrogance and contempt against a interviewer who was remarkably civil and respectful and all here we have people making comments like 'skull-effed..'' date= 'he tore her a new one...' Great going guys! :hatsoff:

Well said. I felt exactly the same. The journalists in both the videos never stepped out of their line and asked direct questions which the slippery Jethmalani seemed to evade over and over again with - "you know nothing about the judicial sysm", "you know nothing a about democracy"..etc . Would've taken a lot of self control to not to confront him make it personal as well..

[Ram]

Yup' date=' it is that kind "remarkably civil and respectful" journalists that are responsible for the great pedigree of Indian news media. Btw maybe you and I have different understanding of "respectful", but questioning the most esteemed lawyer in the country on his integrity and moral positions because he excercises his right granted by the constitution and Indian penal code i.e. to defend Manu Sharma is not exactly repectful in my book. The interviewer personalizes the discussion rather than focussing on the issue.[/quote'] I don’t need you to regurgitate Jethamalani’s position. I already heard him shout it out a million times in that interview. You speak as though all lawyers are the perfect manifestations of morally aligned specimens whose sole aim in life it to deliver justice and liberty to all.Everyone knows there are scumbags in the world. Everyone also knows there’s no shortage of scumbag lawyers out to protect them. So you don’t gimme the phony moral argument ‘Oh look, he is just doing his constitutional durty..’, ok? In this context, that is a perfectly valid and legitimate question. But forget what the question was; I have to say I am extremely worried for if you find some crazed ego-maniac yelling at the top of his voice and jumping involuntarily up and down his chair even mildly entertaining. Irrespective of what the question was (and it was a perfectly valid one) or what the answer was, the was he behaved in that interview was shocking.

[coffee_rules]

^^You have not come across many grumpy old men? This is one. Lawyers may be scumbags, lowlifes. But do we want to have a judicial system that takes in input from the press about who is guilty and who is not and who should be defendable. May be not. That's what a autocratic/fascist society does. That's what that old man is screaming about in not so nice ways. Thapar 's objection was childish. Just because RJ j has a board up his house that he is not accepting any cases, and now that he did, what's the bfd in that? He just changed his mind. The very basis of questioning the morality of a lawyer is illogical in a democratic country. The system should be so open that even a person like Manu sharma should be allowed to defend. We only see old egomaniac screaming without any etiquette, but that's not the point of his argument.

[Ram]

^^You have not come across many grumpy old men? This is one. Lawyers may be scumbags, lowlifes. But do we want to have a judicial system that takes in input from the press about who is guilty and who is not and who should be defendable. May be not. That's what a autocratic/fascist society does. That's what that old man is screaming about in not so nice ways. Thapar 's objection was childish. Just because RJ j has a board up his house that he is not accepting any cases, and now that he did, what's the bfd in that? He just changed his mind. The very basis of questioning the morality of a lawyer is illogical in a democratic country. The system should be so open that even a person like Manu sharma should be allowed to defend. We only see old egomaniac screaming without any etiquette, but that's not the point of his argument.

Who even objected to that? Of course, even the worst of scumbag criminals have the right to a legal defence, which is why Ram Jethmalani was allowed to represent someone like Manu Sharma. Here’s where I think the crazy old man is wrong by a million miles. He keeps referring to the media as being vindictive and biased against his client, with the potential of that affecting the judgment. I hope you do realize that, by launching the accusation, he’s indirectly questioning the competence of the judiciary. Is he implying that the judges in charge of the case are not capable of seeing the evidence for what it is, but will be simply swayed by media reports and articles? Honestly, I find that hilarious. The media, in this particular case, was doing EXACTLY what it was supposed to do – Report the TRUTH, as it best understood it. Its not like Sagarika Ghosh or anyone else led a delegation to the high court justice’s home and tried to sway him. They reported the news, which is exactly the role of the media in a democratic society. And the crazy old man is babbling that the media is undermining democracy! :cantstop: Plus, I don’t have much time for those who wish to take the phony moral high-ground of ‘Oh look, Jethmalani is doing what every lawyer should do..the media shouldn’t question him..’, in this case. Everybody knows what the truth is. Manu Sharma is criminal and RJM chose to represent him, simply for cheap publicity. Anyone trying to pretend it to be anything else is not going to fool anyone, seriously.

[Ram]

Btw, If I was Sagarika Ghose in that scenario, I would have either *****-slapped that crazy old dude across his face or asked him to behave himself. I am amazed that she was actually so patient and dignified with him. And mind you, this is irrespective of whose side of the argument you’re for or against (thought I cant see how there can be two sides here. RJM is a scumbag, trying to represent a scumbag. He has obviously completely sold his morals for cheap publicity). Its shocking to see people actually enjoy this kind of barbaric, uncivilized and boorish behavior from a person.

[Ram]

This guy Karan Thapar is good. There are lots of interviewers who ask tough questions, but he is unflinching and relentless. His biggest strength is his lightning fast ability to pick out a flaw in an argument and that helps to keep pressure on the interviewee right throughout. The same crazy-old RJM who was able to shout and lord over the obviously more polite Sagarika was literally reduced t o a combination of desperate pleas, veiled threats and wild exhortations against a much more stubborn and competent Thapar, in what was essentially 2 different interviews over the same talking points. :cantstop:

[hari504504]

Btw' date=' If I was Sagarika Ghose in that scenario, I would have either *****-slapped that crazy old dude across his face or asked him to behave himself. I[/quote'] second option is better... Jethmalani would sue her so bad that she would end-up living out of a shoe box in the streets.

[straight.drive]

Sagarika remains passive to the old man's attack and hence got butchered.Karan Thapar adopted an assertive(not aggressive) response and hence he senile old man had to tone down his argument. Being a host of a prime time show is a lot harder than handling an interview with a old, reckless horse. I love the way tim sebastian used to handle his troublesome guests in BBC's Hardtalk. He had a own way there!!! KnsDeAZtJbE

[Guest Shivani]

had an 'interactive session' with him today one awesome speaker he is i can listen to him speak for hours and hours !