Number Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 AAPtards trying to defend anti national CPM leader Kavita Krishnan :hysterical: Understandable since CPM and AAP are close to each other in ideology. Radical communism.
Raghav_12 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 AAPtards trying to defend anti national CPM leader Kavita Krishnan :hysterical: Anybody who doesn't subscribe to Sangh's idea of Hindu Nationalism is anti-National.
mishra Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Anybody who doesn't subscribe to Sangh's idea of Hindu Nationalism is anti-National. Do you know what the Sangh's idea is? Any particular aspect you got issues with? Or you are happy to use Sangh as punching bag? Believe me, you wont find much to argue with if you go through them
seedhi Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Kavita has successfully exposed the hypocrisy of many who Tooted #selfiewithdaughter AND statements like "Jail the B!*ch". And Her critics simply have no answer to her uncomfortable questions : LINKThe question is idiotic and has no basis in law. The so-called "surveillance" (even if without permission) is NOT a COGNIZABLE offense. Unless a complaint is filed by the affected party the government cannot do anything. Ms Krishnan and her supporters may recall that a probe was sought to be set up by the Central as well as Gujarat govts to look into the matter. However, the concerned LADY and her father have refused to cooperate with it, terming it as an invasion of privacy. I believe they have also obtained some injunction against such a probe. Taking cognizance of this as a criminal act is impossible unless the LADY cooperates, which she has declined to do. The matter stands closed for all practical and legal purposes.
amiret Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 People should read Kavita's article instead of inventing their own strawmen and mischaracterizing her arguments : The Supreme Court of India : 1. An order for telephone-tapping in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act shall not be issued except by the Home Secretary, Government of India (Central Government) and Home Secretaries of the State Governments. In an urgent case the power may be delegated to an officer of the Home Department of the Government of India and the State Governments not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Copy of the order shall be sent to the Review Committee concerned within one week of the passing of the order. Kavita : "Over three months of surveillance, why didn't the Gujarat government procure the requisite legal order which would have made the surveillance legal? " Business Standard : " S K Saikia, then Ahmedabad's police commissioner, has told television news channel that he was not aware of any paperwork for such surveillance, and that he should have been had it been legal. If regulations were not fully followed, then it amounts to an illegal invasion of privacy, whether or not the girl's father knew about it. "
seedhi Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 People should read Kavita's article instead of inventing their own strawmen and mischaracterizing her arguments : The Supreme Court of India : 1. An order for telephone-tapping in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act shall not be issued except by the Home Secretary, Government of India (Central Government) and Home Secretaries of the State Governments. In an urgent case the power may be delegated to an officer of the Home Department of the Government of India and the State Governments not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Copy of the order shall be sent to the Review Committee concerned within one week of the passing of the order. Kavita : "Over three months of surveillance, why didn't the Gujarat government procure the requisite legal order which would have made the surveillance legal? " Business Standard : " S K Saikia, then Ahmedabad's police commissioner, has told television news channel that he was not aware of any paperwork for such surveillance, and that he should have been had it been legal. If regulations were not fully followed, then it amounts to an illegal invasion of privacy, [U]whether or not the girl's father knew about it. "Father? The GIRL has claimed in the court in the petition AGAINST any inquiry into the matter that the father was acting with the girl's consent, i.e. the GIRL WAS IN THE KNOW. The Supreme Court itself has given an injunction against an inquiry by the Gujarat govt which set up a committee of a ex-HC judge to look into the matter. A criminal case is not possible unless the lady files a complaint. Ms Krishnan should realize that the GIRL/LADY wants no part of this "inquiry". She considers this as an intrusion in her privacy and an attempt to malign her character - for which Prashant Bhushan has already been reprimanded by the Supreme Court. The UPA govt sought to set up a probe by an ex-SC judge - no judge was willing to head that probe as they probably realized the frivolousness of the exercise without a criminal complaint.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Quoting Kavita : "During three months of surveillance, cops snooped not only on the woman but on her family, her would-be-husband, and her acquaintances. If indeed her father and family had requested the snooping and she was grateful for it, why didn't she and her family cooperate with the police in the project of protection? Why did the police have to illegally tap all their phones? These and other questions have been asked and answered in the Snoopgate expose - the result is that the BJP tall tale claiming it was all to protect a daughter in response to her father's plea, just don't add up." --------------------------------------- As i recollect , this is what the audio conversations (recorded by Singhal ) also indicated . The protectee or the target (An Adult Woman ) had no knowledge of being given security . In one of the conversations the Cop uses the word "Escaped " to refer to the conduct of the target/protectee at an airport . If they were indeed providing security , the cop would not have reported to his superior that she had Escaped . Kavita has successfully exposed the hypocrisy of many who Tooted #selfiewithdaughter AND statements like "Jail the B!*ch". And Her critics simply have no answer to her uncomfortable questions : LINK The woman has no issue.There is no complaint.There is nothing.The woman is under no compulsion under law or otherwise to act in a way Krishnan thinks she should have acted.The courts havent found anything either.Kavita Krishnan is just trying to raise fire with no fuel and no air. And if Krishnan can accuse the PM of stalking a woman,and that us freedom of speech then what she got back is also freedom of speech.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Father? The GIRL has claimed in the court in the petition AGAINST any inquiry into the matter that the father was acting with the girl's consent' date=' i.e. the [b']GIRL WAS IN THE KNOW. The Supreme Court itself has given an injunction against an inquiry by the Gujarat govt which set up a committee of a ex-HC judge to look into the matter. A criminal case is not possible unless the lady files a complaint. Ms Krishnan should realize that the GIRL/LADY wants no part of this "inquiry". She considers this as an intrusion in her privacy and an attempt to malign her character - for which Prashant Bhushan has already been reprimanded by the Supreme Court. The UPA govt sought to set up a probe by an ex-SC judge - no judge was willing to head that probe as they probably realized the frivolousness of the exercise without a criminal complaint. So what?Kavita Krishnan says that the girl was stalked.Why is the girl's consent and her views necessary? She was stalked and snooped without her knowledge,so what if she told the SC that she gave consent.Kavitaji says otherwise. There should be a criminal investigation,led by FBI and Scotland Yard.So what if the SC says that there is no case.Kavitaji is saying otherwise.
surajmal Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Do people have any idea what women in maoist camps go through? Prostitutes have more dignity. Besides, who the feck would stalk this krishnan character?
Raghav_12 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Do you know what the Sangh's idea is? Any particular aspect you got issues with? Or you are happy to use Sangh as punching bag? Believe me, you wont find much to argue with if you go through them Mishra Ji.. achchi ji tarah pata hai what is sangh's idea of natonalism.. have had to bear them a lot.. knows enough of their repulsive ideas.
Raghav_12 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Nobody answers simple..what was the need for a girl's snooping in which Amit Shah also got involved? For what girl's consent was asked and why?
rkt.india Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Nobody answers simple..what was the need for a girl's snooping in which Amit Shah also got involved? For what girl's consent was asked and why? As she already said in the court, it intrudes their privacy. So no one really knows what was the reason behind that.
amiret Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 IT DOES NOT MATTER if the girl was in the know . Procedural safeguards have to be mandatorily followed. Where is the requisite legal order ? When you were tapping her phones you are also invading the privacy of other parties in the conversation . When can the Govt tap your phones ?, communications ? (This question was also raised in the Andhra-CBN phone tapping issue) LINK Supreme Court of India : 5. ...... in the event of the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety the Central Government or the State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf, can intercept messages if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of.- (i) The sovereignty and integrity of India. (ii) The security of the State. (iii) Friendly relations with foreign states. (iv) Public order. (v) For preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. What was the Public emergency which necessitated the tapping of Phones and her surveillance ? If she was provided special security with/ without her knowledge : She was not a public figure or a political leader , What was the threat perception against her , that Officers and resources of the Crime Dept , Police , ATS , IB ( Intelligence Bureau) had to be misused to provide her special security that even transcended State borders ? Can every daughter of Gujarat get such special security and even cops to accompany them on flights ?
amiret Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Providing Security ? You decide . from the transcripts G.L.Singhal: Yes sir, everything has been arranged Amit Shah: No, no….I mean ask him in advance the hotel’s name G.L.Singhal: yes yes sir Amit Shah: So in case she escapes, we can keep a vigil at the hotel G.L.Singhal: Right right sir Why is the person you claim to be protecting trying to Escape ? :haha: TRANSCRIPT LINK
rkt.india Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE GIRL WAS IN THE KNOW . Procedural safeguards have to be mandatorily followed. Where is the requisite legal order ? When you were tapping her phones you are also invading the privacy of other parties in the conversation . When can the Govt tap your phones ?, communications ? (This question was also raised in the Andhra-CBN phone tapping issue) LINK What was the Public emergency which necessitated the tapping of Phones and her surveillance ? If she was provided special security with/ without her knowledge : She was not a public figure or a political leader , What was the threat perception against her , that Officers and resources of the Crime Dept , Police , ATS , IB ( Intelligence Bureau) had to be misused to provide her special security that even transcended State borders ? Can every daughter of Gujarat get such special security and even cops to accompany them on flights ? but the supreme court itself quashed the petition.
rkt.india Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Providing Security ? You decide . from the transcripts Why is the person you claim to be protecting trying to Escape ? :haha: TRANSCRIPT LINK where did the transcript come from?
amiret Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 @rkt.india They have been available for almost 2 years they are transcripts of conversations recorded by ACP GL Singhal. He has admitted to recording the conversations to protect himself. I believe he handed over the recordings to CBI when he was being investigated in the fake encounter cases.
zubinpepsi Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 ^it must be a new low for u to defend this Kavitha woman's comment... Some people can to any extent...... :facepalm:
mishra Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Mishra Ji.. achchi ji tarah pata hai what is sangh's idea of natonalism.. have had to bear them a lot.. knows enough of their repulsive ideas. Raghav Bhai. if you see anything wrong with any of its key tenets, please share. Just FYI, Its members already celebrates Indiraji as being first woman to represent India. In few years it will probably start celebrating MMS for being first non-HINDU PM of India. Sangh takes pride in India, Indian history, Indianess.
Raghav_12 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Raghav Bhai. if you see anything wrong with any of its key tenets, please share. Just FYI, Its members already celebrates Indiraji as being first woman to represent India. In few years it will probably start celebrating MMS for being first non-HINDU PM of India. Sangh takes pride in India, Indian history, Indianess. They take pride only in Hindu Identity of the country and wants everyone to respect that identity. If you don't aceept that Hindu identity you are anti-national. They didn't even support Indian Freedom Mvement. They don't believe in Indian constitution completely because it doesn't pronounce India to be a Hindu nation but secular nation. Their members go on to carry blasts and were indirectly involved in killing of most respected Indian globaly. You say they'll celebrate MMS as first non-hindu PM..lol.. they are not ready to recognize Sikhs as seperate religion wholeheartedly.
Recommended Posts