🍿

  • trewq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Did the driver gave the evidence when he met them? Without evidence, it would be he said A they said B.

    • Wabbitsmiles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ya lor, Pritam say driver never give corroborating evidence. Driver only say time, place (hotel, restaurant) and what they do (hugging, touching hands)

      To me, all these were evidence as well. Or idk how to call it. like Pritam can ask LP were you here at this time and place, doing this with NS?

      Of course parties cannot like suka suka open COI from any Tom dick or Harry report, but this sounds a bit too lax.

      Akin to how alleged S.A. that are reported to academic institutions has been happening the past decade. Yes it begins with he say she say, then does the responsible authorities just stop at no pic no talk?

      • trewq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is not evidence.

        Of course they can investigate.

        But what if after investigation they found that the driver lie? See what happened in Parti Liyani’s case, innocent people got hurt.

        We now can say you should have investigated it. Before that, you have things to consider.

        So itt is not straightforward.

        • Wabbitsmiles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes I agree it’s not so straightforward, and what goes on behind the scenes the public will never know.

          But I think there’s this grey area that I’m thinking if it is possible to conduct an official investigation without it being made public and blown out of proportion? Because to me now it just sounds like

          • driver say this,
          • WP just have a coffee with LP,
          • LP say no,
          • case closed.

          Whereas the PAP one still got reach until the attempt ‘counselling’ and ‘agree to break it off’ of sorts 🤷‍♂️

          • trewq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            On PAP one, maybe they got hard proof so they can’t say no. Or they straightaway admit it. We don’t know.

            Anyway, what if PAP one really break it off after “counselling”? Sweep it under the rug?

            In any case, love (or lust?) blinded all four.

            • Wabbitsmiles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s the thing about hard proof, knowing PAP wanting to keep a pristine image, I bet any matter regarding the integrity or propriety of their members, big or small will be dug until there is proof, or concrete lack of. Of course what they do with the proof depends on their political strategy (admit/ sweep under rug)

              I’m sure there’s many other dead and dirty things under this rug for all parties. And it sounds like you-know-that-i-know-that-i-also-know-you 👀✌️

              • trewq@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hell yes, all parties has dead and smelly dirty things in a box hidden somewhere. Since I have nothing further to write, I’ll just put my opinion on all politicians. politicians = rats.