正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

🚨 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘃/𝘀 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀: A Sad Day for Panjabi Diaspora in Canada 🇨🇦 It is deeply troubling that Ruby Sahota & Randeep S. Sarai misled the House of Commons regarding Bills C-2 and C-12 by claiming they prevent EXTORTIONISTS from applying for ASYLUM. 🔗 Find me the text... that says so: TRUTH: 𝗡𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗖-𝟮 𝗡𝗼𝗿 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗖-𝟭𝟮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀𝘆𝗹𝘂𝗺 solely on the basis of having committed a serious crime. (I am not talking about conviction because Asylum cases are filed at commission of CRIME.) 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼: An individual enters Canada on a study permit, work permit, or visitor visa with no genuine intent to study or work. Within their first year, they commit a criminal offence. Under the current framework of Bills C-2 and C-12, that same individual remains eligible to file an asylum claim even after committing the crime. 𝗚𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀. So the question is straightforward: 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗠𝘀. 𝗦𝗮𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗮 & 𝗠𝗿. 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗶 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗵𝗶𝗯𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘀𝘆𝗹𝘂𝗺? Or will they APOLOGIZE to the Community for standing in the House and advancing a narrative that shields criminals instead of protecting Canadians?show more

Kanwar Sierah, RCIC

11,557 subscribers

23,253 次观看 • 7 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Canada liberal government has 3 bills that when passed will be their most destructive bills ever put into law Free speech will be ended, Canadians will be thrown in prison for social media posts, warrantless searches of phones, pre-crime punishments and even open your mail Bill C-2 - empowers government employees, not police, to open your mail, search your phone or computer — all without a warrant. Bill C-8 - gives cabinet ministers the power to kick Canadians off the internet, impose fines, and demand data — no judge, no police review. Bill C-9 - removes legal safeguards around free speech. Justice Centre expands “hate” prosecutions. Online Harms Act - brings pre-crime punishment: house arrest, ankle bracelets, curfews for people who haven’t committed a crime. Because they might. “If the Online Harms Act is brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive non-criminal speech with penalties up to $50,000” (This is a bill that insiders say is about to be revived and passed with the 3 above) “Canada will be a police state by Christmas if Parliament passes bills C2, C8, and C9 in their current form. C2 is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant. It criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than $10,000. And it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous.” “You're gonna see a Digital Safety Commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respective of the internet and internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wearing an ankle bracelet and respect a curfew, et cetera. Giving the federal government, giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security.”

Canada liberal government has 3 bills that when passed will be their most destructive bills ever put into law Free speech will be ended, Canadians will be thrown in prison for social media posts, warrantless searches of phones, pre-crime punishments and even open your mail Bill C-2 - empowers government employees, not police, to open your mail, search your phone or computer — all without a warrant. Bill C-8 - gives cabinet ministers the power to kick Canadians off the internet, impose fines, and demand data — no judge, no police review. Bill C-9 - removes legal safeguards around free speech. Justice Centre expands “hate” prosecutions. Online Harms Act - brings pre-crime punishment: house arrest, ankle bracelets, curfews for people who haven’t committed a crime. Because they might. “If the Online Harms Act is brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive non-criminal speech with penalties up to $50,000” (This is a bill that insiders say is about to be revived and passed with the 3 above) “Canada will be a police state by Christmas if Parliament passes bills C2, C8, and C9 in their current form. C2 is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant. It criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than $10,000. And it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous.” “You're gonna see a Digital Safety Commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respective of the internet and internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wearing an ankle bracelet and respect a curfew, et cetera. Giving the federal government, giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security.”

Wall Street Apes

172,725 次观看 • 11 个月前

Jordan Peterson lays out the implications of Canada's Bill C-63, which could jail Canadians for 'thought crimes': Mikhaila Peterson: "Can you can you tell people just briefly what's in the bill? [Bill C-63]. Jordan Peterson: "You'll be able to take someone in front of a provincial magistrate because you're afraid that sometime in the next year they might commit a hate crime. So I can be afraid that someone like me might utter some opinion that's hateful against some protected group gender expression, by the way, is protected in Canada. If I'm if you're afraid that someone might commit a hate crime and the judge agrees, then he can fit that person with an electronic surveillance bracelet and basically keep him in his house for a year. No, absolutely. 100. Read it yourself, Bill C63. It's in the middle. Stop any communication on social media, Monitor all the social interactions in real life and force the person to submit their body fluids on a regular basis for analysis." 'afraid that sometime in the next year they might commit a hate crime' Democrats: 'Why didn't we think of that crap?'

Jordan Peterson lays out the implications of Canada's Bill C-63, which could jail Canadians for 'thought crimes': Mikhaila Peterson: "Can you can you tell people just briefly what's in the bill? [Bill C-63]. Jordan Peterson: "You'll be able to take someone in front of a provincial magistrate because you're afraid that sometime in the next year they might commit a hate crime. So I can be afraid that someone like me might utter some opinion that's hateful against some protected group gender expression, by the way, is protected in Canada. If I'm if you're afraid that someone might commit a hate crime and the judge agrees, then he can fit that person with an electronic surveillance bracelet and basically keep him in his house for a year. No, absolutely. 100. Read it yourself, Bill C63. It's in the middle. Stop any communication on social media, Monitor all the social interactions in real life and force the person to submit their body fluids on a regular basis for analysis." 'afraid that sometime in the next year they might commit a hate crime' Democrats: 'Why didn't we think of that crap?'

Eric Abbenante

451,968 次观看 • 1 年前

Zoe Gardener on asylum seekers, "People are being moved out of a hotel where there were violent racist protests taking place week in week outside of their gates" "People being terrorised who were living there, a huge disturbance to the local community" "Yes, its right people should not have been housed in that hotel but for it to happen in this way, what an enormous humiliation for this government" "A huge failure which lays bear the arrogance with which they have approached this asylum issue" "Labour have gone day after day after day this summer pursuing anti migrant rhetoric over their social media, their announcements, across all of their policy approaches" "Labour have fuelled the flames of this hatred" "What they should have been doing is acting sooner to moving people out of hotels and into a more sustainable community accommodation" "What if we allowed people to work while they are in the asylum system, as they do across Europe, so that they can pay to support themselves in private rental accommodation" "It is not illegal to enter the UK to seek asylum" "And in every other European country they are entitled to work while their claims are being assessed" "They are not breaking the law by being here, it is clear under international law they have a right to be here and claim asylum" "Under this privatised system of asylum accommodation where people own, as you say, poor quality hard to let properties. That's not the right model" "We should have a not for profit model of asylum accommodation where people are house through local authorities, where they are able to work in order to support their own accommodation" "It is insulting the intelligence of viewers that they can simply be made to disappear" "We're already seeing the violent far right racist organised parts of those demonstrations, those people are saying this was a success, saying that if they create a space that is unsafe outside these hotels, if they create disorder, they will have to move asylum seekers out" "And they are threatening to do it all over the country"

Zoe Gardener on asylum seekers, "People are being moved out of a hotel where there were violent racist protests taking place week in week outside of their gates" "People being terrorised who were living there, a huge disturbance to the local community" "Yes, its right people should not have been housed in that hotel but for it to happen in this way, what an enormous humiliation for this government" "A huge failure which lays bear the arrogance with which they have approached this asylum issue" "Labour have gone day after day after day this summer pursuing anti migrant rhetoric over their social media, their announcements, across all of their policy approaches" "Labour have fuelled the flames of this hatred" "What they should have been doing is acting sooner to moving people out of hotels and into a more sustainable community accommodation" "What if we allowed people to work while they are in the asylum system, as they do across Europe, so that they can pay to support themselves in private rental accommodation" "It is not illegal to enter the UK to seek asylum" "And in every other European country they are entitled to work while their claims are being assessed" "They are not breaking the law by being here, it is clear under international law they have a right to be here and claim asylum" "Under this privatised system of asylum accommodation where people own, as you say, poor quality hard to let properties. That's not the right model" "We should have a not for profit model of asylum accommodation where people are house through local authorities, where they are able to work in order to support their own accommodation" "It is insulting the intelligence of viewers that they can simply be made to disappear" "We're already seeing the violent far right racist organised parts of those demonstrations, those people are saying this was a success, saying that if they create a space that is unsafe outside these hotels, if they create disorder, they will have to move asylum seekers out" "And they are threatening to do it all over the country"

Farrukh

163,695 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨 🗣 Mikel Arteta on the decision to award Sunderland a penalty: "Look, the first question we have to discuss is that this is NOT ACCEPTABLE at this level. "It was a beautiful game of football, with two teams and an atmosphere in the stadium that was unbelievable, with Sunderland they are so organised; they are so good in so many phases, they have great players, they created a lot of issues we had to cope with. "We had to cope with all of that, it was a lot in a really difficult week after Chelsea and Napoli, and on top of that we have to go through what we've done today that in my opinion is NOT ACCEPTABLE. "I watched it 20 times, and I CANNOT find a way to understand how they even think to give a penalty in that situation, or the way the VAR has to intervene. "So I don't know what to think, but I'm SAD that we have to discuss in such a beautiful game something at this level that has the gravity of that, because that CHANGES the course of the season and can cost you the championship. "At this level, with all the work that we put in, this cannot happen. I cannot find an explanation - that's why I'm going to try and find an explanation now. "I want to be talking about how good we were, how good Sunderland were, and the level of the league and how beautiful this is - we should not be talking about that. "I cannot find an explanation - that's why I'm going to try and find an explanation now." 🗣️ On a very important victory: "I want to be talking about how good we were, how good Sunderland were, and the level of the league and how beautiful this is - we should not be talking about [refereeing decisions]." 🗣️ on whether the referee gave an explanation: No! (shakes head)

🚨 🗣 Mikel Arteta on the decision to award Sunderland a penalty: "Look, the first question we have to discuss is that this is NOT ACCEPTABLE at this level. "It was a beautiful game of football, with two teams and an atmosphere in the stadium that was unbelievable, with Sunderland they are so organised; they are so good in so many phases, they have great players, they created a lot of issues we had to cope with. "We had to cope with all of that, it was a lot in a really difficult week after Chelsea and Napoli, and on top of that we have to go through what we've done today that in my opinion is NOT ACCEPTABLE. "I watched it 20 times, and I CANNOT find a way to understand how they even think to give a penalty in that situation, or the way the VAR has to intervene. "So I don't know what to think, but I'm SAD that we have to discuss in such a beautiful game something at this level that has the gravity of that, because that CHANGES the course of the season and can cost you the championship. "At this level, with all the work that we put in, this cannot happen. I cannot find an explanation - that's why I'm going to try and find an explanation now. "I want to be talking about how good we were, how good Sunderland were, and the level of the league and how beautiful this is - we should not be talking about that. "I cannot find an explanation - that's why I'm going to try and find an explanation now." 🗣️ On a very important victory: "I want to be talking about how good we were, how good Sunderland were, and the level of the league and how beautiful this is - we should not be talking about [refereeing decisions]." 🗣️ on whether the referee gave an explanation: No! (shakes head)

Connor Humm

129,720 次观看 • 15 天前

$She got taken to the woodshed on her own show. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem just destroyed CBS’ Margaret Brennan over ICE arrests — and called out the network live for distorting the facts. Brennan tried to spin the numbers, claiming it’s not 70% of ICE detainees with criminal convictions. BRENNAN: “What’s the breakdown of the percentage of those in custody who have actually committed a criminal offense, versus just the civil infraction?” NOEM: “Every single individual has committed a crime, but 70% of them have committed or have charges against them on violent crimes, and crimes that they are charged with or have been convicted of that have come from other countries that are here illegally, first of all, and then they have committed a criminal act while they’ve been here or in their home countries, as well.” BRENNAN: “It’s not 70%.” NOEM: “Yes, it is. It absolutely is.” BRENNAN: “70% of everyone detained has—” NOEM: “You keep changing your percentage. You pick and choose what numbers you think work, but that is the fact, is that 70% of the people that we have detained have charges against them or have been convicted of charges and they need to be brought to justice.” “And we’re going to keep doing that no matter how much you device keep lying and don’t tell the public the truth.” “It absolutely is that these law enforcement officers are out there every day doing the work to protect the American people and they will keep doing that because they believe in enforcing the law, which is exactly what President Trump has charged them with.”$

She got taken to the woodshed on her own show. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem just destroyed CBS’ Margaret Brennan over ICE arrests — and called out the network live for distorting the facts. Brennan tried to spin the numbers, claiming it’s not 70% of ICE detainees with criminal convictions. BRENNAN: “What’s the breakdown of the percentage of those in custody who have actually committed a criminal offense, versus just the civil infraction?” NOEM: “Every single individual has committed a crime, but 70% of them have committed or have charges against them on violent crimes, and crimes that they are charged with or have been convicted of that have come from other countries that are here illegally, first of all, and then they have committed a criminal act while they’ve been here or in their home countries, as well.” BRENNAN: “It’s not 70%.” NOEM: “Yes, it is. It absolutely is.” BRENNAN: “70% of everyone detained has—” NOEM: “You keep changing your percentage. You pick and choose what numbers you think work, but that is the fact, is that 70% of the people that we have detained have charges against them or have been convicted of charges and they need to be brought to justice.” “And we’re going to keep doing that no matter how much you device keep lying and don’t tell the public the truth.” “It absolutely is that these law enforcement officers are out there every day doing the work to protect the American people and they will keep doing that because they believe in enforcing the law, which is exactly what President Trump has charged them with.”

Overton

115,756 次观看 • 8 个月前

Big Pharma Is Profits Over People, Killing You For Profit & Vacations. Everyone In America Needs To See This ⛔️ “Cancer — Well, I will talk about that a better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer in the United States. And there was a study that was published, I believe it was in 1994. It was a 12-year program, 12-year study. They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer, but adult cancer, right? And this is the main types of cancer that we get here in the United States. They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo. And they looked at the results. And they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results? 97%. Of the time, chemotherapy does not work. 97% of the time, it doesn't work. So why is it still used? It's one reason and one reason only, money. If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection, and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000, you know of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, right? But he gets no direct remuneration. It's not with chemotherapeutic drugs. It's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. So if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less. The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. And there ought to be a lot. The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it. Period. It doesn't work. 97% of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No. This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us.”

Big Pharma Is Profits Over People, Killing You For Profit & Vacations. Everyone In America Needs To See This ⛔️ “Cancer — Well, I will talk about that a better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer in the United States. And there was a study that was published, I believe it was in 1994. It was a 12-year program, 12-year study. They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer, but adult cancer, right? And this is the main types of cancer that we get here in the United States. They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo. And they looked at the results. And they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results? 97%. Of the time, chemotherapy does not work. 97% of the time, it doesn't work. So why is it still used? It's one reason and one reason only, money. If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection, and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000, you know of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, right? But he gets no direct remuneration. It's not with chemotherapeutic drugs. It's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. So if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less. The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. And there ought to be a lot. The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it. Period. It doesn't work. 97% of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No. This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us.”

Wall Street Apes

339,878 次观看 • 2 年前

Breaking Alert. 🚨 They are planning a Project Bluebeam Event on May 30th-31st to simulate an alien invasion. I’ve been saying this for years; the enemy is using the alien narrative with the disclosure reports to disguise the Harpazo Resurrection Event from a lost and unbelieving world. The purpose for this post is not to argue whether the Rapture occurs or not; it will happen soon. The primary purpose is to warn all who have not believed the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST. We are all sinners None of us are righteous We can’t earn Heaven through our works JESUS CHRIST already finished the Work on the Cross and shedding of His Blood. HE rose from the grave on the 3rd day. When you believe the Gospel (Good News) by faith; you are sealed with the Holy Spirit and have crossed over from death to life. We are saved by Grace Justified by faith In CHRIST alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9 The Big Delusion is coming soon : 👇🏻 “even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a LIE:” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 The Restrainer will soon be removed. 👇🏻 “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7 TODAY is the DAY of SALVATION JESUS SAVES

Breaking Alert. 🚨 They are planning a Project Bluebeam Event on May 30th-31st to simulate an alien invasion. I’ve been saying this for years; the enemy is using the alien narrative with the disclosure reports to disguise the Harpazo Resurrection Event from a lost and unbelieving world. The purpose for this post is not to argue whether the Rapture occurs or not; it will happen soon. The primary purpose is to warn all who have not believed the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST. We are all sinners None of us are righteous We can’t earn Heaven through our works JESUS CHRIST already finished the Work on the Cross and shedding of His Blood. HE rose from the grave on the 3rd day. When you believe the Gospel (Good News) by faith; you are sealed with the Holy Spirit and have crossed over from death to life. We are saved by Grace Justified by faith In CHRIST alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9 The Big Delusion is coming soon : 👇🏻 “even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a LIE:” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 The Restrainer will soon be removed. 👇🏻 “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7 TODAY is the DAY of SALVATION JESUS SAVES

JESUSisComingSoon🕚

38,886 次观看 • 4 个月前

#MadlangaCommission Witness C praises General Mkhwanazi for exposing SAPS corruption, says “I am living a shadow of my former life” In a deeply emotional conclusion to his testimony before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, Witness C described the personal and professional toll of confronting corruption within the South African Police Service (SAPS), while expressing gratitude to KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi for “lifting the lid” on the rot within the ranks. “I am a career policeman. I have never worked for an organization other than SAPS,” he said. “I view my work as a calling and not just employment.” Witness C, who has played a key role in exposing internal corruption and links between police officers and organized crime, spoke of living in fear and isolation. “This case has taken more from me than I ever could have imagined. I am not living a man, I am living a shadow of my former life,” he testified. He said he now lives under constant protection, unable to move freely or spend time with his family. “I cannot take my family to a shopping mall or go on holiday. I rarely see them because doing so is a direct endangerment of their lives.” Calling for systemic reform, Witness C warned that the fight against organized crime cannot be won “when your own superiors are co-opted and complicit in criminality.” “I make this statement not to seek sympathy, but to make the Commission alive to the reality of committed, ethical, and ordinary SAPS members,” he concluded thanking KZN Police Commissioner General NhlanhlaMkhwanazi for his courage in exposing corruption and giving honest officers a voice.

#MadlangaCommission Witness C praises General Mkhwanazi for exposing SAPS corruption, says “I am living a shadow of my former life” In a deeply emotional conclusion to his testimony before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, Witness C described the personal and professional toll of confronting corruption within the South African Police Service (SAPS), while expressing gratitude to KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi for “lifting the lid” on the rot within the ranks. “I am a career policeman. I have never worked for an organization other than SAPS,” he said. “I view my work as a calling and not just employment.” Witness C, who has played a key role in exposing internal corruption and links between police officers and organized crime, spoke of living in fear and isolation. “This case has taken more from me than I ever could have imagined. I am not living a man, I am living a shadow of my former life,” he testified. He said he now lives under constant protection, unable to move freely or spend time with his family. “I cannot take my family to a shopping mall or go on holiday. I rarely see them because doing so is a direct endangerment of their lives.” Calling for systemic reform, Witness C warned that the fight against organized crime cannot be won “when your own superiors are co-opted and complicit in criminality.” “I make this statement not to seek sympathy, but to make the Commission alive to the reality of committed, ethical, and ordinary SAPS members,” he concluded thanking KZN Police Commissioner General NhlanhlaMkhwanazi for his courage in exposing corruption and giving honest officers a voice.

MDN NEWS

49,747 次观看 • 11 个月前

Last night in the House of Lords, the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, proposed three amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. These amendments address what should be a straightforward question: should misgendering a trans person be treated as a criminal or aggravated offence? Clearly, the answer is no. The Government has proposed an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that extends the aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 — currently limited to race and religion — to cover sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex and disability. In addition, it wants those aggravators to be extended to a new offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress to emergency workers. But why? The Crown Prosecution Service already has the power to flag sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability as aggravating factors when bringing a prosecution. When flagged in this way, incidents are recorded by the police as hate incidents, and judges can take those aggravating factors into account when sentencing. So what is the point? It won't create any additional safeguards for these 'protected' groups in the criminal law. The police, CPS and courts already treat sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity as aggravating factors. The main consequence of the Government's amendments — should they become law — will be to signal to the police that reports of supposedly “offensive” social media posts, aggravated by hostility towards these characteristics, should be prioritised — or, rather, given even more priority than they already are. More than 12,000 people were arrested in 2023 on suspicion of committing an offence for something they posted online. That’s over 30 people a day. Yet fewer than one in ten of those arrested were ultimately convicted and sentenced. The Free Speech Union has long argued that the police should focus on solving real crimes on our streets, not policing our tweets. Lord Young’s third amendment concerns Section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986. The Government is intending to create a new offence on April 1st — intentionally causing a person harassment, alarm or distress because of their sex. And that could include misgendering because, after all, it would be prompted by the perception that the real sex of the 'victim' is at odds with the sex they claim to be. And you can bet your bottom dollar trans activists will claim that misgendering them (in reality, using their correct gender pronouns) will cause them harassment, alarm or distress. Lord Young’s amendment would create a carve-out for misgendering, making it clear it's not an offence under s4B. Even if these changes to the law don't result in people being prosecuted for misgendering, they could easily result in people being investigated and arrested. Forty per cent of the 5,600 cases handled by the Free Speech Union in the last six years relate to sex and gender. These are not hypothetical scenarios. They reflect the reality of how the system already operates. Lord Young’s amendments ask for something modest: clarification that misgendering should not be treated as a criminal offence, let alone an aggravated one. They would not prevent police from investigating genuine crimes committed against trans individuals. But they would remove the potential for the law to be weaponised against lawful speech. Watch Lord Young below 👇

Last night in the House of Lords, the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, proposed three amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. These amendments address what should be a straightforward question: should misgendering a trans person be treated as a criminal or aggravated offence? Clearly, the answer is no. The Government has proposed an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that extends the aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 — currently limited to race and religion — to cover sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex and disability. In addition, it wants those aggravators to be extended to a new offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress to emergency workers. But why? The Crown Prosecution Service already has the power to flag sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability as aggravating factors when bringing a prosecution. When flagged in this way, incidents are recorded by the police as hate incidents, and judges can take those aggravating factors into account when sentencing. So what is the point? It won't create any additional safeguards for these 'protected' groups in the criminal law. The police, CPS and courts already treat sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity as aggravating factors. The main consequence of the Government's amendments — should they become law — will be to signal to the police that reports of supposedly “offensive” social media posts, aggravated by hostility towards these characteristics, should be prioritised — or, rather, given even more priority than they already are. More than 12,000 people were arrested in 2023 on suspicion of committing an offence for something they posted online. That’s over 30 people a day. Yet fewer than one in ten of those arrested were ultimately convicted and sentenced. The Free Speech Union has long argued that the police should focus on solving real crimes on our streets, not policing our tweets. Lord Young’s third amendment concerns Section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986. The Government is intending to create a new offence on April 1st — intentionally causing a person harassment, alarm or distress because of their sex. And that could include misgendering because, after all, it would be prompted by the perception that the real sex of the 'victim' is at odds with the sex they claim to be. And you can bet your bottom dollar trans activists will claim that misgendering them (in reality, using their correct gender pronouns) will cause them harassment, alarm or distress. Lord Young’s amendment would create a carve-out for misgendering, making it clear it's not an offence under s4B. Even if these changes to the law don't result in people being prosecuted for misgendering, they could easily result in people being investigated and arrested. Forty per cent of the 5,600 cases handled by the Free Speech Union in the last six years relate to sex and gender. These are not hypothetical scenarios. They reflect the reality of how the system already operates. Lord Young’s amendments ask for something modest: clarification that misgendering should not be treated as a criminal offence, let alone an aggravated one. They would not prevent police from investigating genuine crimes committed against trans individuals. But they would remove the potential for the law to be weaponised against lawful speech. Watch Lord Young below 👇

The Free Speech Union

47,244 次观看 • 6 个月前

THE FOUR HORSEMEN STORY DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!!!🚨🚨🚨 Thread🧵 Notice : this is pure speculation and nothing about this is factual information. All the information provided is fully based on what we see/saw on the internet. Please RT for awareness. First of all i would just like to say that A-Reece has no reason not to answer his phone for a whole month especially from a guy that he worked with before and has a good working relationship with. Something just doesnt feel right. Get your popcorn🍿 1. This first started when Nasty C leaked or hinted on being on the same song as A-Reece. Note that Nasty C specifically mentioned that Stogie T asked him to do a hook for him and says he will work on the verse in the meantime, meaning that he was initially asked to do both a hook and a verse. Also note that the Date of this interview is back in may meaning that the song had been in the making for awhile. BET! 2. Stogie T finally talks about the after it comes out on a radio show. He clearly states that he sent them both the beat and with Nasty C he talks about a hook and with A-Reece he is clearly referring to a verse/bars since he says “things that Slimes know him for”. BET! 3. L Tido invites MAGGZ on his podcast and he clearly indicates that MAGGZ is “ GONNA” (note that word) have the best verse on the song and during this time L Tido only knew that only Stogie T, A-Reece and MAGGZ will have verses while Nasty C is on the hook and i will prove that on number 4. So by this time L Tido already underestimates Stogie T and A-Reece pen. 4. After the song drops L Tido’s tone changes from MAGGZ to Nasty C having the best verse and clearly indicates that Nasty C didn’t have a verse and was initially supposed to be on only the hook and indicates again that Nasty C sent his verse a week before the song released. The song got released on the 28th of November meaning that Nasty C sent his verse during the week 16th - 22th This is 4 proofs that Nasty C was asked for a hook. Note and pay proper attention as this leads into 5 down below…

THE FOUR HORSEMEN STORY DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!!!🚨🚨🚨 Thread🧵 Notice : this is pure speculation and nothing about this is factual information. All the information provided is fully based on what we see/saw on the internet. Please RT for awareness. First of all i would just like to say that A-Reece has no reason not to answer his phone for a whole month especially from a guy that he worked with before and has a good working relationship with. Something just doesnt feel right. Get your popcorn🍿 1. This first started when Nasty C leaked or hinted on being on the same song as A-Reece. Note that Nasty C specifically mentioned that Stogie T asked him to do a hook for him and says he will work on the verse in the meantime, meaning that he was initially asked to do both a hook and a verse. Also note that the Date of this interview is back in may meaning that the song had been in the making for awhile. BET! 2. Stogie T finally talks about the after it comes out on a radio show. He clearly states that he sent them both the beat and with Nasty C he talks about a hook and with A-Reece he is clearly referring to a verse/bars since he says “things that Slimes know him for”. BET! 3. L Tido invites MAGGZ on his podcast and he clearly indicates that MAGGZ is “ GONNA” (note that word) have the best verse on the song and during this time L Tido only knew that only Stogie T, A-Reece and MAGGZ will have verses while Nasty C is on the hook and i will prove that on number 4. So by this time L Tido already underestimates Stogie T and A-Reece pen. 4. After the song drops L Tido’s tone changes from MAGGZ to Nasty C having the best verse and clearly indicates that Nasty C didn’t have a verse and was initially supposed to be on only the hook and indicates again that Nasty C sent his verse a week before the song released. The song got released on the 28th of November meaning that Nasty C sent his verse during the week 16th - 22th This is 4 proofs that Nasty C was asked for a hook. Note and pay proper attention as this leads into 5 down below…

theboyjay

34,669 次观看 • 8 个月前

On The View, of course, there was another conversation about illegal immigrants in America, and the hosts were using two main arguments as a defense for illegal immigration: They pay lots of taxes, and they commit fewer crimes. Let’s use some common sense when we discuss this topic and remove the talking points. I find this discussion is littered with repeatable statistics that are rarely challenged. It’s the same when people find headlines they like—because it confirms their biases—they just yammer on about the headline for a study they never examined. I wanted to know where they’re getting these numbers from and especially wanted to figure out what constitutes an “undocumented immigrant” in the study. Often, what you’ll find is that their definitions skew the results and give a false impression. I didn’t find this in this case. In the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) July 2024 report “Tax Payments by Undocumented Immigrants”, the taxes referred to are a comprehensive total of federal, state, and local taxes paid by undocumented immigrants in 2022, estimated at $96.7 billion overall. This breaks down as: $59.4 billion to the federal government. $37.3 billion to state and local governments. I’m not dismissing the numbers, but what I am doing is challenging the entirety of their picture when it comes to the life of illegal immigrants. Imagine you escaped from prison and now you’re on the run from the law. You’ve already committed an illegal act, and you find yourself committing more crimes to stay off the radar (ironically). For example, you’ll assume a new identity, get fake identification cards, or steal someone’s identity to avoid detection. You might take odd jobs to make enough money to live that are off the books because you don’t have a valid SSN to use for verification. If you get into a car accident, you’ll flee the scene because you don’t want your identity to get compromised when they dig into your story or discover your identification is false. This is essentially how illegal immigrants often live, and when you commit a crime like entering a country illegally or overstaying a visa, unless you’re brazen, your life is dedicated to blending in and not being noticed. So, when they claim that they pay lots of taxes, it should be measured against common sense for the life of illegal immigrants. Employee taxes are initiated by employers, so it could be plausible that illegals are paying taxes (with fake information) but not by their own volition. In the same way, you pay state taxes when you go to the store and buy an item. These are taxes that are unavoidable and not initiated by the taxpayers. The framing of the tax statement on The View is as if every April, illegal immigrants are opening up TurboTax to pay the government money just because. How would they file? They don’t have an SSN. They don’t have a valid tax identification number. Even if they stole an identity, why would they pay taxes on a stolen identity? When conducting studies like this, you can only deal with the numbers that are in front of you, but illegal immigrants, by and large, are invisible in a paper sense because they’re not supposed to be here. Speaking of which, the “illegals commit fewer crimes” narrative is absurd. I just gave you a massive reason as to why that’s not the case, but the biggest of all is that they are here illegally. Their existence in our country, by default, makes them start off by violating our immigration laws (you know...a crime). Compound this with the prevalence of forgeries and identity theft, and it’s even more evident how ridiculous this statement is. But let’s say Sunny is 100% correct. Let’s say that they commit far fewer crimes than American citizens: Sunny still misses the point. When you are someone who isn’t authorized to be in our country and you commit a crime, you’re committing a crime that shouldn’t have existed in the first place. If that person weren’t here, that crime wouldn’t have been committed. This is what I would call “excess criminality.” For every crime that’s committed by an illegal immigrant, there is a crime that is excess to our society. Recently, I interviewed a widow who lost her husband due to an illegal immigrant jackknifing a semi-truck and crushing her husband to death when metal piping fell onto his car, killing him instantly. The driver was deported 16 times prior. Her husband would still be alive if he hadn’t repeatedly broken several laws to end up behind the wheel of a semi-truck. Excess criminality creates excess victims. This is one of the primary reasons I am—and have always been—against illegal immigration. It creates a dual society with an imbalance of rules and punishment for the people who are abiding by them. It also creates victims that should never have been victimized. I know the ladies on The View hate Trump; I get it. But their hatred for Trump leads them down a pathway of lacking critical thinking, denigrating our citizens, and glossing over the reality for victims.

On The View, of course, there was another conversation about illegal immigrants in America, and the hosts were using two main arguments as a defense for illegal immigration: They pay lots of taxes, and they commit fewer crimes. Let’s use some common sense when we discuss this topic and remove the talking points. I find this discussion is littered with repeatable statistics that are rarely challenged. It’s the same when people find headlines they like—because it confirms their biases—they just yammer on about the headline for a study they never examined. I wanted to know where they’re getting these numbers from and especially wanted to figure out what constitutes an “undocumented immigrant” in the study. Often, what you’ll find is that their definitions skew the results and give a false impression. I didn’t find this in this case. In the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) July 2024 report “Tax Payments by Undocumented Immigrants”, the taxes referred to are a comprehensive total of federal, state, and local taxes paid by undocumented immigrants in 2022, estimated at $96.7 billion overall. This breaks down as: $59.4 billion to the federal government. $37.3 billion to state and local governments. I’m not dismissing the numbers, but what I am doing is challenging the entirety of their picture when it comes to the life of illegal immigrants. Imagine you escaped from prison and now you’re on the run from the law. You’ve already committed an illegal act, and you find yourself committing more crimes to stay off the radar (ironically). For example, you’ll assume a new identity, get fake identification cards, or steal someone’s identity to avoid detection. You might take odd jobs to make enough money to live that are off the books because you don’t have a valid SSN to use for verification. If you get into a car accident, you’ll flee the scene because you don’t want your identity to get compromised when they dig into your story or discover your identification is false. This is essentially how illegal immigrants often live, and when you commit a crime like entering a country illegally or overstaying a visa, unless you’re brazen, your life is dedicated to blending in and not being noticed. So, when they claim that they pay lots of taxes, it should be measured against common sense for the life of illegal immigrants. Employee taxes are initiated by employers, so it could be plausible that illegals are paying taxes (with fake information) but not by their own volition. In the same way, you pay state taxes when you go to the store and buy an item. These are taxes that are unavoidable and not initiated by the taxpayers. The framing of the tax statement on The View is as if every April, illegal immigrants are opening up TurboTax to pay the government money just because. How would they file? They don’t have an SSN. They don’t have a valid tax identification number. Even if they stole an identity, why would they pay taxes on a stolen identity? When conducting studies like this, you can only deal with the numbers that are in front of you, but illegal immigrants, by and large, are invisible in a paper sense because they’re not supposed to be here. Speaking of which, the “illegals commit fewer crimes” narrative is absurd. I just gave you a massive reason as to why that’s not the case, but the biggest of all is that they are here illegally. Their existence in our country, by default, makes them start off by violating our immigration laws (you know...a crime). Compound this with the prevalence of forgeries and identity theft, and it’s even more evident how ridiculous this statement is. But let’s say Sunny is 100% correct. Let’s say that they commit far fewer crimes than American citizens: Sunny still misses the point. When you are someone who isn’t authorized to be in our country and you commit a crime, you’re committing a crime that shouldn’t have existed in the first place. If that person weren’t here, that crime wouldn’t have been committed. This is what I would call “excess criminality.” For every crime that’s committed by an illegal immigrant, there is a crime that is excess to our society. Recently, I interviewed a widow who lost her husband due to an illegal immigrant jackknifing a semi-truck and crushing her husband to death when metal piping fell onto his car, killing him instantly. The driver was deported 16 times prior. Her husband would still be alive if he hadn’t repeatedly broken several laws to end up behind the wheel of a semi-truck. Excess criminality creates excess victims. This is one of the primary reasons I am—and have always been—against illegal immigration. It creates a dual society with an imbalance of rules and punishment for the people who are abiding by them. It also creates victims that should never have been victimized. I know the ladies on The View hate Trump; I get it. But their hatred for Trump leads them down a pathway of lacking critical thinking, denigrating our citizens, and glossing over the reality for victims.

Adam B. Coleman, Proud Father & Imperfect Man

34,823 次观看 • 6 个月前

They are building a digital cage, and they are doing it through a web of multiple bills designed to strip away your remaining anonymity. Look at the full picture: 🚨Bill C-34 (the safe social media act): Branded as a kids ban for under 16. But to lock kids out, they have to lock adults in. Main steam platforms will be forced to implement facial age, estimation and digital ID gates for everyone just to verify that you are an adult. 🚨Bill S-210: branded as a crackdown on adult websites, but the legal text is so broad. It catches search engines like Google and open platforms like X and Reddit. It forces facial recognition checkpoints onto the sites you use daily, backed by $500,000 corporate fines. 🚨Bill C-36: the brand new bill that just dropped, creating a massive federal, digital safety commission. This new digital, super regulator strips, power away from the independent privacy, commissioner, centralizing, total enforcement and private data oversight under a single government appointed panel. 🚨Bill C-63: the massive framework creating a new, government appointed digital safety commission. It weaponizes human rights tribunal to police online speech and introduces heavy-handed hate speech regulations that civil liberty groups warn threaten your right to dissent. 🚨Bill C-9: the criminal follow up that expands the definition of hate and increases penalties under the criminal code, building the legal teeth to enforce what the new digital regulators deem. Unacceptable speech online. 🚨Bill C-22: the ultimate surveillance trap. It forces, Internet providers, VPN’s, and tech platforms to build back and back doors for law-enforcement, mandating that companies, track and store the personal meta-data of all Canadians for up to a year without you ever been suspected of a crime. They didn’t pass one massive digital ID law because they knew that you would fight it. They broke it into pieces. They wrapped it in child safety. They are forcing the private sector to build the walls. No more casual scrolling. No more anonymity. Every tap, account, and view tied directly to your legal name. God Speed.

Unfiltered With Kels

12,429 次观看 • 3 个月前

It was historic, no question about it. A unique set of circumstances, imputed by Trump's constant barbing at Canada as the 51st state. It gave a unique opportunity for Carney, and I think he did a masterful job in getting people in every province to forget about the Liberal's track record, and focus on Trump. Now, there are two impediments right now. Number one is C-69, a bill that has forced capital away from Canada because there's no way to get any kind of infrastructure or resource-based development done under C-69, and the Liberals proved that. They were able to kill off any investment in resources over a 10-year period. Then there’s this carbon tax on industrial development. Sovereign wealth is not interested when they can go to Texas and avoid that, and that's where they're going. You've seen all these announcements around all kinds of projects south of the border. We have to be competitive with that, and I think Carney's gonna have to face that reality. Daniela Cambone-Taub

It was historic, no question about it. A unique set of circumstances, imputed by Trump's constant barbing at Canada as the 51st state. It gave a unique opportunity for Carney, and I think he did a masterful job in getting people in every province to forget about the Liberal's track record, and focus on Trump. Now, there are two impediments right now. Number one is C-69, a bill that has forced capital away from Canada because there's no way to get any kind of infrastructure or resource-based development done under C-69, and the Liberals proved that. They were able to kill off any investment in resources over a 10-year period. Then there’s this carbon tax on industrial development. Sovereign wealth is not interested when they can go to Texas and avoid that, and that's where they're going. You've seen all these announcements around all kinds of projects south of the border. We have to be competitive with that, and I think Carney's gonna have to face that reality. Daniela Cambone-Taub

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

139,712 次观看 • 1 年前

The ruling by a High Court’ judge in the Mike Chimombe & Moses Mpofu case is very interesting. I encourage everyone in business, every director, Executive, tenderpreneur and every lawyer to watch it. The judge ruled that both accused have a case to answer. This means they must be put to their defence, and explain their conduct. Depriving them of such after the state rested its case would work against them and lead to their conviction. The judge articulated the law in detail and interpreted it clearly at great length explaining how he arrived at that decision. Note that the accused wanted the case dismissed, arguing that their clients had no case to answer since they didn’t award themselves the tender and that the tender was awarded to a company, not them as individuals. The hearing and subsequent ruling is interesting for the following reasons: •The two are accused of deceiving the state by submitting fraudulent documents and winning the tender. •The judge explains in detail the 3 essential elements /rails on which in a criminal case, a person accused of fraud can be acquitted without being put to their defence, that is the accused can apply for discharge at the close of the state’s case. • The first essential element is that there is no evidence presented linking the accused to the offence. The court has no choice but to acquit. •The second element is that there may be no evidence of an ingredient of the crime (there are essential ingredients of the crime), in which case the accused must be acquitted. •The third element is that the state witnesses’ testimony and evidence is so poor that a court cannot rely on it to convict, in which case the accused must be acquitted. •In their application for discharge, Mpofu and Chimombe didn’t raise essential element 3. In other words, they deemed the witnesses credible in their evidence. They didn’t argue that the evidence of the state witness isn’t credible. •Mpofu and Chimombe also didn’t raise element number 1, meaning they didn’t argue that they were not linked at all to the offence, in which case they would have persuaded the court for an acquittal. •The two accused sought to rely, in their application for discharge, on the second element, which is, they argued that an ingredient of the evidence of committing the crime was missing: in other words, they are arguing that indeed fraud, deception and misrepresentation occurred, but was not occasioned by them personally, but by companies that won the tenders. •The accused’s lawyer argued that the accused did not influence the award of the bid, may have participated by signing contracts after the award, but that is neither here nor there, making their involvement post facto. They further argued that the state dealt with a corporate entity, not an individual. The state would have to pierce the corporate veil through an application to that effect to get to Mpofu and Chimombe. This is where it gets more interesting. •The judge delves into the issue of the corporate veil in criminal matters in detail. He explains that the effect of section 277 of the criminal code and reform act is to remove the corporate veil that exists in common law on criminal issues relating to companies. It’s very important for employees and directors to grasp these aspects of the law. The judge also touches on aspects of vicarious liability. •The companies act and criminal code were modified a lot in the last ten years. Most people are not aware of this. •Watch the hearing and ruling and educate yourself. Busisa Moyo Tawanda Nyambirai @tino_chinyoka1 Retired Elder Rex M.E Midzi

The ruling by a High Court’ judge in the Mike Chimombe & Moses Mpofu case is very interesting. I encourage everyone in business, every director, Executive, tenderpreneur and every lawyer to watch it. The judge ruled that both accused have a case to answer. This means they must be put to their defence, and explain their conduct. Depriving them of such after the state rested its case would work against them and lead to their conviction. The judge articulated the law in detail and interpreted it clearly at great length explaining how he arrived at that decision. Note that the accused wanted the case dismissed, arguing that their clients had no case to answer since they didn’t award themselves the tender and that the tender was awarded to a company, not them as individuals. The hearing and subsequent ruling is interesting for the following reasons: •The two are accused of deceiving the state by submitting fraudulent documents and winning the tender. •The judge explains in detail the 3 essential elements /rails on which in a criminal case, a person accused of fraud can be acquitted without being put to their defence, that is the accused can apply for discharge at the close of the state’s case. • The first essential element is that there is no evidence presented linking the accused to the offence. The court has no choice but to acquit. •The second element is that there may be no evidence of an ingredient of the crime (there are essential ingredients of the crime), in which case the accused must be acquitted. •The third element is that the state witnesses’ testimony and evidence is so poor that a court cannot rely on it to convict, in which case the accused must be acquitted. •In their application for discharge, Mpofu and Chimombe didn’t raise essential element 3. In other words, they deemed the witnesses credible in their evidence. They didn’t argue that the evidence of the state witness isn’t credible. •Mpofu and Chimombe also didn’t raise element number 1, meaning they didn’t argue that they were not linked at all to the offence, in which case they would have persuaded the court for an acquittal. •The two accused sought to rely, in their application for discharge, on the second element, which is, they argued that an ingredient of the evidence of committing the crime was missing: in other words, they are arguing that indeed fraud, deception and misrepresentation occurred, but was not occasioned by them personally, but by companies that won the tenders. •The accused’s lawyer argued that the accused did not influence the award of the bid, may have participated by signing contracts after the award, but that is neither here nor there, making their involvement post facto. They further argued that the state dealt with a corporate entity, not an individual. The state would have to pierce the corporate veil through an application to that effect to get to Mpofu and Chimombe. This is where it gets more interesting. •The judge delves into the issue of the corporate veil in criminal matters in detail. He explains that the effect of section 277 of the criminal code and reform act is to remove the corporate veil that exists in common law on criminal issues relating to companies. It’s very important for employees and directors to grasp these aspects of the law. The judge also touches on aspects of vicarious liability. •The companies act and criminal code were modified a lot in the last ten years. Most people are not aware of this. •Watch the hearing and ruling and educate yourself. Busisa Moyo Tawanda Nyambirai @tino_chinyoka1 Retired Elder Rex M.E Midzi

mmatigari

20,172 次观看 • 1 年前

Breaking News: "If you don't move in the next 10 minutes? you will ALL be arrested under section 14 of the Public Order Act. At roughly 3am in Portsmouth last night the local police threaten peaceful protestors under the guise of The Public Order Act Section 14, in response to large crowds of local men and women sick and tired of the invasion of their homelands. Subsection (1A) applies if] [F2a] senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that— (a)it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, [F3(aa)in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the assembly, (ab)in the case of an assembly in England and Wales— (i)the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the assembly, and (ii)that impact may be significant, F4...] (b)the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do, [F5or (c)in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, the assembly is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from— (i)accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or (ii)carrying out religious activities at that place of worship

Breaking News: "If you don't move in the next 10 minutes? you will ALL be arrested under section 14 of the Public Order Act. At roughly 3am in Portsmouth last night the local police threaten peaceful protestors under the guise of The Public Order Act Section 14, in response to large crowds of local men and women sick and tired of the invasion of their homelands. Subsection (1A) applies if] [F2a] senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that— (a)it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, [F3(aa)in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the assembly, (ab)in the case of an assembly in England and Wales— (i)the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the assembly, and (ii)that impact may be significant, F4...] (b)the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do, [F5or (c)in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, the assembly is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from— (i)accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or (ii)carrying out religious activities at that place of worship

HIN News🇬🇧🇺🇸

99,246 次观看 • 21 天前

#WATCH | Jammu: Advocate Deepak Sharma says, "A few days ago, there were media reports stating that the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board had sent approximately 20 tonnes of silver offered by various devotees to a government mint for melting and processing. It was revealed that out of this 20-tonne consignment (valued at around ₹550 crore), silver worth only ₹20 to ₹30 crore turned out to be genuine; the remaining silver, valued at ₹530 crore, was fake. I found it very difficult to believe this scenario. After all, lakhs of devotees arrive from diverse locations—Meerut, Haryana, Delhi, Bengaluru, Pune, and so on. Had this 20 tonnes of silver been offered by a single individual or sourced from just one location, the matter might not have seemed so serious to me. However, since lakhs of people from different places made these offerings at the Mata Vaishno Devi shrine, and the silver from such a vast number of people turned out to be fake, it raised several grave questions. Where did this happen? Was the silver replaced within the Board, in transit, or at the mint? Furthermore, a serious concern was the report that the fake silver contained cadmium, a highly toxic metal. To my knowledge, cadmium is a highly restricted chemical; it is not easily available or accessible to just anyone. How, then, was it possible for so many people—so many shopkeepers—to procure cadmium, manufacture fake silver, and have that entire stock end up at the feet of the Goddess at Vaishno Devi? When I could not find answers to these questions myself, I felt an investigation was warranted. Consequently, I filed a petition with the Crime Branch, lodging a formal complaint and urging them to investigate the matter based on the facts and reasoning I had presented. So, the Crime Branch took no action on the matter for a long time. I had approached them around May 9, 2026. They were informed that this was a time-sensitive investigation; it involved evidence that was available now but might not be later. Therefore, I urged them to handle it with the requisite seriousness. However, the Crime Branch took no action. I was compelled to approach the court. When the court sought a status report from the Crime Branch, they stated that they had received the complaint, but after the supervising officer granted approval, they forwarded the matter to another police agency...The court has set a date for the 29th and has summoned the Crime Branch's investigating officer. I am hopeful that the court will deliver a favourable verdict in this regard."

#WATCH | Jammu: Advocate Deepak Sharma says, "A few days ago, there were media reports stating that the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board had sent approximately 20 tonnes of silver offered by various devotees to a government mint for melting and processing. It was revealed that out of this 20-tonne consignment (valued at around ₹550 crore), silver worth only ₹20 to ₹30 crore turned out to be genuine; the remaining silver, valued at ₹530 crore, was fake. I found it very difficult to believe this scenario. After all, lakhs of devotees arrive from diverse locations—Meerut, Haryana, Delhi, Bengaluru, Pune, and so on. Had this 20 tonnes of silver been offered by a single individual or sourced from just one location, the matter might not have seemed so serious to me. However, since lakhs of people from different places made these offerings at the Mata Vaishno Devi shrine, and the silver from such a vast number of people turned out to be fake, it raised several grave questions. Where did this happen? Was the silver replaced within the Board, in transit, or at the mint? Furthermore, a serious concern was the report that the fake silver contained cadmium, a highly toxic metal. To my knowledge, cadmium is a highly restricted chemical; it is not easily available or accessible to just anyone. How, then, was it possible for so many people—so many shopkeepers—to procure cadmium, manufacture fake silver, and have that entire stock end up at the feet of the Goddess at Vaishno Devi? When I could not find answers to these questions myself, I felt an investigation was warranted. Consequently, I filed a petition with the Crime Branch, lodging a formal complaint and urging them to investigate the matter based on the facts and reasoning I had presented. So, the Crime Branch took no action on the matter for a long time. I had approached them around May 9, 2026. They were informed that this was a time-sensitive investigation; it involved evidence that was available now but might not be later. Therefore, I urged them to handle it with the requisite seriousness. However, the Crime Branch took no action. I was compelled to approach the court. When the court sought a status report from the Crime Branch, they stated that they had received the complaint, but after the supervising officer granted approval, they forwarded the matter to another police agency...The court has set a date for the 29th and has summoned the Crime Branch's investigating officer. I am hopeful that the court will deliver a favourable verdict in this regard."

ANI

94,658 次观看 • 2 个月前

When I am at the gym and I see somebody’s water bottle there or a towel or something. I know they just stepped away for a moment and that the machine is occupied. Out of respect I won’t move it out of the way only for them to come back and have to explain themselves anyways. This young lady on the machine left her water bottle on it because she stepped away for a moment to use the restroom only for somebody else to come by and try to use it in her place. Would you have understood the etiquette or is it just a free for all? When I first started working out I was unfamiliar with the gym etiquette. Some people just got done with a hard set and need to stand up and walk for a few moneys or get a drink of water and they use it as their rest period so that they can go back at it. Interrupting that process is the same thing as booting them off the machine mid workout. It’s rude and uncalled for but why does it keep happening? I think what it is, is that some people are very judgmental, they see others and think that they are more serious about working out than the other person so that to them it means they are entitled to use it first because their workouts are more important. I used to let them do that to me but no more. I treat it as first come first serve, if they don’t want to wait then maybe they need to avoid the gym during peak hours. This is the very reason I work out in the middle of the night most of the time. I rather not be bothered and if I need to take my time I can, most of the time nobody else is even there anyways when I go.

When I am at the gym and I see somebody’s water bottle there or a towel or something. I know they just stepped away for a moment and that the machine is occupied. Out of respect I won’t move it out of the way only for them to come back and have to explain themselves anyways. This young lady on the machine left her water bottle on it because she stepped away for a moment to use the restroom only for somebody else to come by and try to use it in her place. Would you have understood the etiquette or is it just a free for all? When I first started working out I was unfamiliar with the gym etiquette. Some people just got done with a hard set and need to stand up and walk for a few moneys or get a drink of water and they use it as their rest period so that they can go back at it. Interrupting that process is the same thing as booting them off the machine mid workout. It’s rude and uncalled for but why does it keep happening? I think what it is, is that some people are very judgmental, they see others and think that they are more serious about working out than the other person so that to them it means they are entitled to use it first because their workouts are more important. I used to let them do that to me but no more. I treat it as first come first serve, if they don’t want to wait then maybe they need to avoid the gym during peak hours. This is the very reason I work out in the middle of the night most of the time. I rather not be bothered and if I need to take my time I can, most of the time nobody else is even there anyways when I go.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

176,262 次观看 • 2 个月前