TAKING UPSKIRT PHOTOS MORE SERIOUS OR SOMEONE IN THE NUDE DURING SHOWER ? NICHOLAS LIM WILL TAKE HIS MOTHER OR SISTERDURING THEIR SHOWERS TOO IF HIS HAVING THIS TENDENCY . HOHLY DANGEROUS TO HAVE HIM AROUND IN PUBLIC PLACES .
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Monica Baey vs Nicolas Lim
- Thread starter JohnTan
- Start date
The only trauma is she inflicting it on herself. He has been punished. Seems like she wants him whipped.
You are the pevert.
Because Monica Baey , Nicholas Lim is ruined .
Peeping Tom gets 4 weeks' jail for criminal trespass and insulting woman's modesty
SINGAPORE - A construction worker was convicted on Friday (Jan 5) of offences arising from being a peeping Tom.
The court heard that a 21-year-old woman, a cabin crew member, arrived at Orchard Towers with her friends at 4.40am on March 26, 2017, when she decided to use the toilet on the third floor.
When she entered the toilet, she saw a person lying inside a cubicle with a blue jacket but could not make out the gender. She decided to go into the adjoining cubicle.
While she was relieving herself, Mathivanan Manikandan, 24, an Indian national, turned his head and peeped.
She quickly got dressed and ran after him.
The prosecuting officer, Assistant Superintendent Sulaiman Yusof, said a passer-by pointed to the victim the direction in which Mathivanan had fled.
The victim found him wearing the same blue jacket in the basement of the building. She approached police officers, who were on foot patrol, and told them what had happened. Mathivanan was arrested.
On Friday (Jan 5), the construction worker was sentenced to two weeks' jail for criminal trespass and four weeks' jail for insulting a woman's modesty. Both sentences will run concurrently.
A third charge of having eight obscene video files in his cellphone was taken into consideration during sentencing.
In mitigation, Mathivanan told District Judge Adam Nakhoda that he was having financial difficulties and had been working here for 2½ years. He also said he was drunk at the time.
He could have been jailed for up to three months and/or fined up to $1,500 for criminal trespass. The maximum penalty for insulting the modesty of a woman is one year's jail and a fine.
SINGAPORE - A construction worker was convicted on Friday (Jan 5) of offences arising from being a peeping Tom.
The court heard that a 21-year-old woman, a cabin crew member, arrived at Orchard Towers with her friends at 4.40am on March 26, 2017, when she decided to use the toilet on the third floor.
When she entered the toilet, she saw a person lying inside a cubicle with a blue jacket but could not make out the gender. She decided to go into the adjoining cubicle.
While she was relieving herself, Mathivanan Manikandan, 24, an Indian national, turned his head and peeped.
She quickly got dressed and ran after him.
The prosecuting officer, Assistant Superintendent Sulaiman Yusof, said a passer-by pointed to the victim the direction in which Mathivanan had fled.
The victim found him wearing the same blue jacket in the basement of the building. She approached police officers, who were on foot patrol, and told them what had happened. Mathivanan was arrested.
On Friday (Jan 5), the construction worker was sentenced to two weeks' jail for criminal trespass and four weeks' jail for insulting a woman's modesty. Both sentences will run concurrently.
A third charge of having eight obscene video files in his cellphone was taken into consideration during sentencing.
In mitigation, Mathivanan told District Judge Adam Nakhoda that he was having financial difficulties and had been working here for 2½ years. He also said he was drunk at the time.
He could have been jailed for up to three months and/or fined up to $1,500 for criminal trespass. The maximum penalty for insulting the modesty of a woman is one year's jail and a fine.
sad, nobody wants t
Criticism of the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) response to a “peeping tom” incident . . . . . with Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung calling for heavier penalties to send a signal that the safety of students is of the highest priority. . . . .
are you also referring to Ong YK?
else, you must be sad & disappointed coz nobody wants to film you
byeeee
i think MOnica Baey targetting Nicholas Lim is a RedHerring ...
i think her real target is NUS.
her mother Mary Baey already hinted in AsiaOne interview that NUS did not provide a safe and secure showering facilities in the university Dormitory.
Security guards monitoring the cctv were sleeping.
KNN correct KNN 1 摇鸡 vs 1 monkey fight KNN
I think Nicky needs psychiatric counselling, he's a voyeur, same category as people who steal bras and panties, sniff bicycle seats, flashers exposing their nakedness to strangers.
There was no rape and no molest; hence there was no need to further escalate the issue. The incident happened at a NUS hall; NUS administers its laws as it sees fit. If you have a problem with this, it is NUS which you should direct your disapproval towards.
A lot of the indignation is from the white knight beta males and the feminazis who wouldn't pass up a chance to take potshots at 'toxic masculinity' doing harm to females.
There was no rape and no molest; hence there was no need to further escalate the issue. The incident happened at a NUS hall; NUS administers its laws as it sees fit. If you have a problem with this, it is NUS which you should direct your disapproval towards.
A lot of the indignation is from the white knight beta males and the feminazis who wouldn't pass up a chance to take potshots at 'toxic masculinity' doing harm to females.
with the Police Media Statement Minister Sham already won liao without saying a single word.
NuS now awaiting Monica Baey' lawyers' Letters ???
NuS now awaiting Monica Baey' lawyers' Letters ???
Noted...but a crime committed "privately" is also a crime nonetheless.
Go fuck your self.
I agree. Monica Baey is a whiner who isn't caring about studying.
Very true, but I believe halls and dorms have their own set of by-laws governing student behaviour. Unless it's something really terrible e.g. murder, the university usually settles the matter in-house.
.
Lim Tean
.
Lim Tean Responds to Singapore's NUS Sex Crime Scandal.
I made this video this morning to respond to the outrageous situation which has come to light of a young woman being secretly filmed in the shower at NUS. Why is Monica Baey not afforded the protection of the law? Why are new laws (Fake News Legislation) which protect the government quickly written into our legislation whilst out-dated laws on marital rape languish unaddressed for decades. 2 years ago a committee was reviewing the penal code to tackle the problems of voyeurism, revenge porn and flashing, and whilst the recommendations were strong "It recommended that, depending on the actions of the voyeur or the handling of such material, punishment could range from mandatory two to five years' imprisonment, and a possible fine and caning, if the victim is below 14. If the victim is aged 14 and above, and depending on the offender's involvement, the committee proposed a maximum of two to five years' jail, and a possible fine and caning." Nothing has yet been put into force. The government swiftly proposed and enacted the Fake News laws. Seemingly those who have the most to lose over freedom of online sharing and chatter are more important than a wife being raped or a young woman being filmed in the shower at our National University of Singapore.
Lim Tean
.
Lim Tean Responds to Singapore's NUS Sex Crime Scandal.
I made this video this morning to respond to the outrageous situation which has come to light of a young woman being secretly filmed in the shower at NUS. Why is Monica Baey not afforded the protection of the law? Why are new laws (Fake News Legislation) which protect the government quickly written into our legislation whilst out-dated laws on marital rape languish unaddressed for decades. 2 years ago a committee was reviewing the penal code to tackle the problems of voyeurism, revenge porn and flashing, and whilst the recommendations were strong "It recommended that, depending on the actions of the voyeur or the handling of such material, punishment could range from mandatory two to five years' imprisonment, and a possible fine and caning, if the victim is below 14. If the victim is aged 14 and above, and depending on the offender's involvement, the committee proposed a maximum of two to five years' jail, and a possible fine and caning." Nothing has yet been put into force. The government swiftly proposed and enacted the Fake News laws. Seemingly those who have the most to lose over freedom of online sharing and chatter are more important than a wife being raped or a young woman being filmed in the shower at our National University of Singapore.
Similar threads
