Thursday, February 16, 2012

Replied To 'Show Cause Notice'

New Picture

"

BANGALORE: Three former Karnataka BJP ministers, who lost their jobs over watching porn film clippings on mobile when the Assembly was in session, today submitted their replies to the show cause notice slapped on them by Speaker K G Bopaiah.

The trio -- Laxman Savadi, C C Patil and Krishna Palemar sent in their seperate (sic) replies to the speaker and their respective aides handed over them to Assembly Secretary, Om Prakash.

Prakash told PTI that the replies submitted in sealed cover would be forwarded to the Speaker.
Bopaiah told reporters that the replies by the three former ministers had reached his secretariat and he was yet to take a look at it.

Bopaiah is expected to form a six-member house panel to probe the episode that took place inside the state assembly on February seven.

He said he would take a decision on the formation of the committee to probe the matter and also on consulting opposition Congress and JDS, which have already decided against nominating their members on the panel.

While Savadi and Patil face allegations of watching the sleazy clippings, Palemar is accused of supplying them to Savadi.

Link

Pathetic reporting. Pathetic incident. Pathetic responses. And a typo. Classic Times of India (and I am not just referring to the name of the newspaper).

Firstly, seperate - there is no such word. It is spelt separate, you illiterate moron!

Now with that out of the way, let us talk about the article. What exactly does this article tell the reader? Does the event merit such an elaborate article? The event being – the ministers have replied to the Show Cause Notice. The article tells you:

  • Replies were submitted separately – So?
  • The respective aides handed the replies over to the Assembly Secretary – So?
  • The replies were in a sealed cover and will be forwarded to the Speaker – So?
  • The replies have reached the Speaker's secretariat – So?

If TOI thinks these details are relevant and need to be reported, why haven't they mentioned:

  • The colour of the envelope?
  • The size of the paper used to print the replies?
  • Is the reply printed on both sides or just one?
  • Were there copies of the replies?
  • If 'Yes' then how many copies?
  • Who were these copies submitted to and how?
  • How many drafts were prepared before the final version was decided upon?
  • The make / model / plate number of the car that was used to transport these replies from the minister's offices to the Assembly.

Furthermore, is the Speaker serious? What the hell has he been smoking?? The idiot wants to form a committee to probe the matter?!! They were watching porn during the assembly proceedings. What is there to probe!?

Fuck that - he wants to take his time to decide which six members of the house will be part of the committee!?

And you think I have my priorities mixed up!?!?

0 Opinions:

Archives

Followers