We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Let’s analyse this purported “loss” without jingoism and with actual substance.
Where, precisely, did our speakers fall short—and how did those failures lead to a loss of votes?
No debate = No loss - seems like you dont have basic reasoning skills, go and improve your iq.
Let's discuss this.
Relax babe!
What is striking, however, is that neither side—most notably, the Indian delegation—has, thus far, presented any verifiable material before the media to substantiate its respective claims. In a situation of this nature, the absence of evidence inevitably weakens all asserted certainties.
Speaking only for myself, while I remain broadly inclined to accept the position articulated by the Indian delegates, their continued inability to produce even minimal supporting documentation—whether before the media or through something as simple as a tweet (which they have repeatedly suggested exists)—does introduce a degree of uncertainty as to where the factual truth ultimately resides.
I must also acknowledge a further hesitation: that any public request from my end for these alleged emails to be disclosed would almost certainly invite attacks from a certain section branding such a demand as “anti-national,” even as the delegates themselves would likely retreat to a moral high ground—eloquently arguing that they do not wish to confer further attention upon an event conceived for the benefit of “youngsters” or “children,” precisely in order to avoid the detailed public engagement that this issue, in fact, warrants.
Let’s watch https://youtu.be/I4Fzx8qH42o
AND DISCUSS THIS ▮▮▮!