JagadeeshKrishnan

Saturday, 5 November 2016

How would you define life in just one word?

Yes Ravana not only liked her but raped her too.read for details

[1] Rambha & Ravana's story

Rambha was the queen of the apsaras. She was one of the most beautiful women ever created. She was made by the waves of the ocean, by the tides of the sea. She was made out of love between the sand and the life source of all living things: water. Together sand and water sculpt together asuras and the most beautiful of them was Rambha.

Ravana was intrigued with Rambha’s beauty and one day as she was going to see Nalakubara Ravana came around a bush and tried to seduce her. When Rambha told Ravana that she was married he became infuriated and raped her. Luckily, Nalakubara did not blame Rambha and loved her anyways. Nalakubara cursed Ravana that he ,with lustful feelings cannot touch a woman without her consent or he will die. It is because of the curse only that he could not touch sita.

[2] Rambha & Vishwamitra story

With hair long, wavy, and flowing like the ripples through water, with delicate full lips, luscious to the touch, and eyes the color of honey, what man could possibly resist Rambha?

One man, however, did resist and that one man changed the course of Rambha’s life, forever. As the queen of the asuras Rambha was only required to travel to the earth to handle the most urgent, pressing matters, which was a benefit she enjoyed.

You see, Rambha was like most women when I say that all she truly desired was a man to love. She yearned for the man that would not love her for what pleasures she could give him or for how she would be able to benefit him. She longed to be loved by the one man who would love her for her, for who she truly was.

Being in such a high position sometimes required Rambha to venture into dangerous situations. One day the god, Indra, sent her here to Earth to seduce a sage named Vishvamitra. , however, would not be seduced. Rambha had never been so infuriated for no man had ever resisted her charms. Vishvamitra cursed Rambha right there and turned her to stone for a thousand years.

[3] Rambha's love story

Rambha , as soon as the curse wore off and she stepped from that stone, she laid eyes on the man she had waited her entire life for. His name was Nalakubara and he was the most handsome man she had ever seen. Her heart skipped a slight beat and she felt faint. She had just been released from a stone curse after a thousand years and here the girl was, about to faint. But oh how he loved her from the moment their eyes met. He saw the eyes of honey, the lips so perfectly sitting upon her face, yet to move. He longed to touch her flowing hair. And above all else he desired to love her like no man ever had. And as he approached Rambha, they both knew, right there in their chests that they had found what some refer to as their “soul mate” or “other half.

K. Jagadeesh

India first mentions China in the Mahabharata, what was that ?

BHIMA’S LIST OF 18 BAD KINGS. When Bhima tell’s Lord Krishna how he should address Duryodhana in his peace mission he mentions 18 kings who caused the destruction of their own bloodlines. Among them the “CHINAS” have also been mentioned. “Alas, by Duryodhana's wrath, O slayer of Madhu, the Bharatas will all be consumed, even like forests by fire at the end of the dewy seasons, and, O slayer of Madhu, well-known are those eighteen kings that annihilated their kinsmen, friends, and relatives. Even as, when Dharma became extinct, Kali was born in the race of Asuras flourishing with prosperity and blazing with energy, so was born Udavarta among the Haihayas. Janamejaya among the Nepas, Vahula among the Talajanghas, proud Vasu among the Krimis, Ajavindu among the Suviras, Rushardhik among the Surashtras, Arkaja among the Valihas, Dhautamulaka among the Chinas, Hayagriva among the Videhas, Varayu among the Mahaujasas, Vahu among the Sundaras, Pururavas among the Diptakshas, Sahaja among the Chedis and Matsyas, Vrishaddhaja among the Praviras, Dharana among the Chandra-batsyas, Bigahana among the Mukutas and Sama among the Nandivegas. These vile individuals, O Krishna, spring up, at the end of each Yuga, in their respective races, for the destruction of their kinsmen. So hath Duryodhana, the very embodiment of sin and the disgrace of his race, been born, at the end of the Yuga, amongst us the Kurus. Therefore, O thou of fierce prowess, thou shouldst address him slowly and mildly, not in bitter but sweet words fraught with virtue and profit, and discourse fully on the subject so as to attract his heart. All of us, O Krishna, would rather in humiliation follow Duryodhana submissively, but, oh, let not the Bharatas be annihilated. O Vasudeva, act in such a way that we may rather live as strangers to the Kurus than incurring the sin of bringing about the destruction of the whole race should touch them, O Krishna, let the aged Grandsire and the other counsellors of the Kurus be asked to bring about brotherly feelings between brothers and to pacify the son of Dhritarashtra.” Udyoga Parva: Bhagwat Yana Parva: Section LXXIV

Once again the China’s are mentioned by krishna & Sanjaya as paying tribute to the king of the Pandavas Yudhishthira.

“I have also told thee all, O king. When the slayer of Madhu met the Pandavas, they requested him to become the charioteer of Phalguna in battle. Hari himself, thus requested, answered them, saying, 'so be it.' And even Krishna himself beholding the sons of Pritha dressed in deer skins, became filled with rage, and addressing Yudhishthira, said, 'That prosperity which the sons of Pritha had acquired at Indraprastha, and which, unobtainable by other kings, was beheld by me at the Rajasuya sacrifice, at which, besides, I saw all kings, even those of the Vangas and Angas and Paundras and Odras and Cholas and Dravidas and Andhakas, and the chiefs of many islands and countries on the sea-board as also of frontier states, including the rulers of the Sinhalas, the barbarous mlecchas, the natives of Lanka, and all the kings of the West by hundreds, and all the chiefs of the sea-coast, and the kings of the Pahlavas and the Daradas and the various tribes of the Kiratas and Yavanas and Sakras and the Harahunas and Chinas and Tukharas and the Sindhavas and the Jagudas and the Ramathas and the Mundas and the inhabitants of the kingdom of women and the Tanganas and the Kekayas and the Malavas and the inhabitants of Kasmira, afraid of the prowess of your weapons, present in obedience to your invitation, performing various offices,--that prosperity, O king, so unstable and waiting at present on the foe, I shall restore to thee, depriving thy foe of his very life. I shall, O chief of the Kurus, assisted by Rama and Bhima and Arjuna and the twins and Akrura and Gada and Shamva and Pradyumna and Ahuka and the heroic Dhrishtadyumna and the son of Sisupala, slay in battle in course of a day Duryodhana and Karna and Dussasana and Suvala's son and all others who may fight against us. And thou shalt, O Bharata, living at Hastinapura along with thy brothers, and snatching from Dhritarashtra's party the prosperity they are enjoying, rule this earth.' Even these, O king, were Krishna's words unto Yudhishthira, who, on the conclusion of Krishna's speech, addressed him in that meeting of heroes and in the hearing of all those brave warriors headed by Dhrishtadyumna, saying, 'O Janardana, I accept these words of thine as truth. O thou of mighty arms, do thou, however, slay my enemies along with all their followers on the expiry of thirteen years.” Vana Parva: Indralokagamana Parva: Section LI

So china was mentioned during Vana & Udyoga Parvas. They were also mentioned in the war. They are referring to inhabitants of ancient China. PS: this image really fits the way Krishna was speaking as he was dark-skinned and claiming that he would kill the Kauravas.

K. Jagadeesh

Who is the worst character of mahabharat

Many people will say that Duryodhana was the worst character in Mahabharata. Some would opt for Shakuni.

For me, the worst character in Mahabharata is none other than Dhritarashtra.

In entire Mahabharata, Dhritarashtra proved that his blindness was not limited up to his physique. He was blind by his mind too.

He was blind in his love for his son: He couldn’t see the evil nature of his son which was gradually growing. He never guided his son in right path. Instead, he was so blind in his love for his son that he remained silent when his son was reaching new heights of notoriety. It was not only Duryodhana, but all his sons (except Yuyutsu) were evil by nature because being a father, he failed to guide them in right path. His blind love and silence over his son’s wrong deeds actually encouraged them to carry on their deeds.
He had lust for the throne for his family: He was always after the throne whose frustration and greed led to the fall of the dynasty. Vidura, in past, suggested to make Pandu the king because of Dhritarashtra’s blindness. That time Dhritarashtra saw the throne slipping out of his hand and he became bitter at the result. He conceded the crown, but this later resulted in protectiveness for his crown which he had gained in his later life.
Wanted to name his son the king even after he was not worthy: Dhritarashtra became Pandu’s heir and ruled Hastinapur when he was not present. After Pandu’s death, he became the de facto king. When his sons were born, he favored his eldest son Duryodhana to be his heir. But when Pandu’s family came, he again saw the history repeating itself and the crown again slipping away. He wanted his son to be the next king. But the Brahmin council, Vidura and Bhishma pressurized him to declare Yudhisthira to be the next king due to his merits. Keeping the grudge within himself, he agreed.
Gave ruined piece of land to Pandavas in the name of property sharing: After the ‘Lakshagriha’ incident, he was quick to crown Duryodhana his heir. When Pandavas revealed that they survived, Duryodhana refused to concede the throne. Dhritarashtra didn’t want his son to concede the throne. He couldn’t force him to give up the claim. He split the kingdom into two part and gave Hastinapur to Kauravas and Khandavprasta to Pandavas. He intentionally gave Khandavprastha to Pandavas because it was a ruined land surrounded by forest ‘Khandav’. This shows his utmost partiality towards his sons.
Remained silent when Draupadi was disrobed in assembly hall in front of everybody: When Draupadi was disrobed in the assembly hall in front of everybody, people like Dronacharya, Bhishma, Vidura, etc were mute spectator even though they were against it. That is because of their obligations towards the throne of Hastinapur. Bhishma took oath to be loyal to the throne, so he couldn’t stop this forcefully. Dronacharya was employee of imperial family so he was obliged to the throne, too. Same issue was with Vidura. The only person who could have done something was Dhritarashtra. Duryodhana was not the king. He was Yuvraaj (crowned prince). That means only Dhritarashtra had more authority and power than Duryodhana. He could have protested against the crowned prince, but he didn’t.
He showed his selfishness when Draupadi was to curse Kuru vansh: As already said above, Dhritarashtra didn’t intervene when Draupadi was disrobed. But when Draupadi was about to curse the Kuru Vansh, Dhritarashtra and Gandhari were quick to ask her not to curse them.
He didn’t intervene against his son’s misdeeds but holds grudge against people who fought for their right: In the entire Mahabharata, Dhritarashrta never advised his son to walk on the path of dharma. It was his inability to guide his son which led into the Kurukshetra war. When Pandavas emerged victorious and all his sons were slain by Bheema, only then he got the time to act and decided to take revenge for the death of his evil sons. He tried to crush Bheema with his bare hands, but thanks to Krishna who switched Bheema with an iron model.

Dhritarashtra is indeed the worst character in Mahabharata, not because of his inability but because of his lack of will to stand for good cause.

K. Jagadeesh

What are the most interesting facts about Hinduism?

The most interesting fact about Hindusim is that -

''Its NOT a religion''

thats right It is a sort of WAY OF LIFE. Hindu Life is almost as the same as saying American Life or any other life style.

Here is a short story i found very interesting. Hope it would help you to get the better idea about Hinduism.

A Hindu was flying from JFK New York Airport to SFO San Francisco Airport CA to attend a meeting at Monterey, CA.

An American girl was sitting on the right side, near window seat. It indeed was a long journey - it would take nearly seven hours.

He was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible unusual of young Americans. After some time she smiled and we had few acquaintances talk.
He told her that I am from India

Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?'
'What?' He didn't understand the question. 'I mean, what's your religion?

Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?'
'No!' He replied, 'He am neither Christian nor Muslim'.
Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?'
“I am a Hindu”, He said.

She looked at him as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what He was talking about.
A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading religions of the world today. But a Hindu, what?

He explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.

'Who is your prophet?' she asked.
'We don't have a prophet,' He replied. '

What's your Holy Book?' 'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,' He replied.

Girl: 'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?'

He: 'What do you mean by that?'
Girl: 'Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?'

He thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God) who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief. According to her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. The mind is so conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that anything else is not acceptable.

He understood her perception and concept about faith.

You can't compare Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of God.

He tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one God and he can be a Hindu. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a Hindu.

What's more - you may not believe in God at all, still you can be a Hindu.

An Atheist can also be a Hindu.'

This sounded very crazy to her. She couldn't imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces. 'I don't understand but it seems very interesting.

Are you religious?' What can He tell to this American girl?

He said: 'I do not go to Temple regularly. I do not make any regular rituals. I have learned some of the rituals in my younger days.
I still enjoy doing it sometimes'.

'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?'

'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God.

Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.'

She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?'

'Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism.
Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning.

I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.' He told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices.

It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order,
There is no institution or authority.

'So, you don't believe in God?'

she wanted everything in black and white. 'I didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality.
Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis - Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.'

'Why can't you believe in one personal God?'

'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense.

I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him or fear him.'

He told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal Gods.

The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions. 'Good that you agree God might exist.

You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?'

'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,' लोका समस्ता सुखिनो भवन्तु !!! ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः !!! '

Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?'

'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Let there be Peace, Peace,and Peace every where.'

'Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed. '

The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita.

It is all about an individual approaching a personal God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution - it is as simple as that.'

'How does anybody convert to Hinduism?'

'Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but it is a Culture, a way of living life, a set of beliefs and practices.

Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single Authority or Organization either to accept you or to reject you or to oppose you on behalf of Hinduism.'

He told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one Guru to the next.

For a real seeker, He told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life. Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real.

'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you.

Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself.

Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas. It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.

Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an organized religion like others.

The British coin the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion. He said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the market share by conversion.

The biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception' He said "I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' means - Non violence is the highest duty.

I am a Hindu because it doesn't condition my mind with any faith system.

Hinduism is the original rather a natural yet a logical and satisfying spiritual, personal and a scientific way of leaving a life.

K.Jagadeesh

What would Ancient Indians think once they see the current state of India?

They would think that how conservative Indians have become.

During Krishna’s time Gopi Girls used to bath nude in Yamuna, but now even a short skirt or tight jeans invites rape. Now to bath nude we need to visit nude beach in other countries.
Marriage between cousins. Kunti who was sister of Vasudev and Krishna helped Arjun to kidnap Subhadra so that they can marry. Now they are killing daughter if they marry a guy of same gotra. But in South India marriage among maternal cousins still exists. We make fun of our muslim brothers for the same. I know it is bad and not good genetically. But my point is to oppose honour killing for same-gotra marriage.
Virginity and premarital sex was accepted. Satyavati had pre-marital casual sex with Rishi Parashar and gave birth to Ved Vyas who wrote Mahabharat. So Satyavati was not virgin while marrying King Shantanu.

Bharat (Bharata (emperor) - Wikipedia) on whose name India is called Bharatavarsha was a love child born by premarital sex between King Dushyant and Shakuntala

Polygamy and Polyandry no longer exists. Draupadi had 5 husbands and Pandu had 2 wives.
Veil-system. There was no “veil-system” in Indian Culture. It was started as an impact of Islam. Till 19th century Indian women used to wear sarees only without petticoat and blouse. But Britishers did not like it and they introduced petticoat and blouse.
Inter-caste marriage. It was already there. King Santanu who was Kshatriay married Satyavati who was daughter of a Fisher man. Pandu who was Kshatriya married Kunti who was daughter of Yadav King Shurasena (Shurasena - Wikipedia). When Arjun married Draupadi, he introduced himself as brahman. Shakuntala who was a Brahmin girl married Dushyant , who was a Prince a Kshatriya.
Kundali Matching. Marriage were conducted in Swaymvar, without matching kundali. And now this has become a very big issue. Arjun married Draupadi by just hitting the target (a moving fish replica) without any discussion of kundali.
Niyog-pratha. This is no longer in existence. Ved Vyas had sex with Ambika and produced Dhritrashtra, had sex with Ambalika and produced Pandu & had sex with a maid to produce Vidur.
Love marriage was there with name “Gandharva Vivaah”. But now it is still a big issue in sub urban and rural India.
Sex was not a taboo as we see in sculpture in Khajuraho. All type of sexual fantasy is depicted there. But now we blame it to porn and western culture.
Surnames. How the hell this system of surnames started. Lord Ram was never called Ram Singh, Ram Chauhan or anything else. Lord Krishna was never called Krishna Yadav or anything similar. Chanakya was never called Chanakya Mishra/Upadhyay or anything else. Then how the hell this system of surnames started. And top of that change of surname after marriage. Complete useless thing.
Using crackers on Deewali. When Lord Ram returned to Ayodhya, whole city was lit with oil lamps. But Crackers >: (

Vegetarianism. How the hell people think that Hindus are vegetarians. If so why the hell there is a caste ‘fisherman’. Satyavati was daughter of a fisherman. They used to consume meat of deer, buffalo etc. Long ago they used to consume beef too. Still Hindus in Kerala consume beef. Just today I got to know from a very renowned astrology show “Kaal Chakra” that Lord Ram didn't eat non-veg in “Kaarthik Maas” ( month after October in Hindi calendar) which meant he did have non-veg on other days of month. Lord Shiva was insulted by Father of Sati who called Shiva “Aughadh” (priest who lives in a samshan ghat (crematorium) and eats burnt out human flesh) as Shiva was a non veggie and wore tiger skin.

Last but not the least. Those who do not know about a single text about Sanatana Dharma becomes ‘Hindu Rakshak’, ‘Gau Rakshak’ etc.

This is what came to my mind. There are many more such facts.

K.Jagadeesh

Germany: Veiled Muslim woman screaming “Allahu akbar” attacks police officers with a box-cutter

This is Germany today. What do you think Germany will be like in five years, after Merkel brings in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more Muslim migrants?

A Muslim woman dressed in niqab (veil wh

“Alleged ‘IS’ Sympathizer attacks police officers in Mülheim”, Deutsche Welle, October 31, 2016:

A woman has attacked two police officers with a knife as they entered her apartment in the German city of Mülheim. Authorities found material linked to the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) within.

The 53-year-old woman attacked the two police officers after they entered her apartment in the western city of Mülheim on Sunday morning.

The police officers were checking in on her after she had allegedly thrown furniture, including a lamp, stools and books, out the window. When she refused to open the door, the officers broke it down.

Once they were inside the apartment, the veiled woman attacked them with a box-cutter while apparently shouting “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great.”

She was overpowered as police officers used pepper spray on her and threatened to use their sidearms. She was lightly wounded during the proceedings and was later taken to a mental facility. It was not clear from initial reports if either of the officers was injured.

Following a search, police said they found flags suggesting ties to the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) group.

A police spokesperson said the woman was a Muslim convert and had been born in the state of Thuringia. She was already familiar to police after a series of earlier incidents linked with Islamic extremism, the spokesperson said without providing further details.

Over the past few months, a handful of crimes or attempted crimes linked to or claimed by IS have taken place in Germany. Recently, IS claimed responsibility for a knife attack in Hamburg that killed a 16-year-old boy.

Earlier in October, a Syrian refugee named Jaber Albakr killed himself after being arrested for allegedly plotting a bomb attack in Berlin. In July, a young Afghan asylum seeker injured several people on a train with an ax and was later found to have a handmade IS flag in his apartment. That same month, a Syrian refugee blew himself up in Ansbach…

By
K.Jagadeesh

Muslim Migrant Gang SEXUALLY ATTACKS Schoolgirls at Swimming Pool

Swimming pools in areas populated by Muslim migrants and asylum-seekers have become dangerous places for young girls and boys.

A group of Muslim asylum-seekers from Syria were banned from a swimming pool in a district of Berlin after police found they surrounded three young girls, ages 9, 11 and 14, in the water and touched their breasts.

The girls, all sisters, had been dropped off at the pool by their father as a birthday treat for the oldest.

He told police that as soon as they began to swim, a group of boys, who were from Syria but seeking asylum, surrounded his daughters and began to sexually harass them.

As the Express reported:

“The man said: ‘Five of the boys touched the girls’ breasts and bottoms.’

“He said his 11 year-old daughter managed to get away from the youths and ran to the pool supervisor to ask for help.

“Police were called and arrived soon after.

“A police spokeswoman said the suspects were being investigated for sexual offences.

“She said one of the boys was 14-years-old and the rest were children between the seven and eleven.”

The boys were detained and questioned by police, and shortly after, banned from the pool for one year.

Only one year?

This is hardly the first time young Muslim male asylum-seekers have used the local swimming pools as stomping ground to sexually harass young girls – or boys, for that matter.

Just a few weeks ago, a court in Germany acquitted to Afghan adult migrants who were accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in Delbruck.

From Breitbart:

“The two men in the case, 20-year-old Mozamel M and 25-year-old Rajab H, are said to have made the 14-year-old German boy perform various sex acts on them in the locker room of the swimming baths. A judge acquitted the pair on Thursday after stating that the victim’s testimony was not reliable, reports German magazine Bild.

“Initially, it was reported that two young boys were involved. The younger of the pair was able to hide from the men, but they were able however to capture the 14-year-old in the shower, where the victim said that the men forced him to perform various sex attacks on them.

“They locked me up and abused me,” the victim told police after the pair of migrants were arrested at the swimming baths where the incident took place.

“During the trial, the migrants claimed that the boy had in fact come up to them and offered sexual favours while they were all in the changing rooms. The judge then grilled the victim who had some problems recalling the exact details and timeline of what happened during the course of the incident.

“These doubts led the judge to declare the 14-year-old boy an unreliable witness, even though his story was confirmed by the 11-year-old witness who managed to escape from the migrant attackers.”

By
K.Jagadeesh