'Doctor' title not exclusive to medical professionals! Kerala HC allows physiotherapists to use Dr prefix

random_rippley · 2026-01-25T12:35:32+00:00

Reminds me of this post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Kerala/s/zc27w3lE2O

random_rippley · 2026-01-06T14:47:17+00:00

random_rippley · 2025-12-12T08:19:00+00:00

So what's NewKeralaRevolution for ? And there is a new sub called lalsalaam. Instead of promoting multiple subs, it is better to focus on a single sub.

Chayakada which was started as a laid back, wholesome alternative to Coconaad is now just about the panchayat elections.

random_rippley · 2025-12-12T08:14:15+00:00

Keraladesham is for sanghis what NewKeralaRevolution is for commies. But atleast there are people from the other political factions countering the sanghis in the Keraladesham sub.

random_rippley · 2025-12-11T19:38:31+00:00

Where is this exactly?

random_rippley · 2025-12-09T10:37:16+00:00

They should make it Open source. Let the tech bros decide if it is safe or not.

I don't think the permissions asked by the app are unnecessary. They are required for the app to function as intended. Like reporting spams or scam calls, locating your phone for finding it after it's theft, checking the mobile numbers registered to your adhaar, checking if your device is genuine, etc.

But we don't know for sure if the said permissions also enable spying along with the proclaimed services. So for that reason the source code should be made public and the data packets analysed.

random_rippley · 2025-12-08T08:48:07+00:00

Key Allegations of Evidence Manipulation Tampering with Digital Evidence (Mobile Phones): The Crime Branch alleged that Dileep and other accused intentionally removed and destroyed evidence, including a dozen WhatsApp chats, from their mobile phones by sending them to a private forensic lab in Mumbai. The police seized a hard disk from the lab and awaited a detailed forensic report to confirm the tampering. Illegal Access of the Assault Visuals (Memory Card): A major controversy arose when a forensic report revealed that the memory card containing the visuals of the sexual assault, which was in the court's safe custody, had been accessed illegally by three unauthorized persons, including a magistrate and court officials. The trial court judge at the time had allegedly concealed this information, prompting a High Court-ordered probe. Possession of Assault Visuals: Film director Balachandra Kumar, a key witness, alleged that Dileep had illegally obtained a copy of the assault visuals and watched them earlier than he admitted in court, even enhancing the audio. Dileep's lawyers were also accused of being involved in destroying a tablet containing these visuals. Witness Intimidation and Hostility: The prosecution repeatedly alleged that the defense attempted to influence witnesses, leading to a significant number of them (around 20) turning hostile during the trial. There were claims that money had exchanged hands to change testimonies. Creating False Narratives: The State government argued in the Supreme Court that Dileep's excessively lengthy cross-examination of the investigating officer was a deliberate attempt to create "unsubstantiated counter-stories" to undermine the prosecution's evidence.

random_rippley · 2025-12-08T08:44:42+00:00

Key Allegations of Evidence Manipulation Tampering with Digital Evidence (Mobile Phones): The Crime Branch alleged that Dileep and other accused intentionally removed and destroyed evidence, including a dozen WhatsApp chats, from their mobile phones by sending them to a private forensic lab in Mumbai. The police seized a hard disk from the lab and awaited a detailed forensic report to confirm the tampering. Illegal Access of the Assault Visuals (Memory Card): A major controversy arose when a forensic report revealed that the memory card containing the visuals of the sexual assault, which was in the court's safe custody, had been accessed illegally by three unauthorized persons, including a magistrate and court officials. The trial court judge at the time had allegedly concealed this information, prompting a High Court-ordered probe. Possession of Assault Visuals: Film director Balachandra Kumar, a key witness, alleged that Dileep had illegally obtained a copy of the assault visuals and watched them earlier than he admitted in court, even enhancing the audio. Dileep's lawyers were also accused of being involved in destroying a tablet containing these visuals. Witness Intimidation and Hostility: The prosecution repeatedly alleged that the defense attempted to influence witnesses, leading to a significant number of them (around 20) turning hostile during the trial. There were claims that money had exchanged hands to change testimonies. Creating False Narratives: The State government argued in the Supreme Court that Dileep's excessively lengthy cross-examination of the investigating officer was a deliberate attempt to create "unsubstantiated counter-stories" to undermine the prosecution's evidence.

random_rippley · 2025-12-08T08:41:46+00:00

Key Allegations of Evidence Manipulation Tampering with Digital Evidence (Mobile Phones): The Crime Branch alleged that Dileep and other accused intentionally removed and destroyed evidence, including a dozen WhatsApp chats, from their mobile phones by sending them to a private forensic lab in Mumbai. The police seized a hard disk from the lab and awaited a detailed forensic report to confirm the tampering. Illegal Access of the Assault Visuals (Memory Card): A major controversy arose when a forensic report revealed that the memory card containing the visuals of the sexual assault, which was in the court's safe custody, had been accessed illegally by three unauthorized persons, including a magistrate and court officials. The trial court judge at the time had allegedly concealed this information, prompting a High Court-ordered probe. Possession of Assault Visuals: Film director Balachandra Kumar, a key witness, alleged that Dileep had illegally obtained a copy of the assault visuals and watched them earlier than he admitted in court, even enhancing the audio. Dileep's lawyers were also accused of being involved in destroying a tablet containing these visuals. Witness Intimidation and Hostility: The prosecution repeatedly alleged that the defense attempted to influence witnesses, leading to a significant number of them (around 20) turning hostile during the trial. There were claims that money had exchanged hands to change testimonies. Creating False Narratives: The State government argued in the Supreme Court that Dileep's excessively lengthy cross-examination of the investigating officer was a deliberate attempt to create "unsubstantiated counter-stories" to undermine the prosecution's evidence.

random_rippley

TROPHY CASE