Huge blow to New Zealand

[Guest Rick Research]

Scott posted the New Zealand newspaper link yesterday:

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=25615

Excellent news, since perhaps even WORSE than vanishing potentially forever into the hands of some insane Russian billionaire James-Bond-villain-wannabe was the equally potential actual permanent loss if these sub-morons had thrown everything into that week's trash delivery to the municiapl incinerator when they discovered nothing could be fenced.

One is particularly satisfied by the intent to prosecute the bribe taking informant as well.

[Great Dane]

One is particularly satisfied by the intent to prosecute the bribe taking informant as well.

I may not be native english speaking, but as I read the various articles the police mentions that "No immunity from prosecution or support for reduction in any sentence for any offender was given in return" to assure the public that the person who gets (parts of) the reward was not part of the crime, i.e. no 'dirty deal' was made.

Where do you get the impression that the informant will be prosecuted?

/Mike

[Guest Rick Research]

Because that statement was made at all-- implying quite directly (without saying so, which would be "prejudicial pre-trial publicity" in my country where all criminals are "alleged" even when caught in the act, on film) that the informer is one of the gang-- perhaps the receiver of stolen goods, or a jealous girlfriend/boyfriend. If the reward recipient was an innocent civilian walking his or her dog who found a bundle with the medals lying on a pathway and turned it in... the statement about no deals for reduction in sentencing would not apply:

The police would be CONGRATULATING a good citizen, who we would expect to see-- a national hero-- smiling from ear to ear on every front page and evening news broadcast like a lucky lottery winner.

The statement therefore indicates some level of criminal culpability on the part of the reward recipient.

That, and MOST rewards are paid to informers with inside knowledge of crimes, either before or after the fact.

Increasingly, one has to have "radar" in not only what IS reported, but what is NOT-- and HOW it is not.

For instance, we just had coverage of your latest cartoon arson riots on last night's television news-- as if spontaneous chemical combustion was miraculously responsible. There being no mention of Danish grandmothers angry over the price of flour going on an incendiary rampage, one naturally assumes-- correctly--who WAS responsible. That was NOT stated: the "elephant in the room" everyone knows but will not admit exists. (I am trying to imagine World War 2 fought without ever mentioning the Nazis...)

Western "journalism" is increasingly Soviet in its deliberate obfuscation and omissions--as well as the increasingly simple lack of intelligence of many of its "professionals>" too.

Words have been so deliberately distorted, and so willfully perverted, that meaning itself is now something which must be interpreted as much by what is NOT said as by what is. Nostradamus is alive and writing the daily news.

[Great Dane]

I guess you're right since the follow-up article mentions "It is understood some of the money will go to the thieves."

Good they are back, though.

/Mike

[Guest Rick Research]

[Tiger-pie]

I guess you're right since the follow-up article mentions "It is understood some of the money will go to the thieves."

Good they are back, though.

/Mike

The money will go back to the system, probably via a lawyer...

[PKeating]

Now that is great news!