Hi Peter -
I don't disagree with you. My point is an ethical one. Yours is a legal one.
However, just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's the right
thing to do.
I believe one should always use obvious ethical standards to guide
what you do, especially when thousands of other people's livelihood is
at stake. There's no "shades of grey" about what these people did.
Cheers,
Alan
'53 BN1 '64 BJ8
On 4/21/05, Peter Dzwig <pdzwig@summaventures.com> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> just to make clear again that what I said was that the statements could be
>taken
> as libellous. Except as regards the choice of buyer five years ago I didn't
>make
> any further point.
>
> The statements that have appeared in the Press are at the very least
>contentious
> and the matter is the subject of a continuing DTI investigation and an
> investigation by the Adminstrator's team. At the present there is no evidence
>of
> the allegations of illegal behaviour otherwise that evidence would have been
> referred to the DPP with a view to prosecution. Were this to have occured
> statements to that effect would almost certainly have appeared in the Press.
>
> We can all make assumptions, but you have no evidence of wrongdoing other than
> allegations in the Press - unless you are one of the members of the
> investigating teams, in which case...
>
> To put it another way I am merely re-iterating the legal maxim that a person
>is
> innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) and that if the Directors
> behaved in accordance with their (presumably legal) agreements then they can't
> be prosecuted.
>
> Peter Dzwig
>
> Blue One Hundred wrote:
|