• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

All Cecilia Sue stuff here please....

Re: Cecilia Sue is depressed

Dear Watch

I think the answer given by the MOF F Director on this very issue is telling. Her response was " He should have declared an interest". Putting aside the morality of the issue, what MOF is suggesting is in effect , if you are screwing someone within the tender process within your chain of command and that chain is direct or indirect, please declare your indescretion to the world.

The prima facie case for the AGC to bring the charge rests primarily on the fact that the law is drafted so wide and so loosely that a. it was easy and b, the burden of proof was reversed so that NBG had to prove his innocence.

A reasonable judge would look at the SOF and see the AGC agreeing with the Defence that, He had NO influence at all on the tender committee. Now we can argue all we want about whether he influenced or not but the agreed SOF sequence is that he did not and we have to work on that basis. There is a conflict of interests, there was non declaration but in itself it does not prove either a deed or intent.



Locke

The key facts are that he took "goodies" from CNB supplier, and he was in position to influence the tender, as well as any future tenders that can benefit this supplier. Whether or not he exercised this influence over the tender process is immaterial, IMO.
 
Back
Top