edjog Photo
Smack X Photo
H5N1 Photo
Hosted by Putfile.com

 Search: 
 
For words, meanings or references.
Hosted by Putfile.com
fuckin tunes on then...

Hosted by Putfile.com

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Theorists aside: as defined by UK Law, it must be a fucking Conspiracy!

So this relates to "I'm not arsing about here..." [title link]

Right, so get this:

Person A is an otherwise law abiding citizen, with money to invest in business.

Person B runs several successful businesses in many countries and is known for agressive investment tactics and managing a portfolio which contains high risk/high return enterprises.

Person C is suspected of dealing drugs and murder in his own country, indeed is an infamous gangster with an international reputation.

A meets B, with whom he has made substantial investments before and who tells him about an investment opportunity including C, in C's country. They plan to open a large casino.

"But C's a crook," we might expect A to say, to which we would not be surprised if B replied, "Don't worry about it, you won't have to meet with him, I'll do that. Besides, this will be in Uzbekistan, no one will know and even if they do, what can they do about it?"

So they proceed. Several business rivals of the newly formed cartel suddenly disappear and evidence emerges that C has had them murdered, but the casino is built and shows a return on A's investment. C however is not satisfied with his share of the proceeds and continues his gangster activities. Corruption being what it is, he buys and intimidates his way out of any local investigation.

At this point we may imagine that A is getting cold feet, but B assures him everything is fine, B himself has used some of the funds of the company to buy off the most serious investigation and there is plenty more money to be made he assures A. Some investigation reveals that B has made large investments in ancilliary services to the casino and other associated businesses in the area and is thus financially slightly over-extended, so it is important to him to keep A's investment in place, because he cannot afford to buy A out and nobody else would want anything to do with the place due to C's involvement. A decides that, since he has a number of other investments with companies in which B is a major shareholder, he can't afford to take the risk that B might have to rationalise his position, especially since B would likely blame A and shut down those operations in which A had large investments first. So he leaves his investment where it is.

At this point, the US Drug Enforcement Agency take an interest in C's activities and he is all but kidnapped and arraigned before a US Court for his part in supplying drugs to the USA. The whole sorry business comes out into the open. Now tell me, if you were A, you'd know damn well you were going to jail, wouldn't you?

The question is not:
"Does the UK Govts. position relating to US policy and Uzbek torture constitute a Criminal Conspiracy?"
But rather, if Tony Blair & Jack Straw manage to slime their way out this:
What the fuck is wrong with our ability to have the clear intention of international and domestic criminal law applied?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home