Bakes, thanks for your input, but as usual with you and I, we see things completely differently. I do actually feel very disappointed that you fail to agree (not that you have to!) with some of my points, because from my view they are so obvious. I also am disappointed with your general tone and lack of respect. You have the linguistic ability to argue against my points without resorting to sarcasm, ridicule and condescension. However, as much as I want to avoid another one of our marathon discussions, I can't let this one go:
"Immoral"?? Really? I hope you realize there is a difference between "immoral" and "unethical" behavior... and it's even arguable whether what he did is unethical. If what's on the tape is to believed then Jack acted in the best interest of the CFU. I tickles me to no end listening to you, the English press and some of the others here carrying on like is child prostitutes Jack was trafficking in."
Bakes, I've seen you stating on the General Discussion thread all sorts of reasons why this is wrong or this is right etc. But unless I'm greatly mistaken, the above statement is condoning lawbreaking because its just a minor law. Is that what you meant by "carrying on like is child prostitutes Jack was trafficking in."? Maybe if we were talking about Camps, I could understand (but not agree with) your point. But how can you give a bligh to a Cabinet Minister who turns a blind eye to illegal activity in his own country? Are you one of the people who think policemen should not be prosecuted for drunk driving, or Ministers not being fined for speeding or driving while banned? After all, they're not trafficking in child prostitutes. Where does this ignoring laws end? What about letting off some young kids who only had 3 small bags of cocaine or a guy who was just carrying a small knife? Hey, lets help out Duprey, coz no one got hurt, right?
While I would admit to preying that if I ever got stopped on the highway and was slightly over the limit the cops would give me a bligh, this is a government minister who had prior knowledge of a financial transaction that is required by T&T law to be declared. He failed to defend the laws that he swore he would uphold, before, during and after, and then turned another blind eye to a further 24 such incidents.
Or do we just ignore the "big fish"? Warner's govt is locking up people everyday, many on very thin evidence and in some cases, for fairly insignificant crimes. Yet its ok for Jack? Come on Bakes, you criticised me before because there was no evidence for Gibbs to launch an investigation, now we have it in his own words, which he has admitted was him speaking.
You know perfectly well that the law states you must make a declaration if you are bringing more than a specified amount of foreign currency in or out of the country. I don't understand why you will not admit this. You also know that if somebody has knowledge of such an incidence and fails to report it, they can be accused of conspiracy or being an accessory (I think you lawyers say before and after the fact?). I'm sure you will know the correct term. And we musn't forget the testimony that reported that delegates were given a cell phone number to call if they had trouble taking the money out of the country (although this was not investigated, so its just an allegation at this point.)
So, these are not my laws, but the laws of T&T, unless I'm mistaken.