Superfluous
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,995
- Location
- Missing in action
The company you keep is a reflection of who you are. The same holds true for businesses.
The company you keep is a reflection of who you are. The same holds true for businesses.
Prior to October 2014, when the charges were brought against WL, IH may genuinely have been ignorant about WL's enduring criminal conduct. Today, IH is no longer blissfully ignorant. Today, IH knows that, for several years, it transacted business with a criminal who repeatedly stole from his employer, and a company founded by the criminal. Today, IH knows that, according to Aero, WL stole IH's payments due and owing to Aero. Today, IH knows that it may have been a pawn in WL's criminal enterprise. Today, IH knows that WL may have exploited IH and exposed IH to scrutiny and potential claims. Yet, with all its defensiveness, there is one glaring omission in IH's public response: Righteous indignation at having been played by WL. Where is IH's condemnation of WL's criminal conduct? Why isn't IH vilifying WL for, among other things, dragging IH into his criminal endeavors and exposing IH to the current firestorm? Instead, IH is content to remain silent about WL and erroneously suggest that AL is free from blame. Regardless of whether IH was, or was not, complicit in WL's underlying conduct, IH's post-conviction response is, IMHO, lacking appropriate force and content.
Ps: I am told that we have not heard the last about IH's involvement in the WL trial testimony.
Somewhat disagree. I see the workers as more concerned with there safety..or security and weekly paycheck. However..some may view that as weakness.
It’s an interesting account but in the final parts of the last instalment it does start to slip into noticeable partiality IMO. It would be better to have each witness say, rather than some who seem to be with WL claiming.
That’s what always happens on TV news and current affairs programmes. Where a government or management spokesman says, or sometimes insists, while an opposition or union spokesman claims.
The BBC has been notorious for this form of wording in its news broadcasts ever since I’ve been following these sort of events from the early sixties on. Oddly they don’t do it in foreign affairs where they tend to use neutral wording for each participant even when the UK is involved in a conflict but only in reporting domestic ones.
But there is such a thing as a trained court reporterthere is so such thing as impartiality. But thats ok.
You were right, I can't stay away from this thread!
I agree with you in so far as we are talking about regular employees, but I gotta stand by what I said in regards to the other stockholders; Will was stealing from them, and they seem to have been put out by the fact that Ken pointed that out to them.
Again, why would you assist by inaction, someone stealing from you? They should be up for Darwin Awards.
I think it's important to remember that this crime was committed by an AERO EMPLOYEE... years before Alexander Leathers even existed.
I think it's important to remember that this crime was committed by an AERO EMPLOYEE... years before Alexander Leathers even existed.
I think it's important to remember that this crime was committed by an AERO EMPLOYEE... years before Alexander Leathers even existed.
Roman Abramomovich?Let's not exaggerate, that's pretty much the standard story for any "self-made" fortune people I know. Will stole some patches, jeans and jackets and probably patterns, was too dumb to get caught. Have heard rumors of way more severe cases.
Roman Abramomovich?