Karl, regarding assumptions, whose?

[Rockman]

Look, based on what I read..,the numerous similar cases, and the fact that FINSAC has yet to refute anything, isn't it likely you are the one making the assumptions(there has to be more to it right?)?





Blessed

[Karl]

Look, based on what I read..,the numerous similar cases, and the fact that FINSAC has yet to refute anything, isn't it likely you are the one making the assumptions(there has to be more to it right?)?





Blessed

My assumption based on (not having facts to decide one way or another whether FINSAC's operations were 'wholesome') what I have read thus far is no assumptions would be made by well thinking persons. It is obvious to me that the then opposition (the JLP) could have been using to political advantage - (Not having the facts I cannot say the JLP used) - the 'street's perception' that some persons may have been wronged. At the very least it appears the 'rumblings' on the street was ripe for being exploited.

...on the other hand the then government (the PNP) could be inclined to claim FINSAC acted in 'wholesome' manner. Hey...it was the PNP that created FINSAC and would benefit from any perception that 'they did a great job'!

Finally there is the great mystery (at least it appears great mystery to me) of less than whole set of facts being presented by even one person and or on one entity that it is being claimed was wronged. Why? Why not lay out even one degeh-degeh claim from its 'alpha through to omega'? Why not? What prevents someone or those in possession of the 'facts' as it relates to treatment of even one entity claiming being 'wronged' has not laid out the entire process of supposedly being hauled and pulled and battered through for us to see?

Suppen jus nuh feel rite?

[Assasin]

What about 140 billion dollars of tax payer's money?
Have you consider that? How much free education and Healthcare that could have provided?

[Muadib]

I suspect you are therefore 100% for the commission of enquiry ?

Right ?