ThatDidn'tQuiteFitVille
Writing over at our good friend Mary's place, citizen journalist extraordinare Robin Mathews posits an important question that no one else seems to be asking, which is....
"Why did the RailGate Evaluation/Destruction/Debt-Generation/Transition/Sell-Off Team insist on all that secrecy?"
Now, from the prosecution's point of view at least, it would appear that the (assumed) importance of all this (allegedly) explicit secrecy will be a central tenet of their case.
But.
From, the peoples' point of view, at the very least, wouldn't a wee bit of true transparency been a good thing back in the day?
______
Next up...."RailGate Reunion....The Witness And The Minister".....Stay tuned....
.
2 comments:
How did BC Mary know to publish this the day before the Defense raised it in Court today?
"President fired for 'clandestine' affair claims execs planned for big buyouts
Andy Ivens
Times Colonist - Dec. 15, 2002"
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/
NVG--
Crowd-sourcing, I think...
Specifically, I believe it was reader E.M. that dug it out.
As for me, I too have a post coming in which the good Mr. Mudie will also feature.
I've been working on it for a couple of days, and it is backed by an old link, from 2002, that came my way extremely fortuitously.
More to the point...
Perhaps we should think of this another way....
Specifically, is it possible that, just perhaps, this came up in the trial because, at least in part, it had already come up at Marys.
Like, say, the way the amount of money given to the Gordon Campbell Party by the likes of Mr. McLean and Mr. Armstrong suddenly popped up at the trial after it was bandied about in the bloggodome for a few days....?
.
Post a Comment