The shop owner isn't in jeopardy. All he did was hire someone,
apparently after any alleged misdeeds took place. Until proven guilty,
the accused should be allowed to earn a living. The world is plagued
with busybodies who can't keep their nose out of other people's
business.
Paul
On Jan 8, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
In this case, Paul, the shop owner is in jeopardy and deserves to be
alerted.
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've found that unless someone has been placed in jeopardy, it's best
to mind one's own business. As others have said, "innocent until
proven
guilt."
Paul
On Jan 8, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
Kevin,
Understand your dilemma, but even though you don't know yet "who is
working for him", due to this photo related situation, I'd let the
owner know before too many others make the connection.
Are you certain this is the same person and that the owner won't
fain
shock and surprise?
Jack
--- Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I recently walked into a large Sydney camera store and ventured to
the
"pro section" to purchase some Fuji Provia. I was astounded that
the
person serving me was an ex-photog who is currently in the midst
of
a child porn investigation. He worked with his uncle who has been
charged
and a trial is due.
My question is, should I make the store owner aware of who is
working
for him?
Am I being vigilant or is it sheer bloody mindedness on my part?
Is this really none of my business?
I must admit this sort of thing boils my blood quickly.
Kind regards
Kevin
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for
lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
