Originally Posted by
Foxxster
I would be even more reluctant to rely on anything in that disgraceful sham of a report. Good old Sergeant Shultz defence. Seems to have fooled the Andrews army of idiots but no one else.
Can I turn to a different topic, Premier, although at the same time it is also returning to a topic we have already discussed, which is a decision about private security. You may be aware that the Board has heard from multiple witnesses about the fact that private security became and were the first line of enforcement. And that there's considerable disagreement amongst those various witnesses about when and by whom that decision was made. Are you familiar in general terms with the nature of the evidence that the Board has received?
A. Yes, Ms Ellyard, I am.
Q. And the evidence is to the effect that no one is claiming ownership of the
decision, even though no one seems to have spoken against it at the time and no one 5 who might have been the decision maker seems to suggest that if it had been them, it would have been a bad decision. There's just no one who says it was them. Are you
aware of that?
A. I am.
Q. Do you know who it was?
A. No, I don't. That's the nature of the decision I made. That's why I set up this
Board of Inquiry or recommended to the Governor to set up this Board of Inquiry, to 15 get exactly that answer and quite a few others, Ms Ellyard.
I don't see what that has to do with your claim nor the media reports of guards 'bonking' guests. In the absence of evidence, it may be said that the claim is questionable at best and can safely be ignored. Unfortunately, many of the discussions here and on the web pivot around disputed events such as this and only serve to elevate the emotion and demote the facts to merely a footnote.