Dear O Sung Wu,

I'm hoping that both Poirot and Suse will eventually
return. I'm sure they must realise how much we miss
them both. All I can say to them, if they're reading
these posts is -"Come back please. We need you!"

cont'd ...

I've come across the following website which may be of
interest regarding this discussion:

http://www.theconversation.com/a-national-icac-we-need-better-anti-corruption-bodies-not-more-26302

Hi there FOXY...

Gee it's great to be able to say '..."Hi there FOXY"...' once again! Indeed, I couldn't agree with you more, we really need both of our elegant ladies to return to the fold. And I think it's really useful when everyone's anonymity is preserved, except there should be perhaps, a mechanism that would permit 'some' messages to be delivered to those concerned. Especially in this instance where there's nothing more sinister than trying to encourage these two, to return to the Forum? I suppose all we can do is try.

Thank you for your useful link to the 'Conversation' another worthwhile Site in which to enunciate one's opinion. In fact I've added my own 'far right' views on some issues. Which have on occasion, caused much consternation among many of the academic 'Left Wing' elites.

I recall one topic, the moderator's removed five of my comments because of the distress and argument they'd caused. I'd not misbehaved, or used unseemly words, I merely employed the English language to assist in my argument. The topic was dealing broadly, with Homosexuality. I didn't use the word Gay, or the term homosexual practices between two males, rather I called them sodomites, and their conduct was sodomy? I left bruised and battered, but you know me FOXY, I love a good blue, and thoroughly enjoyed it? I realise why I'm a social pariah, but being a former copper, one gets used to it.

Seriously, The Conversation does generate some exemplary commentary, not unlike that of 'DAVID F.' a valued member of this Site. Therefore I do learn much from them.

Thank you once again FOXY, I appreciate your views and your insight very much indeed. Stay well please.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You've done it again - made my heart sing.
Thank You dear friend!

As far as words are concerned -I often get the feeling
that we are sometimes a tad too "politically correct".
Your intent was not to insult anyone and that's what
should have mattered.

The abovementioned conversation website deletes comment not on their agenda, the latter likely driven by their motives and cash or kind reward.

Reward could include grants and contracts for research into anything that might be construed into evidence of AGW, including for example coral bleaching they say is caused by global warming caused by CO2 emissions.
If it's global warming why is the whole GBR not overwarm at the same time?
And where is the scientific evidence of the actual increased warmth that killed that northern GBR coral?

Comment deleted on that website includes evidence of substance.
They deleted comment about nutriet pollution being carried northwards into GBR waters.
For example the Australian Sediment Dispersal System transports sewage and other anthropogenic nutrient pollution into Great Barrier Reef waters where the unprecedented nutrient overload proliferates algae that feeds COTS starfish.
Unprecedented anthropogenic proliferated algae is also causing anoxia and dead zones killing coral zooanthellae algae and the coral building animals, resulting in coral 'bleaching'.

There is a massive problem.
Solutions proposed for AGW CO2 emissions do nothing toward solutions to reduce nutrient overload pollution and algae in ocean food web and biodiversity in river estuaries and bay ecosystems that are supposed to provide food for GBR and SW Pacific Ocean animals and seafood dependent people.

That conversation website is corrupt and fraudulent because it deleted comment and information of substance.
That claimed conversation labelled site does not fit the dictionary definition of conversation, being (quote), "a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged".

The massive problem is that without nutrient load reduction the GBR and coral worldwide is continuing to be devastated.

There is no scientific evidence to prove nutrient overload is not feeding algae killing coastal seagrass nurseries and reef coral.

At least here on this OLO site opinion can be expressed and ideas exchanged without editing.

Hi there JF AUS...

In the criminal law, in order to mount a case of corruption, police must first establish the receipt of a 'benefit' to which the accused is not entitled to receive. The word 'benefit' can mean anything of value, subject of ownership - much like one of the 'proofs' for common law larceny viz. 'something of value, property of another, without 'colour' of right'. In general terms this is what the prosecution (the Crown) must prove, in other words, the elements of the crime.

In many instances, corrupt conduct doesn't necessarily amount to the unlawful receipt of money. A 'favour' could amount to corrupt conduct, especially if the accused person is not entitled to receive that favour.

Furthermore, the individual who seeks to confer a favour, *knowing the recipient is NOT entitled to receive it; and nor is he *lawfully entitled to confer it, then he too can face criminal proceedings as well. In all instances of corrupt behaviour, there must always exist a *guilty knowledge* (mens rea), which is fundamental to all fraud matters.

Most instances of corruption require most adroit police (usually members attached to the fraud squad) in order to successfully prosecute an accused person.

Anyway, JF AUS, I hope this simple explanation goes in someway to assist you in understanding the ordinary elements, attached to corrupt conduct. Many thanks for your contribution.