I am surprised at your change of heart considering your past statements on this thread, and all are entitled to a change of mind or opinion if circumstances warrant this. After all, is this not what an intellect is for.
Do you withdraw your quote? I would hope so, as your reposting of the contents still support your attitude that the SA Government supports theft. You do state that a crime took place, and if approved by the state, then they are culpable in its commission. You could not have been clearer. If you are not in agreement with their decision then why not just say so. There is no need for your attempt to stir up anti SA sentiments so that your personal gains may be fulfilled.
I have also spoken to many Canadians, South Africans etc, who are of the opinion that SUF and a few supporters have attempted to engineer, what is a simple and straight forward business deal, to one of global importance. They found it amusing that a R 50 M reward for lost documents has been offered, another notch added to SUF blunders. Professional people have judged this action for what it is worth. A complete joke. It would be far better to go out in a blaze of glory than be the butt of a joke. I hear that an offer to CJ is forthcoming, that a second Shroud of Turin is been offered, supported with forged papers. You have to hand it to him though, a sure winner!
The answers to your questions are as follows.
1/ Not De Beers.
2/ De Beers have not completed their DD on the M1.
3/ Ask De Beers.
4/ To provide a balanced view.
5/ SUF's comments have been anti-SA.
6/ Why not?
7/ I am not an heir, but the first posting reflected all the facts which occurred up to the date of the posting. I have a close relationship with some of the heirs and it was suggested that the proper facts be presented, as SUF had only presented a distorted and false view of the events.
If you had read my first posting, you would have noted the exact dates, times, who attended meetings and what was discussed. Read them again.
SUF lost in their bid under section 17 and will lose in their attempt to expropriate in terms of section 24. I was correct in the first place and see no reason why it would not apply in the second one.
The problem here is that CJ has made this a personal crusade against De Beers, and has ignored business sense. He was in a position to close a deal, at a considerably lower amount that he has now agreed on, but ignored it. He is not mining the M1, his share value has dropped, and after his latest desperate action, cannot be taken seriously.
|
