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
