How could this happen?
 

How could it have happened that a dowsing rod worth some pennies gets sold to the military as an explosive detection device worth several tens of thousands per item...? how could it happen that nopbody realised how hilarious the explanation was that it was operated by static electricity, and how could it be that nobody cheked and found out that the primitive electric circuit has neither a memory that could hold software, nor has a processor that could analyse data?

This is one of the most hilarious stories I have heared since quite some time.

Hilarious it may be, but considering that thousands of these magical wands have been sold to Iraq, amongst other countries, and that statistically one must assume that numerous bombing attacks have been conducted becasue the preparation of the attack was not countered due to these rods being used and failed to detect explosives, one has to assume that dozens if not hundreds of people got killed due to this fraud.

Which makes it not a fraud, but assisting in mass murder. And that's what this bastard should be sued for. All authorities in the dfeense minsitry and military having participated in this deal, it's preparation and testing of the device, should be fired for incompetence. Whether they have to pay compensation, courts should examine.

This is dilletantism that stinks to heaven. And many heads should roll, as an example for others. Else next time there is a war troops get sent that are armed with marshmallow grenades and waterpistols.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/8471187.stm

They should have at least gone with the eco-friendly wooden divining rods. When you realize they are worthless for detecting anything, they can still make handy kindling for a fire. :D

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blo...%20rod%201.jpg

Ahh the joys of a "no-bid" contract.

This item could have its uses but hardly worth the $8K :nope:

Confiscate ALL revenues of the company, and jail the owner(s).

If it's a publicly traded company, jail the CEO, and confiscate ALL revenues.

After trial, and pending a guilty verdict, of course.

Next, bring all of those responsable for pissing away tax dollars, in purchasing these things, to trial for misappropriation of public funds.

Glad to see he has been arrested and his website taken down.
Despicable.

That IS good news.

Like being used as space taker-uppers in landfills like they should be.

He's free again, on bail.

Acceptable, eventually, only if the bail is of the ammount of all profits he has made by selling these things, plus his private savings, so that he has no reserves to flee. Which would mean the bail must be several dozens of millions.

If I were him, I would use the opportunity he has been given now, take the money that is left, and run.

He has bail because he is not convicted, has a known address, is not
likely to flee and is no threat to the public

We don't pay for bail in the UK.

A known adress means nothing if somebody decides to flee. Nobody can say or has an argument to claim that this fella is "unlikely to flee", and he already has proven that he is a threat to the public.

German papers reported yesterday that he was arrested, later freed on bail.

I don't imagine it is all that difficult to get some accurate profiling for that.

Not when he is not trading. I imagine that a condition of his bail is the
cessation of business.

No doubt this is the case, but all bail is free in the UK.

When you have a guy who has millions on his bank account or in his tresor and is expecting to get charged over massive fraud and who also has to take into account that he will be held respoinsible for the death of dozens if not hundreds of people, you do not need to profile him, for you have a first class motive for fleeing that is beyond any doubt.

He has committed fraud before, and now all of a sudden he will play by the rules in the future. What a relief to know.

??? If the bail is not to be payed, then it is no bail (Kaution). That is the meaning of the term, isn't it. "Released on bail" - getting freed but having to put a certain ammount of money as a bail.

According to this German wikipedia entry

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaution...land_und_Wales)

you have a bail system in England and Wales, and it means you have to pay money. It's just that according to the Bill of Rights of 1689 it is prohibited to fix the bail at too high levels that in practice often were used to prevent releases due to the bail being too high as if it could be payed.

you dont pay for bail? :o

Forget the bill of rights 1689! Look at the Bail act 1976.

You may be asked to find someone to stand surety. This means that
someone else promises to pay the court if you don't turn up. this is
someone else paying and the only pay if you don't turn up; not
before.

Occasionally, when no one can be found to stand surety, the
defendant will be asked to sign his own surety as a security, which is
often frozen in the defendant's bank account or is a house.
In some cases the court does not require surety or security for bail.

Does anyone still like, believe that the US wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are anything but a huge cluster**** that just keeps getting worse and worse? I mean, these wars are not that far from becoming a kind of generational war that just goes on and on with no sight of it actually ending. Maybe that was the original purpose, to start a 'perpetual war' in the Middle East.

Edit. And no, I don't care if it's Obama or that spawn of satan Bush at the helm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail#In_England_and_Wales

And no matter what the British laws and courts say, a bail that must not be handed over in advance or must not be proven by surety/security, is not a bail (=Kaution). In fact it renders the term "on bail" completely meaningless. A bail means a security that needs to be handed over in advance - that is inevitably part of the definition. It's the very meaning of the term, else it is a release woithout bail. A bail (or a legally valid surety that gets checked and assured by the authority) that is not to be handed out in advance, is not a bail. Like a penalty that is suspended is not a penalty, for the penalty does not take place: "only if in the future..." the subject with a suspended penlty is not punished, but under supervision, and that is something totally different from penalty, and it should not be called a suspended penalty - like a bail that must not brought in in advance is not a bail, but no bail at all.

As long as the dictionary does not translate bollocks here. German "Freilassung auf Kaution" in juristic context is translated as "released on bail", while German "Mietkaution" is translated as "x months' rent in advance/as a deposite." the German juristic concept (and meaning of the word "Kaution" in general) of bail equals that of "giving a security in advance/as a deposite".

the more i think of it the more I think that "Freilassung auf Kaution" und "release on bail" do not mean the same thing.

I vote give him his detector, and drop him off in the middle of a minefield.

:haha: :haha: :up:

Kinda reminds me of the sleazy contractors in the US Civil War who made a fortune selling the Union Army broken down horses that weren't fit for the glue factory, and shoddy shoes for the infantry that fell apart in the first rain. The ugly tradition of war profiteering marches on.

You accuse the British courts of using the wrong word in a language that isn't your first tongue? Has your arrogance no bounds?

That aside, what does the word matter? Roses by any other name smell
the same because language is the slave of meaning, not meaning the
slave of language. Meaning always precedes language.