Quote:
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
Pretty sure you're saying you don't like the women in the CSJ.....
|
.... so I didn't say I don't like "women cops" (OR "women in the CSJ"). Thanks.
The have-nots frequently proclaim the "haves" possess an advantage in the CJS.
It may have nothing to do with what the "have," but more to do with how they got what they "have." I'm "pretty sure" those that "have" avoid lurking for providers on BP and stick with the providers whose credentials have been "verified" by legitimate powers to be, thereby reducing their risks of exposure to the CJS.
There are "exceptions" to most, if not all rules, and the "Halliburton" exec is one, although the basis for the ultimate decision was not publicly disclosed, but was "presumed" to be based on his "status" as a "have."
Red light cameras is another good example. Not speeding through intersections where they are located reduces one's risk of being photographed.
Could it be those who are whining the loudest about the CJS are the "have nots"?