|By Don_Walsh on Sunday, May 06, 2001 - 10:07 pm: Edit|
Well, their specific responsibility was to log the rough sapphires in and out of the company vault. So it sure seems like they had to be involved in the diversion and smuggling of the large amount of rough that never made it onto the company books.
But nothing compared to the company principals, of course, who I ought to add were not Australians but Europeans. And my pals in the colored stone business tell me, this is exactly the same pattern of operations that these folks have engaged in everywhere else they have gotten a concession to mine.
So, I suspect that once the LaoPDR government files charges against the Danes, the Australian Foreign Ministry will lose a lot of their present interest in the case. Except for normal consular services of course.
|By Frater_Carfax on Sunday, May 06, 2001 - 07:54 pm: Edit|
Yes, I suspect that the Danes are not "completely innocent" of any wrong doing- trying to walk out of Laos with a suitcase full of money is not the most intelligent course of action.
|By Don_Walsh on Friday, May 04, 2001 - 07:44 am: Edit|
Frater, just as in thaumaturgy the magus's and lawyer's swords always cut both ways You may get the door opened or slammed in your nose. But I wish you every luck!!
Meanwhile let's also hope that Australia and Laos resolve their differences over the detention of the couple in Vientiance. My own spies tell me the Danes are guilty as shit, but not as guilty as the company principals who escaped and very conveniently gave the Laos officlals a letter 'appointing' the Danes as the authorized successors as management.
|By Frater_Carfax on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 11:57 pm: Edit|
On matters regulatory....
I've been in contact with the Australian/New Zealand Food Authorities regarding the inconsistency in having artmesia spp as a prohibited herbal additive under the new food code because of the oil of wormwood prohibition in our customs regs- I questioned whether they intended to take Vermouth and Campari off the shelves anytime soon.
They replied to me acknowledging that this is an inconsistency and they have brought this matter to the attention of their lawyers to find the best solution to the matter. As the new Food Code is still in a transition phase they intend to try to remedy the situation.
With luck we may see changes to both the customs prohibited import regs and food code for Australia.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
It gets worse. I looked up the referenced regulation, and it isn't a list of ingedients but rules for types of ingredients. Furthermore another reg is referenced, and this one has hundreds of amendments. Literally hundreds. Clearly EU law is for a dedicated specialist. It gives me a bloody headache.
|By Rtlplus3 on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 11:11 pm: Edit|
Thanks for the on going education. Who would have thought that enjoying ones drink could have become so complicated.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 05:17 pm: Edit|
Here's the relevant reg. I was wrong about the amer having a max of 10 g sugar per liter, unless this is covered in the other reg cited below. The pastis section does specify <100 g/L though. The EU regs are confusing as hell, apparently intentionally so.
(4) For an aniseed-flavoured spirit drink to be called anis, its characteristic flavour must be derived exclusively from anise (pimpinella anisum) and/or star anise (illicium verum) and/or fennel (foeniculum vulgare). The name 'distilled anis' may be used if the drink contains alcohol distilled in the presence of such seeds, provided such alcohol constitutes at least 20 % of the drink's alcoholic strength.
Bitter-tasting spirit drinks or bitter:
Spirit drinks with a predominantly bitter taste produced by flavouring ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin with natural and/or nature-identical flavouring substances as defined in Article 1 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) of Directive 88/388/EEC and/or flavouring preparations as defined in Article 1 (2) (c) of that Directive.
The drinks may also be marketed as 'amer' or bitter with or without another term.
This provision shall not affect the possible use of the terms 'amer' for bitter for products not covered by this Article.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 05:03 pm: Edit|
A liqueur d'anis amer, by EU regulation, contains not more than 1/10 the maximum sugar allowance of a pastis, which is 100 g per liter. So there should be 10 g or less sugar in Versinthe if it is an amer. (I am going by memory, but I posted the relevant EU regulation here a short while back, so it is easy to look up.)
So: it isn't pastis, nor is it amer, nor is it absinthe, it's another oddball unAbsinthe.
Not to say it isn't nice to drink.
|By Tabreaux on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 04:36 pm: Edit|
I agree, as I like Versinthe. It doesn't taste like absinthe, but it doesn't taste bad.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 04:30 pm: Edit|
It is, however, tasty and worth drinking on its own merits.
|By Tabreaux on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 04:05 pm: Edit|
Versinthe is not pastis, but is considered to be 'anis amer', which implies that it is a bitter anise liqueur. If there is any bitterness there, it is completely obscured by the heavy sugar concentration. Rest assured that Versinthe and other modern anis drinks bear much more resemblence to modern pastis and the like as opposed to absinthe.
|By Rtlplus3 on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 02:34 pm: Edit|
I have browsed the old threads in regards to Versinthe and still have questions.
The forum states contrary to the Manufacturer statement that it is not Absinthe but is a Pastis."Versinthe is not a Pastis but its noble ancestor." Now trust me just because they state this does not mean I believe it.
So here my confusion lies.
Has Versinthe been tested for A.A. content?
Are they being discreet?
Are they making false statements?
If I've missed the answers to these questions in the old threads forgive me.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation