Not at all good Sir; perish the thought.
"V" - "K", to my reading, in your post #373, you seem to have adopted a line that effectively says, "let it rest".
Nope – not on your life will I “let it rest”; I was, clumsily it seems, pointing out that to tackle the ‘big end’ of government ‘legislation’ such as an Act is not a good course to take. In that the case will run up to a decade – if a case can ever be brought. The process is ‘consuming’ (mind, body, soul and time) and incredibly costly. No guarantee of a win and a stacked deck to boot.
To me, the matter is ‘criminal’. There was – in one form or another – ‘unlawful interference’ with the flight; by a person or persons unknown. Where the ‘lie’ lays is that the event has never been treated as such; not by Australia and most certainly not by Malaysia.
When an accident is not an accident"in those rare cases where there is clear evidence, or where there is reasonable proof, that an aviation accident was the result of unlawful interference the ATSB is required to promptly advise relevant authorities, such as the Australian Federal Police, the Office of Transport Security (within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Such an event does not meet the definitional requirements of an accident under Annex 13 and as such the ATSB would normally discontinue it's safety investigation.
"Aviation Law in Australia, 2013, Bartsch, 4th ed, pg 630.
"V" I do not have the time to reply in full now, as I have a full week ahead, and have to get moving, but put quickly, this was clearly a crime in my view, not an accident, no way it was a "bona-fide" accident, and all the governments know it. They clearly know what that crime was, why it was committed, and who the perpetrators were, and that is the "secret" that Hoody is "protecting".
Agreed, completely and utterly. Something is being ‘screened’ – filtered if you will. It is that information which will release the hounds. But how to get it? It is Catch 22, the perfect paradox.
At the most basic level, a paradox is a statement that is self contradictory because it often contains two statements that are both true, but in general, cannot both be true at the same time.
The only way to get the lid off is to (a) independently find the aircraft; or, (b) find unequivocal, empirical evidence to support a criminal event. All I was saying in a nutshell is don’t waste time, resources, energy and hope trying to take down the walls of the castle with a feather duster. Mark D Young, Mike Chillit and others are putting up a tremendous effort to ‘independently’ find the aircraft – now that I can and do fully support.
Toot toot.
"V" - "K", to my reading, in your post #373, you seem to have adopted a line that effectively says, "let it rest".
Nope – not on your life will I “let it rest”; I was, clumsily it seems, pointing out that to tackle the ‘big end’ of government ‘legislation’ such as an Act is not a good course to take. In that the case will run up to a decade – if a case can ever be brought. The process is ‘consuming’ (mind, body, soul and time) and incredibly costly. No guarantee of a win and a stacked deck to boot.
To me, the matter is ‘criminal’. There was – in one form or another – ‘unlawful interference’ with the flight; by a person or persons unknown. Where the ‘lie’ lays is that the event has never been treated as such; not by Australia and most certainly not by Malaysia.
When an accident is not an accident"in those rare cases where there is clear evidence, or where there is reasonable proof, that an aviation accident was the result of unlawful interference the ATSB is required to promptly advise relevant authorities, such as the Australian Federal Police, the Office of Transport Security (within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Such an event does not meet the definitional requirements of an accident under Annex 13 and as such the ATSB would normally discontinue it's safety investigation.
"Aviation Law in Australia, 2013, Bartsch, 4th ed, pg 630.
"V" I do not have the time to reply in full now, as I have a full week ahead, and have to get moving, but put quickly, this was clearly a crime in my view, not an accident, no way it was a "bona-fide" accident, and all the governments know it. They clearly know what that crime was, why it was committed, and who the perpetrators were, and that is the "secret" that Hoody is "protecting".
Agreed, completely and utterly. Something is being ‘screened’ – filtered if you will. It is that information which will release the hounds. But how to get it? It is Catch 22, the perfect paradox.
At the most basic level, a paradox is a statement that is self contradictory because it often contains two statements that are both true, but in general, cannot both be true at the same time.
The only way to get the lid off is to (a) independently find the aircraft; or, (b) find unequivocal, empirical evidence to support a criminal event. All I was saying in a nutshell is don’t waste time, resources, energy and hope trying to take down the walls of the castle with a feather duster. Mark D Young, Mike Chillit and others are putting up a tremendous effort to ‘independently’ find the aircraft – now that I can and do fully support.
Toot toot.