What a bizarre LMH this week.
Hitch - “But it seems that facts can be twisted more ways than a Rubik's Cube. On several occasions, evidence was delivered in good faith that was wrong or out of date.”
Seems to me Hitch should lay out his evidence of “wrong' or, out of date” and who it was wotdunit – “on several occasions”. Incorrect statement made or the telling of faerie tales to a Senate committee is a risky business and a fairly serious offence.
Hitch - There was very little new information presented; all of it was dredged up from as far back as the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), of which CASA was the target.
'Dredged' is a fairly derogatory descriptor. I'd not call the Hirst or McDermott evidence 'dredged' rather I'd call it excellent, clearly defined, compelling, well presented, fully factual, completely supported and pretty much 'Bang on'. “Much of it dating back to the ASRR” is a better way to describe a still open, untended wound. I'd say that was because despite the best efforts of the Senate RRAT committee, Sen. Fawcett and the Rev. Forsyth – despite the money invested – despite the time invested – despite over 60 recommendations being made – nothing has changed; so why should the 'evidence' change? CASA have simply ignored the ASRR, the minister, the Senate committee and the industry. Tut-tut Hitch.
Hitch - “I feel mostly for the senators, to whom has landed the job of centrifuging out all the agendas to leave only the true facts in the bowl. That's going to be a challenge for a group of people for which aviation is not their first language.”
No, no, no! – bad Hitch. That statement deserves a clip in it's ear. That Senate 'team' was not only on top of the game, fully bipartisan, united, but affronted. Watch the little segment where the lunatic requirements imposed on the chopper pilot check flights was kicked out of the paddock – then try and tell me this 'panel' were 'babes in the wood'. Bollocks; they were brilliant, well briefed and fully across the brief; and, not likely to swallow the 'wrong' information you hint at being presented. Call out your liars and fools Hitch; or, leave it alone.
Nope: no choc frog for Hitch this week. And so say all of us.
Toot - toot.
Hitch - “But it seems that facts can be twisted more ways than a Rubik's Cube. On several occasions, evidence was delivered in good faith that was wrong or out of date.”
Seems to me Hitch should lay out his evidence of “wrong' or, out of date” and who it was wotdunit – “on several occasions”. Incorrect statement made or the telling of faerie tales to a Senate committee is a risky business and a fairly serious offence.
Hitch - There was very little new information presented; all of it was dredged up from as far back as the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), of which CASA was the target.
'Dredged' is a fairly derogatory descriptor. I'd not call the Hirst or McDermott evidence 'dredged' rather I'd call it excellent, clearly defined, compelling, well presented, fully factual, completely supported and pretty much 'Bang on'. “Much of it dating back to the ASRR” is a better way to describe a still open, untended wound. I'd say that was because despite the best efforts of the Senate RRAT committee, Sen. Fawcett and the Rev. Forsyth – despite the money invested – despite the time invested – despite over 60 recommendations being made – nothing has changed; so why should the 'evidence' change? CASA have simply ignored the ASRR, the minister, the Senate committee and the industry. Tut-tut Hitch.
Hitch - “I feel mostly for the senators, to whom has landed the job of centrifuging out all the agendas to leave only the true facts in the bowl. That's going to be a challenge for a group of people for which aviation is not their first language.”
No, no, no! – bad Hitch. That statement deserves a clip in it's ear. That Senate 'team' was not only on top of the game, fully bipartisan, united, but affronted. Watch the little segment where the lunatic requirements imposed on the chopper pilot check flights was kicked out of the paddock – then try and tell me this 'panel' were 'babes in the wood'. Bollocks; they were brilliant, well briefed and fully across the brief; and, not likely to swallow the 'wrong' information you hint at being presented. Call out your liars and fools Hitch; or, leave it alone.
Nope: no choc frog for Hitch this week. And so say all of us.
Toot - toot.