Dear John' -
Sub Rosa – mate; three CASA officials (one Board, two Operational) have dropped a rather large Bollock; and, the boomerang is on its return leg through the ICC. I've put the word in; quietly, but we need a 'get out of jail' missive to confound and confuse the matter. Can you oblige? Thanks mate, see you Wednesday for naked Backgammon and Kool Aide. Yours in mutual Corporate cooperation. Cheers.
-::-
Carter - “I note that the information provided is based upon CASA conducting a review of its records and available information.
Carter - “While we are reasonably confident it is an accurate summation of the position this task has been conducted in the time allowed and if further information should come to hand then CASA will notify you accordingly.”
Seriously? We are expected to believe that the subtle comments made by the ICC are based on the old adage “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” shall set you free: BOLLOCKS....
104 -“There is no scope for Board members to be involved in the issuing of permissions.”
- However, read on.
107 - “This is problematic in that from a Board member’s attempts to facilitate effective interaction s 47F Released under the Freedom of Information Act and co-operation with industry, there is a very real risk that a third party could reasonably form the view that a Board member’s facilitation or encouragement has created an advantage or benefit for the industry or industry participant.”
No kidding?- - However, read on.
109. “It is apparent that Mr Bridge facilitated effective interaction and co-operation between CASA and the crocodile egg collection industry.”
Apparent? – obvious typo – Transparent transmogrified in support of BOLLOCKS.
109 a. “Mr Carmody noted to Mr Mathews that he had been approached by Mr Bridge on behalf of about load certification for crocodile egg collection.”
109 b -”In March 2021, Mr Bridge arranged for Mr Crawford (as acting DAS) to meet with Mr and helicopter operators involved in crocodile egg collection to demonstrate the sophistication of their operations and equipment, and to discuss the status of ’ STC application.”
The 'gruesome twosome' of 'dubious and questionable memory' ; sent North to assess things that matter to the safety of operations. The pair that blithely ignored the Broome operation; certification for small matters like 'sling load' qualifications; fast rope rappelling and several 'other' safety based' matters which demanded compliance – or No operations. Aye, of all the choices CASA had – Well you know the rest.
112. However, based on how the relevant correspondence reads, it would also be open to a third party to reasonably form the view that Mr Bridge has a close association with which could (but did not) influence the performance of his duties and responsibilities, constituting a perceived conflict of interest.
'Not guilty' – Short and satisfactory - so says the established proforma; however, and Kudos to the ICC. Note the points following in 113 sketch out just how close to the wind the whole thing was running. Not a problem, not until the wheels come off: and, inevitably – they did. This what they must do when the nuts are loose and fitted by amateurs without skill, integrity, respect for real operational safety and suitable operational knowledge.
113. “The reason a third party could reasonably form that view when considering the following in conjunction, or as a series of events:”
Para' a. to e. pretty much spell out what could be construed, by the man at the back of the room as a lack of corporate integrity or competence or even native common sense. The breathtaking arrogance of it all is, well: breathtaking. No matter; just so long as the ministers bustle ain't ruffled – faites vos jeux - then - Rien de plus.
Toot – toot...
Sub Rosa – mate; three CASA officials (one Board, two Operational) have dropped a rather large Bollock; and, the boomerang is on its return leg through the ICC. I've put the word in; quietly, but we need a 'get out of jail' missive to confound and confuse the matter. Can you oblige? Thanks mate, see you Wednesday for naked Backgammon and Kool Aide. Yours in mutual Corporate cooperation. Cheers.
-::-
Carter - “I note that the information provided is based upon CASA conducting a review of its records and available information.
Carter - “While we are reasonably confident it is an accurate summation of the position this task has been conducted in the time allowed and if further information should come to hand then CASA will notify you accordingly.”
Seriously? We are expected to believe that the subtle comments made by the ICC are based on the old adage “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” shall set you free: BOLLOCKS....
104 -“There is no scope for Board members to be involved in the issuing of permissions.”
- However, read on.
107 - “This is problematic in that from a Board member’s attempts to facilitate effective interaction s 47F Released under the Freedom of Information Act and co-operation with industry, there is a very real risk that a third party could reasonably form the view that a Board member’s facilitation or encouragement has created an advantage or benefit for the industry or industry participant.”
No kidding?- - However, read on.
109. “It is apparent that Mr Bridge facilitated effective interaction and co-operation between CASA and the crocodile egg collection industry.”
Apparent? – obvious typo – Transparent transmogrified in support of BOLLOCKS.
109 a. “Mr Carmody noted to Mr Mathews that he had been approached by Mr Bridge on behalf of about load certification for crocodile egg collection.”
109 b -”In March 2021, Mr Bridge arranged for Mr Crawford (as acting DAS) to meet with Mr and helicopter operators involved in crocodile egg collection to demonstrate the sophistication of their operations and equipment, and to discuss the status of ’ STC application.”
The 'gruesome twosome' of 'dubious and questionable memory' ; sent North to assess things that matter to the safety of operations. The pair that blithely ignored the Broome operation; certification for small matters like 'sling load' qualifications; fast rope rappelling and several 'other' safety based' matters which demanded compliance – or No operations. Aye, of all the choices CASA had – Well you know the rest.
112. However, based on how the relevant correspondence reads, it would also be open to a third party to reasonably form the view that Mr Bridge has a close association with which could (but did not) influence the performance of his duties and responsibilities, constituting a perceived conflict of interest.
'Not guilty' – Short and satisfactory - so says the established proforma; however, and Kudos to the ICC. Note the points following in 113 sketch out just how close to the wind the whole thing was running. Not a problem, not until the wheels come off: and, inevitably – they did. This what they must do when the nuts are loose and fitted by amateurs without skill, integrity, respect for real operational safety and suitable operational knowledge.
113. “The reason a third party could reasonably form that view when considering the following in conjunction, or as a series of events:”
Para' a. to e. pretty much spell out what could be construed, by the man at the back of the room as a lack of corporate integrity or competence or even native common sense. The breathtaking arrogance of it all is, well: breathtaking. No matter; just so long as the ministers bustle ain't ruffled – faites vos jeux - then - Rien de plus.
Toot – toot...