Buckley and the Bakers dozen.
Just a few years ago, the Senate held an inquiry (ASIR)– this ended with the “Forsyth report' being presented; one which made some fairly 'heavy duty' recommendations. There are 13 threads within the AP forum which deal with or touch on an inglorious 'even' and the response. It was a serious attempt to draw attention the the bloody awful 'management' of matters aeronautical in this land. Alas, the only tangible result was government agencies discovered 'weak' defensive areas and moved, with some alacrity to 'plug' the gaps. The inquiry and report being first class; the response not so much. But the agency defenses were 'beefed' up; to somewhat akin to the Maginot Line, with Russian missile quality defence systems. Yeah BUT?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I hear the call of “Bull-shit” -however, I simply ask the 'serious' reader to search the forum for Pel-Air: ASIR : Forsyth Report : or even Karen Casey before diving deeply into the Buckley saga.
“The Icelandic sagas of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries average about 200 pages in modern printing.”
“A saga is a form of medieval literature originating from Norway and Iceland, chronicling the tales of heroic figures and family histories, primarily from the tenth to fourteenth centuries. The term "saga" comes from Old Norse, meaning "what is said" or "story," reflecting its narrative tradition.”
For those with patience and time the saga begins – HERE- on Pprune, The 'story' begins a while before the saga commenced. Who's to bless and whose is the blame is a vexed question; two sides to every story etc. However; in all of the Buckley missives, one 'claim' jumps off the recent pages.
“Additionally, as a resident of the Chisholm Electorate represented by Ms. Carina Garland, I note that approximately three years ago you issued a directive to Ms Garland instructing my local MP not to assist me with this matter. Last weeks, my Local MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland contacted me and has confirmed that this directive from Minister King remains in effect, precluding assistance with my allegations against the CASA CEO and two other CASA employees for providing false and misleading to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.”
That paragraph; if proven accurate – 'beyond reasonable doubt' – goes a long way down the road toward Buckley's claim of 'Embuggerance'. It begs the question; why would a sworn member of parliament need to be be persuaded (instructed?) to abandon a constituent, without being fully across both sides of the argument? We may then ask WHO persuaded the Minister to issue an imperative and importantly Why?
Buckley, like several others before him needed <$1,000,000 to mount a case: percentage changes of winning at about 10/1 odds on (red money). Not an option if you haven't got it. Whether ofr not the proposed 'system' and existing 'operations' were according to Hoyle has never been examined, in depth by 'industry' experts – only CASA FOI. Which drags in other questions demanding answers. It is a simple enough remit; the proposal is either 'legal' or or it ain't. Was it legal at the time? If not, then why didn't to FOI assessing say so and either close it down or, force a reset? Not much of this saga makes much sense to those who 'understand' how to set up and keep an operation compliant or; gain exemption.
As an industry; IMO it is both fair and reasonable that an accepted operation is 'Kosher' if not, then why not; and, the required corrections made. The whole thing defines a 'Buggers Muddle' – malice aforethought. A citizen must have access to their elected representative; after that it's up to the incumbent – not the minister. Outrageous and I believe undemocratic at very least.
I'll shut up now; been through this story before, many, too many times.
Toot - toot
Just a few years ago, the Senate held an inquiry (ASIR)– this ended with the “Forsyth report' being presented; one which made some fairly 'heavy duty' recommendations. There are 13 threads within the AP forum which deal with or touch on an inglorious 'even' and the response. It was a serious attempt to draw attention the the bloody awful 'management' of matters aeronautical in this land. Alas, the only tangible result was government agencies discovered 'weak' defensive areas and moved, with some alacrity to 'plug' the gaps. The inquiry and report being first class; the response not so much. But the agency defenses were 'beefed' up; to somewhat akin to the Maginot Line, with Russian missile quality defence systems. Yeah BUT?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I hear the call of “Bull-shit” -however, I simply ask the 'serious' reader to search the forum for Pel-Air: ASIR : Forsyth Report : or even Karen Casey before diving deeply into the Buckley saga.
“The Icelandic sagas of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries average about 200 pages in modern printing.”
“A saga is a form of medieval literature originating from Norway and Iceland, chronicling the tales of heroic figures and family histories, primarily from the tenth to fourteenth centuries. The term "saga" comes from Old Norse, meaning "what is said" or "story," reflecting its narrative tradition.”
For those with patience and time the saga begins – HERE- on Pprune, The 'story' begins a while before the saga commenced. Who's to bless and whose is the blame is a vexed question; two sides to every story etc. However; in all of the Buckley missives, one 'claim' jumps off the recent pages.
“Additionally, as a resident of the Chisholm Electorate represented by Ms. Carina Garland, I note that approximately three years ago you issued a directive to Ms Garland instructing my local MP not to assist me with this matter. Last weeks, my Local MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland contacted me and has confirmed that this directive from Minister King remains in effect, precluding assistance with my allegations against the CASA CEO and two other CASA employees for providing false and misleading to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.”
That paragraph; if proven accurate – 'beyond reasonable doubt' – goes a long way down the road toward Buckley's claim of 'Embuggerance'. It begs the question; why would a sworn member of parliament need to be be persuaded (instructed?) to abandon a constituent, without being fully across both sides of the argument? We may then ask WHO persuaded the Minister to issue an imperative and importantly Why?
Buckley, like several others before him needed <$1,000,000 to mount a case: percentage changes of winning at about 10/1 odds on (red money). Not an option if you haven't got it. Whether ofr not the proposed 'system' and existing 'operations' were according to Hoyle has never been examined, in depth by 'industry' experts – only CASA FOI. Which drags in other questions demanding answers. It is a simple enough remit; the proposal is either 'legal' or or it ain't. Was it legal at the time? If not, then why didn't to FOI assessing say so and either close it down or, force a reset? Not much of this saga makes much sense to those who 'understand' how to set up and keep an operation compliant or; gain exemption.
As an industry; IMO it is both fair and reasonable that an accepted operation is 'Kosher' if not, then why not; and, the required corrections made. The whole thing defines a 'Buggers Muddle' – malice aforethought. A citizen must have access to their elected representative; after that it's up to the incumbent – not the minister. Outrageous and I believe undemocratic at very least.
I'll shut up now; been through this story before, many, too many times.
Toot - toot