Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
This seems to me to be sophistry:If the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw conclusions about the comparative legality of two different CASA approaches, the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw a conclusion about the legality of the current approach in isolation. It’s patently clear that the substance of Mr Buckley’s complaint is that he should be able to continue to do what he was encouraged by CASA to believe was a lawful activity. And in true CASA tradition, who’s blamed for the outcome? The complainant.
The ICC is just a hurdle to getting immediate access to the Ombudsman. Not surprisingly, the Ombudsman describes CASA as being amongst the Ombudsman’s ‘frequent flyers’ i.e. the agencies against whom many complaints are made.
Speaking of sophistry, in 2015/16 of the 31,191 within jurisdiction approaches the Ombudsman received, It initiated no investigations into CASA. In 2016/17, 3 investigations of CASA were initiated from the 34,606 within jurisdiction approaches. In 2017/18 it was 1 in 38,206. Annual reports for the 2018/19 aren’t out yet.
Never let easily verifiable facts get in the way of a good argument.