QUESTIONS
Reading through this thread one question that pops up time and again is why?
As Glen has argued where is the Safety Case?
Where is the Compliance Case, and Compliance with what?An Opinion?or the Law?
Carmody smugly suggests that Glen is perfectly entitled to go to court, knowing full well that he has practically no chance of achieving justice against the financial might of the government. "The law is for everyone, justice is for them that can afford it" and even if he won the argument, he'd still lose the war.
The shear bloodyminded arrogance of Carmody's reply to Glen beggars belief. A public official snubbing his nose at a member of the public who he is allegedly paid a very large amount of money to serve, with no logical explanation defies belief. The implied threats contained within it, puts us all on notice that dissent nor complaint nor criticism will be tolerated. This is totalitarianism 101.
Is it not the duty of a member of the public to call out any perceived corruption?
In the real world Glen's dilemma would have the media climbing all over it, yet there seems to be nobody with the internal fortitude to pursue the issue.
Has the press been warned off, in much the same manner as Glen has been warned off?
There are laws I believe to protect the consumer, Glen is a consumer, where are the agencies that allegedly protect consumers from unfair practice in all this?
Could one suspect that Glen was mislead by his first CMT, in which case they were at fault, or were the next CMT looking for a brown paper bag?
It may simply be that the upper echelons of CAsA take some perverse pleasure in destroying businesses and lives.
Very little else makes much sense.