Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
It would be incredibly poor form on anyone’s part. It would also be incredibly stupid form on the part of a bureaucrat. But the key word is “false”. That involves knowledge of inaccuracy and intent to make the allegations nonetheless.
I have no first-hand knowledge of the circumstances, but if I had to speculate I’d say Mr Carmody’s explanation will be that some of CASA’s staff ‘felt uncomfortable’ or ‘felt stressed’ when dealing with Mr Buckley, and that when Mr Carmody tried to summarise that in the short time available on 20 Nov he “inadvertently chose words that some might consider inaccurate” because of his “unwavering commitment to and focus on providing a safe workplace for staff”. That, or some equivalently exquisite sophistry to downplay the seriousness of what the words meant and to put in a good light the motivation for using them.
(As an aside, I’d confidently predict that Mr Buckley would prefer to have had zero dealings with CASA staff and instead have been able to just get on with APTA’s business. The frequent interactions with CASA staff were necessitated by the requirements imposed by CASA! I’d be ‘bothering’ CASA frequently and insistently, if my business survival depended on getting ‘ticks’ in numerous CASA-imposed ‘boxes’, particularly if I was paying fees for the exercise.)
Or maybe Mr Carmody will provide (1) details of when he and the staff concerned reported Mr Buckley’s behaviour to police and applied for AVOs, and (2) an estimate of when Mr Carmody understands prosecution action will likely commence. An unwavering commitment to providing a safe workplace for staff would, surely, involve at least reports to police and applications for AVOs if CASA staff are, in fact, being stalked and assaulted.
LB
Point taken on semantics of language.
Look at how smarting and pleased Mr Carmody appears to be with himself with what I perceive to be getting 1 up on senator McDonald around the 12.35 mark.