Sunfish, Creamie et al,
You are now seeing a repeat performance of the NQAO's bag of dirty tricks.
There is either an unofficial Manual of Standards for dirty tricks,
or someone in HO is directing the game play.
The similarities in tactics go beyond coincidence, the similarity in the victim's longstanding history of safe operations,
the "losing" of their DOTRS contracts and awarding them to political friendly's may warrant closer scrutiny.
The same pattern of discrediting the operator to it's clients prior to AAT hearings is not new,
just the conduct of a rogue regulator aware of it's ability to act with impunity and without accountability.
Whilst there is not the political will for a Royal Commission, there is a genuine need.
Only then will the truth be revealed, and what could be exposed may shock.
While some posters have a problem with this new victim's possibly abrasive style,
or are just proponents of the Tall Poppy syndrome, CB and Polar are entitled
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and are entitled fair and impartial treatment.
That the possibility exists of political undertones in some of the regulator's activities
is something the naive may not understand.
No conspiracy theories, just the everyday facts of life, the election is over, the debts may have been settled.