Torres – Your propensity to volatility has clouded your objectivity.
The key issue here is not whether Mr Toller breached the rules, but how the regulator – who claims to be transparent and accountable in its decision-making – went about investigating and deciding upon what to do about the alleged breaches.
If Mr Toller received objectively justifiable treatment, following an objective investigation, then the government has no grounds upon which reasonably to refuse to disclose all the records. The refusal does not smack of a cover up: it is itself a cover up.
If you read the material in my thread about flying training AOCs, you will see that the regulator is merely going through the pretence of consultation before announcing a decision on which its mind has already been made up. Mr Toller appears to believe that only select people who will benefit from a proposed rule should be consulted about the proposed rule, and that he need only pay lip service – if that – to the views of the people whose interests may be adversely affected. The Office of Regulatory Review might beg to differ. How do we know that an analogous process with a similarly predetermined outcome did not occur in relation to the investigation of Mr Toller’s breaches?
And by the way, I know what Mr Sherman said about your position on the aircraft, in his report. Further, if you’re going to carry journalists around with you, you’re being a bit precious if you expect them not to tell what they observed.
In any case, your opinion about whether Mr Toller breached the rules is irrelevant.