Wayne Moore –"Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting."
The sentence quoted above is part of a nicely constructed paragraph, which pretty well sums up many of the 'issues' and highlights one of the 'real' problem areas. This catch cry of 'identified safety risk' or 'imminent danger to navigation'; however it's phrased, "what" is to be considered 'dangerous' is not clearly defined or qualified. Back a couple of pages, we see a letter written to Bill Smith where it is stated that he 'may present a danger'. The subjective nature of what may be perceived as a 'danger' allows the unscrupulous a mile of wriggle room and there are no checks and balances to prevent the arbitrary notion being translated into "show cause". (Abandon all hope, ye who enter here).
If we can ever just get one part of the 'regulations' changed, this would be it. No one should ever be allowed to arbitrarily declare a person is 'a danger'. Think of it this way – you are driving through the main drag, looking for a park; suddenly a kid runs out in front of the car: slam on brakes, bark at kid, recover cool and toddle off, no probs. Now that kids Mum decides you were dangerous and complains to that effect. The Coppers can't just decide to back Mum's hysterical reaction, they can't suspend your license and they most certainly cannot drag you to a court and expect you to prove that you are not dangerous, not in this scenario anyway. CASA not only can, but will and do, as, when and as often as pleases.
Judge. "Can you prove this?"
IOS. "Evidence M'lud, Oh yes, which one of the two dozen case files would you like to start with?, may we suggest Quadrio as a classic example of bastardry, or perhaps Hempel, for the reverse view".
Problem is getting the whole shooting match to a venue to be heard. The Minuscule and the WLR was a good start; but if the regulator (a serial offender) is to be 'truly' rehabilitated, the misuse of arbitrary declarations must be examined, in depth and charges brought against those that dabble in these atrocities; to ensure the lessons are learnt, good and proper.
There have been some true abominations created through this widespread practice. A 'declared a danger' should be only be issued through at least three independent assessments (one legal) and signed off at executive level; not just left to likes of Wodger and his two best mates. It is a serious charge and with the reverse onus, a tough one to beat.
This is the danger subtended through the CVD issue; it serves to reinforce the 'arbitrary' decision process into a normalised deviance. Bill Smith should not have to prove he is safe – CASA must prove, beyond reasonable doubt that he is, indeed a danger. It must be 'beyond reasonable doubt', because it's a career at stake; balance of probabilities ain't good enough for ending a mans ability to work in his chosen profession. Not by a long shot...There's more at stake here than a quibble over a few words, split infinitives and what colour your socks are (or are not).
Selah –.-