Passing strange notions and good rulings.
Just reading through and pondering on the Ryan decision, the ignominious, invasive medical pro-forma and the kingdom of Shambollocks medical ethics. So, OK, you get done DUI and then, truthfully put that information on the medical form; the Pooh-Shambollic system grabs your signed confession, which it translates into "[is] of the view that Mr Ryan may have a problem with alcohol abuse." (my bold).
You would think that going from the "may have" supposition, to the absolutely proven "has" would have some bearing. But no, off to the AAT ($5000 minimum) to get a ruling so that only the system may determine, from quarterly blood tests whether or not Ryan can hold his ticket, this all to be done without reference to 'independent' impartial advice.
It's a flawed argument, based on supposition, deceit, and quite possibly 'entrapment'.
It's poor medicine, it's punishment without proof that physiologically and psychologically, beyond reasonable doubt that one (or even two) DUI a dipsomaniac makes. However, once your brief has been pulled, rehabilitation is your problem. Now the amount of 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence you must provide to regain your licence (AAT) bears no resemblance, whatsoever, to the pathetic "may have" supposition used to take it away.
Deputy President P E Hack is to be complimented on having enough nouse to throw the silly little bugger out of court, 'research' and all; a flea in his ear would have been just great, but I'll take the win. The deeper I look into the Avmed rock pool, the more alarmed I become; there really are some true 'horror stories' out there in the kingdom of Shambollocks.
Toot toot
Last edited by Kharon; 8th Aug 2014 at 21:43.
Reason: Not a real anaphora, but I tried...Churchill was a master of the art.