View Single Post
Old 25th Nov 2014, 02:15
  #1492 (permalink)  
Frank Arouet
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Dark places.

It’s said the law is for everyone and justice is there for those that can afford it. This unfortunate truism manifests itself here regularly and the frustrations are obvious. It won’t be long until these frustrations boil over and somebody gets badly scalded.
When people are denied a redress of wrongs, or when people are subjected to vexatious attack, humiliation, they are lied to, had their time and effort wasted, lost employment and forced to become impecunious, have lost family and friends, become marginalised, treated in such a way that they end up with depressive and psychological issues, and society rejects them. If that leads them to attempt to seek redress and justice in alternative ways. It should be then asked, if that person resorts to alternative and illegal or violent means, can it be as a result of the actions of the antagonist?
Understanding depends on one’s ability to accept there is a problem in the first place. It’s a pity any normal theatre for redress is often denied defendants to the extent that many aviation problems can be due to a regulatory opinion outside a Court of law and involving a corruption in the prosecution, a simple peculiarity of an FOI or the breaking of chains of evidence, the loss of evidence, the obfuscations because of "safety" or "commercial in confidence" in discovery of documents or interrogatories that the matter ends up in the AAT as the final avenue of redress.
Assuming, as one example, someone has been prosecuted for not having a dust cap on one tyre, be it because it was not replaced after regular maintenance, stolen, or fell off in flight due to lack of tension applied in the replacement, and that prosecutor is CasA and the charge relates to safety breaches.
1) The offender has lost the opportunity to escape from further attention. Therefore the offender now has the problem and he’s unemployed.
2) Coping mechanisms fail due to any of the aforementioned problems in para 1.
3) There is escalation.
4) There is disobedience because of the pettiness of the prosecution.
5) There is a trigger.
6) There is violence/ explosion.
7) There is a lowering of tension.
8) A denial of a problem. (still unsure what problem).
9) Remorse.
10) Guilt.
(but the guilt is for the explosion and the violence, not the dust cap).
People who read this and can associate themselves with the experience will instantly see we are collectively at about para 3). Unless some means of redress is made available to those wronged, the public can expect to see the remainder of this table enacted simply because that’s how the human mind works. That’s why domestic violence continues, that’s why much disharmony exists in Australian society today. The Strict Liability tool left in the hands of Bureaucrats will continue to exacerbate this problem.
There is only a political solution to the problem and that Politician will carry the burden of whatever escalates if he doesn’t act soon.


He is the problem!
Frank Arouet is offline