Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

Old 4th Jun 2019, 23:14
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 311
[color=left=#000000]a flagrant breach of the law[/color]
Sunfish if this was the case, how was the operation allowed to operate for 18 months and get through a CASA audit in that time?

A change in CMT to a hostile one seems more accurate as to what I have seen here.
Dangly Bits is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2019, 01:51
  #82 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 360
SAFETY APPEAL TO THE CASA BOARD

Dear Mr Anthony Matthews, I am writing to you in my role as the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance.

As you will be aware, I have made multiple requests to meet with the Board, none have been responded to by the Board .

Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board.

As the complaints were against his Department, I feel that displayed inappropriate conduct on his behalf, and I have been denied procedural fairness, hence I am making one final appeal to the Board of CASA.

As you are aware, I advised the Board of my loss of trust and confidence in CASA, some time ago and I asked for direction. The Board chose not to respond to me. I did point out to the Board that my allegations were of a substantive nature and I drew the Boards attention to my expectation on them to ensure good governance. In my opinion that has not occurred, and hence this correspondence.

I am going public with this correspondence in order to compel you to respond.

For perfect clarity;

CASA has failed to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of CASA in the Civil Aviation Act. The General Aviation sector (Charter and Flying Training), will concur wholeheartedly with that statement.

That failure to achieve that negatively impacts on safety and negatively impacts on business, and most particularly in regional areas.

Combine that with an environment where some personnel in CASA decide to act outside the requirements and obligations placed on them byo

The PGPA Act
CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
The Ministers Statement of Expectations
CASAs enforcement manual
The requirements of Administrative Law

and you have a “perfect storm”. I am on the receiving end of that storm and it compromises flight safety to such an extent that I am compelled to act. Therefore, as I have requested on multiple occasions previously, may I meet with at least any two members of the Board, at any location within Australia within the next 7 days. As this is a matter of Aviation Safety it is essential that timelines are not unnecessarily protracted.

Failing the Boards ability to facilitate that request, I will make an appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Mc Cormack, although multiple requests to him have previously been completely ignored, I will try again, and give him 7 days to facilitate my request.

Failing the Deputy Prime Ministers’ ability to facilitate a meeting, I will be forced to significantly escalate this matter, and will draw on the wider industry for guidance.

My matters are not only related to me, and the compromise to safety affects the GA industry at both the Charter and Flying training levels. The issues are critical, and they must be addressed. My businesses experience provides a perfect example of how CASA actions can negatively impact safety and I am well prepared to fully prosecute my case. I look forward to receiving a prompt response,



Safe Skies for All, respectfully, Glen Buckley.
glenb is online now  
Old 5th Jun 2019, 04:33
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
"Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board."

Wow that's a revelation Glen. Mr Crawford decides who the board may talk to and who they can't, which begs the question what are we paying large sums of money for a board at all if they can only see what the managers of CAsA feeds them? This harks back to allegations a CEO was sharing toothbrushes with the Complaints Commissioner. No wonder he never saw any complaints.

I also have trepidations regarding CAsA's reluctance to produce documents under the FOI act.

I could understand it if it was ASIO or the military, National security and all that. Do CAsA have any role in the spook business other than the current director of safeties involvement in the past. What National Secrets are CAsA hiding? Their attempts to gain access to citizens META Data was I believe knocked back, a bridge too far so to speak, but one has to wonder just what they are hiding, because lack of transparency is a clear sign of corruption I believe?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2019, 00:01
  #84 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 360
Follow up correspondence to Board

Dear Mr Tony Mathews and Board Members of CASA

Should you grant me the opportunity to present APTAs case to you, may I respectfully request something of you prior to that meeting.

As you are aware, I believe four personnel within CASA have displayed unconscionable conduct. It is only my opinion , and that has not been tested.

On 29/10/18 I sent a letter to my Regional Manager in preparation for a scheduled meeting with CASA the next day. The meeting had been scheduled for an earlier time, but the Acting Regional Manager postponed the original meeting. He explained he was new to the position, wasn’t all over it, and had to meet with his personnel. As he had signed the letter, that alone raised significant concerns in my mind. I sent an extensive letter, containing the following excerpt to the Acting Regional Manager,

The way this has been handled indicates to me a level of confusion that exists within CASA and not within my own organisation. Therefore, I feel it reasonable that CASA nominate the Subject Matter Expert (SME) from the Team, most likely Mr Smithers (name changes) to commence Tuesdays meeting with a simple overview of “how we operate”. That will assist me to identify where the misunderstandings are and clear up any confusion before we proceed on to the more substantive contents of the meeting. I believe this request to be fair and reasonable. You have all the material, by way of our manuals, and have previously been provided with the contracts, so I will leave you to guide this meeting.”


At that meeting the next day with 5 CASA personnel assembled, not one person was prepared to talk about how we operated. The reason. Quite simply because they had no idea, and had made no attempt to find out. That clearly demonstrates a complete lack of good intention on behalf of CASA, and I will shortly provide supporting evidence. As the matter progressed, and the matter snowballed through CASA, I was facilitated a meeting with Mr Wiggum (name changed). As a precursor to that meeting I sent him an email, and I post it below,

It is absolutely essential however that the meeting, does resolve the issue as to whether we are operating with an “arms length agreement” and whether the Aviation ruling is a valid basis for the CASA action. Can I make a well intentioned suggestion that will demonstrate quite clearly to you, the deficiencies within CASA. Ask either Mr Smithers or Mr Skinner (names changes) to explain how we introduce a new base. A good example would be to ask them to describe how we activated the Ballina base and the procedures we adopted? Who attended on site for training from APTA? How long did we stay? Did APTA personnel meet with the CAGRO for the airport? Did we meet with the fire and emergency services. Were the Prof checks conducted in Melbourne or were they conducted in Ballina and why? How we attend to the FSM training. Was our Group Safety Manager able to attend on site. Seriously Mr Wiggum, please ask them anything. I believe that no-one from my CMT has got absolutely any idea, and quite seriously, I mean nothing. That was done many months ago, so I would expect that they have at least some idea. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to ask of you what their answers are. But I would ask that you compare answers with mine. You will have a very clear understanding of the deficiency, very quickly. Unfortunately, the misunderstandings and confusion exist within CASA, and not within my own organisation, and that is why we are in this current situation. If you decide to ask either Mr Smithers or Mr Skinner, could I respectfully request that you give them some time to consider their response to you, and I have no concerns with you giving them a heads up today of your requirements. Thank you again for your approach, regards. Glen Buckley.

At that meeting with Mr Wiggum, I was not given the opportunity to present my answers. You will recall, I did not need to know the respondent’s answers, I wanted only the opportunity to give my answers and allow him to compare the answers. The fact that I assume he did not do that, is in fact a critical failure in the process, as that would have highlighted the deficiency. It would have given him the opportunity to resolve the matter then and there, but a decision was made not to pursue that course of action. Therefore, the same opportunity that I presented over 7 months ago, is now presented to the Board. Perhaps the starting point for the Board, is a presentation by the CASA personnel concerned, as once again I feel they will not be able to provide you with substantive answers.

As a further suggestion to reinforce my allegations. The underpinning oversight and compliance tool that we use is a system referred to as “Flight School Manager”. The standard system was not suitable for the high level of oversight required across numerous bases, and that system is in fact the backbone of organisation. Would any of the personnel I have nominated be able to nominate any of the upgrades that were undertaken by the Developer to facilitate our safety and compliance obligations. I suggest not.

There were a number undertaken over an extended period of time, and they are integral to countering CASAs argument. Could they explain any of those. I hope this correspondence is received in the manner it is intended. I am merely trying to expedite processes that have a significant impact. Thanking you in anticipation of an open-minded approach to my concerns,

Respectfully, Glen

Last edited by glenb; 6th Jun 2019 at 00:05. Reason: struggling with Word to Prune
glenb is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 02:29
  #85 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 360
To the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Mr Mc Cormack.

I write to you in your role as the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development, and as the person responsible for aviation safety in Australia.

My name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA). I am writing to you on important matters of aviation safety, allegations of misuse of public funds within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and allegations of unconscionable conduct displayed by at least 5 individuals within CASA. The conduct of those individuals compromises aviation safety, compromises regulatory compliance, and compromises people’s livelihoods. I have been involved in the flight training sector for 25 years, the last 15 years as the owner of a flight training organisation. CASA records will clearly support my contention that my operations have been well intentioned, safe, and compliant. I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in my field, and I am qualified to make the statements that I make.

I stand fully behind everything I say. My assertions can be supported by well documented evidence. I understand that I am fully accountable for the statements that I make, they are being made in the interests of aviation safety, they must be responded to.

Although I am initiating this correspondence as an individual business owner, and drawing only on my own personal experience, I am confident my experiences will be shared by the entire General Aviation (GA) sector of the Industry. For those not familiar with the term “GA”, it includes almost all flying in Australia that is not airline flying, and GA flying is predominantly conducted in propeller driven aircraft. i.e. carrying freight and passengers in smaller aircraft, flying training, community flights, agricultural work, private flying etc. It also includes all the maintenance organisations, spare parts, refuellers and admin personnel that work in that industry sector supporting those safe operations.

My allegations are substantive and not limited to the following.

Breaches of obligations under the PGPA Act to use public resources responsibly

The aviation industry has a legislative program introduced by CASA referred to as Part 61/141/142. It was introduced a decade behind schedule, and is universally acknowledged as an absolute and complete failure. That component alone is estimated to have cost every Australian family $100. It is only one component of a much larger and mismanaged regulatory reform program that has cost both the taxpayer and industry an unacceptable amount, and this matter continues to escalate at an alarming rate. This issue must be addressed.

It can be demonstrated that CASA consistently choose the more costly option, when a more effective solution is available. In my own organisation, CASA have made decisions that have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and taxpayers substantially more, when a simple well-intentioned conversation would have achieved the same outcome. I have many well documented examples. My experiences are not unique.

CASAs failure to achieve “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. This failure impacts on safety.

Critical to my assertions is an understanding that the Civil Aviation Act states the very first function of CASA as: “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards”.

There is no doubt that CASA have totally and completely failed against this core function, and industry will unilaterally support that statement. I strongly encourage the Government to do a random sample of 50 rural based, and 50 city-based GA businesses. You will find that in excess of 90% of respondents will support my contention that CASA have failed. If 90% of road users felt the road rules were so disjointed that they couldn’t understand them, we would have a major safety issue on our roads.

In the interests of aviation safety, and jobs, CASA must deliver rules and regulations that are clear and concise. For a clear demonstration of this significant issue. Ask someone from CASA to verbally answer this question, what activities can be delivered as an independent instructor? Then ask them to demonstrate how they arrived at that answer as they step you through the associated legislation. It is so complicated that it is truly akin to fraud. It’s simply not fair to deliver rules to a sector if the intended recipients cannot understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. It is actually incumbent on CASA to deliver clear and concise aviation safety standards. That failure directly impacts on safety.

Personnel within CASA displaying” unconscionable conduct”

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website states criteria to determine unconscionable conduct. Those criteria include;
  • The relative bargaining strength of the Parties.
  • Whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker Party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger Party
  • Whether the weaker party could understand the documentation being used.
  • The use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party.
  • The requirements of applicable industry codes. (i.e. CASAs Regulatory Philosophy, requirements of the Civil Aviation Act, the Ministers Statement of Expectations, requirements of Administrative Law, CASAs Enforcement Manual and section 2 of the Australian Public Service Commission website.
  • The willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
  • The extent to which Parties acted in good faith.
From my own personal experience, I believe I can clearly demonstrate that 5 personnel within the Aviation Group of CASA headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford, have made decisions that demonstrate unconscionable conduct i.e. reasonable people making decisions primarily on aviation safety could not reasonably arrive at the same decisions as these individuals. This conduct has substantially impacted on me and my business. Previous approaches to your office have not been responded to, so I am simultaneously releasing this correspondence to other persons, including but not limited to, the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Honourable Catherine King MP. As this is a matter of aviation safety, and includes allegations of misconduct within CASA, I would call on bipartisan political support to work towards a solution that improves aviation safety across the GA industry, improves regulatory compliance, supports business, and encourages jobs in rural areas.

I am also advising that I make myself fully available to any media form, that is prepared to pursue this matter. It is a matter of aviation safety, and breaches of the PGPA Act, and inappropriate conduct in a Government Department, all of which impact on every Australian. My only request is that CASA be given the full right of reply to any allegations I make in the media.

These matters are significant. I have made repeated attempts to meet with the Board of CASA over the last 6 months, and all requests have been completely ignored. I have sent correspondence to your office on two occasions, and that correspondence has also been ignored. I feel I have no other option available to me, other than going public.

The purpose of this letter is to ensure I am given an opportunity to meet with yourself, or a nominee from your Department. I would like to attend that meeting and provide documentary support of all my claims. I respectfully request that the Honourable Catherine King, or her nominee be given the opportunity to attend that meeting. I would also call on two industry body representatives to attend in an observer role only. They would not have input into the meeting. My sincere hope is that you will attend to this matter as it deserves. At this stage I am requesting the opportunity to be heard. Failing that opportunity being provided to me, I will be forced to escalate the matter in the interests of aviation safety within the General Aviation sector.

Respectfully



Glen Buckley, CEO- APTA
glenb is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 05:00
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 72
Posts: 1,172
CASA is a dysfunctional organisation. Michael McCormack is a lame duck. We need a Minister for Civil Aviation whose only role is to sort out the monster and mess created over the past so many years.
B772 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 05:09
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
CASA is an omnipotent diety, unaccountable to anyone. Except the devil maybe.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 13:57
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 72
Posts: 1,172
General Aviation has been strangled in this country. We need a Royal Commission of some description before it industry collapses completely. Should we start a petition for a Royal Commission and submit it to the PM.
B772 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 05:19
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 566
I believe 'estoppel' is a legal term for a motion to have declared in law what is actually the case in fact. e.g. a lawyer employs questionable tactics to make money for his law firm where he is not a partner. Law firm takes all the money he generates him and berates him about his behaviour. However, it keeps taking the money up to the point where his contribution outweighs that of the Partners of the Law Firm. They fire him for cause (doing something questionable). He launches an estoppel claim to have himself declared a Partner of the firm so as to obtain his share of the profits which is in fact, all of the profit. He is not a partner in legal terms, he is/was an employee, but the estoppel claim is lodged to have declared in law that he is, in fact, a partner by dint of his financial contribution to the business. That's in the United States of course, it may have a subtlety different meaning here as is the case with many legal terms.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 07:47
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,370
Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

”There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration:
  • If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right.”
If CASA is changing its reasons all the time, then perhaps that is contravening some dictum like the one above, but Glen would need legal advice. I am not a lawyer and don’t know.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 00:32
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

”There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration:
  • If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right.”
If CASA is changing its reasons all the time, then perhaps that is contravening some dictum like the one above, but Glen would need legal advice. I am not a lawyer and don’t know.
Hi Sunfish, I’m not a lawyer either but your post made me curious as I’d only heard the US definition before so with my parents’ words echoing in my head from when I was growing up “Look it up” I did that and the definition fits both our scenarios so I learn something everyday... (from dictionary.com)...

noun
LAW
  1. the principle which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.
    "the case had been one of estoppel"

AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 01:41
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.
Cleary so. More-so obvious given that you lifted that definition from Wikipedia, not to mention that the example of tenancy is not relevant in Australia, where a landlord can’t terminate a lease short of malicious damage or criminality.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 03:14
  #93 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 360
And then there were four

In post 85 I made allegations against 5 people that were in CASA. I believe one has left. Therefore the allegations are now about 4 CASA employees. One has come back to industry I believe.
glenb is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 04:26
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,201
Even if employee No 5 ( now dearly departed from CAsA) did wrong., he will vanish from the CAsA paper.work
With my 3 perjuring AWIs, one bolted and forever after he was the 'Invisible Man', and never again featured in any correspondence. How's that for an escape mechanism ?? Bewdy !
Of course he is vulnerable out in public domain without the most splendid CAsA legal umbrella and the (taxpayer) pocketbook.
CAsA's next method of legal avoidance is to call any crime a 'breach of their code of conduct'. ( escape mechanism # 2 )..and that in itself is a constructive fraud. A crime is a crime and cant be called anything else.
Its how CAsA perverts the course of justice. CYA !21
EVERYONE should be beating the drum...Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry into CAsA.
NOTHING else that a proper colon cleansing with flush out CAsA and its corrupt personnel
aroa is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 05:42
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,370
(sigh) the principle of estoppel is something like that you can’t always keep changing your response to a situation to suit yourself. It may be that If you’re prohibited with the excuse “x” by CASA one day, then the next day it may be that the new excuse cannot be “y”. Ask a lawyer and stop nit picking. It doesn’t help anyone.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 07:54
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Bloody interesting some of these legal quirks guys.

CAsA are not supposed to interfere with business doing's either, but they do.

Mr Buckley no doubt got his lawyers to put together agreeable contracts between himself and his
partners.

Contracts are between parties yet CAsA crashed the party and interfered demanding changes
to the contracts Mr Buckley was using based on HIS legal advice.

If the clauses CAsA insisted Mr Buckley put in his contracts resulted in a dispute, would CAsA accept any liability, of course not, they are never liable for anything.

Somehow I can't imagine bureaucrats interfering with contracts, say, BHP makes with its customers.

CAsA is an omnipotent deity, the law doesn't apply to them. If any of us falsified evidence or committed perjury we'd be in clink, they can do it with impunity.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 05:51
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,201
Going to clients and 'bad-mouthing' the intended victim, with made up stories and BS is bad enough as well.
I had occurrences where CAsA rang my clients and told them not to use my photography services because I was operating illegally...2 years before I even saw a courthouse..!!
One case they got local plods to go and speak to the client...WTF would they know about Ops and Regs...and in breach of the Compliance and Enforcement Manual. And lied / denied later to the Minister and Pollie that they ever did such a thing.
Jesus wept..these people know no bounds.
When yr on a mission at the behest of a competitor company, anything goes. And then some!

The later issue with the false sworn statements just proved that CASA/ Legal do NOT believe in th Rule of Law. (AFP finding..Perjury, Conspiracy and collaboration of statements)
Head of CAsA legal sent me a wonderful thesis about how the false sworn statements/ lies are not really proper lies, but just 'discrepancies in the wording'. Hence the nickname Dr Discrepancy.for Smart Aleck..
All this sort of behavior will carry on , same, same...UNLESS the GA industry gets a Royal Commission ora Judicial Inquiry.
Keep banging that drum to yr local pollie, Senator, whoever,
aroa is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 02:29
  #98 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 360
Follow up to Deputy Prime Minister

Dear Minister Mc Cormack, or the recipient.

I wrote to the Minister at the start of the week on matters I considered of significance, with regard to aviation safety in Australia. I have not received an acknowledgement, or a response. Can you please confirm that this is the correct email for such matters. Alternatively, if the correct protocols are to formally lodge such matters through the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ASTB) please advise. The issues are significant and effect aviation safety, so at least an acknowledgement that this is the correct email address to reach Minister Mc Cormack would be appreciated.
Respectfully


Glen Buckley

glenb is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 05:19
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,370


the correspondence has probably been forwarded to CASA.

i. should have added- so they will write the Ministers response. They will then forward that back to the Minister for approval through the Department of transport who will do their own assessment of CASAs response.

At at this point the Minister is not really involved - which is as it should be in Westminster style government. The Minister takes “advice” from his Department which is why his letter will say words to the effect: “I am advised that...... “.

To effect any change, assuming CASA will not give you what you believe you are entitled to, you will need to make a case strong enough that the Department of Transport takes action to make CASA do something or failing that, that the Minister is galvanised enough to ask his department to do something which may not be possible under the Aviation Act. Then the Minister needs to go to Parliament.

There is a settled hierarchy of actions - the minister can’t just pull a decision out of thin air. Good luck, get legal advice and don’t do anything rash.

Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Jun 2019 at 03:54.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 22:29
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 248
Delete the "probably".
thunderbird five is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.