Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
I have had a discussion with Senator McDonald's office. Whilst I am unable to discuss the contents. I have no doubt that she is acting in a well-intentioned manner, and has heard my allegation regarding Mr. Carmody misleading her. I will be able to reveal more in 21 days. Cheers. Glen
Sen McDonald is a personal friend and I started her on the aviation trail beginning with the Angel Flight debacle. She is solid as a rock.
Ongoing harassment of individuals
Googled James Venn and found this on page 150 of link below.
Ongoing harassment of individuals
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...ed.pdf#page150
Ongoing harassment of individuals
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...ed.pdf#page150
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Victoria
Age: 59
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then why isn't anything changing. Rumour is there is an overpaid contractor running casa, not carmody, morale is down the drain, bulling is rampant and we are the victims of a dysfunctional regulator. Why is the government sitting back and doing nothing while we endure increased costs, regulation for the sake of it and a regulator that is in turmoil internally?
Why isn’t anything changing, despite Senator McDonald’s position and focus?
First, “the government” doesn’t care. Why would it? It doesn’t need to care.
Secondly, Senator McDonald has only recently become a Senator and, sadly, is ‘on her lonesome’ in the Coalition when it comes to voting on motions of benefit for GA. Senator McDonald voted to disallow the Community Service Flight kneejerk instrument imposing conditions on pilot licences, but how many of her Coalition colleagues did so with her? Donut.
If Senator McDonald sticks with her principles, she’ll eventually - if not already - be facing a personal dilemma about her party affiliation. Will be fascinating to see what she decides.
First, “the government” doesn’t care. Why would it? It doesn’t need to care.
Secondly, Senator McDonald has only recently become a Senator and, sadly, is ‘on her lonesome’ in the Coalition when it comes to voting on motions of benefit for GA. Senator McDonald voted to disallow the Community Service Flight kneejerk instrument imposing conditions on pilot licences, but how many of her Coalition colleagues did so with her? Donut.
If Senator McDonald sticks with her principles, she’ll eventually - if not already - be facing a personal dilemma about her party affiliation. Will be fascinating to see what she decides.
Thread Starter
So, So guess what he said?
Dear Mr Buckley,
Thank you for your email.
I have reviewed the video testimony of my appearance on Tuesday afternoon and advise that I responded appropriately to the question from Senator McDonald: “Is it correct that there’s been a settlement made with Mr Buckley recently?”.
My response: “Senator, partially. There has been no settlement made. Mr Buckley put in a complaint about a CASA officer with regard to defamation and said that the CASA officer defamed him. CASA’s lawyers, because we have external lawyers acting on our behalf because it’s a liability for CASA, offered a small settlement to Mr Buckley and he declined. That is the only settlement matter that I am aware of.”
This was a direct response to a direct question regarding a settlement.
There were no questions asked around other matters, including those currently with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
I was prepared to answer any questions regarding your numerous assertions and allegations, had such questions been raised. They were not.
Regards
Shane
Shane Carmody
CEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Thank you for your email.
I have reviewed the video testimony of my appearance on Tuesday afternoon and advise that I responded appropriately to the question from Senator McDonald: “Is it correct that there’s been a settlement made with Mr Buckley recently?”.
My response: “Senator, partially. There has been no settlement made. Mr Buckley put in a complaint about a CASA officer with regard to defamation and said that the CASA officer defamed him. CASA’s lawyers, because we have external lawyers acting on our behalf because it’s a liability for CASA, offered a small settlement to Mr Buckley and he declined. That is the only settlement matter that I am aware of.”
This was a direct response to a direct question regarding a settlement.
There were no questions asked around other matters, including those currently with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
I was prepared to answer any questions regarding your numerous assertions and allegations, had such questions been raised. They were not.
Regards
Shane
Shane Carmody
CEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Thread Starter
So, so what da ya think i said
Glen Buckley <[email protected]>
to Shane, Susan, Minister, [email protected]
Thu, 22 Oct, 16:15 (8 hours ago)
it’s all about intent! Mr. Carmody. intent, integrity, honesty, and a moral compass
Thread Starter
I also loved the bit where Mr Carmody said to Seantor Susan McDonald
something to the effect of "CASA rarely gets to puts its view forward". dishonestly leading Senator Susan McDonald to have the view that he hadn't been presented with an opportunity to defend the conduct of his Senior Executive. A blatant lie. Just ask Australian Flying Magazine and Hitchy about how "keen' they were to have their point of view put forward He just keeps digging. I'm sure AOPA will also concur that he has rejected an invitation to put his view forward. What hope has a Senate Inquiry got if the CASA personnel cant act with integrity. What hope has aviation safety got. What hope do jobs and Australian owned businesses have. i hope something comes of all this. For us all
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Victoria
Age: 59
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen Buckley <[email protected]>
to Shane, Susan, Minister, [email protected]Thu, 22 Oct, 16:15 (8 hours ago)
it’s all about intent! Mr. Carmody. intent, integrity, honesty, and a moral compass
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The AUK
Age: 80
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour is there is an overpaid contractor running casa
.Y'all take care now. Regards, 'E'.
Thread Starter
Letter sent to Attorney Generals Department
25/10/20
To the relevant person within the Attorney Generals Department
I want to lodge allegations against the following CASA Employees for their part in unlawful conduct that has bought detriment to myself and other Entities.
Their conduct has lead to the loss of my two businesses. Melbourne Flight Training a flying school, and APTA a business offering contracted safety and compliance service to smaller flight training operators.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has completed Phase One of his investigation into this matter, and I am fully satisfied that his Report supports my contention that their misconduct has caused detriment. I am also fully satisfied that Phase Two when completed will highlight further unlawful conduct by CASA personnel.
The allegations are made against
I am alleging that these gentlemen as a collective, have
Whilst, not a point of law they have clearly breached the ethical and moral obligations placed on them by CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.
A full investigation into the conduct of these personnel will bring clarity to the matter. I have raised allegations against these individuals publicly as I have no other choice to defend my reputation. I also believe that their conduct has impacted negatively and demonstrably on aviation safety. Because of the substantive nature of the allegations that I make against them, I believe they are fully entitled to a full and comprehensive investigation.
I await your response on how I should proceed with this matter.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
To the relevant person within the Attorney Generals Department
I want to lodge allegations against the following CASA Employees for their part in unlawful conduct that has bought detriment to myself and other Entities.
Their conduct has lead to the loss of my two businesses. Melbourne Flight Training a flying school, and APTA a business offering contracted safety and compliance service to smaller flight training operators.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has completed Phase One of his investigation into this matter, and I am fully satisfied that his Report supports my contention that their misconduct has caused detriment. I am also fully satisfied that Phase Two when completed will highlight further unlawful conduct by CASA personnel.
The allegations are made against
- Mr. Shane Carmody- CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
- Mr. Jonathan Aleck-CASA Executive Manager, Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.
- Mr. Graeme Crawford- CASA Executive Manager of the Aviation Group
- Mr. Craig Martin- CASA Region Manager, Southern Region.
- Mr. Anthony Mathews- Chair of the Board of CASA.
I am alleging that these gentlemen as a collective, have
- Endeavored to facilitate a cover-up of this matter.
- Have consistently demonstrated a willingness to deliberately frustrate a fair and lawful outcome by breaching procedures they are obligated to comply with.
- Have acted unlawfully.
- Have acted for reasons other than safety.
- Breached obligations placed on them by the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and the Australian Public Services Values, CASA Enforcement Procedures as stipulated in their own manuals, breached the Minister's Statement of Expectations, obligations placed on them by the PGPA Act, and obligations placed on them by Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
- Misled Senator Susan McDonald in the Senate Estimates Committee
- Attempted to deliberately mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation with the unsuccessful intention of altering the outcome.
Whilst, not a point of law they have clearly breached the ethical and moral obligations placed on them by CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.
A full investigation into the conduct of these personnel will bring clarity to the matter. I have raised allegations against these individuals publicly as I have no other choice to defend my reputation. I also believe that their conduct has impacted negatively and demonstrably on aviation safety. Because of the substantive nature of the allegations that I make against them, I believe they are fully entitled to a full and comprehensive investigation.
I await your response on how I should proceed with this matter.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
A reminder to CASA- model litigant- Legal Services Direction 2005
Dear Mr. Shane Carmody (CEO of CASA), Mr. Jonathan Aleck (CASA Executive Manager Legal International and Regulatory Affairs), Mr Graeme Crawford (CASA Executive Manager Aviation Group, and Mr. Anthony Mathews (Chair of the Board of CASA).
As you are aware I have made allegations that CASA has acted to mislead Senator Susan McDonald during the Senate Estimates, and has also provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, with the intention of potentially perverting the outcome of his findings.
I felt it timely to draw your attention to your obligations in accordance with Legal Services Directions 2005. I particularly draw your attention to the bolded paragraph"Introduction
On 22 June 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal which reinforces the overarching obligation of Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives to act as model litigants in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005. This decision illustrates the supremacy of the model litigant obligation which may, in certain circumstances, extend further than merely acting honestly, ethically, legally, and in accordance with court rules.Background
On 30 July 2010, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed an application for merits review made by LVR (WA) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) in relation to a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner). In unique circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the application without conducting a review of the decision on the basis that the Applicant had failed to comply with a procedural direction made by the Tribunal relating to the filing and serving of evidence.The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for review was the subject of a separate dismissal hearing (the Dismissal Hearing), in anticipation of which the Tribunal had made directions for further evidence to be filed in relation to the non-compliance with its earlier directions in the main proceedings. The Applicant filed and served the affidavit of Mr Schokker (the Schokker Affidavit) only three days before the Dismissal Hearing and some seven weeks after it was directed to do so. The Schokker Affidavit responded to the evidence filed by the Commissioner and addressed the applicant's non-compliance with the directions made by the Tribunal in the main proceedings.
Save for a small number of paragraphs, the published reasons of the Tribunal relating to its decision to dismiss the Applicant's application were copied verbatim from the Commissioner's written submissions (the Submissions) without attribution. Because of the Applicant's late service of the Schokker Affidavit, only two paragraphs of the Submissions referred to the Schokker Affidavit and those paragraphs were not reproduced in the Tribunal's reasons.
The decision at first instance
The Applicant subsequently brought an action in the Federal Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal to dismiss the application on the basis that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the responsive content of the Schokker Affidavit. In dismissing the application for judicial review, Gilmour J relied heavily upon the Tribunal's reasons and found that the mere absence of any reference to the Schokker Affidavit in the Tribunal's reasons did not indicate that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the Schokker Affidavit when making its decision. Critically, the fact that the Tribunal's reasons had been almost entirely copied from the Submissions was not disclosed to the Court by either party.Full Court Hearing
The Applicant appealed from the decision of Gilmour J on the basis that his Honour had erred in finding that the Schokker Affidavit was taken into account by the Tribunal in making its decision. The critical fact relating to the source of the Tribunal's reasons was again omitted from both parties' written submissions to the Full Court which was comprised of North, Logan, and Robertson JJ.Prior to the matter being heard, the Court became aware of the source of the Tribunal's reasons and queried the parties as to why this fact had not been disclosed at first instance or on appeal. The response of the Commissioner was that it merely responded to the submissions of the Applicant and given the source of the Tribunal's reasons was not raised, it did not address the issue in its own submissions.
The Full Court held that it was "a distraction to examine the reasons of the Tribunal as if they were an independent text without reference to their source" [at 130]. Given the substance of the Schokker Affidavit was not dealt with in the Submissions, the Full Court further found that it could not be inferred that the Tribunal took the substance of the affidavit into account when making its decision. The appeal was therefore allowed, the decision of the Tribunal set aside and the matter referred to the Tribunal for further consideration.
Model Litigant Obligations
The Full Court stated that "being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete proprietary, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards" [at 42]. The Court further indicated that the content of this obligation may surpass other professional obligations to act honestly, ethically and in accordance with the law and court rules.The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.
In the present case, the Full Court found that the Commissioner had an obligation, as a model litigant, to ensure that the Court was fully aware of the relevant circumstances concerning the source of the Tribunal's reasons. The Court stated that "if the appellants failed to fully explain the position to the primary judge then the Commissioner should have done so" [at 40] and indicated that it was inadequate of the Commissioner to only respond to the submissions made by the Applicant.
Consequences
This decision of the Full Federal Court highlights the critical importance of Australian Government Agencies to act as model litigants to ensure that its interactions with private litigants are fair and transparent. This decision further serves as a reminder that Australian Government Agencies and their internal and external legal representatives must act as model litigants at all times, including where it is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the Agency to do so."Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
02/11/20
Dear Colin (CASA Board Secretariat). Could you please ensure this correspondence be forwarded to Mr. Mathews at the soonest opportunity? Could I be advised when that has occurred? I do appreciate that the Commonwealth Onmbusdan is investigating this matter, and CASA has used this as a reason to ignore my previous requests. This request is independent of the Ombudsman Investigation but will form part of my submission to the Senate Inquiry. I intend to submit that within 24 hours so request a prompt response.
Dear Mr Matthews,
I anticipate having my submission to the current Senate Inquiry submitted within the next 24 hours.
In that submission, I will be making substantive allegations against some members of CASAs Management. The allegations are substantive, well supported, and truthful. I have strong industry support. As you are aware I am highly appreciative of Senator Mccdonalds, well intentioned involvement in this matter, and have included her amongst the recipients. These matters do have the potential to negatively impact on aviation safety. As these personnel opertae at the most senior levels these matters affect aviation safety nationally.
The conduct of these CASA personnel was vindictive and vexatious, and I allege unlawful.
The detriment caused by their conduct is significant, as you are fully aware.
Over the last two years, I have made multiple requests to meet with any two members of the Board. You have decided not to facilitate that request.
You did faciliate a meeting with yourself and the CASA Region Manager, which was not what I had requested.
Interestingly I note, that it was that very same CASA employee at that meeting that subsequently sent an email to my then Employer, that my continuing position was "untenable, based on comments i was making publicly."
Prior to making my submission, in 24 hours I would like to ask you again.
Am I able to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board for 2 hours? CASA would be welcome to have any other attendees that they felt necessary, including those I have made allegations against. I will attend with only one other person, and that person will not be a lawyer.
Could I respectfully request that you consult with your fellow Board Members, and advise me of the Board decision?
I appreciate that Mr. Carmody the CEO and DAS, of CASA, also holds a Board position.
You will appreciate my preference that Mr. Carmody, not be involved in decision making regarding facilitating a meeting. That could be seen to damage the integrity of the request.
I look forward to your response at the soonest practical opportunity, as it will clearly demonstrate intent and Board integrity, which will be relevant to my submission
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Colin (CASA Board Secretariat). Could you please ensure this correspondence be forwarded to Mr. Mathews at the soonest opportunity? Could I be advised when that has occurred? I do appreciate that the Commonwealth Onmbusdan is investigating this matter, and CASA has used this as a reason to ignore my previous requests. This request is independent of the Ombudsman Investigation but will form part of my submission to the Senate Inquiry. I intend to submit that within 24 hours so request a prompt response.
Dear Mr Matthews,
I anticipate having my submission to the current Senate Inquiry submitted within the next 24 hours.
In that submission, I will be making substantive allegations against some members of CASAs Management. The allegations are substantive, well supported, and truthful. I have strong industry support. As you are aware I am highly appreciative of Senator Mccdonalds, well intentioned involvement in this matter, and have included her amongst the recipients. These matters do have the potential to negatively impact on aviation safety. As these personnel opertae at the most senior levels these matters affect aviation safety nationally.
The conduct of these CASA personnel was vindictive and vexatious, and I allege unlawful.
The detriment caused by their conduct is significant, as you are fully aware.
Over the last two years, I have made multiple requests to meet with any two members of the Board. You have decided not to facilitate that request.
You did faciliate a meeting with yourself and the CASA Region Manager, which was not what I had requested.
Interestingly I note, that it was that very same CASA employee at that meeting that subsequently sent an email to my then Employer, that my continuing position was "untenable, based on comments i was making publicly."
Prior to making my submission, in 24 hours I would like to ask you again.
Am I able to meet with any two Members of the CASA Board for 2 hours? CASA would be welcome to have any other attendees that they felt necessary, including those I have made allegations against. I will attend with only one other person, and that person will not be a lawyer.
Could I respectfully request that you consult with your fellow Board Members, and advise me of the Board decision?
I appreciate that Mr. Carmody the CEO and DAS, of CASA, also holds a Board position.
You will appreciate my preference that Mr. Carmody, not be involved in decision making regarding facilitating a meeting. That could be seen to damage the integrity of the request.
I look forward to your response at the soonest practical opportunity, as it will clearly demonstrate intent and Board integrity, which will be relevant to my submission
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Its really coming to a head. I literally just got this
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
2 November 2020
Dear Mr Buckley
Invitation to give evidence at a public hearing on the general aviation industry
On behalf of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee I invite you to attend a public hearing with the committee on the inquiry into general aviation, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia.
Date: Friday, 20 November 2020
Location: Senate Committee Room 2S3
Parliament House, Canberra
Your appearance: 12.45pm – 1.15pm
Via videoconference or teleconference
Please confirm with the secretariat the method in which you intend to appear before the Committee.
The hearing is scheduled to commence at 9.30am and run through to approximately 1.45 pm. Please email the secretariat staff about 15 minutes before your scheduled time and let them know you are ready to join the videoconference.
Arrangements to connect to the hearing for videoconferencing appearance
The attached document, Videoconference Instructions, provides important information on how to connect to the hearing on Friday 20 November 2020.
Testing your connection
All witnesses appearing before the Committee via videoconference will need to undertake a videoconference test. Please us the following self-testing link to test your connection prior to the hearing date. https://www.webex.com/test-meeting.html
Hansard Witness Forms
A completed Hansard witness form for every witness appearing is required (use the attached document or download this from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard available at the bottom left of the web page). Please return this to[email protected] by COB Friday 13 November 2020.
What to expect on the day
At the beginning of your appearance, the Chair will invite you to make a brief opening statement of approximately 5 minutes, in which you may wish to outline your main arguments, summarise your views or highlight
the issues you would like to emphasise for the committee. The committee does not usually permit visual aids or Powerpoint presentations to be used in opening statements.
Following your opening statement, the committee will ask questions, seek information relevant to the inquiry's terms of reference and allow you to amplify any points made in your opening remarks. If you wish to provide further documentation to the committee, please email the secretariat a digital copy for distribution.
The hearing is public and will be broadcast and recorded
The hearing is a public event, and the hearing will be available to audio stream on the Parliament's website at www.aph.gov.au/Watch_Read_Listen.
Hansard transcription will be made of the hearing, which will become official records of the Australian Parliament. This will also be a public and freely accessible document, including being placed on the internet.
Given this, if you consider there may be a need to give evidence confidentially, it is important that you let the committee secretariat know well in advance.
Further information
Some material to guide witnesses appearing before Senate committees is available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...public_hearing
On behalf of the committee, thank you for your participation in this inquiry. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact the committee secretariat on (02) 6277 3511.
Yours sincerely,
Paula Waring, Principal Research Officer
On behalf of
Gerry McInally – Committee Secretary
Paula Waring | Principal Research Officer
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Joint Select Committee on Road Safety
SG.62 | Department of the Senate
Phone 02 6277 3025
www.aph.gov.au/senate
2 November 2020
Dear Mr Buckley
Invitation to give evidence at a public hearing on the general aviation industry
On behalf of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee I invite you to attend a public hearing with the committee on the inquiry into general aviation, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia.
Date: Friday, 20 November 2020
Location: Senate Committee Room 2S3
Parliament House, Canberra
Your appearance: 12.45pm – 1.15pm
Via videoconference or teleconference
Please confirm with the secretariat the method in which you intend to appear before the Committee.
The hearing is scheduled to commence at 9.30am and run through to approximately 1.45 pm. Please email the secretariat staff about 15 minutes before your scheduled time and let them know you are ready to join the videoconference.
Arrangements to connect to the hearing for videoconferencing appearance
The attached document, Videoconference Instructions, provides important information on how to connect to the hearing on Friday 20 November 2020.
Testing your connection
All witnesses appearing before the Committee via videoconference will need to undertake a videoconference test. Please us the following self-testing link to test your connection prior to the hearing date. https://www.webex.com/test-meeting.html
Hansard Witness Forms
A completed Hansard witness form for every witness appearing is required (use the attached document or download this from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard available at the bottom left of the web page). Please return this to[email protected] by COB Friday 13 November 2020.
What to expect on the day
At the beginning of your appearance, the Chair will invite you to make a brief opening statement of approximately 5 minutes, in which you may wish to outline your main arguments, summarise your views or highlight
the issues you would like to emphasise for the committee. The committee does not usually permit visual aids or Powerpoint presentations to be used in opening statements.
Following your opening statement, the committee will ask questions, seek information relevant to the inquiry's terms of reference and allow you to amplify any points made in your opening remarks. If you wish to provide further documentation to the committee, please email the secretariat a digital copy for distribution.
The hearing is public and will be broadcast and recorded
The hearing is a public event, and the hearing will be available to audio stream on the Parliament's website at www.aph.gov.au/Watch_Read_Listen.
Hansard transcription will be made of the hearing, which will become official records of the Australian Parliament. This will also be a public and freely accessible document, including being placed on the internet.
Given this, if you consider there may be a need to give evidence confidentially, it is important that you let the committee secretariat know well in advance.
Further information
Some material to guide witnesses appearing before Senate committees is available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...public_hearing
On behalf of the committee, thank you for your participation in this inquiry. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact the committee secretariat on (02) 6277 3511.
Yours sincerely,
Paula Waring, Principal Research Officer
On behalf of
Gerry McInally – Committee Secretary
Paula Waring | Principal Research Officer
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Joint Select Committee on Road Safety
SG.62 | Department of the Senate
Phone 02 6277 3025
www.aph.gov.au/senate
GO YOU GOOD THING.!!
Excellent work Glen and I,m sure the thoughts of the whole GA industry are behind you, especially those that have been "done over " by CAsA and those vindictive, vexacious and criminal employees that dwell within.
Excellent work Glen and I,m sure the thoughts of the whole GA industry are behind you, especially those that have been "done over " by CAsA and those vindictive, vexacious and criminal employees that dwell within.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
What aroa said. +1