Anderson: Puppeteer or Puppet?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anderson: Puppeteer or Puppet?
Taken from the Age website;
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Nation...407811531.html
"Anderson bullied air safety regulator"
Wherever do they learn these behaviours?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Nation...407811531.html
"Anderson bullied air safety regulator"
Wherever do they learn these behaviours?
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
… what say you Emperor????
.....
.
.
Anderson 'bullied air safety regulator'
August 15, 2006 - 10:19PM
Labor has accused former deputy prime minister John Anderson of misleading parliament and bullying Australia's air safety regulator over controversial reforms to airspace rules.
ALP senator Kerry O'Brien on Tuesday night produced copies of leaked emails between Mr Anderson and Mick Toller, the former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
In the emails, dated April 3 and April 22, 2003, then transport minister Mr Anderson sent a firm warning to Mr Toller that he expected CASA's co-operation in implementing the new airspace rules, which he said would bring Australia into line with the US.
"I am getting a strong impression that some of your middle-ranking people are still opposed to the changes," Mr Anderson wrote.
"I want you to give a blunt warning to the people concerned that I will not tolerate them playing politics or destabilising this project in any way.
"I want you to take direct charge of this matter and as such I will hold you personally responsible for ensuring that CASA provides the appropriate level of co-operation and complete its part of the project on time."
Mr Anderson finished his email by saying those responsible for implementing the airspace changes appeared ineffective and "a bit ridiculous".
"I am not impressed - I want action and I want it fast, Mick," the email said.
Mr Toller replied 19 days later that CASA was committed to implementing the changes and had not tried to stall the new system's introduction.
But he said the changes to airspace rules would not align Australia with the US airspace system, as stated by Mr Anderson.
Mr Toller was sacked three months later.
Senator O'Brien said Mr Anderson's email amounted to bullying.
"Mr Anderson was bullying CASA to deliver a green light for significant changes to the administration of Australia's airspace," he told the Senate.
He said Mr Anderson had claimed repeatedly that the airspace changes would bring Australia into line with the US system when he knew this was not the case.
"We now know that as long ago as April 2003, the director of aviation safety (at CASA) advised the minister that his claim was bunkum," Senator O'Brien said.
"On at least seven occasions, Mr Anderson told the other place (the House of Representatives) that his new system would implement 'the American national airspace system' or one closely related to it.
"It's clear that Mr Anderson misled the Australian people on this matter.
"In doing so, he breached his obligations under the ministerial code of conduct ... (which) requires them to be honest in their public dealings."
Senator O'Brien called on Mr Anderson to explain his actions, saying he owed the public an apology.
Mr Anderson's office could not be reached immediately for comment.
© 2006 AAP
August 15, 2006 - 10:19PM
Labor has accused former deputy prime minister John Anderson of misleading parliament and bullying Australia's air safety regulator over controversial reforms to airspace rules.
ALP senator Kerry O'Brien on Tuesday night produced copies of leaked emails between Mr Anderson and Mick Toller, the former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
In the emails, dated April 3 and April 22, 2003, then transport minister Mr Anderson sent a firm warning to Mr Toller that he expected CASA's co-operation in implementing the new airspace rules, which he said would bring Australia into line with the US.
"I am getting a strong impression that some of your middle-ranking people are still opposed to the changes," Mr Anderson wrote.
"I want you to give a blunt warning to the people concerned that I will not tolerate them playing politics or destabilising this project in any way.
"I want you to take direct charge of this matter and as such I will hold you personally responsible for ensuring that CASA provides the appropriate level of co-operation and complete its part of the project on time."
Mr Anderson finished his email by saying those responsible for implementing the airspace changes appeared ineffective and "a bit ridiculous".
"I am not impressed - I want action and I want it fast, Mick," the email said.
Mr Toller replied 19 days later that CASA was committed to implementing the changes and had not tried to stall the new system's introduction.
But he said the changes to airspace rules would not align Australia with the US airspace system, as stated by Mr Anderson.
Mr Toller was sacked three months later.
Senator O'Brien said Mr Anderson's email amounted to bullying.
"Mr Anderson was bullying CASA to deliver a green light for significant changes to the administration of Australia's airspace," he told the Senate.
He said Mr Anderson had claimed repeatedly that the airspace changes would bring Australia into line with the US system when he knew this was not the case.
"We now know that as long ago as April 2003, the director of aviation safety (at CASA) advised the minister that his claim was bunkum," Senator O'Brien said.
"On at least seven occasions, Mr Anderson told the other place (the House of Representatives) that his new system would implement 'the American national airspace system' or one closely related to it.
"It's clear that Mr Anderson misled the Australian people on this matter.
"In doing so, he breached his obligations under the ministerial code of conduct ... (which) requires them to be honest in their public dealings."
Senator O'Brien called on Mr Anderson to explain his actions, saying he owed the public an apology.
Mr Anderson's office could not be reached immediately for comment.
© 2006 AAP
.
.
From the Tuesday 15 August Senate Hansard, pp 65-67, here: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate...s/ds150806.pdf
Don't forget folks: Mr Anderson was painted by some on this forum as a fine upstanding man with rock solid integrity.
Mr Anderson is a politician.
So is Mr Truss.
National Airspace System
Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (8.07 pm)—In May this year, my colleague Mr Kelvin Thomson brought to the attention of the other place his concern about Mr John Anderson’s trading in AWB shares in the period immediately before the release of the Volcker report in 2005. Mr Anderson’s explanation of his behaviour, both publicly and in the parliament, has been unsatisfactory. Tonight, I bring before the Senate another serious matter—one that calls into serious question the propriety of Mr Anderson’s conduct when he was the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. This matter does not concern money; it concerns safety. In March 2002, Mr Anderson announced that the government was considering changes to Australia’s airspace management. He told the parliament that the National Airspace System model under consideration was closely related to the North American model. On at least six further occasions, between March 2002 and November 2003, Mr Anderson told the parliament that the reform model was the American national airspace system, or one closely related to it, and he made the same claim in at least three media statements between August and December 2003.
Senators will recall that the introduction of the National Airspace System by the Howard government has not been without controversy for good reason. The simple fact is that Mr Anderson bungled the design and implementation of the new arrangements. Rather than involve aviation professionals in the design and implementation, Mr Anderson relied on the advice of enthusiastic amateurs, including Australia’s most enthusiastic amateur aviator, Mr Dick Smith. In so doing, the former minister compromised the integrity and safety of our airspace. How badly the integrity and safety of our airspace was compromised was revealed in February 2004, when Airservices Australia conceded it had failed to discharge its statutory obligation to undertake a design safety case on the reform model.
Tonight, I will reveal some of the unsavoury details of Mr Anderson’s behaviour behind the scenes— behaviour that displays an excessive regard for the former minister’s ego and complete disregard for the safety of aviators and the air travelling public. On 3 April 2003, Mr Anderson communicated with the then director of aviation safety, Mr Mick Toller, on the subject of airspace reform. Mr Anderson sent Mr Toller an email, which was copied to the then secretary of his department, Mr Ken Matthews. The email began like this:
It went on:
And it directed Mr Toller as follows—and this is quoting the then minister, Mr Anderson:
Mr Anderson then delivered a blunt warning of his own, telling Mr Toller:
The email concluded with this intemperate outburst:
It is important to remember that Mr Anderson’s direction to Mr Toller did not concern a minor administrative matter. Mr Anderson was bullying CASA to deliver a green light for significant changes to the administration of Australia’s airspace. The ministerial email was complemented by a browbeating of senior CASA officers by Mr Matthews.
It is deplorable and downright dangerous for the former Minister for Transport and Regional Services to behave in this way. Bullying of this kind would not be tolerated inside the Public Service. A private pilot that issued threats to the director of aviation safety would be dealt with quick smart. But, sadly, bullying of this kind is acceptable, apparently, when the perpetrator is a senior minister.
The bullying behaviour had two direct consequences. The first was that the safety case for the National Airspace System model was bungled, badly. When Airservices Australia’s muck-up was exposed in February 2004, one of the agency’s excuses was that it had relied on advice from CASA. The second consequence was Mr Toller’s sacking. Mr Anderson made good his threat to Mr Toller, who found himself out on his ear just three months later. Before he was sacked, Mr Toller responded to Mr Anderson’s threat with a detailed and considered rebuttal. By letter dated 22 April 2003, Mr Toller told Mr Anderson this:
In other words, CASA was doing its job and was not going to be intimidated by threats of retaliation. It is no wonder that Mr Toller got the chop.
In his email to Mr Toller, Mr Anderson said:
In his reply, Mr Toller countered Mr Anderson’s claim in this way:
Mr Toller’s advice on this matter stands out because Mr Anderson repeatedly claimed, inside and outside the parliament, that his airspace changes would align Australia with airspace management arrangements in the United States. We now know that, as long ago as April 2003,CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety advised the minister that his claim was bunkum. On at least seven occasions, Mr Anderson told the other place that his new system would implement ‘the American national airspace system’ or one closely related to it. The claim was made on at least five occasions after the receipt of Mr Toller’s advice. It was made on 28 May 2003, 7 November 2003, 25 November 2003 and twice on 26 November 2003. Mr Anderson repeated the claim in ministerial media statements on at least three occasions—28 August 2003, 7 November 2003 and 1 December 2003.
It is clear that Mr Anderson misled the Australian people in this matter. In doing so, he breached his obligations under the Ministerial Code of Conduct. That code is not observed much by ministers in this government, but it requires them to be honest in their public dealings. Mr Anderson should have revealed the truth about his changes. He should have acknowledged that his system did not implement the United States regime. He should have allowed Australia’s aviation safety regulators to do their job without threats of retaliation. The decisions made by Mr Anderson as Minister for Transport and Regional Services continue to impact on aviation safety in this country.
Tonight I call on Mr Anderson to explain his conduct. On what basis did Mr Anderson think it was appropriate to bully CASA into approving his airspace management changes? Did Mr Toller lose his job because he stood up to the minister? Were executives at Airservices Australia also threatened with the sack? Did those matters cause Airservices Australia to fail the travelling public by neglecting to conduct a design safety case of the full National Airspace System? Mr Anderson owes the public and this parliament answers to those questions. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to table a copy of an email from Mr Anderson to Mr Toller, copied to Mr Ken Matthews and dated 3 April 2003, and a reply by Mr Toller to Mr Anderson dated 22 April 2003, copies of which I have already shown to the acting whip in this chamber.
Leave granted.
Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (8.07 pm)—In May this year, my colleague Mr Kelvin Thomson brought to the attention of the other place his concern about Mr John Anderson’s trading in AWB shares in the period immediately before the release of the Volcker report in 2005. Mr Anderson’s explanation of his behaviour, both publicly and in the parliament, has been unsatisfactory. Tonight, I bring before the Senate another serious matter—one that calls into serious question the propriety of Mr Anderson’s conduct when he was the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. This matter does not concern money; it concerns safety. In March 2002, Mr Anderson announced that the government was considering changes to Australia’s airspace management. He told the parliament that the National Airspace System model under consideration was closely related to the North American model. On at least six further occasions, between March 2002 and November 2003, Mr Anderson told the parliament that the reform model was the American national airspace system, or one closely related to it, and he made the same claim in at least three media statements between August and December 2003.
Senators will recall that the introduction of the National Airspace System by the Howard government has not been without controversy for good reason. The simple fact is that Mr Anderson bungled the design and implementation of the new arrangements. Rather than involve aviation professionals in the design and implementation, Mr Anderson relied on the advice of enthusiastic amateurs, including Australia’s most enthusiastic amateur aviator, Mr Dick Smith. In so doing, the former minister compromised the integrity and safety of our airspace. How badly the integrity and safety of our airspace was compromised was revealed in February 2004, when Airservices Australia conceded it had failed to discharge its statutory obligation to undertake a design safety case on the reform model.
Tonight, I will reveal some of the unsavoury details of Mr Anderson’s behaviour behind the scenes— behaviour that displays an excessive regard for the former minister’s ego and complete disregard for the safety of aviators and the air travelling public. On 3 April 2003, Mr Anderson communicated with the then director of aviation safety, Mr Mick Toller, on the subject of airspace reform. Mr Anderson sent Mr Toller an email, which was copied to the then secretary of his department, Mr Ken Matthews. The email began like this:
Dear Mick
Recent events reduce my comfort level with the way CASA is handling my airspace reform agenda.
Recent events reduce my comfort level with the way CASA is handling my airspace reform agenda.
...I am getting a strong impression that some of your middle ranking people are still opposed to the changes.
I want you to give a blunt warning to the people concerned that I will not tolerate them playing politics or destabilising this project in any way.
I want you to take direct charge of this matter and as such I will hold you personally responsible for ensuring that CASA provides the appropriate level of cooperation and completes its part of the project on time.
I am not impressed—I want action and I want it fast, Mick.
It is deplorable and downright dangerous for the former Minister for Transport and Regional Services to behave in this way. Bullying of this kind would not be tolerated inside the Public Service. A private pilot that issued threats to the director of aviation safety would be dealt with quick smart. But, sadly, bullying of this kind is acceptable, apparently, when the perpetrator is a senior minister.
The bullying behaviour had two direct consequences. The first was that the safety case for the National Airspace System model was bungled, badly. When Airservices Australia’s muck-up was exposed in February 2004, one of the agency’s excuses was that it had relied on advice from CASA. The second consequence was Mr Toller’s sacking. Mr Anderson made good his threat to Mr Toller, who found himself out on his ear just three months later. Before he was sacked, Mr Toller responded to Mr Anderson’s threat with a detailed and considered rebuttal. By letter dated 22 April 2003, Mr Toller told Mr Anderson this:
I am aware of the accusations of a conspiracy within the authority to undermine the process. There is nothing new about these accusations: various officers, including myself, have suffered them repeatedly over the years. I have never been able to find any evidence to support the allegations, other than officers sticking to their beliefs of what is correct and safe regardless of the pressure put on them by others with different motives.
In his email to Mr Toller, Mr Anderson said:
Frankly, given that in essence we are really only aligning our air space arrangements more closely with the world’s biggest aviation nation, the U.S., those responsible for making the changes are beginning to look more than a little ineffective, and are beginning to look a bit ridiculous.
I make one more comment. You stated that in essence, we are only aligning our airspace arrangements with the world’s biggest aviation nation, the U.S. In reality, nothing that is currently being done aligns with the U.S. model, and this is where … the difficulties arise.
It is clear that Mr Anderson misled the Australian people in this matter. In doing so, he breached his obligations under the Ministerial Code of Conduct. That code is not observed much by ministers in this government, but it requires them to be honest in their public dealings. Mr Anderson should have revealed the truth about his changes. He should have acknowledged that his system did not implement the United States regime. He should have allowed Australia’s aviation safety regulators to do their job without threats of retaliation. The decisions made by Mr Anderson as Minister for Transport and Regional Services continue to impact on aviation safety in this country.
Tonight I call on Mr Anderson to explain his conduct. On what basis did Mr Anderson think it was appropriate to bully CASA into approving his airspace management changes? Did Mr Toller lose his job because he stood up to the minister? Were executives at Airservices Australia also threatened with the sack? Did those matters cause Airservices Australia to fail the travelling public by neglecting to conduct a design safety case of the full National Airspace System? Mr Anderson owes the public and this parliament answers to those questions. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to table a copy of an email from Mr Anderson to Mr Toller, copied to Mr Ken Matthews and dated 3 April 2003, and a reply by Mr Toller to Mr Anderson dated 22 April 2003, copies of which I have already shown to the acting whip in this chamber.
Leave granted.
Mr Anderson is a politician.
So is Mr Truss.
So let me get this straight, Gaunty: You still believe that Anderson earnestly believed that the US system was being introduced, despite what every professional expert, including Mick Toller, was telling him?
One marvels at how anyone could survive in federal politics, much less become Deputy PM, with such child-like naivety. Perhaps Mr Anderson's the Chauncey Gardiner of Australian politics - living in a dream world while those around him interpret his gardening advice as insightful metaphors reflecting political genius.
After all, if Anderson had really wanted NAS, all he had to do was use his government's majority in both houses to pass legislation putting NAS into effect, thereby side-stepping all those stick in muds in CASA and Airservices. Anderson keeps his seat and earns a nice fat parliamentary pension in the interim.
There's an irony here Gaunty: my interpretation is far more complimentary to Mr Anderson than yours.
One marvels at how anyone could survive in federal politics, much less become Deputy PM, with such child-like naivety. Perhaps Mr Anderson's the Chauncey Gardiner of Australian politics - living in a dream world while those around him interpret his gardening advice as insightful metaphors reflecting political genius.
After all, if Anderson had really wanted NAS, all he had to do was use his government's majority in both houses to pass legislation putting NAS into effect, thereby side-stepping all those stick in muds in CASA and Airservices. Anderson keeps his seat and earns a nice fat parliamentary pension in the interim.
There's an irony here Gaunty: my interpretation is far more complimentary to Mr Anderson than yours.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The term "humour him" comes to mind. Politics Gaunty, is not about doing what is right or what you believe is right, or doing what the electorate wants, or doing what is best for the electorate. "Honourable" does not apply to politicians except by title.
Politics is about staying in power and making the voters want what you want.
I have very little doubt that Anderson was running spoiler for John Howard and the party machine and he did it very successfully and competently.
Like Creampuff mentioned, you give Anderson far less credit than is due. He wasn't misled. He and his team knew exactly what they were doing.
There's no need for Anderson to name names in front of the Senate. Everyone who matters knows the score. In all the veiled questions, Senator O'Brien isn't after Anderson; he's trying to score points against the Liberal Party. Both Anderson and O'Brien are running a nice balancing act, orchestrated for the voter amd their own parties.
Royal Commission? Not in a million years and then not unless Labor is in power. But then, perhaps you too are playing politics with the platitudes?
Politics is about staying in power and making the voters want what you want.
I have very little doubt that Anderson was running spoiler for John Howard and the party machine and he did it very successfully and competently.
Like Creampuff mentioned, you give Anderson far less credit than is due. He wasn't misled. He and his team knew exactly what they were doing.
There's no need for Anderson to name names in front of the Senate. Everyone who matters knows the score. In all the veiled questions, Senator O'Brien isn't after Anderson; he's trying to score points against the Liberal Party. Both Anderson and O'Brien are running a nice balancing act, orchestrated for the voter amd their own parties.
Royal Commission? Not in a million years and then not unless Labor is in power. But then, perhaps you too are playing politics with the platitudes?
Last edited by Lodown; 17th Aug 2006 at 04:17.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gaunty ….. he was very good at the cuddly caring persona …. It was IMHO a carefully crafted façade … ask Tony Windsor!!!
.
I have to agree with the others regarding Anderson …… sadly, that obviously included putting the travelling public at increased risk (incident data confirms this)! … very serious indeed!
.
Senator O’Brien could not (one would assume) pursue this earlier without some tangibles (there are plenty of others, just not used yet) …. from here on in it is simple ….. if he is genuine .. he must continue to probe … if it is merely a point scoring exercise, he will back off before anything serious might occur … either way we will see who is doing what to whom and why simply by their actions!
.
.. The interesting part will be exposing the ‘glue’ that held these two ‘incompatibles’ together for so long …. I have my suspicions … and I am certain that all possible pressure will be brought to bare to keep those matters from public scrutiny ….. the cost of not doing so would be to ‘die in an unceremonious ditch’ for the three of them!!
.
… should the good Senator use all available means to compel an inquiry??? ….. the mechanisms are there (outside the parliamentary system) ….. to do otherwise would be supping with the devil …. would it not??
.
… an apology from Anderson just does not cut it!!! …… imagine what you or I would have been subjected to if we had been wilfully, irresponsibly playing with public safety and huge sums of money for political/self serving purposes?? … not that that is not the norm nowadays in a political sense
.
… and finally, I would like to personally thank Mr Toller for attempting to uphold the integrity and safety of the system and the reputation of his good people at the CASA, through what clearly was unimaginable pressure and intimidation! … not many of us (in ATC) were aware this was going on, and wrongly assumed he, and others were in bed with the devil so to speak!
.
…. I for one take this opportunity to apologise to you publicly for that erroneous assumption on my part!! …. one day soon, I hope to have an opportunity to deliver that apology in person!!! …. Best regards!
.
I have to agree with the others regarding Anderson …… sadly, that obviously included putting the travelling public at increased risk (incident data confirms this)! … very serious indeed!
.
Senator O’Brien could not (one would assume) pursue this earlier without some tangibles (there are plenty of others, just not used yet) …. from here on in it is simple ….. if he is genuine .. he must continue to probe … if it is merely a point scoring exercise, he will back off before anything serious might occur … either way we will see who is doing what to whom and why simply by their actions!
.
.. The interesting part will be exposing the ‘glue’ that held these two ‘incompatibles’ together for so long …. I have my suspicions … and I am certain that all possible pressure will be brought to bare to keep those matters from public scrutiny ….. the cost of not doing so would be to ‘die in an unceremonious ditch’ for the three of them!!
.
… should the good Senator use all available means to compel an inquiry??? ….. the mechanisms are there (outside the parliamentary system) ….. to do otherwise would be supping with the devil …. would it not??
.
… an apology from Anderson just does not cut it!!! …… imagine what you or I would have been subjected to if we had been wilfully, irresponsibly playing with public safety and huge sums of money for political/self serving purposes?? … not that that is not the norm nowadays in a political sense
.
… and finally, I would like to personally thank Mr Toller for attempting to uphold the integrity and safety of the system and the reputation of his good people at the CASA, through what clearly was unimaginable pressure and intimidation! … not many of us (in ATC) were aware this was going on, and wrongly assumed he, and others were in bed with the devil so to speak!
.
…. I for one take this opportunity to apologise to you publicly for that erroneous assumption on my part!! …. one day soon, I hope to have an opportunity to deliver that apology in person!!! …. Best regards!
SDD: Don’t get too warm and fuzzy about Mr Toller. I hope you’re not so naïve as to think that he and Mr Anderson assumed the stuff quoted by Senator O’Brien from emails would never come to light.
Neither Mr Toller nor Mr Anderson would be silly enough to put anything really important in emails, unless they expected and wanted the content to be discovered.
Neither Mr Toller nor Mr Anderson would be silly enough to put anything really important in emails, unless they expected and wanted the content to be discovered.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... Agreed! ... at least Toller did put it in print ... why else??
.
..no not naive
... or are you suggesting Anderson wanted his pointed finger exposed!!!
.
..no not naive
... or are you suggesting Anderson wanted his pointed finger exposed!!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I'm prepared to accept all of the above and that I may not have given Anderson the total credit to which he is due. If it was as Machiavellan as you describe, and God help us if it was so, more power to his right arm. 
As far as Mick is concerned, he does indeed deserve a place of honour, for his refusal to knuckle under, for the integrity of his organisation and his troops.
The scientific part of gaunty says that the simple solution is always the best fit, but I guess we are not talking science but dirt road politics here.
As far as Mick is concerned, he does indeed deserve a place of honour, for his refusal to knuckle under, for the integrity of his organisation and his troops.
The scientific part of gaunty says that the simple solution is always the best fit, but I guess we are not talking science but dirt road politics here.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... I reckon they will ..... in droves ..... if the legal protections are there .... why wouldn't we/they?? ... in a political sense (dependant on what was dug up) it could go far wider than Anderson ...... very high stakes!!
.
........ ... it frightens me to see this (and other things) happening within our land of OZ
.... you are right Creampuff .... naïve 
.
........ ... it frightens me to see this (and other things) happening within our land of OZ
.... you are right Creampuff .... naïve
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another day in politics.
"Why won't someone simply stand up and tell it like it is?"
I'll have a go at answering this and say, "Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you." You know how it was. Many others know how it was. Is there anything to gain from putting the matter in front of the public record? What's the point in reliving it again in the media?
Implying some sort of code of honour, integrity or high standard of ethics is probably giving too much credit to the individuals involved. The simple fact remains that no one or no one group was prepared to sign off on the changes despite all the coercions/influence/bullying/bargaining/bullsh1tting, etc., without the appropriate supporting documentation and processes. Had he/she done so, he/she would probably now be trying to avoid a forced stint away from home at Her Majesty's expense. I think the posts from VOR made the repercussions for any potential signee quite transparent.
Oh! And I'm quite sure all the political figures mentioned would have knowledge of and access to the postings from VOR et el.
"Why won't someone simply stand up and tell it like it is?"
I'll have a go at answering this and say, "Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you." You know how it was. Many others know how it was. Is there anything to gain from putting the matter in front of the public record? What's the point in reliving it again in the media?
Implying some sort of code of honour, integrity or high standard of ethics is probably giving too much credit to the individuals involved. The simple fact remains that no one or no one group was prepared to sign off on the changes despite all the coercions/influence/bullying/bargaining/bullsh1tting, etc., without the appropriate supporting documentation and processes. Had he/she done so, he/she would probably now be trying to avoid a forced stint away from home at Her Majesty's expense. I think the posts from VOR made the repercussions for any potential signee quite transparent.
Oh! And I'm quite sure all the political figures mentioned would have knowledge of and access to the postings from VOR et el.
Last edited by Lodown; 17th Aug 2006 at 16:46.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple fact remains that no one was prepared to sign off on the changes despite all the coercions/influence/bullying/bargaining/bullsh1tting, etc., without supporting documentation and processes.
Had he/she done so, he/she would probably now be trying to avoid a forced stint away from home at Her Majesty's expense.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, it is nice to think that some very intelligent people had the end in mind when this started, but I don't think they did. I think it far more likely that in most cases, people had to be backed into corners for the final outcome to be reached.
I think far more justified of praise is the process by which NAS was not implemented. It was a shame that some people lost their jobs to be replaced by more concillatory pesonnel (to put it nicely). This is testimony to the enormous pressure and influence that was brought to bear. In the end, the NAS proposal was shown up for what it was. It had little substance despite extensive rhetoric and blowhard statements. The checks and balances remained.
This is why I don't think Senator O'Brien will get very far. As frustrating as it can be to deal with aviation change, at least when really tested the process remained secure.
I think far more justified of praise is the process by which NAS was not implemented. It was a shame that some people lost their jobs to be replaced by more concillatory pesonnel (to put it nicely). This is testimony to the enormous pressure and influence that was brought to bear. In the end, the NAS proposal was shown up for what it was. It had little substance despite extensive rhetoric and blowhard statements. The checks and balances remained.
This is why I don't think Senator O'Brien will get very far. As frustrating as it can be to deal with aviation change, at least when really tested the process remained secure.
Last edited by Lodown; 17th Aug 2006 at 17:10.
