Happy to stand corrected on the artefacts if they are verified. I do not accept everything stated by parties developing vested interests. What I will question is the Section 18 process having been there done that. The TO's of the day must have been party to it. Contrary to what Ken Wyatt says a Section 18 approval is an approval to disturb otherwise it should not have been granted. Nothing about being blind, its about process and in this case it would seem the process should never have commenced and the S18 never approved. More fish in the net than just RIO.
