which part was public interest?, page-49

re: to t4p kimmo...

Yes you were right...congratulations...you must feel very capable and proud of your deep understanding of the "system", but I am afraid it was not through well reasoned argument that you got it right...it was by default.

Anyone happy with this result, or worse still, feel they somehow managed to predict it, has no more understanding of the gravity of the underlying events here than, I suggest, the "Minister to assist" (read sacrificial lamb) himself.

But yes, you were right...I was wrong!

As such, I most humbly ask for your forgiveness for actually having the audacity to have a deep appreciation for and belief of the law and all it entails...I also deeply apologise for assuming that "WA Inc." was no longer running the state to the extent that it obviously still is.

I will now resolve to place far more weight on the "WA Inc." effect in future...because clearly on this particular occasion, I have dramatically underestimated it's stranglehold on the state and it's ability to overpower even the most comprehensive of arguments.

But this does not change the facts...

The "reasoning" you put forward back then, as was the "reasoning" recently put forward by the minister himself in the handing down of his decision, are completely incomprehensible and no more than an embarrassing attempt to satisfy a wider and generally less informed electorate.

Anyone who really takes such arguments seriously really has little concept of what really has transpired here.

This is why informed people, really informed people, are in such a state of shock over this decision.

In my opinion, this case really needs to be presented before a court...any court...where educated people, informed people and perhaps most importantly, unbiased people can pass fair and reasonable judgement, based on the actual Mining Act and in particular, a genuine and accountable interpretation of the "public interest" argument.

The only problem I can see is that there wouldn't actually be any material for a case to start...simply because just about everything the Minister has mentioned is inadmissible at any level.

So many errors at law here it's really not funny.

I have three close associates in the legal game...all of them (and all of their colleagues) are in stitches over the "evidence" presented by Bowler. They will be talking about the "Bowler excuse" for years

If this travesty ever manages to get to court, the embarrassing diatribe and comedy of errors being presented as support for this inequitable decision, will be truly seen for the joke they are.

Cheers!