and to put us all out of our mysery, page-12

Thanks for that DoughBoy

I’ve notice the article has confused LICENCE with LEASE. I recall doing the same, a long time ago.

Unless someone can correct me, it was an exploration licence that RIO forgot about. Not a LEASE.

So I can only assume the report misquoted when it said: “…..Supreme Court reserved its decision on whether to reinstate Cazaly’s claim to the Shovelanna LEASE accidentally relinquished by Rio Tinto…..” end quote.

As for the report’s references to: “… startling admission it had “misquoted” advice provided by the Department of Industry and Resource….” I can only say I’m a bit confused.

We need to have, we deserve to have our own public copy of that DOIR advice so we (the investing public) can understand what the reporter is talking about. Because I’m not convinced the reporter understands what it is they were arguing about. Let alone explain it to the public.

We at HotCopper have heard (I recall) that the Minister had internal advice that his s.111A powers were broad (or was the word used “unlimited”? Whatever. The point is WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ADVICE WAS”.

So we are in no position to fully understand, just from the article, anything. Nothing that is, that we can get our teeth into.

But I got the distinct impression that whatever was the actual internal advice Bowler received, the mere hint (on our part – the investing public) in the news that Bowler did receive advice that stated he is legally empowered to make the decision he made, that we then have a right to assume (as that is all we can do) that Bowler relied upon that advice, or some other similar advice equally unknown to the public.

The possible paraphrasing that you (DoughBoy) suggest might have happened, is another example of why the Court ought to take advantage of 21st century technology.

It is, in my opinion an outrage that we can not discover transcripts of the hearing on the Court’s web site.

The idea that we need to apply for and be charged $900 for a transcript of the Judicial Reviews heared this week is, to me, outrageously expensive. Unless the court does not transcribe but only voice records the hearing. And so charges $900 to cover the (average) costs to transcribe it especially for moi.

So, much of the report is ambiguous. And I agree, we should KILL this piece of Journalism. Though the journalist deserves a new LEASE on life so he/she can try again. Hopefully, he/she will be able to satisfy our intense degree of curiosity…. Lol…..I doubt!

But if the Cazaly side call it a “critical misdirection” well, we might feel that if Mr. McCusker says it is “critical” then there is a “reasonable” chance the court will agree. Assuming “critical” means what I assume it means. And Mr. McCusker means what he says in using the word “critical”.

If a nuclear reactor goes “critical” we can assume that means that it has gone unavoidably towards blowing up or melting down. And like when one goes a bridge too far, if you go a bridge too far you are guaranteed to fail. SO there is no escape. No way to avoid, the consequences.

Like when you have not made a backup of your data, and the computer say no, you very quickly realise that you have made a critical mistake! You feel a deep-set anguish.

And you all have no idea how many time, when writing these monologues I have gone a word too far and not saved the file in time, when suddenly the computer says “what file”?

That’s when I realise I’ve made a bloody “critical”oversight.

Maybe Mr. Bowler, after the CCC, understands the feeling.