Ann: Regulatory Update , page-17

Surfrat, your suggestion is a logical one. But to summarise, you have to understand the framework and play to that tune. If you deviate, you'll lose money.

TIS is a commercial entity. The BSI is a non-commercial organisation. TIS has no oversight of the BSI, the BSI has oversight of TIS commercial activities, but more specifically adhering to the standards which have been set-out by them. This is the relationship flow.

The submission made by the BSI may well have been poor, I'm not saying it wasnt. But it is not a requirement nor reasonable for anyone - investors, people on the street, or even GOD, as you suggest - to expect that a commercial entity scrutinise a standards organisation. Thats ridiculous (thats what they are there for). TIS commissioned the report as they want answers to this rigmarole.

When I go to the RTA and ask for a license, I adhere to their requirements. I am not their authority and I do not know their internal processes. If they stuff up and it takes weeks to issue my license, requiring further documentation I must provide it to them. I can ask my local member to look into my case and scrutinise the process, but in the interim I must comply. I COULD pre-empt the failings of the RTA but;

1. Why would I go to the cost (time/money) if they are the authority.

2. What precedent can I reference for RTA failings to give me reason to pre-empt such an event.

Hopefully this little analogy brings some clarity. Note; its all dandy in hindsight. eg: no one called for an independant BSI review before. With all due respect surfrat, you are only saying what you are saying because of the current predicament. No one of this forum raised the idea of a BSI review before they submitted.