before you all cry corruption, page-22

I agree. Avoiding certain words from time to time can make a lot of sense. But I think the Bowler decision is a joke. Joke joke joke.

But only to the extent of my current understanding of the decision. Which is simply that Bowler decided to cancel Cazaly's application.

And I'm serious as I bide my time.

And without a bloody doubt, delegating a s.111 decision to a Minister, held in secret is more than a joke. Its a bloody outragous assault on the separation of powers under the Westminster System, as I understand it. Its also simply outragous, in my opinion.

I believe a s.111 decision is a matter for the Courts (Judiciary).

If the decision had been made in open court, the public and especially shareholders in RIO & ECH & CAZ would have been kept informed of the progress and arguements of the decision.

We have been denied this basic right, to be kept informed. For the market to be kept informed.

Had I been able to examine the arguments being put to the minister prior to his decision, I expect I might have formed a completely different expectation of the final decision and would have changed my innvestment decision. Yes, I held some CAZ shares.