Smithy,The circumstances today are different to back then.The...

Smithy,

The circumstances today are different to back then.

The issue if the bph board pushes, especially if publically.

If it goes to court, the other side will weaponise what is stated.

Cherry picking one sentence, another sentence, often from a different time. Joining them and manipulating the narrative is hard to defeat.

The evidence is effectively poisoned against those that speak first.

It is unfair, but that's how it works, litigation is a nasty game.

It is also impossible to change the method of attack if your opponent knows your methods early.

So silence is the winning key. Often at an impass, those that speak first loose.

I've been in legal cases and I stay silent, let others divulge. Sometimes in reply I do not as that picks apart the other sides weakness, and they close it up.

Already the government, Albo has stated certain things that I'd classify as biased, one was inferring there decision could not be unwound.

That was around the time he had lunch with steggal and before she introduced her bill. Join the dots.

The other is when evidence relied upon is public, it is often not admissible.

As un easy as it is, let the government speak, make mistakes, analyse them, be silent and weaponise them.

I think even if bph was perceived more proactive, the sp would still be 2c as it is because pep11 is not approved.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Is best to let lobby groups bat for pep11 as they would be outside any legal matters.

Ie no coercing, no trying to interfere with a due process.

In a court the gov could use the above against bph if they go public about this.