spacesailor Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Just the same as the Drug pushers, who kill those party goers. Might not have intended Murder But definitely Manslaughter! . What do they get, "pill testers" . Spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 Just the same as the Drug pushers, who kill those party goers. Might not have intended Murder But definitely Manslaughter! . What do they get, "pill testers" . Spacesailor What are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 What are you talking about? I got it. Law makers just put bandaids on things instead of dealing with the real issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 The story has nothing to do with law makers, just allegations of people scamming the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 The story has nothing to do with law makers, just allegations of people scamming the system. Nothing to do with scamming.. Scamming is unlawful. These people are using our laws to make money, to the detriment of the country. Yes, it was written by a journalist, what’s your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 Nothing to do with scamming.. Scamming is unlawful. These people are using our laws to make money, to the detriment of the country. Yes, it was written by a journalist, what’s your point? OK then, you can use the direct quote “misleading” and deceptive if you want, but it has nothing to do with lawmakers or drug pushers, and the only time this would be applicable to Recreational pilots would be if they caused the crash of something like a Dash 8 full of passengers or a Jumbo and had taken out enough PL insurance around $100, million plus. My point about the journalist is that he is only repeating what others have told him, it is non specific, and usually on this forum journalists are disregarded out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 It always pays to remember the old saying about lawyers - "They're the people who referee the fight, and keep the purse." The returns to class-action plaintiffs are generally, disappointing, and very low - but the returns to global corporate lawyers, who like to advance class actions, are very high. https://www.moneymag.com.au/class-action-crime 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 It always pays to remember the old saying about lawyers - "They're the people who referee the fight, and keep the purse." The returns to class-action plaintiffs are generally, disappointing, and very low - but the returns to global corporate lawyers, who like to advance class actions, are very high. https://www.moneymag.com.au/class-action-crime That story probably explains where Class Actions sit, which will usually be a long way from a Recreational Aviator. If someone is contacted to join a class action and is given a target amount of money, say $250,000.00 vs the zero they have now, people can be quite happy to get that. It's only after the newspapers splash a story about a multi-million dollar win, that they start deciding they've been ripped off and could have done better hiring a lawyer themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 That story probably explains where Class Actions sit, which will usually be along way from a Recreational Aviator. If someone is contacted to join a class action and is given a target amount of money, say $250,000.00 vs the zero they have now, people can be quite happy to get that. It's only after the newspapers splash a story about a multi-million dollar win, that they start deciding they've been ripped off and could have done better hiring a lawyer themselves. If you cant see the connection between class action PL destroying the economy and life in general and plain old PL claims, which do exactly the same thing on a smaller scale, then there's not much point going on. In any case they both make businesses risk averse to the point of giving up or relocating and more often than not, they set new precedents and legislation is made that removes a bit of someone's freedom and make life miserable. You may be happy with your highly regulated paradise, but for many others it's toxic. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 If you cant see the connection between class action PL destroying the economy and life in general and plain old PL claims, which do exactly the same thing on a smaller scale, then there's not much point going on. Neither destroy the economy, and often the byproduct is to boot a thoroughly disreputable company out of the market. If you're really interested, you can research what happened to the Water Parks in the mid 1980's, what action they took and why you see them flourishing today. Or you can research what happened around 2000, when the end of the world was forecast because people couldn't get PL Insurance; that was to be the end of many things like sports and sausage sizzles, but they all survived and thrived. In any case they both make businesses risk averse to the point of giving up or relocating and more often than not, they set new precedents and legislation is made that removes a bit of someone's freedom and make life miserable. Companies are held responsible for the safety of their employees so of course they are removing unsafe processes. You may be happy with your highly regulated paradise, but for many others it's toxic. Governments have de-regulated, not regulated. Self administration means people can decide how to make their operations safe; some may go overboard, but talking to the organisation can produce a safe compromise. Whatever, that's between you and the organisation you live with. We as taxpayers no longer have to pay the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 We as taxpayers no longer have to pay the bill. Or you can research what happened around 2000, when the end of the world was forecast because people couldn't get PL Insurance; that was to be the end of many things like sports and sausage sizzles, but they all survived and thrived. We can't possibly be talking about the same country........ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Governments have de-regulated, not regulated. Not in my experience. In every field of endeavour today, there are more rules and regulations, more red tape, and more fearful behaviour of "being held responsible", if anything goes wrong, than there was 50 years ago, when we just "got 'er done", without reference to panels, public consultations, committees, and unnecessarily convoluted and often conflicting regulations. It's a wonder anything gets done at all in todays world. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 The story has nothing to do with law makers, just allegations of people scamming the system. So Turbs, do you read this quote from the article differently?: The seven-point plan calls on the government to regulate litigation funders through the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, impose reasonable limits on returns to plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders, and prohibit litigation funders from exerting any control over the positions and arguments prosecuted by law firms. The Ai Group also asks to expose plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders to adverse costs orders for unsuccessful class actions and to increase the current minimum number of plaintiffs and implement a “predominance rule” that operates in the US requiring common issues among claims. The peak industry group also wants the government to implement a preliminary or certification hearing process, under a similar system operating in the US. Shooting from the hip was always inaccurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 So Turbs, do you read this quote from the article differently?: Shooting from the hip was always inaccurate This journalist's story isn't relevant to our day to day flying, but you can play with it any way you like, I'm not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 Not in my experience. In every field of endeavour today, there are more rules and regulations, more red tape, and more fearful behaviour of "being held responsible", if anything goes wrong, than there was 50 years ago, when we just "got 'er done", without reference to panels, public consultations, committees, and unnecessarily convoluted and often conflicting regulations. It's a wonder anything gets done at all in todays world. I'll give you a couple of examples where we have less government rules and regulations and red tape. Motor Vehicles Registration: We had to take a car to a police station to be registered, so find a set of trade plates, make sure there was extra fuel in it, often find the battery cart to start it (new vehicles were delivered to a dealership with a minimum of fuel, and may have been sitting in the factory compound for several months). In addition to the above, If it was a truck, it had to go through the police process, and that would frequently involve "discussions" over interpretation of light type and location, or air brake component fitted etc. and it was necessary to book a semi trailer in. In Victoria it was necessary to find out from the customer where the truck would be operating during its life because truck registrations were confined to a district, to reduce other operators coming in and cutting prices. The name and addess of the owner had to be painted on the RH door of every truck. All buses, and larger trucks then had to proceed to a different government body, the Transport Regulation Board, so after you were finished with the cop, you got a would-be cop, and the truck/bus had to be measured and inspected. A bus registration took a morning or an afternoon; I registered three log trucks in NSW over two full working days once. The Transport Regulation Board was closed down. The registration process was de-regulated, and freed from police and transport authorities. Today we register cars trucks and buses in the dealerships during predelivery - a massive saving in cost, but yes, we take responsibility for what we register for the road. Safety - Factories, Sporting events Victoria's Department of Labour and Industry was a large one with several hundred employees who used to travel around inspecting cranes, chains, hooks,and other factory equipment, tagging them as approved. They developed specifications for motor racing tracks; safety fence construction and height, catch fence construction and height, distance of spectators from fences and a host of other items, and the Inspector would come around every season, inspect the track, issue a list of remedial items, then sign an approval to use when everything had been fixed. The general public never saw this side, but the Promotor certainly pulled his hair out. In the mid 1980's the Department of Labour and Industry was closed down one day, and all those records sent to storage. From then on, we checked our own factories and race tracks. We saw it as freedom. "fearful behaviour of "being responsible" if anything goes wrong. A certain percentage of the population ignores safety, works on the "couldn't happen to me principle", believes rules are for fools etc. and they certainly have something to fear, and at the time governments decided the taxpayers were not going to pay for the screw ups, we knew we were going to have to come up with our own safety benchmarks. All of a sudden the Australian Standards which had been sitting there in the background, could be used to deonstrate duty of care, and we could come up with our own, practical, rules to apply in daily activities, we could develop our own safety policies free of government interference. Today, if I put one of those vehicles on the road I know it is dynamically stable and fully compliant with accepted safety benchmarks because I've used digital checks which take a fraction of the time I used to take - minutes vs hours, and all my calculations for every vehicle are on file should there be an accident, so I don't have to worry about whether I covered all the bases. Panels, Public Consultations, Committees In the Government sector, these instruments are set up to try to ensure that someone doesn't bulldoze some type of inappropriate action. Sometimes a developer decides to do a dodgy development which will disadvantage others, and locals can expose this during the public consultation period, or evidence can be given at a panel or committee, which may sink the dodgy project, or allow one with some merit to be changed slightly, and become a better development/project etc. This replaces the old days were decisions were made by senior management/entrepreneurs behind closed doors and prisons were sited in the middle of cities, roads were built to Councillors homes, etc. I agree it's a slower process these days, but is has eliminated a lot of inappropriate activity. Conflicting Regulations Shouldn't happen but it inevitably does. At times the fix can be as quick as bring it to someone's attention, and that would apply to the bulk of conflicts. Sometimes you have to be the one to come up with the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 I agree it's a slower process these days, but is has eliminated a lot of inappropriate activity. And expanded the scope for activist or corrupt local government employees to pervert the system sometimes in concert with similarly minded state government counterparts. These people rarely get brought to book as developers simply shrug their shoulders and move on to the next opportunity. There is no reward for principled behaviour by developers who may wish to take on the entrenched players in the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 New reg,s NSW boats have to have a couple of holes drilled into the hull, (HIN). the attached aluminium plate gets immersed in salt water. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Sounds like another Bottom of the Harbour, scheme. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 The reason we have more and more red tape and regulations is because we want it that way. Just look at the TV news and you will see something horrible happening. Next the do gooders are calling for legislation to stop it happening. Think racehorses and people in aged care at the present time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 There may have been substantial improvements in some areas of Govt regulation in recent years - but as a general rule, for every Dept and convoluted system abolished, Federal, State and Local Govt has only produced more regulation, and more public servants, in other "developing" fields, that were gaining Govt attention. It's like the GST - when it was introduced, it was a "simpler" and "fairer" system, that was going to abolish the thousands of pages of tax laws under the old tax system, and reduce taxes on those who could ill-afford them. The GST started off with around 2000 pages of GST legislation and definitions - at the last report I heard, the number of pages of GST legislation and definitions had climbed to over 20,000 pages, and was still climbing. And at the end of the day, the GST is a regressive tax, because it overburdens low-income earners. In addition, the Govt, via the ATO, reaped billions when the GST was introduced, by taxing millions of secondhand items, already in use, that were previously tax-free. Now the Govt sucks dollars from online overseas purchases on the likes of eBay, on minor purchases as low as a couple of dollars, that were previously tax-free - all because the big retailers whined about an "unlevel playing field". And the small businesses of Australia are unpaid tax collectors under the GST. What a rort. The fire protection industry has boomed in recent years, aided by more and more Govt legislation and ever-tightening rules. The income for companies assisting businesses to comply with those ever-tighter fire rules and regulations is predicted to double in the 5 yrs between 2015 and 2020. Safety rules and regulations in virtually every industry, increase in number every year - and it needs increased numbers of public servants to enforce them. National parks are now a major industry with a plethora of rules and regulations - and where National Parks used to be free to visit, they now nearly all charge substantial fees to go visit them. Little wonder people keep going "bush" in self-supporting 4WD's and off-road caravans, so they can try to "get away", and lower their daily costs, when indulging in recreation. I could name many other fields where Govt intrusion, legislation, and tax-collection is increasing, but I'm fearful of readers losing interest, because of the length of my post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 1, 2019 Author Share Posted November 1, 2019 To stop some of that creep, I'm in favour of a policy that for every new ACT introduced by a Parliament, there should be two dropped. The regulation in Victoria that permitted a man to urinate in the gutter in the Melbourne CBD provided his horse was drinking from a public trough, was only terminated a few decades ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenisPC9 Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Article in The Oz today..... Surge in class action lawfare hits economy EXCLUSIVE GEOFF CHAMBERS FEDERAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT @Chambersgc 12:00AM OCTOBER 30, 2019 102 COMMENTS An explosion in class action claims funded by overseas litigation backers is threatening investment and jobs in Australia, with more than $10bn in claims lodged against businesses in the last financial year. Ai Group chief executive Innes Willox has warned that the surge in litigation presented a “clear and present danger” to the nation’s “fragile economy” amid record insurance premium increases and limited regulation to minimise class action exposure. Business, legal and insurance figures have called on the Morrison government to urgently address the spike in class action claims in the past two years. Hmmm, I read a small article in the Sydney Morning Herald from memory some 4 - 5 years ago, the gist of it being that the Brit Govt told the Australian Govt that it would no longer train Australian Legislative Draftsmen. No reasons were given and there was never any follow by anyone. Reading articles like this and many, many others where Aust law is full of loopholes and escape clauses I can understand the actions of the Brit Govt. We certainly need to lift our standards with Legislative Drafting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 We certainly need to lift our standards with Legislative Drafting We most certainly do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 4, 2019 Author Share Posted November 4, 2019 Hmmm, I read a small article in the Sydney Morning Herald from memory some 4 - 5 years ago, the gist of it being that the Brit Govt told the Australian Govt that it would no longer train Australian Legislative Draftsmen. No reasons were given and there was never any follow by anyone. Reading articles like this and many, many others where Aust law is full of loopholes and escape clauses I can understand the actions of the Brit Govt. We certainly need to lift our standards with Legislative Drafting How does Class Action packaging have anything to do with Legislative Drafting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 How does Class Action packaging have anything to do with Legislative Drafting? Read the article....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now