Jerry_Atrick

In the UK, as long as parliament passed a law or the direction to murder civilians was authorised under an act of parliament, then, no, it wasn't illegal (although, in all honesty, there is a case to say the UK parliament is illegal or has no authority - all to do with William of Orange, or something like that). Although academics and the legal profession believe the UK has a constitution, the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that the courts will not challenge a law made by parliament. Therefore, the massacre of coal miners was performed under parliamentary laws, then, it is not illegal.

Oh boy.. Why a small stretch of land gathers so much attention when so many other wars are going on in the same area, resulting in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths and suffering, I will never know... But, this has been discussed ad-nauseam on the sister site, originally in a couple of other threads, and of laterly, this one: https://www.socialaustralia.com.au/topic/1477-israel/ I originally was of the opinion most people are today, but after the discussion started in other threads on the sister site,I did a bit of research, and now I am not so sure.. When asking peoples' views of the occupied territories, it may pay to ask the son of a Hamas founder, a video of which is in the second page the the thread there. He has had first hand experience inside and outside of the territories - and had a privileged life inside the territories, so, had a vested interest of maintaining the status quo... My personal opinion (although not asked of) is that it is really complicated and takes a lot of research to get to the bottom of; But, in terms of recent history, there would appear to have been many carrots dangled to allow a 2 state solution..

Third time lucky, eh, FB? 1st Try some conspiracy story about celebrating diversity month amid the chaos - untrue (oh, and that article originally had the photo, which is why I looked it up). Second attempt to conflate two statements into a contradiction when they were just two statements that could have been true and occurred coincidentally.. Finally, you've hit the jackpot that Biden is a crackpot.. though there is no "wokeism" involved, that fascist leaning leaders would solve; just a stuff up.. sort of... This is the actual quote: ""But, look – but no one's being killed right now, God forgive me if I'm wrong about that, but no one's being killed right now." It either shows a remarkable likeness to his predecessors indifference to the truth, or that Biden is a) suffering dementia; or b) simply not up to date with what is going in. The article I took this from is here: https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-apos-no-one-141659367.html, where it goes on to say, "Nevertheless, Biden asserted to Stephanopoulos that the Taliban is providing "safe passage for Americans to get out." So, it could (and I stress, could) be that when Biden was making the remark, rather than referring to people dying resulting from being crushed on their way to the airport or from falling off hanging onto the aircraft as it took off, it may (and I stress, may) be that Biden was referring to being killed by the Taliban. Of which, at the time, there was no evidence (to my knowledge, anyway). So, he may not be crazy, lying, or any of the above with respect to that comment. But, to be honest, as politics is the grubbiest of the nobly grubby professions, I think he did knowingly lie, or at least use the truth in a context that made it an outright lie. I don't think anyone, even dedicated democrats, are making out this was the only way out, or even that the US (and RoW) should have pulled out. This is a monumental cock-up of magnanimous proportions. In this test of his presidency, it is (in my opinion), a big fail, bordering on criminal. But he isn't the only one to have stuffed up... Trumps withdrawal from Syria wasn't exactly a shining light on leaving a country such that the population the US were protecting were safe. So, almost fascists quelling wokeism (as if it is bad, anyway), is also probably not the answer. It has made a real dent in his popularity and probably cemented further cynicism to the claim "America is back" to working with its allies. As someone who considers themselves centrist (libertarian even), one can only condemn what he has done and how he has handled it. Even that "bastion of wokesim", the BBC, has poured scorn on him, my favourite being this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/58243158. Does it mean he is unfit to be president? No more so than his predecessor; in fact he is still more fit, IMHO. Unf, there are currently no real alternatives. So, FB.. third time lucky - and with a Brietbart quote, too.. Go to the top of the class 😉

Yes... Quote from General, probably taken out of context against the reporting of people fleeing to the airport... Still not sure of your point. General says that at that point in time, the Taliban aren't interfering with their operations, which may have been true, and at the same time people are panicking and wanting to get to the airport - which may have also been true... So, what is the point? How have the two been connected, except by the word "meanwhile"?? Hard to draw any conclusions. Then the stuff about pride month celebrations. The original photo with the article, since taken down was found to be a fake: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-kabul-photoshop-idUSL1N2PO1FB And there is no record of Biden celebrating pride month at the Kabul embassy - virtually or in person: https://factba.se/biden/calendar And even if he did, was does "celebrating mean"... It could have been a call about ensuring diversity, including those of the Afgnan population is respected when determining who gets to leave. A snippet from a dodgy news site is a bit of a worry for you to rely on for your news sources.

^^^^^^^ OK.. And your point is?

Yeah.. maybe.. but that size 5 rolling pin has since made an appearnace 😉

Went to the village pub for dinner this eve.. Was really wierd walking into an area with other people and no mask. We were outsude the whole time, which made me a little more comfy. Apart from the bar staff, most people over 50... and all jabbed... Makes me thing with Delta, the bar staff should be jabbed, too. They were mainly under 25. Back to the aviation theme.. Turns out being the only private pilot in the village (there is one rotor PPL in the next village) works a treat with the young bar staff...

Depends on how big an inheritance you are leaving them

I was reading similar re Pfizer.. And apparently, there can be other complications that aren't apparent in the AZ vaccine (yet!). These can include anaphylactic shock and some diseases I have never heard of (although extremely rare): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997050/Temporary_Authorisation_HCP_Information_BNT162_12_0_UK_clean.pdf As to why the government needs to line US billionaires pockets? Well, I don't think there is an intention to do it; the press have latched onto the blood clotting thing and pollies are creatures of the knee jerk reaction to maintain popularity (or stop the slide into unpopularity). No one was knocking Pfizer at the time... and they still don't seem to be saying it is much the muchness as AZ.. .

Got the jab, yet? If so, take comfort that once the magical number (is it 80%) have, they are likely to stop the lockdowns and life will get back to normal - more or less. We did it at 65% and to be honest, when they lifted the restrictions, I thought they were nuts, but apparently the hospitalisation and deaths numbers are much better than the modelled numbers despite the increases in infections.So, if you know people who are uhmming and ahhing over it, encourage them to do it.. Also over here, to get younger people to do it, the government is looking at providing incentives: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58044088 (The Department of Health said other incentives could include "vouchers or discount codes for people attending pop-up vaccine sites and booking through the NHS, social media competitions and promotional offers for restaurants". If you haven't got the jab, get it.. you're holding up the process.

Hi Alan, Do you have a link - I was on the BBC website and couldn't find the article. Over here, the reports are the vaccine is less effective against Delta, but there is evidence it is still quite effective: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/delta-variant-vaccine-covid-uk-b1898190.html "The vaccines have been shown to provide good protection against severe disease and death from Delta, especially after two doses, but there is less data on whether vaccinated people can still transmit it to others. "Some initial findings ... indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta having already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people," PHE said in a statement."" This indicates that the vaccines still reduce the effects, but may be as transmissible as without the vaccine. This article states the effectiveness against the delta variant is less effective, but inline: https://inews.co.uk/news/health/delta-variant-patients-hospitalised-covid-strain-fully-vaccinated-1139140 Have to remember with these stats (55% unvaccinated, and 35% vaccinated) is against an increasingly higher proportion of the population that is vaccinated; therefore if greater than 50% of the population is vaccinated (which it is), there will be statistical skew because of the comparison of different numbers of the population. In other words, there are many more people here vaccinated than not; therefore the number of hospitlaised is likely to be over-represented. To correct this, they should state the numbers should state that 35% of the hispitalised cases represents x% of the vaccinated population; while 55% of the hospitalised cases represents y% of the unvaccinated population. And probably further qualify it by age group, as the under 40s have a lower proportion of their population vaccinated as opposed to oldies in my age group. Of course, they could look at underlying health issues and other characteristics with correlations of the vaccinated hospitalisations to try and work out what the likely comorbid causes are so people can take further protection.

Yes.. maybe the family will wonder why he found himself in IMC? I know I twice suffered pressonitis and to this day still can't fathom it.. especially the second time, which did scare the carp out of me.

*cough* *cough* ; *splutter* *splutter* ... Obviously, the stress our pollies are under, they need the relief.. And it works both ways - pressure relief provided by the houses of ill-repute - no doubt considered essential services - and relief of not having to deal with those members of the family one would prefer to cast into the open ocean at a point where white tips are swimming in circles waiting for their feed. Of course, it may provide little comfort of being denied the liberty of seeing genuine loved ones. I don't believe either of these are crimes.. The former may land you in hot water in a civil suit, but the latter, well, is all around us today... I am not sure of the circumstances of the latest outbreak in Victoria, but to consider the legal implications in criminal law: Generally, for a crime to be committed, there has to be two ingredients: actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). As an example, the act of killing an adult is not in itself murder, but the guilty mind (i.e. intent) makes it murder. Without getting into a convoluted argument about the overlap, as an example, of you happen to be jogging along the footpath and from between two dtrucks parked on the side of the road, a pedestrian, oblivious to the world outside them thanks to the miracle of modern personal music players, emerges in your track with too little time for you to react and you pummell them to the ground upon which their head makes fatal contact with the concrete, you are very unlikely to be convicted (or charged) with murder as it was a totally unavoidable accident. If, however, you lined them up for 100 metres away (and assume that can be proved_) and you timed it to pummel them to the ground on them emerging from between the trucks, well, you have intent and you are guilty of murder (again, assuming it is provable and there are no defences such as temporary insanity or provocation or something else). To our hapless COVID infected people in Trugininia.. the key questions are: - Is it a crime, when out of lockdown to move around if one has COVID-19? - If so, did they intend to move around with COVID when they moved around - in other words - did they know they had COVID and therefore intentionally move around when it was illegal? If the answer to both of the questions is yes, well, then, yes, they should have the book thrown at them. If the answer to either is no, well, it's sad it has happened, and yes, the ramifications are serious, but either it wasn't against the law (therefore a court will throw it out unless they want to invent a common law crime) or they had know possible knowledge they were spreading COVID (therefore, no intent). The exceptions are strict liability (i.e. intent was not there, but too bad unless you were an automotant - meaning unable to control your actions), which is common for motoring offences, or absolute liability (no intent, and too bad if you couldn't control your actions) - probably the preserve of tax avoidance or similar. Those who travelled without the requisite passports/tests/etc required for interstate travel probably should have the book thorwn at them.. the local Melbourne cases - I am not so sure.

As OT said, finance is not the sole measure - but using it, yes Australians get it right despite governments actions and inactions that thwart it. With respect to the COVID success, it would appear the governments that let it be handled by the CHO's got it right and those that didn't - didn't quite get it right (although the numbers are still far better than other countries). In Vic, the government was responsible for the quarantine outbreak - not the CHO.. Going off topic (since the subject of financial position in the world was brought up - which is measured usually as GDP/capita - given Australia's resources, education (well at least of prior days), size, etc., on an adjusted basis, I would say it is a laggard.: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/worlds-5-richest-nations-by-gdp-per-capita-2021-05-20. With the exception of the USA (and Luxembourg as it is a tax haven), we should be up there given what we have at our disposal. In the top 25 economies, which is outright GDP, we are 13 - so just scrape into the bottom half. Ahead of us are many countries that do not have the resources.. they have an internal market bigger than us - yes most have a bigger population than us, but there is no reason why we should not be further up the scale (on both counts). I agree with OT - Australia is moving to the American model and it is a travesty that such outright and per capita wealth nations are further concentrating wealth (or in Australia's case, either selling economic rights to foreign interests or just letting them in); and the resultant problems that causes. We have a saving grace, which is a relatively high basic wage (costs of living ain't cheap, though).. But things like health, education, food standards, ecological sustainability, etc, are all in the mix in terms of utilising all economic resourcing to better society. In our societal structure, we need a robust economy to work for us; and to get one, we need to work for the economy.. In a competing world, that means governments must foster innovation and investment; accept the future and be prepared to transition the economy as technology progresses and other imperatives (e.g. climate change) occur. In addition, IMHO, it needs to weigh its procurement policy to supporting existing and fostering fledgling indigenous businesses, rather than relying on foreign businesses, even if it costs a little more and involves a little more risk. Re the grubbiness of government, I was doing a job for a Vic statutory authority. We were going to tender to replace legacy systems with an integrated system to service that sector. There were sadly no indigenous firms that could provide the system.. As we were evaluating the tenders, our initial round threw out a world leading software vendor who pitched the most expensive solution that in their bid, they acknowledged didn't exist and they would have to build it - they didn';t have an offering that came near to supporting the sector we were in. It was not until it was made clear to the minister who had ultimate responsibility for the Authority that should any of the other vendors appeal the award, there is no possible way without doctoring all of the bids that the decision could be upheld, especially if the auditor general got involved. That public service head had been moved before I finished the contract.

OK this probably should me more for a carpentry forum, but a friend (possibly of a few on here, even) sent me a vid and I thought it was quite interesting.. Hand made prop - ornamental only, but I marvel at the skills of some people - even more so those who can hand build working props! Enjoy..

Was going to write a long diatribe.. I would wager, given the evidence, that Australia has progressed more in spite of the governments than because of them, and with more progressive and strategic thinking governments we would be miles ahead of where we are now. Mind you, it is not unique to Australia...

I don't think this is entirely accurate as state of emergency laws vary from state to state. I am not going to read all the laws, but the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing seems to give at least some direct powers to the CHO (https://www.emv.vic.gov.au/fact-sheet-states-of-emergency-under-victorian-law), whereas in NSW, under the Public Health Act, it appears the state health minister has the power (https://justiceconnect.org.au/resources/how-the-new-south-wales-governments-emergency-restrictions-on-covid-19-work/). Although my time in both the Victorian and Australian Public service (both permanent and consulting capacity) is far less, I did witness first hand some of the grubbiness with both the senior public servants and pollies, which played out. It was not too different to the same in the private sector, to be honest. Defo.. Yes... and the difference in the powers accorded under NSW law is probably why. I was watching a snippet (I think on Media Watch) of one of the press conferences, she was uncomfortably saying one of the reasons for the delay in lockdown was she observed while driving her car people voluntarily wearing masks and observing social distancing - doing the right thing - and therefore didn't feel the need for lockdown. That may be true, but I doubt it. If it were true, you would want her out of that job ASAP as she has admitted two things; first she drew conclusions from anecdotal rather than empirical observations/evidence; second, if using a population sample to work out what is going on, it should be purely random to mitigate bias risk. I could be wrong but I am guessing the suburbs and areas she was driving around are not representative of the wider Sydney communities.. just a hunch... so her observations would have been filled with bias. Also, Gladys has admitted in press conferences that the government took advice from both the science and business. This underscores, in NSW at least, it is not the CHO calling the shots... And some independent journos are claiming the business advice is at loggerheads to the science advice, and assert the business advice won (at least in the early stages)... If that is true, ironically, the businesses are suffering more now. Agree, but it would appear the difference is that the CHO in Vic has power to fix the situation where in NSW, it seems the CHO has only advisory capacity to the Minister of Health. And once a minister holds the decision, many non-science factors come into it. The reality is that it is the pollies who facilitate the power anyway - the state of emergency has to be declared, have a shelf-life and be renewed. There has to be political will to ensure appropriate enforcement of whatever is decided to hold people to account when they breach it. Even in Vic, if the CHO made all these restrictions but it wasn't backed up by enforcement, it would mean nothing. "Chaiman" Dan was resolute in his support for the CHO and, with hiccups, it got the job done. Without that resolute support, the dissent would have been higher and harder to manage. None of this, however, changes the fact that the evidence of what is happening is a slap in the face/egg on the face of anti-vaxxers/lockdowners conspiracy theories.. Aus will get to its critical mass of vaccinations, and those that don't will have practical restrictions placed upon them; some may be government/legal restrictions, but I would guess most will be placed on them based on commercial interests.

ASIO intelligence does suggest Lismore is high on the international terrorist agenda, you know.....

post deleted - was out of context (hadn't realised the thread moved on quite so far)

In the context of a discussion on Australia, well, er, things like climate change denial, fossil fuel lobbies, tax breaks for the rich, er the Afghanis who helped Australia being left for dead, civil libertarian issues, sexual abuse and cover-ups, etc... The assertion was a reflection of another user's assertion and was a subtle attempt to say, hey, while they are grubby, they haven't been so grubby with respect to COVID* Excellent analysis... this should be ample evidence to those who look for conspiracy theories that the reckless, if not criminal behaviour of governments entrusted to protect their citizens who bowed to their sponsors... er.. donors and vested interests acted wrongly. I did not mean to say Australia was grubbier is less competent that any other country. Exactly, which was my reference to the state governments who did act decisively seem to be fairing very well by the electorate.. BTW, even at state government level, politics is otherwise grubby... However, those governments who have taken a more liberal approach to controlling the pandemic seem not to be enjoying as much electoral support.. And coincidentally, this video was just released: (Just wanted to clear up, as I have said on the sister site, the state governments by and large have been doing well.. Even Gladys, who is having a few issues at the moment, has by and large, well.. been OK...)

This could be good value, if they allowed camping under the wing, decent dunny and shower block, and of course, on site BBQs - right next to the fuel bowsers/trucks/tanks... 🙂 Me, personally, after flying in the UK, would feel guilty only paying $6 full stop and $1.76 T&Gs. A comparable airport over 'ere: https://flybrighton.com/landing-fees-and-charges/ and this used to be my home airport: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/593e87342e69cf4a3e148bb4/t/60fadce6c1ab01116964fd19/1627053286642/Airport+Price+List+v7b+(incl+VAT).pdf. At these rates, the annual landing card for Blackbushe for what was my a/c at c. 1450kg mtow would require 174 landings to break even. Smart flying schools pay private airstrips an annual fee to be able to use it for T&Gs rather than at their home airport. Why table what is happening in the UK? Because about 35 years ago (before I arrived here), they went from community assets to cost recovery.. I think most were council owned. Now a lot have been either sold off or long-leased to private companies with Armageddon clauses that if they can't make money out of it, they can convert them to housing estates.. Guess what has happened? Lots of airfields (some historically significant WWII airfields) have gone; the remaining have jacked up their prices.. And, nary a real (GA) flying club to be found; certainly not of the same calibre of those in Aus. Permit flying is in better shape, but it hasn't made up for the decline in GA since I have been here ('96). So, take this as a warning, esp if you need more than 400m landing/take off distance.. It is a slippery slope.. Like @Munger, fight to keep it affordable... Airfields are a public asset; yes the pilots are few, but the benefits are many.

I am still struggling to see how this is what the grubby government want? Don't get me wrong, the government is grubby - no doubt about it, but they would rather not have to lock people down and pay for it; although it did manage to find its way into some business people's wallet who didn't need it, so I suppose the government will consider it job done! But what are the government getting out of it? Are they exercising more control to their benefit over the people by imposing lockdowns when required? I am not seeing it. Apart from the restriction of movement, what more control do they have that is enduring (remember, state of emergency has to be renewed, and famously Dan Andrews wanted 12 months and didn't get it). Pre vaccination, there was a need to lockdown and it appears the pollies whose party pockets are lined by business were the ones not wanting to do it. Gladys is now paying the price; SFM famously got the federal government to join the constitutional action initiated by Clive Palmer to keep the WA borders open. When he realised it was going to cost him more votes than Palmer's dirty donation money could buy, he decided that it wasn't a good idea after all. Sadly, there is a vocal minority who think that this is some conspiracy theory to allow governments to seize control, but what other rights are under attack as a result of this? And the governments seem to want to open up as soon as practical; they have not continued the lockdown when the numbers show they don't need to.. so where is this control grab coming from - as opposed, to say anti-terror laws used for non-anti-terror events? Happily, the Aus electorate seems to back the governments taking a responsible approach - What was the WA election result, again? And the Qld result? I am not sure how Dan Andrews will do in the next election, but his popularity seems to have increased; while the pollies who were more "liberal" with the lockdown requirement and fighting COVID seem to be struggling at the moment (of course, COVID is not the only factor dragging them down). Australia is a free country - and you have a choice to take the vaccine or not - no one is going to force you and they're not going to kill you if you don't.. But when Aus has reached the critical mass of vaccinations, well, according to The Age today, the lockdowns will stop and normality will resume - for those who are vaccinated. I can't see an employer of, say airline pilots allowing a non-vaccinated pilot into the cockpit.. I could be wrong.. And it is [currently] a pretty tough job to do from home. Similarly, I can't see too many airlines allowing unvaccinated people a seat on an aircraft when economics dictate that they no longer want to force social distancing.. But this won't be the government impressing the rules on us. The UK is now out of lockdown with c. 65% of the adult population vaccinated. Virtually all hospitalisations and deaths in the UK (125 deaths the other day) are non vaccinated people. Some businesses won't accept customers without face coverings - I still wear mine because I know there is c. 35% of the population still yet to be vaccinated and I don't want to pass it on to them. Anecdotally, 95% of people still do. Seems the government here has relinquished its control. So much for that conspiracy theory.. But, hey.. still think its a conspiracy theory? As I have said before, get together with like minded people and throw a COVID party as people did during the first lockdown.. And make sure at least one person has it. The new Delta variant should do the trick. Sadly a few caught the earlier strain COVID from the party and died. It wasn't long before their friends and family believed the urgency of the situation.

I was doing an aero lesson one day and it ended up with me feeling quite ill. When I landed, my instructor asked what I had eaten beforehand, which was nothing (it was about an 11am flight and I never ate breakfast at that stage of my life). He said next time, a light breakfast beforehand would probably fix it.. and it did. There are many reasons it could be happening and many ways to minimise the effects. The US military had designed a form of sunglasses to beat it for their pilots, I recall.. Quick google can't find anything, but there is a French firm that now sell glasses designed to beat motion sickness, though no idea how good or otherwise they are: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/could-these-glasses-cure-your-motion-sickness-180969722/ Also not sure if they are legal for use in flight.

Yep.. anti-lockdowners and anti-vaxxers offer no alternative. And, the evidence points that lives are saved and the economy fares much better when the lockdown is hard and fast, and over with quickly (relatively). Even Josh Frydenberg, citing EY research is saying the extended lockdown that is required in NSW will lead to a second recession.. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/treasurer-warns-sydney-lockdown-could-lead-to-second-recession-20210729-p58dxw.html If NSW acted faster, there would probably be no recession and wouldn't that be better for business as well as people? Sounds like the hard/fast and ultimately relatively quick lock-downs, while providing temporary issues, are, so far, the best option while waiting for the country to be vaccinated.

Wow! Leave the country for a few years and it descends to this 😉 I have no idea of what the planning rules are in Vic (my home state, let alone NSW).. but: When I have had planning issues (admittedly, not airport related), I have gone straight to the planning lawyers.. They usually know more about planning issues than consultants, and I guess if they think you need a planning consultant, they will tell you to get one. When the rubber hits the road, if it all goes pear shaped, you'll end up in court.. May as well have had the lawyers involved in every step of the way. Obviously, get one that has good experience with regional airport planning issues - and not whether DFO can plant a warehouse store on airport premises or not (this is why YMMB, ahem. Moorabbin, ahem, Harry Hawker airport is not the place it used to be). From the radio interview, a local government asset directly employing 50 people and indirectly 26 makes it (without weightings between direct and indirect employment), 343,205 revenue per employee for the $26m revenue.. I am guessing many of those are looking at salaries and benefits, probably at about $120K (as an average - maybe $160K). Lets take $160K; that leaves a c. $13m surplus... Does that not cover user pays (i.e. short of a new hangar/building or rwy repavement, would $13m not cover maintenance?) Although, I have to admit, over 'ere, I would love $12.30 as a larger regional airport landing fee.. Can't deny it. Dunno about the NSW version of VCAT, but my limited experience on planning issues with VCAT has turned out effectively a toothless tiger. At one hearing, the adjudicator (or whatever they are called), stated directly, that if the defendant (who lost the case) did not perform the specific performance, to contact her (the adjudicator) directly to ensure it got done. That was 7 years ago, and 6 years since contacting her.. and the defendant has still yet to carry out the prescribed works. Good luck with AATs when they rule in your favour against powerful adversaries. As TP says, you "busy" aviators have to make some time if you don't want to be forced to be flying from around the corner of the "big prawn" (I do hope it is still in Ballina). Short of Lismore CC turning the airport into a new estate, try and gather figures to present to them why it will leave a bigger hole in their deficit reduction plans if they continue.. e.g. if it has existing use, and the main payer of landing fees moves on, they are stuck with the asset and with less revenue.. The above are ramblings of a homesick madman who has, or at least had, ties to the Lismore and Ballina areas...