Re: I'm on the tyranny of fud and it's relation to slavery at the moment.

On 2007-07-19, possum <zen102422@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

put another way, i would say the department's assumption typically is that
it is right and it has the power. the decision that shambo is for the chop
is their starting point, and they work backwards from there, in terms of
justification. to be lawful, the decision should be reached in conclusion
of a proper decision-making process, how can it be fair otherwise?

I think you put it well.


the judge didn't put it that way, and didn't have to, and in fact
disagreed with with the claimant's counsel's description of the
department's decision as 'self-serving'. i won't bandy adjectives, but
just say, i can't see what grounds the Minister has to appeal the
decision.

I'd expect they'd have to prove the public health grounds for their
policy which would be interesting in a court of law. A lot of farmers
would watch the decision, though I don't know how well things would
match for them. I don't think many farmers could or would isolate and
treat their cattle when it sounds like the government policy is to give
compensation when they slaughter.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard.Corfield@xxxxxxxxx>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
.