Aussie wrote on May 5
th, 2020 at 12:11pm:
When I have read the 50 pages of complexities and understood them, I shall attempt to nutshell it here, but I am not convinced it will do anything other than give the 'Effendis' of this World more ammo to be ignorant Monday quarterbacks.
Also shows how full the 'legal system' and jurisprudence are both full of holes that are open to pretty much anything, as long as the judge(s) can find the hole they wish to step through ....
Hold the legislators responsible..... for far too long the judiciary have been skirting the edges and essentially making up their own decisions based on anything they like or don't like.... take your average country magistrate, for example - 100% strike rate for coppers - NOBODY is that good! NOBODY!!
Failing to hold accusers to the full demands of the law for proof positive is accepting the Queen's shilling under false pretences, and is worthy of the rack....
However, this is a civil matter - and should be handled under the lesser standard of 'balance of probabilities' (even worse situation for anyone accused), so what must be taken into question?
Monetary loss? Surely a government permitting a long established business to be undermined by lesser standard competitors not abiding by the full set of rules requires monetary compensation for loss - at the very least.
We saw that in NSW when I was a Union delegate - established companies playing by the rules being savagely undercut by small time vultures - not just sole operators who take a loss and whose vehicles suffer as a result and many of those end up broke - but also small companies, often run by The Usual Suspects, who will savagely undercut while paying their operators a pittance insufficient to maintain their vehicle fully insured and up to standard mechanically, thus leading to multiple economic and traffic disasters.
One rule for all in the same business, then the only undercutting going on should be coming out of the boss' pockets and that of shareholders.