Hey Master, same thing with most government departments that I have seen. The people who have been “mishandled” (for lack of a better word) do get bitter and their focus is always too low.

They blame the lieutenants for the war.

There is also an assumption that if they found themselves not worthy of whatever bad treatment then every other person in the same situation was also innocent.

Dunno about Rusty but I suspect Anti does know better.

I haven’t worked out why the department I am at odds with is doing what it’s doing but they do object to one starting with the Brigadiers and Generals. Field Marshal wont talk to me.[smile]

Master, "If you don't like rulings that have been made against you, then your beef is with the LAWMAKERS."

Not so, everyone has the right to complain and ask for the reasons for a decision and review of a decision, including independent review. Public agencies advertise contacts and procedures for complaints and review of decisions.

http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/1313.aspx

It is true nonetheless that systemic problems that act against full and fair review of decisions are not uncommon in all organisations and that is why there is the alternative of going 'outside' the system to complain.

Public disclosure of wrong or incorrect decisions is embarrassing to decision makers and you can confidently expect that all organisations, public and private, include management 'embarrassment' as a risk. Hopefully management's decision on risk treatment is enlightened enough to ensure full, frank and independent review and similar behaviours in complying with external review, but that is not always the case as evidenced by the whistleblowing that can occur in the worst cases.

Contrary to what most people believe, most of the regulations and rules that affect them are not included in the laws passed by Parliament at all, but are brought into being by bureaucrats exercising powers delegated to them by the Minister. As anyone who has watched the comedy Yes, Prime Minister would be aware, bureaucratic interpretation and convenience can easily result in effects that are at odds with the law makers' intent. Informed audiences would also be aware that unlike Jim Hacker MP, the Sir Humphrey Appleby clones are not regularly held to account through elections and nor are they usually called upon to explain and defend their decisions in Parliament There is a bureaucrat in the news at the moment, but that is unusual.

Yes, we all know the Minister is responsible yadada, yadada, but being responsible and being aware of what is being done below you (or even wanting to know) is different as Jim Hacker MP would be quick to affirm.

In a democracy queries and complaints should be welcomed and facilitated by public decision makers. If not visit your MP.

Just to confirm, Rusty, you're divorced, yes?

Sancho, "Just to confirm, Rusty, you're divorced, yes?"

C J Morgan's pick-up line was terrible, but it was better than yours.

Er, this wouldn't be a secret greeting of the Knights of the Southern Cross or some such secret society by any chance? Because if it is, CJ is on page 43 with the other bit. You've just missed each other like ships in the night.

Cornflower, you're not understanding that the decisions of the CSA, and indeed any other public service agency, are subject to the LAW. They CAN'T lawfully make unlawful decisions - - - they CAN make errors and those errors are sometimes lawful and sometimes unlawful, and those errors can be subject to appeal and/or legal action to test the "LAW". Just about everyone who has any type of decision made "AGAINST" them by any govt. agency cries foul play - - - - even our prisons are full of inmates who claim "I didn't do it". The public service does NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO BREAK THE LAW. The public service does NOT hire "women" for the purpose of persecuting men and breaking the "LAW".

Blaming CSA "WOMEN" for your troubles, only betrays your bias. It puts you in the minority of men who blame "WOMEN" for the troubles in men's lives. The way you use "language" also betrays your bias.

I wish people, both men and women, would stop BLAMING the opposite sex for all their troubles.

Cornflower, it wasn't very funny the first time, and is less so on repetition.

My question to Rusty was an attempt to bring his contributions back to the purported topic of the discussion. It never occurred to me that it could be construed as a "pick-up line" - is it one that you use, perhaps to indicate that you might be a willing participant in a "bun"?