ALI T wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
Dusty Bin wrote:
Skull wrote:
ALI T wrote:
thats probably the most long winded judgment ive ever read.
ive just been given it ill ask if its ok to put up
I've already sent a copy to TDO.
I'm reliably informed that the judgement will be available here by mid-evening.
One advantage of the internet is that many brains make sense of such documents. The feedback should be interesting.
yeah im also looking forward to dougies take on it
I've already told my opinion
The CGSA section 12 doesn't work
More appeals win than are lost, the act doesn't allow the council to regulate without being open to appeal
You could say that the CGSA is de-restriction by appeal although without the flood that full blown de-restriction would bring, at the trades expense all the council have to do is delay everything to stop being accused of de-restricting our trade.
The CGSA needs reviewed and reformed so as the council can regulate in a way that is un-appealable
I know this latest appeal is about List over list, first come first served but the only way we can get rid of this ridiculous scenario is through ripping up the CGSA and start again, The SNP have the power to do this but the whole trade have to get behind the call for reform.
The fairest way as i have promoted is restriction through cost, i never devised the new york system but the system holds all the answers and the big one for me is that the system differenciates between individuals and corporates.
I feel the New York system is the solution and what seperates me from everybody else who is shouting about how un-fair the present system is, i have put up an alternative, no one else has, if the New York system is not the answer then what is the solution to the fact the CGSA does not work
Login
Register
FAQ
