Collusion – The Board game so where is the justice?

When two little boys are fighting or do something wrong and are naughty does a parent say ” Now Peter tell me all, and I will not punish you, and if you do tell me I will then punish Paul”  No way! but it seems that the if Amcor and Visy board were the naughty boys and in Collusion  on pricing then the parent being the ACCC should have never been and in no way been in Collusion with Amcor so to punish Visy board – The court case and the finding should be struck out and following actions which relate to evidence given in that case should be null and void on the grounds that the first case had no fairness to it and that two wrongs do not create a right.

It surprises me that a court case on collusion between two main suppliers Amcor and Visy which is against the law and taken to court by the ACCC should be ever allowed to proceed to a second stage on the evidence of the first case.

One would have thought if two Business organizations have broken the law or have believed to have broken the law then the ACCC should be, or should have taken both parties to court on the grounds of breaking the law.   After all which Business sought out the other Business and what were the reasons for such an action in the first place.  Could it have been that an American or a New Zealand Company was raiding and making inroads  into what really is a small market compared to overseas market places.  Or was it, or is it,  one Corporation using the ACCC to bring their major opposition to their knees.

So why should the ACCC be in collusion with Amcor to get a ruling against Visy Board?

Have not ACCC and Amcor broken the same collusion law in getting a ruling against a third party – being Visy Board?

So how can the first case be a court ruling in breaking the law by using collusion to gain a finding and then use that evidence in a further action against the head of Visy Board?   Something seems to be to be very wrong indeed and smells of a Kangaroo style action and victimization against a successful business person.

To create a second and further court case based upon the evidence given in the first court case where a penalty fine was awarded and paid, and not appealed against on the grounds of the collusion between the ACCC and Amcor.  Could it be that the ACCC knowing they are as guilty as anyone wish to end the Visy Board business empire so to justify their own actions?

Was not the ACCC set up to make sure fair play in the business community was the basis of Australian business? The ACCC  themselves  seem to have now forgotten what fair play really is.   Or is it something that is more vindictive and personal and that we the public are not being told about?

If any body out there knows anything and has read my earlier article would like to contribute to this blog please do so.

Recommended reading for every household !!

The Stranger A few years after I was born, my dad met a stranger who was new to our small town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around from then on. As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my family. In my young mind, he had a special niche. My parents were complementary instructors: Mum taught me good from evil, and Dad taught me to obey. But the stranger ….. he was our storyteller. He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries, and comedies. If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present and even seemed able to predict the future! He took my family to the football and cricket. He made me laugh, and he made me cry. The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn’t seem to mind. Sometimes, Mum would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to the kitchen for peace and quiet. (I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.) Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home … not from us, our friends or any visitors. Our longtime visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush. My dad didn’t permit the liberal use of alcohol. But the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis. He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (much too freely) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger. Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked … And NEVER asked to leave. More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. If you could walk into my parents’ den today, you would still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures. His name? We just call him, ‘TV.’ He has a wife now. We call her, ‘Computer’.