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.
http://tvmnews.wordpress.com/wp-admin/media-upload.php?post_id=2&type=image&TB_iframe=true
Hi it is my aim to create better visual marketing be it print, video, or any of the new Internet ways which are available today.
I am a Dennis who is regarded as a devil be he a serious man? Yes maybe!!!
When it comes to winning at what ever it is I am a very serious man, a leader, but I am also a very relaxed person who just loves life.
Have been at the top of the success tree, but have crashed ended up in mud at the bottom of the pile. Yes, there is always another success mountain to climb.
Have created a few items in my life, and am a person who thinks and looks at life very broadly and asks questions, and am not scared to ask the way for the path of life.
I am strong of character and deep on my faith knowing the powers are there to propel me to even greater successes. People who get to know me and understand me seem to like me a lot
Maybe, I place my trust to easily in other people and sometimes they take advantage of me
When they steal from me I look at it, so say they have to live with their sins, as long as I have not sinned (Dennis in reverse)on the way through
I love a joke,love playing jokes, sometimes people do not wake up that I am fishing and playing, so when I say “the fish they are easy to catch today!” they cannot understand or see the funny side of it.
so if there any questions you can call me.
My skype cam2cam video is:- Dennis.Troedel.Melbourne. Australia
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.
August 18, 2008 - Posted by tvmnews | General comment | Add new tag, Collusion | No Comments Yet