Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
What I understand from what you've posted here in reply is that your view is, if the public will pay for it based on the wording of a policy, let them pay for it and nobody should complain, even in a situation where the policy was not for the reason it was used.
For example, we now have Senators suspended from their positions by exploiting the wording of policys, and accepting large amounts of housing money, and the policy wording was such that it allowed the expenses to pass the first defence of Senate accounting.
Its about purpose and intent. The way I read your position, its, hey, if you can get money from the government, take it.
Edit: Also, you didn't even bother to respond to where my post stated the actual purpose of the policy. That's enough to suggest you don't care, if they can get the money, take it, in your view.
|
I actually think we agree for the most part. I realise that the issue here is the way the policy was used. Thing is that the guys used the policy as he was allowed to do. Its not a case of him being deceptive or misleading DND, at least as far as I've seen.
So while the policy might need to be changed to say you have to move 100km or something, the guy who served in this case doesn't deserve to have his personal information all over the place. If the issue is the policy, don't discredit a guy in public, just say "we need to change the policy to avoid scenarios like A,B, and C. That doesn't seem outlandish.