.

[alliespixie]

gawd i miss those

[Litofsky]

Originally Posted by alliespixie

gawd i miss those

*Waves hand in Jedi Mind Trick fashion*

No, you don't.

[Darth InSidious]

Originally Posted by Litofsky

*Waves hand in Jedi Mind Trick fashion*

No, you don't.

*Waves hand in regal fashion*

Hello. We are the Queen.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Litofsky

How will you recover from that, I wonder?

[Litofsky]

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

My response? Cornflakes.

[Darth InSidious]

I did warn you. Now you're going to have to play with one less piece...

[Darth InSidious]

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon

discuss

On the one hand the Government argues the strategic objective merely supplements the operational objectives. On the other hand it argues the strategic objective will act as "a check and a balance" on the operational objectives. The stance therefore appears contradictory. Furthermore, the Government also appears confused as to whether it is a strategic objective or a "mission statement", which are not the same thing. A "mission statement" has no place in primary legislation. At best the supplementary objective adds nothing. It may be harmful. Multiple tiers of objective risk adding to complexity and diffusing the focus within the FCA. It will not assist in "focusing the regulatory culture of the FCA" and could have the opposite effect.