7. Jun, 2015

Press Reports on Wool Substitution Case Misleading.

The Press reports on the facts in the wool substitution case where Ian Kenneth McLean, pleaded guilty and was fined $ 15,000. (Without conviction) were grossly misleading.

1. To claim the reputation of the wool industry could have been seriously damaged is wrong.

2. One report said the plaintiffs lost  $ 58,000. That is what the wool was worth, 36 bales or about  6,000 kgs.

3. The defendant stood to make $ 3,000 to $ 5,000 or 50c to 83c per kg. In the claimants opinion. ( probably exaggerated ).

4. Therefore the wool would still be worth at least $ 53,000.

5. Obviously the micron and yield, the most important price determinants, were correct or the defendant would have stood to make much more. And we would have heard about it.

6. The 50c to 83c per  kg, equates to the difference between a one clip Lot, and wools of the same quality, but from two or more different but similar clips. Which it evidently was.

7. This is making a mountain out of a molehill .

8. Any average sized batch at a Woolscour is about 250 to 300 bales, made up of wool from about 50 clips, similar wools main difference, dust colour.

9. It would not have made one iota of difference once this wool had reached the Woolscour, and was tipped into the infeed of the scour,by labourers or fork lift. There would have been no complaintS.

10. The defendant was misleading and erred with his bale branding, but it was not nearly as serious as portrayed. The whole case has been a beat up.

 But not nearly as cruel as the Federal Court Case.  Which got it completely wrong in 2004 in,    B.W.K -Elders Australia P/L. V  Westgate Wool Company P/L   As told in "The Wool Sting".