Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable opportunity to >speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait for an >hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a >drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:31:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThere was an agreement and then the organisers changed the rules, twice I think. The leader of the opposition was treated badly. The office of the Prime Minister was treated disrespectfully.
dot nz> wrote:
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable opportunity to >>speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait for >>an
hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a >>drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
The Prime Minister was not denied a reasonable opportunity to speak -
indeed they had arranged a forum where he waould have had a greater >opportunmity than in recent years to be heard - similar to forums set
up for two previous Prime Ministers. The debalce from both sides does >indicate that they need to have clearer responsibilities agreed among >themselves - and both need to learn that sometimes it pays to just
pick up a phone and talk - isn't that what the Prime Minister has a
whole lot of staff to do?
I do agree with you that not providing shelter was remiss though.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:to
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:31:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable opportunity
Primespeak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait for >>an
hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a >>drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
The Prime Minister was not denied a reasonable opportunity to speak - >indeed they had arranged a forum where he waould have had a greater >opportunmity than in recent years to be heard - similar to forums set
up for two previous Prime Ministers. The debalce from both sides does >indicate that they need to have clearer responsibilities agreed among >themselves - and both need to learn that sometimes it pays to just
pick up a phone and talk - isn't that what the Prime Minister has a
whole lot of staff to do?
I do agree with you that not providing shelter was remiss though.There was an agreement and then the organisers changed the rules, twice I think. The leader of the opposition was treated badly. The office of the
Minister was treated disrespectfully.
I don't give a fat rat's bum what people think of the incumbents in those positions but the offices deserve respect.
You and anybody else can dress it up any way you want. disrespect was
obvious to all. The telephone thing is irrelevant, it is putting the responsibility where it does not belong.
Tony
In article <part1of1.1.k397ENfXSeoNmg@ue.ph>, Tony says...to
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:31:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable opportunity
There was an agreement and then the organisers changed the rules, twice Ispeak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait for
an
hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a >> >>drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
The Prime Minister was not denied a reasonable opportunity to speak -
indeed they had arranged a forum where he waould have had a greater
opportunmity than in recent years to be heard - similar to forums set
up for two previous Prime Ministers. The debalce from both sides does
indicate that they need to have clearer responsibilities agreed among
themselves - and both need to learn that sometimes it pays to just
pick up a phone and talk - isn't that what the Prime Minister has a
whole lot of staff to do?
I do agree with you that not providing shelter was remiss though.
think. The leader of the opposition was treated badly. The office of the Prime
Minister was treated disrespectfully.
I don't give a fat rat's bum what people think of the incumbents in those
positions but the offices deserve respect.
In the conduct of high office, dignity and respect
go together.
Unfortunately for New Zealand, the dignity and the conduct of the
current incumbent are far too often to be found wanting, and
embarrassingly so; hence the less than respectful ribbing New Zealand >receives from abroad.
You and anybody else can dress it up any way you want. disrespect was
obvious to all. The telephone thing is irrelevant, it is putting the
responsibility where it does not belong.
Tony
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 15:40:50 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com>What utter nonsense. The organisers changed the rules and he was not prepared to speak with an embargo on what he said - outrageous in my opinion and I would say the same whatever party he was in. It is absolutely that simple. All the rest is a distraction and largely untrue.
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.k397ENfXSeoNmg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:31:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThere was an agreement and then the organisers changed the rules, twice I >>> think. The leader of the opposition was treated badly. The office of the >>>Prime
dot nz> wrote:
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable
opportunity to
speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait >>> >>for
an
hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a >>> >>drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
The Prime Minister was not denied a reasonable opportunity to speak -
indeed they had arranged a forum where he waould have had a greater
opportunmity than in recent years to be heard - similar to forums set
up for two previous Prime Ministers. The debalce from both sides does
indicate that they need to have clearer responsibilities agreed among
themselves - and both need to learn that sometimes it pays to just
pick up a phone and talk - isn't that what the Prime Minister has a
whole lot of staff to do?
I do agree with you that not providing shelter was remiss though.
Minister was treated disrespectfully.
I don't give a fat rat's bum what people think of the incumbents in those >>> positions but the offices deserve respect.
In the conduct of high office, dignity and respect
go together.
Unfortunately for New Zealand, the dignity and the conduct of the
current incumbent are far too often to be found wanting, and
embarrassingly so; hence the less than respectful ribbing New Zealand >>receives from abroad.
You and anybody else can dress it up any way you want. disrespect was
obvious to all. The telephone thing is irrelevant, it is putting the
responsibility where it does not belong.
Tony
Certainly respect should be in both directions: >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11585593
Our current Prime Minister has plenty of staff to have been able to
work out what was to happen for the visit - that is what they are
employed to do, so telephones are relevant; and it was wrong fr Key to
try to publicly "negotiate". After all he did say some years ago:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8263646/Jostling-continues-as-Key-escorted-onto-Te-Tii-marae
"John Key says his reception on the lower Waitangi marae was
"reasonably friendly", despite controversy over his escort.
He would continue to return to Waitangi every year he was prime
minister - even if his visits were disturbed by protest and violence,
he said in his speech to the Te Tii marae this afternoon.
"How will history judge me? I think as courageous, because I will keep
coming back," he told the lower Waitangi marae.
"I'll keep turning up, you decide how you use it. That is not the view
of other prime ministers and politicians." "
As far as arrangements there are concerned, the Treustees had hired a
large marquee to ensure that more people would be able to hear the
Prime Minister and other speakers. The upper marae has been the place
for ceremonial remembrance of the origins of the treaty and the
circumstances of the signing it is not a place for political speeches, >although in recent years that convention has been abused at times.
Bolger and Shipley knew that and spoke at the lower marae, with no >significant problems - disagreements were respectfully handled on both
sides and acknowledged.
I don't know what has happened to Key in the last few years - he
appears to believe that discussion and consultation is no longer
necessary.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 15:40:50 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com>What utter nonsense. The organisers changed the rules and he was not prepared >to speak with an embargo on what he said - outrageous in my opinion and I would
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.k397ENfXSeoNmg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:31:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>> >dot nz> wrote:There was an agreement and then the organisers changed the rules, twice I >>>> think. The leader of the opposition was treated badly. The office of the >>>>Prime
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable
opportunity to
speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait >>>> >>for
an
hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a
drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
The Prime Minister was not denied a reasonable opportunity to speak - >>>> >indeed they had arranged a forum where he waould have had a greater
opportunmity than in recent years to be heard - similar to forums set >>>> >up for two previous Prime Ministers. The debalce from both sides does >>>> >indicate that they need to have clearer responsibilities agreed among >>>> >themselves - and both need to learn that sometimes it pays to just
pick up a phone and talk - isn't that what the Prime Minister has a
whole lot of staff to do?
I do agree with you that not providing shelter was remiss though.
Minister was treated disrespectfully.
I don't give a fat rat's bum what people think of the incumbents in those >>>> positions but the offices deserve respect.
In the conduct of high office, dignity and respect
go together.
Unfortunately for New Zealand, the dignity and the conduct of the
current incumbent are far too often to be found wanting, and >>>embarrassingly so; hence the less than respectful ribbing New Zealand >>>receives from abroad.
You and anybody else can dress it up any way you want. disrespect was
obvious to all. The telephone thing is irrelevant, it is putting the
responsibility where it does not belong.
Tony
Certainly respect should be in both directions: >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11585593 >>
Our current Prime Minister has plenty of staff to have been able to
work out what was to happen for the visit - that is what they are
employed to do, so telephones are relevant; and it was wrong fr Key to
try to publicly "negotiate". After all he did say some years ago:
"John Key says his reception on the lower Waitangi marae washttp://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8263646/Jostling-continues-as-Key-escorted-onto-Te-Tii-marae
"reasonably friendly", despite controversy over his escort.
He would continue to return to Waitangi every year he was prime
minister - even if his visits were disturbed by protest and violence,
he said in his speech to the Te Tii marae this afternoon.
"How will history judge me? I think as courageous, because I will keep >>coming back," he told the lower Waitangi marae.
"I'll keep turning up, you decide how you use it. That is not the view
of other prime ministers and politicians." "
As far as arrangements there are concerned, the Treustees had hired a
large marquee to ensure that more people would be able to hear the
Prime Minister and other speakers. The upper marae has been the place
for ceremonial remembrance of the origins of the treaty and the >>circumstances of the signing it is not a place for political speeches, >>although in recent years that convention has been abused at times.
Bolger and Shipley knew that and spoke at the lower marae, with no >>significant problems - disagreements were respectfully handled on both >>sides and acknowledged.
I don't know what has happened to Key in the last few years - he
appears to believe that discussion and consultation is no longer
necessary.
say the same whatever party he was in. It is absolutely that simple. All the >rest is a distraction and largely untrue.
Tony
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 17:13:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 15:40:50 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com>What utter nonsense. The organisers changed the rules and he was not prepared >>to speak with an embargo on what he said - outrageous in my opinion and I >>would
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.k397ENfXSeoNmg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:31:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> >dot nz> wrote:There was an agreement and then the organisers changed the rules, twice I >>>>> think. The leader of the opposition was treated badly. The office of the >>>>>Prime
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable
opportunity to
speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait >>>>> >>for
an
hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in >>>>> >>a
drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
The Prime Minister was not denied a reasonable opportunity to speak - >>>>> >indeed they had arranged a forum where he waould have had a greater >>>>> >opportunmity than in recent years to be heard - similar to forums set >>>>> >up for two previous Prime Ministers. The debalce from both sides does >>>>> >indicate that they need to have clearer responsibilities agreed among >>>>> >themselves - and both need to learn that sometimes it pays to just
pick up a phone and talk - isn't that what the Prime Minister has a >>>>> >whole lot of staff to do?
I do agree with you that not providing shelter was remiss though.
Minister was treated disrespectfully.
I don't give a fat rat's bum what people think of the incumbents in those >>>>> positions but the offices deserve respect.
In the conduct of high office, dignity and respect
go together.
Unfortunately for New Zealand, the dignity and the conduct of the >>>>current incumbent are far too often to be found wanting, and >>>>embarrassingly so; hence the less than respectful ribbing New Zealand >>>>receives from abroad.
You and anybody else can dress it up any way you want. disrespect was >>>>> obvious to all. The telephone thing is irrelevant, it is putting the >>>>> responsibility where it does not belong.
Tony
Certainly respect should be in both directions: >>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11585593
Our current Prime Minister has plenty of staff to have been able to
work out what was to happen for the visit - that is what they are >>>employed to do, so telephones are relevant; and it was wrong fr Key to >>>try to publicly "negotiate". After all he did say some years ago:
"John Key says his reception on the lower Waitangi marae washttp://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8263646/Jostling-continues-as-Key-escorted-onto-Te-Tii-marae
"reasonably friendly", despite controversy over his escort.
He would continue to return to Waitangi every year he was prime
minister - even if his visits were disturbed by protest and violence,
he said in his speech to the Te Tii marae this afternoon.
"How will history judge me? I think as courageous, because I will keep >>>coming back," he told the lower Waitangi marae.
"I'll keep turning up, you decide how you use it. That is not the view
of other prime ministers and politicians." "
As far as arrangements there are concerned, the Treustees had hired a >>>large marquee to ensure that more people would be able to hear the
Prime Minister and other speakers. The upper marae has been the place
for ceremonial remembrance of the origins of the treaty and the >>>circumstances of the signing it is not a place for political speeches, >>>although in recent years that convention has been abused at times.
Bolger and Shipley knew that and spoke at the lower marae, with no >>>significant problems - disagreements were respectfully handled on both >>>sides and acknowledged.
I don't know what has happened to Key in the last few years - he
appears to believe that discussion and consultation is no longer >>>necessary.
say the same whatever party he was in. It is absolutely that simple. All the >>rest is a distraction and largely untrue.
Tony
There was no embargo; more a restriction on where certain speechesWrong in almost every respect!
should be made: - it would be like talking attacking other political
parties at the opening of parliament; its just not done to ignore the
purpose of a gathering. Under two previous prime mininsters they had >similarly arranged for more people to be able to hear the prime
minister, in an environment where the prime minister of the day would
be able to hear views from others. I tyhink that was in the times of
Bolger and Shipley, who were happy to follow the Maori protocols
regarding being circumspect regarding the ceremonial purpose of the
upper marae meeting.
Where there was an emgargo was in relation to details of the TPPA
agreement. Now that text of the agreement has been released, the next
step is to pass legislation to meet its requirements - so why is
information being hidden? >http://www.labour.org.nz/government_still_won_t_come_clean_on_tppa_and_pharmac
On yet another issue, the courts seem to be taking a different voiew
of the law than the government regarding consultation on changes to
Maori land laws. In so many cases, the government leans towards
greater secrecy - it was mentioned as a cause of NZs ranking falling
in the corruption index.
The reality is that John Key wanted a captive audience where marae
protocols would have prevented a reaction to his speech, and where
others would not be able to give alternative views - that sadly
appears to be what NAtional think represents "consultation".
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable opportunity
to speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage wait for an hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 17:13:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 15:40:50 +1300, -Newsman- <slaybot@hotmail.com>What utter nonsense. The organisers changed the rules and he was not >>prepared
wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.k397ENfXSeoNmg@ue.ph>, Tony says...
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:31:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> >dot nz> wrote:There was an agreement and then the organisers changed the rules,
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable
opportunity to
speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage >>>>> >>wait
for
an
hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better >>>>> >>in a
drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
The Prime Minister was not denied a reasonable opportunity to speak - >>>>> >indeed they had arranged a forum where he waould have had a greater >>>>> >opportunmity than in recent years to be heard - similar to forums set >>>>> >up for two previous Prime Ministers. The debalce from both sides
does
indicate that they need to have clearer responsibilities agreed among >>>>> >themselves - and both need to learn that sometimes it pays to just
pick up a phone and talk - isn't that what the Prime Minister has a >>>>> >whole lot of staff to do?
I do agree with you that not providing shelter was remiss though.
twice I
think. The leader of the opposition was treated badly. The office of >>>>> the
Prime
Minister was treated disrespectfully.
I don't give a fat rat's bum what people think of the incumbents in
those
positions but the offices deserve respect.
In the conduct of high office, dignity and respect
go together.
Unfortunately for New Zealand, the dignity and the conduct of the >>>>current incumbent are far too often to be found wanting, and >>>>embarrassingly so; hence the less than respectful ribbing New Zealand >>>>receives from abroad.
You and anybody else can dress it up any way you want. disrespect was >>>>> obvious to all. The telephone thing is irrelevant, it is putting the >>>>> responsibility where it does not belong.
Tony
Certainly respect should be in both directions: >>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11585593
Our current Prime Minister has plenty of staff to have been able to
work out what was to happen for the visit - that is what they are >>>employed to do, so telephones are relevant; and it was wrong fr Key to >>>try to publicly "negotiate". After all he did say some years ago:
"John Key says his reception on the lower Waitangi marae washttp://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8263646/Jostling-continues-as-Key-escorted-onto-Te-Tii-marae
"reasonably friendly", despite controversy over his escort.
He would continue to return to Waitangi every year he was prime
minister - even if his visits were disturbed by protest and violence,
he said in his speech to the Te Tii marae this afternoon.
"How will history judge me? I think as courageous, because I will keep >>>coming back," he told the lower Waitangi marae.
"I'll keep turning up, you decide how you use it. That is not the view
of other prime ministers and politicians." "
As far as arrangements there are concerned, the Treustees had hired a >>>large marquee to ensure that more people would be able to hear the
Prime Minister and other speakers. The upper marae has been the place
for ceremonial remembrance of the origins of the treaty and the >>>circumstances of the signing it is not a place for political speeches, >>>although in recent years that convention has been abused at times.
Bolger and Shipley knew that and spoke at the lower marae, with no >>>significant problems - disagreements were respectfully handled on both >>>sides and acknowledged.
I don't know what has happened to Key in the last few years - he
appears to believe that discussion and consultation is no longer >>>necessary.
to speak with an embargo on what he said - outrageous in my opinion and I >>would
say the same whatever party he was in. It is absolutely that simple. All >>the
rest is a distraction and largely untrue.
Tony
There was no embargo; more a restriction on where certain speeches
should be made: - it would be like talking attacking other political
parties at the opening of parliament; its just not done to ignore the
purpose of a gathering. Under two previous prime mininsters they had similarly arranged for more people to be able to hear the prime
minister, in an environment where the prime minister of the day would
be able to hear views from others. I tyhink that was in the times of
Bolger and Shipley, who were happy to follow the Maori protocols
regarding being circumspect regarding the ceremonial purpose of the
upper marae meeting.
Where there was an emgargo was in relation to details of the TPPA
agreement. Now that text of the agreement has been released, the next
step is to pass legislation to meet its requirements - so why is
information being hidden?
http://www.labour.org.nz/government_still_won_t_come_clean_on_tppa_and_pharmac
On yet another issue, the courts seem to be taking a different voiew
of the law than the government regarding consultation on changes to
Maori land laws. In so many cases, the government leans towards
greater secrecy - it was mentioned as a cause of NZs ranking falling
in the corruption index.
The reality is that John Key wanted a captive audience where marae
protocols would have prevented a reaction to his speech, and where
others would not be able to give alternative views - that sadly
appears to be what NAtional think represents "consultation".
wrote:
Not only did these people deny the Prime Minister a reasonable
opportunity
to speak but they made the leader of the opposition and his entourage
wait
for an hour in the rain.
Disgraceful and indefensible! Anybody could have organised it better in a
drunken stupor. It had to be deliberate!
Tony
Politicians should ignore the circus at Waitangi and instead hold the commemorations elsewhere which has historical significance yet is not beholden to those with an agenda.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 25 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 136:18:00 |
| Calls: | 1,905 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,079 |
| Messages: | 934,959 |