Snr. Balance
No fair enought. No proof . I thinking miners cause yes?
Printable View
In the Hauraki Gulf a large vessel carries its own exclusion zone with it as it moves along. So I can't plonk my boat in front of a container ship and prevent it getting to port, or even make it change course - not legally anyway. The same principle should apply here one would assume. But maybe maritime law doesn't apply to second rate current and ex politicians who are trying to save the planet?
The unsuccessful Waihopai prosecution may have shown that society is unlikely to convict where action is genuine and is predicated on the biggest issues such as saving the planet. This, irrespective of how one would paint the protagonist or hold whatever points of view.
That was one jury. The next one might come to a different decision.
Balanced obviously feels strongly about this,and who knows,maybe its someone in his family down there---Thats why this thread could stay active for those who want to keep on debating this--and then a new thread for those who want to move on to ''now''--no disrespect but the 2 issues are getting all muddled up with each other.
Some nice leads now popping up around Matuku in PEP51906:
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics...ame=D&period=W
Karearea and Kawaki look especially interesting.
How NZOG managed its Pike River investment, and manages its aftermath - have a direct bearing on how bad, good, ethical, moral and/or effective the management of NZOG is.
And by implication, whether NZOG is a good investment.
Trying to sweep the Pike River compensation and gross mismanagement issue under the carpet is typical of the one-eye brigade who try to shut down anyone with a contrary (to their rose tinted glasses) point of view.
The administrator know who are those who complained and actually tried to shut down those who warned about Pike River and NZOG.
Who lost in the end?
Brucey, I listened to an interview of the author of the book about Pike on National Radio. Interestingly she
mentioned as one of the failings of the company that workers were not reprimanded for smuggling 'contraband' into
the mine. It wasn't explained in the interview what that contraband was - mentioning firelighters and cigarettes could
have illuminated to the audience the possibility that some workers' transgressions could perhaps be the cause
of the explosion.