The Grinch who stole the Port
One thing that's relied upon by any politician intent on dissembling is that the public have short memories. Most of us are too busy living to recollect what Mickey said last year and compare it to what he said yesterday. But one of the functions of LawsWatch - perhaps its most important function - is to catalogue Mickey's disingenuousness. By preserving as much as possible of Slippery Mickey's spin, the blog becomes a means to compare yesterday's rhetoric with today's actions, and vice versa.
Let us review, then, the Chron from 3 March last year. Laws' call to bank sinks port group plan screamed the headline. The story went on to tell how "a possible investor in Port of Wanganui’s deep water port/industrial park proposal will not now be coming to the city next week, following contact from Mayor Michael Laws".
Seems Mickey had telephoned Macquarie Capital associate director Tim Symons, who'd visited Wanganui the week before and had discussions with PoW, and knifed the Port company's proposal. Symons had planned to visit again on the weekend of March 12-13 but faced with what must have looked to them like a squabbling and unprofessional rabble, they retreated.
PoW director Tim Hungerford-Morgan had emailed then WDC CEO Colin Whitlock saying Macquarie had "commended the quality of PoW’s business plan and, along with PoW, wanted to address council at the first available opportunity to outline the full plan and financial package".
But Mickey didn't wait to hear the plan, he called Macquarie to tell them, among other things, of the "commercial background of PoW partners, and in particular that of Mr Churton". Macquarie won't say exactly what was said (we asked them at the time) but we'd bet all the presents under our Christmas tree that it wasn't complimentary. In fact, it was probably libellous.
A director of the Port, Vivienne Chapman, wrote to councillors asking what Council (i.e. Mickey) had been saying behind their backs but the Mayor, taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of all councillors, said "...we won’t be responding to that. I don’t take these people seriously. The majority of council don’t take them seriously". As opposed to the way the majority of citizens view Mickey, presumably.
Back then the Chron still had the faintest glimmer of a pulse, so thought to ask Mickey why he'd torpedoed the proposal without having even consulted Council (not there was much chance of that lot having an independent thought, but still, for the sake of appearance...) to which he replied "he was the Mayor, and it was his job to safeguard the best interests of Wanganui ratepayers". And Mickey, being omnipotent in international finance as in all things, knew precisely what was in our best interests.
Back in those days, he was claiming to be in "commercially confidential" discussions with Westgate. So confidential that they went nowhere, evidently.
So now, having taken it upon himself to sink a proposal which might have brought forth an answer to the Port's problems (we cannot tell, and more to the point nor can you), Mickey is leading us (or at least, our money) into a prolonged and expensive court fight.
Control of a potentially lucrative asset like the Port would no doubt be a nice stocking filler for a mad despot. We can only hope Santa has a very good idea of who's been nice and who's been naughty this year.
Comments on this post are now closed.
52 comments:
Wreck "rescue" funding and then step in with a hostile takeover? If Mickey stood to gain personally from Council getting its hands on the Port (which he doesn't of course) the SFO would have him for insider trading.
As it is, it's just more unconscionable behaviour from our Mad Mayor, driven by greed for power rather than money.
You're getting dumber LawsWatch.
Don't you read your own posts? Just to remind you: you checked out the commercial background of POW promoter (convicted crim, bankrupt etc) and found he could not be trusted.
Now, he's the saviour of the Port of Wanganui?
Keep smoking the weed, bro.
And why do you post a LW commentary and then pretend you're anonymous in the poster thread? Isn't that another form of lying?? Bet you don't post that. Bring back Carol.
Isn't it clear that Mickey, who fits the description "a mad woman's shit" to a tee, simply says whatever seems expedient to grab headlines on the day. If he weren't so obviously a psychopath one would assume schizophrenia.
Now, he's the saviour of the Port of Wanganui
Hardly!! But Macquarie, who saw it's profit rise 118% in that year alone, just might have been.
It's the driving off of Macquarie we lament, anon, not that of one or two (but by no means all) PoW people. But perhaps there were too many multi-syllabic words in the orginal post for that to be clear?
Keep smoking the weed, bro.
Keep inhaling Mickey's magic potion, anon. It certainly gives you a "different" view of reality.
And why do you post a LW commentary and then pretend you're anonymous in the poster thread?
Oh, of course, because what's said in comments is so much stronger than what we've said in the post that we'd feel the need to do that.
Feeling paranoid, much?
Did Macquarie know that;
1. Tuffy didn't own the port lease?
2. That Mearsk would aggregate ports in this company, not expanding them?
3. That no-one is harvesting logs for the foreseeable future (POW's major commercial trade)?
A preliminary investigation and they fled.
Does LW honestly believe that ML is so pwerful he can frighten away an international finance firm with an appetite for profit? So, exactly who is paranoid?
After all this dead horse flogging why not turn your attention to the hospital and the Mellors Report making mincemeat of Patrick oConnor and his mates?
Big win for the council today with the government over the airport. Looks like having an aggressive mayor has its upside.
With the 'inside report' from the Mayoral Task-force now out in the open thanks to the MM's mate John Mas. ( well done Mas, did you think for asking for that one all by your own?)
You have to take your hat off to the Mad Mayor's methods of spreading information that make others look bad and himself 'shine'.
Feel slightly sorry for the new editor , she's really been taken for a right royal ride on the WHB issue.
anon @ 9.20: All valid questions to which we wish we had an answer. We asked Macquarie, they opted not to answer. Your implied point that these factors make the Port look like a less than profitable investment is taken, however. But that's just to us non-financiers.
We can only imagine that Macquarie wouldn't have wasted a trip to Wangas to meet the PoW folk without having found this out, however, and still figured there was a dollar to be made.
Does LW honestly believe that ML is so pwerful he can frighten away an international finance firm with an appetite for profit?
1. Macquarie were intending, on their own admission, to return to Wanganui for at least one further meeting till Mickey called them.
2. Maybe not, but Mickey clearly thinks he is, since he was happy to take credit for having deterred them from proceeding.
3. Not powerful enough, but plenty crazy enough. We can't speak for Macquarie, but we'd imagine their thinking went something like "First Churton proves flaky, now Mickey's foaming at the mouth? We're not risking investment in any asset being fought over by those two loons".
Another big day for the Mayor in the media - not only getting off the media complaints but getting a very soft ride in the Dominion this morning.
If this is the work of the new media/PR person then Laws has recruited well. Best spin genie yet.
The other thing is that both Laws and Chester Borrows are getting much more coverage under this new editor. Isn't it time we discussed whither the Chron is going?
Oh dear! Michael Laws gets the media watchdogs, radio and print, to support him. Another annus horibilis for the mayor's critics.
And why do you post a LW commentary and then pretend you're anonymous in the poster thread?
___________________________________
Oh, paranoia, let me count the ways. Having been accused myself of being anonymickey on one occasion, I can sympathise.
Keep injecting the face, bro.
After the Code of Conduct verdict, ML became even more aggressive around the council table and now after these radio rulings he will be even more intractable. Can no-one stop him?
Can no-one stop him?
_________________________________
no, there is yet to be a law that says you can't be an asshole.
Any Laws Watch....and....Laws Supporters, interested in firsthand information on how Laws beat the BSA rap?
...how Laws beat the BSA rap
LOL you mean aside from the fact that the BSA lacks any fortitude, and almost always lets broadcasters get away with it?And that even when they uphold a complaint, the "punishment" they can impose is laughable?
Mickey's "beating the rap" is no different to the hundreds of other instances where loudmouths have been allowed to get away will ill-considered nonsense.
Precisely Laws Watch….
So let me introduce myself, I am the BSA Complainant. I’ll share with you alittle “behind the BSA scene” with you. However, I will not discuss in detail of the issue because Laws is not “out of the woods” yet. He’s got 29 more days to go. Therefore I’ll just be general.
Notwithstanding that the BSA has a flawed complaint system, but the BSA complaint process is least to be desired. Even though the BSA has a formal hearing option. It is the BSA that dictates whether the formal hearing option will be employed and not allow the complainant(s) to make the choice. I can assure you, had this matter would have gone to a formal hearing, I’m sure the outcome would have been much different. But yes, had I would have won, Laws’ “punishment” would have been petty and laughable.
In this matter, I like to mention that the BSA decision was not unanimous, in that as it is footnoted in the decision, “Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority’s determination of the complaint.”
Furthermore, the BSA distorted the facts and threw in a legal spin in their decision since I submitted a counter statement for any possible BoRA 1990 “Freedom of Expression” “ complaint not upheld” ruling (Note: the BSA has used it before).
Also mentioning their quote..”The Authority is of the view that the host’s comments were provocative and were clearly calculated to offend.” This statement comes short of the BSA admitting that Laws was in the wrong. Talkback hosts should not be above the law.
The problem with the BSA Principles is that they are fragmented and cannot be used in combination to cover a complete complaint. Also not to mention that the legal loopholes, in the said Principles, are big enough to drive a truck through. So how does the BSA “pass the buck”? If the complainant is a common person, then he better have a substantial amount of money to cover the High Court Appeals Fees.
Thank you Mr Anderson. The BSA's attitude seems to be "the bigger the nutter, the more latitude they're given". Thus John Banks, for instance, gets away with statements that a more moderate host would probably be caned for, simply because the statement was, by Banks's standards, only somewhat inflammatory.
And thus Brent Impey laughs all the way to the bank, benefiting from the acres of free newspaper advertising given his network courtesy of the BSA's decisions.
The guy taking on Helen Clark has got himself a website and is being financially supported by the public. Perhaps you should follow a similar road?
We'd wager that a quick speaking tour of the churches in South Auckland one Sunday would net you more than enough contributions from the Tongan community and others to mount a High Court challenge.
Do feel free to keep us up to date.
Mickey said (with the Chron's grovelling assistance):
“My contention has always been that they were opinions grounded in fact.”
Thus implying that the BSA in some way upheld the "truth" of what he said and that influenced their decision.
Whereas the BSA ruling is unlikely to have had anything to do with the truth or otherwise of one silly man's self-promotional abuse. Is the ruling to be found anywhere online yet? If so can we see a link to it, please?
Thank you for that Laws Watch..
We'll see how it goes. The High Court Registar has already informed me of the process and fees.
I will also continue passing on more "tid bits" of information in your Laws Watch campaign as it is needed.
LOL...it's quite a challenge dealing with a corrupt system. But, I love to fight the good fight. Especially when the opposition has to cheat to win.
To the 7:03 PM, December 21, 2006 commentor...The BSA website should have the decision posted on it sometime soon. However, you will not be able to review all the complete contents of the documentation involved.
They are located in the Decision "Appendix" page, there, you'll be able to observe the documentation (involved)highlights only.
This is normal protocol.
Like I mentioned before, the BSA threw a legal spin of their own on the facts. Being that the BSA Chair has an LLM, it comes to no surprise.
What a loser that "John Anderson" is.
He now says the Broadcasting Standards Authority were "corrupt" and that the who;le system is. His claim had no merit and tossers like Anderson waste taxpayers money complaining about irrelevancies.
So some advice, you tosser: if you don't like Laws, don't listen to him. There must be 30 other stations for sanctimonious pricks like you to listen to, especially when some middle-aged white guy starts sticking up for Tongans - how bloody ridiculous. The press today have made him look like a fool.
I mean what relevance does this guy have to Wanganui. Can you answer that Mr Anderson? why did no Tongans complain? Could it be that most Tongans in NZ think he was right (Like Tapu Misa).
Can you post the entire BSA judgement LW so we can all see for ourselves??
The fact of the matter is, I could have pleaded my case much better in a formal hearing, whereas, legal debate and issue clarity could have been employed. Rather than having to rely on a "closed door" BSA determination.
Not John Anderson the Auckland potter? doesnt the High Court appeal cost a lot of money John? If you lose do they give costs to Laws too?
I think the Code of Conduct case was considerably more clear-cut than the general issue of talk-back drivel.
The Code is part of an employment contract, pure and simple (just like the one for the staff at the Avenue Motor Inn, for example). The fact that Dotty entertained Mickey's wholly specious civil rights defence at all has more to do with her incompetence (and perhaps Alice's) than any great victory of logic or even reason for that matter. Mickey is in constant breach of the terms of his employment contract, imho, from the Radio Drivel to the bad faith arguments he brings to the table at Council.
There's some truly hilarious decisions to be read on their website but alas not this one, so far. No doubt it'll appear when some public servant has dealt with other, more pressing matters. Like morning tea.
Some of the reasoning bhind it is reported in the Herald.
Our vote for "complaint most likely to have been written by Franz Kafka", by the way, goes to the one about Paul Holmes' linking of the Green Party and square dancers. From the square dancers.
It's good to have Mr Anderson on board and I for one welcome his comments and commend him for his courage and determination.
In case he hasn't already realised it though he should know that there is only one regular commenter here prepared to defend ML's most ridiculous claims and lies and attack the critiques that appear here and elsewhere ... in great spurts of posts morning and night, and most of the time in between ... and that's the mayor himself.
To the 8:13 PM, December 21, 2006
commentor: LOL...I'll have fun dealing with you when I get off work.
To the 8:30 PM, December 21, 2006 commentor....You mentioned the "keyword"....IF...LOL..since your intentions are to scare me, you failed.
John Anderson IS a tosser.
He won't appeal the BSA decision because a) he'll lose b) he'll lose money c) he's a tosser.
Give it up Anderson. Crawl back into the beneficiary hole you came out of. Laws would make mincemeat of you like he made of Alice and the Code whiners.
I love how every pro-mayor post MUST be the mayor. I doubt he gives you wankers a third thought let alone a second. He's walked you all into the ground and you havent touched his popularity or actions. Lets never forget when Wanganui had the chance to vote, it voted in two out of two Vision candidates in the 2006 by-elections.
To the 2:09 PM, December 22, 2006 commentor....LOL...Your comments are the funniest thing I've heard all day.
You're doing exactly what I want you to do...But, the only way you'll win this High Court Appeal of mine is if I can't come up with the money. How about loaning me the money for your amusement or demise then?...LOL
Also, be a man and let me know who you are since I'm man enough to identify myself.
I'm having the time of my life here..Please keep posting your comments.
John, Laws and his people are scum. You're wasting your time debating with them.
OK…LOL…Let the fun begin.
To the 8:13 P.M. December 21, 2006 and the 2:09 P.M. December 22, 2006 commentors.
I know who Laws is, and, if Laws is “anon’ing” his comments then… It isn’t a problem. But, this is who I am. I am a military veteran from the first Gulf War, I have trained with the best, and I have been trained to endure a Prisoner Of War environment. So you can dispense with the childish name calling. Try showing your age and not your shoe size…LOL.
Not long ago, I gave Laws’ company, CanWest RadioWorks Ltd., an old fashion “court room smack down” in an Employment Relations Authority dispute. It took me an hour in the Investigation Meeting to give CanWest a good thrashing to where the company’s attorney admitted that CanWest was wrong. I represented myself in that one.
If you want to review the BSA decision, you’ll have to wait until it’s posted on the BSA website.
Now, if Laws wants to see the decision, he can ask his boss Brent Impey.
The BSA “forces complainants hands” to go to an expensive High Court Appears Process because they won’t allow a formal hearing. If the BSA did have formal hearings, then there would be no need to be heard in a High Court case. No one in their right mind would willingly choose to go to the High Court for a small matter such as this. This is one of the reasons why the BSA complaint process is ludicrous.
My relevance to Wanganui? I intend on shifting to Wanganui in the near future and I don’t want Laws screwing things up before I get there….LOL..Do you always greet your potential city residents/neighbors this way?
Why many of the Tongans didn’t “fight”? Many don’t know how and can’t afford proper representation.
About the newspapers…They only can report on the BSA decision given to them and not the details because they were not given that information.
Gee, you’re not to smart..I’m enjoying this.
John
You ARE a tosser - inventing a military background for yourself in best Walter Mitty style. You're obviously thick and - LOL - high illiterate. Let me guess: you're on a sickness benefit for mentally related conditions. Must have been the trauma of serving in "the war".
You're whacko - no wonder Laws smacked your butt in front of the BSA.
How come we get all the loony Yanks in this country?
I like John Anderson's victim complex. I'd wager a fair bit of counseling has gone into this guy. Like its his fight: when did Tongans need a honky like this guy to fight their fights.
Oh, that's right. According to John Anderson they're too ignorant to complain. The real racist is who?
And how is all this relevant to Wanganui?
To the 10:44 and 10:47 December 22,2006 commentors...LOL..you've got a good imagination.
No need to comment anymore on the matter. If I can't come up with the money for the High Court, congradulations to Laws and he can enjoy his "false victory"..his Christmas present from the BSA.
LOL..it won't be the end of the world for me.
But, be advised that Laws never did represent himself because there was no BSA formal hearing.
There was only documentation submitted from myself and the RadioWorks Radio Standards Committee to the BSA.
So, in essence, Laws did not "smack my butt"...Cool bravado though. He just merely got away with it.
But, if I can get the money, I'll look forward to dealing with the BSA.
I won't be dealing with Laws...he just "sits on the sidelines" and watches. Like he did with the BSA decision.
LOL...so about you contributing the cash? Besides it's not between me and Laws, it's me between the BSA.
But, I'm having fun debating this just like you are. It's too bad that the thread can be closed for comment one day..And, we should not divert comments from the main topic of the Latest from Laws Watch article.
Hey sweetie, how about if you figure out a way for us to continue on the debate elsewhere..or, give me your E-mail address..you'll have mine when I reply.
The success rate against Mr Mayor has not been very good so I do not hold out many hopes for Mr Anderson and his Don Quixote view on life.
Can we get back to the central issue of this year (and its not Michael Laws or the WDC) but health services in Wanganui. It seems Dr Clive Solomon has assumed saint status with his crack at the DHB and if he's in league with Laws then they are going to make life very difficult for Patrick and Memo next year.
You will have seen what he's done to top management at the council. Only one survivor from the senior management team Laws took over and everyone of them was either forced to jump or pushed. The survivor went to school with the mayor.
The reason why the pro Laws posters get accused of being Michael Flaws is that 99/100 the posts are within the same few minutes and 100/100 they contain nothing but abuse. No counter-argument just abuse. That has Mickey written all over it.
"It seems Dr Clive Solomon has assumed saint status with his crack at the DHB and if he's in league with Laws then they are going to make life very difficult for Patrick and Memo next year."
___________________________________
In light of that, it would appear that Dr. Solomon and Laws may be making a concerted effort to "set the stage" for Laws to make his way into a high position in the WDHC. Should Laws accomplish that, Dr. Solomon will return to hospital in a high position himself.
The survivor went to school with the mayor?
Wanganui has no mayor.
"for Laws to make his way into a high position in the WDHC"
___________________________________
oooohhhh the power...oohhh the influence.
Does anyone take this shit-stained clown seriously?
I mean, leaving aside the fact that to debate with Brian is to insult him enough, how could you entertain the idea that it would be worth the effort? You might as well come out for intelligent design as root for Mickey.
ML was still mayor last time I looked, and wielding more influence on wangas than Chas ever did.
As for J anderson. Hmmm. He joins Alice as someone who will not be fighting the good fight basically because he is not able. At least he isnt wearing a dress.
Wanganui has no mayor.
5:44 PM
----------------------------
What?
Wanganui definitely has a mayor last time I looked. And all of NZ knows it. Wangas has never had it so good.
Anonymous wrote:
"oooohhhh the power...oohhh the influence.
Does anyone take this shit-stained clown seriously?"
Yes, YOU clown. The rest of us who are under his direct influence and living in Whanganui. As I opened my Sunday paper this morning, I was reminded of his reach.
Saying the mayor has no influence is like saying that our awa/iver is not wet.
Allan Anderson has been telling friends that he is running for mayor in 2007. He was named this week as River City Press "Man of the Year".
Laws is no mayor. He holds the office and wields the authority in such a cak-handed manner that he does not merit the title.
wielding more influence on wangas than Chas...
-----------------------------------
Do you believe your own shite, clown?
oooohhhh the power...oohhh the influence.
Does anyone take this shit-stained clown seriously?
I mean, leaving aside the fact that to debate with Brian is to insult him enough, how could you entertain the idea that it would be worth the effort? You might as well come out for intelligent design as root for Mickey.
7:01 PM, December 23, 2006
___________________________________
Hey Mayor Mickey...
The idea is that the only job you have in Wanganui is beinging a talkback host for the Canadians..you Hoser
Here's an excerpt form the Wanganui Chronicle article titled:
"Council poised to blow port development out of water" 25.07.2005
"....PoW said it had requested a meeting with Mr Laws to present the development proposal but the mayor had refused to meet with them.
The group had recently met with Port of Taranaki and they had indicated that while council refuses to support PoW they were not prepared to proceed.
“They are unclear as to whom they should be dealing with although they do acknowledge that PoW have a mandate on the project and recognize PoW as the initiators.
“The Mayor of Wanganui on the other hand has told Westgate that the council won’t deal with PoW and that they need to deal direct with council.” The statement said PoW and the council had a binding contractual agreement that clearly outlines an agreement in principle for the development of the port.
PoW said a result it had enough material to bring legal proceedings against council on the grounds of breach of contract.
“Legal recourse would represent a last ditch attempt to bring council and the mayor into line. It is hoped that support from the community and groups such as the Rate Payers Association will bring pressure to bear on the council and encourage it to get this project back on track.”
Post a Comment