A view from above the trenches
From time to time a Watcher submits a contribution to the Cave which is somewhat longer and more involved than the usual comment. Often such missives contain insights that have eluded those of us whose sorry duty it is to monitor Mickey on a regular basis, because eventually sustained exposure to untruth and spin starts to inure even the most easily outraged amongst us.
Like the oft-repeated porky that Sue Pepperrell (and with her, Sam Hoyle) were merely in Wellington on a temporary sojourn and would be back in the bosom of Wanganui before we knew it. Now the replacement of the latter is acknowledged by Mickey without so much as a mention of the obvious need to replace the former - let alone an admission that promises of their fealty to Wanganui were an outright lie.
Keen-eyed commenters have already noticed this obvious, blatant bit of spin. Mickey knows we know. We know he knows we know. And so a strange kind of ennui sets in. The news that Mickey has been less than honest, or has procured someone else to be less than honest, becomes commonplace.
Thus it's the contributions of occasional Watchers which often bring a fresh perspective to events. The last such effort was well received, so - from a different Watcher this time - we present the latest contribution (slightly edited for brevity and grammar):
Good on LawsWatch for doing just that… watching Laws. It’s not the responsibility of the LawsWatch crew to figure out the solutions to city problems but to inform on the issues and be responsible enough to give their views and recommendations. I elected not comment on the "Kept in the dark again" post because its contents convey facts that all responsible citizens should learn.
However, it would seem that mayor Laws' "victory" in the Code of Conduct investigation has been a body blow that knocked the wind out of some of the citizens of Wanganui in calling him to account. When the litigants are poorly represented and up against a biased Wanganui District Council, naturally the ruling would have been against the them.
Next time, get better legal representation - one that can keep a calm head when dealing with mayor Laws' immature antics. One who keeps in mind that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me"; concentrates on the case at hand; does their legal "homework", and offers to do some for free; and "burns the midnight oil" doing legal work for the sake of winning for their clients.
It only took me three hours to find a flaw in that case that would have turned the tables in favour of the complainants. There was a point in the process prior to the Council’s ruling that the complainants' counsel did not take up.
On to the most current LawsWatch post, "On the rocks". This raises a barrage of issues: Why now? And why wasn’t it addressed long before? How much is this going to cost the city again? Would this make the "Heart of Wanganui" project even less affordable than at present? And why does the port matter motivate Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council into kowtowing to special interest group (port users)?
Regarding the legal action over the port, we are informed that, "in 1998 the then Wanganui Council transferred the management of the port assets to a private company - Ocean Terminals Ltd. - by way of a perpetual lease". However, Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council fail to indicate the reasons why the then Council made that transfer, nor have they disclosed to the public the conditions of the perpetual lease.
Laws and the Council are characterised as "fighting a legal uphill battle". This "uphill battle" is going to cost money and I’m more than certain that Laws and the Council are not going to reach into their own pockets or purses to pay the legal expenses. I suspect that instead, they are hoping to find a legal loophole big enough to drive a truck through in order to regain Council control of the port again, to the benefit of a special interest group of port users rather than Wanganui as a whole.
Management comes with responsibility and funding to maintain port operations. If there is no loophole, then Laws and the Council may find fault in regards to the conditions of the lease, but it will have to be vast departure from the lease conditions to justify the lease being nullified and the relinquishment of control back to the Wanganui Council.
The pitiful thing about this matter is that Laws is using the lives of the people as leverage under the guise of launching the Coastguard rescue boat being main issue. Why only now is this matter being addressed? Who is to be held responsible for this shortcoming? The Coastguard... for not speaking up? Mayor Laws… for ignoring the dilemma till it suited him? The Wanganui Council… for also ignoring it? Wanganui citizens… for not speaking up?
I would liked to have seen the headlines if someone had drowned because the Coastguard was impeded from doing their job properly as a result of neglect from the Mayor and Council. Yes, River City Port Ltd is not innocent either. But in this matter, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Isn't it the responsibility of a mayor to protect his citizens? Surely, this matter involving the Coastguard’s inability to perform their rescue operations properly did not need to be addressed this late by pointing fingers at the Port company's alleged operations "mismanagement".
Unless Laws has had an almost a 3 year long lapse of reasoning, thinking no one will drown until he takes control of the port, it’s obvious that this matter should have been rectified a long time ago.
In light of all this, how much more money is this going to cost the city? And how long has it been since dredging was done while Mayor Laws has been in office? Not only are Laws and the Wanganui Council "a day late and a dollar short" in their endeavors, but they seem intent on illustrating their delusions of grandeur by sensationalising in the Wanganui Chronicle the great job they're supposed to be doing.
Similarly, Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council both know that this "Heart of Wanganui" project is not financially feasible for a city that is in great debt. It is not practical to imagine that it can be accomplished as a legacy for a one-term mayor. You finish paying off the completion of one project before you start the other. And the first priority is, get the city infrastructure "up to par" and stabilise the city’s financial situation.
Furthermore, this matter of the Wanganui District Heath Board. This didn’t get this much attention until the ACT party leader, Rodney Hide, exposed the debacle months ago and it has gained momentum ever since, before Laws took the opportunity to "ride the wave" to have the matter addressed.
While all this was going on prior to Mr Hide coming to Wanganui, why didn’t Mayor Laws raise the flag by going to Parliament to address the matter much earlier? Why so late in the game did he finally make an effort amongst all the publicity? This is yet another example of taking corrective action instead of preventative action. And once again putting lives at stake.
Clearly, in having the Wanganui Chronicle publish all the good he has supposedly done, Mayor Laws is attempting to re-write history and deflect attention from these very serious oversights which have occurred during his term. Just as when he became a lame duck MP and resigned from Parliament, then tried to portray it as a noble act. This is what any politician would do in similar circumstances. All politicians, here and even in the United States, play this game. However any reasonable person would find the actions of Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council in many important matters as being unacceptable, period.
Comments on this post are now closed.
24 comments:
Incompetent as charged. Laws's biggest lie (and he tells a few) is how good he is at everything. He's not. He's crap. He's a crap politician, a crap debater (can't win without personal attack), and a crap mayor. He's even a crap shock jock - come on, 2% are you for real???
So, yes Watchers, a certain ennui sets in watching this ludicrous charlatan dig himself a great big hole while spewing forth a constant spew of ridiculous lies about how well he's doing.
You sad pathetic little dribblers - every story in the Chronicle today portrays a united council behind a bloody good mayor.
Will any of you wankers put your name in the ring next year? of course not, because a0you're all losers and b) unelectable and c)you'd have to show Wangas how ugly you are.
Who would have thought that one man's personal success and one councils turning a city around would upset so many of you losers.
Keep skulking in the shadows. Its what you do best. that and beating off.
So, yes Watchers, a certain ennui sets in watching this ludicrous charlatan dig himself a great big hole while spewing forth a constant spew of ridiculous lies about how well he's doing.
11:43 PM, December 18, 2006
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is this poster off their medication?? Anyone who hates that much and writes so badly needs some serious help now. And look at the time - who's up just before midnight on a Monday night to write that crap? An alki?
How is the mayor's fault that the 1989 Council botched the Port and transferred a public asset into private hands?
Laws has -
1. His own nationwide talkback show (& a new 5 year contract);
2. His own SKY rugby show;
3. His own national newspaper column;
4. Plus the mayoralty, the majority of Wanganui councillors, two by-election victories in 2006, great kids ...
Yes, he's a REAL failure. I'd love to fail like that.
what a bunch of BS from the so-calleed "informed" contributor.
If Chas did nothing for 18 years and Laws is doing something about the Port, how does that make it Lawses failing?
Methinks some posters protest too much re Laws' alleged failures. If he was a failure then this blog wouldn't exist given that it seems part-jealousy and part-revenge fantasy.
From the tenor of some remarks recently it is also a very personal dislike that some posters seem to have. It appears catty rather than constructive.
Whoa watchers, methinks you've touched a nerve. Six little plops from anonyMickey in one morning, but not one substansive comment among them.
Just the usual incontinent abuse. If this isn't Mickey, I guess it's typical of the sort of person who supports him.
And the concept that anyone is jealous of a man who had make-up tattooed on his face is, well, as ridiculous as Mickey himself.
I appear to have coem to the wrong blog. Everyone here is a vehement supporter of Laws...oh that's right, LawsWatch actually allows dissenting views. That's the differenc between this blog and the Mayor himself.
Great article in the Woman Day re our Mayor. Good for Wangas. Shame he isn't standing again, but understandable. What a lovely family.
Hasn't this posting got the Diva or Bob rather hot under the collar! 6.49 6.51 7.51 7.54 .. see a pattern?
Lawsy isn't so bad - check out our mayor in Auckland who has jogged up and down on the spot since election and gets white-anted by his deputy every second day.
Send him up here!
the truth finally comes out the trees and what do you know ... it was non-Vision councilors who wanted to chop them and almost did.
Another wrong post by LawsWatch.
anonymickey said re the trees:
....it was non-Vision councilors who wanted to chop them and almost did.
Another wrong post by LawsWatch.
5:26 PM, December 19, 2006
_______
So, our little Vision confrere has already written off his village idiot Higgie and declared her a "non-Vision councillor" then (or he's lying or Higgie's lying or the Chron's lying - or they're all pack of liars) .....
So what's this Chron story about, then, Mickey? Or maybe this is in fact what led to the end of the beautiful Mickey/Nicki use-and-abuse affair.
Councillor seeks clearer tree policy 08.12.2006
CR HIGGIE was upset by the events of last week … She was one of a group who authorised this …
What’s really laughable in reading the Laws supporter’s comments, is where they’ve lowered themselves to mere name calling of anti-Laws persons. The Laws supporters have yet to submit proof positive evidence to merit exactly what substantial tasks Laws has done as a mayor outside of him doing what he is supposed to do. Or, that the recent “Latest From Laws Watch” news post is false.
I believe that the contributor of the recent news post did not base their choice of words with hate or jealousy in mind, but, based their words on facts and common sense, which the Laws supporters are seriously lacking.
And as far as Laws being elected as mayor, even the American people who voted for George W. Bush thought they were doing the right thing too.
If the Laws supporters can’t do any better to defend their mayor, you might as well come to the anti-Laws side. If this blog was a court of law, and the Laws supporters were mayor Laws’ defense attorney, and I was the prosecuting attorney, I’d have a good old fashion court room “smack down” and have the defense leaving the court with their “tails between their legs” while watching the bailiffs taking Laws to the big house. Hey, here’s an idea. When they transport Laws to jail, how about if they let him share a compartment with Liam Ashley’s killer and see if Laws will make it to jail should Laws “trash talk” the guy.
...let him share a compartment with Liam Ashley’s killer and see if Laws will make it to jail should Laws "trash talk" the guy...
A character truly deserving of the title "thin brown slug". But here's a bet: put Mickey face-to-face with him & he wouldn't make a peep. Because George Baker is young, fit and alive. Brave Mickey only mouths off to those who can't defend themselves.
Reference:front page of the Chronicle today.
Is it just me that thinks the WC is running Michael Laws' campaign for chairman of the WDHB?
So, now it's "let's kill the mayor".
You're sick shits.
So, now it's "let's kill the mayor".
So tell us, we're fascinated. Are you simply what's known in blogging circles as a troll. Or just simple?
No trolls: just an obvious reference to posters wishing that ML could spend time with Liam Ashley's killer.
Like the previous poster said. You are sick shits.
Kill the mayor? That would be letting the little creep off too lightly. I say we laugh at him some more.
I just can't resist dredging this pearler (edited somewhat) up:
Michael Laws, a low-life, was killed today. Police are questioning several thousand suspects, but a spokesman pointed out that "this may be a simple case of justifiable homicide."
We're sick alright. After all, it was a LW commenter who said he preferred blonde hitch-hikers, was it not?
It has just been on the RNZ news that Laws has been found NOT guilty by both the Broadcasting Standards and the Press Council for complaints over the Tongan King and something to do with peanut allergy sufferers.
It is not the Christmas that we would have hoped for; he has more lives than Felix the Cat.
Post a Comment