Behind the facade

There's a bit of debate in comments over the quality of the information provided to voters on which to base their decisions in referenda particularly, of late, the decision on reducing councillor numbers.

So let's do a little post-modern deconstructionalist critique thereof, shall we Watchers?

Advantage 1: Some savings may be made in administration costs through reducing the number of councillors (telephone/travel/printing etc).

No doubt a few postage stamps will remain unused. And a few less agendas copied. Fewer phone calls? The Mayor prefers to send out his "What to say and how to vote" commands by email anyway. And if anyone thinks there won't be the unseemly scramble to grab whatever ratepayer-subsidised travel is available just because there's fewer hands shooting out to claim it, they're dreaming.

Advantage 2: It may be possible to reduce the amount paid out each year for councillor salaries and reduce the overall salary pool.

Demonstrably wrong. Illegal, in fact. So either a deliberate lie or the much-vaunted "Working Party" couldn't get such a basic fact correct.

Advantage 3: Groups tend to work better with smaller numbers.

Unsubstantiated opinion at best.

Gosh, yes. And an individual tends to achieve a lot more working alone than when he or she is forced to sit in a lengthy meeting to get sign-off on everything. So why 10? Why not the eight originally suggested? Heck, why not Field Marshall Sir Michael Laws, Ruler for Life?

Why run companies with boards? Why not just let an all-powerful figure run the whole shebang, like say Alan Bond or Conrad Black? They'd never stuff it up.

Of course fewer mind applied to a problem means fewer solutions, less diversity, less chance for alternative viewpoints to be heard. But then that was the plan all along.

Advantage 4: The rural community board could play a more prominent role.

Yes it could. But where's the strategy for it to do so, especially now the rural ward is to be disestablished? Without a plan for it to do so, that doesn't even amount to a hollow promise. It's simply baseless speculation.

Disadvantage 1: Fewer councillors may result in each councillor being paid more.

May? Let's state it again: LGNZ and other authorities confirm that the pool for payment to councillors is fixed and unalterable. They will get more. So again, ill-informed at best, blatant lying at worst.

Disadvantage 2: There may be no salary savings overall if the remuneration pool stays the same.

May?! This is perhaps the one incontrovertible fact in the whole issue and they've got it wrong a third time. Or lied a third time. Take your pick.

Disadvantage 3: Councillors would have a greater workload.

We are - gasp - in agreement with the Mayor on at least one thing. For the money they're getting paid there are many councillors who don't do nearly enough to justify it. But many of the offenders are under his leadership. So why not tackle the issue with a diVision wake-up call?

What of course will happen is that the handful of councillors who work hard for the community will now be forced to work even harder, whilst the free-loaders who barely bother to read an agenda and the double-dippers who make a comfortable living getting themselves elected to multiple public offices will continue as always. Unless the Mayor shows some leadership. Well, Mickey?

Disadvantage 4: It may reduce the opportunity for some groups in the community to be represented around the council table.

Yes, it may well. In fact there are many - including this blog - who are convinced that it will. Given that it's acknowledged as a potential disadvantage, where is diVision's strategy for coping with this? Where is the commitment to seeking out and embracing alternative points of view from all in the community? To distilling the opinions of as many residents as possible - after all, we all have a stake in Wanganui, whether we're diVision voters or not - and synthesising the best possible solution regardless of ideology... all right, we'll stop now. We know it's diVision we're talking about, Watchers. We were only joking.

Disadvantage 5: Councillors may have less contact with individuals in the community.

Simple maths suggests less councillors = less contact. That's bad for democracy. A lot of the contact councillors have with people isn't in a formal setting but while they're active in the community in their other roles - shopper, dog walker, pram pusher etc. Rdduce the number of faces and you reduce "face time".

Again, this could be at least partially compensated for by implementing diVision's pre-election promises, such as that of a "Mainstreet mayoral office" in which Mickey, Dotty and the dwarves would regularly sit, waiting to hear what ordinary citizens thought of them. Now that would be fun.

We've claimed the information that went out with the referendum was biased. Perhaps that wasn't quite the right word. We can think of several others: incomplete, poorly researched, misleading, and just plain stupid.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A discordant note

Sometimes it'd be possible to write posts to LawsWatch months in advance, it's all so predictable round the Council table. Of course that's what happens when a tyrannical Mayor is mindlessly supported by those either too stupid (yes, we mean you, Nicki, Muzza and Dotty) or to too craven (yes, you Sue Pepperrel, Phillippa et al) to do anything other than precisely what he tells them to do.

Whilst there were a few minor uncertainties in last night's vote - chief amongst them being would Rangi Wills' testicles being found in time for the meeting or would all his contributions be rendered in a wavering falsetto - the eventual outcome was as predictable as it will be damaging to democracy. And no, Rangi, you didn't redeem yourself by voting against the measure when you knew Mickey had the numbers to defeat it, when you could have voted a week or so ago to have the matter put to Council where it would have been overturned.

Points, though, to Randhir Dhaya and Don McGregor who, despite a less-than-stellar performance on other issues, at least remained consistent in their outspoken public opposition to this measure. And even if they and the other non-diVision councillors were, as Laws was so quick to accuse them, interested primarily in self preservation it doesn't make them any less right - just right for the wrong reasons.

In fact, Don McGregor gets an extra point for making the very salient point that referenda are a "valuable tool" but no substitute for democracy. As opposed to the worthless tool sitting... oh, but let's not descend to the level of some commenters. Not a good look, is it Bob?

Before we look at the result, and reaction to it, let's take a step back to pre-election days and remind ourselves of diVision's much-heralded (at the time) "Democracy Policy".

We're still waiting, by the way, for item 2.1 ("establish a mayoral office on Mainstreet"), 2.2 ("ensure that the mayor and councillors are available at that office and at allotted times to meet with residents and address any specific concerns"), 2.4 ("institute quarterly suburban meetings to ensure that the Mayor and councillors go to their constituents rather than vice-versa" - yes, the Mayor has fronted public meetings but when was the last time someone like, say Nicki Higgie, paraded her blind ignorance in front of an open meeting of ratepayers?), 4.1 ("create a "Residents' Rights Charter" that explicitly defines the service standards a ratepayer and/or resident may expect from the Wanganui District Council"), 4.3 ("initiate a Wanganui-wide discount/loyalty card for all ratepayers")...

Oh heck, let's just say we're waiting for everything they promised aside from referenda, which can of course be easily manipulated by controlling the flow of information given to voters prior to the event, then waved about as a "mandate" for doing whatever you want. And if anyone knows about controlling - or simply inventing - information given to electors, it's one Michael Brian Antoinette Beck Laws.

So let's zero in on item 3.5: "Immediately request a Local Government Commission review of representation arrangements in Wanganui with the intention of reducing the number of elected councillors to eight instead of the current twelve (estimated saving $100,000 per annum)".

When the plan was to drop four councillors, the estimated savings, on diVision's own estimates, was $25,000 per councillor. When it became evident that even the placid burghers of Wangas wouldn't swallow a council that small - and, perhaps, when Laws realised he'd got more diVisionites on to Council than he was expecting and thus didn't need to slash numbers quite as much in order to maintain absolute control - the ideal number suddenly became 10.

Using diVision's own formula, that saves Wanganui $50,000 a year. We did a quick scan of the Council budget to see what that might buy ratepayers, and the first item we came across worth $50,000 was "a toilet to be built at the Orient Toilets to accommodate mobility scooters".

So... we lose a sixth of our democracy and gain the price of a dunny.

That's assuming, of course, that the measure actually does save $50,000. There's no reference to any supporting facts in diVision's pre-election propaganda, just as there was no reference to facts in their pre-referendum propaganda.

So, if smaller councils are such a spiffingly great idea, you'd think Local Government New Zealand would be championing the idea. Apparently not. Hot off the press is the latest issue of "Local Government" magazine (an independent publication not affiliated with LGNZ):

The push to reduce councillor numbers across the country will not mean savings for ratepayers and could have an adverse effect on local democracy according to Local Government NZ.

Between 50 and 60 local authorities are reviewing their representation in line with the Local Electoral Act, which stipulates that councils must review representation every six years.

Many of them are locked in debates over reducing councillor numbers and abolishing ward systems, moving towards electing councillors at large from the community. However, LGNZ's governance manager Mike Reid says it is not necessarily the way to go.

"As far as remuneration of councillors goes there are no savings whatsoever for ratepayers," he says.

"The same amount of money will remain in the remuneration pool, it will just be shared among fewer councillors."

Some councils have used the idea that reducing councillors would also reduce costs as a selling point for smaller councils, however others have pointed out that - unless the councillors decided to hand back their pay rises - there would be no cost savings.

LGNZ is also concerned that a reduction in councillor numbers might lead to an erosion of local democracy, with fewer councillors meaning that councils would be less representative of thecommunitiestes.

"There is an impression that the drive to reduce councillor numbers is being partly driven by councillors looking to increase their wage packets and by mayors and CEOs who feel that a smaller council is easier to control," he says.

Mr Reid believes that many councils are assuming the Local Government Commission, which will rule on any proposals put forward by councils, is in favour of smaller councils, but that is not necessarily the case.

"The Commission that did the 2004 review had a clear preference for smaller councils, whether they would admit that or not. We (LGNZ) complained bitterly about that and in the end the Government fired three of the commissioners. It is not Government policy to have smaller councils. The policy is for more diversity on councils."

Oh dear... unlike the ovine diVisionites, the Local Government Commission don't see their purpose in life as being to do Mickey's bidding. And unlike Nicki Higgie, who proved beyond a doubt that stupidity welded to zealotry is perhaps the greatest danger to democracy admittinging to having been "lobbied by many people" but "hearing nothing over the past week that had changed [her] mind", the Commission will actually consider submissions from Wanganui people concerned by the change.

Meanwhile, we challenge Cr Higgie to deliver some of the promised savings by doing as LGNZ suggested and commit to handing back her pay rise if elected to a slimmed-down Council. Well, Nicki?

But the award for most pathetic quote over the whole affair goes hands-down to Philippa Baker-Hogan, who pleaded that the diVisioners "weren't all the same" and asked people not to "judge a book by its cover". Before voting precisely the way Mickey told her to. Did someone suggest the Nuremburg defence, Phillipa, or did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Searching for truth

As Russell Brown recently noted over at Hard News, AOL briefly and disastrously placed online logs of all searches done by about 650,000 randomly selected users over the course of three months earlier this year.

The identity of the searchers themselves was removed and replaced with a unique identifier. Which meant that every single search conducted by a certain user over that six month period could be traced.

16006693 Third Reich
16006693 Third Reich blueprint
16006693 coupons for mascara
16006693 insults
16006693 jokes about poor people
16006693 jokes about Maoris
16006693 jokes about dumb people
16006693 jokes about dumb people but not Michael Laws
16006693 Michael Laws popularity
16006693 Michael Laws great mayor
16006693 Laws approval
16006693 how to be popular
16006693 how to be popular but still be rude
16006693 Who is LawsWatch
16006693 control of media
16006693 hacking blogs
16006693 propaganda
16006693 Goebbels
16006693 Goebbels autographed photos for sale
16006693 dead reporters
16006693 dead reporters pics
16006693 disembowled reporters pics
16006693 love thine enemas
16006693 love thine enemies
16006693 situations vacant Member of Parliament
16006693 Helen Clark abdicate
16006693 Don Brash overthrow
16006693 second hand books
16006693 bulk buyers of second hand books
16006693 bulk buyers of second hand books no one wants to read
16006693 how to run a city
16006693 how to run city when not really interested
16006693 people to run city for you
16006693 people to run city for you but give you credit
16006693 Wanganui
16006693 places like Wanganui with election soon
16006693 places like Wanganui with life presidents
16006693 television jobs
16006693 radio jobs
16006693 radio jobs even if no one listens
16006693 how to be famous
16006693 how to be famous even if people hate you
16006693 how to be famous with no talent and even if people hate you
16006693 over work
16006693 overwork
16006693 stress
16006693 best place to retire
16006693 best place to retire but no one knows you
16006693 best place to retire where no one can find you

Comments on this post are now closed.

Meanwhile, in other news...

Cr Rangi Wills today strongly defended his decision to abstain on a crucial vote which might have preserved the last tattered vestiges of democracy in Wanganui.

"Sure I handed diVision another victory," the defiant councillor told the Chronic. "But think of the shockwaves that would have spread through Wanganui if I hadn't held fast to my unbroken record of shameless kowtowing to everything Michael wants! I wouldn't have wanted to be responsible for the heart attacks of many residents upon waking to the news I'd made an independent decision for the first time. And frankly, I'm appalled at the reckless disregard for public safety shown by my critics."

Pausing briefly to light another candle in the small shrine devoted to the Diva he maintains in his lounge, Cr Wills continued.

"Yes, I stood under a Ratepayers' Association banner in 2004. And yes, Ratepayers are explicitly opposed to a reduction in councillor numbers, citing the fact that less councillors equals less representation. But they simply don't understand," Cr Wills said. "If only they'd heard Michael explain it the way I have, in one of those private meetings where he bails me up in the stalls in the men's room. First off, what people have to realise is that we don't need as many councillors because the population is set to drastically decrease thanks to the fact that Michael has made it clear that anyone poor, unemployed, artistically inclined, pregnant (unless to him), or Maori isn't welcome here. I certainly don't know those sorts of people. And second, it's about efficiency. 'Less is more', as Michael said. Fewer people means greater efficiencies, which is why he's campaigning so strongly for less OBGYNs and less maternity facilities... oh, hang on... umm...

"Anyway," he added, quickly changing the subject, "it took me completely by surprise. Utterly. I had no prior warning at all, unless you count the detailed agenda I received days earlier, the email Michael sent last Friday and the discussion that occured prior to the decision. But they didn't contain any reminders of how Michael wanted me to vote, so when it came time to do so, I was completely at a loss. And anyway, I was distracted by the way the light reflected so beautifully off of Michael's hair."

Lighting a stick of incense and turning to bow three times before the altar, Cr Wills briefly recomposed himself. Appearing to read notes written on his shirt cuff, possibly in blood, he added emphatically "Even if I'd voted to have the issue resolved on Monday - when, purely coincidentally Micahel didn't have the numbers to get his own way - then it wouldn't have really been resolved at all."

This strained even the Chronic's incredulity (an attribute for which we're not exactly renowned) and, seeing the look on this reporter's face Cr Wills quickly explained. "Well, really, Council meetings are just window dressing. The real decisions are made behind the scenes, at those private diVision caucus meetings Michael holds. The ones I get the memos from aferwards," he added, a look of pride suffusing his normally dull appearance.

"Therefore, if something went wrong - say, Sue forgot to make the journey all the way from Wellington to raise her hand on cue - what happened at the meeting wouldn't be what had actually been agreed on. By the people who actually make the decisions. Well, by Michael actually, but I'm told Dotty and Marty and the rest get to decide whether they nod, go 'um hmm' or just beam vacantly. Dotty seems to have stuck with the latter," he surmised.

"So really, all I'd have done by voting - aside from my civic duty, of course - was to delay Michael getting his own way," Cr Wills explained, warming to the topic. "And we all know what that would have meant. I might have been called a useless... well... a... something not very nice," he concluded, blushing profusely. "And I don't want that. No siree boss".

Comments on this post are now closed.

What Dotty Did. Or didn't do.

With Michael Laws busy officiating at the birth of his latest offspring the reins have been handed to Deputy Mayor Dot McKinnon.

And thus dawns a new era of enlightened and inclusive democracy in Wanganui, wherein citizens of all hues and with differing viewpoints are welcomed and respected, where Council meetings are places where issues are freely debated and decisions reached in the best interests of the town across party lines, and the citizenry's hard-earned dollars are carefully shepherded against the need for future infrastructure investment and not wasted on electoral baubles.

Or not.

We're certain that Deputy Dotty has a detailed set of instructions from the Mad Mayor, probably written in blood (whose, we can only guess at) on the back of an abusive email about peanuts. And, serendipity being what it is - there can be no other reason for the timing, surely - there aren't too many big decisions on the agenda during Mickey's abesence anyway.

But that doesn't mean Dotty can't break the mould, rock the boat, turn over a new leaf, or some other synonym for "decide to run things like a sane person would".

Mind you, the portents aren't exectly positive. From her weak excusing of Mayoral insult and intimidation at the Code of Conduct hearing - "it's not him, it's that other Michael Laws, the one who's not Mayor of Wanganui" - to her craven apologies for having to be his stand-in at many events he simply can't be bothered to attend (that being any at which the requisite number of cameras is not present) to her elbow-jerk performance at the Council table (that's like a knee-jerk reaction, only when your hand shoots skyward every time the Mayor gives you "the look") Dot McKinnon has been nothing more nor less than Mickey's chief enabler.

With the mantle officially bestowed upon her while the Mayor is away ensuring that his reproductive prowess justifies further endless repetition in women's magazines and his own newspaper columns, Dotty could opt to make a few changes.

Sure, there are limits to what she could do. Tearing up plans for the Splash Centre extension probably wouldn't go unnoticed, for instance. But what about simply honouring some of diVision's election pledges?

Like the "main street" Mayoral office, for instance, offering citizens free and unfettered access to their First Citizen.

Like the democracy policy, which promised not only occasional referenda but real consultation. A good start might be following the lead of other Councils and giving people a right to speak and ask questions at the commencement of each full Council meeting.

Like commissioning someone independent to compile a proper and balanced explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of the next batch of Mad Mayoral referendum questions.

Like setting herself up behind a trestle table in a shopping centre and exposing herself to the real opinions of Wanganui people, so she might actually represent them and not Mickey at the next Council meeting.

Yes, we imagine thoughts of a porcine airforce are filling your heads by now, Watchers. But nothing is impossible. Sometimes you just have to hurl the pig in the air, and it'll start flapping. Anyone who has suggestions as to what Dotty might do while Mickey is away can find her contact details on the Council website.

Admin note, Tuesday 15 August: Following several complaints that the NBR news feed had started significantly slowing page loading - or sometimes not loading at all - for some readers, and unsuccessful attempts to ascertain the cause (for the technically minded, the RSS feed is formatted through a third party site and delivered through Blogger as a Javascript, thus giving us three components as the potential source of the problem) the feed has been suspended until such time as the issue can be resolved. If it can't be, we'll attempt to find an alternative provider. NBR news is still, of course, available direct from NBR.

Comments on this post are now closed.

One night in Paris

Following the startling announcement by fellow celebrity wannabe Paris Hilton that she is to voluntarily cease exercising the only skill she possesses - and the one which made her famous - for a year, Wanganui's very own celebrity Mayor, Michael Laws, has made a similar pronouncement.

"Paris managed to extend her 15 minutes of fame into a full half hour by the simple expedient of having sex with everyone imagineable," Mayor Michael told a packed press conference today, consisting of two reporters from the Chron, one who fell asleep mid-way through but returned to the office later to publish a barely-edited copy of the Mayor's press statement as his own work, and the other who could barely contain her excitement at being in the same room as someone she'd once seen on TV with Brent Todd.

"But then it got to the point where there were very few men left on the planet who hadn't had sex with Paris. I think the UN Secretary-General missed out... something to do with her getting muddled up and saying she didn't like her coffee black. But other than that, well... let's just say that Winston's recent spell in hospital wasn't unrelated, for one thing.

"The problem was, 'Paris Hilton bonks someone' is no longer a headline, even for the slothful journos at the Sunday Sensationalist," Mayor Michael said, "and they're so desperate for a headline they publish the patahlogical rantings of a rampant eugenicist. Or so I'm told. Not entirely sure who they mean... I really don't know why they even keep Frank Haden on," he muttered.

"Anyway, it's a brilliant bit of marketing. Paris has realised that not having sex with someone is the only way she can rate a headline any more. I intend taking a leaf out of her book," Mayor Michael said, before realising that Paris was extremely unlikely to have ever had a book of any description.

"Having insulted everyone from residents of Raetihi, Christchurch, Whakatane, Wellington and a host of other places large and small, racially vilified everyone from Arabs and Jews to Maori, and abused most of Wanganui personally, including those unfortunate enough to work for Council, I'm going to take a year off," he beamed. "I figure 'Mad Mayor doesn't abuse anyone' should be good for several months more publicity.

"Of course it'll mean my newspaper columns revert to endlessly boasting of my reproductive prowess. After all, how many people can say they've had kids, eh? Now there's a rare and exalted achievement for you. And my radio show... umm... well I'm not entirely sure how we'll get round that. I'm thinking I'll have Dotty as my producer, vetting calls and making sure the only people who are heard are those who agree with me. After all, she did a sterling job of that when she chaired the Code of Conduct complaints.

"That doesn't leave many people, admittedly, which is why I've drawn up this simple roster involving all councillors, Chron reporters, and Council managers, and what times they are to call.

"The TV show... well the ratings for that were worse than those for my radio program, so I think I'll give the TV away for the year, unless there's something which seriously explores the kind of isues that brought me firstly to politics and secondly, home to Wanganui. Like, say 'Dancing with the Stars on Ice while Losing Weight and learning to sing'. I'd be up for that," he announced, scanning the room for any sign of a Touchdown producer with a bag of NZ On Air cash. "Or one of those shows where you eat bugs. Yum, bugs!"

An afternoon restricted to pulling the wings off flies, burning ants with a magnifying glass and pulling faces at small children when their parents' backs were turned soon began to take its toll however, and by tea time the strain was evident as the Mayor gunned his official boy racer special up Guyton Street. Miraculously, he somehow managed to restrain himself from abusing the several elderly pedestrians he knocked down, contenting himself with reversing back over them whilst scowling wordlessly and offering a single digit greeting.

"See that?!" croaked one, believed to be connected with the local bowling club, as he was loaded into the back of an ambulance. "That's why we love Michael. Even after we'd dented his car, he still found the time to remind us that, in his mind, we're number one!"

Comments on this post are now closed.

The many faces of Michael

Comments on this post are now closed.

Insert nut pun here

You asked for it, Watchers, and here it is. The full unexpurgated text of the email exchange between a concerned parent and His Worship the Mayor Michael Laws. It's a shining example of one anonymous's assertion that "The mayor does not respond aggressively unless the provocation is similarly aggressive".

First, a little background for those unfamiliar with the story. Mickey the publicity-seeking columnist (whom anons will no doubt now be at pains to remind us is a completely different person to Michael Laws, dignified and kindly Mayor of Wanganui) lambasted Wadestown Primary School banning peanuts so as to reduce the risk of an allergic student going into anaphylactic shock and dying:

...it had not been possible - until now - to identify the epicentre, the ground zero of PC-dom in Wellington. Until last week. That's when Wadestown Primary School banned peanut butter sandwiches from its precincts because someone, somewhere, sometime might just have a nut allergy. And - omigod -die. For the same reason, they've also banned Nutella sandwiches, hazel nuts, cashew nuts, muesli bars and anything that has ever been near a nut product in a dairy, supermarket or mum's pantry. In other words: No nuts.

Now this may be simply due to the fact that there are already too many on their board of trustees and in the staff room. Probably... Yes, but what happens to those children who accept and venerate the nut as part of their culture? Say, vegetarians? Having enforced the ban, the Wadestown staff and trustees could not be seen to be backing down. On the other hand - and despite good medical evidence - vegetarians are people too.

And oppressed people - primarily due to not shaving their legs, eschewing deodorants and bathing in their own urine. But like the good teachers' college graduates that they are, Wadestown found a solution. They would isolate the nut-crunchers to a "safe" area of the school. The peanut purveyors would receive a form of supervised community care. Although the aim would still be to wean them from their insensitivity and immaturity.

Alarmed by this cavalier attitude to serious risk vs minor inconvenience (expect a Laws-sponsored amendment to the Bill of Rights enshrining every child's inalienable right to peanut butter sandwiches at all times), the parents of three boys with severe peanut and other nut allergies got in touch. They're Wanganui citizens as well as readers of the Sunday Star Times, and the school their children attend in Wanganui has adrenalin injection kits that must be used in case of reaction to the allergies, without which the boys, and any other students similarly afflicted, go into anaphylactic shock - and die.

Mr Laws, We were alarmed to read your column in the Sunday Times this week regarding peanut allergy. You clearly have no knowledge in this area at all. It has become not a matter of political correctness- but a way of keeping children alive.

We have three sons aged 9,7,5 who all have a life threatening peanut allergy. They are also allergic to treenuts - hazelnuts etc., any nut- most people who have severe peanut allergies have a total tree nut allergy as well. (Did you not know nutella is made from
peanuts?). They are so severe we carry epipens (adrenaline) with us at all times- as if we didn't and they were to have peanuts they would be OMIGOD DEAD.

They also have other severe food allergies as well - but anyone who knows anything about peanut allergies know that a peanut allergy is the most severe you can have as it can affect people by smell, airborne or touch with dire consequences. When our oldest son was 6 he was chased by some children with peanuts - because they wanted to see what would happen if he ate them. We do agree with you on one point- if he had been made to eat them it would be like crunching on a cyanide pill - and without medical intervention he would be OMIGOD DEAD.

Hence the school has tried to put a peanut ban on since then - 3 years ago - though lack of understanding (parents) this isn't always the case. This school is St Annes School. You may actually find that other schools through similar experiences have a ban placed on them as well. Our youngest (5) is very severe with multiple allergies and this term alone he has had 2 major anaphylactic attacks which have required adrenaline - the latter being so bad he needed two shots. It has very recently come to our attention that one class's parents do not adhere to the peanut ban and it is free for all peanuts and sandwiches - we cannot prove it but are now wondering if this is the cause of his major attacks. So much so that he was meant to be moved up next term - but are keeping him where he is until this can be rectified.

It is so frustrating have a child with life threatening allergies - with the attitude of "he'll be right" and not been able to pinpoint what the cause has been - as traces can set off a major reaction. We wanted to let you know that your lack of understanding on this subject is indeed a lot of frustration for the many families around NZ who experience this problem and little do you know but this is what puts our children's lives in danger everyday.

You may think we are neurotic parents - but we hope for your sake you never have to sit in an ambulance of in A & E and see your child completely swollen up and struggling for breath - because if it wasn't for medical intervention they would be OMIGOD DEAD.

This is the reality we live with every day- and will for ever as we have been told by specialists they will never grow out of this allergy as it is so severe. We have to constantly check what is in food labels and can be quite a headache - but not half as bad if you get it wrong!!!! Incidentally St Annes has 5 severe peanut allergy children at the school that require adrenaline - a lot closer to home than you thought huh! We hope this gives you something to think about and understand generally people don't take drastic measures unless required. In our opinion AVOIDANCE IS THE ONLY CURE.

Regards,

Jo and Matt Boult

Ooooo just smell that aggressive provocation dripping from every word, Watchers! Deeply hurt by such a wounding personal attack, His Worship responds:

Then don't send your kids to school then. Where they inconvenience all others because it's your kids with the problem. To impose your children's affliction upon others shows the immaturity and selfishness of people such as yourself.

Next you'll be wanting to ban their contact with peanut-eating sporting youngsters, Cub leaders & the like.

Michael Laws

We can only guess at the thoughts running through the minds of the recipients of this communication... but they do a pretty good job of explaining that - and the flaws in Mickey's "argument" - themselves in their reply:

Mr Laws, Thank you for replying to my email. My first thoughts on reading it were this must be a joke - someone who has children of their own could not possibly be so coldhearted and uncaring and not think "gee I don't know what I am talking about - I apologise for my uneducated writing".

You obviously never took the time to even read what I had to say. I am now downright angry. If you think that trying to do the best you can to keep your children safe and alive is selfish I seriously doubt your parenting skills. If you honestly feel that someone cannot withhold from having peanuts for 6 hours in the day - so that it would mean it would not put a fellow classmates life in serious danger - than you must really have an addiction to the stuff.

We are not in council now and we are not trying to play games with people - we are trying to keep a lot of children's lives safe. If you cannot comprehend the seriousness of this situation I cannot believe you could be taken seriously in anything. I would find it very hard to find any sympathy for you now if (god forbid) anything (say like a life threatening allergy) was to be imposed on your family.

I have forwarded my letter and your answer onto allergy awareness - as it is hardhearted people like you that make the work of such a worthwhile organisation in NZ so hard - no doubt you may hear back from them.

As for the sports games - I don't feel that is even worth commenting on - but hey take a look in the mirror and see who the real immature one is. By the way, if this problem did happen to be inflicted upon you - where would you want your children educated - or hang on a minute, you would be the front man lobbying for allergies as then you would realise it could happen to your little darlings after all.

I am also telling everyone and anyone about your reply - the disgust so far is immense - aren't you the mayor of Wanganui? I feel you have lost a lot of votes as I for one used to think you weren't such a bad guy - but now my opinion on that has totally changed.

Jo Boult

Poor Mickey. Emotionally shattered by being portrayed as "uncaring", "coldhearted" and even (gasp!) addicted to peanuts by someone "downright angry", he carefully composes one of those non aggressive replies for which - in some anonymous circles at least - he is renowned... and an all-time pot/kettle example if ever we saw one:

You're a fascist idiot.

Yes, Watchers, we give you His Worship the Mayor of Wanganui, Michael Laws. A man for whom care is a four letter word.

Comments on this post are now closed.