Ulysses please explain why you're selling us out

[StoneY]

From day one, Peter Macintosh objected to the BIKEOI

However many Ulysses members stepped up as individuals and represented

Peter and myself had a discussion the night before the Oct 31st rally
The mans ego knows no bounds

He told me he believe Ulysses are the real voice of the bikers

Thank god Howard, Ken and John all have a saner view on the world

Nick Smith is quite likely to jave grasped at anything Peter Mac says as gospel, BRONZ will ensure this is not the case

Well done again Les

Represented mate

[idleidolidyll]

Yep I heard it loud and clear from Nick Smiths mouth.
The first thing I thought was, here we go, where going to end a up a smaller ACC increase and an additional safety education levy that adds up to the original amount!

I think Nick Smith is going to come out and say we mis heard a lot of things he said last night!

Ixion would be great if you could get your hands on a copy of that TV3 tape from the whole of the night???

So there ya go: it is confirmed from multiple sources on the night that Nick Smith said Ulysseus and Govt had agreed to enter into discussion/negotiations ringfencing a portion of the levy increase for use in safety/training progerammes.

The onus on Ulysseus is therefore to explain to its members whether this is Nick Smith bullshit or is indeed something being negotiated. I don't expect Ulysseus to post an answer here as they are not answerable to us in the same way BRONZ is not. However, I and I'm sure others here, would appreciate a member advising us of the efficacy of Smiths statements.

[Nasty]

So there ya go: it is confirmed from multiple sources on the night that Nick Smith said Ulysseus and Govt had agreed to enter into discussion/negotiations ringfencing a portion of the levy increase for use in safety/training progerammes.

The onus on Ulysseus is therefore to explain to its members whether this is Nick Smith bullshit or is indeed something being negotiated. I don't expect Ulysseus to post an answer here as they are not answerable to us in the same way BRONZ is not. However, I and I'm sure others here, would appreciate a member advising us of the efficacy of Smiths statements.

BRONZ is also not answerable to us (many of us are not members at this stage), and don't need to post here, that they choose to is to their benefit.

There is a HUGE proportion that Ulysses can not represent ... and will never represent ... those of us who are too young - or don't believe that we want to be part of a group that wants to grow old disgracefully. Thing is that they have plenty of money and do a lot of rider training and ongoing training, which is great for their group. But claiming to represent others is pathetic - and a mis-representation of their remit.

[knuckles24]

ullysses president and give us the answers to all this, have you sold your soul to nick smith or not and as far as being the voice for all bikers ullysses are not my voice i can speak for myself.

[zzzz]

Ullysses is not my voice either and would like to know the answer as well.
Have thought about joining in the past.

[awayatc]

FFS, of course Nick Smith was lying........
A dead give away...
His lips were moving....

[idleidolidyll]

perhaps he was but other comments on this thread, some from inside sources, seem to suggest there is some truth in the statement.

[CookMySock]

So there ya go: it is confirmed from multiple sources on the night that Nick Smith said Ulysseus and Govt had agreed to enter into discussion/negotiations ringfencing a portion of the levy increase for use in safety/training progerammes.

Ulysseus has been pulling funding from govt agencies for some years. It seems to me they are more interested in exploiting another source of revenue, than resolving the issue at hand. If they don't watch out, the whole thing will backfire on them and they will be high and dry. The govt tends to dump external service providers when they look bad.

Steve

[Reckless]

I still think we have to be very careful here. As said before a lot of what Nick Smith said can be interpreted in different ways, typical Parliament talk.
A lot of groups have had some sort of discussion with Nick Smith about rider education and he's come up with the bullshit (which could be interpreted two ways) he spouted on the night.

Be very careful our anger at National is not dividing and conquering us by alienating Ulysses. If that becomes the case all the good done at last nights meeting is undone and Dickhead Smith has won. The comments about the Ulysses president are uncalled for on a public forum. They still are a very respected group and a powerful Allie. Bronze and them together are probably the best representation we have and they need to be united and communicating with each other. If this thread hasn't wrecked that already.

Maybe Ixion should simply ring him up and ask if what we thought Nick smith said was true, before this gets out of hand.

IMHO a thread entitled "please explain why you're selling us out" is not the way to enter into the issue when its only Nick Smith's words that this is based on.
And Steve (DB) is there any basis in fact whatsoever for your assumptions? That was very broad and very offensive.

Many of you must realise KB is a factor in this and the opinions expressed here are being monitored, reported and may be destructive to the cause.

Ps I have nothing whatsoever to do with Ulysses, I just think all bikers just need to be united at this time!
Just my 2c

[Mully]

The onus on Ulysseus is therefore to explain to its members whether this is Nick Smith bullshit or is indeed something being negotiated. I don't expect Ulysseus to post an answer here as they are not answerable to us in the same way BRONZ is not. However, I and I'm sure others here, would appreciate a member advising us of the efficacy of Smiths statements.

Just a thought:

Doesn't ACC/The Minister have to consult with "Industry Groups" on changing the levy structure (which they are doing by proposing a scale, not just the amounts)?

Anyone think that maybe Smithy thought he was away laughing because he'd "consulted" with a single person from Ulysses?

[ManDownUnder]

Which raises a question - who are the industry groups that could be consulted?

I don't think KB would claim to be one. BRONZ certainly is, given that their raison d'etre, Ulysses I'm not so sure of given their mantra of growing old disgracefully. I know it's a bit of fun but given an entry criteria is the need to be 40 or over they simply can NOT claim to speak for all motorcyclists.

They ruled themselves out

[avgas]

Bluff has been called?

[duckonin]

I do not think it is fair to say that there has been a lack of support from Ulysses, per se. Many members of Ulysses have stood shoulder to shoulder with us - Howard Mansell and many others rode on the BIKEOI, that troublesome bearded gentleman was at the Yacht Club tonight giving Nick what for.

And Ulysses were the first off the mark to organise meetings - they did not want to do rides but that was because of fears that if one went wrong and someone was injured it could all backfire, a reasonable concern.

SO I think Ulyssians have fronted up. Any deals between their President and Nick seem to have been on a personal level.

Yes a lot of ulysses members rode to Welly in protest, not just those from the Auck's branch, the president of ulysses can speak for himself if his veiws differ from the majority, most others have their own view on the matter and that is RIDE, RIDE HARD AND PROTEST....Not all of us have big paying jobs, a dollar is a dollar.

Ulysses was formed as a social club not a political allegiance to the Govt of the day.

[duckonin]

Ulysseus has been pulling funding from govt agencies for some years. It seems to me they are more interested in exploiting another source of revenue, than resolving the issue at hand. If they don't watch out, the whole thing will backfire on them and they will be high and dry. The govt tends to dump external service providers when they look bad.

Steve

Back your statment up with figures Steve !!!!!!

[CookMySock]

And DB is there any basis in fact whatsoever for your assumptions? That was very broad and very offensive.

Well it is important not to offend, and I agree with your cautious approach.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS they get funding from a govt department to run their training courses. MY UNDERSTANDING IS it is from ACC.

You, or any interested person, should verify this yourselves. On the Internet, my opinion is ONLY MY UNVERIFIED OPINION.

YMMV, do the math, cap fits or not, square peg/round hole, etc, shoot own foot etc, standard disclaimer applies.

But who wouldn't exploit a new funding source?

Steve