TV1 refused interview with Nick

[Swoop]

It really is unlike the Nickster not to front up. He has his faults but pusillanimity is not one of them. I wonder if he has been muzzled...

He probably has a hangover...

[Brian d marge]

What's with Peter Mac with "*we* had 500 bikers.." . Who had ? Seems I remember that Peter Mac was totally opposed to the BIKEOI and predicted it would be carnage and chaos. Now suddenly it's "*we* had".

".

thats what I said in the other thread

Is that the same person as the Ulysses ' a few more SS cos Im from cut and paste land )

Stephen

[MSTRS:Me]

Quite right, water under the bridge. If Ulysses are over the line now , that's what matters.

And if Peter Mac disowns any understanding with Nick, that leave Nick without a sponsor for his "ACC levy rebranded as a safety contribution" idea. (though the idea itself is not entirely without merit)

You do realise that no matter how palatable the idea might be, using the increase for safety initiatives, that the word of a Polly is anathema to the truth?
If we are sold on accepting an increase on the safety-thing, we're fucked. And never a penny of it will be spent on safety.

[Ixion]

I agree, which is why I am pleased that Peter Mac has confirmed (IIUC) that he has not given any indicatioon of approval.

It seems quite perverse to pay a special levy to ACC for safety purposes when that is the entire purpose of ACC. Not to mention that since the safety levy wouldn't be included in their calculations, they would still claim we didn't pay enough.

Only one reasonable way. One rule, one levy, one cover for all private passenger vehicles.

Actually that's a god slogan for the battle going forward - One rule, one levy , one cover.

But the general principle of a significantly higher funding for motorcycle injury prevention is one that we support in principle.

[MSTRS:Me]

But the general principle of a significantly higher funding for motorcycle injury prevention is one that we support in principle.

I don't. Your slogan is good, and all we need. Let ACC spend (a miniscule amount in the overall scheme of things) on a safety/awareness campaign upfront. For a year or two. If there is no associated drop in biker injuries etc, then we can revisit the levy level question.

[gwigs]

I agree, which is why I am pleased that Peter Mac has confirmed (IIUC) that he has not given any indicatioon of approval.

It seems quite perverse to pay a special levy to ACC for safety purposes when that is the entire purpose of ACC. Not to mention that since the safety levy wouldn't be included in their calculations, they would still claim we didn't pay enough.

Only one reasonable way. One rule, one levy, one cover for all private passenger vehicles.

Actually that's a god slogan for the battle going forward - One rule, one levy , one cover.

But the general principle of a significantly higher funding for motorcycle injury prevention is one that we support in principle.

That slogan does sound good ...probably better than bullshit,bullshit,bullshit
Though I like that one too.

[DidJit]

Actually that's a god slogan for the battle going forward - One rule, one levy, one cover, one ring to rule them all.

Sauron?!?

Just kidding.

“One rule, one levy, one cover for all private passenger vehicles.” is a good slogan.

[DidJit]

“One rule, one levy, one cover for all private motor vehicles.”

Just thinking, wouldn't that be better? There's a few Ducs that probably don't really cut it as passenger vehicles...

[Bald Eagle]

“One rule, one levy, one cover for all private motor vehicles.”

Just thinking, wouldn't that be better? There's a few Ducs that probably don't really cut it as passenger vehicles...

and maybe the odd buell .. oops wrong thread

[phred]

Actually that's a god slogan for the battle going forward - One rule, one levy , one cover.

Oh Shit, - Ein Reich Ein Volk Ein Fuhrer

[k2w3]

Yeah, but work sets you free.

[Ixion]

Oh Shit, - Ein Reich Ein Volk Ein Fuhrer

Actually I was thinking more, like, 'one levy to rule them all, one levy to find them and in the darkness bind them'

[NakiNinja]

This just in. Just after Nick Smith is said to have refused an interview with TV1 regarding the ACC levies... He magically fronts up on Close Up, live feed direct from Auckland airport.

He appears after hearing the TV1 news article about ACC denying to pay the dentist $3000 bill for the elderly war veteran who got badly beaten outside an RSA. He agrees that this was unfair and that he would ensure that ACC would pay this full bill.

Well you know what else isnt fair Nick? Not fronting up to face your enemy face to face.

I say rather than doing a protest ride, we kidnap him, sell him off to the highest bidder on the black market, and donate the money to charity. Hopefully the mongrel mob wins the bid.

[gwigs]

It seems that nick smith does have some power over ACC,he said on close up that he could instruct ACC to pay out the for the old gentlemans teeth.
Maybe I have it wrong but he seemed tobe saying at the National party conference last night that he had no control over ACC.
Slimy prick (this will make me look like good guy helping out the old man)
Like I believe he cares .Only fronts up to the media when it suits.
We need to hound this prick..where ever he is having public meetings
there should be as many bikers protesting as possible,he needs to wish we would go away which we wont.
Watching him on tv I had steaming coming out my ears and my angry glands were swollen.

[Ixion]

Yes, yes, but WHY is a battle ahrdened veteran like Nick Smith refusing to front up to the media? AND -- ACC refuse also!

This is almost unprecedented , a major announcement on a controversial issue and the Minsiter won't front.

And I don't believe Nick wouldn't be up for it, he doesn't lack guts.

I'm guessing he's been told to go to ground.