Bogeyman
Originally Posted by husaberg
You mean admit you're right.
Because "the reasons" you present are all uniquely and heavily weighted with hyperbolic adjectives found only in anti-establishment literature. Which means they can' be treated as objective fact.
And because in fact whatever "the reasons" were, the incessant blamestorming helps nobody.
And because I value other opinion more: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107...ant-to-move-on
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Anorak
I never presented them, they are object facts present to the Royal commission.
By a leading expect in mine safety who repeatedly pleaded for the rules not to be changed outinning what the effect would be.
You dont want to admit they are true as they show the cause and pike is the effect.
The enquirery concluded what robin hughes said was the major contributing factor.
I am not really surprised at you hypocrisy of saying your prefer other options and want to move on to another subject.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Bogeyman
It's not another subject. So now you don't even need to read a post in order to dismiss it, let alone attempt to understand it.
Just pathetic.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Anorak
I note The families of the CTV building also never seen justice served by the engineers who designed the building appearing before the court.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...no-prosecution
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...sclose-6124593
Labour is was or has made changes to ensure that doesn't happen again
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...-being-charged
Maan Alkaisi, widower of CTV victim Maysoon Abbas said he welcomed the law reform to help people facing similar situations in the future.
But he believed it was wrongly used to justify not proceeding with a prosecution against the CTV engineers.
"It's a very good step to prevent people like the solicitor general from using excuses like this.
"The problem is not with the law, the problem is with some people who want to use the law in the ways that they want."
Whats pathetic is your hypocrisy in not acknowledging Nationals considered changes to mines legislation ending up killing people.
What is further pathetic is your failure to understand the pike river families were prevented this by Nationals representatives agreeing to a cash payment instead of people facing charges.
National acknowledged this was the case when they chaneged the rules back after the disaster.The explosion that ripped through Pike River mine last year had its origin in changes to mining regulations in the 1990s, a former chief inspector of coal mines told the Royal Commission into the tragedy today.
The commission is inquiring into the disaster at the West Coast coal mine in November last year which left 29 miners and contractors dead.
Giving evidence this morning, former chief inspector of coal mines Robin Hughes, who has over 40 years of coal mining experience, criticised mine safety changes made by the National Government in the 1990s.
"The explosion at Pike River mine..had its origins in the repealing of the Coal Mining Act and regulations in 1993," Mr Hughes said.
"The unwillingness of government officials up to and including the Prime Minister of the day to act on advice offered by a number of individuals resulted in the loss of a robust coal mines inspectorate, staffed by the most experienced and skilled personnel available.
Mr Hughes said once mines' inspectors became part of the Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) and the Department of Labour the "proactive" inspecting of coal mines greatly reduced.
They told the victims families no mater what the cost the victims bodies would be removed. and people would be brought to justice.https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hans...on-bill-second
Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — Second Reading
The committee heard a range of views from submitters on the issue of the scope of industry health and safety representatives, otherwise known as check inspectors. We agree with the committee that they are appointed only for the underground coalmining sector, as was recommended by the Pike River royal commission. Although all the mining operations that are proposed to be covered by the new regime have principal hazards, there is a substantial additional risk in the underground coal sector that relates to the presence of methane. The vast majority of multiple fatality incidents in the mining industry in the past 100 years has occurred in this sector. The Government considers that this is where the resource of industry health and safety representatives—the extra set of eyes and ears, the extra line of defence—that the royal commission spoke of is best targeted. The final part of the bill ensures that the legislation that supports the mine’s rescue service is fit for purpose, and minor amendments have been recommended by the committee.
Then the representatives of the national government solicited illegal payments instead of holding people legally accountable.
they then tried to make sure the mine was sealed to prevent any proper investigation and make the problem go away.
This was agree with first by the royal commission that identified the change to legislation made by national as being the key factor.
Secondary by the supereme court ruling that the payments made to stop prosecution in the high court agreed to by the national government representatives were illegal in that they were conditional on prosecution not going ahead.
IE national sold off justice.
ELLEN FRANCE J Supreme Court Justice
I too would allow the appeal and make a declaration that the decision to offer no evidence to the charges against Mr Whittall was unlawful. I agree also with the approach of the Chief Justice as to costs. I would however express my reasoning in the manner set out below. [103] It was always advanced as an essential, non-negotiable, condition of the discussion that Mr Whittall would not be charged. Mr Stanaway (the Crown Solicitor advising WorkSafe New Zealand), in his letter of 20 August 2013 to Mr Grieve, referred to the payment of funds in return for no prosecution as the “central arrangement”.109 The centrality of this aspect is also apparent in Mr Stanaway’s rejection of other conditions Mr Grieve later sought to have imposed on payment.110 It was quite clear that if there was a prosecution, no payment would be made. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Mr Whittall’s proposal was “a conditional reparation undertaking: that in the event 109 See Elias CJ above at [44]. 110 See Elias CJ above at [62]–[63]. the prosecution terminated, the payment would be made” was accordingly sufficient in the circumstances to constitute an agreement
[103] The decisive feature of the present case is that it is simply not possible to put any distance between the way in which Mr Grieve QC for Mr Whittall put the basis for payment of the money by Mr Whittall and the decision to offer no evidence. It was always advanced as an essential, non-negotiable, condition of the discussion that Mr Whittall would not be charged. Mr Stanaway (the Crown Solicitor advising WorkSafe New Zealand), in his letter of 20 August 2013 to Mr Grieve, referred to the payment of funds in return for no prosecution as the “central arrangement”.109 The centrality of this aspect is also apparent in Mr Stanaway’s rejection of other conditions Mr Grieve later sought to have imposed on payment.110 It was quite clear that if there was a prosecution, no payment would be made. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Mr Whittall’s proposal was “a conditional reparation undertaking: that in the event 109 See Elias CJ above at [44]. 110 See Elias CJ above at [62]–[63]. the prosecution terminated, the payment would be made” was accordingly sufficient in the circumstances to constitute an agreement.
[104] Against this background the fact, relied on by the Court of Appeal, that Mr Stanaway was not the ultimate decision-maker, is immaterial.112 Mr Stanaway was not acting on his own account without instructions. (He confirmed in his email of 8 July 2013 he had “firm instructions” to attempt to resolve the case with a plea arrangement albeit he noted the need to obtain approval from WorkSafe.) Similarly, it was not relevant in this factual matrix that WorkSafe took other factors into account. That is because, in assessing the public interest factors, WorkSafe wrongly took into account the agreement to stifle the prosecution. Accordingly, I do not consider it is necessary to comment on the other factors taken into account by WorkSafe or on the amenability to judicial review of WorkSafe’s assessment of those matters.113 [105] Nor do I see a need to differentiate the nature of the concerns about these types of bargains in a public prosecution from those in a private prosecution. Private prosecutors will have an interest in the outcome. Further, the other concern underlying the prohibition on these types of bargain – namely, the risk of extortion – is not necessarily worse in relation to public prosecutions as opposed to private prosecutions.
You made a series of statements about the incident that showed how little you knew a page ago.
Really, i must have done well to write those links years before, but if what you say is true. I would i have a great future as Simon Bridges replacement script writer then.
You really should know a bit about what happened before you open your gob.
The mine wasn't safe due to negligence by placing the safety out of the hands of the mines inspectors and on to the company.
the company put their share price and profits ahead of peoples lives.
No one entered the mine after the incident.
Mines rescue were refused entry after the incident by police. Even though mines rescue were the experts on what is safe.
This is tantamount to police refusing to let fire fighters fight fires on account of police knowing more about fires then they do.
Mines resuce were then prevented from sealing and stabilising the mines environment. Thats why it heated and caught fire.
The previous government refused to allow anyone to enter the drift.
The previous government then ordered the mine sealed
There is two temp seals just inside the portal no one goes been past those then or now. Other than the two that escaped the blast.
This government is at least trying to see what they can find out.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
I remember it from all the way over here and I'm not going to bother looking for the quotes.
Bogeyman
Probably for the best anyway, some quotes tend to change dramatically over time, often growing into impenetrable walls of obscure text garnered from hours and hours of frenzied "research".
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Forum whore
As it get's more frenzied it gets more and more incoherent. it's kind of like watching a blowfly spinning around on it's back on a windowsill.
Do you think it imagines it's convincing anybody? While everybody is backing off thinking "Whoa. Look at that motherfucker go!"
Anorak
His exact statements are on video. 2.05
Oral Questions—Questions to Ministers
Pike River Mine Disaster—Re-entry and Recovery Operation
9. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Pike River Mine that "What I did promise is that we could do everything we can to get those bodies out"?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Ron Mark: Is he aware that non-mining contractors and personnel have been working on the reversible seal without breathing apparatus, which contradicts the risk assessment conducted by Solid Energy claiming that it could not be done, and vindicates the expert advice to the families of the 29 victims, as witnessed by Minister Barry in her last visit to the mine?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. But what I am aware of is the advice that we have received from Solid Energy that the environment has not materially changed since the decision not to re-enter the drift was made in 2014.
Ron Mark: With recent testing results showing gas levels within the Pike River mine are safe enough for re-entry, will he now take steps to get the bodies out of the mine so that the families can have their men back and closure; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member will be aware, the decision to enter or not re-enter the mine is not one that I think a politician should make; nor have I ever claimed I could make. We have taken the best advice, or at least Solid Energy has, as the owner and occupier of the mine. As I have always said, one of the worst things we could do is now put at risk the lives of fellow New Zealanders, as a result of the tragedy.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Why will the Prime Minister not honour his commitment to the families and fund an independent expert to assess the situation at Pike River, not rely on the advice from Solid Energy, a company that the Government has, effectively, sold out?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe I have met all my commitments to the families.23/6/2013
Yesterday, The Australian ran a news story that quoted John Key acknowledging that questions needed to be asked about mine safety standards in this country. He went on to say that a single-entry uphill mine, as Pike River was, would not have been legal in Australia. He stressed that he couldn't give a complete answer because of the royal commission that's under way, but added that no doubt changes would be recommended.
Key's statements weren't in error, nor were they out of kilter with public opinion. The problem is that they were hypocritical - the great political crime - and that they muddied the waters around the commission and looked too political. The newspaper itself reported it this way:
Mr Key's admissions mark a reversal of the staunch defence of New Zealand's mining regulations that he and Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee mounted immediately after the disaster.
After the explosion, The Australian reported claims by Australian mining experts saying the Pike River operation did not have safety equipment that would be standard issue in Australia.
"I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia's," Mr Key said at the time.
Phil Goff pounced early yesterday afternoon, adding:
“This sudden change in his position is quite incredible given just a month ago he publicly condemned a union representative for questioning safety at the mine, accusing her of being “churlish and insensitive”.
He told the Herald that he wasn't saying that New Zealand had lower safety standards, merely that the countries standards were "different". He stood by his statements last year that to his knowledge New Zealand standards are on a par with Australia.
But that's nonsense. It's clear that New Zealand mining safety standards are
a) lower than Australia's and
b) not world's best practice.
That these men shouldn't have died, and that their deaths were in part due to a lack of standards was clear within three days of the second explosion. One of America's top mining experts, the boss of mine safety under Bill Clinton and the lead investigator into the eerily similar Upper Big Branch explosion in April last year, Davitt McAteer, said this on Q+A on November 28:
We should not have accidents of this magnitude, of this size in developed countries, or for that matter around the world, because we know how to mine safely, we know how to mine without explosions; we do it day in and day out. We know where the risks are and we know what precautions need to be taken, and we need to be applying those on a daily basis, and we need to make certain that we build into precautions redundant systems that can keep explosions from expanding and killing large numbers of people.
"We know how to mine safely". In other words, a deadly mine is simply one that isn't doing everything we know how to do. In the same programme New Zealand expert Dave Feickert said we ditched our mine inspectorate in the 1990s because it was "too expensive" and that he had doubts about Pike River's standards. This ain't new.
Key also claimed late yesterday that mine safety was indeed "a matter for the royal commission". But he wasn't talking about mine safety, he was talking about mine construction and design. And that's entirely different.
Except it isn't. The commission's terms of reference say it should look at any factor that might have caused the explosion and the deaths of the miners, including the mines "practices", "operations" and "management". There are no limitations to what the commission can investigate, so mine design could well be a factor for them to consider.
So his comments certainly tread on ground that the commission will cover, thereby putting the pressure of Prime Ministerial expectation on the judges.
Do his words amount to some kind of contempt of the commission? No. It's hardly damning stuff. But if the judges now focus on mine design rather than safety standards or any other factor, the questions will naturally arise whether they succumbed to political influence. It's, well, awkward.
The PM's latest gaffe came in Question Time today, when Annette King probed him on all this. She asked why it was "dangerous" for Helen Kelly to suggest Pike River was unsafe, but ok for him to say similar things. He agreed it would be hypocritical if he had been talking about mine safety, but he was talking about design differences, not safety.
Except that Key helpfully read out the transcript from the interview, clearly showing that the journalist's question was specifically about, er, mining safety and how New Zealand's record wasn't as good as Australia's. And Key quoted himself answering that, while he couldn't fully comment because of the commission, "we need to ask some questions whether mine safety standards are high enough".
Admittedly, he then said, "What is true..." and carried on to talk about the mine's construction. But this was clearly, by his own words, a discussion about mine safety. The context was mine safety. And clearly by the newspaper report, the journalist understood the conversation to be about, as he said in his intro, "mining safety regulations". As did other media.
I suspect Key is reading public opinion very well, as he typically does. At the time of the disaster, the genuine grief of Peter Whitall won sympathy for Pike River Ltd and the PM was happy to stand beside the man and the company. However, thanks to journalists – and, to be fair, unionists – a different picture has emerged and the mine and the company have become more suspect. If you haven't seen Sunday's most recent work on Pike River's safety standards, see this.
And the Pike River families have turned more critical in recent weeks, leading some of these safety concerns. Yet this time Key's famous attendee aren't enough. It's not about empathy, but consistency and statesmanship.
Prime Minister John Key says his hands are tied over the decision to drop charges against former Pike River boss Peter Whittall.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment yesterday dropped all 12 health and safety charges against Pike River Coal Ltd's former chief executive, admitting it had a poor chance of successfully prosecuting him.yet the superme court says it was a back room deal.Labour Minister Simon Bridges offered his sympathies to the Pike River families, but stressed the decision to drop charges against former Pike River boss Peter Whittall was not the result of a back-room deal.
Yesterday, Bridges refused to comment on the decision, but today told Fairfax Media he offered his sympathies to the families.
"Obviously I've got a huge amount of sympathy for them, and can understand where they're coming from," he said.
"But what I can give them is an assurance that there's been no politics involved in this, no deal of any kind.
"Instead, what it is, is a decision firmly based on legal principles."
Yesterday, opposition MPs along with Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said it was clear a back-room deal had been made.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
What have you got against blowflies?
Forum whore
Usually a rolled up newspaper.
Forum whore
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12134578
Finally a good policy but I'll bet the tooth fairy doesn't like it.
Forum whore
Nothing about just entering the drift. And he's fast running out of year.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...ew-little.html
For someone that can find interesting snippets from the darkest corners of the Internet about rare & historic engines for the ese thread & odballs & prototypes thread better than anyone else, you're not doing a great job of convincing me you couldn't see that.
Google even finished my search description for me itself.
And I'm not going to say "ooh, and not a peep out of you about that" because it's entirely plausible that you may have secondary employment that doesn't involve being a Labour Party internet supervisor.
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Nope.
A similar policy to Canada, but the whiny arses here will obviously disagree with it.
Seems the patagonian toothfish wants to open the door to every type of "environmental refugee" as well.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Anorak
Maybe you would like to share why the rest of the country wouldn't survive without Auckland.
it would be intersting to hear exactly how you figure that one out.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
If I could be sure you'd be on the West Coast I'd be prepared to authorise a nuclear strike just to see if we could do without you hillbilly assholes. Now where's my fucking banjo so I can serenade your incineration
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks