web analytics

Open mike 22/10/2022

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 22nd, 2022 - 202 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

202 comments on “Open mike 22/10/2022 ”

  1. Binders full of Women 1

    Welcome to Co-Governance!! Tuhoe are destroying 50 back country huts with the blessing of DoC Minister Poto Williams. Poto WTF this is an anti-conseravtion act- the possums and deer have taken over Urewera. Tuhoe just really want no one to go up there. The back country huts are a cultural & recreational taonga for all. The little bright safe havens where we've worked, stayed, shared, and maintained voluntarily for generations. Gone, demolished. There is no conservation/kaitiakitanga rationale for this… if there was all NZ back country huts would have to go. But no it's just in Kruger's fiefdom.. yes the Crown soldiers burned the Tuhoe villages in the 1870s. Kruger talks of a wilderness experience… as in 'let nature take it's course' = possums and deer galore & less forest & birds. Sad. Stay away it's not worth the trip.

    • scotty 1.1

      In your headline induced anger – you seem to have chosen to ignore the planned replacements.

      • Grey Area 1.1.1

        https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/130242974/thoes-governing-authority-begins-removing-burning-huts-in-te-urewera

        "Some huts", "no details" and "unclear how many new huts". What "planned replacements" exactly?

      • X Socialist 1.1.2

        Here's some double speak that basically translates into '' Whitey your time is up. We would prefer you don't come onto our whenua.'' The last line in this quote is just an add-on to placate the unwanted.

        ''TUT said the huts would be replaced by bespoke, “fit-for-purpose” structures that would provide a base for kaimahi (workers), help reconnect Tūhoe with the Te Urewera and provide better access and facilities for manuhiri (visitors).''

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/300705837/dozens-of-huts-to-be-removed-from-te-urewera-as-thoe-plan-bespoke-replacements?rm=a&cx_rm-ctrl=true

        Folks, you have here a snap shot of how New Zealand will progress into the future. Labour unfortunately has put this progression on steroids during their time in office.

        • KJT 1.1.2.1

          "Whitey your time is up. We would prefer you don't come onto our whenua".

          How you come to that conclusion from the article, shows your cognitive dissonance.

          It is not Māori who stop people from respectfully accessing land.

          Meanwhile Pakeha farmers have prevented numerous attempts to get a public "right to roam" over the land they are squatting on.

          • RedLogix 1.1.2.1.1

            Which is why this is not about race – but entitlement.

            • KJT 1.1.2.1.1.1

              Te Urewera, unlike the majority of non-Māori owners/occupiers of large tracts of land, have no intention of excluding Manuhiri who use the land respectfully.

              It is "about race".

              Different ethnicities have different attitudes to land. I much prefer Māori values of inclusiveness and Kaitiangata, than current European ones of exclusivity and "doing what you want with "my land" no matter how destructive to the land and community.

              In the past Europeans had the concept of the "commons" which is still apparent in "right to roam" and other laws. The 'right to roam': Lessons for New Zealand from Sweden's allemansrätt (otago.ac.nz)

              Unfortunately those who were made leaders to protect the commons, grabbed and often sold it. Highland Clearances – Wikipedia a practice which continues today with the occasional pause. Tenure review axed to save high country landscapes and native habitat – NZ Herald

              DOC have long replaced deteriorating amateur built huts with new ones. I don't always agree with the fact there are fewer and bigger huts and that DOC now charge for access that used to be free, but it is the same process in Urewera.

              • RedLogix

                Burning down the huts before there is any funding or plan to replace them reveals the true motive here.

                Racism would have died in this country if it were not for woke elites keeping it alive for their own purposes.

                • KJT

                  Reveals more about NZ health and safety laws than anything about "hidden motives". But you knew that.

                  “Racism would have died in this country” if it wasn’t for racists, mostly White ones. Fixed it for ya!

                  • RedLogix

                    The only reason why racism has any significance in NZ is because woke elites keep it on life support to create division among the working and middle classes.

                    • Muttonbird

                      You'd prefer racism to be ignored like the good old days?

                    • Shanreagh

                      Are you able to make a post on this subject without using the word 'woke'. It is such a non-word used indiscriminately to mean different things. A bit like finding that someone feels someone/something is PC when you have thought it was perfectly rational.

                      Many of the uses of 'woke' I have seen are just dog whistles to racists and I am sure that as a contributor to TS this would not have been your intention.

                      'Elites' also has past its use by date. Elites on some MBs a while ago used to be used to refer to lizard people and such. So that too is confusing. Also seen it referring to some groups of Iwi Maori who would be most surprised at its use.

                  • RedLogix

                    Reveals more about NZ health and safety laws than anything about "hidden motives". But you knew that.

                    There are over 900 huts in the NZ backcountry. There is a massive diversity of style, size and condition – as a quick glance at the linked site will show.

                    A hut serves a different purpose to a permanent dwelling. It is a temporary shelter – and very much appreciated for what it is. No-one asked us if we wanted flash new huts everywhere – all we expected is that either they would be modestly maintained in their current rudimentary form (and there are numerous examples of community effort doing just this) – or they would be replaced if necessary with something comparable and more durable.

                    Large expensive huts have their place on the Great Walks or more popular routes – but the vast majority of smaller huts in the backcountry see relatively low usage and do not justify major works. Nonetheless they remain very important to the people who do use them and have a unique cultural place among the tramping, hunting and outdoors community.

                    Removing them with no funded plan to replace invites a well deserved backlash.

                    • KJT

                      The point is that DOC have been demolishing hundreds for years without replacing the small huts. Something which I have objected to many times.

                      It seems there is only a "backlash" when Māori are involved.

                      That, is racism!

                    • RedLogix

                      Your one string ideological fiddle here is dull. There has been a strong multi-decade backlash to DoC's failure to maintain backcountry huts. And rather than just moaning about the community they got their act together and did something:

                      https://permolatsouthland.nz/

                      https://www.remotehuts.co.nz/

                      https://www.backcountrytrust.org.nz/

                      There is nothing new about this backlash – what is new is DoC and tribal elites using woke racism to push their agenda.

                • Wow and you live in Aussie. Another using the "Woke" bat.

                  • RedLogix

                    I am 100% with Swordfish on this; just nowhere near as eloquent as he is.

                    And what country in the world would you approve of me living in?

                    • Reflecting on the destruction of First People's sites in Aussie, and your lack of comment, yet a few huts?? Such boiling anger and name calling.
                      That is “Whataboutery”, but deserved I think!!

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      … just nowhere near as eloquent as he is.

                      While undeniably heartfelt, Swordfish's pithy anti-woke diatribes have not persuaded me, but perhaps that was/is not his intent.

                      In any event, eloquence is (clearly) in the eye of the beholder.

                      crude
                      authoritarian
                      quasi-religious
                      jumped-up
                      extreme & socially-destructive
                      bizarre dogma
                      sheer bare-faced arrogance
                      self-entitlement
                      anti-democratic elitism
                      pompous narcissistic blowhards
                      moral posturing
                      transparently ludicrous
                      desperately-disguised self-interest

          • X Socialist 1.1.2.1.2

            My family has shares in the lake bed. Here's an interesting article.

            https://www.ngaituhoe.iwi.nz/DOC-not-interested-in-renewing-the-Waikaremoana-lakebed-lease

            No one can deny the wrongs done to Tuhoe in the past. The thrust of my comments was the future of NZ going forward. My point is there's no way forward, no matter what course of action ( or not) is taken. The only sane choices have been outlined by RedLogix:

            ''In my view these current half-assed arrangements are making no-one happy. Either this govt should privatise all of the DoC estate to the iwi elites or declare them to be in 100% public ownership in perpetuity.''

            But I doubt neither will happen. Things will just fester. Then someone will get hurt. Then Tuhoe will annex the lake from the rest of NZ. And on it will go.

        • KJT 1.1.2.2

          In fact in many areas, farmers and non -Iwi landowners restrict or prevent access to land that is, in reality, public.

          https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/land-access-questions-and-answers

          Long battle to liberate Stony Batter – NZ Herald

          Campaign To Stop Freedom To Roam | Scoop News

          • RedLogix 1.1.2.2.1

            If you had been around when The Standard was first formed you might have recalled how active I was on this issue of public land access at the time. And I still have very strong views on on anyone treating open rural landscapes as their exclusive private fiefdoms.

            The Europeans and UK typically get this right – with much more liberal and open rights and responsibilities than we have here.

            Again this has nothing to do with skin colour – as you want it to be.

            • Stuart Munro 1.1.2.2.1.1

              Allemansratten – and in truth NZ enjoyed something similar for generations.

              The bureaucrats (DoC) are the enemies of all life (hence the mass universal poisoning campaign and other signature 'evil overlord' type excesses). Catch them paying any respect to public opinion? Never!

              And revisionist activists are if anything worse – they rely on outrage to generate support, and miss no opportunity to incite it. Contemporary revisionists in NZ Parliament include Menéndez March and Rawiri Waititi – these generate some heat but no light, and routinely bring their parties into disrepute.

          • bwaghorn 1.1.2.2.2

            There is a substantial difference between people walking in large native forest and people roaming through farms , gates left open , stock upset,people with dogs bring ovis on to the farm or there ill mannered mutts warring stock.

            • RedLogix 1.1.2.2.2.1

              Understood. Although I passionately advocate for improved public access to the Conservation Estate – I always recognised the farming community had their own interests at stake as well.

              In practical terms what is desired is not the right to wander at will over farmland, but for controlled public linear access across farmland to specific entry points to the backcountry. Or riverside access for fishing. It is not the same as the European model (which amazingly enough works for them) but a compromise we could live with.

              That many landholders intentionally block such access is in my view deplorable. For instance it is my understanding that pretty much the entire western side of the Ruahines is now inaccessible for this reason. At least six popular tracks and huts are no longer reachable on a typical weekend trip.

      • Binders full of Women 1.1.3

        Scotty– not anger, just sadness. Anyone who believes in replacement huts probably believed in 100,000 Kiwibuild houses. Poto=useless at Police, worse at DoC. I'm unsure of Kruger's play here- it's understandable if it's a case of "you burned our villages so we're gonna burn your huts" but to think this destruction will benefit the environment is hogwash.

    • KJT 1.2

      DOC, have for many decades, been replacing our amateur built huts with flasher more solid ones.

      Not without issues, such as fewer but larger huts, and they bloody charge for them! Whereas years ago, you could add some sweat equity to the huts you visited for free.

    • RedLogix 1.3

      As a keen tramper I spent much time in the Ureweras in my 40s – and have close family who are hunters – now effectively shut out of the park. I was also close to the key DoC person who initiated the current Tuhoe go-governance arrangements, but would be rolling in his grave knowing how it has turned out.

      Everything I have seen or heard confirms what you say about Kruger and his cronies.

      In my view these current half-assed arrangements are making no-one happy. Either this govt should privatise all of the DoC estate to the iwi elites or declare them to be in 100% public ownership in perpetuity.

      • tinderdry6 1.3.1

        The Tupuna Maunga Authority in Auckland are about to begin hearing verbal submissions on an amendment to their Integrated Management Plan. The Authority is conducting this process reluctantly (their lack of consultation having been exposed by the Court of Appeal), and in a fashion that makes seems designed to intimidate submitters out of presenting. For example. the submissions are to be given in closed session, with the public excluded. The submitters are not allowed to have any support person with them, or even a witness. The submission cannot be recorded.

        In 3 years of dealing with the Authority, I have found them to be secretive, bullying and dishonest.

        But co-governance doesn't have to work this way. Where the legislation carefully describes the roles of the co-governance partners, and where there are good actors and good will on both sides, co-governance can deliver good outcomes. Unfortunately, in the case of the Tupuna Maunga Authority, and it sounds like the Urewera's, there is neither goodwill or good legislation.

        • Shanreagh 1.3.1.1

          Unfortunately, in the case of the Tupuna Maunga Authority, and it sounds like the Urewera's, there is neither goodwill or good legislation.

          I think you have barked up a wrong tree/drawn a long bow here in attempting to link Tupuna Maunga Authority and the Ngai Tuhoe/Urewera settlement issue.

          I don't know enough about Tupuna Maunga Authority to comment and it is clear you don't know very much about Tuhoe or the Ureweras. (Interesting that it has not stopped you providing a misleading slant though. Why is this?)

          Tuhoe has had a ToW settlement and has legislation enacted around this. The settlement legislation is bespoke for each settlement This type of legislation has been around for quite awhile, so much so that I think the wrinkles are well and truly ironed out of it.

          https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0050/latest/DLM5481230.html

          • tinderdry6 1.3.1.1.1

            "I think you have barked up a wrong tree/drawn a long bow here in attempting to link Tupuna Maunga Authority and the Ngai Tuhoe/Urewera settlement issue."

            No. The comments I responded to were around co-governance, and I made the connection clear in my final aparagraph.

            "Tuhoe has had a ToW settlement and has legislation enacted around this. "

            Auckland iwi have a ToW settlement. That settlement has legislation enacted to codify the details (including the return of some of Auckland's maunga to local iwi and the establishment of the TMA as the co-governance entity to administer those (and crown owned) maunga).

            "This type of legislation has been around for quite awhile, so much so that I think the wrinkles are well and truly ironed out of it."

            The discussion here is not about ToW settlements, it is about co-governance. The legislation initiating the TMA was poorly crafted, and has been exploited (aided and abetted by poor political leadership) to the detriment of the maunga and the maunga communities.

      • KJT 1.3.2

        I know of at least four, off the top of my head, local examples of where those "half arsed arrangements" have prevented councils from selling public land to developers. Explains a lot of "unhappiness".

        One of the local Iwi put a gate on the access to one area. Mostly, in fact to prevent the hoons from tearing up the access road. When I asked if I could get through the gate to the boat launching ramp, they offered me a key.

        Conversely. When we tried to walk along the public access to a beach, that local Tau iwi landowners had blocked off with trees, they set their dogs on us.

        It seems that there is huge discussion about access to the little Māori land that is left, but total silence about the millions of hectares of land in European title that trespass anyone that venture on it.

        Racism at work.

      • Shanreagh 1.3.3

        Why are you effectively shut out? Because unsafe and old huts are removed?

        Are you not capable of asking for permission/completing intentions and packing in and out? Many wilderness areas have no huts and a fair amount of bush whacking. Do we all have to now have hot and hot running water etc when we go to the bush?

        Or is this more about gun toting hunters not having access? Some can be quite intimidating if you come across them in a hut where they are ensconced for the duration

        Have you knowledge of walkers/trampers being unable to venture in?

        • RedLogix 1.3.3.1

          Because unsafe and old huts are removed?

          Trampers and hunters regard any hut – no matter how old or dilapidated – as a better and safer shelter in a storm than a tent or fly sheet. Invoking safety as a perogative term is a transparent misdirection.

          Are you not capable of asking for permission/completing intentions and packing in and out?

          Always pack in and out. Always used to fill out intentions forms and hut books. (I understand the process has moved online these days.) Asking permission to access public land – another matter altogether.

          Many wilderness areas have no huts and a fair amount of bush whacking. Do we all have to now have hot and hot running water etc when we go to the bush?

          And these wilderness areas see few visitors – typically a small minority of very fit and capable individuals. (I used to be one of them – but no longer.) The primary purpose of a hut is a vital point of safety in poor conditions. The standard of amenity is a very secondary condition; certainly no-one expects hot running water in any facilities outside of maybe the Great Walks.

          Or is this more about gun toting hunters not having access? Some can be quite intimidating if you come across them in a hut where they are ensconced for the duration.

          Typically trampers are middle class and hunters are working class. Were you just intimidated by the this difference? As with any group there is a minority who behave badly – but on the whole I have always enjoyed sharing huts with hunters. They usually have a far more intimate knowledge of the area than I do and are worth listening to.

          Have you knowledge of walkers/trampers being unable to venture in?

          Yes.

    • Incognito 1.4

      Provide a link next time, thanks.

    • observer 1.5

      Yet another example of frothing at a headline instead of the information.

      Sure, when I saw it I was livid! The Mowrees are on the warpath! Burning down our huts! How dare they!

      Then there's the actual story. Oh. Totally different.

      (I realize that some people want – need – to be angry rather than informed, and there's not much we can do for them. But the rest of us can read).

      • RedLogix 1.5.1

        Over the past decade at least 10 huts were burned down in Te Urewera in mysterious circumstances. Neither DoC nor the Te Urewera board have expressed much concern, nor any plan to replace them.

        Now they are doing it at scale and still no plan to replace them. All of which is part of a wider intention to discourage and diminish public access. If you support this – just be honest and say so.

        • Shanreagh 1.5.1.1

          I have no problems with Tuhoe doing as they wish on their own land. If they want to demolish unfit for purpose huts and replace some of them, all of them or none of them that is fine by me.

          https://www.govt.nz/browse/history-culture-and-heritage/treaty-settlements/find-a-treaty-settlement/ngai-tuhoe/ngai-tuhoe-deed-of-settlement-summary/#:~:text=The%20T%C5%ABhoe%20Deed%20of%20Settlement,account%2C%20Crown%20acknowledgments%20and%20apology

          https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0050/latest/DLM5481230.html

          https://www.ngaituhoe.iwi.nz/vdb/document/77

          Ngai Tuhoe have had access to their land restricted over the years. The settlement took place on 2014. I think we should let them have time to get their feet under the table and see what the future may hold before we start up a dog whistle response. If a business had bought land and had not made progress on 'doing' some thing with it I am quite sure people would say, mind your own business'.

          There are areas of land around Wellington including in the inner suburbs that have been held by 'somebody' for the last decade or more. Could be used for housing or mini parks.

          I am from that area, family early on farmed up the Ruakituri Valley and Ohuka Roads/Raupunga etc and we were involved with Forest and Bird from the 1950s/60s on. I have every sympathy with the aspirations of Tuhoe. As much as many want there is no obligation to keep every piece of land as it was in years gone past and to provide access to every piece of land.

          I have confidence that DoC and Tuhoe have a good relationship.

          • RedLogix 1.5.1.1.1

            The entire premise of your comment assumes that Te Urewera is now private property. Watching the left support mass privatisations of once public land is hilarious. Seeing generations of conservation efforts pissed away in order for Tuhoe locals to exploit the land as a private hunting preserve is sad.

            If Tuhoe had gone down a different path – involving the wider public in genuine conservation programs and an open engagement with the outdoors community to enhance and make the most of this area that is special to many New Zealanders – regardless of skin colour – there would have been quite a different response.

            • Shanreagh 1.5.1.1.1.1

              Have you read the legislation and the settlement documentation?

              • RedLogix

                I have no problems with Tuhoe doing as they wish on their own land.

                That is your opening premise. At one time this was National Park, open to all New Zealanders. No longer the case – Tuhoe are now operating the land to suit their own private purposes.

                And this same process is openly demanded by that notorious defacto govt policy document HePuaPua – that the entire conservation estate should fall under iwi control.

                Next up seems to be Taranaki – we have discussed this before.

                The direction this is going is obvious. Theft alright.

                • Drowsy M. Kram

                  At one time this was National Park, open to all New Zealanders.

                  What was this before it was National Park? Transfer/change of ownership (back and forth) is part and (land) parcel of capitalism.

                  https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/maori-land-1860-2000

                  Theft alright.

                  Sometimes it can seem like ‘they’re’ always taking our stuff, but what’s theft got to do with it – really?.

                  • If you (Left in general, not you in particular) want support for co-governance in a whole range of areas (3 waters among them) – then you have to look with a critical eye on what it's achieved in Te Urewera.

                    Because, arguments like 'I have no problems with Tuhoe doing as they wish on their own land' act like an ice-bath to anyone on the fence over co-governance in other areas.

                    Te Urewera was set up as a co-governance between DoC (as the Crown agents representing NZ) and Tuhoe – so far, I've seen lots of what Tuhoe want, and little which achieves the aims of DoC.

                    Anyone who believes that the goals of conservation and access are better (or even equal) to pre-2014 – is invited to provide evidence.

                    And, it now seems as though even co-governance isn't the final destination.

                    “Co-governance is not our term. Mana Motuhake is our term. So we are committed to washing away dependency on the Crown, and raising maximum authority for Tuhoe people," he said.
                    “I don’t see it as the final destination. I don’t see co-governance as the answer. But I think it’s the next bus stop in a journey that has to be made. It’s everyone’s journey. It’s like gravity, you can’t defy it. It’s on its way.”

                    https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/04/09/co-governance-tuhoe-on-what-is-and-isnt-working-in-te-urewera/

                    • pat

                      It would be interesting to see a referendum taken among Tuhoe to see if that is indeed the view….I somehow think the majority would be unwilling to decouple from the collective infrastructure.

                    • RedLogix

                      Iwi nationalists like Kruger have been around since at least the 80's. I have had personal encounters with a few; since then they have morphed via our University system into a psuedo-intellectual elite who have captured whole swathes of our institutions.

                      In essence they demand to tear up the First Article of the ToW – rescinding their citizenship of the NZ State, while at the same time pivoting heavily on the Second Article to claim New Zealand as their private property in it's pre-1840 conditions.

                      At one time they were considered an extremist minority. Now they have the backing of powerful govt Ministers and their plans are defacto policy. If we thought the Lange govt's neo-liberal betrayal was bad – history will view this govt in an even harsher light.

                    • pat

                      @ Red

                      Yes separatists have been around forever (of all types, I remember the cut the cable movement)…the problem is the consequences of the slogans are seldom understood…but they sound good when shouted.

                      As to how this admin is viewed by history, that I think is in the balance currently

                    • Shanreagh

                      I believe we have to look behind/before Te Urewera became a National Park. So who exercised 'ahi kaa' over the land. This was Tuhoe. Tuhoe were called the children of the mist by Elsdon Best

                      https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/2411/urewera-in-mist

                      The advent of a national park came much, much later. It came into public/crown ownership initially as land was confiscated during the NZ wars. The agreed historical statement to the Treaty Claim is worth reading

                      "Tūhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Crown had no official presence in Te Urewera before the 1860s. Tūhoe remained in full control of their customary lands until 1865 when the Crown confiscated much of their most productive land, even though they were not in rebellion and the confiscation was not directed at Tūhoe.

                      The prejudice created by the confiscation was exacerbated by the Compensation Court process which returned much of the confiscated land to other Māori, but excluded Tūhoe from land they traditionally occupied and cultivated.

                      After the confiscation the Crown waged war in Te Urewera until 1871 as it sought to apprehend those responsible for the 1865 death of Crown official, Fulloon, and then capture Te Kooti following his escape from Crown detention. The Crown extensively used ‘scorched earth’ tactics, and was responsible for the execution of unarmed prisoners and the killing of non-combatants. In 1870 Tūhoe people were forced out of Te Urewera and detained at Te Pūtere where they suffered further hardship. The wars caused Tūhoe to suffer widespread starvation and extensive loss of life.

                      In 1871 peace was restored to Te Urewera when the Crown withdrew its forces and agreed to leave Tūhoe to manage their own affairs. A governing council of chiefs, Te Whitu Tekau was then established to uphold mana motuhake in Te Urewera.

                      Between the 1870s and the 1890s Crown pressure and the claims of other iwi led to the introduction into Te Urewera of the Native Land Court, surveying and land purchases despite Te Whitu Tekau opposition. In 1875 the Crown induced Tūhoe to sell a large area of land at Waikaremoana by threatening to confiscate their interests if they did not sell.

                      Tūhoe sought to protect their remaining lands from sale and in 1896 Parliament enacted the Urewera District Native Reserve Act. This provided for local self-government over a 656,000 acre Urewera Reserve, and for decisions about the use of land to be made collectively and according to Māori custom. Tūhoe believed this system would protect their lands from sale. However, the Crown did not implement the self-government provisions of the Act and undermined its protective provisions.

                      Between 1896 and 1921 Crown purchasing in and around Te Urewera (some of which was illegal), and roading and survey costs imposed on Tūhoe under the 1921 Urewera Consolidation Scheme resulted in a significant loss of land. Harsh tactics were used to acquire land at Waikaremoana, where the Crown assumed control over Lake Waikaremoana and resisted attempts for decades by Māori owners to secure title to the lake bed.

                      In 1916 70 armed police arrested Tūhoe prophet Rua Kenana at Maungapōhatu. Two Tūhoe men were killed during the arrest. Rua was cleared of eight charges including sedition, but was convicted of moral resistance relating to an earlier arrest attempt and jailed. The Maungapōhatu community went into decline after this and has not recovered.

                      Following the 1921 consolidation scheme Tūhoe were only left with 16 percent of the Urewera Reserve, much of which was unsuited to settlement or economic development. This was insufficient to support an increasing population.

                      In 1954 the Crown established Te Urewera National Park which included most of Tūhoe’s traditional lands. The Crown neither consulted Tūhoe about the establishment of the Park nor its 1957 expansion, and did not recognise Tūhoe as having any special interest in the Park or its governance. National Park policies led to restrictions on Tūhoe’s customary use of Te Urewera and their own adjoining land.

                      Today around 85 percent of Tūhoe live outside Te Urewera. Those who remain struggle to make a living and face various restrictions placed on the land and resources in the area. Many suffer from socio-economic deprivation of a severe nature."

                      So this concept of a national park being on the land and benefitting all is just so much bullkaka. To enforce a right to be on land when the legal basis for the land being in public/crown ownership is morally & legally dubious to me.

                      Crown acknowledgements and apology

                      'The deed contains a series of acknowledgements by the Crown where its actions arising from interaction with Tūhoe have breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

                      The Crown apologises to Tūhoe for past dealings that breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. These include:

                      • indiscriminate raupatu, wrongful killings, and years of scorched earth warfare
                      • denying Tūhoe the right of a self governing Urewera Reserve by subverting the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896
                      • excluding Tūhoe from the establishment of Te Urewera National Park over their homelands
                      • wrongly treating Lake Waikaremoana as Crown property for many years.'

                      You seem to be indicating your view that

                      1 there is still some entity akin to a NP around Te Urewera

                      2 that a measurement of success is that nothing changes in the management before or after 2014. (Hint this is incorrect A board is set up with equal numbers of Crown/Iwi with a Iwi chair, moving to 3 Crown and 6 Iwi by 2017).

                      • Tūhoe will have an increasing role in the management of Te Urewera over time with the Department of Conservation also maintaining their role. (from the Act)

                      3 that this is somehow like 3 Waters co -governance (hint: it is not.) Tuhoe hold the land. It is Treaty of Waitangi redress for improper Crown actions in the years since the 1860s. In Te Urewera the term/concept is Mana Motuhake and this is a different concept to co-governance.

                      In 3 Waters the impetus behind it is to give Maori, as Treaty partners a say in the wise use of water.

                      "Who will own Te Urewera?

                      Te Urewera will be its own legal entity under legislation. The members of the governance board, both Crown and Tūhoe nominees, will act in the interests of Te Urewera, like trustees or directors of a company. They will not act on behalf of either the Crown or Tūhoe.

                      Will Te Urewera still be a National Park?

                      Te Urewera will have a new legal identity established, and have its governance and management arrangements set out in its own act of Parliament. Key protection principles will be included in the Te Urewera legislation, including protection of natural, historical and cultural heritage and public access.

                      The new legislation will ensure that the land is managed to an internationally accepted standard for national parks."

                      There were special provisions and acknowledgements that public access would be maintained. Nothing about huts, that I can see.

                      Indeed the aspirations in 2014 were

                      • Tūhoe, the Crown and Te Urewera Board will seek higher international recognition for Te Urewera such as a UNESCO biosphere reserve to promote the area’ unique values.

                      Hopefully BD you will carefully read the legislation and the result of the claim. Please in future be careful with the terms. The Tuhoe/Crown/Te Urewera is NOT an example of co-governance.

                      I, for one, would be sad if we are not able to be a bit more precise in what has happened at Te Urewera and what is proposed under Three Waters co-governance.

                      If we as educated people are not able to accept the difference then we leave the field open for dog-whistlers and those hell bent on ascribing bad motives to any holding of land by Maori. In doing so we also tacitly condone criticism of the redress etc that is able under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and the Act itself. ToW Act was enacted by the Norman Kirk Labour Govt.

                      Quotes are from legislation or Claim, links in previous posts.

                    • RedLogix

                      Reality on the ground trumps vaguely defined aspirational bullhaka.

                      The large majority of Te Urewera is heavily forested terrain too steep and rugged to be remotely suitable for economic settlement. Sure some loners and isolationist types might be happy to eke out their lives their – but if 85% of Tuhoe choose to live outside of the region – there is probably a good reason for this.

                      The idea that they were ever estranged from the land and this is the cause of their economic depravation is nonsense.

                      Worse still the notion that Tuhoe can establish a viable statelet where Mr Kruger and his kin can rule as the local lords with maximum independence of the collective infrastructure – is completely fanciful. It amounts to a scaled up hippie commune fantasy underpinned with race-based undertones.

                  • RedLogix

                    Just come out and state your position clearly. What precisely do you believe here?

                    • hetzer

                      Well at least Kruger states his position clearly and openly and for that I give him credit.

                      For me, he and his cohorts are the enemy, as no doubt he would view me. Still, thats much preferable to the hidden agenda of so many.

                      Im putting my money on the Anglo Saxons though. Through deceit, treaty, or the bayonet, we tend to do well. Concepts well understood and practised by the "other side "

                    • RedLogix

                      @hetzer

                      Still, thats much preferable to the hidden agenda of so many.

                      Indeed. So many people online intentionally hide their motives and purposes. Once you realise this it is hard to unsee.

                    • Shanreagh

                      I think you are being fanciful. What on earth is the reference to 'economic" settlement? That is not what the word 'settlement' means in the context of Treaty of Waitangi claims.

                      Tuhoe will have redress clause that enable it to have first choice of Crown owned lands that are surplus in their Rohe. These lands usually have no intrinsic Tuhoe cultural vlaue. It is these that will enable Tuhoe to generate income. So they may become the landlords of govt buildings etc.

                      I don't think Tuhoe want to go creeping around in Te Urewera maintaining a subsistence lifestyle. They do want to establish their mana over land that should not have been taken from in the first place. So if the Crown had not erred way back in the years from 1860s and the land had not passed away from Tuhoe ownership would there still be an argument about huts?

                    • RedLogix

                      This is very confusing. It seems you accept that Te Urewera is not suitable for subsistence living and in itself does not constitute the basis for an economic income to support a micro Tuhoe statelet.

                      If Tuhoe wish for an economic base to build a future – there are far better options than a large chunk of economically marginal land.

                      And yes there is significant cultural value in the land to Tuhoe – but then their claim is hardly unique. Many people value the area for all sorts of reasons – aesthetic, environmental, and spiritual that are readily shared. There is little reason to think Tuhoe must have exclusive control of the Te Urewera in order to assert their interest above all others.

                      The huts of course simply being a bad faith bellweather symptom of Tuhoe's assertion of this exclusivity.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      Just come out and state your position clearly. What precisely do you believe here?

                      If that's addressed to me, then I'm struggling to understand why transfers of land ownership that provide a small measure of redress for historical thefts are such a bad thing. Put it down to perspective.

                • Shanreagh

                  So talking about theft. It was Ok back in the 1860s to confiscate land from those who were not involved in the actions?

                  And talking about theft. It was Ok in 1954 to set up a National Park on land that arguably had a murky history in Crown ownership. So because of the higher purpose so-called of land being a National Park this washed away any previous dubious land dealings?

                  • Shanreagh

                    I am totally confused by your reply at 5.04pm.

                    The former urewera NP land is not being returned becuase it forms part of the economic redress for a Treaty Claim. It is the very reason that a claim exists! So Tuhoe believed a claim for breach of the Principles of the treaty existed, made application and it was accepted, investigated and found proven. In Treaty terms if at all possible the land itself is returned, sometimes the land has moved to private ownership and so it cannot be returned.

                    So the land is returned for the sake of mana, ahi kaa, restoration of the tribe.

                    As well so as Tuhoe can enjoy economic or financial freedom of sorts land that is capable of generating an income is often returned.

                    Te Urewera is an intrinsic part of who Tuhoe area. The names of rivers, ranges & valleys are their names, the stories behind these names are theirs…..that is why in settlements there are also corrections to names or reversion to original Maori names from settler names.

                    So Tuhoe are not expected to commercialise Te Urewera, It is not part of the economic settlement.

                    As the original owners from whom the land was unjustly taken there is every reason to think for Tuhoe must to have exclusive control* of the Te Urewera in order to assert their interest. above all others.

                    *In practice there is a body comprising Doc/Tuhoe with a Tuhoe Chair and majority that prepares plans etc.

                    • RedLogix

                      OK so we have established that Te Urewera does not form the basis of a useful or signficant economic Treaty redress for Tuhoe. That should lie elsewhere. I think we agree on this.

                      If we focus then on the cultural aspect of Te Urewera to the Tuhoe people – my argument is simply that they do not have an exclusive claim to value Te Urewera. All New Zealanders might have a legitimate reason to value the region for recreational, social, aesthetic and environmental biodiversity reasons. None of these are mutually exclusive interests and personally I can see no reason why Tuhoe should claim exclusive eminent domain simply because they were there first.

                      Put simply – in cultural terms there is no reason why the whole of NZ cannot share in Te Urewera for generations to come.

            • Shanreagh 1.5.1.1.1.2

              You seem to be a bit behind the eight ball as they say. If the land was taken illegally, this is recongised and the land returned why do Tuhoe have to consult anyone?

              It seems as though it could be a bit of good education for you to read up about Treaty Settlements generally. They have been around for a while and as far as I can see the sky has not fallen down.

              They usually take the form of a report, apology and then legislation cementing the new relationship between the Crown and the tribe concerned.

              https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/treaty-of-waitangi/principles-of-the-treaty/

              Here is a list

              https://www.govt.nz/browse/history-culture-and-heritage/treaty-settlements/

              Interestingly there is also a claim from Ngati Ruapani. If you have been around Waikaremoana you will know beautiful Lake Ruapani and its surrounds.

              https://www.govt.nz/assets/Ngati-Ruapani-Agreement-in-Principle-27-Aug-2022.pdf

              • RedLogix

                If it was just the usual Treaty Settlement process that offered s a clear cut path for redress and a way forward – no problem. Given that it is impossible nor even desirable to undo the past, we have nonetheless gotten reasonably good at negotiating the necessary compromises that everyone can live with.

                But Te Urewera specifically – and co-governance in general – is a whole other can of worms. Listening to Kruger it is clear the goal is to establish an independent tribal micro-state based.

                Co-governance more generally amounts to the dismantling of the NZ State – something that many radicals quietly egg on for their own reasons. That the victims of such a revolution would of course be the most vulnerable of our society is something they don't give a shit about.

                As for Lake Ruapani – yes I recall it is a short distance past a large spagnum moss swamp. That entire area has a remarkable geological history – the entire landscape is the result of a truly monumental collapse of an entire mountain range. Probably triggered by a huge earthquake. This has resulted in a very unusual topology in this whole area and is why it is so special.

                • Shanreagh

                  It is not co-governance!

                  Geez Wayne (sorry not you Mayor Brown)

                  You are just labelling the very particular arrangement entered into by the Crown & Tuhoe by an incorrect term even though I have linked to the Settlement Deed and the particular legislation, both of which state that this is not co-governance but a process quite far along the joint management regime known as Mana Motuhake and defined in the TOW Settlement Deed as:

                  'Mana Motuhake redress relates to improved relationships between Tūhoe and the Crown and the delivery of government and iwi services to Tūhoe communities.

                  Crown /Tūhoe relationship agreement

                  The Crown/Tūhoe relationship agreement, Nā Kōrero Ranatira ā Tūhoe me Te Karauna, signed in 2011 provides a foundation for how Tūhoe and the Crown will work together.'

                  • RedLogix

                    Well if in practice the Te Urewera Board is stacked 6 Tuhoe vs 3 Crown representatives as you describe – then I agree this is strictly not equal co-governance.

                    It is a takeover. An effective privatisation of what was once a well loved and valued public estate.

                    If the new owners were white the left would be in outrage.

                    • Shanreagh

                      You clearly have not bothered to read the legislation or the Deed and are continuing to spout from a position of reckons.

                      Have you not been aware of the Treaty settlement process and how it has worked over all the years it has been in operation?

                      Now you come armed with your ignorance ready to do battle. It won't work …..many of us have moved on if we ever were in the anti- 'maaris' camp.

                      If you lived around that area in times past you must have just let the concerns of Tuhoe Maori wash over you and paid no attention.

                      What a shame.

                      Along with civics to get local body and parliamentary voting up we also need lessons on Maori issues.

                    • RedLogix

                      I was merely quoting your helpful information on the composition of the Te Urewera Board. Is that just reckons?

                      We agreed the Te Urewera forested lands could not form a useful part of economic compensation for Tuhoe, which leaves the question of it's cultural value. And that I argue is shared by all New Zealanders. Not just Tuhoe.

                    • Shanreagh

                      If the new owners were white the left would be in outrage.

                      I doubt it. If the pink, purple, blue, white, black, green, yellow owners had suffered through their lands being confiscated for actions they were not part of, then alienated from them further by placed into national park status. most fair minded people would say

                      'hey that is not right or proper'

                      'Let us return their land if we still have it and make recompense'.

                    • RedLogix

                      then alienated from them further by placed into national park status.

                      How National Park status make Te Urewera – valued by everyone – and accessible to everyone including Tuhoe in any sense alienating them from it?

                      Especially if we agree that it's primary value is not economic.

                  • tinderdry6

                    "(2) However,—

                    (a) the rights, powers, and duties of Te Urewera must be exercised and performed on behalf of, and in the name of, Te Urewera—

                    (i) by Te Urewera Board; and"

                    The Te Urewera Board – which has co-governance of Te Urewera as part of the Ngāi Tūhoe Treaty settlement – announced on Saturday that Te Urewera intends to welcome back manuhiri (guests) and Tūhoe users for recreational activity in February.

                    I'm really not sure which part of this you don't understand.

              • tinderdry6

                " If the land was taken illegally, this is recongised and the land returned why do Tuhoe have to consult anyone?"

                The land was not 'returned' to Tuhoe. The treaty settlement included Tuhoe having co-governance of Te Urewera, which has legal personhood. Kruger is one of nine members of the co-governance entity, the Te Urewera Board. Te Urewera is managed by Doc and Tuhoe.

                • Shanreagh

                  It is not co-governance for a start. Please get your terms correct and try to understand this settlement.

                  If I did know better I would believe that I was at a meeting of race-scared, Nat voting Pakeha who have all got the wrong end of the stick.

                  They try to 'what about, what about, what about…in this case this happened and that case that happened…I've heard a new phrase and so I will call everything I come across co-governance'.

                  I think we deserve better than a standard Nat ignorant response especially as this settlement was legislated 6 years ago and official investigations had been going on since 2007. Anyone working in the field of Maori land, Conservation land have for many, many years been aware of unease or felt unease at how land that had been confiscated had been dealt with later.

                  An important point is that the Urewera lands were confiscated even though they had not been active participants in the Wars. How is that for unfair. And this is the land acquisition background people would have other NZers rely on to get access or make Tuhoe erect huts etc.
                  'In 2007 the Crown recognised the mandate of Te Kotahi ā Tūhoe to represent Tūhoe in negotiating a comprehensive historical Treaty settlement.

                  The Crown signed Terms of Negotiation with Te Kotahi ā Tūhoe on 31 July 2008. On 2 July 2011, the Crown and Tūhoe signed a high level relationship statement (Nā Kōrero Ranatira ā Tūhoe me Te Karauna) at Ruatāhuna.

                  On 22 March 2013, Tūhoe and the Crown initialled a Deed of Settlement. The deed was then ratified by the people of Tūhoe and signed on 4 June 2013. The settlement will be implemented following the passage of settlement legislation.

                  The Office of Treaty Settlements, with the support of the Department of Conservation, and other government agencies, represented the Crown in day-to-day negotiations.'

                  Again, at this link is the Tuhoe settlement and all the other settlement Deeds.
                  https://www.govt.nz/browse/history-culture-and-heritage/treaty-settlements/find-a-treaty-settlement/ngai-tuhoe/ngai-tuhoe-deed-of-settlement-summary/

                  The reports are extremely well written, in some cases lyrically so and make compelling reading of how actions of the crown/State can have an impact far down the years.

                  • RedLogix

                    If I did know better I would believe that I was at a meeting of race-scared, Nat voting Pakeha who have all got the wrong end of the stick.

                    As it happens my father's father was Ngati Kahungunu. I have probably spent more time on more marae in authentic rural settings (as contrasted to the university concocted version of the culture) than everyone else here combined. Please leave your presumptions at the door.

                    In essence the Treaty process was entered into as a compromise. Unravelling the past to restore to iwi all of their rohe prior to 1840 was neither practical nor morally defensible (given how much of that territory had only been recently conquered by genocide during the Musket Wars). Instead it was designed as a process by which modern day iwi could establish an economic base in as compensation for the inevitable historic inequities that overtook them when modernity arrived.

                    Restitution it was not. Such a process would inevitably and logically lead to the disruption of the NZ state and the displacement of all non-Maori. (I'd be just fine mind you.) Of course such a plan would never attain a democratic mandate – thus it's implementation by stealth.

                    • Shanreagh

                      Oh dear……it was not a presumption but a sort of joke at the somewhat anti Maori, Rightie views being displayed. I mix in a wide group of people and this anti 'Maari' stuff among the Nat voters is very depressing. So I was quite amazed to find it espoused by those on the Left. Not to mention the grabbing hold of something (co-governance), using it out of context and not letting it go.

                      I do not need your Whakapapa. I do not need to know you have visited marae.

                      I do not need your assumption that I viewed it as restitution, as I did not/do not. There is an underlying view though, where the actions/land being complained of is still land in Crown ownership that it will be offered back if at all possible. Te Urewera was the land of concern. Te Urewera remained in the Crown Estate and so clearly it would be offered back.

                      Some settlements have had land still used for recreation purposes returned and then immediately gifted back by Maori. Bearing in mind the wrongs, the large area and the fact that Te Urewera is the heart and soul of Tuhoe it would not be realistic to expect a gift back of land to the crown.

                      It has taken the Crown in its admin of the reserves and national parks estate since 1894 to get reasonably proficient in all the actions needed to allow visitors and preserve habitats. Giving Tuhoe time to react to the fact of being able to administer Te Urewera will be needed.

                      The best thing will be that we don't go back.

                      We accept that the mana of Tuhoe is in the process of being restored with this settlement.

                      What will come out will be new and different and uniquely suited to Tuhoe and the world they and we inhabit.

                    • RedLogix

                      I do not need your Whakapapa. I do not need to know you have visited marae.

                      You accuse me of crude anti-Maari views then erase my heritage when it contradicts your prejudices.

                      At least however you acknowledge that Te Urewera has been privatised. Watching the left celebrate this in the name of woke anti-racism is tragic.

                    • Shanreagh

                      @RL 11.17pm.

                      I am not doing the things you have said I am doing. I am not erasing anything. If you believe this then you have misread me. I am sorry you have misread me. I am sorry that you have had to resort to using this crude card on me. I think you know full well that I was not doing this.

                      I guess being in Aus you may not have experienced the times when Maori cannot do anything 'right'.

                      In my own heart, however, I am eternally grateful for the actions of the NZ Maori Council that took successive NZ Govts to Court to overturn the worst excesses of the Neo-Lib experiments on land that were done to NZ in the late 1980s and 90s. Had they not won their cases great swathes of NZ land would be owned by offshore forestry owners. The court cases meant that offshore forestry interests owned cutting rights not the land. The NZ Maori Council were the only ones who could have pulled this madness up short being a representative of the Maori Treaty partner.

                      The refs are to the waves of anti Maori sentiment that float across Aotearoa NZ at various times. The word 'Maari' is an attempt to mimic at the terrible pronunciation of the word Maori that usually precedes these

                      I am trying to respond to something that I believe is fundamentally anti Maori. Being anti Maori is usually, in my experience , the preserve of the Right. So I am always knocked about when it comes from the left.

                      My prejudice is not against Maori, it is for Maori. Unashamedly so.

                      Then you start in (again) with the 'woke' gobbledgook

                      'woke anti-racism is tragic'

                      What on earth does this mean?

                      NB As I said earlier in view of the fact that 'woke' is meaningless and often found in the same Nat righty circles as anti Maori sentiment I regard any sentence using 'woke' as a dog whistle to racists.

                      Please let me know what you are trying to say and I will have a go at responding.

                    • RedLogix

                      I do not need your Whakapapa. I do not need to know you have visited marae.

                      Hard to misread that. Then you pretend you do not know the meaning of the word woke. Goodnight.

                    • Shanreagh

                      The reply function is not working.

                      RL @ 11.55pm. I truly do not know the meaning of woke in the sentence you have written. Not knowing the meaning means I do not understand your phrase.

                      Though perhaps I don't really need to as I think woke is a non -word used as a dog whistle to racists just like PC used to be inserted into sentences when women complained about crude or sexist jokes or that they wanted to call themselves Ms etc. That was a sing out to misogynists.

                      I also accept that you are wanting to rile yourself up with things I said and that you know I did not mean in the way you have taken them. It is very obvious you have taken offence when no offence was meant.

                      I had no idea why and what the relevance of having the ref to Ngāti Kahungunu or visitng rural marae was in the context of our discussion.

                      It had no relevance to what I was saying and I feel it did not further your argument at all. And why? Because it has/had no relevance to the discussion, it was Tuhoe we were talking about not Ngati Kahungunu.

                      In the end that was why I said your argument did not need reference to tribal links or to visiting marae to stand on its feet as an argument.

                      But I fear the shutters have gone down, you have riled yourself up. I will know what the metes and bounds for any discussion, that we cannot explore to the end, that you reserve the right to king hit if need be. Remembering that you brought up whakapapa etc.

                      I will now know better than to explore anti Maori issues with you. They are intensely personal to me. Hence my keenness to ensure you had the correct information. Hoping that you do read up some of the Treaty settlements.

                      I am very sorry for any part I played in this.

                    • RedLogix

                      I have been around here since 2007 when the site first began. I am long over being riled up.

                      But I do have boundaries – and you stepped over them.

                  • tinderdry6

                    Clearly the land was not returned to Tuhoe. Do you agree?

                    "It is not co-governance for a start. Please get your terms correct and try to understand this settlement."

                    You're simply wrong. Te urewera is governed by the Te Urewera Board, which is a co-governance entity.

                    Te urewera hs a co-governance Board, and co-governance management structure. It seems churlish to argue otherwise.

                    • Shanreagh

                      This entity has a majority of Tuhoe reps on the board, the chair is from Tuhoe. I base my view on the legislation and that this much derided by some, co-governance was not a 'thing' when the Treaty Settlement was initiated and the legislation enacted.

                      The settlement talks about the concept of Mana Motuhake. If you take this to mean co-governance then you are incorrect. It is also an example of putting up a straw man argument, albeit an incorrect one.

                      More deeply than this it is a dismissal of the way the two groups who are involved in Te Urewera have resolved to describe themselves and this is disrespectful in the extreme.

                      'Mana Motuhake redress relates to improved relationships between Tūhoe and the Crown and the delivery of government and iwi services to Tūhoe communities.

                      Crown /Tūhoe relationship agreement

                      The Crown/Tūhoe relationship agreement, Nā Kōrero Ranatira ā Tūhoe me Te Karauna, signed in 2011 provides a foundation for how Tūhoe and the Crown will work together.

                      https://www.govt.nz/browse/history-culture-and-heritage/treaty-settlements/find-a-treaty-settlement/ngai-tuhoe/ngai-tuhoe-deed-of-settlement-summary/

                      You are putting 2021/2022 shoes and arguments on an entity that wears different shoes. Shoes that have been around and worn since 2011 ie 11 years old.

                      It is clear you are doing this to further your anti Maori in public management roles argument.

                      Sorry it won't wash with me.

                    • Shanreagh

                      The land was vested as Te Urewera. Te Urewera has the rights of a natural person. If you had read either or both of the Treaty settlement documentation or the legislation you would not be contending as you are. If you are splitting hairs by saying te urewera ia not Tuhoe then split away…..it won't convince me.

                      Looking at the legislation

                      1 This Act binds the Crown.

                      12 Vesting of Te Urewera establishment land

                      (1) Te Urewera establishment land ceases to be vested in the Crown.

                      (2) Any part of the establishment land that is—

                      (a) a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 ceases to be a conservation area:

                      (b)Crown land under the Land Act 1948 ceases to be Crown land:

                      (c) a national park under the National Parks Act 1980 ceases to be a national park: (my bold)

                      (d) a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 has the reserve status revoked.

                      (3) The fee simple estate in the establishment land vests in Te Urewera and is held under, and in accordance with, this Act.

                      Explanation The land vests in the entity, it is no longer a NP, or reserve or Crown Land.

                      13Te Urewera land inalienable

                      Te Urewera land must not be alienated, mortgaged, charged, or otherwise disposed of, except—

                      (a) in accordance with section 111; or

                      (b) if a lease or an easement is granted under section 62(1).

                      and

                      Te Urewera declared to be legal entity

                      (1) Te Urewera is a legal entity, and has all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.

                      (2) However,—

                      (a) the rights, powers, and duties of Te Urewera must be exercised and performed on behalf of, and in the name of, Te Urewera—

                      (i) by Te Urewera Board; and

                      (ii) in the manner provided for in this Act; and

                      (b) the liabilities are the responsibility of Te Urewera Board, except as provided for in section 96.

                      Appointment of members of the te Urewera entity

                      21Appointment of members of Board

                      (1) For the first 3 years after the settlement date, the Board consists of 8 members, appointed as follows:

                      (a) 4 members appointed by the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua; and

                      (b) 4 members appointed jointly by the Minister and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations (the Ministers).

                      (2) From the third anniversary of the settlement date, the Board is to consist of 9 members, appointed as follows:

                      (a) 6 members appointed by the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua; and

                      (b) 3 members appointed by the Minister. (of Conservation)

                      (3) In making an appointment, an appointer must consider whether the proposed member has the mana, standing in the community, skills, knowledge, or experience—

                      (a) to participate effectively in the Board; and

                      (b)

                      to contribute to achieving the purposes of the Board.

                      (4) Before making any appointment, each appointer must—

                      (a) notify the other appointer of the proposed appointment; and

                      (b) seek the views of the other appointer as to whether the proposed member meets the criteria of subsection (3); and

                      (c) consider the views expressed by the other appointer.

                      (5) Before appointments are made under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b), the Minister must seek a recommendation from the New Zealand Conservation Authority in relation to 1 of the members to be appointed by the Ministers or Minister, as appropriate.

                      (6)Any recommendation received under subsection (5) must be considered by the Minister, but the Minister—

                      (a)is not obliged to give effect to the recommendation; and

                      (b)may consider a recommendation from any other person.

                      (7)

                      In this subpart, appointers means,—

                      (a) in relation to the first term of the Board, the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua and the Ministers:

                      (b) in relation to the subsequent terms of the Board, the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua and the Minister.

                      So a board managing the entity Te Urewera which is no longer a NP with majority Tuhoe reps and a Tuhoe chair with an agreement with the Crown dating from 2011 described as Mana Motuhake is steps away from co-governance on a continuum of total Crown control to total entity control.

                    • tinderdry6

                      "This entity has a majority of Tuhoe reps on the board, the chair is from Tuhoe. I base my view on the legislation and that this much derided by some, co-governance was not a 'thing' when the Treaty Settlement was initiated and the legislation enacted."

                      The TMA Chair is Tamaki Collective, by legislation.

                      You don't seem to understand 'co-governance' or what it entails. I posted a link to the University of Canterbury piece about Te Urewera above. I suggest you read it.

                  • weka

                    If I did know better I would believe that I was at a meeting of race-scared, Nat voting Pakeha who have all got the wrong end of the stick.

                    the only thing I'll really disagree with is that. It's more like a meeting of race-scared, centre left voting Pakeha who have all got the wrong end of the stick. Or something. There has always been people with those politics here, but I would say that in recent years TS commentariat has lost a chunk of its left wing/socially progressive commenters and thus it's currently more centre left.

                    It's not that there's no critique to be made about the situation with te Urewera, it's that some of the foundational arguments against what is happening are based in rejection of the idea that Māori have their own rights as a people separate from the rest of NZ.

                    It's not the only thing going on. I've never been in Tūhoe country. I've spent a fair amount of time in Fiordland and Mt Aspiring National parks, where the history and situation is very different. But if either or both has the kind of management that te Urewera does, I'd feel a lot about that. People feel strongly about the land, including Pākehā. What I would do with those feelings and how they play into my politics would be key.

                    I agree with you that Tūhoe need time to find their management feet. I think it's also true that there is a conflict between Pākehā values and Māori ones, and likewise ideas about what matters. That's a matter of working through the issues.

                    The key thing for me is whether there are credible examples of people being excluded from te Urewera and what the rationales are. DOC of course constrain what people can do in National Parks, and there's a lot to criticise them for as well. I remember the time when DOC went through and started removing old huts from its estate, and the controversy around that.

                    Underlying all this is the deep relationship that many kiwis have with the land and the fact that our culture corals that into certain expressions. Pākehā need to look to their own mess before (or alongside) criticising other peoples.

                    • Shanreagh

                      Weka. Thank you
                      I agree.

                      I was born and brought up in Wairoa and Te Urewera was my first experience of the National Park concept. Growing up there though, with parental contacts into the Maori community you couldn't help but be saddened by the loss of land that Tuhoe had experienced. Grandparents had a farm right up near the Urewera and so saw & knew Maori from the Maungapohatu area.

                      Growing up, apart from the walks based around Lake House etc there were numbers of pig & deer hunters. (the Great Walk came much later) Some of these were wild boys who did not take kindly to restrictions, though were welcomed as part of a pest management plan. In some of these families there was almost a feeling that Te Urewera was actually theirs. Not a National Park and not the fastness of Tuhoe but theirs. I do not doubt that this feeling has been passed down through the years and their descendants may take a very jaundiced view of the 2014 Treaty Settlement. This is not the deep seated kinship with the land that many Pakeha have or Turangawaewae but a feeling of ownership

                      All I have seen have been the shock, horror stories of huts being demolished. Huts were demolished when it was a NP.

                      I have not heard of access being restricted but undoubtedly if people treat it as theirs and come and go as they please they will look askance at any requirement to ask for access, let alone being accepting of the right to refuse a request.

                      it's that some of the foundational arguments against what is happening are based in rejection of the idea that Māori have their own rights as a people separate from the rest of NZ.

                      It is more specific than that as well. There have been many many Treaty Settlements that have involved land being returned as part of cultural redress that seem to have passed completely unnoticed, The same with the first right of refusal clauses that enable surplus lands of the crown to be offered to these Iwi. Ngai Tahu and Tainui have made a very good job of using these offers to enhance their Tribal assets.

                      Iwi reps have been appointed to Reserves and National Parks boards and have served in groups looking at the High Country and this has been happening for 20 or so years.

                      and

                      It's more like a meeting of race-scared, centre left voting Pakeha who have all got the wrong end of the stick. Or something.

                      That is true. The undertone of violence is pretty scary.

                      This link is to a story about the building of te-uru-taumatua-te-wharehou-o-tuhoe out of Taneatua on the northern part of Te Urewera. There was a film about this. The building operation was was very highly controlled so as not to generate any builders waste.
                      https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/te-uru-taumatua-te-wharehou-o-tuhoe/

                      If people want an idea of how Tuhoe will manage in the years ahead then look at this, innovative, creative, environmentally leading etc, The iwi will be looking ahead

                      • Tūhoe, the Crown and Te Urewera Board will seek higher international recognition for Te Urewera such as a UNESCO biosphere reserve to promote the area’ unique values. (From the Treaty Settlement)

                      UNESCO biosphere reserves

                      https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/about

                      Canada has the Niagara escarpment

                      https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/eu-na/niagara-escarpment

                      Germany the Waddensee

                      https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/eu-na/wadden-sea-saxony

                    • weka []

                      thanks Shanreagh. You’ve done a lot of work on this in these comments, I’ve been learning quite a bit. Would you be interested in doing a guest post?

                    • Incognito

                      In my opinion, you raised a few very good points, weka.

                      If I may interject with a few thoughts of my own:

                      Many people in NZ, both Left, Right, and Centre, claim to be in favour of equality & equity and lowering if not removing any obstacles & boundaries in the way of achieving this utopian status. I’d like to think that the Right leans more towards the first “E” than the Left as if one follows automatically from the other through some kind of gravity (aka trickle down) or osmosis (aka integration).

                      It appears that this is merely window dressing and virtue signalling and a mass branding exercise of and for ourselves and overseas visitors and investors as a ‘developed’ country – think of 100% pure campaigns and the likes. This branding includes quite a lot of propaganda and manipulation, i.e. it contains and is based on illusion & dishonesty.

                      Underneath it all, there is a strong counter-current against the idea that different groups in our society have the right of having different values, customs, and history, et cetera. As long as it fits with the mass branding of this free multi-cultural egalitarian (social) democracy all is fine & well. However, any ‘creases’ that don’t fit the overall stereotypical ‘packaging’ have to be ironed out by assimilation leaving only stuff for (open) museums and so-called cultural centres to preserve (and curate) of what used to be once upon a time. I was going to bring marae into this but don’t want to risk having my head bitten off again.

                    • Shanreagh

                      @Tinderdry 2.56pm 23/10/22

                      I have read your post and links.

                      Am I to feel that an abstract from a UC paper and the press release at the time overrides the Treaty Settlement documentation and the legislation?

                      These are what researchers call 'secondary' sources. Primary sources are the words of the legislation and the settlement documentation.

                      While co-governance may be a shorthand for the arrangements it actually is not what the arrangements are. For that we go to the settlement documentation where it is

                      Mana Motuhake

                      and

                      the legislation

                      https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0051/latest/DLM6183601.html

                      While the legislation talks of governance it does not define it (presumably as it is a word in common parlance and this usual meaning is sufficient)

                      'Co governance' has no search hits in the legislation.

                      'Co' appears only as part of co-ordinate and co operate.

                      Governance means

                      https://governancetoday.com/GT/GT/Material/Governance__what_is_it_and_why_is_it_important_.aspx

                      Governance encompasses the system by which an organisation is controlled and operates, and the mechanisms by which it, and its people, are held to account. Ethics, risk management, compliance and administration are all elements of governance.

                      In the Te Urewera legislation the means by which governance is achieved is expanded on by explaining about consensus and unanimous decision making. (secs 33/34)

                      The legislation is an easy read, compared with say some of the tax legislation.

                      I would urge you to read the primary sources rather than secondary or commentary sources.

                      https://www.govt.nz/browse/history-culture-and-heritage/treaty-settlements/find-a-treaty-settlement/ngai-tuhoe/ngai-tuhoe-deed-of-settlement-summary/

                      https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0051/latest/DLM6183601.html

                      I appreciate you are commenting from a place of dissatisfaction with the arrangements for the management of the Maunga around Auckland.

                      I write only about Te Urewera.

                      I also don't want to get onto any bandwagon about co-governance as it applies to future policy for Three Waters. There is a fair bit of over reaction to this, that I can see and it is to no-one's benefit to slip, slide Treaty Settlements and their legislation into this. These exist to right wrongs so it is remedial legislation.

                      There is a point of great difference also in that the settlement and legislation is to recognise publicly the wrongs against Tuhoe and provide for a new way for the future.

                      Three Waters charts new ground. It points to a new way. It provides the other Treaty partner with the chance of partnership over water.

                      https://environment.govt.nz/facts-and-science/freshwater/how-freshwater-health-affects-maori/#:~:text=Find%20out%20more-,Freshwater%20is%20taonga%20(precious)%20for%20M%C4%81ori,managing%20human%20impacts%20on%20freshwater.

                    • Incognito []

                      I appreciate you are commenting from a place of dissatisfaction with the arrangements for the management of the Maunga around Auckland.

                      Bingo!

                    • Shanreagh

                      @ Weka 11.23am

                      Thanks for the invitation. It is really appreciated. I will expand on my reasons why I cannot do this in a note to the mods.

  2. Jenny are we there yet 2

    '

    Putin turns in Zap Branningan

    A month after Putin started drafting Russians to fight in Ukraine, some are already coming home in body bags

    …..Their swift ends highlight the haste, equipment problems, and disregard for its own troops that have loomed large in Russia's broader war effort.

    ….."We've already seen some of those mobilised civilians dying on the battlefield in Ukraine … with no training … a criminal pointless waste of life."

    ……Putin "managed to gather up some tens of thousands of troops, and convert hundreds or more into casualties."
    "Quite a logistics achievement!"

    "He's trying to staunch the bleeding, as it were, by throwing bodies at the frontline and slow the Ukrainian advances down – stabilize the battlefront in blood, as it were."

    Russia has continued to lose territory to Ukraine while attempting to integrate the newest troops, known by the slang term "mobiks."

    https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-mobilization-some-drafted-dead-less-than-month-2022-10?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=referral

    • weston 2.1

      There has been ongoing attempts by the msm to discredit Russias mobilization heres some actual information to counter the propaganda .Also i'd encourage people to have a read of the comments under the video in this one for ex there are quite a number of comments from former soldiers so even if you doubt the authenticity of the vid you can double check the info with the recounted experiences of actual people .

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ovun50tblM

      • Barfly 2.1.1

        Lol mate just google youtube Russian mobilisation and be inundated with videos of drunks, of people lighting fires in fields because there's no shelter, of old fat men, of trainers telling troops to get tampons from their wives/ mothers etc. Congratulations on listing 1 video from a Pooty pusher saying it's all great. Slava Ukraine!

        • joe90 2.1.1.1

          Dimwit's posting Tony Cartalucci Brian Bertelic's claptrap.

          https://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2020/11/04/conspiracy-blogger-tony-cartalucci-reveals-his-identity/

          • weston 2.1.1.1.1

            Ho hum who really cares joe censorship and banning have been a fact of life for a while now but who knows what the future will bring .Its gonna be interesting if/when Musk takes over lot of exec's gonna be losing there jobs from what ive been reading an good riddance !!

            In anycase everyone's accounts are backed up automatically in other channels these days so censorship smearing an shoot the messenger tactics are less successful than they used to be .Afaik the channel you seem to be so afraid of is already banned on both twitter and fb so i doubt he gives a flying fuck .As they say in independent news circles if the big boys are trying to shut you down you must be doing something right !!

        • weston 2.1.1.2

          Actually barfly the "pooty pusher "doesnt say "its all great " he very carefully and objectively illuminates whats not great about it .What he does say is that the recent Russian partial mobilization suffers from exactly the same faults as pretty much every army around the globe faces when putting together a mobilization .

          The "pooty pusher "incidentally doesnt use russian sources to back up his arguments he is citing a CSIS article entitled 'What does Russias partial mobilization mean '.For those that dont know Center for strategic and international studies is a US gov funded arms industry think tank .

          The pooty pusher examines a recent New York Times article and compares it to the CSIS article in order to expose the blatant propaganda and lies in the aforementioned NYT's piece .

          The "pooty pusher "used to be a former soldier himself so is able to give anecdotal corroboration to some of the stories .These stories as i explained in my linked txt above are further corroborated by the commenters in the thread beneath the video .I assume you can read barfly ?

  3. Ad 3

    Congratulations to Minister Wood for getting the National Ticketing System to the start line.

    It will take 3 years to implement but it means one card for all public transport modes in all cities.

    Good hard work Waka Kotahi after many years as well.

    • Jenny are we there yet 3.1

      Free Public Transport in New Zealand sabotaged by neo-liberal dinosaurs

      By cementing in place nationwide point of sale, with all the overlay of hidebound bureaucracy to oversee and operate it, with all the necessary infrastructure and hardware and software, with all the enforcement staff required to police it.

      The Labour government have pretty much sabotages any moves toward single payer in public transport in this country for the foreseeable future.

      Countries less committed to neoliberal economic user pays dogma are going the other way;

      From Wikipedia:

      ……On 29 February 2020, Luxembourg became the first country in the world to make all public transport in the country (buses, trams, and trains) free to use.[2][3][4][5] On 1 October 2022, Malta became the second country in the world to make its public transport system free for all residents.[6] Germany is considering making their public transit system fare-free in response to the EU's threatening to fine them for their air pollution levels.[7]….

      ….Tallinn, capital city of Estonia with more than 420,000 inhabitants, as well as several mid-size European cities and many smaller towns around the world have converted their public transportation networks to zero-fare. The city of Hasselt in Belgium is a notable example: fares were abolished in 1997 and ridership was as much as "13 times higher" by 2006.[8]

      …..In some regions transport is free because the revenues are lower that expenses from fare collection is already partially paid by government or company or service ….

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport

      Why this move now?

      My guess; The neoliberal, user-pays, establishment got a serious fright from Auckland Mayoral hopeful Efeso Collins, who had made Fare Free Public transport his flagship election plank. In response to this threat from the Left, the neoliberal establishment want to make sure as best they can, that no elected leader, Local or Central, will ever dare to act to dismantle, all the bureaucracy, All the infrastructure, architecture gates turnstiles, security fences, security guards, computer systems, and hardware and back office IT, fines and compliance, all now being permanently cemented (literally in some cases) in to place.

      • AB 3.1.1

        Even with free PT you need usage data for your short and long-term planning. People would still need to carry cards and swipe on and off. Otherwise you'll have chaos with a misallocation of resources, either too many or too few trains, long waits and pissed-off customers, i.e. enough of a mess to discredit the system in no time. Most of this infrastructure would still be needed if PT is free at the point of use.

        • Jenny are we there yet 3.1.1.1

          Sitting in your car bored out of your mind, crawling along on the congested motorway network during rush hour, trying to get to work with all the other commuters, many who would gladly use public transport if it were more freely available. All the time pouring CO1 and CO2 from our car tail pipes. And then witnessing half empty buses and trains.
          Talk about misallocation.

      • Ad 3.1.2

        You are just a jargon saturated fool.

        It's been planned for over 6 years. Wood is delivering well.

        • Jenny are we there yet 3.1.2.1

          They have been planning and scheming and dreaming of enforcing the user pays model for 6 years?

          My God! They have been forging the shackles to prevent public transport from being free for that long.

          Free the buses!

          From Wikipedia:

          Zero-fare transport can make the system more accessible and fair for low-income residents……

          Qué horror!

          Just imagine all the low-income people more freely roaming about our cities, and going to the beaches and museums and libraries or escaping their poorer suburbs to go to the movie or theatre. Making it easier for them to get to work or even to get a job in the first place.
          Imagine low-income people not being forced to rely on some unwarranted unregistered heap at the risk getting pulled over while dropping the kids at school because they can't afford their bus fees.*
          We would miss the chance to punish them even more for their poverty.
          It's enough to give you the chills.

          We must prevent this at all costs.

          *(something I have personally witnessed in my Papakura hood, weeping mothers and distressed children being pulled from their cars and being ticketed outside the local primary school)

          • Jenny are we there yet 3.1.2.1.1

            A developed country is not one where poor people own cars.

            A developed country is one where both the rich and the poor ride the sub-way.

            From Wikipedia:

            Zero-fare transport can make the system more accessible and fair for low-income residents. Other benefits are the same as those attributed to public transport generally:

            • Road traffic can benefit from decreased congestion and faster average road speeds, fewer traffic accidents, easier parking, savings from reduced wear and tear on roads
            • Increased public access, especially for the poor and low waged, which can in turn benefit social integration , businesses and those looking for work
            • Environmental and public health benefits including decreased air pollution and noise pollution from road traffic

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport

    • dv 3.2

      Good idea

      BUT why is the cost 1.3 billion?

      • alwyn 3.2.1

        That doesn't sound nearly enough for something the current lot in Government are planning?

        Are you sure that is for implementing the scheme. With Wood involved I expect that amount will only cover the Consultant costs to decide on a plan to develop a plan to come up with plans on what they wish to propose. Then there will be more billions to develop a means of doing it as the Consultant Gravy train rolls on into the future.

        • dv 3.2.1.1

          So you don't know.

          • Incognito 3.2.1.1.1

            I don’t know either but note that the allocation is for over the next 15 years.

            • dv 3.2.1.1.1.1

              Thanks noted that that icog.

            • Jenny are we there yet 3.2.1.1.1.2

              15 years of commitment to user pays public transport, might as well be indefinite for the climate crisis.
              And if we ever change our minds and decide to incentivise people out of private transport. How much will it cost to undo all these multi $million, user pays, shackles?

      • Jenny are we there yet 3.2.2

        A $1.3 billion stab through the heart of free public transport.

        And a vicious slap in the face for the Green Party.

        Free Public Transport for EVERYONE

        Half price public transport? We’re 100% on board.

        But if the Prime Minister's Cost of Living announcement in March 2022 showed us anything, it’s how easy it is to make public transport more affordable. That’s why we’re calling for the Government to go further, by making public transport fares free for everyone.

        At a time when communities have come together to keep people safe, we have also seen a huge transfer of wealth as a result of the economic response to COVID. We absolutely need the Government to step in and support our community through these challenging times…..

        Authorised by James Shaw and Marama Davidson, Parliamentary Buildings, Wellington

        https://action.greens.org.nz/free_public_transport

    • Anne 3.3

      Michael Wood is slowly making his way to the top of the Labour tree.

      Intelligent, hardworking, reliable, articulate, leadership qualities and a natural compassion for the underdog.

      • Shanreagh 3.3.1

        Yes I have been keeping an eye on him too. i was very impressed from the time I heard/read his actual speech at the time of occupation at Parliament. His writing was Churchillian in its breadth and emphasis at that time…….though misunderstood by the those seeking clickbait etc.

      • Jester 3.3.2

        He could be the leader of the Labour party next year.

        • Shanreagh 3.3.2.1

          Not sure if next year but certainly very promising. smiley

        • Jenny are we there yet 3.3.2.2

          “Intelligent, hardworking, reliable, articulate, leadership qualities and a natural compassion for the underdog.” Anne

          Apart from a few missteps, like the bike bridge and this latest boondoogle. (Both of which I think he has been ill advised on).

          Having met him a number of times, Michael Wood is everything you say. Unfortunately, unless Labour can motivate their working class base, we will get a repeat of the massive working class non-vote we witnessed in the Auckland Mayoral election and Michael Wood will be leader of the Labour Party in opposition.

        • Anne 3.3.2.3

          He wouldn't want the job at this stage. His children are young and he would ideally want a couple more years of experience under his belt.

          Edit: Yes Jenny. It’s an unfortunate possibility but if it happened I think he would last the distance until Labour regained the treasury benches. Michael is a long term kind of guy. Not for him a race to the top for the sake of it.

          We’ve just witnessed what happens to that kind of politician in the UK.

  4. Ad 4

    Don McGlashan played Dunedin last night and was utterly awesome.

    Get a ticket if you still can.

  5. X Socialist 5

    I recently had a friend cured of Hep C simply by taking some medication for two months. He had previously suffered terribly with this once incurable disease.

    We all know Big Pharma is corrupt to some degree. They buy doctors. Medical Schools teach student doctors that pharmaceuticals are the first call when treating patients.

    But when ex medical journal editors drop all pretences and say basically medical research and public medical advice cannot be trusted you then wonder who you can trust (@9.10).

    When Goldman Sachs obliquely says there's no money in finding cures like the Hep C drug, you have to wonder how long have sick people been cash cows for big Pharma? GS seem to have given up all pretences regarding the Big Pharma industry and their requirements for funding of such.( @3.47). Dr Ken Berry explains.

    Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has recently taken Dr. Anthony Fauci to task regarding vaccine royalties.

    • Incognito 5.1

      Your total lack of critical thought and nuance shows that you’re a Cat. I conspiracist.

      Curative treatment for Hep C has been available in NZ for some time and some pharmacies offer free Hep C tests, but I suppose you consider them to be corrupt as well and part of the Big Pharma Conspiracy. People like you make others and me sick, literally.

      • X Socialist 5.1.1

        You obviously haven't looked at the clips.

        The only conspiracy I believe in is Jacinda heading off to the UN after the next election.. That’s a conspiracy because there’s no proof.

        • Incognito 5.1.1.1

          You want to convince me or convert me? The truthiness will set me free, is that it?

          10’53’’ of angry white man behind desk

          Either way, this is a big reason why all new pharmaceutical drugs brought to market don't cure, only treat & manage. [my italics]

          [followed by a bunch of commercial links offering discounts & discount codes]

          Utter BS and disinformation! There is a curative treatment for Hep C available in NZ. There are many other new curative treatments available in NZ.

          7’37’’ of heated exchange between angry white man behind large desk with another white man behind desk.

          I cannot handle your truth.

          PS you seem to have a binary view of the world including the world of conspiracies … It comes with the description of a Cat. I conspiracist.

          • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.1

            angry white man behind large desk with another white man behind desk.

            What the fuck does skin colour have to do with this? This causal racism from a moderator frankly makes me ill.

            This place is as toxic as ever.

            • Incognito 5.1.1.1.1.1

              WTF is wrong with your sense of humour? You’re so conditioned to let your emotions control your kneejerk reactions here on TS. IMO, you’re adding much less of value to the discussion here than you used to [since “when The Standard was first formed”] and, in fact, you increase the tox levels here considerably, at times; something I know I do myself and it ain’t a good thing.

              This is my reference:

              https://thespinoff.co.nz/authors/white-man-behind-a-desk

              I don’t expect you to like it, but I also didn’t expect you to blow a fuse. You could have asked what my intention was and why I’d chosen that particular wording but instead you decided to ‘read my mind’ and jump to your own sad contrived conclusion.

              PS you seem to have your personal standards & guidelines for Mods here and seem to want them to adhere to those or bail out like you did. However, you also seem to prefer the Sharma approach to using the back-end for constructive discussion about this.

              • RedLogix

                However, you also seem to prefer the Sharma approach to using the back-end for constructive discussion about this.

                No idea what you are talking about. I have rarely used the back-end in the past five years and certainly not recently.

                As for lacking a sense of humour – consider whether you would have written the same sentence using any other skin colour.

                People like you make others and me sick, literally.

                • Incognito

                  Against my nature, I clicked on the YT clips in the comment by X Socialist. In hindsight, it was a complete waste of time.

                  The first clip started with an angry white man – I’d forgotten to turn on the audio – and I immediately made the association with Robbie Niccol (White Man Behind a Desk) as per my Spinoff link.

                  The second clip was of a heated exchange of white men and this reinforced my association.

                  If I had used another skin colour, it would not have made any sense because it would not have resembled the men in the 2 YT clips.

                  If you detect “causal racism” or “casual racism” (but not sexism?) in those words then that’s on you, I’m afraid; there was neither prejudice nor negative stereotyping in there but you seem adamant on pinning that label on it.

                  No idea what you are talking about.

                  I find that somewhat hard to believe and I’ll have to take your word for it.

                  I have rarely used the back-end in the past five years and certainly not recently.

                  It is there for airing out issues between Authors and Mods, so why not use it for that?

                  People like you make others and me sick, literally.

                  I’m truly sorry to hear that. My advice is that prevention is better than a cure, e.g., you could choose to scroll past toxic comments that make you sick, but it is your choice.

                  • RedLogix

                    Why make reference to their skin colour when it literally had no relevance to the topic ? Yet you used the phrase three times in one comment for emphasis, so it clearly conveyed a pejorative meaning for you.

                    This is the problem I have with what you said – this kind of anti-white racism has become so normalised, so self-internalised that you literally don't know you are doing it anymore.

                    As for using the back end for airing issues – my experience in that respect is quite different to yours it would seem.

                    And finally – my last line was a direct quote from your own words at 10:31am. I thought you might see the dark humour in that.

                    • Incognito

                      Yet you used the phrase three times in one comment for emphasis, so it clearly conveyed a pejorative meaning for you.

                      Since you’re neither a psychiatrist nor a mind reader, your incorrect conclusion doesn’t answer your preceding question, which was entirely rhetorical, obviously. I fully reject your accusation interpretation and you were projecting, i.e., why on Earth would you assume that my emphasis has a pejorative meaning?

                      The skin colour of those men indeed had nothing to do with the topic(s) they were discussing, obviously, but it so happened to be their actual skin colour. Perhaps you want to invent a new set of adjectives or pronouns as strictly neutral descriptors or qualifiers of one’s personal appearance characteristics that could be used to avoid or minimise forming negative stereotypes – you’d kill off comedy & satire in one fell swoop.

                      If you had accused me of anti-male sexism, I might have conceded some very minor ground, and to a point, and quite possibly debated that with you even though I know much of a sensitive topic that is for you. FWIW, I genuinely believe that many (but not all) males are terrible at debating or conversation (i.e. in constructive debate or mature adult conversation, respectively) because of their socio-cultural conditioning. This belief is not restricted to white males.

                      Good, your experience ≠ my experience. Enough said about airing out old grievances and tiffs between Authors and Mods.

                      I thought you might see the dark humour in that.

                      I briefly considered that possibility but rejected it because my appeal to humour so far had been a wasted effort with you. I stick with my advice to scroll past and/or not respond.

                    • RedLogix

                      Why use the phrase 'angry white male' three times – when 'angry person' would have served equally well? That is if you were merely being descriptive that is.

                      Or maybe because your 'innocent' choice of words rates it's own wikipedia entry.

                    • Incognito []

                      sigh

                      Don’t tell me what to write or how to write. The association was with humour of someone else and you didn’t think it was funny, I get that and have already said so.

                      Wikipedia entries are now your benchmark for what acceptable language is and what is not?

                      Let me return the favour:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote#Tilting_at_windmills

            • Shanreagh 5.1.1.1.1.2

              I look on this as an extension or similar to the idea of

              'angry old man yells at cloud'

              'mansplaining'

              It is though being white, pronouncing while sitting behind a desk gives one authority, or the perception of authority.

              When looking at body language the proponents usually advise not sitting behind a desk to share as equals but to come out and sit alongside. So perhaps the white men behind desks do not want to share they wnat to pronounce, be superior.

              Let's not take ourselves too seriously though.

          • X Socialist 5.1.1.1.2

            ''You want to convince me or convert me? The truthiness will set me free, is that it?''

            I'm not the slightest bit interested in trying to convince or convert you. My post was mainly for people who have no interest in medicine, so rely on their doctor to handle their illness without knowing there may be other options before pharma products are considered.

            For example, I would suspect some commentators on this blog are on statins. There is much controversy around these medicines – for and against. I had an interesting conversation with a cardiologist regarding this. So I try to inform myself before going off half cocked like you. All one clip showed was how after some pharmaceuticals were shown to be curing patients the promotion of such started to dry up along with funding.

            Heard about flaxseed? Flaxseeds can lower your blood pressure better than many pharma products. You don't see that advertised do you? That's an example.

            Is what's bugging you that fact those anti vaxx nutters may have been right all along and that the only fool was you? I personally have no view on the vaccine debate at present because only now are issues starting to come out of the wood work.

            I have decided to leave this blog because obviously divergent views aren’t welcome. I wish you all the best folks. X socialist, over and out.

            • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.2.1

              For example, I would suspect some commentators on this blog are on statins.

              Yup. My GP prescribed them for mildly elevated BP. Never filled it and using a different approach I have gotten it down to a nice safe level thank you.

              • joe90

                A statin prescribed for mildly elevated BP. Really?

                • RedLogix

                  Yup. Rosuvastatin 5mg to be precise. Not a high dose.

                • hetzer

                  Statins are to lower cholesterol not high blood pressure.

                • higherstandard

                  Sounds like a rubbish GP unless you had a number of other risk factors Red.

                  PS have heard through the grapevine that you had a bit of a health scare recently – hope you're on the mend and enjoying life.

                  • RedLogix

                    Thanks for asking. It is a serious autoimmune condition that I will have all my life. However the good news is that for moment I am doing well with a completely non-conventional approach.

                    The neurologist I saw offered nothing but drugs – all of which have notorious side-effects. Worse still he showed no curiosity about possible root causes.

                    Instead I have worked with a Functional Medical specialist here with outstanding results so far. And made substantial alterations to my diet and other aspects too personal to discuss here. Crucially I believe I am responsible for my health, and I reach out for the help and guidance needed on that journey.

                    I am not against conventional medicine at all. I still see my GP when necessary – and he has been very good on other issues. Where they can identify a clearcut cause for a condition they usually get results. It is the chronic conditions they flounder with.

                    • Francesca

                      Red , has that developed quite suddenly?

                      So good that you have found ways to improve your condition , be interested to know the foods you've eliminated , no pun intended

                    • RedLogix

                      The initial symptom was a massive weakness of my left leg a week after my second AZ jab back in Sept last year. It only lasted a few hours and I thought little of it at the time.

                      The more scary symptom was something that looked just like a stroke in Feb this year. The next six months were very uncertain. In the old days people used to die of this – and I will give credit that the drugs will usually keep you alive these days. Whether you want to be alive is another question.

                      In hindsight I would not blame the AZ jabs as the root cause of this condition – rather a triggering factor that tipped me over the edge.

                      All the useful diets have three things in common; eliminate all sugar, all refined seed oils and all refined carbohydrates. What works for each person however is very individual.

            • observer 5.1.1.1.2.2

              Is what's bugging you that fact those anti vaxx nutters may have been right all along and that the only fool was you?

              No and no.

              If your divergent views are "Ignore medical science, Rand Paul knows better" then you won't be missed. "The moon is made of cheese" is a divergent view.

              • RedLogix

                What – are you telling us that the same crowd who prescribed OxyContin like it was lollies must be sole source of all truth when it comes to our health?

                • Francesca

                  You might be interested in what Jeffrey Sachs came to while chairing the Lancet commission on the origins of covid 19 .

                  • RedLogix

                    All sources are a mixed bag – I find Sachs good on some things, and off-beam badly on others. But I will watch it.

                    Joe Hildebrand is a strong Australian columnist whom I would describe as a centrist – in the sense that he probably annoys hard core lefties and righties in about equal amounts. A few months back this article would not have been published – but now the ground has shifted here. More and more people I meet are quietly expressing all sorts of doubts of the events of the past two years:

                    The thing about the truth is that it always comes out. It may take years, decades or even centuries but reality has a way of asserting itself. Lies inevitably fall apart.

                    And so more than two and a half years after Covid-19 first came to Australian shores the truth has finally emerged about our various governments’ response to it and the lies have been exposed.

                    Lockdowns were wrong. School closures were wrong. Border closures were wrong. Poor people were hurt the most.

                    These are the findings of the first and so-far only full inquiry into Australia’s response to Covid, an independent review funded by three major philanthropic organisation and headed by Peter Shergold, previously the most senior public servant in the country and now Western Sydney University chancellor — an eminent and highly qualified mind deeply respected on both sides of politics.

                    They are unequivocal, they are damning and they are almost word for word exactly what I and a few other brave souls have been saying from the very beginning of the pandemic.

                    As I have been shouting from every platform I can since 2020, the most egregious act was that committed against our children — the mass shutdown of schools on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. To their eternal shame, state premiers and chief health officers were both complicit in this.

                    • Francesca

                      You definitely won't like him on the Ukraine/Russia stuff.I'm not sure he is pro Russia, but in his work in Russia in the 90s as an economist he made several recommendations, namely that although he believed in going hard and fast …"shock therapy",.. he thought that Russia should be helped through and not humiliated.The Versailles treaty and its consequences were foremost in his mind.

                      Those recommendations for Russia were ignored.I can't help feeling that by keeping Russia as an enemy we have ended up with the situation we now have .

                      He's pretty good on the covid stuff without making a song and dance out of it

                    • RedLogix

                      Francesca

                      I am happy to see the nuance in his Russia position. I would have said much the same thing a few years back – especially in the light of my work trips there. I am emphatically not Russophobic.

                      The core problem in my mind is that lacking a definitive repudiation of Stalinism, combined with the embedded cultural paranoia of the Russian culture (for understandable geopolitical reasons) it was inevitable that the post Soviet transition to becoming part of Europe was going to fail.

                      Nothing the US or the EU might have done – and it is true they well fell short of best effort – would have changed the outcome.

                  • aj

                    Sachs is a rare rational voice in the world today. This links to a video 24 mins long, but in this case I've started at minute 18 when he is asked about his typical day but goes on to articulate his goal to build a world based on cooperation not confrontation. All power to this dream. Filmed Sept 14th 2022. The full video is worth listening to.

                    In my dotage I find myself guided by songs. In 1989 President Reagan used the "shining city upon a hill" metaphor in his farewell address, its use in political rhetoric in the United States politics is a clear declaration of American 'exceptionalism'.

                    Well before Regan (and before Vietnam had really ramped up) Bob Dylan wrote 'With God on Our Side' (1964). He reflects on many things in his songs, this one hits the bullseye.

                    Oh my name it ain't nothin'
                    My age it means less
                    The country I come from
                    Is called the Midwest
                    I's taught and brought up there
                    The laws to abide
                    And that the land that I live in
                    Has God on its side

                    Oh the history books tell it
                    They tell it so well
                    The cavalries charged
                    The Indians fell
                    The cavalries charged
                    The Indians died
                    Ah the country was young
                    With God on its side

                    The Spanish-American
                    War had its day
                    And the Civil War too
                    Was soon laid away
                    And the names of the heroes
                    I's made to memorize
                    With guns in their hands
                    And God on their side

                    The First World War boys
                    It came and it went
                    The reason for fightin'
                    I never did get
                    But I learned to accept it
                    Accept it with pride
                    For you don't count the dead
                    When God's on your side

                    The Second World War
                    Came to an end
                    We forgave the Germans
                    And then we were friends
                    Though they murdered six million
                    In the ovens they fried
                    The Germans now too
                    Have God on their side

                    I've learned to hate the Russians
                    All through my whole life
                    If another war comes
                    It's them we must fight
                    To hate them and fear them
                    To run and to hide
                    And accept it all bravely
                    With God on my side

                    But now we got weapons
                    Of chemical dust
                    If fire them we're forced to
                    Then fire them we must
                    One push of the button
                    And a shot the world wide
                    And ya' never ask questions
                    When God's on your side

                    Through many dark hour
                    I been thinking about this
                    That Jesus Christ
                    Was betrayed by a kiss
                    But I can't think for ya'
                    You'll have to decide
                    Whether Judas Iscariot
                    Had God on his side

                    So now as I'm leavin'
                    I'm weary as Hell
                    The confusion I'm feelin'
                    Ain't no tongue can tell
                    The words fill my head
                    And they fall to the floor
                    If God's on our side
                    He'll stop the next war

                    "The lyrics address the tendency of Americans to believe that God will invariably side with them and oppose those with whom they disagree, thus leaving unquestioned the morality of wars fought and atrocities committed by their country.
                    Dylan mentions several historical events, including the slaughter of Native Americans in the nineteenth century, the Spanish–American War, the American Civil War, World Wars I and II, The Holocaust, the Cold War and the betrayal of Jesus Christ by Judas Iscariot; the song made no explicit reference to the Vietnam War until live renditions in the 1980s, when an additional verse ran thus:-

                    In the nineteen-sixties came the Vietnam War
                    Can somebody tell me what we’re fightin' for?
                    So many young men died
                    So many mothers cried
                    Now I ask the question
                    Was God on our side?"

                    • joe90

                      Sachs is a rare rational voice in the world today.

                      One of the Harvard boys largely responsible the impoverishment of ordinary Russians, the rise of the oligarchs, and their subsequent looting of Russia assets is a rational voice?

                      Through the late summer and fall of 1991, as the Soviet state fell apart, Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs and other Western economists participated in meetings at a dacha outside Moscow where young, pro-Yeltsin reformers planned Russia’s economic and political future. Sachs teamed up with Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin’s first architect of economic reform, to promote a plan of “shock therapy” to swiftly eliminate most of the price controls and subsidies that had underpinned life for Soviet citizens for decades. Shock therapy produced more shock—not least, hyperinflation that hit 2,500 percent—than therapy.

                      https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russia/

                    • Francesca

                      Joe is quite wrong in his attempt to smear Sachs

                      Sachs had successfully turned Poland and Bolivia around with his shock therapy.The crucial difference with Russia was that he knew the reforms wouldn't succeed without help from the west, and he urged this constantly.Of course he was ignored .Russia had to remain the enemy.

                      https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1097135961

                    • joe90

                      Sachs had successfully turned Poland and Bolivia around with his shock therapy.

                      Bless.

                      /

                      Jeffrey Sachs casts himself as the US’s ‘progressive’ candidate to head the World Bank, and from his analysis it’s clear that he is a better economist than historian. Nothing reveals this more plainly than reviewing some of the ‘facts’ on Bolivia in his Economic Reforms in Bolivia, Poland in the 80s and 90s, A Look at the Data (http://jeffsachs.org/2012/03/bolivia-poland/).

                      […]

                      https://ain-bolivia.org/2012/03/sachs-versus-the-facts-on-bolivia/

                      In 1990, Mazowiecki’s government began to implement economic shock therapy, whose architect was Polish economist Leszek Balcerowicz. The aim of the “Balcerowicz Plan” was the transition from a centrally planned economy to a free market system, prioritising the privatisation of enterprises and other state properties. The social costs of economic reforms were huge.

                      Unemployment rose reaching more than 16 percent in 1993 and around 20 percent ten years later. Many of the industrial plants that had been the core of the Polish economy in the communist era were liquidated. People lost their jobs, careers, self-esteem and sense of dignity.

                      https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/4/should-poland-celebrate-a-quarter-century-of-democracy

                  • X Socialist

                    Great listen. Thanks Francesca.

              • Drowsy M. Kram

                Is what's bugging you that fact those anti vaxx nutters may have been right all along and that the only fool was you? – X Socialist @5.1.1.1.2

                Using "fact" and "may" undermines the value of that sentence. Consider:

                Is what's bugging you that fact those anti vaxx nutters may have been wrong all along and that the only fool was you?

                Vaccines are beneficial for a vast majority. Based on personal experience, I concluded years ago that I belong to that vast majority. Genuine exceptions are rare – considerably rarer that unexceptional contrarians such as VFF.

                Btw, to whoever is putting VFF disinformation in my letterbox – please stop.

                • X Socialist

                  Admittedly a poor use of words. However, colloquially, the phrase and its derivates are well understood especially in the context I used them.

                  I have edumacated myself.

                  https://www.e-education.psu.edu/styleforstudents/c3_p27.html

                  ''Vaccines are beneficial for a vast majority. Based on personal experience, I concluded years ago that I belong to that vast majority.''

                  Historically that would seem to be the case given some diseases have been wiped out. However, the science is flawed. There are still mechanisms at work that are unknown to science. And the present Covid vaccines are in my opinion a minefield of uncertainties.

            • KJT 5.1.1.1.2.3

              The chances of the anti vacc nutters being right, is some number close to zero.

            • Incognito 5.1.1.1.2.4

              I'm not the slightest bit interested in trying to convince or convert you. My post was mainly for people who have no interest in medicine, so rely on their doctor to handle their illness without knowing there may be other options before pharma products are considered.

              In other words, you’re preying on ignorant gullible people and steering them in the direction of mis- and disinformation sites for clicks & money.

              For example, I would suspect some commentators on this blog are on statins. There is much controversy around these medicines – for and against. I had an interesting conversation with a cardiologist regarding this.

              So, what are the arguments for & against statins? You’re just here to seed doubt. What did the cardiologist say? Nothing much of importance, apparently.

              Heard about flaxseed? Flaxseeds can lower your blood pressure better than many pharma products.

              Really? And not a single link to a clinical study that is reported in a peer-reviewed journal to support your claim about therapeutic superiority!? No head-to-head large clinical study!? And you know this because you saw it on YT?

              You don't see that advertised do you? That's an example.

              An example of what? That you take medical advice from your parsnip? My guess is that it hasn’t been advertised because it would be false and misleading advertising, which is not allowed by law.

              Is what's bugging you that fact those anti vaxx nutters may have been right all along and that the only fool was you?

              There’s no greater fool than an only fool. Have a look in the mirror. I have no idea what “those anti vaxx nutters” [your words, not mine] may have been right about all along but it doesn’t matter in your binary world, does it? What does it have to do with the price of fish anyway? You’re all over the place in your comments like you cannot focus on one topic for more than 8 seconds.

              I have decided to leave this blog because obviously divergent views aren’t welcome. I wish you all the best folks. X socialist, over and out.

              I’ve heard this all too familiar sign-off a few times in recent times and I very strongly suspect it is BS; those commenters almost always come back, under a different alias, of course – their MO is always remarkably similar and one could call it idiosyncratic (like DNA or fingerprint), but there are other giveaways too. They seem to have an innate urge and animalistic need to spread their scent & BS and constantly bay for attention.

              • X Socialist

                Seems like you are still posting after I said goodbye. Ok, I will answer your post.

                ''In other words, you’re preying on ignorant gullible people and steering them in the direction of mis- and disinformation sites for clicks & money.''

                Why would I want to do that? You weave the most fantastical conspiracies from comments other posters make. The clip you didn't watch fully had Dr Berry relating the history of a successful pharma drug that cured over 90% of people from Hep C. He wasn't pushing alternative treatments. He was just relating how corrupt big pharma and banks funding them have become. I find it interesting you take no account of comments made by ex medical journal editors. I would think their comments would carry some weight?

                ''So, what are the arguments for & against statins? You’re just here to seed doubt. What did the cardiologist say? Nothing much of importance, apparently.''

                That's a huge question that cannot be fully answered here. The case against statins are
                they’re metabolic toxins. They may increase the risk of diabetes and can cause muscle pathologies in patients (quite common).In such cases niacin can be substituted. It must be remembered statins are are based on the cholesterol theory being a fact. But the cholesterol theory is presently being disputed.

                The cardiologist said he knew for a fact that he has many patients alive today that wouldn't have been before the introduction of statins. That would suggest case closed – the cholesterol theory is fact. Statins work.

                Here’s a twist though. A competing theory to the Cholesterol Theory has inflammation as the cause of CVD. And funnily enough Statins have shown to have an anti inflammatory effect. If that's the case, diet and supplements can do a better job fighting inflammation in my opinion.

                ''Really? And not a single link to a clinical study that is reported in a peer-reviewed journal to support your claim about therapeutic superiority!? No head-to-head large clinical study!? And you know this because you saw it on YT?''

                There's a ton of studies you can choose from. Pubmed has some. I haven't checked Cochranes. But here, I seriously suggest you watch this. Dr Gregor, a crazed vegan , takes you through one study. Flaxseed may also have anti aging affects and decrease a negative biological marker everyone on this blog has compared to younger folk.

                Oh, and guess what? I actually tried it. It works. It's called not believing everything supposed experts tell you.

                ''There’s no greater fool than an only fool. Have a look in the mirror. I have no idea what “those anti vaxx nutters” [your words, not mine] may have been right about all along but it doesn’t matter in your binary world, does it? What does it have to do with the price of fish anyway? You’re all over the place in your comments like you cannot focus on one topic for more than 8 seconds.''

                They may have been right about believing all that POSSIBLE bullshit Jacinda and co told us regarding the need for and efficacy of the Covid Jab. As I've said, at the moment I'm on the fence regarding vaccines. And you may have missed the point in the Rand Paul clip that he is not anti vax. He was questioning the lack of medical evidence for childhood booster shots. You on the other hand have made your mind up. Everyone else like me is either misguided or simply a nuts. Seems to me you have painted yourself into a corner.

                • Incognito

                  Surprise, surprise! Looks who’s back so soon doing a Sharma (or a Boris?)? Much sooner than I’d thought.

                  So, your ‘farewell letter’ was just to shut me up and for you to have the last word.

                  You’re not denying the links for clicks & money and you’re diverting.

                  You claim that I didn’t watch the clip fully, which is yet another assertion that you can never prove and it shows again your prejudice and propensity to make up BS.

                  At least you seem to agree that there is a drug that can cure Hep C, which contradicts the claim of the YT clip that you linked to, i.e., some new drugs that are brought to market do actually cure.

                  Banks have become corrupt? Since when, based on what, where, et cetera? It is yet another of your made up assertions without anything to support it other than your belief it is a ‘fact’; it sounds about right, it feels about right, it must be right.

                  The case against statins are they’re metabolic toxins.

                  What are “metabolic toxins” and why are statins “metabolic toxins”? What does that even mean?

                  In such cases niacin can be substituted.

                  Statins and niacin (aka vitamin B3) are often combined, not substituted.

                  A “theory” is being disputed! Strike me down with a feather. Climate Change is also disputed. Smoking causing cancer is probably still being disputed by a few rare relics. It is a meaningless statement without context & back-up to provide perspective.

                  That would suggest case closed – the cholesterol theory is fact. Statins work.

                  BS, BS, and BS. That’s utter bollocks. Theory never is fact. Science is never closed. Statins work well in indicated patient populations but definitely not all patients respond equally and some patients don’t respond at all.

                  And funnily enough Statins have shown to have an anti inflammatory effect.

                  And funnily enough statins have also been shown to cause muscle inflammation, which may be responsible for the muscle pain you alluded to above.

                  If that’s the case, diet and supplements can do a better job fighting inflammation in my opinion.

                  What is your opinion based on? What inflammation are you talking about? What evidence do you have to support your reckons?

                  There’s a ton of studies you can choose from. Pubmed has some. I haven’t checked Cochranes. But here, I seriously suggest you watch this. Dr Gregor, a crazed vegan , takes you through one study. Flaxseed may also have anti aging affects and decrease a negative biological marker everyone on this blog has compared to younger folk.

                  FFS! Not another YT clip, by a so-called Dr Greger (not Gregor) who runs his own online shop too, how convenient! But since he speaks ‘the truth’ he cannot be corrupt, can he now? We all have this mythical “negative biological marker”? What is it, DOB?

                  Oh, and guess what? I actually tried it. It works. It’s called not believing everything supposed experts tell you.

                  Good for you! A so-called anecdotal case study from a true believer! It proves nothing!

                  They may have been right about believing all that POSSIBLE bullshit Jacinda and co told us regarding the need for and efficacy of the Covid Jab. As I’ve said, at the moment I’m on the fence regarding vaccines.

                  I agree, you cannot be clearer and more specific than exclaiming “all that POSSIBLE bullshit”. You’re not sitting on the fence, you’re shitting in/on the bog. Jacinda (…) and Cabinet based their decisions on a whole raft of evidence and advice available at the time, which was under constant review.

                  And you may have missed the point in the Rand Paul clip that he is not anti vax.

                  I threw your own words back at you and even told you so, but you obviously missed that aka selective blindness.

                  You on the other hand have made your mind up. Everyone else like me is either misguided or simply a nuts. Seems to me you have painted yourself into a corner.

                  Yes, I have made up my mind that you are nuts & dangerous spreading lies, BS, and misinformation and it didn’t start at the beginning of this thread @ 5 either. Here on this site and in my job, I question & challenge status quo consensus in many areas, including science. My corner is wide open; your corner is a dark deep rabbit hole.

                  Please quit while you still can because you’re at risk of being outperformed and outlasted by a lettuce.

          • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.3

            Your dogmatic position on COVID that Big Pharma and public health officials always knew best is no longer holding water. Here is an excellent report written by a highly respected Australian public servant and funded independently. In its Conclusion (p79) it states:

            The last few years might be hard to explain to future generations. For many of us, the story of COVID-19 will be one of inconvenience. It will be a story of cutting our own hair, struggling to exercise, missed holidays, too much takeaway, too much ‘click and collect’ and endless Zoom meetings. Those who made the decisions on COVID-19 were almost all in this group.

            For others, COVID-19 will be a story of trauma, isolation and terrifying uncertainty. It will be a story of being locked in overcrowded housing, job loss and missing out on government supports. It will be a story of more domestic violence, increased alcohol abuse, and deteriorating mental and physical health. It will be a story of loss and the brutal realisation of not being able to say final goodbyes to loved ones.

            Never again, we might say. But if we don’t want to make the same mistakes again, we need to learn from what happened. We need to assess what worked well and what did not. Frankly, Australia does not have a good history of learning from our past.

            This Review identified five key lessons: the need to have societal fault lines front of mind; the need to plan, prepare and practise; the need to avoid the perils of overreach; the need for transparency, clarity and consistency; and the need to better balance competing trade-offs. These lessons need to be embedded into the institutions and frameworks that make and inform decisions.

            In this Review, we have focused on those who would be particularly impacted in a pandemic, not just because that is what a fair society does, but because in a health crisis protecting our most vulnerable should be at the forefront of decision-making. It was our greatest failure during COVID-19. Our institutions, decision-making framework

            https://independentcovidreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/FAULT-LINES-1.pdf

            There are lessons to be learned from the COVID event – but there is no longer any justification to suppress or mock dissenting views and open discussion. Otherwise the same mistakes will be repeated.

            [I’ve always had considerable respect for you but now you’re crossing a line, which is making up BS about what I said and what I think. This is the same line you’ve crossed many times with weka too hence your very recent ban from all her posts for the rest of the year (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17-10-2022/#comment-1916019 and lead-up warning https://thestandard.org.nz/sunflower-oil/#comment-1915989).

            To spell it out for you:

            Your dogmatic position on COVID that Big Pharma and public health officials always knew best is no longer holding water.

            Utter bollocks and I never said such a thing and you’re misrepresenting my position, which is not fixed, BTW.

            There are lessons to be learned from the COVID event – but there is no longer any justification to suppress or mock dissenting views and open discussion. Otherwise the same mistakes will be repeated.

            Unclear what this refers to specifically but IMO repeated wilful ignorance and denial are deliberate obstacles put in the way by some who use disinformation as a weapon to manipulate others. In any case, the learning curve has been steep and rocky and is by no means over; many uncomfortable facts and inconvenient truths will still be found but simultaneously, many questions will remain unanswered. NB the pandemic is not over yet!

            Don’t cross that line with me again. This is your warning – Incognito]

            • Drowsy M. Kram 5.1.1.1.3.1

              There are lessons to be learned from the COVID event

              I prefer the phrase 'COVID pandemic' – regrettably our collective anti-COVID measures caused real hardship for many, but the virus was/is one of a number of serious threats to public health – wake me up when "it's over".

              WHO says COVID-19 is still a global health emergency
              [21 Oct 2022]
              "This pandemic has surprised us before and very well may again," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters.

              And I make no apologies for believing that Covid Plan B remains mockable.

              • RedLogix

                I standby my four key arguments:

                Firstly the source was almost certainly a lab leak of some sort. (The Sachs interview Francesca references above speaks authoritatively to this.)

                In Oct 20 when I made that statement you link to we knew enough about the virus (before it mutated) to have completely eradicated it.

                Thirdly that Omicron (which also has a peculiar origin story) would effectively end the most critical phase. Whether there will be surprises in the future is impossible to know and worthless to speculate on.

                And finally that at root this was a disease of living inside. Lack of sunshine, disregulated immune systems and poor ventilation were factors that public health officials never properly explored.

                • Drowsy M. Kram

                  Unraveling the Causes of the Pandemic, and Preparing for the Next [19 Oct 2022]
                  There is a consensus among experts that it came almost certainly from a wild animal, most likely a horseshoe bat from somewhere in southern or Central China, and spilled over into humans, possibly by way of an intermediate animal.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2#Reservoir_and_origin

                  You made four assertions – you believe them, whereas I think 1 – 3 are examples of wishful thinking, with confirmation bias filling in the gaps.

                  One question: During October 2020 the number of detected active COVID-19 infections increased from 6.1 to 9.5 million. What actions could 'we' have taken back then "to have completely eradicated it"?

                  I hope your third assertion is correct, but it's "worthless to speculate on."

                  Absent definitive evidence (and maybe not even then) we will each go to dust adhering to our largely incompatible COVID beliefs.

                  As the Australian "Fault Lines" report that you linked to concludes:

                  Learning from the COVID-19 crisis will be vital if we are to be better prepared for the next health crisis. Because one thing is certain: there will be another.

                  The virus unthinkingly exploited existing societal “fault lines” to facilitate its spread, and knowingly exploiting societal “fault lines” to maintain privilege is inexcusable, imho. “Do you know who I am?

                  • RedLogix

                    Well all the evidence suggests that if we put an end to insanely risky 'gain of function' research – as the Obama Administration was attempting to do – this would very likely eliminate at least one source of future nasty surprises.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      Ending "insanely risky" GoF research would certainly eliminate that as a source of "future nasty surprises" – no "very likely" about it.

                      The histories of science, technology and engineering are liberally sprinkled with the unintended consequences of innovation – ‘progress’ sometimes comes at a price, but she’ll be right.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences#Perverse_consequences_of_environmental_intervention

                    • RedLogix

                      Yes tradeoffs and unintended consequences are normal – indeed if you are not making mistakes you are not learning or progressing. But the wonderful thing about the scientific method is that it embeds curiosity and critical thinking at it's heart.

                      Thus we can learn from our mistakes if we are allowed to think and talk about them openly.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      Thus we can learn from our mistakes if we are allowed to think and talk about them openly.

                      Absolutely: (i) curiosity, (ii) scepticism, and (iii) learning from mistakes, are fundamental elements of research/investigation. But in order to benefit from (iii), it's necessary to recognise the mistake, which can be difficult – for all sorts of reasons.

                  • RedLogix

                    There is a consensus among experts that it came almost certainly from a wild animal, most likely a horseshoe bat from somewhere in southern or Central China, and spilled over into humans, possibly by way of an intermediate animal.

                    Again listen to the Jeffery Sachs interview Francesca linked to above. It amounts to a whistleblower account.

                    Frankly there is nothing that rules out the lab leak, and considering all the bad faith behaviour around it that is now extensively documented anyone who refuses to contemplate it is immediately dubious in my view.

                    Nor is there anything that rules out zoonotic origin, but so far despite every motive to find the spillover event solid evidence remains elusive.

                    What we do know is that something happened in Wuhan around the Sept Oct 2019 timeframe – but far too many people have worked very hard to obscure the truth.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      I agree the “lab leak” hypothesis cannot be ruled out – what puzzles me is why some think this is the most likely origin. Not an evidence-based belief (imho), so maybe there are other contributing factors?

                      There are still people arguing what I call the “nefarious origins”school of thought, which encompasses the idea that it’s an intentionally engineered virus, or that it was a virus manipulated for scientific reasons in lab, or that it was a wild virus brought into the lab and cultured and that accidentally escaped. Do we know, absolutely, that this was not the result of a lab leak? I’d say we know with 98 or 99 percent probability … You can’t persuasively argue or infer that this virus resulted from a lab leak until you place this virus in a lab somewhere. And there is no evidence whatsoever that this virus existed in any viral lab that works on coronaviruses.

                      We may never find the precursor virus of this virus, the one that’s 99.6 percent similar to the original Wuhan strain. We hope that we will. But that virus presumably exists in a horseshoe bat somewhere in southern China, and that virus could potentially go extinct before we find it … It took 41 years to identify the reservoir host of Marburg virus. And for the original SARS virus of 2003, it took 14 years. So when people say, “Oh, if this had come from a wild animal, we would have found it by now,” they really just don’t know what they’re talking about.

                    • RedLogix

                      @DMK

                      I’d say we know with 98 or 99 percent probability … You can’t persuasively argue or infer that this virus resulted from a lab leak until you place this virus in a lab somewhere. And there is no evidence whatsoever that this virus existed in any viral lab that works on coronaviruses.

                      You can only reach that conclusion by obtusely ignoring a mountain of evidence pointing to:

                      1. We know that the experiments were being done. Sachs fully elaborates from his inside knowledge on this.

                      2. We know the methodology to produce COVID was perfectly feasible. Again fully documented and well understood for years prior.

                      3. We know that large numbers of different coronavirus's were being collected by the WIV. Yet the public databases were pulled from public scrutiny and have never been made accessible since.

                      4. We know that the Chinese authorities actively blocked any open, trusted investigation.

                      5. We know key investigators were deeply compromised by conflict of interest. Literally we were allowing them to investigate their own negligence. Many others who claim it could not be a lab leak are also compromised professionally.

                      As a consequence, claiming there is no evidence of this specific virus being worked on in a lab (as your quote does), when every effort has been made not to find it – is blatantly dishonest.

                      We also know for certain that lab leaks do happen, quite frequently. And that WIV was doing coronavirus GoF work under completely inadequate safety level protocols.

                      It takes a willful act of obfuscation to pretend the lab leak hypothesis is 99% unlikely, when there is a mountain of evidence and a strong chain of reasoning suggesting otherwise.

                    • RedLogix

                      @DMK

                      It took 41 years to identify the reservoir host of Marburg virus. And for the original SARS virus of 2003, it took 14 years.

                      Rather selective examples that ignores the rapid progress of technology since Marburg was first recognised in 1967, or SARs in 2002.

                      Animal hosts for more recent examples like MERs were far more rapidly identified.

                      PS:

                      https://www.gmwatch.org/en/2022/19962-revelations-on-lancet-editor-who-published-letter-slamming-covid-lab-leak-theory-as-conspiracy

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      @RedLogix

                      It takes a willful act of obfuscation to pretend the lab leak hypothesis is 99% unlikely, when there is a mountain of evidence and a strong chain of reasoning suggesting otherwise.

                      According to consensus expert opinion, the 'lab leak' chain of reasoning is not as strong as the zoonotic origin hypothesis.

                      Pandemic origins and a One Health approach to preparedness and prevention: Solutions based on SARS-CoV-2 and other RNA viruses [10 Oct 2022]
                      The increasing scientific evidence concerning the origins of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is most consistent with a zoonotic origin and a spillover pathway from wildlife to people via wildlife farming and the wildlife trade.

                      What level of certainty do you attach to the 'lab leak' hypothesis? 1%? 2%? 98%? 99%?

                      The origin of SARS-CoV-2 may never be known, and if it remains unknown then we can agree to disagree about the most likely origin. At least neither of us has ruled out either hypothesis.

                      Could enthusiastic championing of the 'lab leak' hypothesis be linked to the natural desire to be in control? That is to say, if SARS-CoV-2 originated in GoF experiments and escaped the lab, then it's relatively easy to prevent future pandemics – whereas a zoonotic origin and spillover is more problematic, in that controlling such events would entail a greater commitment of resources, and much greater disruption of socioeconomic BAU.

                    • RedLogix

                      What level of certainty do you attach to the 'lab leak' hypothesis? 1%? 2%? 98%? 99%?

                      Personally given the extensive reading I have done on this topic, I would put it at 90%.

                      But even if we split the difference and said 50:50 this would still rationally imply we need to guard against both future zoonotic spillovers and misadventures in laboratory settings.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      But even if we split the difference and said 50:50 this would still rationally imply we need to guard against both future zoonotic spillovers and misadventures in laboratory settings.

                      Of course, and guarding against lab ‘misadventures’ is relatively straightforward, imho. Whereas guarding against zoonotic spillovers is increasingly problematic, which is a pity given that most of the recent outbreaks of new viral diseases in human populations have an established zoonotic contribution.

                      Five virus families that could cause the next pandemic
                      [7 Sept 2022]

                      Ask a Doctor: Why are so many viruses popping up again? [19 Spet 2022]
                      Reports of monkeypox, Ebola, polio and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic are unnerving but not surprising

                      Pop pop pop…

                      Monkeypox outbreak in nonendemic regions (May 2022)

                      Cluster of Chapare hemorrhagic fever in Bolivia (June 2022)

                      Outbreak of Ebola virus disease due to Sudan species in Uganda (September 2022)

                      I’ve done some reading of my own wink

            • Incognito 5.1.1.1.3.2

              @ RedLogix 2022/10/22 at 2:31 pm:

              I assume this was a reply to me. Correct me if I’m wrong.

              • RedLogix

                Yes it was.

                The report I linked to and quoted is soberly and conservatively written. The lead author is highly respected across political lines here in Aus and I thought we might both find useful points of agreement within it.

                • Incognito

                  Oh dear, that’s no good then. I appreciate that you may want to build a bridge but that wasn’t clear at all to me and dumping a 100-page report on me was bit much, don’t you think? I still have no idea what that report has got to do with my comment @ 5.1.1.1 to which you replied @ 2:31 pm. It seems more of a personal attack [on me] than a good starting point for a constructive discussion about Covid-19; there is a distinction between the science & research on Covid-19 and government actions during the ongoing pandemic.

                  I will let you know in advance that you will receive a Mod note for crossing a line @ 2:31 pm, so that you’re prepared. If you feel the need to litigate it then I kindly ask that you use the back-end for that, which is an option that is available to you and avoids running foul of this site’s Policy.

                  • RedLogix

                    Nope. I do not use the backend because I believe in keeping these things public. In the past we have seen some terrible fallouts between authors because of this lack of transparency in the backend. It is useful for administrative, policy and housekeeping matters – but in my experience not a good place to resolve questions of principle.

                    All I ask is that you tell me why you think a repeated reference to 'angry white men' is not a blatant example of casual racism. (When you would never dream of saying 'angry yellow men' for instance.) Especially considering that skin colour had nothing to do with the topic in question.

                    And my sense of humour or lack thereof probably doesn't come into it.

                    • Incognito

                      Your choice, but you know that “[a]rguing with moderation” is a bad move and I make no exceptions, i.e., I fully intend to ban you if/when pull that stunt on me as Mod. I gave you the courtesy of a pre-warning, twice now.

                      Your comment @ 2:31 pm had nothing to do with my comment @ 5.1.1.1. You didn’t ask me anything of the kind then & there!? However, I still intend to respond to your comment @ 12:13 pm, which was on-topic.

                    • RedLogix

                      Just for clarity – I have zero intention of arguing with your moderation. I fully understand that; hell I probably made that rule up myself years back.

                      I was however reacting to your comment at 11:05am.

                • Incognito

                  Our Government is not shying away from learning the hard lessons and is considering setting up an enquiry into the Covid-19 response in NZ.

                  https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/476919/government-signals-covid-19-inquiry-in-the-works

            • Incognito 5.1.1.1.3.3

              Mod note

  6. joe90 6

    The Times pol editor.

    • Stuart Munro 6.1

      A certain Mr P is understood to have offered to take on the burden of Tory leadership. He has a condition, citizens must complete a referendum, but he is offering a free all expenses paid trip to southern Europe.

    • Shanreagh 7.1

      Brilliant! As a person who has done over a million campaign meetings Mayor Brown cannot possibly be incorrect.

      Laugh a minute if it wasn't so serious – just like Trump.

  7. Joe90 8

    2022 in a nutshell; dismantling renewables to get at the fossil fuel.

    https://www.energate-messenger.com/news/227506/wind-farm-gives-way-to-garzweiler-open-cast-mine

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Government steps up to assist Auckland during flooding
    As the Mayor of Auckland has announced a state of emergency, the Government, through NEMA, is able to step up support for those affected by flooding in Auckland. “I’d urge people to follow the advice of authorities and check Auckland Emergency Management for the latest information. As always, the Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Poroporoaki: Titewhai Te Huia Hinewhare Harawira
    Ka papā te whatitiri, Hikohiko ana te uira, wāhi rua mai ana rā runga mai o Huruiki maunga Kua hinga te māreikura o te Nota, a Titewhai Harawira Nā reira, e te kahurangi, takoto, e moe Ka mōwai koa a Whakapara, kua uhia te Tai Tokerau e te kapua pōuri ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Enhanced Task Force Green Approved following Cyclone Hale
    Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development and Employment, has activated Enhanced Taskforce Green (ETFG) in response to flooding and damaged caused by Cyclone Hale in the Tairāwhiti region. Up to $500,000 will be made available to employ job seekers to support the clean-up. We are still investigating whether other parts ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • General Election to be held on 14 October 2023
    The 2023 General Election will be held on Saturday 14 October 2023, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. “Announcing the election date early in the year provides New Zealanders with certainty and has become the practice of this Government and the previous one, and I believe is best practice,” Jacinda ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces resignation
    Jacinda Ardern has announced she will step down as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. Her resignation will take effect on the appointment of a new Prime Minister. A caucus vote to elect a new Party Leader will occur in 3 days’ time on Sunday the 22nd of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Trade and Agriculture Minister to attend World Economic Forum and Global Forum for Food and Agricult...
    The Government is maintaining its strong trade focus in 2023 with Trade and Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor visiting Europe this week to discuss the role of agricultural trade in climate change and food security, WTO reform and New Zealand agricultural innovation. Damien O’Connor will travel tomorrow to Switzerland to attend the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government funding relief for flood-affected Wairarapa farmers and growers
    The Government has extended its medium-scale classification of Cyclone Hale to the Wairarapa after assessing storm damage to the eastern coastline of the region. “We’re making up to $80,000 available to the East Coast Rural Support Trust to help farmers and growers recover from the significant damage in the region,” ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government provides support to flooded Tairāwhiti communities
    The Government is making an initial contribution of $150,000 to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Tairāwhiti following ex-Tropical Cyclone Hale, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced. “While Cyclone Hale has caused widespread heavy rain, flooding and high winds across many parts of the North Island, Tairāwhiti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government support for flood-affected Gisborne Tairāwhiti farmers and growers
    Rural Communities Minister Damien O’Connor has classified this week’s Cyclone Hale that caused significant flood damage across the Tairāwhiti/Gisborne District as a medium-scale adverse event, unlocking Government support for farmers and growers. “We’re making up to $100,000 available to help coordinate efforts as farmers and growers recover from the heavy ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Monkeypox vaccination available to eligible people from next week 
    A vaccine for people at risk of mpox (Monkeypox) will be available if prescribed by a medical practitioner to people who meet eligibility criteria from Monday 16 January, says Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall.   5,000 vials of the vaccine have been obtained, enough for up to 20,000 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago