The “resolute and courageous” Sir Wilson Whineray
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Watched an obituary item on “Sir” Wilson Whineray on TV1′s Te Karere
this morning. They mentioned that the racially selected All Black team
team he led to apartheid South Africa in 1960 was disparagingly called
“Whineray’s Whites”. Against archival footage of massive anti-tour
marches (“No Maoris No Tour”), Māori football historian Malcolm
Mulholland claimed that “the decision was out of his hands” and that
the people who should bear the blame for the farcical situation were
“the administrators”.
Mulholland’s implication, clearly, was that Whineray, a thoroughly
decent man who found himself leading a racially selected team to play
according to the dictates of an apartheid regime, was actually far
better than that, and would no doubt have been opposed to the tour—-
but “the decision was out of his hands”.
Well, let’s fast-forward a couple of generations. Whineray, now
impressively titled “Sir” Wilson Whineray, after retiring from
football in 1965, has carved out a distinguished business career, most
notably with the forest products conglomerate Carter Holt Harvey,
where he was deputy managing director and then, for ten years,
chairman. It’s 2003, and Sir Wilson is retiring from Carter Holt
Harvey. He’s being interviewed by TV3′s John Campbell, who mentions
that Carter Holt Harvey had continued to trade with Chile, in defiance
of a worldwide trade union ban on trade with Pinochet’s U.S.-backed
terror regime.
Whineray did not miss a beat. “To continue to trade in such a
situation,” he intoned slowly and carefully, “took considerable
resolution and courage. We just did what we thought was the right
thing.”
There you have it: Sir Wilson Whineray, powerful administrator of a
powerful international conglomerate, thinks he was resolute and
courageous to defy human rights protests and trade bans and trade with
a fascist regime. So much for Malcolm Mulholland’s theory about
Whineray’s innate decency being over-ruled by “the administrators”.
Oh, and what was John Campbell’s reaction, you ask. Campbell nodded
his head, gravely, respectfully, thoughtfully, clearly overawed by the
mana of the great man.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Watched an obituary item on “Sir” Wilson Whineray on TV1′s Te Karere
this morning. They mentioned that the racially selected All Black team
team he led to apartheid South Africa in 1960 was disparagingly called
“Whineray’s Whites”. Against archival footage of massive anti-tour
marches (“No Maoris No Tour”), Māori football historian Malcolm
Mulholland claimed that “the decision was out of his hands” and that
the people who should bear the blame for the farcical situation were
“the administrators”.
Mulholland’s implication, clearly, was that Whineray, a thoroughly
decent man who found himself leading a racially selected team to play
according to the dictates of an apartheid regime, was actually far
better than that, and would no doubt have been opposed to the tour—-
but “the decision was out of his hands”.
Well, let’s fast-forward a couple of generations. Whineray, now
impressively titled “Sir” Wilson Whineray, after retiring from
football in 1965, has carved out a distinguished business career, most
notably with the forest products conglomerate Carter Holt Harvey,
where he was deputy managing director and then, for ten years,
chairman. It’s 2003, and Sir Wilson is retiring from Carter Holt
Harvey. He’s being interviewed by TV3′s John Campbell, who mentions
that Carter Holt Harvey had continued to trade with Chile, in defiance
of a worldwide trade union ban on trade with Pinochet’s U.S.-backed
terror regime.
Whineray did not miss a beat. “To continue to trade in such a
situation,” he intoned slowly and carefully, “took considerable
resolution and courage. We just did what we thought was the right
thing.”
There you have it: Sir Wilson Whineray, powerful administrator of a
powerful international conglomerate, thinks he was resolute and
courageous to defy human rights protests and trade bans and trade with
a fascist regime. So much for Malcolm Mulholland’s theory about
Whineray’s innate decency being over-ruled by “the administrators”.
Oh, and what was John Campbell’s reaction, you ask. Campbell nodded
his head, gravely, respectfully, thoughtfully, clearly overawed by the
mana of the great man.
Click here to Reply
 |
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 06:41:58 UTC+13, Morrissey Breen wrote:
> The “resolute and courageous” Sir Wilson Whineray
> Wednesday, October 24, 2012
<snip>> The “resolute and courageous” Sir Wilson Whineray
> Wednesday, October 24, 2012
What trade ban was in effect at the time?
What would have been the effect of CHH ceasing to trade with Chile?
|
On Oct 24, 8:00 am, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 06:41:58 UTC+13, Morrissey Breen wrote:
> > The “resolute and courageous” Sir Wilson Whineray
> > Wednesday, October 24, 2012
>
> <snip>
>
> What trade ban was in effect at the time?
Following the U.S.-backed overthrow of the democratically elected> On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 06:41:58 UTC+13, Morrissey Breen wrote:
> > The “resolute and courageous” Sir Wilson Whineray
> > Wednesday, October 24, 2012
>
> <snip>
>
> What trade ban was in effect at the time?
government and the subsequent bloody crackdown against workers and
human rights activists, trade union organizations around the world
imposed a ban on handling products going to or from Chile. It caused
some irritation in this country from the usual suspects, but most
people could understand why the ban was in place. In this country,
only Carter Holt Harvey, under its "resolute and courageous" deputy
managing director cum chairman defied the ban.
>
> What would have been the effect of CHH ceasing to trade with Chile?
the effects of people refusing to eat sugar in the eighteenth century?
To people like you, JohnO, who only think in terms of money, there was
probably little or no effect.
|
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 08:50:26 UTC+13, Morrissey Breen wrote:
> On Oct 24, 8:00 am, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 8:00 am, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > What trade ban was in effect at the time?
><snip>> > What trade ban was in effect at the time?
> trade union organizations around the world
> imposed a ban on handling products going to or from Chile.
I see, so there was no ban for CHH to avoid then, just a union based ban.> imposed a ban on handling products going to or from Chile.
So how did CHH trade with Chile? Did the NZ unions not refuse to handle CHH product bound for Chile? In that case why are you whining about CHH who were not a party to any bans, but not whining about the NZ unions who must have broken a ban thus backstabbing their international brothers and trampling on the oppressed people of Chile? Those dirty unions!
> It caused
> some irritation in this country from the usual suspects, but most
> people could understand why the ban was in place. In this country,
> only Carter Holt Harvey, under its "resolute and courageous" deputy
> managing director cum chairman defied the ban.
> > What would have been the effect of CHH ceasing to trade with Chile?
> What were the effects of ceasing to trade with South Africa?
> What were
> the effects of people refusing to eat sugar in the eighteenth century?
> To people like you, JohnO, who only think in terms of money, there was
> probably little or no effect.
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16dd43d1-1128-49f2-abcb-
The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Watched an obituary item on "Sir" Wilson Whineray on TV1's Te Karere
this morning. They mentioned that the racially selected All Black team
team he led to apartheid South Africa in 1960 was disparagingly called
"Whineray's Whites". Against archival footage of massive anti-tour
marches ("No Maoris No Tour"), Maori football historian MalcolmWednesday, October 24, 2012
Watched an obituary item on "Sir" Wilson Whineray on TV1's Te Karere
this morning. They mentioned that the racially selected All Black team
team he led to apartheid South Africa in 1960 was disparagingly called
"Whineray's Whites". Against archival footage of massive anti-tour
Mulholland claimed that "the decision was out of his hands" and that
the people who should bear the blame for the farcical situation were
"the administrators".
Mulholland's implication, clearly, was that Whineray, a thoroughly
decent man who found himself leading a racially selected team to play
according to the dictates of an apartheid regime, was actually far
better than that, and would no doubt have been opposed to the tour--the people who should bear the blame for the farcical situation were
"the administrators".
Mulholland's implication, clearly, was that Whineray, a thoroughly
decent man who found himself leading a racially selected team to play
according to the dictates of an apartheid regime, was actually far
but "the decision was out of his hands".
Well, let's fast-forward a couple of generations. Whineray, now
impressively titled "Sir" Wilson Whineray, after retiring from
football in 1965, has carved out a distinguished business career, most
notably with the forest products conglomerate Carter Holt Harvey,
where he was deputy managing director and then, for ten years,
chairman. It's 2003, and Sir Wilson is retiring from Carter Holt
Harvey. He's being interviewed by TV3's John Campbell, who mentions
that Carter Holt Harvey had continued to trade with Chile, in defiance
of a worldwide trade union ban on trade with Pinochet's U.S.-backed
terror regime.
Whineray did not miss a beat. "To continue to trade in such a
situation," he intoned slowly and carefully, "took considerable
resolution and courage. We just did what we thought was the right
thing."
There you have it: Sir Wilson Whineray, powerful administrator of a
powerful international conglomerate, thinks he was resolute and
courageous to defy human rights protests and trade bans and trade with
a fascist regime. So much for Malcolm Mulholland's theory about
Whineray's innate decency being over-ruled by "the administrators".
Oh, and what was John Campbell's reaction, you ask. Campbell nodded
his head, gravely, respectfully, thoughtfully, clearly overawed by the
mana of the great man.
........................Well, let's fast-forward a couple of generations. Whineray, now
impressively titled "Sir" Wilson Whineray, after retiring from
football in 1965, has carved out a distinguished business career, most
notably with the forest products conglomerate Carter Holt Harvey,
where he was deputy managing director and then, for ten years,
chairman. It's 2003, and Sir Wilson is retiring from Carter Holt
Harvey. He's being interviewed by TV3's John Campbell, who mentions
that Carter Holt Harvey had continued to trade with Chile, in defiance
of a worldwide trade union ban on trade with Pinochet's U.S.-backed
terror regime.
Whineray did not miss a beat. "To continue to trade in such a
situation," he intoned slowly and carefully, "took considerable
resolution and courage. We just did what we thought was the right
thing."
There you have it: Sir Wilson Whineray, powerful administrator of a
powerful international conglomerate, thinks he was resolute and
courageous to defy human rights protests and trade bans and trade with
a fascist regime. So much for Malcolm Mulholland's theory about
Whineray's innate decency being over-ruled by "the administrators".
Oh, and what was John Campbell's reaction, you ask. Campbell nodded
his head, gravely, respectfully, thoughtfully, clearly overawed by the
mana of the great man.
If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of it.
And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
long as they break no laws.
I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
even notice.
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
On Oct 24, 11:52 pm, "Geopelia" <Geope...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Morrissey Breen" <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
> long as they break no laws.
Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
against government actions or inactions.
>
> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
> even notice.
They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
since 2003.
> "Morrissey Breen" <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
- show quoted text -
>
> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
> long as they break no laws.
against government actions or inactions.
>
> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
> even notice.
people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
since 2003.
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of it.
>
>Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
>>
>> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
>> long as they break no laws.
>
>Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
>against government actions or inactions.
>
>>
>> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
>> even notice.
>
>They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
>people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
>in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
>since 2003.
That's on the world stage.>>
>> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of it.
>
>Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
>>
>> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
>> long as they break no laws.
>
>Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
>against government actions or inactions.
>
>>
>> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
>> even notice.
>
>They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
>people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
>in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
>since 2003.
NZ is not in that league.
The great unwashed bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s would have been of
little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
African.
>
> NZ is not in that league.
Ah, yes we are. Why do you think the French government sent terrorists
down here in 1985?
>
> The great unwashed
What a sniffy display of contempt for democracy. Do you vote ACT,
perchance?
>
> bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s
Of course the protests were about far more than that. But you know
that perfectly well. By the way: attempting to trivialize the protests
by sneeringly labeling them as "bitching" does nothing at all for your
credibility.
>
> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success for the
protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of it.
>
> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
> >> long as they break no laws.
>
> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
> >against government actions or inactions.
>
> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
> >> even notice.
>
> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
> >since 2003.
>
> That's on the world stage.
New Zealand was definitely on the world stage in 1981. Ask a South>
> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of it.
>
> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
> >> long as they break no laws.
>
> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
> >against government actions or inactions.
>
> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
> >> even notice.
>
> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
> >since 2003.
>
> That's on the world stage.
African.
>
> NZ is not in that league.
down here in 1985?
>
> The great unwashed
What a sniffy display of contempt for democracy. Do you vote ACT,
perchance?
>
> bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s
that perfectly well. By the way: attempting to trivialize the protests
by sneeringly labeling them as "bitching" does nothing at all for your
credibility.
>
> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success for the
protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of it.
>>
>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>>
>> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
>> >> long as they break no laws.
>>
>> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
>> >against government actions or inactions.
>>
>> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
>> >> even notice.
>>
>> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
>> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
>> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
>> >since 2003.
>>
>> That's on the world stage.
>
>New Zealand was definitely on the world stage in 1981. Ask a South
>African.
You are dreaming.>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of it.
>>
>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>>
>> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own business as
>> >> long as they break no laws.
>>
>> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
>> >against government actions or inactions.
>>
>> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if they
>> >> even notice.
>>
>> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
>> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
>> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
>> >since 2003.
>>
>> That's on the world stage.
>
>New Zealand was definitely on the world stage in 1981. Ask a South
>African.
>
>>
>> NZ is not in that league.
>
>Ah, yes we are. Why do you think the French government sent terrorists
>down here in 1985?
Because there were total arseholes>>
>> NZ is not in that league.
>
>Ah, yes we are. Why do you think the French government sent terrorists
>down here in 1985?
>
>>
>> The great unwashed
>
>What a sniffy display of contempt for democracy. Do you vote ACT,
>perchance?
Flour bombing Eden park is contempt for democracy.>>
>> The great unwashed
>
>What a sniffy display of contempt for democracy. Do you vote ACT,
>perchance?
>
>>
>> bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s
>
>Of course the protests were about far more than that. But you know
>that perfectly well. By the way: attempting to trivialize the protests
>by sneeringly labeling them as "bitching" does nothing at all for your
>credibility.
>
>>
>> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
>
>The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
>cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success
It nothing more than Mob rule.>>
>> bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s
>
>Of course the protests were about far more than that. But you know
>that perfectly well. By the way: attempting to trivialize the protests
>by sneeringly labeling them as "bitching" does nothing at all for your
>credibility.
>
>>
>> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
>
>The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
>cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success
Did I see you grandstanding about contempt for democracy.
for the
>protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
>democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
released.
That happen because the vile government finally realised they were in the wrong.
The great unwashed rioting in NZ. Was of little consequence.
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
"Liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
news:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
>>> <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of
>>> >> it.
>>>
>>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
Some thought it right, some thought it wrong. And many just had a good> <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
>>> <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of
>>> >> it.
>>>
>>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
laugh.
>>>
>>> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own
>>> >> business as
>>> >> long as they break no laws.
>>>
>>> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
>>> >against government actions or inactions.
arrested, don't they?
Probably the lawmakers wouldn't have thought anyone would be so stupid.
But a properly organised protest that doesn't interfere with the rights of
others should be allowed.
>>>
>>> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if
>>> >> they
>>> >> even notice.
>>>
>>> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
>>> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
>>> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
>>> >since 2003.
>>>
>>> That's on the world stage.
war with.
Suppose they had done it in an American port?
>>
>>New Zealand was definitely on the world stage in 1981. Ask a South
>>African.
>
> You are dreaming.
>>
>>>
>>> NZ is not in that league.
>>
>>Ah, yes we are. Why do you think the French government sent terrorists
>>down here in 1985?
>
> Because there were total arseholes
>>>
>>> The great unwashed
>>
>>What a sniffy display of contempt for democracy. Do you vote ACT,
>>perchance?
But it might be a good idea to hose those that camp on public land, with a
fire engine.
>
> Flour bombing Eden park is contempt for democracy.
The problem was having a small plane buzzing about so low, as a serious
accident could have happened.
>>
>>>
>>> bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s
>>
>>Of course the protests were about far more than that. But you know
>>that perfectly well. By the way: attempting to trivialize the protests
>>by sneeringly labeling them as "bitching" does nothing at all for your
>>credibility.
It was sad for the poor gullible fools sucked into it, and injured in the
rioting.
And for the police, expected to keep order.
>>>>
>>> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
>>
>>The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
>>cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success
>
> It nothing more than Mob rule.
> Did I see you grandstanding about contempt for democracy.
them off the pitch. Nobody would need to be injured if they were just
pushed.
There were enough big chaps there to do it. Heads down and "engage".
But perhaps that didn't occur to anyone.
>
>
> for the
>>protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
>>democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
>
>
> It might of given the leaders encouragement. But wouldn't have made and
> difference to getting them
> released.
> That happen because the vile government finally realised they were in the
> wrong.
> The great unwashed rioting in NZ. Was of little consequence.
in material things?
Have they cleaned up those shanty towns yet?
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, "Geopelia" <Geope...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Liberty" <libert...@live.com> wrote in message
equivalent of streakers, are they?
>
> Probably the lawmakers wouldn't have thought anyone would be so stupid.
"Stupid"? The protestors outwitted the police, invaded the pitch and
stopped a game featuring a racially selected team from a pariah state.
That was a major accomplishment, and received worldwide coverage.
>
> But a properly organised protest that doesn't interfere with the rights of
> others should be allowed.
This was a superbly organized protest. Your concern for the rights of
spectators is touching, but misguided. Many, many football fans
boycotted those matches; it was only the ideologues and the
unimaginably naïve who watched or approved of those matches. People
like the young Gerry Brownlee and John Key, in other words.
>
>
>
> >>> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if
> >>> >> they
> >>> >> even notice.
>
> >>> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
> >>> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
> >>> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
> >>> >since 2003.
>
> >>> That's on the world stage.
>
> The French had no business attacking a ship in a country they were not at
> war with.
> Suppose they had done it in an American port?
It depends who the terror is committed against. Terrorists have often
committed outrages on American soil, even on the streets of Washington
D.C., and yet the perpetrators are protected by the U.S. government.
Have a read of THIS....
http://www.democracynow.org/
>
>
>
> >>New Zealand was definitely on the world stage in 1981. Ask a South
> >>African.
>
> > You are dreaming.
>
> >>> NZ is not in that league.
>
> >>Ah, yes we are. Why do you think the French government sent terrorists
> >>down here in 1985?
>
> > Because there were total arseholes
>
> Because they thought a small country was fair game, I suppose.
True. But they got that horribly wrong.
>
>
>
> >>> The great unwashed
>
> >>What a sniffy display of contempt for democracy. Do you vote ACT,
> >>perchance?
>
> Unwashed? Their personal hygiene is their own business.
> But it might be a good idea to hose those that camp on public land, with a
> fire engine.
>
>
>
> > Flour bombing Eden park is contempt for democracy.
>
> But wasn't it funny!
>
> The problem was having a small plane buzzing about so low, as a serious
> accident could have happened.
>
>
>
> >>> bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s
>
> >>Of course the protests were about far more than that. But you know
> >>that perfectly well. By the way: attempting to trivialize the protests
> >>by sneeringly labeling them as "bitching" does nothing at all for your
> >>credibility.
>
> It was trivial, until it turned nasty.
> It was sad for the poor gullible fools sucked into it, and injured in the
> rioting.
> And for the police, expected to keep order.
Actually, it was the extreme violence used by the police that
exacerbated the disorder. Have a look at the documentary evidence
again.
>
>
>
> >>> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
>
> >>The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
> >>cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success
>
> > It nothing more than Mob rule.
> > Did I see you grandstanding about contempt for democracy.
>
> It was surprising that the men in the crowd didn't get stuck in and scrum
> them off the pitch. Nobody would need to be injured if they were just
> pushed.
> There were enough big chaps there to do it. Heads down and "engage".
> But perhaps that didn't occur to anyone.
You're dreaming. Most of the louts in the crowd were too drunk to do
anything as organized as that.
>
>
>
> > for the
> >>protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
> >>democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
>
> > It might of given the leaders encouragement. But wouldn't have made and
> > difference to getting them
> > released.
> > That happen because the vile government finally realised they were in the
> > wrong.
> > The great unwashed rioting in NZ. Was of little consequence.
>
> Africans have "freedom" now,
Why the quotation marks?
>
> but how much better off are the average people in material things?
> Have they cleaned up those shanty towns yet?
No they haven't, yet. But are you trying to suggest that slavery or
apartheid are superior to democracy?
> "Liberty" <libert...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> news:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> > <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> >>> <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of
> >>> >> it.
>
> >>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
> Some thought it right, some thought it wrong. And many just had a good
> laugh.
>
>
>
> >>> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own
> >>> >> business as
> >>> >> long as they break no laws.
>
> >>> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
> >>> >against government actions or inactions.
>
> I wonder of there is a law against interfering with a game. Streakers get
> arrested, don't they?
So... thoughtful and committed pro-democracy protestors are the>
> >>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> >>> <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end of
> >>> >> it.
>
> >>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
> Some thought it right, some thought it wrong. And many just had a good
> laugh.
>
>
>
> >>> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own
> >>> >> business as
> >>> >> long as they break no laws.
>
> >>> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
> >>> >against government actions or inactions.
>
> I wonder of there is a law against interfering with a game. Streakers get
> arrested, don't they?
equivalent of streakers, are they?
>
> Probably the lawmakers wouldn't have thought anyone would be so stupid.
stopped a game featuring a racially selected team from a pariah state.
That was a major accomplishment, and received worldwide coverage.
>
> But a properly organised protest that doesn't interfere with the rights of
> others should be allowed.
spectators is touching, but misguided. Many, many football fans
boycotted those matches; it was only the ideologues and the
unimaginably naïve who watched or approved of those matches. People
like the young Gerry Brownlee and John Key, in other words.
>
>
>
> >>> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if
> >>> >> they
> >>> >> even notice.
>
> >>> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
> >>> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
> >>> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
> >>> >since 2003.
>
> >>> That's on the world stage.
>
> The French had no business attacking a ship in a country they were not at
> war with.
> Suppose they had done it in an American port?
committed outrages on American soil, even on the streets of Washington
D.C., and yet the perpetrators are protected by the U.S. government.
Have a read of THIS....
http://www.democracynow.org/
>
>
>
> >>New Zealand was definitely on the world stage in 1981. Ask a South
> >>African.
>
> > You are dreaming.
>
> >>> NZ is not in that league.
>
> >>Ah, yes we are. Why do you think the French government sent terrorists
> >>down here in 1985?
>
> > Because there were total arseholes
>
> Because they thought a small country was fair game, I suppose.
>
>
>
> >>> The great unwashed
>
> >>What a sniffy display of contempt for democracy. Do you vote ACT,
> >>perchance?
>
> Unwashed? Their personal hygiene is their own business.
> But it might be a good idea to hose those that camp on public land, with a
> fire engine.
>
>
>
> > Flour bombing Eden park is contempt for democracy.
>
> But wasn't it funny!
>
> The problem was having a small plane buzzing about so low, as a serious
> accident could have happened.
>
>
>
> >>> bitching about a rugby game with south Africa in the 1980s
>
> >>Of course the protests were about far more than that. But you know
> >>that perfectly well. By the way: attempting to trivialize the protests
> >>by sneeringly labeling them as "bitching" does nothing at all for your
> >>credibility.
>
> It was trivial, until it turned nasty.
> It was sad for the poor gullible fools sucked into it, and injured in the
> rioting.
> And for the police, expected to keep order.
exacerbated the disorder. Have a look at the documentary evidence
again.
>
>
>
> >>> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
>
> >>The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
> >>cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success
>
> > It nothing more than Mob rule.
> > Did I see you grandstanding about contempt for democracy.
>
> It was surprising that the men in the crowd didn't get stuck in and scrum
> them off the pitch. Nobody would need to be injured if they were just
> pushed.
> There were enough big chaps there to do it. Heads down and "engage".
> But perhaps that didn't occur to anyone.
anything as organized as that.
>
>
>
> > for the
> >>protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
> >>democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
>
> > It might of given the leaders encouragement. But wouldn't have made and
> > difference to getting them
> > released.
> > That happen because the vile government finally realised they were in the
> > wrong.
> > The great unwashed rioting in NZ. Was of little consequence.
>
> Africans have "freedom" now,
>
> but how much better off are the average people in material things?
> Have they cleaned up those shanty towns yet?
apartheid are superior to democracy?
|
Re: The "resolute and courageous" Sir Wilson Whineray
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, "Geopelia" <Geope...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Liberty" <libert...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> > <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> >>> <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> it.
>
> >>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
> Some thought it right, some thought it wrong. And many just had a good
> laugh.
>
>
>
> >>> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own
> >>> >> business as
> >>> >> long as they break no laws.
>
> >>> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
> >>> >against government actions or inactions.
>
> I wonder of there is a law against interfering with a game. Streakers get
> arrested, don't they?
So... thoughtful and committed pro-democracy protestors are the
equivalent of streakers, are they?
.............................> "Liberty" <libert...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> > <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 25, 10:40 am, Liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Morrissey Breen
> >>> <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> If the government allowed something, that should have been the end
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> it.
>
> >>> >Really? So citizens have no say in what is right and wrong, then?
>
> Some thought it right, some thought it wrong. And many just had a good
> laugh.
>
>
>
> >>> >> And if people want to start protest marches that is their own
> >>> >> business as
> >>> >> long as they break no laws.
>
> >>> >Most protests break no laws. It is (still) our right to speak freely
> >>> >against government actions or inactions.
>
> I wonder of there is a law against interfering with a game. Streakers get
> arrested, don't they?
So... thoughtful and committed pro-democracy protestors are the
equivalent of streakers, are they?
Of course not. They looked a pretty weedy lot to me. Most streakers are
young and fit.
But the Russian Doukhobors had a good idea. A mass nude demonstration would
have got world attention!
..............................
>
> Probably the lawmakers wouldn't have thought anyone would be so stupid.
"Stupid"? The protestors outwitted the police, invaded the pitch and
stopped a game featuring a racially selected team from a pariah state.
That was a major accomplishment, and received worldwide coverage.
..........................> Probably the lawmakers wouldn't have thought anyone would be so stupid.
"Stupid"? The protestors outwitted the police, invaded the pitch and
stopped a game featuring a racially selected team from a pariah state.
That was a major accomplishment, and received worldwide coverage.
People had paid to see that game, and those poor misguided fools had no
right to try to stop them.
The ringleaders should have been jailed.
What on earth has Rugby to do with the internal affairs of another country?
..............................
>
> But a properly organised protest that doesn't interfere with the rights of
> others should be allowed.
This was a superbly organized protest. Your concern for the rights of
spectators is touching, but misguided. Many, many football fans
boycotted those matches; it was only the ideologues and the
unimaginably na�ve who watched or approved of those matches. People> But a properly organised protest that doesn't interfere with the rights of
> others should be allowed.
This was a superbly organized protest. Your concern for the rights of
spectators is touching, but misguided. Many, many football fans
boycotted those matches; it was only the ideologues and the
like the young Gerry Brownlee and John Key, in other words.
..............................Were they boycotting the matches, or avoiding the risk of being injured in a
demonstration?
..............................
>
>
>
> >>> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if
> >>> >> they
> >>> >> even notice.
>
> >>> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
> >>> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
> >>> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
> >>> >since 2003.
Greenpeace was protesting aginst atomic tests, not Rugby games.>
>
> >>> >> I wonder what the countries being protested against think of it, if
> >>> >> they
> >>> >> even notice.
>
> >>> >They notice, all right. They'll even go to the extent of killing
> >>> >people to get even with the protestors, as the French government did
> >>> >in 1985, and the U.S. occupation force has done repeatedly in Iraq
> >>> >since 2003.
>
> >>> That's on the world stage.
>
> The French had no business attacking a ship in a country they were not at
> war with.
> Suppose they had done it in an American port?
It depends who the terror is committed against. Terrorists have often
committed outrages on American soil, even on the streets of Washington
D.C., and yet the perpetrators are protected by the U.S. government.
Have a read of THIS....
http://www.democracynow.org/
..............................> >>> That's on the world stage.
>
> The French had no business attacking a ship in a country they were not at
> war with.
> Suppose they had done it in an American port?
It depends who the terror is committed against. Terrorists have often
committed outrages on American soil, even on the streets of Washington
D.C., and yet the perpetrators are protected by the U.S. government.
Have a read of THIS....
http://www.democracynow.org/
That link doesn't work. They say they have recently redesigned the web
page, and there may be a bug.
..............................
- show quoted text -
If the demonstrators had dispersed quietly when asked to, no violence would
have been needed.
In Britain, somebody would have read the Riot Act. Then, the rioters must
desist, or force may be used.
Perhaps there should be something like that here.
..............................
>
>
> >>> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
>
> >>The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
> >>cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success
............................>
> >>> would have been of little interest to anyone outside of NZ.
>
> >>The protests were covered extensivbely around the world. The
> >>cancellation of the game in Hamilton was a sensational success
It gave the world a good laugh, anyway.
.............................
>
> > It nothing more than Mob rule.
> > Did I see you grandstanding about contempt for democracy.
>
> It was surprising that the men in the crowd didn't get stuck in and scrum
> them off the pitch. Nobody would need to be injured if they were just
> pushed.
> There were enough big chaps there to do it. Heads down and "engage".
> But perhaps that didn't occur to anyone.
You're dreaming. Most of the louts in the crowd were too drunk to do
anything as organized as that.
Yes, some might have been drinking. But "most"? I doubt it.
There would have been a few "louts" there, but most were respectable
citizens.
.......................
>
> > for the
> >>protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
> >>democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
>
> > It might of given the leaders encouragement. But wouldn't have made and
> > difference to getting them
> > released.
> > That happen because the vile government finally realised they were in
> > the
> > wrong.
> > The great unwashed rioting in NZ. Was of little consequence.
>
> Africans have "freedom" now,
Why the quotation marks?
........................> > for the
> >>protest movement---and it gave great encouragement to jailed
> >>democratic leaders languishing in South Africa's jails at the time.
>
> > It might of given the leaders encouragement. But wouldn't have made and
> > difference to getting them
> > released.
> > That happen because the vile government finally realised they were in
> > the
> > wrong.
> > The great unwashed rioting in NZ. Was of little consequence.
>
> Africans have "freedom" now,
Why the quotation marks?
Do you consider them really free? The more educated ones perhaps, but what
about the others?
Does being considered "free' compensate for a life of poverty, squalor,
crime and ignorance?
..........................
> but how much better off are the average people in material things?
> Have they cleaned up those shanty towns yet?
No they haven't, yet. But are you trying to suggest that slavery or
apartheid are superior to democracy?
........................> Have they cleaned up those shanty towns yet?
No they haven't, yet. But are you trying to suggest that slavery or
apartheid are superior to democracy?
Doesn't it rather depend on the living conditions provided?
What kind of democracy?
Government by the votes of the educated intelligent, or by the votes of the
ignorant masses?
Modern democracy after all is government by those chosen by the majority of
the voters. Those who make the most promises are likely to get voted in.
Then of course "circumstances" don't allow the promises to be kept.
But it's all water under the bridge now, isn't it?
|
The 81 Tour
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:46:18 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
It hasn't.
The then National government was correct in not interfering on who
could tour. As it has got nothing to do with the state.
The old farts in the rugby union abused that right . The selfish gits
invited the south African team.
knowing full well. It would give the left an excuse to riot.
The media portrayed a wave of anti tour.
Where as in reality it was the lefties whipping up mass hysteria .
Any excuse to riot against Muldoon.
Which also proved the left are a mob of thickos . considering on the
economic front Muldoon was one of them. A right little commie.
wrote:
- show quoted text -
The then National government was correct in not interfering on who
could tour. As it has got nothing to do with the state.
The old farts in the rugby union abused that right . The selfish gits
invited the south African team.
knowing full well. It would give the left an excuse to riot.
The media portrayed a wave of anti tour.
Where as in reality it was the lefties whipping up mass hysteria .
Any excuse to riot against Muldoon.
Which also proved the left are a mob of thickos . considering on the
economic front Muldoon was one of them. A right little commie.
|
Re: The 81 Tour
"Liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
- show quoted text -
Today there are far more serious problems to worry about than a Rugby tour.
Somebody always seems to be protesting about something, and who cares,
or even knows what the protest is about?
|
Re: The 81 Tour
"Geopelia" Wrote:
≤⅝ Back in those days, New Zealand was a great place to live.
≤⅝ Today there are far more serious problems to worry about than a Rugby
tour.
.tour.
POLITICAL OPIATE STRATEGY FOR THE MASSES:
" Bread And Circus "
SPORTS IS THE SERIOUS PROBLEM !
Sports Organisations Are Proven Part Of A Mafia Rigged-Outcome Racket,
When Vast Manipulation Of Games Is Evident World-Wide With Allegations
Of Direct Evidence -- That Mafia Game Soccer (Futbol) And The Enormous
Repeated Concusions Of Soccer Balls Hitting The Heads Of The Deluded
Who Promote That Boring Brain Damaging Mafia Rigged Sport Racket.
Keep Hitting Your Head (Soccer) Like Boxer Muhammad Ali !
The Long-Term Brain-Damage Strategy Of Soccer Mafia Racket.
.
≤⅝ Somebody always seems to be protesting about something,
≤⅝ and who cares, or even knows what the protest is about?
.A Known And Proven Media CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE,
When Any Hikoi Protest Or Environmental Protest Happens.
Plenty Of Time For Sports News, And Don't Forget The
Broadcasting Recipe For A Cute Dog Or Cat Or Animal
Story Inserted In The TV News.
†
†
†
ﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣ
Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Maangai Kaawanatanga - Tainui Kiingitanga - Te Aotearoa
http://www.exorcist.org.nz Ko te Mana Motuhake
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/
ﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣﺣ
|
Re: The 81 Tour
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:14:10 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>>
>
>Back in those days, New Zealand was a great place to live.
>Today there are far more serious problems to worry about than a Rugby tour.
>Somebody always seems to be protesting about something, and who cares,
>or even knows what the protest is about?
>
Geopelia. You are right. Why anyone would get there knickers in a
knot over a game of rugby is beyond me.
wrote:
>>
>
>Back in those days, New Zealand was a great place to live.
>Today there are far more serious problems to worry about than a Rugby tour.
>Somebody always seems to be protesting about something, and who cares,
>or even knows what the protest is about?
>
knot over a game of rugby is beyond me.
|
Re: The 81 Tour
"liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
news:
- show quoted text -
stadium with placards or having a street march. They were entitled to
express an opinion if they did it legally and peacefully.
It was the disorder and attempts to interfere with the games that made the
problems.
Perhaps the army should have been used rather than expecting the police to
deal with it, once it was obvious that the protests would become violent.
But that was up to the government of the day.
|
Re: The 81 Tour
"Geopelia" wrote
≤⅝ Perhaps the army should have been used rather
≤⅝ than expecting the police to deal with it, once it
≤⅝ was obvious that the protests would become violent.
.≤⅝ was obvious that the protests would become violent.
RIOTS TODAY:
ARMY-POLICE-ANARCHIST CONSPIRACY
LONDON, ENGLAND
Riots
Police Were Told To Stand-Down
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Protests
Police Organised And Housed The Anarchists
PEACEFUL PROTESTS WERE STOPPED BY POLICE
ORGANISED BLACK WEARING MASKED ANARCHISTS.
Then The Total Violence Against All The
Peaceful Protesters By The Sinister Police.
N.S.A. Front-Organisation (C.I.A.)
Used To:
Organise And Stage Looting
Threaten Mitt Romney
Organise London Rioters
WITHOUT HINDERANCE
- show quoted text -
|
Re: The 81 Tour
"liberty" Wrote:
≤⅝ Why anyone would get there knickers in
≤⅝ a knot over a game of rugby is beyond me.
.COLLUSIONS With In-Human Enslavement
APARTHEID Means Little To You
If Anything At All
- show quoted text -
|
Re: The 81 Tour
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:45:32 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
>news:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:14:10 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Back in those days, New Zealand was a great place to live.
>>>Today there are far more serious problems to worry about than a Rugby
>>>tour.
>>>Somebody always seems to be protesting about something, and who cares,
>>>or even knows what the protest is about?
>>>
>>
>> Geopelia. You are right. Why anyone would get there knickers in a
>> knot over a game of rugby is beyond me.
I doubt anyone got their knickers in a twist, "liberty" - although
most in those days would have understood that 'there' as you used it
was incorrect language.
>Nobody would have minded a peaceful protest, perhaps standing outside the
>stadium with placards or having a street march. They were entitled to
>express an opinion if they did it legally and peacefully.
>
>It was the disorder and attempts to interfere with the games that made the
>problems.
>Perhaps the army should have been used rather than expecting the police to
>deal with it, once it was obvious that the protests would become violent.
>But that was up to the government of the day.
>
By and large the protests were peaceful, but the situation became
inflamed through the thugery of at least one squad of baton-wielding
police. I understand that Meurant later believed that the violence
from teh police had been a mistake. Most New Zealanders acceped that
for the protests to be effective, they had to result in some
inconvenience - otherwise they would not have been reported, but for
most games it never got beyond inconvenience, largely through traffic
dispruption.
wrote:
>
>"liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
>news:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:14:10 +1300, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Back in those days, New Zealand was a great place to live.
>>>Today there are far more serious problems to worry about than a Rugby
>>>tour.
>>>Somebody always seems to be protesting about something, and who cares,
>>>or even knows what the protest is about?
>>>
>>
>> Geopelia. You are right. Why anyone would get there knickers in a
>> knot over a game of rugby is beyond me.
most in those days would have understood that 'there' as you used it
was incorrect language.
>Nobody would have minded a peaceful protest, perhaps standing outside the
>stadium with placards or having a street march. They were entitled to
>express an opinion if they did it legally and peacefully.
>
>It was the disorder and attempts to interfere with the games that made the
>problems.
>Perhaps the army should have been used rather than expecting the police to
>deal with it, once it was obvious that the protests would become violent.
>But that was up to the government of the day.
>
inflamed through the thugery of at least one squad of baton-wielding
police. I understand that Meurant later believed that the violence
from teh police had been a mistake. Most New Zealanders acceped that
for the protests to be effective, they had to result in some
inconvenience - otherwise they would not have been reported, but for
most games it never got beyond inconvenience, largely through traffic
dispruption.
|
Re: The 81 Tour
- show quoted text -
but the situation became
>inflamed through the thugery of at least one squad of baton-wielding
>police.
The riots had had been years in the planning. Since Kirk reneged on a promise
Not to stop the tour in the early 1970s. Unlike Muldoon . Kirk didn't have the bottle to stand
up to mob rule.
I understand that Meurant later believed that the violence
>from teh police had been a mistake. Most New Zealanders acceped that
>for the protests to be effective, they had to result in some
>inconvenience - otherwise they would not have been reported, but for
>most games it never got beyond inconvenience, largely through traffic
>dispruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment