Another Seminar/Panel discussion on “Current Threats to the Resource Management Act” – this time in Wellington – Saturday 25 May 1.30pm to 5pm. St Andrews On the Terrace (hall behind church). Hosted by Maryan Street, Labour MP for the Environment. All welcome. Gold coin koha to help cover costs. Speakers : Sir Geoffrey Palmer (original author of the RMA), Neil Deans (NZ Fish & Game) , Guy Salmon (ecologist). Please pass this message on to people in Wellington.
Morrissey5.1
“Sir” Geoffrey Palmer is a coward, a toady, an utter disgrace to this nation; he should be shunned by all decent people.Jenny Kirk5.1.1
whatever you think of Geoffrey Palmer, Morrissey, its more important that people get to know what is going to happen with the govt changes to the RMA – huge changes, a huge emphasis on economic growth instead of sustaining the environment – an encouragement for developers to just come in and “rip, shit and bust” what remains of the NZ landscape and waters.DH5.1.2
“Sir” Geoffrey Palmer is a coward, a toady, an utter disgrace to this nation; he should be shunned by all decent people.”What’s Palmer done to deserve that level of vitriol? He’s never struck me as a controversial person…- What’s Palmer done to deserve that level of vitriol? He’s never struck me as a controversial person…Thanks for asking, DH. At last someone with a bit of curiosity. Have a read of the following….
- I am aware of Palmer being involved in that but can’t see why the rage against him over it. Palmer is a lawyer with a pretty solid professional reputation and he appears to have interpreted the law as he saw it in the framework he was given to operate. Perhaps he wasn’t very wise to get involved in the first place but his actions there don’t seem to justify the vitriol you’ve directed at him.It was Palmer who authored our anti-smacking legislation, he’s one of the last people I’d think of being pro-Israel so maybe your angst is midirected there.
- Your comments show only that you have done no reading on this scandalous topic at all. That was, of course, obvious when you expressed bewilderment that the saintly fellow should be criticised at all.Your reference to the removal of Section 59 as “anti-smacking legislation” is similarly confused.
- You weren’t criticising Palmer, you were abusing and vilifying him. Big difference there. I was wondering at the display of naked malice & spite but I need wonder no more. I’ll leave you to it.
- You weren’t criticising Palmer, you were abusing and vilifying him.I was pointing out that Palmer allowed himself to be used as a stooge of a criminal, outlaw regime—something about which you were, incredibly, unaware. The reading I supplied for you was a fair, balanced and scholarly review of Palmer’s failure to act as a responsible and moral citizen; I could offer my own writing on the subject, of course, but I thought I’d leave it toMondoweiss. (Not that that would impress you, of course; your comments show that you didn’t bother to educate yourself on this matter.)
Murray Olsen5.1.2.1.2
Palmer didn’t exactly cover himself with glory with that report. Agreeing to participate, given the terms of reference and the presence of Uribe, was only the first bad move. What he ended up commenting on was a hypothetical situation which had very little to do with the actual events, but was eagerly used by the Israeli government to justify their actions. His performance was that of a toady.
