Just a little bit of bias from someone managing a mine ehh .From the tone of this thread ,who gives a pooh about our environment,chocks away, fast track a kill on NZ,bulldoze the lot.Whatca sad day for NZ.
Printable View
Makes a change from the Reverse Gear Greens directing everything backwards and Labour bent over a barrel
having to grin & bear it ;)
Progress under the Left & Greens which everyone has gotten sick & tired of :)
There's smart environmental management & .. well - the Dozy dimwitted approach seen over the six years up to late last year
The project I'm involved with has already been assessed under the RMA as having environmental effects that are less than minor. Perhaps you should counter my argument instead of mouthing off on matters of which you have limited knowledge. I have pointed out James Shaw has had detrimental effects on the environment far outweighing any benefits that he has generated. Thus far you have made no argument to counter it, but you have made an unfounded and apparently ignorant smear.
Turns out Genter is quite the bully…
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fresh-...IAGOX5CPVPJ74/
New uniforms issued to all Green MPs - hopefully, will stop the shoplifting.:t_up:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images...ng?w=800&h=520
Shaw named three MPs including Nat’s Todd Muller who were his parliamentary friends. Muller credits Shaw with the bipartisanship behind Carbon Zero. It says a lot when senior leaders from across the spectrum have respect, and indeed friendship, for each other.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/01...of-nz-politics
Ouch. And check out the Claytons apology. First we have two lies:
Quote:
“It was the last thing I wanted to do was to intimidate anyone in this House. What has absolutely motivated me was a desire to share information that I believed would be of benefit to everyone in this House.
Clearly she did want to intimidate him otherwise why stand over him? Or maybe it's a statement of fact where intimidating him was the last thing to do on her list. Plus there are multiple other ways of sharing information legitimately in the House and given it was only shared with Mr Doocey the second sentence is also a lie.
And then we come to the non-apology:
Quote:
And I’m very sorry if in my passion to do so, I was intimidating. That was not my intention.”
If. "If in my passion to do so". What does that even mean? Taking that bit out leaves "I'm very sorry if [snip] I was intimidating". So if Mr Doocey did not find it intimidating then she is not sorry? So she's not sorry for losing her rag in Parliament, she's not sorry for crossing the floor, not sorry for screaming like a Banshee over the top of the Speaker, not sorry for any of her behaviour. She is only sorry if Mr Doocey found it intimidating. And it is somehow excused by being passionate about a topic? What a total piece of garbage.