PriceofFish wrote: For me I just can't understand how a New Zealand legal dispute fought between a group of Kiwi's could rule in favor of a Corporation (with a record of environmental disasters). |
cirrus wrote: They only talk about contamination at wynyard. But have yet to read what the contamination actually is. They avoid that detail because if the true level & toxicity was revealed it would not look good. |
PriceofFish wrote: The 5 Kiwi Judges presiding over this case should be sent to Invercargill, Gisborne,Whangarei or some other shiithole in New Zealand to work it out almost forgot Hamilton! |
SaltyC wrote:
I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of nonsense you have posted yet. You are proposing that a decision based on the law and the legal agreements entered into between two parties should be decided based on who the parties are not on the correct application of the law! Really, that is mind numbingly stupid. So you go to court in a dispute with someone and you present the documentation and the court says...... Nah, we don't like party "B" so we are just going to ignore the law and real in favour of party "A". Whether you agree with the outcome in this case or not you cannot possibly really propose that we ignore the law and make all future decisions based on who we like! |
Steps wrote: Pof If u dont understand what Salty is saying ..... let me put it this way You propose that we have a legal system that make decisions based on corporate political and social OPINIONS..As system that before a ruling is made has to assess anyone of the above depending on who is waiving the biggest stick... and not the legislation made by our elected representatives. OR in plain English, u wish to have a system based on the whims of some banana dictator like Adi Armin Which to have such a system be must dismantle our Westminster system of law and government, right down the the Magna Carta .. That mean ALL our parliament, local body government right down to how our local fish / car/ knitting clubs administer themselves Now since this is what u propose.. consciously or not.. the next question is ... sionce Adi Armin has died, who do you suggest instead? That IS the implications of your idioic comments |
hookerpuka wrote:
Hey Cock stain... I'm from whangarei and take offence to that dumb **** comment. Whangarei and northland are stunning and what's more. there's very few people complaining they can't catch fish up here... Although I'm sure if you moved up this way there would be 1. On the real topic though, how the hell can you tell a company that has not been responsible for all of the contamination they have to clean it completely up... Regardless of how much money they have that's just not right, previous tenants and also residing neighboring tenants are also at fault... |
hookerpuka wrote:
Hey Cock stain... I'm from whangarei and take offence to that dumb **** comment. Whangarei and northland are stunning and what's more. there's very few people complaining they can't catch fish up here... Although I'm sure if you moved up this way there would be 1. On the real topic though, how the hell can you tell a company that has not been responsible for all of the contamination they have to clean it completely up... Regardless of how much money they have that's just not right, previous tenants and also residing neighboring tenants are also at fault... |
cirrus wrote: Think we should change the name Mobil to the real name Exxon Mobil to put things in perspective. Exxon mobil is one of the most profitable trading companies in the world. They leased the site. But not only did fuel from coastal tankers come ashore here ,but every Chemical Tanker that visited Auckland berthed here. A huge array of toxic chemicals was pumped off these vessels,and from time to time small spillages occured during pump changes. Most on to hardfill. So surely Mobil Exxon should bear at least some liability. But no, the rate or tax payer will foot the bill.Very poor and shows the spineless ,possibly bought system we have. Laws are make only for the poor Remember the Exxon Valdez that ran aground in Prince William sound. Same company.That cost billions to clean up,yet it is said some claims agreed to for environmental restoration that still needs implementing have yet to be paid.Instead they were fought in the courts At that time it was estimated that $500 million was 12 hours revenue for the company. In perspective what is $10 million. Hate to think that when full scale offshore seabed oil exploration begins here,and if we had a major spill just who would foot the bill given that this precedent has been established here. |
Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >
Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >
Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >
Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >