Thread: Mike Loder

And how much of that goes on behind closed doors and actually trying to form meaningful relationships with people, groups and departments / organisations etc.

Originally Posted by Nugget connaisseur

And how much of that goes on behind closed doors and actually trying to form meaningful relationships with people, groups and departments / organisations etc.

Yes, "forming a relationship with you" avoids them having to promise you anything, you believe what you want because you trust them, you want to believe they want your best ... because you "have a relationship" with them. And then they screw you over and you have no promises to fall back on. Anyone know, is NZP recruiting for their firearms advisory group?

A very fine tribute to Mike from the Daily Examiner.
https://www.thedailyexaminer.co.nz/m...der-a-tribute/

Listening to Mikes submission to the select committee it was clear that the committee members had researched Mikes blogs and the like and used anything they could find to try to discredit him so that they could discredit his submission. As he often pointed out, he dealt with facts, which are the thing most politicians and people with agenda's hate the most.
To raise the question as to weather or not he was a fit and proper person shows a level of desperation and fear of facts, which must bring into question the neutrality and objectiveness of those on the committee.
I bet none of pro gun control submitter's were subject to such challenge.

Originally Posted by gmm

Listening to Mikes submission to the select committee it was clear that the committee members had researched Mikes blogs and the like and used anything they could find to try to discredit him so that they could discredit his submission. As he often pointed out, he dealt with facts, which are the thing most politicians and people with agenda's hate the most.
To raise the question as to weather or not he was a fit and proper person shows a level of desperation and fear of facts, which must bring into question the neutrality and objectiveness of those on the committee.
I bet none of pro gun control submitter's were subject to such challenge.

So true, "suitably qualified" should mean knowledgeable in the subject with real world experience not ideologically suitable. Government select committees would probably evaporate overnight.

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

So true, "suitably qualified" should mean knowledgeable in the subject with real world experience not ideologically suitable. Government select committees would probably evaporate overnight.

Yea they are only for window dressing at the best of times, the Government set the terms of reference and appoint who sits on the committee, so often the outcome is pre determined. The Government learnt a very valuable lesson when the appointed Justice Peter Mahon to head the enquiry into the Erebus disaster as he reported the truth. They could not control him so had to discredit him as they did not want to be accountable.
With their manipulation of select committees and boards of enquiry the first focus is not the facts or truth but damage control.
We saw this with the royal commission into the Mosque shooting, Police were never held to account for fiasco of the vetting and issuing of the firearms licence.