On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say otherwise so why are you trying to distract?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernance
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with >>your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a >>politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we >>are
well rid.
There is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his
view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister AyeshaOff topic
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
andOff topic
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a
post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “wellWhich is why he was finally sacked, duh!
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about
political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from theTotally off topic.
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with
Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he
did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is
clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceThere is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a >politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are
well rid.
view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with
Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he
did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernance
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your >minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a >politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are >well rid.
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:32:37?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:importance and it's definite that none of your lies or distractions will get the right decision reversed!
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceThere is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a >> >politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more
competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are
well rid.
Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his
view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Campbell breached the rules Rich. No matter how many lies and distractions you post it comes down to Campbell either thinking the rules didn't apply to him. Or that he wasn't happy in the jobs and wanted to get sacked! Nothing else matters or is of
distrust the country has in Labour...
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
So what?!
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a
post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
He broke the rules and suffered the consequences!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about
political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Sso why are you pointing out that campbell was way out of line? Stupidity or just typical of fucking imbeciles like you Rich?!
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National
Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with
Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he
did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is
clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
So what? It doesn't make any difference wether Campbell was telling the truth or just being a typical lefty loon like you and spouting utter crap. HE_BROKE_THE_FUCKING_RULES!!! He left those who appointed him no choice if they wanted to restore the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say otherwise so why are you trying to distract?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with >>>yourhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernance
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a >>>politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>>competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we >>>are
well rid.
There is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >>Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his
view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Off topic
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
Off topic
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a
post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
Indeed he was sacked for expressing the obvious - that the OppositionWhich is why he was finally sacked, duh!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about >>political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Yet again you use a spurious argument to try and avoid material you doTotally off topic.
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >>Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with >>Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he
did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is >>clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
His opinion of National's policy was not his to publish publicly, he was not >permitted to (so he got fired - excellent!) - why can you not follow that >simple logic?
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:05:14 -0800 (PST), John Bowesimportance and it's definite that none of your lies or distractions will get the right decision reversed!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:32:37?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceThere is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >> >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are
well rid.
Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his
view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Campbell breached the rules Rich. No matter how many lies and distractions you post it comes down to Campbell either thinking the rules didn't apply to him. Or that he wasn't happy in the jobs and wanted to get sacked! Nothing else matters or is of
distrust the country has in Labour...
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because >> of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
So what?!
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a >> post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
He broke the rules and suffered the consequences!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about
political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Sso why are you pointing out that campbell was way out of line? Stupidity or just typical of fucking imbeciles like you Rich?!
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National
Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with
Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he
did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is
clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
So what? It doesn't make any difference wether Campbell was telling the truth or just being a typical lefty loon like you and spouting utter crap. HE_BROKE_THE_FUCKING_RULES!!! He left those who appointed him no choice if they wanted to restore the
What happens with water continues to be of great importance to most
New Zealanders. Campbell summarised the pathetic policies of National
well. That he got sacked for saying it is a fact on whuch we can all
agree - that his assessment of National was also correct is what we
have left to contemplate. It is called moving on, John Bowes, but I understand why you do not want to face up to the failure of Luxon in
this area . . .
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:35?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:importance and it's definite that none of your lies or distractions will get the right decision reversed!
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:05:14 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:32:37?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceThere is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >> >> >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are
well rid.
Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his
view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Campbell breached the rules Rich. No matter how many lies and distractions you post it comes down to Campbell either thinking the rules didn't apply to him. Or that he wasn't happy in the jobs and wanted to get sacked! Nothing else matters or is of
distrust the country has in Labour...
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
So what?!
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a
post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
He broke the rules and suffered the consequences!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about
political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Sso why are you pointing out that campbell was way out of line? Stupidity or just typical of fucking imbeciles like you Rich?!
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National
Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with
Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he
did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is
clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
So what? It doesn't make any difference wether Campbell was telling the truth or just being a typical lefty loon like you and spouting utter crap. HE_BROKE_THE_FUCKING_RULES!!! He left those who appointed him no choice if they wanted to restore the
position he held and suffered the consequences. Hell considering your stupidity Rich I'm forced to wonder if you may in fact be Campbell you're both as imbecilic as each other. It may be a requirement for fanatical supporters of Labour and the left likeWhat happens with water continues to be of great importance to most
New Zealanders. Campbell summarised the pathetic policies of National
well. That he got sacked for saying it is a fact on whuch we can all
agree - that his assessment of National was also correct is what we
have left to contemplate. It is called moving on, John Bowes, but I
understand why you do not want to face up to the failure of Luxon in
this area . . .
Once again you talk shit in defence of what has to be the most unpopular and stupid pipe dream from Labour. Doesn't make any difference whether Campbell told the unvarnished truth or not. He fucked up and broke one of the most important rules in the
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 02:22:47 -0800 (PST), John BowesIrrelevant off-topic drivel.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:35?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:05:14 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:32:37?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What happens with water continues to be of great importance to most
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
There is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >>> >> Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his >>> >> view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. Wehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceEvery senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree >>> >> >with your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will
convince a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>> >> >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and >>> >> >we are
well rid.
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Campbell breached the rules Rich. No matter how many lies and distractions >>> >you post it comes down to Campbell either thinking the rules didn't apply to
him. Or that he wasn't happy in the jobs and wanted to get sacked! Nothing else
matters or is of importance and it's definite that none of your lies or >>> >distractions will get the right decision reversed!
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
So what?!
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a >>> >> post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
He broke the rules and suffered the consequences!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about
political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Sso why are you pointing out that campbell was way out of line? Stupidity >>> >or just typical of fucking imbeciles like you Rich?!
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >>> >> Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with >>> >> Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he >>> >> did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is >>> >> clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
So what? It doesn't make any difference wether Campbell was telling the >>> >truth or just being a typical lefty loon like you and spouting utter crap. >>> >HE_BROKE_THE_FUCKING_RULES!!! He left those who appointed him no choice if they
wanted to restore the distrust the country has in Labour...
New Zealanders. Campbell summarised the pathetic policies of National
well. That he got sacked for saying it is a fact on whuch we can all
agree - that his assessment of National was also correct is what we
have left to contemplate. It is called moving on, John Bowes, but I
understand why you do not want to face up to the failure of Luxon in
this area . . .
Once again you talk shit in defence of what has to be the most unpopular and >>stupid pipe dream from Labour. Doesn't make any difference whether Campbell >>told the unvarnished truth or not. He fucked up and broke one of the most >>important rules in the position he held and suffered the consequences. Hell >>considering your stupidity Rich I'm forced to wonder if you may in fact be >>Campbell you're both as imbecilic as each other. It may be a requirement for >>fanatical supporters of Labour and the left like you Rich...
I consider it significant that you appear to accept that Campbell's
comments were essentially corrrect, just that he should not have said
them.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 02:22:47 -0800 (PST), John Bowesimportance and it's definite that none of your lies or distractions will get the right decision reversed!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:35?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:05:14 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:32:37?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceThere is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >> >> Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his >> >> view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We >> >> can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance >> >> of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more
competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are
well rid.
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Campbell breached the rules Rich. No matter how many lies and distractions you post it comes down to Campbell either thinking the rules didn't apply to him. Or that he wasn't happy in the jobs and wanted to get sacked! Nothing else matters or is of
distrust the country has in Labour...
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
So what?!
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a
post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
He broke the rules and suffered the consequences!
Sso why are you pointing out that campbell was way out of line? Stupidity or just typical of fucking imbeciles like you Rich?!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well >> >> outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins >> >> said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about >> >> political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance." >> >
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >> >> Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with >> >> Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he >> >> did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is >> >> clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
So what? It doesn't make any difference wether Campbell was telling the truth or just being a typical lefty loon like you and spouting utter crap. HE_BROKE_THE_FUCKING_RULES!!! He left those who appointed him no choice if they wanted to restore the
position he held and suffered the consequences. Hell considering your stupidity Rich I'm forced to wonder if you may in fact be Campbell you're both as imbecilic as each other. It may be a requirement for fanatical supporters of Labour and the left likeWhat happens with water continues to be of great importance to most
New Zealanders. Campbell summarised the pathetic policies of National
well. That he got sacked for saying it is a fact on whuch we can all
agree - that his assessment of National was also correct is what we
have left to contemplate. It is called moving on, John Bowes, but I
understand why you do not want to face up to the failure of Luxon in
this area . . .
Once again you talk shit in defence of what has to be the most unpopular and stupid pipe dream from Labour. Doesn't make any difference whether Campbell told the unvarnished truth or not. He fucked up and broke one of the most important rules in the
I consider it significant that you appear to accept that Campbell'sI consider that you're just a lying imbecile trying to defend another lying imbecile Rich. 3 waters is a disgusting piece of legislation worthy of Stalin himself ! Your every post in this thread proves that Rich. So you lose yet again...
comments were essentially corrrect, just that he should not have said
them.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:05:14 -0800 (PST), John BowesThis thread is not about water you fool (another fool).
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:32:37?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
There is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Robhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceEvery senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with >>> >your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince >>> >a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>> >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we >>> >are
well rid.
Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his
view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Campbell breached the rules Rich. No matter how many lies and distractions >>you post it comes down to Campbell either thinking the rules didn't apply to >>him. Or that he wasn't happy in the jobs and wanted to get sacked! Nothing else
matters or is of importance and it's definite that none of your lies or >>distractions will get the right decision reversed!
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
So what?!
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a
post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
He broke the rules and suffered the consequences!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about
political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
Sso why are you pointing out that campbell was way out of line? Stupidity or >>just typical of fucking imbeciles like you Rich?!
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National
Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with
Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he
did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is
clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
So what? It doesn't make any difference wether Campbell was telling the truth >>or just being a typical lefty loon like you and spouting utter crap. >>HE_BROKE_THE_FUCKING_RULES!!! He left those who appointed him no choice if they
wanted to restore the distrust the country has in Labour...
What happens with water continues to be of great importance to most
New Zealanders. Campbell summarised the pathetic policies of National
well. That he got sacked for saying it is a fact on whuch we can all
agree - that his assessment of National was also correct is what we
have left to contemplate. It is called moving on, John Bowes, but I >understand why you do not want to face up to the failure of Luxon in
this area . . .
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 04:44:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyBo you are not. You are changing the subject.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say otherwise so why are you trying to distract?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with >>>>yourhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernance
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a >>>>politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>>>competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we >>>>are
well rid.
There is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >>>Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his >>>view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
The words are still there above: "Every senior public servant should
have learned that if you disagree with your minister you need to
develop a well supported argument that will convince a politician
(unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more
competent).
He failed to do that and went public "
That is what I am referring to.
There is no indication that Campbell disagreed at all with his
Ministers in relation to desirable policy, or indeed that they
disagreed with the personal opinion that he expressed. His fault was
in expressing that personal opinion in public.
I accept that other posters to nz.general do not agree with his
personal opinion; many believe that it is absolutely correct.
Off topic
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha >>>Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because
of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
Very much on topic - it indicates that the government does not suffer
any divisions on these issues.
Off topic
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the >>>National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a >>>post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
No, it is a record of the personal opinion which he expressed. This
thread is the first suggestion that there was any disagreement within >government, or between government and key advisers - the fool in hte
Subject of the thread is therefore the initial poster - that would be
you, Tony.
Indeed he was sacked for expressing the obvious - that the OppositionWhich is why he was finally sacked, duh!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the >>>requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about >>>political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance."
has bad policies - we know that, but the head of a crown entity should
not express such disagreement publicly.
Yet again you use a spurious argument to try and avoid material you doTotally off topic.
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >>>Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the >>>policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with >>>Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he >>>did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is >>>clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
not like or would rather thad not been said. The comments that were
made by Campbell, and that he should not have said, are true and
correct, and what is more you know that National have botched this one
as they have so many other things. Off topic? No, they indicate why
you Tony are yet again 'protesting too much', in the hope of avoiding >reality.
His opinion of National's policy was not his to publish publicly, he was not >>permitted to (so he got fired - excellent!) - why can you not follow that >>simple logic?
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 04:44:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:The words are still there above: "Every senior public servant should
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say otherwise so why are you trying to distract?
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with >>>yourhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernance
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>>competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we
are
well rid.
There is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >>Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his >>view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
have learned that if you disagree with your minister you need to
develop a well supported argument that will convince a politician
(unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more
competent).
He failed to do that and went public "
That is what I am referring to.
There is no indication that Campbell disagreed at all with his
Ministers in relation to desirable policy, or indeed that they
disagreed with the personal opinion that he expressed. His fault was
in expressing that personal opinion in public.
I accept that other posters to nz.general do not agree with his
personal opinion; many believe that it is absolutely correct.
Very much on topic - it indicates that the government does not sufferOff topic
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha >>Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health >>Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because >>of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
any divisions on these issues.
No, it is a record of the personal opinion which he expressed. ThisOff topic
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the >>National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a >>post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on >>co-governance”.
thread is the first suggestion that there was any disagreement within government, or between government and key advisers - the fool in hte
Subject of the thread is therefore the initial poster - that would be
you, Tony.
Indeed he was sacked for expressing the obvious - that the Opposition
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well >>outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the >>requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins >>said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about >>political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance." >Which is why he was finally sacked, duh!
has bad policies - we know that, but the head of a crown entity should
not express such disagreement publicly.
Yet again you use a spurious argument to try and avoid material you doTotally off topic.
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >>Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the >>policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with >>Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he >>did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is >>clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
not like or would rather thad not been said. The comments that were
made by Campbell, and that he should not have said, are true and
correct, and what is more you know that National have botched this one
as they have so many other things. Off topic? No, they indicate why
you Tony are yet again 'protesting too much', in the hope of avoiding reality.
His opinion of National's policy was not his to publish publicly, he was not
permitted to (so he got fired - excellent!) - why can you not follow that >simple logic?
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 04:44:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not say otherwise so why are you trying to distract?
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree withhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernance
your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>>>competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we
are
well rid.
There is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >>>Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his >>>view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We >>>can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance >>>of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he >>>was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
The words are still there above: "Every senior public servant should
have learned that if you disagree with your minister you need to
develop a well supported argument that will convince a politician
(unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more
competent).
He failed to do that and went public "
That is what I am referring to.Bo you are not. You are changing the subject.
There is no indication that Campbell disagreed at all with his
Ministers in relation to desirable policy, or indeed that they
disagreed with the personal opinion that he expressed. His fault was
in expressing that personal opinion in public.
I accept that other posters to nz.general do not agree with his
personal opinion; many believe that it is absolutely correct.
Off topic
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha >>>Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health >>>Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because >>>of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of >>>health decision making.”
Very much on topic - it indicates that the government does not suffer
any divisions on these issues.
Off topic
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the >>>National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a >>>post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on >>>co-governance”.
No, it is a record of the personal opinion which he expressed. This
thread is the first suggestion that there was any disagreement within >government, or between government and key advisers - the fool in hte >Subject of the thread is therefore the initial poster - that would be
you, Tony.
Indeed he was sacked for expressing the obvious - that the Opposition
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well >>>outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the >>>requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins >>>said Campbell had been fired purely because he’d broken rules about >>>political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance." >>Which is why he was finally sacked, duh!
has bad policies - we know that, but the head of a crown entity should
not express such disagreement publicly.
Yet again you use a spurious argument to try and avoid material you doTotally off topic.
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >>>Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the >>>policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with >>>Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he >>>should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he >>>did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is >>>clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total >>>misreading of the article.
not like or would rather thad not been said. The comments that were
made by Campbell, and that he should not have said, are true and
correct, and what is more you know that National have botched this one
as they have so many other things. Off topic? No, they indicate why
you Tony are yet again 'protesting too much', in the hope of avoiding >reality.
His opinion of National's policy was not his to publish publicly, he was not
permitted to (so he got fired - excellent!) - why can you not follow that >>simple logic?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernance
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your >minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a >politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are >well rid.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 02:22:47 -0800 (PST), John Bowesimportance and it's definite that none of your lies or distractions will get the right decision reversed!
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:34:35?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:05:14 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 5:32:37?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 03:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131378830/rob-campbell-says-ministers-targeted-him-after-he-stood-up-for-cogovernanceThere is no indication that the Minister agreed or disagreed with Rob >>> >> Campbell - it is clear he disagreed with Campbell's expression of his >>> >> view in public on an issue where there is political disagreement. We
Every senior public servant should have learned that if you disagree with your
minister you need to develop a well supported argument that will convince a
politician (unlike convincing a businessman who are generally much more >>> >> >competent).
He failed to do that and went public - he has only himself to blame and we are
well rid.
can guesss that the Minister may well have agreed with the substance
of Campbell's statement, but that is not the point of the reason he
was sacked, or of your misunderstanding.
Campbell breached the rules Rich. No matter how many lies and distractions you post it comes down to Campbell either thinking the rules didn't apply to him. Or that he wasn't happy in the jobs and wanted to get sacked! Nothing else matters or is of
distrust the country has in Labour...
The article includes for example: "However, Health Minister Ayesha
Verrall said she was “deeply committed” to the Maori Health
Authority’s success. “The Government created Te Aka Whai Ora because >>> >> of our commitment to Maori participation at the highest level of
health decision making.”
So what?!
and
"Campbell was sacked from both jobs after publicly criticising the
National Party’s policy on Three Waters. He described the policy, in a >>> >> post on LinkedIn, as a “thinly disguised dog whistle on
co-governance”.
He broke the rules and suffered the consequences!
Sso why are you pointing out that campbell was way out of line? Stupidity or just typical of fucking imbeciles like you Rich?!
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Campbell’s comments fell “well
outside” the expectations of public service leaders, given the
requirement that they remain politically impartial. Earlier, Hipkins
said Campbell had been fired purely because heÂ’d broken rules about
political impartiality – not because of his views on co-governance." >>> >
Now many people may agree with Rob Cameron's assesment of the National >>> >> Party's policy - it is clear that National has moved away from the
policies of the Key/English governments and does not wish to work with >>> >> Maori on issues such as water; but it has been determined that he
should not have given that opinion in public when he held the roles he >>> >> did. Labour have acted absolutely correctly. The fool in this case is >>> >> clearly Cameron, closely followed by you Tony for your total
misreading of the article.
So what? It doesn't make any difference wether Campbell was telling the truth or just being a typical lefty loon like you and spouting utter crap. HE_BROKE_THE_FUCKING_RULES!!! He left those who appointed him no choice if they wanted to restore the
position he held and suffered the consequences. Hell considering your stupidity Rich I'm forced to wonder if you may in fact be Campbell you're both as imbecilic as each other. It may be a requirement for fanatical supporters of Labour and the left likeWhat happens with water continues to be of great importance to most
New Zealanders. Campbell summarised the pathetic policies of National
well. That he got sacked for saying it is a fact on whuch we can all
agree - that his assessment of National was also correct is what we
have left to contemplate. It is called moving on, John Bowes, but I
understand why you do not want to face up to the failure of Luxon in
this area . . .
Once again you talk shit in defence of what has to be the most unpopular and stupid pipe dream from Labour. Doesn't make any difference whether Campbell told the unvarnished truth or not. He fucked up and broke one of the most important rules in the
I consider it significant that you appear to accept that Campbell's
comments were essentially corrrect, just that he should not have said
them.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:44:38 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,073 |