Evening I Caught most of an interview with Gerry Seinfeld on the “Teeve” and what I would ask the lady interviewer to do is to go and visit the hard working people of the tourism industry in the Ford Block in Rotorua and after listening to them she may have a change of mindset and advocate for tipping and not do anything less like now Then go and put those advocating for not tipping, including those who have been formally doing so, in the same venue as these same low paid workers and watch the result. Why are we shackled in this country with such a continuing low standard of “Lazy” media

Private Hospital for Cromwell? 10 November 2016
Might I suggest the idea of a private hospital in Cromwell now well established as the pivot point for Central Otago from whence the tentacle like road network arteries spread out and hence can justifiably be deemed the undisputed “Capital of Central Otago”
Perhaps with the formation of a charity which is a simple task, the candidates in the Central Lakes Trust elections can give their election pledges as to whether they would vote justifiable sums of money in the direction of this noble and health orientated cause.
Imagine if you will the various specialists visiting, examining and then operating locally. Remembering always “the customer is always right.”
Local land, local ownership, local tradies and local people utilising the service
Seems like a win win win win situation to me so what do each and every one of the candidates namely Allison, Michael John Richards; Butcher, Duncan Athol; Carruth, Stephen Grant; Claridge, Lynley; Duggan, Elizabeth Ada; Hall, Judith Frances; Hill, James Richard; Kemp, Herbert Charles; Mead, Peter John; Milne, Paul Stanley; Nisbet, Gordon Arthur; Spary, Robert Donald; Symons, Susan Elizabeth think please?
No Nukes
Cromwell Resident

Congratulations upon your election Mayor Cadogan but please get Council under your control and stick to your knitting For example how long does it take to organise a plumber to repair the public toilets off Barry Avenue One day, two days, three days, a week,? In the normal course of events the Council would have a contracted plumber and drain layer who would have to perform.
Our new Mayor is both a politician and a lawyer As I said to Andrew recently people don’t trust lawyers and politicians and this one just elected has got off to a “shithouse” and “auspicious” start.

This above displayed nonchalance hold me up and makes me late at work

As to Cromwell constantly being administered by Alexandra when we are truly the capital of Central Otago begs an explanation from the residents and voters Some will have two hats per se

We also need “Fresh Choice” in the supermarket realm Surely the Mayor should be able and willing to come out swinging on this score Which it needs to be pointed out is “New World” One Customers Nil
The Politician/Lawyers comments awaited with baited breath It is necessary to add that at well over the age of being able to purchase the drug alcohol I did offer “Legal Tender” recently, my prints were on the vessel and came away without my money and my thirst remains unquenched.  C’est la vie

No Nukes

Dear Jacinda Adhern List Labour Party M P.
With the recent announcement that you are now the New Zealand Labour Party’s spokesperson on Justice
1. Please tell the voters and the public at large what you consider to be the Rules of Natural Justice?
2 Your view on access to justice would also be welcome at this time
Thanks in anticipation Jacinda

Please support the roadside stalls which seem to be disappearing The alternative is to rely more and more upon the supermarkets which lack real competition and freshness is always an issue. You snooze you lose!

To those in supervisory positions please ask your staff to stop the practice of handing our tourism industry customers their drinks with their grubby paws  spreadeagled around the top  rim of the glass

Secondly Please let us actively promote the acceptability of tipping as tourism industry pays rares are not that great

Fellow UC Pols Members at the University of Canterbury As always thank you to those whom put themselves forward for election in times where engagement with the younger voter is really low This is sad when you dont even want to take place in major decisions like your own “goddamn” future. You snooze you lose. The democratic process is supposed to be sacrosanct and it is well documented that the loss of some votes in Western Australia brought about another election at a cost of around $60 million Therefore would the executive please peruse and respond to my blog as someone whom was at the AGM and commented on gordondicksonblogtown.co.nz Again I plead with you to accept the democratic process is supposed to be sacrosanct. Every one is entitled to have his or here vote cast and recorded accurately A very concerned UC Pols member

As to the requested information from the University of Canterbury under the Official Information Act and “LGOIMA”  in relation to the election of student representative on the Council itself. No response today. I next expect the part time Vice Chancellor Mr R Carr to expect the candidates and the 12,000 students to pay for this election information despite having been provided with plenty of money already and hand delivered too. All the while reserving the right to destroy the voting result data held by the Scrutineer and Counsel for the University Mr Donald McBeath of MDS Law in Addington.This shows how much this Council respects the democratic process. We are all taught in lectures that the intent of Parliament is that this information should be made readily available and the Minister should sack the Council  like ECAN and the Southern District Health Board It should never ever ever be forgotten that the candidates were informed formally the existing Council members would not enter into debate with any of the 7 candidates any one of whom could have been elected to sit alongside them for one year. More shame on the Council in a supposedly democratic country. To UC I ask release the information as it is in the best interests of democracy and will go someway to showing the public that what is taught in Law lectures is practiced by the University of Canterbury

UC Pols (the Political Society here at the University of Canterbury) election today saw no bloodletting on the floor but votes were cast and at least one cast aside. Raises the possibility of even more ? Again again and again we find voting irregularities and already one re-held election here at the University. Have a guess what the white object is on the floor in the foreground  of the below photograph is ? Where it should have been is in the hands of the vote counters  but was it?  Begs the question what happens now. Yet another election! Every vote is important n’cest pas?  Seems the current theme of re-held elections will continue. On one hand the people of Canterbury dont get a vote when it comes to a Regional Council, simply fixed in my view,  and here they are at UC disregarding and discarding them. I am confident the attendees at today’s election from both the University of Canterbury Students Association’s current Executive ( a very senior law abiding one to I might add) and the “LICE” scrutineer (set up  for monitoring elections here at U C)  whom was both present and highly visible at the election  will have plenty to say.

P S It would be disingenuous to say in relation to the last election (the third one ) when if one examines the documents available to date one was all that was necessary. Yeah I know. I am awaiting a response from the University of Canterbury Council’s  Vice Chancellor R Carr to an Official Information Request of some considerable time ago now relating to the election and despite the fact that they have the money, well over one hundred dollars,  in advance and it will only take ten minutes to do a simple cut, paste and send I still await this simple request to be complied with. This is the second one and the first is with the Ombudsman. The first partial response had almost 60 blacked out areas in just a very few pages. Unless that is they decide to involve “Counsel”  again. This Counsel   has the dual role of “Counsel” and the “Scrutineer”  and has been asked not to “destroy” the voting results despite the Council saying to the candidates and voters  they will. The longer we all wait for the Official Information  Act Response Numbered “15-55 ” and more than enough time has past (I should be getting interest) the greater the opportunity exists for the University to destroy the  “raw” voting data. It could be suggested that if the Counsel for the University is needed to help re examine this election then he would have to stand down because it wont look good jumping from the floor of the court room into the witness box answering a question put by himself on behalf of U C and then jumping back out onto the floor of the court room to ask himself another question repeated as necessary! The successful candidate is also asked to comment but please tell us which of the two hats you have you are wearing when you respond

Disclaimer I have received a formal expression of concern that I have failed to “unidentify” myself from the New Zealand Labour Party and hence, this, in my humble opinion as a Life Member of the New Zealand Labour Party, disclaimer.  It is akin to saying Richie doesn’t belong in the “All Backs”. As a result of this three of us are now about to face the wrath of the special “Constitution Sub Committee” of which only two have the right to appear???

Democracy or what?

“No Nukes” and UCPOLS Member and Voter

E & O E

Blog 32 11:35 a m 10/5/2015
University of Canterbury Student Representative on the “Full” Council Election Results
Hot of the Press
I have just been and asked Joanne X on the sixth floor for a copy of the University of Canterbury Election results for student representative seat on Council and been referred to the office of the combinedly roled University of Canterbury Registrar and Council Returning Officer Mr Jeffery Field and can confirm that “they are not available at this time”
The outcome of being referred to the office of the Registrar and Election Returning Officer Mr Jeffery Field, whom was in the company of another very mature balding European male, as at this time unidentified, despite the name of the “Scrutineer” having already been asked formally of the Chancellor J Woods more than long enough ago to have been provided with this information. Mr Field acknowledged that the results would be announced sometime and by email.
What I would have preferred to hear was that the records of the voting which is the subject of much correspondence with “Council” have not been destroyed. Another sad sad day for democracy in Aotearoa
As one of seven student “Candidates” awaiting the outcome for an electronic in most part election for which polling closed at 5:00 last Friday I feel like I am in Syria, Harare, Libya, the Square between the Red shirts and the Yellow shirts in Bangkok or Tahrir Square again. And still we await the Prime Ministers formally requested statements on this regime here at the University of Canterbury

Blog # 31 Dear Fellow six candidates and student voters for the University of Canterbury Council Student Representative
Tomorrow and Friday you get to vote for one of the 7 candidates and please get out and vote.
As candidates we attended a briefing meeting at 1600 hours on Monday afternoon and were verbally briefed by the U C Registrar doubly acting as the Returning Officer of the election and minutes were taken by a lady Joanne X in a little yellow booklet about A5 size.
These minutes formed the most revealing part of the rules such as they are. Immediately after the meeting a request for the copy of these minutes was made under the Official Information Act and was refused. This was witnessed. Yesterday a formal hand delivered request for a copy of the election briefing minutes was delivered to the sixth floor reception of the Matariki Building. Stapled to this one page request was a stamped addressed envelope. At time of writing the minutes are not with me. There is no good reason for this information to be withheld. I call it Institutionalised Discrimination
Therefore in their appalling absence I advise from the minutes I took a number of points stand out.
1 The position for the successful candidate on Council will be controlled by an employment contract with the University. One candidate will already have an employment contract with the University Of Canterbury Students Association The candidate is named James Addington whom you just, in error, voted in. He already receives a sum of money from his current position on the current U C S A Executive. The additional salary on Council will be at least $20,000. (what the Returning Officer Field stated is contrary to all the documents previously produced to all of the students including those who have “opted out” of belonging to U C S A which is around 1800.) To this must be added the $48,000 candidate Addington will receive from the UCSA. Plus it was announced that the current President “Two pay packets” Sarah Platt will be retained for an uncertain period of time. This will mean another vehicle needing to be purchased by the UCSA for candidate Addington. This shows that when and if in the unlikely event successful, candidate Addington when going to each and every meeting of the council will have to announce he has a “conflict of interest” at the outset. This is an existing practice of the Council. Then when he speaks he will have to tell in advance from which of his two employers is he representing at the time he speaks. Will he be speaking for the over 10,000 student or for the greatly reduced University Council of 12 persons? If you vote for someone who has to declare a “conflict of interest” every time he speaks you have failed to understand how appalling this really is. Try “Uncle Google” for “conflict of interest” (Lawsoc are challenged to express their viewpoint on the term “conflict of interest”). Even the same will apply when he speaks to any student on campus. Example student approaches the candidate Addington with an issue he or she wishes considered and then when a reply comes out of the mouth of candidate Addington the student will have to seek clarification as to which of his two employment contracts he is speaking from. It is farcical. However our current UCSA President Ms Sarah Platt receives two pay packets as does our Chancellor Woods whom sits on another local University board as well. Lincoln. More examples of conflicts of interest. Chancellor Woods has been in receipt of this expression of concern about his conflict of interest but is to elitist even to deny it. When no denial of this situation is received the real danger is that it may have an untoward effect on the reputation on both of the Universities both here and abroad. The University of Lincoln is well known for political bias which in real terms is political discrimination. I can confirm that in the run up to the last General Election they held a public meeting and invited Nationals candidate Amy Adams and now your current Minister of Justice and M P for Selwyn but not the known and registered candidates for the N Z Labour Party (yours truly) nor the Green Party nor the N Z First Party. That says it all.
2 The Returning Officer Jeffery Field announced at the briefing meeting in front of all seven candidates that a complaint (he omitted to say a formal one) had be received about one of the candidates and advised he had a small look at social media and would do nothing about it. Neither Mr Field nor Joanne actually got off their chairs and went and had a look on campus. More importantly Mr Field failed to actually ask the subject of the complaint candidate Addington to explain himself. Candidate Addington sat about 900 millimetres away. Bone lazy public servant. I have seen a copy of this complaint and it did concern the current UCSA member and candidate Addington whom was already advertising for votes well in advance of nominations even closing. By allowing this to become acceptable and continuing to be acceptable for one candidate and not all of the candidates the Returning Officer Field has shown bias and giving this is a political election has shown himself to be guilty of political discrimination and has by his own actions endorsed candidate Addington. This is appalling behaviour by a public servant with an employment contract which is already under scrutiny. Our current President Sarah “two pay packets” Platt was present when this investigation into the employment matter involving the Registrar and as well the Returning Officer was discussed at full Council level but refuses to tell the 10,000 students about this and therefore is withholding vital information as to the suitability of otherwise for the Registrar to also attempt to act in a fit and proper manner as the Returning Officer. We don’t even know if an accurate roll of eligible voters exists. In the normal course of events any student could write to the Council on such serious matters but no not at U C. This has been formally confirmed to me by Vice Chancellor Roderick Carr
3 There is considerable correspondence between a student and a candidate with the Minister of Tertiary Education Hon Stephen Joyce but due to a convention I cannot discuss much of it as although I have asked formally for this convention to be waived he has failed to do so. He has replied but failed to address my request to be allowed to debate the contents with the voters. How undemocratic is that? All it would have taken is an “ok by me “and we would be right amongst the debate. “What I can say”, to use the oft opening words of the Prime Minister John Key is that this correspondence goes to the very heart of the reason you are here at U C, the degree and how it will be viewed in the future by employers. In my view bribery is involved.
4 Looking at the timing of this election Nominations closed Monday night, “the Cheetah” like candidate is already advertising and therefore votes ahead at nomination closing time. We have two days to campaign, The minutes of the rules meeting are withheld, then voting is over by Friday night Trust UCSA are putting on another piss up like last time All welcome and the last one was great and was in the Undercroft room where you get the “two pinga” rice. Back to the haste of this 4 day election and I refer to a document prised from the hand of the Chancellor John “Two pay packets” Woods “CNZM,QSO,BA,MA Hons,(Cant),BA(Oxf), LittD (2018)”under the terms of the Official Information Act and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (yes this University does not even now which Acts of Parliament it is bound by but Minister Joyce has been asked formally to amend the legislation on this foolish situation) Note this letter is dated “24 June 2015” and it is addressed to ‘’The President University of Canterbury Students Association” “Dear Sarah” Therefore the University knew they needed to hold this election from the date the Amendment was Gazetted which was “11 June 2015” There was never any need to abuse the democratic process like this. Chancellor Woods goes further and states that “On behalf of Council, I would request that UCSA take all steps necessary to ensure that the election of a student representative for Council can be managed in conjunction with the UCSA elections. Again further evidence displaying the current anti-democratic haste. Two days to campaign, make signs, put signs up, take them down, is a joke. Unless of course you are already advertising and have lots of idle signs
The Registrar and Returning Officer advised he would not be providing any forums for debate to take place The main obstacle apart from the obvious lack of good governance by the University Council and basic planning being “Security”.
5 Recently I asked the N Z Student Association to come to campus and allow them to approach the 10,000 students to offer them the option of joining the nationwide body and was advised that UCSA don’t respond to attempts to meet with them. It came as no surprise that in the room next door to our briefing room a meeting took place between the very same parties at the very same time.
6 Thanks to the gent who asked about how student opinions would be represented. Simplest way is to meet fortnightly with students, I enjoy talkback radio (which our on campus radio station has declined us candidates air time for this election formally), record their concerns formally have them included as items on the agenda of Council for the meeting, have staff prepare papers on the item, encourage you to attend, invite you to address council should you wish, record which councillors voted which way to enable you to lobby them for change and report back to all students promptly. I have chaired the inaugural Bay of Plenty Conservation Board and it works fine and the delicate matter of the Treaty of Waitangi was involved too.
7 ICE’s Travis is in my ear about U C S A President two pay packets Ms Sarah Platt endorsing “the Cheetah” like Candidate Addington whom I note with dismay is failing to enter the debate proffered to him on my blog. How is that different from political cowardice I ask you? Peas of a pod. Like minds think alike. It is something when the Minister Joyce finally replies to my letter we will all know more about. But Steven can take up to five months to reply. Personally I would not have done what she has. Poor form. I also see she misrepresents the extent of the correspondence that exist regarding her sanctioning by Returning Officer R Divett and suggest she asks him to open his “IN BOX” again. Her actions are all on CCTV also. Our President has also utilised the full data list of student names for this act of endorsement. Given what is written above all candidates should have access to reply to all UCSA voters as well. It’s called the “right of reply” Don’t exist here.

8 The Returning Officer is not returning candidates calls
If you want open and honest representation then the above should show you to vote for me please.
If you want to look at your degree with certainty then Vote Gordon Dickson
Gordon J Dickson Candidate 30/9/2015 E. & O. E.