Here is a classic example of getting the detail but missing the big picture. You can read today’s blog HERE
An Classic Example Of Getting Caught Up In The Detail And Missing The Big Picture
Here is a classic example of getting the detail but missing the big picture. You can read today’s blog HERE
The major factor overlooked by the retired Tauranga lawyer is that of objective behavioural sciences trends analysis.
For example, this statement begs a response; ‘Of course, your general narrative is correct as that is what they are up to but it is perhaps too early to make such definitive assertions.’
The purpose of objective trends analysis is to identify likely future outcomes in order to be prepared, such as invoking positive counteractions and/or reactions.
Thanks for backing up my reasoning. Much appreciated.
Dear Julian, have just read your latest blog concerning reading and assimilating the whole picture when tracing your flow chart and how it clearly shows how the tribal takeover of NEW ZEALAND WILL occur (is occurring), I concur 100% with your prediction and found it quite disturbing that a learned retire lawyer from Tauranga would be so pernickety to devalue your efforts. It is a shame that this obviously learned man wasn’t as proactive as you and stepped up and used his talents to helps prevent NEW ZEALAND falling into this abyss of human misery {Anticipate the enemies tactic and develop tactics as a counter offensive]
Julian, I think this is a bit rich when one of his lawyer mates, Geofffrey Palmer made most of the reforms in the 1980’s when Attorney General, based on the Treaty, then admitted on the ABC’s Programme in 1990, the Treaty was vague and unclear.. Instead of repealing his reforms, he immediatley left front line politics and when back to his law practice to help Maori with their claims.
That would be his 1986 “The Five Principles for Crown Action on The Treaty Of Waitangi’ which began to appear in Treaty recommendations and Legislation and which he later admitted to being wrong about in his book New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis. You can’t make this stuff up.
And let’s not forget another lawyer mate, Christopher Finlayson, The minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations who claimed he gave away taxpayer’s money in more Maori financial settlements than all previously reached, 59 in all.
Hi Julian
Read the lawyer’s comments and your response.
My immediate reaction was to support your view of not getting bogged down in the detail. On the other hand it’s got to be important to avoid giving an impression of holding an ‘extreme view’ despite that it isn’t. One approach to address this might be to add notes to your diagram to qualify some of the terms used. E.g. what is meant by “Maori” and what is meant by “Ownership”, in the current context, which might help to pull on board a few more people.
Personally I feel that “Maori” in this context and from certain iwi statements about 3 waters, probably applies to the majority of iwi, who would participate in “ownership” of water assets in a heartbeat if they were being gifted that opportunity. Certainly I don’t think that there are any iwi actually opposing 3 waters on any grounds other than their not receiving what they consider their fair share of the spoils, but would be willing to be proven wrong on that.
“Ownership” in this context does not mean title to, rather it means ultimate control that is normally associated with having title to an asset, as the excepted position of some of the most experience legal minds.
Best wishes
Ron
Hi Julian I made a a favorable comment concerning your flow chart showing the Maori seizure of NZ and pointed out the learned lawyer who made negative comments about your article was wrong. I note with concern that my article has been removed without explanation.
Hi Raleigh, I didn’t see your article. Where was it removed from?
Τhis information is worth everyone’s attention. Where
can I find out more?