That was my comment as the Farmers of the Federation turned their backs on their president, walked out as he began his address and booed when he said he supported the new rule.
Read the story here.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
"Disgraceful!"
That was my comment as the Farmers of the Federation turned their backs on their president, walked out as he began his address and booed when he said he supported the new rule.
Read the story here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I would have said 'revealing'
It doesn't have the same punch, Bio. Especially if you're leaving it hanging in the air as they shuffle out of the room.
I'd expect farmers, especially dairy farmers, to be a brighter than this. They've formed one of the largest and most financially successful companies in NZ as a co-op, so they understand the principles of working together to be successful.
And the Maritime Union has just given a solid lesson in the strength of solidarity.
So this looks like a real shot to the foot. And like you say, the best word to describe their behaviour is "disgraceful". Their actions are well beneath them.
Hugh Gardyne was speaking on his own behalf at the meeting, something he made clear before he began. Booing a person during what was a reasoned and balanced presentation of opinion was thuggish. I'll publish Hugh's paper in a separate post, so anyone interested can see what it was he said.
I find it strangely ironic that when people present their views in form of protest you call it "Disgraceful". Yet you endorse articles that contain "We need protestors" in the title. Often people protest because they feel they have not been heard. Have you been listening?
Anonymous - I am a supporter of protest, in a certain form, but the protest at the boardroom is not what I'm describing. I'm talking about the farmers' behaviour toward one of their own, their rude comments about what was a very reasonable presentation and the manner in which they churlishly turned their backs on their president, publicly, and walked out in the early stages of his talk. Just plain rude, not to me, or the Council, but to their own 'brother in agriculture'. That's my beef. They have damaged their own brand badly, in my opinion.
Have you been listening?
Have you Anon??
Just what exactly were they "protesting" about? having to do things properly?
This is incredibly revealing.
A guy stands up, identifies issues in the industry and potential solutions and the farmers boo, hiss, and walk out.
This reveals exactly what some people fear - farmers want to do what they bloody well like and to hell with anyone that gets in their way.
Well guess what, the NZ public are becoming increasingly irritated with this appalling attitude, I think it could be farmers that end up being told to 'go to hell' very soon.
Robert,
Please, 'people in agriculture'. Puting your sexist terminology aside I believe that the correct interpretation of those actions is, this rule has upset farmers. I believe they were protesting support of the rule. More widely protesting a failure of the democratic process to represent or hear their views. Not only by Hugh. A modest view is the recognition of their feelings rather than accusing their behaviour.
Anonymous - 'brother in agriculture' describes Hugh - he's not a she, so nit-picking aside...I'm not criticising the farmers' protesting the rule, all power to them. I'm criticising their manners toward their fellow farmer and their blunt methods of showing discontent. Could it be that you believe calling out 'shame' or whatever, to the president of their federation, in public, is somehow a well-considered action?
Robert, I guess we are assuming that those booing were federation members? I don't know that to be true. Nor do I know that they were farmers. They could have been town people? Did you take a role and identify their community status?
Furthermore you are an elected representative of the public. Do you expect everyone to agree with you? If you annoy enough people do you expect them to sit quietly?
I believe the farmer reaction to be that of human nature. Perhaps not placed well but very understandable. Sometimes a little humility goes a long way. Labelling the actions of the public without trying to consider their views could be considered as.... Well.... See that I stopped short of ill judgement.
Anonymous - I believe you are misunderstanding the situation. I'm (again) not critical of the federation coming to the boardroom to protest. I support their right to protest.
They were farmers, so far as I could tell, and most likely federation members, judging by my discussion with an executive member afterwards.
I think we could safely assume that they were. If it transpires they were not, I'll be surprised and sorry.
Those who did boo, were not annoyed with me so much as annoyed by their president. They booed him. That's my position - believing that to be a mistake and self-defeating. If they'd booed me, I'd not have been offended at all. Booing your own, in front of outsiders, is a mistake. I seem to be repeating myself a lot in this thread. if I've missed your point, I apologise.
I believe we do have a misunderstanding. Is it possible that those attending were rate payers? As such you are their nominated leader? And based on that assumption these people protested not only Hughes opinion but also that of the council. I believe that these people have the fair right to question things and disagree with others. Perhaps it was not well placed but for all we know the we're environmentalists.
What I don't think is right is councillors labelling the actions of likely rate payers without showing and ounce of understanding. And on a public forum.... After the meeting did you venture out to talk to the public to attempt to understand their views better? Is it possible that you don't know why they reacted the way they did without speaking to those individuals that booed? If this is so how can you possibly venture to label the actions of these rate payers. The people that pay for Environment Southland to exist and possibly voted you in as a councillor. I find it confusing that I am having to explain this. Even spell it out? Either I am bad at explaining myself, or I completely misunderstand the role of a councillor. Perhaps it is right that a councillor criticises rate payers in a public forum without first speaking to those he is criticising.
My final point is that these people are you own too. Assuming they are rate payers. They protested Hughes actions as well as yours. How was their protest of his actions any different to the protest of your actions? They are your people.
Anonymous - thanks for your extended-version clarification of your concerns. I'll try to answer each point you make (in italics.
I believe we do have a misunderstanding. Is it possible that those attending were rate payers?
I believe so
As such you are their nominated leader?
Elected representative, one of 12
And based on that assumption these people protested not only Hughes opinion but also that of the council. Yes, though the actions were separate. Those attending didn't boo the Council at any stage. All credit to them for that.
I believe that these people have the fair right to question things and disagree with others.
I agree with you there.
Perhaps it was not well placed but for all we know the we're environmentalists.
They may have been, anonymous, but I think you're stretching credibility bit.I magine there were some amongst that crowd who don't admire 'environmentalists' too much
What I don't think is right is councillors labelling the actions of likely rate payers without showing and ounce of understanding.
I have to challenge you there, anonymous. I've more than an ounce of understanding about the views of the Federated Farmers. I've read everything I can find from them around their views on the issue, listened to their presentations and entreaties, talked to some personally and done background reading on their philosophy. I'm not ignorant of their point of view.
And on a public forum.... After the meeting did you venture out to talk to the public to attempt to understand their views better?
Yes, I did. I spoke with Doug Fraser afterwards as did other Councillors. We spoke too with Don Nicolson, one of the few farmers who didn't walk out.
Is it possible that you don't know why they reacted the way they did without speaking to those individuals that booed?
Yes, it is possible and it's no great mystery as to why they booed. Do you think it's difficult to work out?
If this is so how can you possibly venture to label the actions of these rate payers.
It's pretty obvious, I think. Bear in mind, anonymous, this blog is my opinion, as stated clearly in the header.
The people that pay for Environment Southland to exist and possibly voted you in as a councillor.
I doubt these particular folk voted for me, anonymous. I stood for the Invercargill/Rakiura zone. Those people looked rural.
I find it confusing that I am having to explain this.
I hope I'm clearing that up for you, anonymous.
Even spell it out? Either I am bad at explaining myself, or I completely misunderstand the role of a councillor. Perhaps it is right that a councillor criticises rate payers in a public forum without first speaking to those he is criticising.
My final point is that these people are you own too. Assuming they are rate payers. They protested Hughes actions as well as yours. How was their protest of his actions any different to the protest of your actions?
The protest against the Council was a quiet one, as requested by the Feds exec. The protest against Hugh was different and involved a walk-out and booing. I think that was foolish and it's that aspect of the morning that I have been writing about. I hope that clears up your confusion, anonymous.
They are your people.
Summary. It is fine to publicly criticise rate payers based on assumption. Perhaps you could make that into a new slogan for Environment Southland? Sorry that cheeky comment was disgraceful.
Interesting that you believe you can confidently understand people by reading and talking to them. I thought you had to walk in their shoes. Now i have learned that I can now tell my partner that she is wrong all the time. Which is lucky cause I don't fit her shoes.
Next time I vote for the Invercargill/Rakiura councillor I will be voting for the person that best understands the people as well as the issues.
Dang! Looks like I lost you as a supporter, anonymous. Could I tempt you back by describing my season on a dairy farm at Murchison, mustering Perrindales on D'Urville Island, stacking haybales, rousing and tailing lambs here in Southland? probably not, given your pretty entrenched views. I recommend Roly Currie for your vote. He's a good guy.
Assumptions again. I didn't say I was a supporter nor would not support you. Unless you are saying you don't understand people or issues.
None of those things makes you a Southland Dairy farmer. If that is what you are suggesting? I once used a women's toilet. Doesn't make me a woman.
By entrenched views I presume you mean my view that a councillor should not disrespect rate payers on a public forum without very very good reason. At this point in time I have not seen that reason. Good luck with that reason. But I agree it is an entrenched view.
I suppose, anonymous, just as you suggest that in the same way I am not a Southland dairy farmer and oughtn't claim to know their reasoning, you are not an Environment Southland councillor (I'm presuming :-) and as such, can't understand the reasoning of one, despite having this discussion with me. I hope your grasp of logic allows you to agree with that reasoning.
Yeah, who do ya' think y'are Rob...actually "reading and talking" to people! Bloody disgraceful.
The least you can do is sell up, purchase and operate a dairy farm, and then after a few decades, you might have some credibility.
Big-footed Anon; I'm sure your partner knows deep down that you're always right.
I certainly don't understand your logic. But as an elected representative I believe it is fair that I question it with a degree of modesty. I certainly didn't label your actions when your called out your own chairperson on this very website. If your don't remember it I can provide the link.
I still feel strange that in December a Senior Environment Southland staff member described to me the wish and will to improve the relationship with dairy farmers. Perhaps you should try to bring them around to your way of thinking? Personally I agreed with your staff at the time. If you want to create change work with the people not against.
Suz, unfortuneately i couldnt get her to agree for some strange reason so I have asked her to fill out a life management plan. After some convincing she has accepted. I think she is looking at it like a survey? What she doesn't know is I plan to use it to change every thing she does. A little sneaky I know but it is trendy at the moment. Critics call it coughommunism. I am sure she will realise it is a good thing when I run her life better than she can.
Anon - you are a wag.
The expressed desire from ES to improve its relationship with the dairy industry is genuine and aside from this difficulty with Federated Farmers, developing well. I could describe gains on all levels, but that's for another time. As to the charge you've leveled at me - criticising ratepayers, I'll just have to wear that, as it's true, I do 'call out' those I believe are straying from the Path of Integrity - it's just my way, my bed, and I'll lie in it. Guess you'll be my pea.
Suddenly this conversation went way over my head. I am a WAG and pea? According to Wikipedia a 'wife and girlfriend' and a 'spherical seed'. I have been called many things but this would have to be the best description. I will put it on my CV. Cheers.
Post a Comment