No prizes for correct guesses…

Have just heard on the midday news that Gunns have won the right in the Victorian Courts to sue, those left of the Gunns 20.
This seems like a case straight out of the intimidate and ruin, individual environmentalists, concerned citizens, that speak out on the public record, protest to get their concerns into the public arena, suggested by big US firms.
It is not about winning or justice.  It’s about ruining people’s lives, by tying them up in an expensive and drawn out spurious legal case.
Jonathon swift wrote, ‘Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through’.
I have serious grievances against Gunns, but have no money to sue them.  Any pro bonos out there?  The whole forestry debate these past thirty years has impacted on my mental health, my wellbeing and I’m sure I could find more legal terminology to help with my case.  The latest RPDC, Pulp Mill Bill, truly are taking a huge distractionary toll on me getting on with my usual business.

TELL IT HOW IT IS !
          SUBSTITUTE THE WORD “WHO” WITH “GUNN’S” ! IT’S THE TRUTH AIN’T IT ? GET OFF THE GODDAMN FENCE !  I HAVE ! for over 18 months ! and i’m still here ! if you live in fear ,it’s not worth living !
                  D.D.

Laurene, you are right: the Gunns 20 case is an example of corporate bullying gone mad.

However, let the facts now be tested. Let the defendants have their say.  Let the Judge be of sound common sense and deliver Gunns not only a resounding defeat but also a huge bill for both damages and costs. Perhaps THAT might derail the pulp mill.

Hope springs eternal.

mmm, a worrysome trend. I thought the Judge buried the gunns20 case last time around. YOu mean the have reserrected it cos they are sore losers.

mmmmm

Bout times gunns sharholders got worries about how their earnings are being spent..

ho hum!

Dare I note the resemblance to a traffic-light cluster.

am i the only one who feels like im in a franz kafka novel where democratic rights are totally ignored if not outrightly denied and a condescending politician like paul lennon picks who succeeds by the size of their cheque book and political influence regardless of the consequences for future generations.

Morally speaking Gunns LTD owes the people of tasmania an explanation as to why on the one hand it on the basis of financial presuures pulled out of a process which has received over 10 million dollars of state and federal taxpayer dollars, yet it has for 2 and 1/2 years pursued what must be an extremely expensive lawsuit that on a long shot may net them 6million in damages? How do they afford such a luxury, a luxury that has been criticised by most legal commentators in the land excepting one tasmanian notable. Gunns owes the tasmanian taxpayer an explanation as to exactly how much it has spent on this case.

John Gay said at the last AGM of Gunns that he was prepared to spend up to $2 million pursuing the case against the remaining defenders.

He will not desist because the stakes for Gunns in this are enormous. If they win their court case, they have won the right to close out any opposition to their operations in the future. Nobody will be able to legally criticise anything they do, for fear of attracting ruinous litigation. They will have established themselves as a corporation which from then on in law, will have equal or greater rights than a citizen. It currently doesn’t have this under the rather weak constitution.

This country lacks a Bill of Rights, and this action is taking advantage of this fact. It is doubtful if any conclusive damages have been suffered by Gunns and it is unlikely that there profits have suffered because of the actions of a few badly affected citizens. The damages should really, in all fairness, be the other way round. It is these people who are suffering, not the profits of Gunns.

The defendants are right. This is a legal gag, and if it goes through, it will be upon everyone. The very basics of democracy are at stake here!

Could readers of TT tell us why it is not illegal for a company to be closely involved (through lawyers and lobbyists) in the drafting of legislation which directly benefits that company?

Maybe land owners who have been affected by forestry or the industry could do a class action?

And

Maybe businesses who have been affected could do a class action?

And

Maybe all the whistleblowers could do a class action?

And

Maybe concerned Tasmanians could do a class action against the sole use and locking up of communually owned State Forests?

And

Maybe others ie those of the Tamar Valley,could do a class action for the grandchildren, or their property values or businesses or their health?

And maybe we have to fight fire with fire, as commonsense doesn’t seem to prevail.Fighting alone is too hard against such a big organisation. But together, that may be a different story.

This thrown alongside the pressure for a Royal Commission, which needs to be done, might help.

We’re prepared to put in all our truck load of files and information and contribute money towards a class action. When you think about the time and money so many of us have already spent and will continue to spend, which gives little or no joy, what have we got to lose? and more importantly what have we got to gain?

Food for thought. Just try and think quickly. Like you Laurene we’d also like to have peace of mind again and assurance for our quality of life and lifestyle.

Who simplifies the issue, who overstates the problem, who demonises their opposition, who protests for the sake of it?
The rest of us are sick of a bumper sticker mentality?

In answer to David Mohr #10.

In theory, a government is supposed to be, ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’

In practice it is, ‘stuff the people, con the people, buy the people.’ Democracy is a brief pretence on the part of politicians in the short run-up to an election.

It’s all about money, power and influence. Why else are they there? If the influence of business impinges on the the well-being of the public at large, then the government is more likely to go where the money is. With one notable exception, it is certainly not because they have a conscience or feel they are under any obligation to the people who elected them. If it isn’t already strictly legal, they can soon change that. Simply rewrite the law in favour of whoever is prepared to lay the most feathers in the nest. And they are pretty blatant about it. They even deny you the right to challenge them - legally!

Democracy is a farce to be reckoned with. The problem is, they know they can get away with it. Public memory is short, and when the time comes for re-election, the spinners will have the public in a whirl. Black, although not actually white, is near enough to be considered so. Ask any liberal!

You are not the chap to post anything about simplifying an issue, Monsewer Herbert.

According to you: David Hicks=Bad.

We need to get the message out and bumper stickers do a pretty good job of it; if “the rest of you” don’t like it, tough titties.

Fight the Power.

Little johnny’s sick of it. Diddums. Come and sit on my knee and tell me all about it little Johnny. Or even better, have a rally.

yeah right homeboy.

Gee Rick, you have illustrated to any sober observer more about you and your methods than I ever could have.  The bitterness is getting difficult to hide now isn’t it.

John
Seeing as you are the font of all knowledge on things forestry, in your mind at least, can you please tell me why it is that this industry is able to externalise its costs onto the rest of the community at will, and why we are legislated out of any ability to resist. I refer specifically to the smoke that is making me ill, increasing my risk of injury through lack of sleep, and devaluing my enjoyment of life in general. I could have been refering to my subsidising the industry by being forced to play log truck lotto(the phrase is mine, in case any greens want it to play with, I claim copyright and any other intellectual property to the phrase)on public roads that don’t make the forest practices code standards, or the use of taxpayers funds to buy land to plant precious trees on. John, I have no objection to the industry as an industry, just to its bullying, mendatious and selfish behaviour.
Again, John, what is it about the forestry industry in this state that makes it so fucking special? It aint jobs, it has been shedding them like a chook with mange for thelast ten years.

Yeah a bumber sticker, that will really show them. I’m sure that will also win many, many more recruits to the cause. Maybe there will be 3001 or 3002 at the next rally. Bumper stickers have always been about with tribe you belong to and affiliate with (be it footy team, school or whatever the Greens/WS is whining about) than making a useful argument or statement.

Bitter? Nah mate i just dont like you John and the crap that you spew out. Nothing to hide there kemosabe! You’re a big boy, you can handle that cant ya?

Careful Rick—John thinks he’s educating you.

Oh yes Cam, I,m learning heaps from John. But I,m wondering if John see’s any irony in him pointing out to me how obviously bitter I am. The old fella oughta have a good read back over his own work. See blokes like John, assume that us lefties walk around all day smiling and hugging everyone and trying to be rool rool nice when the truth is we are really just like him….... tired, intolerant and bitter. They couch their poisonous taunts in smartarsery,and think that they are a real hoot. And they never fail to bring thier labels and stereotypes to dish out. And they love to feign shock and horror the when lefties who are supposed to be non-violent and full of patience spit a little venom back at em. Cameron, the sad thing about the Herberts and Tomas’s and thier heroes, the Bolts, Alan Jones’s and Akermans of this world is that they will always be found siding with the powerful. They will always be found going after the little fish. Today Tonight and A Curent Affair provide the theory and then John and Tomas’s put it into practice. Yep they’ve given into intolerance and the sort of small minded provincialism and xenophobia that we saw yesterday in Sam McQuestins letter re. Rebecca Gibney in the Examiner. Have a read of some of Tomas’s work, it is full of it.
They look at people like Rebecca with there ideals and their bleeding hearts and they despise them for it They target their anger and their bitterness towards easy targets, the minority groups, and weak and the powerless people like Hicks and greenies. Yes, these are men of great courage

Onya Rick.  Couple of interesting letters in response to Sam’s in the Ex today—to the effect that he is David’s son (as in David who is on the board of Gunns etc.) and of course a failed Liberal contender for Bass at the last state election.

Onya Rick - I love how you and Jason L love to pretend you know my personal politics. Maybe it is you who can’t stand to think some one might have a different view? FYI - I dont read Australian commentators like Akerman, Bolt etc. I read the NYT, Guardian or TImes for quality commentary, and sometimes the Australian or Financial Review. Quality commentary is very, very rare in Australia. I also don’t read the Examiner which is a great example of the kind of provincialism that keeps Tasmania as a backwater - and why Launceston is an exemplar of irrelevance. I take it that you take your lessons from this august publication as well as A Current Affair and Today Tonight. Clearly, I’m not the one dining on these most crass examples of the small-minded provincialism you apparently decry.

22. 
      good comment rick , on the mark exactly ! the trouble is of course, with the mentalities of same !    most probably lost.
                d.d.

Interesting, Tomas—you rail against the ‘provincialism’ of Tasmania as a ‘backwater’ and then you slag off Launceston.

I’m afraid this tags you as a bit of a provincial yourself, prone to cheap and lazy parochial thinking.

It’s a bit hard to have your cake and eat it too while your foot is in your mouth.

In addition, Tomas, for quality commentary in Australia—try the work of Mr John Herbert. Very…educational.