I wouldn’t believe one word John gay says. It’s taken him a very long time to say anything other than ridicule or sue people, who have spoken out against him and now he wants to try and make out he’s a good bloke and it’s not his fault. This supposed new look at Gay, is really just a propaganda ploy, as he is beginning to realise the amount of opposition he and his cronies are facing.

If the mill is not built, will the people get back the millions of public dollars provided to prop up this despotic barbarism. If the mill is built, will Gunns pay back all the public money it has received from it’s profits. Not on your life they won’t, we will continue suffer. As will our health and other services which take second place in the political and bureaucratic mind set to corporate wealth and control.

John Mason

Here is a case of a head without a body. How long it cn survive is a moot point. They say the main problem is that they tend to get a bit breathless.

However, once the guillotine is in place, the others will probably decide quick enough.

Another one on the Parliament lawns before the weekend may even persuade the MLCs.

My wife is practising her knitting.

Why would anyone believe a single word that comes out of Gunns, or any politician that still supports this mill proposal? 

Ironic it would be for all Tasmanian parliamentarians who have put their neck on the block for this project to find that Gunns may not build it after all.  Wonder what they think of that prospect?  Shafted is the picture comes to my mind.  Mind you, they deserve every inch of it!

The Gunns brand is already damaged beyond repair, no amount of spin and back flipping will fix that, just as no amount of spin and back flipping by politicians will restore confidence in state parliament and the democratic process in this state.  And that is the shameful legacy left by Lennon and Gay by creating this farce no matter what happens to the mill. 

Even bigger irony is the fact that if you wanted to do the greatest damage to the image and understanding of Forestry in this country, you could not have done a better hatchet job than Gay and Lennon has done with the handling of this proposal.  Forestry it self IS the big loser here regardless of the mill decision, probably to an extent that will become un-repairable over time. 

Long overdue in my opinion, the result of the actions and blind ignorance of advocates like Lennon and Gay have facilitated the probable demise of this hideous industry.  And that is what’s at stake now with this proposal, nothing less.  And not the greens, but John and Paul took the industry to this brink.  Now how sweet is that?  Never imagined that I can say this to those two, job well done guys!

Reading the article in the Mercury it read a lot like Paul Lennons call for better treatment, maybe these two want us to understand that they have a heart but you are right stormbay.
When they stop being thugs and raping a pillaging this beautiful island and suing those who would try to save some of the place then we may see a heart, and yes I too believe that the Taxpayer funded subsidies should be returned to the coffers if the whole exercise turns out to be an exercise in getting longer access to our publicly owned forests and better mates deals.
The whole story reads like an exit strategy, some face saving exercise.
Pete

Oh ok, so who gave the green light to allegedly spend all that hard earned shareholders cabbage in the first place or was it a unilateral decision, not an accord with the coalition of the willing?
Sorry, gotta go….a knock at the door….must be the tooth fairy.

What a crock of shite. Does anyone seriously believe that Gay desagreed with his board and tried to convince them otherwise. Baloney. Anyone with the basic investigative knowledge to read Gunns annual reports will know that, unlike normal public companies, Gunns’ board is largely an appointed oligarchy. They all come from the same J Gay-mate fan club and cannot have their positions challenged. They all of the same old-boyz mold. Robin, David, John - the three headed beast!. Once again symptomatic of the appalling depth of journalism in this state, that this commentry would be reported ver-batim without challenge. I can see tomorrow’s front page already - John Howard actually disagreed with Mal Brough’s disasterous aboriginal plan and tried to convince him otherwise. Crap.

You mean to tell me that the flunkies you (I have not voted for many years) elected to Parliament have been bending over backwards, sideways and forwards to accommodate Gunns now find that their master may change its mind after Tasmania is handed over on a platter?  Please tell me I have misunderstood the situation.

In the interview John Gay asks
“why is Gunns so hated, why cant the public understand the benefits of a pulpmill, and why is he so personally loathed”

Here are some clues John.
Atrazine and Simazine contamination, 1080 poison, old growth logging, forest practices, monoculture plantations (and on prime land), the land grab, farm loss and MIS, Gunns 20, a pulpmill in the Tamar Valley, special deals for Gunns, Gunns profits at the environments expense, Gunns wont compromise,....and more.

Most of the public DO understand the benefits of a mill.

The Mercury, 28th August.

John Gay said:-
‘The process hasn’t worked—we are quite unhappy about the length of time [and] aggro we have had to go through.’

A spokesmen for the peopleof Hobart said:-
‘The process hasn’t worked—we are quite unhappy about the length of time [and] aggro we have had to go through.’

A spokesperson for the Tamar Group said:-
‘The process hasn’t worked—we are quite unhappy about the length of time [and] aggro we have had to go through.’

The Greens said:-
‘The process hasn’t worked—we are quite unhappy about the length of time [and] aggro we have had to go through.’

In the article JG says ‘But I think people who are in government and business have an obligation to make sure we continue to find industries that fit these people.’
By ‘these people’ he’s referring to those at the ‘bottom of society’, homeless people and kids that ‘finish up at Ashley’.  Uneducated people.
Well, that seems really narrow and rather bizarre thinking to me.  Because there’s uneducated and poor people around he has an obligation to find jobs for them?
Well, firstly I don’t think they’re going to be able to employ many uneducated people at the pulp mill.  I’d hate to think there was someone who’d never even turned up to chemistry class at High School mucking around with the chemicals they’re going to have there!
But more seriously, if he wants to employ uneducated people, fine.  There’s always going to be those sorts of jobs around, however, I don’t think he really needs to make it his personal mission.  But fundamentally, surely if we can identify that there are that many uneducated people around, how about more education funding?  How about pushing for that?
Wouldn’t that be a better idea?

...of course, if there were more educated people in John’s vicinity, then they’d probably spot the major flaws in his blithe and somewhat vague and surreal assurances that his pulp mill isn’t a problem.

Never mind.  He’s obviously quite happy with his head fixed firmly in the sand.

“Every day you read in the paper something ugly about Gunns—it’s always this bad thing, this giant, this rapist of forests (at this, Mr Gay throws back his head and laughs).

See: ‘Gay: The Interview’
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22313671-921,00.html

Hmmm…This is such a familiar story.

‘Raped Environment Led Polluters On, Defense Attorneys Argue’
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29690

“Pacific North Construction & Lumber Corp. argued that their client was not at fault for the July 1997 rape of 30,000 acres of virgin forest, claiming that the forest led the development company on with “an eager and blatant display of its rich, fertile bounty….”