My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« How much does our society value parenting? | Main | Where to from here? »

Comments

Danger Mouse

"Surely the victims ( the NZ public) have a attainable case against the government for criminal negligence ?"

Good idea, D4J. Why don't you file a class acton? Oh wait, you haven't got enough facts about this incident you say?

dad4justice

Here we go again.

peter

This is yet another junk thread started with a needlessly provocative teaser posing as a title.

I have heard an interview on Radio NZ where interviewee said that the woman he thought it was was not a Christian.

Fundamentalists - pray and ask God if she was or was not a Christian. Presumably the majority of you will get the correct answer!

It seems to fall on me again to predict an outcome here. This will most likely be a mentally ill woman who will be referred for psychiatric examination. It appears she had issues with the NZ police - why that drove her to take it out on our pilots and air commmuters - God only knows!

So fundamentalists - ask God and report results. This is a poll!

peter

Read this latest article:

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1575270

The woman is described as a transient, and not part of the Blenheim Muslim community.

Ian, you would do very well to read Chris Carter's comment in the link - it offers more wisdom than your appraisal I am ashamed to say. Actually it is in line with fugley's first response - a pity more subscribers to this thread stormed into this discussion with all prejudices on show. This is not the New Zealand way chaps.

Danger Mouse

I think you're right Peter, we should wait until the facts are known.

D4J, you said "Was it your wife fugly?" So your "Here we go again" rings a little hollow. Forget about your "attainable case against the government for criminal negligence".

John Boy

One fruit cake doesn't mean we all have to be treated like wierdos when we fly and be X rayed / frisked to death. I'm happy to take my chances and just want to arrive, get on and go. I like looking out the front of the Beech as well.

My son just went to germany and back via US. Going via Asia next time, as are his mates, just because the immigration crap sucks even when you're only transiting.

In the old days you could go up the front for a squizz. The bloody Arabs have stuffed it up for some.

peter

Last night I said in this thread, without any proof:

"It seems to fall on me again to predict an outcome here. This will most likely be a mentally ill woman who will be referred for psychiatric examination."

This morning, I see initial confirmation.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10491514

An alcoholic woman with a history of mental health problems and even head injury.

No head scarf or similar in view - unlikely to be Moslem or Exclusive Brethren I would say.

Ian - your headline served its purpose though, but only for a few hours. Your credibility is another question.

dad4justice

Peter your credibility is swimming in a sewage pond.

Liarbour thought she was a credible citizen even though evidence was highlighted to them that she was not !!

What is your real name Peter- is it Heather or Helen ??

peter

I actually agree with one of your comments earlier Daddy 4 - the woman was known to the government, and hence to relevant government departments.

The fact she was mentioned in parliament suggests she was a time bomb. It will be interesting to see what political fall out follows, but clearly Winston Peters has a golden opportunity here (and he will surely take advantage of it as always)

ropata

follow up to fugley's claim:

Whilst I fully agree that religion is sometimes the cause of the most appalling behaviour in people, it is more often the case that religion is the excuse rather than the cause for ethnic divisions and wars. I have met people for example from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland who were involved in ‘the Troubles’. Not one of them thought that they were rioting, or killing for ‘God’. It was for their ‘community’, their ‘tribe’ – God was just a useful person to bring in to up the ante. The IRA for example were a Marxist group who were Catholic only in the sense of belonging to an ethnic community. I remember speaking to a group of young men on their way to Ibrox stadium, the home of Glasgow Rangers, bearing a banner stating ‘For God and Ulster’ (for American readers wondering what this has to do with football and Glasgow – don’t bother – its too stupid to even begin to explain). I asked them if they believed in God. ‘Don’t know – but we’re Protestants’! Do you go to Church? ‘No – expletive deleted. We go to Ibrox why would we need to go to Church’? Yet doubtless you would cite such political and ethnic Protestantism as yet another example of religious conflict. I am sure that the Sunni and Shia war in Iraq and the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia are primarily ethnic conflicts with religious tribal gods being called in as reinforcements.
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/novc06.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.