Results 51 to 75 of 115

  1. Post
    #51
    DW wrote:
    Long-term it really wouldn't. That's a one-off allocation of $120 per child currently living under poverty line.
    Tell that to the child, that you could have bought them a jacket, blanket, socks, shoes, hat etc. Tell them that some bones came out of a cave, as it has been put, but we could have made you warm for one winter (or more)

  2. Post
    #52
    Lethargic wrote:
    What more is there to be gained than a bunch of bones? Closure? For 26 people? For 36 million? That's your argument?
    My argument? I didn't say that. A bunch of people died in their workplace, I think we should do everything we can (safely) to try and establish how that happened, and maintain some level of accountability where it is appropriate. If people want the remains of their family back, that should be taken into consideration also.

  3. Post
    #53
    dickytim wrote:
    Tell that to the child, that you could have bought them a jacket, blanket, socks, shoes, hat etc. Tell them that some bones came out of a cave, as it has been put, but we could have made you warm for one winter (or more)
    A one-off purchase of a few clothes isn't going to raise them out of poverty. It might make you feel good though I suppose.

  4. Post
    #54
    DW wrote:
    My argument? I didn't say that.
    DW wrote:
    Whether it's "worth it" or not, I think there is more to be gained than a bunch of bones. So I don't think the result of that particular question has much value.
    It's implicit within your statement.

  5. Post
    #55
    Lethargic wrote:
    It's implicit within your statement.
    It's not implicit at all. For you to think the only other possible argument was for "closure" shows you're either not thinking very hard or are purposely ignoring other possibilities (which aren't just my radical ideas, they're reasons (both current and previous) governments have cited as factors contributing towards the decision to re-enter).

  6. Post
    #56
    DW wrote:
    It's not implicit at all. For you to think the only other possible argument was for "closure" shows you're either not thinking very hard or are purposely ignoring other possibilities (which aren't just my radical ideas, they're reasons (both current and previous) governments have cited as factors contributing towards the decision to re-enter).
    For those of us that aren't clued up, what are those reasons, specifically?

  7. Post
    #57
    Lethargic wrote:
    For those of us that aren't clued up, what are those reasons, specifically?
    Taken straight from MBIE, the Pike River Recovery agency's plans aim to "promote accountability for this tragedy" and "help prevent future mining tragedies".

  8. Post
    #58
    DW wrote:
    Taken straight from MBIE, the Pike River Recovery agency's plans aim to "promote accountability for this tragedy" and "help prevent future mining tragedies".
    How achieving either of those two things after the fact should indicate to you that it is a farce.

  9. Post
    #59
    "Corruption means the people responsible won't be held responsible so why even bother trying" is an argument that enables further corruption.

  10. Post
    #60
    I can see it from both sides, but it's done now, so I don't think there's any need for personal attacks or nastiness.

    What I would like to see from this, is evidence of H&S breaches that warrant the re-opening of the case against Peter Whittall. My view, is that the buck stops with him if the tragedy occurred because statutory rules were flouted. Sure, he was the stoic and dignified face of the tragedy in the immediate aftermath, but I imagine that he will have much more to answer for once the investigation is done.

  11. Post
    #61
    It was ultimately a failure of safety enforcement by the company, which I don't think the government is responsible unless the regulations did not exist at the time and the rules were misappropriated or not applied by the state in someway. If the latter is true (i.e. the state is responsible) why are we spending upwards of $30000000 in attempted 'closure' when the families can be rewarded handsomely and the funds can be redirected elsewhere.

  12. Post
    #62
    Because Jacinda Ardern is a person of the people.

    Didn't you see she came up with all the solutions to stopping bad stuff on the internets.

  13. Post
    #63
    Privoxy, I think that's a massive factor in the government's decision to re-enter the mine.

    Lethargic wrote:
    It was ultimately a failure of safety enforcement by the company, which I don't think the government is responsible unless the regulations did not exist at the time and the rules were misappropriated or not applied by the state in someway. If the latter is true (i.e. the state is responsible) why are we spending upwards of $30000000 in attempted 'closure' when the families can be rewarded handsomely and the funds can be redirected elsewhere.
    I would imagine that mine H&S regulations have been in place for a long time before this event occurred, so I can't see it being the government who are responsible here. But they need to find out the cause, so they can reduce the chance of it happening again. Getting the remains of those who died back to the families is obviously more important to them than any kind of compensation.

  14. Post
    #64
    Pedantic, but there's unlikely to any bones to find. Wasn't it effectively a furnace so they'll have been cremated?

  15. Post
    #65
    Privoxy wrote:
    Because Jacinda Ardern is a person of the people.

    Didn't you see she came up with all the solutions to stopping bad stuff on the internets.
    Did she ban Tormenta though? No. I did. So she's merely following my lead.

  16. Post
    #66
    invisibleman18 wrote:
    Pedantic, but there's unlikely to any bones to find. Wasn't it effectively a furnace so they'll have been cremated?
    Pedanticism isn't the same thing as wildly uninformed speculation.

  17. Post
    #67
    Mancubus wrote:
    Did she ban Tormenta though? No. I did. So she's merely following my lead.


    Mancubus for Prime Minister!

  18. Post
    #68
    DW wrote:
    A one-off purchase of a few clothes isn't going to raise them out of poverty. It might make you feel good though I suppose.
    Doesn't make me feel good, my daughter has warm clothes ,but it would make the kids feel good.

  19. Post
    #69
    DW wrote:
    My argument? I didn't say that. A bunch of people died in their workplace, I think we should do everything we can (safely) to try and establish how that happened, and maintain some level of accountability where it is appropriate. If people want the remains of their family back, that should be taken into consideration also.
    To be honest, while I think companies can't be negligent on their health and safety, we have developed a somewhat irrational stance towards workplace safety in general, where we write very expensive rules which are usually off the back of cases of individual stupidity.

  20. Post
    #70
    dickytim wrote:
    Doesn't make me feel good, my daughter has warm clothes ,but it would make the kids feel good.
    So what exactly does it achieve? Buying every kid a jacket doesn't solve anything.

    Even if you were to distribute $36 million among all the children in NZ living in poverty, how much do you think it would cost out of that $36 million to actually distribute the money? You might actually be able to scrape together a happy meal for each child at the end of it all.

  21. Post
    #71
    bradc wrote:
    To be honest, while I think companies can't be negligent on their health and safety, we have developed a somewhat irrational stance towards workplace safety in general, where we write very expensive rules which are usually off the back of cases of individual stupidity.
    Whilst some things are irrational, NZ has a history of mining disasters resulting in multiple fatalities, and evidence has shown that despite that history we were still neglectful when it came to safety.

    I think as humans we quickly forget the mistakes of our past when its convenient (often to save money), and the bigger the shake up when we do **** things up, at least we might buy more time before we inevitably make the same or similar mistakes again.

  22. Post
    #72
    You all know that mining is inherently dangerous don't you? Why do you think they are paid so well, it is dangerous and dirty work, and there is a real chance you can die doing that job and your remains never be recovered. This is what you sign up for as a miner.

  23. Post
    #73
    DW wrote:
    So what exactly does it achieve? Buying every kid a jacket doesn't solve anything.

    Even if you were to distribute $36 million among all the children in NZ living in poverty, how much do you think it would cost out of that $36 million to actually distribute the money? You might actually be able to scrape together a happy meal for each child at the end of it all.
    What a ratshit attitude to have. But yes lets waste $36 million on some votes and to make 30 people feel better about their families choice to work in a dangerous profession.

  24. Post
    #74
    Frederick James wrote:
    I would imagine that mine H&S regulations have been in place for a long time before this event occurred, so I can't see it being the government who are responsible here.
    What if they wrote shit regulations that relied on companies self-enforcing? What if the Mines Inspectorate was so underfunded that there was only one inspector for all of NZ?

  25. Post
    #75
    dickytim wrote:
    You all know that mining is inherently dangerous don't you? Why do you think they are paid so well, it is dangerous and dirty work, and there is a real chance you can die doing that job and your remains never be recovered. This is what you sign up for as a miner.
    That's an attitude straight from the 1890s. Down the pit with ya, peasant!

    Risk can be minimised, and it's the right of every employee to work in a workplace made as safe as possible. Also, if people were paid according to risk, then why is our riskiest industry, forestry, so poorly paid?