front up to Court to prove they weren't liars and stalkers? Hmmh, I wonder why one of them would be so stupid to provide evidence of his continued stalking?
Maybe networking in hate isn't the same as coming out in the cold light of day to be counted when it matters. Maybe it's just pure cowardice.
Maybe it's hard to face the truth that you are nothing more than a liar and a stalker whose only ambition in life is to persecute others and twist the law to protect sickos.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Who would you believe, a spinner whose claim
to fame is that she was best buddies with Laniet Bain, despite the spinner's own sister saying that was a lie and it was actually she, the sister, that had been friends with Laniet. Who would you believe, a spinner who wrote a 'confession' so full of inconsistencies and mixed language of both a child and an experienced adult that the 'confession' read like something written by a psychologist evoking language and practice of the 90s? Who would you believe, somebody who put on a 'grave side' show as a memorial for the Bains but nobody turned up except the spinner and a photographer who fell asleep waiting for the crowd that never arrived?
Would you believe the person that wrote this....
cybernana wrote:
Right....well, we will find out more today, won't we? I must admit, I am looking forward to hearing more on nos's blog later. Either they were banned from here, and you told a lie, or they had their posts removed voluntarily knowing there was evidence against them contained in their posts. Either way, they are gone. Hahaha.
Wrong on both counts. Have you not heard of TEMPORARY SUSPENSION while things are being sorted? And remember, he who laughs, or she, laughs last.
Quote
sweet_ad (185 ) 11:14 am, Mon 21 Mar #31710
Or would you believe a spokesperson for TM who said the dreadful 3 of today (and therefore utimately the dreaded others named in the defamation case) were on their own.
I recall writing about this earlier when the hate-siters were going on about 'freedom of speech' and TM sticking up for the hate-siters rights. Well, I'm telling you to suck kumara like you were told over a year ago, so who would believe? Looks like some motor mouth defamers might be getting a call - but don't believe me.
Would you believe the person that wrote this....
cybernana wrote:
Right....well, we will find out more today, won't we? I must admit, I am looking forward to hearing more on nos's blog later. Either they were banned from here, and you told a lie, or they had their posts removed voluntarily knowing there was evidence against them contained in their posts. Either way, they are gone. Hahaha.
Wrong on both counts. Have you not heard of TEMPORARY SUSPENSION while things are being sorted? And remember, he who laughs, or she, laughs last.
Quote
sweet_ad (185 ) 11:14 am, Mon 21 Mar #31710
Or would you believe a spokesperson for TM who said the dreadful 3 of today (and therefore utimately the dreaded others named in the defamation case) were on their own.
I recall writing about this earlier when the hate-siters were going on about 'freedom of speech' and TM sticking up for the hate-siters rights. Well, I'm telling you to suck kumara like you were told over a year ago, so who would believe? Looks like some motor mouth defamers might be getting a call - but don't believe me.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
ah, the hate-sites stir. Signs of distress, desperation
that they and their message is not understood.
An example...
In memory of Supersleuth:
Whose bloody fingerprints were found on the rifle? Not Robin's. Whose socks had blood on them? Not Robin's. Whose clothing had Stephen's blood on it? Not Robin's. Who had been wearing the broken glasses? Not Robin. Who had great memory lapses? Not Robin. Who stood to gain financially from the deaths? Not Robin.
Who does the forensic evidence point to? Not Robin.
Quote
jmhb51 (1 ) 2:59 pm, Sun 20 Mar #31597
All these years and still trying to lie to find a way out and protect the old man.
Of course there was over a 93% chance that Robin's prints would not be on the rifle.
David's prints on his OWN rifle were in a carrying position and not in blood as this liar above well knows.
David had a minor spot of aged blood on his clothes, yet the blood from Stephen was sprayed extensively throughout the room, sprayed.
The broken glasses; there was no evidence they were worn by anybody on the morning of the killings, there was no blood on them despite the one lens being 'found' in Stephen's room where there was blood spray even on the walls.
Memory lapses as this hate-siter puts it, are not evidence of murder, however there was medical evidence which offered an explanation as to the effects of malaria. Of course we don't know if Robin also had memory lapses, but we do know he was angry, unkempt, alienated from his family and a huntsman experienced in blood sports.
Who stood to gain from the financially from the deaths? Well to this point only the extended family.
Who did the forensic evidence point to? Well, only Robin right down to his brain matter being found inside the rifle barrel, the rising trajectory shot, the un-excluded blood spray across the floor of the lounge and reaching the curtains, the simple suicide technique, the blood spray across his shoe occluded from being from his own wound - insurmountable proof unpalatable to the liars and twisters of the truth as this person above.
A message for Ralph Taylor, Black and others the clock is ticking down on the count when your lies, and deliberate spreading of rumour to incite hatred and contempt for the Justice system, persecution and stalking of others is over in cyberspace. Try taking your hate-message elsewhere and see how you go, and note you are being taken to account.
But I'd only be joking wouldn't I? Like I was about the blood in the rifle and the absence of injuries to David as determined by his strip search that day by the Police surgeon. Justice prevailed despite the efforts of your hate-sites and now your hate-sites are being looked at, I bet you can't wait.
An example...
In memory of Supersleuth:
Whose bloody fingerprints were found on the rifle? Not Robin's. Whose socks had blood on them? Not Robin's. Whose clothing had Stephen's blood on it? Not Robin's. Who had been wearing the broken glasses? Not Robin. Who had great memory lapses? Not Robin. Who stood to gain financially from the deaths? Not Robin.
Who does the forensic evidence point to? Not Robin.
Quote
jmhb51 (1 ) 2:59 pm, Sun 20 Mar #31597
All these years and still trying to lie to find a way out and protect the old man.
Of course there was over a 93% chance that Robin's prints would not be on the rifle.
David's prints on his OWN rifle were in a carrying position and not in blood as this liar above well knows.
David had a minor spot of aged blood on his clothes, yet the blood from Stephen was sprayed extensively throughout the room, sprayed.
The broken glasses; there was no evidence they were worn by anybody on the morning of the killings, there was no blood on them despite the one lens being 'found' in Stephen's room where there was blood spray even on the walls.
Memory lapses as this hate-siter puts it, are not evidence of murder, however there was medical evidence which offered an explanation as to the effects of malaria. Of course we don't know if Robin also had memory lapses, but we do know he was angry, unkempt, alienated from his family and a huntsman experienced in blood sports.
Who stood to gain from the financially from the deaths? Well to this point only the extended family.
Who did the forensic evidence point to? Well, only Robin right down to his brain matter being found inside the rifle barrel, the rising trajectory shot, the un-excluded blood spray across the floor of the lounge and reaching the curtains, the simple suicide technique, the blood spray across his shoe occluded from being from his own wound - insurmountable proof unpalatable to the liars and twisters of the truth as this person above.
A message for Ralph Taylor, Black and others the clock is ticking down on the count when your lies, and deliberate spreading of rumour to incite hatred and contempt for the Justice system, persecution and stalking of others is over in cyberspace. Try taking your hate-message elsewhere and see how you go, and note you are being taken to account.
But I'd only be joking wouldn't I? Like I was about the blood in the rifle and the absence of injuries to David as determined by his strip search that day by the Police surgeon. Justice prevailed despite the efforts of your hate-sites and now your hate-sites are being looked at, I bet you can't wait.
For those that are interested....
2nd call over tomorrow of a few named hate-siters and stalkers, one of whom (it must be said the most verbose) is letting the cat out of the bag nicely, giving the Court a good old lecture and thinks he's advising the Court on the 'incorrect' verdict in the Bain case when in fact the Bain case is not the issue. It might be a case of 'straitjacket fits' for him soon. Interesting to note the continuation of the 'I believe therefore I am right' impetus which has always worked badly because belief must be held on good reason and logic and not for convenience. It works badly now as well, but the stakes are higher and the networking of the stalkers of which I've been aware of for 2 years is emerging as a more complete picture. Each inch gained is precious to keep the integrity of the Justice system complete, and soon the measure may not be in inches or centimetres but rather in yards and metres. But for me, to bring into the light and visibility those that dared come near by family.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
I bow to thee Japan
I've watched, as the wary watched.
Thinking of my father and friend Ian,
of the children too
bright once, before our hands
shook across the fault line that
breaks my heart and yours.
The rising plume Ian saw a half century ago
and could never forget upon the then sea
or his life long since after.
Of Featherston
The footsteps of peace into hilly volcanic lands.
I watch and feel ashamed
of my restraint
The holding back
while your heart breaks as mine must do
along the fault line
that says I am not you and you are not me
until I raise by head that bows to you Japan.
Thinking of my father and friend Ian,
of the children too
bright once, before our hands
shook across the fault line that
breaks my heart and yours.
The rising plume Ian saw a half century ago
and could never forget upon the then sea
or his life long since after.
Of Featherston
The footsteps of peace into hilly volcanic lands.
I watch and feel ashamed
of my restraint
The holding back
while your heart breaks as mine must do
along the fault line
that says I am not you and you are not me
until I raise by head that bows to you Japan.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A 'victory' announced in Christchurch by the Demolition Association.
How best to describe a good come-uppance?
Call it a victory. That's what Diana Stil, President of the Demolition and Asbestos Association has decided to do.
She announces 'We have Won!!! because finally the management of the demolition and rebuilding of Christchurch has now been placed in the hands of the big guns - Fletchers, Mainzeal, Hawkins, Fulton Hogan etc have now joined forces to take over the management and have finally given high priority to health, safety and the environment.'
Aah, sorry Diana - the Government remains in change and if they have delegated specific tasks, those responsible for those tasks remain answerable to the Government and the State of Emergency that still applies. And in those delegations you're not the bright light you considered yourself to be setting up shop to get work for your own company.
I note Diana grimly hanging onto her health and safety cap that got her in some much trouble for trying to interfere with the efforts of Urban Search and Rescue. Surely she must realise the efforts in Christchurch are not some battle between contractors and Environment Canterbury that should be 'Won' to use her words. It is a combined effort with many different agencies playing a role which she unfortunately misinterpreted as an opportunity for her own Demolition Company.
It's either naivety or a thick hide to claim a victory after being told to butt out because you were hampering USAR, and pure naivety or duplicity to consider that the Christchurch authorities were unable to connect Diana's duel role as President and owner of one of the contracting firms looking for work. Diana has probably displayed why outsiders should keep under the radar when visiting other territories and not bring petulance and arrogance to display against 'lesser' locals.
Anyway, I can agree there has been a victory of sorts - getting systems in place and people to work in a uniformed and constructive way for the benefit of Christchurch rather than the benefit of some fellow Aucklander's egos.
Call it a victory. That's what Diana Stil, President of the Demolition and Asbestos Association has decided to do.
She announces 'We have Won!!! because finally the management of the demolition and rebuilding of Christchurch has now been placed in the hands of the big guns - Fletchers, Mainzeal, Hawkins, Fulton Hogan etc have now joined forces to take over the management and have finally given high priority to health, safety and the environment.'
Aah, sorry Diana - the Government remains in change and if they have delegated specific tasks, those responsible for those tasks remain answerable to the Government and the State of Emergency that still applies. And in those delegations you're not the bright light you considered yourself to be setting up shop to get work for your own company.
I note Diana grimly hanging onto her health and safety cap that got her in some much trouble for trying to interfere with the efforts of Urban Search and Rescue. Surely she must realise the efforts in Christchurch are not some battle between contractors and Environment Canterbury that should be 'Won' to use her words. It is a combined effort with many different agencies playing a role which she unfortunately misinterpreted as an opportunity for her own Demolition Company.
It's either naivety or a thick hide to claim a victory after being told to butt out because you were hampering USAR, and pure naivety or duplicity to consider that the Christchurch authorities were unable to connect Diana's duel role as President and owner of one of the contracting firms looking for work. Diana has probably displayed why outsiders should keep under the radar when visiting other territories and not bring petulance and arrogance to display against 'lesser' locals.
Anyway, I can agree there has been a victory of sorts - getting systems in place and people to work in a uniformed and constructive way for the benefit of Christchurch rather than the benefit of some fellow Aucklander's egos.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
More from the Demo Wars in Christchurch....
Following on from the blog below, one of the managers from Environment Canterbury actually served an eviction notice on Diana Stil, President of the Demolition and Asbestos Association from a 'control' centre inside the cordon where Diana was assisting with mobilising plant and machinery required by Urban Search and Rescue teams. The manager said that Diana, and therefore the association, were inhibiting the rescue effort. All of which appears over the top until a clue emerges 'We also insisted and implemented asbestos control measures after one of our members correctly identified friable asbestos on the Pine Gould Building' to as how the Demo Assoc was 'purposely delaying the body recovery and that we had NO SYSTEMS FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY WHATSOEVER' ( the emphasis, Diana's - the writer.)
First of all I'm not sure how an 'eviction' notice would apply and can only take it as a given because that is how it was reported, perhaps it applies to some law under a 'state of emergency' or a Council law or power instilled upon Environment Canterbury. But Diana's own words 'also insisted' as reported above gives some weight to the view of Environment Canterbury officials that the rescue was being delayed because of 'asbestos control measures.' Friable asbestos is material with at least 1% asbestos which is dry and able to be reduce to dust and therefore presents as a danger to human inhalation. Of course when handling such material a normal procedure is to wet it down and use particular breathing apparatus filters for those in contact with it.
Christchurch and that time wasn't 'normal procedure' mode. However no doubt rescuers were properly attired and with approved breathing apparatus because of the dust and any other contaminants. Now when somebody says 'one of our members' it actual broadens the picture from the 'logistic assistance' that the President claimed, into an operational situation. Further the words 'also insisted' show a root cause of the real issues that caused the crisis of control which sent the President packing. One can't be involved in organising logistics and elevate that to a role of 'insisting' on procedural compliance's, not in general situations and certainly not in life and death situations under declared states of emergency.
I can't help but think now that Diana, whom I still assume introduced herself into the cordon, misinterpreted her accepted offer of help on a narrow basis as merely a step toward a leading role in the recovery (and later along with her own demo company, Nikau) and the wheels came off when experienced USAR team members rejected normal protocol safety measures (which can be quite over the top) and wanted to get on with the job using their own experience and common sense. And also that it is more likely that while the Auckland Demo contractor and the one from Christchurch attending the 'remove yourself scene' with the Environment Canterbury manager, certainly had an eye on work in the future but that Environment Canterbury were acting to remove an obstructing force and bring on board contractors unconfused as to their roles as being no more that demo company owners and not demo company owners-President of Associations.
First of all I'm not sure how an 'eviction' notice would apply and can only take it as a given because that is how it was reported, perhaps it applies to some law under a 'state of emergency' or a Council law or power instilled upon Environment Canterbury. But Diana's own words 'also insisted' as reported above gives some weight to the view of Environment Canterbury officials that the rescue was being delayed because of 'asbestos control measures.' Friable asbestos is material with at least 1% asbestos which is dry and able to be reduce to dust and therefore presents as a danger to human inhalation. Of course when handling such material a normal procedure is to wet it down and use particular breathing apparatus filters for those in contact with it.
Christchurch and that time wasn't 'normal procedure' mode. However no doubt rescuers were properly attired and with approved breathing apparatus because of the dust and any other contaminants. Now when somebody says 'one of our members' it actual broadens the picture from the 'logistic assistance' that the President claimed, into an operational situation. Further the words 'also insisted' show a root cause of the real issues that caused the crisis of control which sent the President packing. One can't be involved in organising logistics and elevate that to a role of 'insisting' on procedural compliance's, not in general situations and certainly not in life and death situations under declared states of emergency.
I can't help but think now that Diana, whom I still assume introduced herself into the cordon, misinterpreted her accepted offer of help on a narrow basis as merely a step toward a leading role in the recovery (and later along with her own demo company, Nikau) and the wheels came off when experienced USAR team members rejected normal protocol safety measures (which can be quite over the top) and wanted to get on with the job using their own experience and common sense. And also that it is more likely that while the Auckland Demo contractor and the one from Christchurch attending the 'remove yourself scene' with the Environment Canterbury manager, certainly had an eye on work in the future but that Environment Canterbury were acting to remove an obstructing force and bring on board contractors unconfused as to their roles as being no more that demo company owners and not demo company owners-President of Associations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)