Berrymans shortchanged
hellicopter
Now old and needing money, the Berrymans have taken the money
against advice. Frustrate and delay won tightarse National
day. The Nasty Nats just don't do the right thing.
Trust in the law, in due process, are threaten by the decision.
Look at how the Banks won a huge reprieve ?15%? off,
what a bargain!
You see the little guy can be chased around the legal loops,
the big guys can delay until they get a good settlement for
their wrongs.
Justice tilted all wrong.
Hope some Human Rights body take up the case for the Barrymans,
they were forced to settle by big government.
liberty
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3203173/Berrymans-accept-Govt-compo-o...
>
> Now old and needing money, the Berrymans have taken the money
> against advice. Frustrate and delay won tightarse National
> day. The Nasty Nats just don't do the right thing.
Not all together right chopper.
Both National and labour shafted the Barrymans.
Clark promised before the 1999 election. She would sort it out.
The promise was forgotten by the time she had walked of the bridge.
Lyndon Watson
> against advice. Frustrate and delay won tightarse National
> day. The Nasty Nats just don't do the right thing.
Nor did Loopy Labour. I'm glad that National are being tight-arsed
with my money.
It's a few years now since I looked at the history of this case, but I
remember wondering just what they were claiming for. As far as I can
remember (and I may well be wrong) they were wronged by
(a) the finding of the Coroner, and
(b) the army's conduct in withholding evidence.
Their problem seems to be that neither of these factors itself caused
them significant financial loss. They suffered some damage to their
reputation, possibly, but that was minor and temporary. But then
they seem to have embarked on a kind of crusade and squandered all
their resources, and now want to be compensated for that. Perhaps
they should look to their very strange lawyer if he didn't advise them
to exercise common sense.
LW
Roger Dewhurst
No. They were driven off their farm. Fair compensation would be the
$150,000 plus their farm in the state it was before they were driven off it.
R
hellicopter
National made the deal now. Labour delayed and should
rot for it but National closed the unconscionable deal.
WorkHard
Perhaps you better go find out more about it; what it cost them
and what they lost.
Lyndon Watson
> Lyndon Watson wrote:
> > It's a few years now since I looked at the history of this case, but I
> > remember wondering just what they were claiming for. As far as I can
> > remember (and I may well be wrong) they were wronged by
> > (a) the finding of the Coroner, and
> > (b) the army's conduct in withholding evidence.
>
> $150,000 plus their farm in the state it was before they were driven off it.
How were they driven off their farm?
LW
george
couldn't pay the mortgage.
And lost their farm thanks to inept Army bridge builders, the -justice
- system and a bank..
hellicopter
The costs of the collapse and death of the beekeeper
led to them being held liable and lost their farm
as a result.
Civil society requires that legal remedies be available
and that when won real compensation is paid.
i.) so that people seek redress in future,
ii.) that engineers aren't building crap bridges
and so we all don't pay more insurance, or more
health care costs than necessary due to sloth.
iii.) most importantly that our sense of justice
is correctly formed. That we don't all end up
with a mob mentality that says the state can just
leave a engineering milestone that kills people
and the only punishment is metered out to
happenstance bystanders.
Say the hand break broken off your car,
now it roads back and over the road into a families home
killing their kid. Should we blame you?
That you killed their child?
When in fact it was a faulty car break.
Now lets say the authorities covered up the fault.
And you are sent to jail.
Pay out sums in compensation to the breaved family.
Now do you want a measly sum when you win back your
name in court because the sad thugs who rule us
are so heartless and lack any integrity or fortitude
to pay a proportionate compensation!
And think of the family of the beekeeper who lost
first their loved one and then had justice stolen
from them when the courts and the army engineers
(failed them A SECOND TIME)! You really do need you
head examined if you think a unjust society can
survive.
We should all be thinking of number one, the government
won't act for the good of the people by making a generous
settlement, and in fact is using the frustration of
a timely process to again make this poor couple suffer AGAIN.
Shameful.
This not the first time, people in power cannot get it
perfect since they aren't perfect. So when they get the
best deal going, they should question it least they do
more harm.
>
> LW
hellicopter
They lost their farm, their livelihoods, then justice, now
they been robbed again in compensation. Heartless bastards.
Roger Dewhurst
Bankrupted as I best recall.
R
hellicopter
> On , , Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:08:43 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> They willingly accepted the money.
> They have no further redress.
Yes, except the book, How justice denied harms us all,
followed by the screen play, screwed by the Nasty Naff Nats.
And a unfunny comedy show that uncovers the two faced National
party. Flights for girlfriends but screw the old.
Oh, that's a good idea! grey power are surely to discuss
this, over and over and over. Shocking way to lose an
election, a simple lack of generosity of spirit would have
lost them the next election.
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
Lyndon Watson
> Perhaps you better go find out more about it; what it cost them
> and what they lost.
I've been following that advice. A problem is that sources such as
Stuff don't seem to carry articles from the relevant time, so I
haven't (yet) been able to confirn or disprove my impression at the
time that they were largely the authors of their own misfortune.
However the more recent judgment of Wild J was interesting. It backed
another of my impressions - that Moodie, though a lousy lawyer, did an
excellent PR job for the Berrymans and his own anti-army crusade. The
public, knowing little more than the gullible media's reporting of one
side's publicity, has come away with the impression that there is no
doubt that the Berrymans have a good claim for compensation.
The accident seems to have been down to four contributing factors -
(a) The dead man's speed on crossing the bridge (probably not
significant);
(b) The design of the bridge;
(c) The use of untreated timber in the bridge; and
(d) The failure to maintain the bridge.
I don't know what has happened to the Berrymans' claim that the bridge
was not on their land, so I leave it out of the analysis.
Factor (a) can probably be discounted. As far as (b) is concerned,
though it appears that a better-designed bridge would have lasted
longer, it was not defective in that sense. It had been used for some
time without failing, and would have continued to serve if it had been
properly maintained. Referring to point (c), the use of untreated
timer was the Berryman's idea to save cost, but it was acquiesced to
by the army, on the condition that the Berrymans maintain it
accordingly.
That brings us to factor (d). The onus of maintaining the bridge was
on the Berrymans, and it was especially important since they had
chosen to use untreated timber. The matter has never gone to trial,
but it seems to me that the immediate and dominant cause of the
failure was the Berrymans' failure to maintain when they knew that
maintenance was critical for that bridge, so
(1) the coroner's verdict, while wrong in details, was broadly right
in holding the Berrymans primarily responsible;
(2) the army report that so much has been made of did not in any way
exonerate the Berrymans (as Moodie et al would have had us believe)
but rather confirmed their responsibility for the accident;
(3) the Berryman's expenditure since has been mainly directed to
either defending themselves against charges to which they should
either have pleaded guilty and got it over with or defended without
incurring vast costs pursuing the army for a report which turned out
not to be the magic bullet, or their own mad pursuit of people and
institutions against whom they have grudges;
(4) so their resulting poverty and losses are largely their own doing
and not the fault of the state, and no compensation was owed to them.
I am no longer so happy about the government being tight-arsed with my
money. Given the unilelihood that the Berrymans would have succeeded
in and significant claim, I am tending to think that the government
was wildly extravavgant with my money.
LW
WorkHard
You better go read some more. The Berryman's were shafted good
and proper.
Helen Clark visited the Berryman's at the site of the accident.
She was appalled and promised them she would see justice done.
Haha, yeah right.
Lyndon Watson
> You better go read some more. The Berryman's were shafted good
> and proper.
How about posting *in detail* how they were shafted, not just general
statements which leave the essential questions unanswered.
LW
WorkHard
I think it's up to you to do the research if you're interested.
I'm just saying you appear to have it wrong.
7/227
When H.C. found the Berryman's failed to have the proper maintainance
on the bridge done she dropped them like a hot rock, as any politician
would, Most of you pricks would'nt be able to name the man who died on
that bridge,
The Berrymans should have got nothing.
What have Federated Farmers got to say about this compensation ?
Matty F
> I don't know what has happened to the Berrymans' claim that the bridge
> was not on their land, so I leave it out of the analysis.
That should be easy enough to prove. My recollection is that the
bridge was not on their land.
> Referring to point (c), the use of untreated
> timer was the Berryman's idea to save cost, but it was acquiesced to
> by the army, on the condition that the Berrymans maintain it
> accordingly.
Many people including the Berrymans would not know how well Douglas
Fir withstands rot. I only know that it is terrible because I had some
outside for a few years and it went rotten. My hardwood decks are
fine.
There was no way of maintaining the bridge except to replace the
timber, which should never have been used in the first place.
> That brings us to factor (d). The onus of maintaining the bridge was
> on the Berrymans
I believe the Berrymans were notified of that in writing. They should
have had a competent engineer inspect the bridge regularly, and they
apparently didn't. So the collapse is partly their fault, unless the
bridge was not on their land.
George
"Matty F" <matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4ede0d98-1f07-4b6b...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
My understanding of events is that the Berrymans had contributory
negligence. They were partially to blame. Back in 2001, 8 years ago now,
compensation was offered.
I am no expert so my conclusion may be a little blunt, however. Seeking to
prove their innocence cost them 8 years and a degree of money (amount
unknown to me). A better course of action would have been to accept they
carried blame and set their efforts on negotiating a suitable compensation
deal that factored in their contribution on blame along with the other
parties. Whether back in 2001 $150k was sufficient to provide that I am not
sure, perhaps not. Efforts could have been made at that time however to
improve the deal that did not involve relitegating the whole issue of blame.
Maybe the initial offer of compensation was too low, and I state maybe,
however it seems the past 8 years the Berrymans have been largely chasing
shadows.
Whether you could state 'authors of their own demise' I am not so certain.
It might be a little harsh to state that. They did not have the judges
decision from 2008, that clarified blame, back in 2001. They may have
thought they had a strong case for being found without blame. Maybe if they
had foresight of the 2008 decision they would have devoted their entire
efforts to negotiating a settlement at the turn of the decade. Hindsight
slao indicates to me however that the Berrymans have not been harshly
treated by the government in the offer of $150k in 2009.
rob
some extracts from commentary:
Publicly, and in his submissions to me on costs, Mr Moodie has stated that
[the junior officer] approved the oregon before the Berrymans purchased it.
Mr Moodie has never publicly acknowledged that the Army specified macrocarpa
or tanalised pine for the transoms and stringers, and that the switch to
untreated second-hand oregon was at the Berrymans' request, in order to save
them the cost of the more expensive, and suitable, materials the Army had
specified. As I have said, the Army's attitude to the Berrymans' choice of
the oregon timber is unclear.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-army/news/article.cfm?o_id=440&objectid=10125204&pnum=0
Does this absolve the Berrymans of blame? No. The judge considered doing
that, but found that there was evidence before the coroner upon which he was
entitled to find that the Berrymans had inaquately maintained the bridge,
quite apart from the problems with its design and construction. She said
that, even considering what we know now, it is unlikely that the Berrymans
could be completely exonerated.
Does it mean the Army was at fault? Not necessarily. The judge made no
finding about fault or wrongful conduct on the part of the Army. She merely
struck out the parts of the decision that confidently concluded that the
Army wasn't at fault.
The coroner had concluded that the collapse was primarily the Berrymans'
fault. The judge effectively amended that to partly their fault.
We shouldn't be too surprised at this result. It's exactly what Wild J said
when he considered similar issues in an early chapter of the litigation.
And although Rob Moodie makes a lot of the judge's recommendation that the
parties try to settle the Berrymans' $4.5 million damages claim, Justice
Mallon didn't make any comments on the merits of the claim, which is a
separate proceeding.
The Berrymans gained a partial victory in the court. But they won a striking
victory in the media.
The Crown has made an offer of compensation, of $150,000. It may be arguable
that this is a fair offer, given that the Berrymans' claim for damages
relies on proving misfeasance, and that's not going to be straightforward,
as one independent legal expert has observed. I can't see a court awarding
the $4.5 million they seek.
hellicopter
The case failed when the the bridge was found to be on council land!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Rata_Bridge
The bridge wasn't new the last one
had killed many sheep when it collapses as they crossed!
What's it about the right that brings out the nasties?
Lyndon Watson
> I'm just saying you appear to have it wrong.
Right, I've found the authoritative summary of the facts in the 2008
judgment of the Court of Appeal. The jusgment can be read at
www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/new-zealand-defence-force-v-berryman-and-anor-1/?searchterm=berryman.
In summary, the relevant facts were. -
(a) In the agreement that the Berrymans made with the army, they
acknowledged that the life of the bridge would depend on the
maintenance which they gave it, and they bound themselves not to hold
the army or any of its personnel responsible for the performance of
the bridge. [My comment: their subsequent attacks on the army were in
breach of this agreement.]
(b) As a matter of fact, the inadequacies in the design of the bridge
did not contribute to its failure which was due entirely to the lack
of maintenance of the untreated timber components.
(c) After the accident the Berrymans were prosecuted under the Health
and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and were acquitted on the ground
that the bridge was not a "place of work" within the meaning of that
Act.
(c) The Berrymans themselves commissioned an engineer's report which
put most of the blame on their failure to maintain the bridge.
(d) They did not disclose this report at the inquest and instead
engaged a different engineer who attempted to blame the accident on
excessive speed by the beekeeper.
(e) They did not require the army officer who dealt with them and
designed the bridge to give evidence at the inquest, as they could
have, and the design of the bridge was not put in issue.
(f) Instead, the only reasons for the failure which they put forward
were excessive speed by the beekeeper and the possibility that he
suffered a heart attack. They attacked the medical examiner for not
investigating that possibility by post mortem examination.
(g) In 2001 the Berrymans began their legal challenge to the inquest,
and this was finally settled by the judgment of Mallon J which quashed
the coroner's finding that there were no issues with the bridge, but
otherwise found against the Berrymans. [My comment: apart from their
acquittal this was the Berryman's *only* success in any substantive
issue, and it had no practical effect on anything.]
(h) The Berrymans subsequently started proceedings against the army
for malfeasance in public office (for misleading the coroner) and
those are the proceedings which were settled by the recent payment.
It is doubtful that they would have received substantial damages
because they did not suffer any loss as a result of the alleged
malfeasance.
So, the *only* proceedings in which the Berrymans were compelled to
take part were the prosecution and the inquest, neither of which need
have caused any great expense, and neither of which were in any way
improper or gave them any grounds for compensation. The expenses
which are supposed to have put them off their farm were incurred in
their own actions against the inquest and the army which they had no
practical need to undertake, and other actions such as defamation
suits against various people. As I said at the beginning, and have
now justified on the facts, it was all some sort of crusade on their
part, aided and abetted by an unethical lawyer, which we, the
taxpayers, are now to pay for.
LW
hellicopter
> On Jan 3, 8:59 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>> I think it's up to you to do the research if you're interested.
>> I'm just saying you appear to have it wrong.
>
> Right, I've found the authoritative summary of the facts in the 2008
> judgment of the Court of Appeal. The jusgment can be read at
>
www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/new-zealand-defence-force-v-berryman-and-anor-1/?searchterm=berryman.
>
> In summary, the relevant facts were. -
>
> (a) In the agreement that the Berrymans made with the army, they
> acknowledged that the life of the bridge would depend on the
> maintenance which they gave it, and they bound themselves not to hold
> the army or any of its personnel responsible for the performance of
> the bridge. [My comment: their subsequent attacks on the army were in
> breach of this agreement.]
So your arguing the Berryman knowingly deceived the Army that the
bridge was their responsibility? They were misinformed, deluded,
maybe in desperate to get a workable bridge for their farm to make
money, and said whatever they were told to say.
Look it came down to the Berryman promise not being worth the
paper it was written on, the Berrymans had no right to authenticate
the bridge or even the coathanger in Auckland. Its not illegal
for the Army to dupe itself! Duplicity does not make you legally
watertight, or in this case, weathertight. Seems the bridge was
an early case of poor timber not up to specification.
WorkHard
As you present 'facts' above, I'd agree. But from memory it was
not so cut and dried.
But is there anything else (more important) that you think the
taxpayer should not be paying for?
liberty
Berryman stuff up was he brought the wrong timber.
The army should have known it was the wrong timber.
The bridge was designed by the army.
At that stage the army should have walked away.
The bridge was built on crown land.
A private person then drove to fast over a bridge on crown land and it
collapsed.
Berryman was then persecuted by OSH
At that stage the Army should of taken responsibility . The then
National government
Should of told OSH to FO
The saga should have been sorted out years ago. Instead too many
people have been
Protected by Nanny State. Stuff the little man the state is never
wrong.
liberty
> On , , Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:07:45 -0800 (PST), Re: Berrymans shortchanged, liberty
> Learning some punctuation would help the comprehensibility of your posts.
> People aren't going to take you seriously if they can't understand your posts.
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scooter you are odious twat FO
hellicopter
> On , , Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:04:12 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> You still aren't making any sense at all.
> Are you sure a drive belt hasn't slipped somewhere in your system?
Wiki says the Berryman case was thrown out because the bridge
was on council land. So the Berrymans signature on a contract
to check the bridge from time to time was not binding.
The Berrymans forefilled the contract anyway, it was not their
fault the new bridge was made of faulty materials that accelerated
the condition of the bridge. Councils do not investigate bridges
every year, and clearly the council were a fault if their bridge
on council land was faulty. Berrymans should sue the Council.
Lyndon Watson
> Wiki says the Berryman case was thrown out because the bridge
> was on council land.
Then Wiki is wrong. See the judgment of the Court of Appeal referred
to in a previous post. The prosecution failed because the bridge was
not a place of work for the man who was killed. If it was on council
land, that may have aided the district court judge in coming to that
conclusion (since the work was to be done on the Berrymans' land), but
the ownership of the land and the bridge was not a decisive issue.
> So the Berrymans signature on a contract
> to check the bridge from time to time was not binding.
That would not follow anyway. And the obligation was to do more than
check the bridge from time to time - it was to maintain it in a safe
condition.
> The Berrymans forefilled the contract anyway, it was not their
> fault the new bridge was made of faulty materials that accelerated
> the condition of the bridge.
It was, actually. Under the arrangement with the army, the Berrymans
supplied the timber and the army did the work. The army design called
for treated timber; the Berrymans supplied untreated timber to save
money and the army insisted on the high level of maintenance because
of that.
> Councils do not investigate bridges
> every year, and clearly the council were a fault if their bridge
> on council land was faulty. Berrymans should sue the Council.
The council was not reponsible for the bridge. If it was on their
land, it was because they allowed the Berrymans to put it there. The
Berrymans would lose.
LW
Roger Dewhurst
> On Jan 2, 3:47 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps you better go find out more about it; what it cost them
>> and what they lost.
>
> I've been following that advice. A problem is that sources such as
> Stuff don't seem to carry articles from the relevant time, so I
> haven't (yet) been able to confirn or disprove my impression at the
> time that they were largely the authors of their own misfortune.
>
The army used an unregistered engineer to design the bridge and
supervise its construction. That puts 100% of the responsibility onto
the army. R
Roger Dewhurst
> On Jan 3, 8:59 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>> I think it's up to you to do the research if you're interested.
>> I'm just saying you appear to have it wrong.
>
> Right, I've found the authoritative summary of the facts in the 2008
> judgment of the Court of Appeal. The jusgment can be read at
> www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/new-zealand-defence-force-v-berryman-and-anor-1/?searchterm=berryman.
>
> In summary, the relevant facts were. -
The army did not engage a registered engineer as the law required.
The bridge was not on the Berrymans' land.
Nothing else is relevant.
R
Roger Dewhurst
> On Jan 5, 3:45 am, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> Wiki says the Berryman case was thrown out because the bridge
>> was on council land.
>
> Then Wiki is wrong. See the judgment of the Court of Appeal referred
> to in a previous post. The prosecution failed because the bridge was
> not a place of work for the man who was killed. If it was on council
> land, that may have aided the district court judge in coming to that
> conclusion (since the work was to be done on the Berrymans' land), but
> the ownership of the land and the bridge was not a decisive issue.
>
>> So the Berrymans signature on a contract
>> to check the bridge from time to time was not binding.
>
> That would not follow anyway. And the obligation was to do more than
> check the bridge from time to time - it was to maintain it in a safe
> condition.
They were not qualified to do that. That could only be done under the
supervision of a registered engineer, presumeably the council engineer.
>
>> The Berrymans forefilled the contract anyway, it was not their
>> fault the new bridge was made of faulty materials that accelerated
>> the condition of the bridge.
>
> It was, actually. Under the arrangement with the army, the Berrymans
> supplied the timber and the army did the work. The army design called
> for treated timber; the Berrymans supplied untreated timber to save
> money and the army insisted on the high level of maintenance because
> of that.
A registered engineer should have checked the suitability of the
materials and the work. This devolves on the army and the council.
>
>> Councils do not investigate bridges
>> every year, and clearly the council were a fault if their bridge
>> on council land was faulty. Berrymans should sue the Council.
>
> The council was not reponsible for the bridge. If it was on their
> land, it was because they allowed the Berrymans to put it there. The
> Berrymans would lose.
The council was also responsible for checking the construction of the
bridge. It did not do so. Councils cannot farm out responsibility for
works carried out on council land to people who are totally unqualified.
R
>
> LW
Roger Dewhurst
> Lyndon Watson wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 8:59 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>>> I think it's up to you to do the research if you're
>>> interested.
>>> I'm just saying you appear to have it wrong.
>> Right, I've found the authoritative summary of the facts in the
>> 2008
>> judgment of the Court of Appeal. The jusgment can be read at
>> www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/new-zealand-defence-force-v-berryman-and-anor-1/?searchterm=berryman.
>>
>> In summary, the relevant facts were. -
>>
>
R
Roger Dewhurst
Why was a bridge build on public land without certification and approval
by the council? The army should have applied for a permit and the
council should have used a registered engineer to check and supervise
the job.
R
Lyndon Watson
> The army used an unregistered engineer to design the bridge and
> supervise its construction. That puts 100% of the responsibility onto
> the army. R
In your mind, perhaps, but not in law.
LW
Lyndon Watson
> The army did not engage a registered engineer as the law required.
>
> The bridge was not on the Berrymans' land.
>
> Nothing else is relevant.
To you, perhaps, but not to the law.
LW
Lyndon Watson
> Lyndon Watson wrote:
> > The prosecution failed because the bridge was
> > not a place of work for the man who was killed. If it was on council
> > land, that may have aided the district court judge in coming to that
> > conclusion (since the work was to be done on the Berrymans' land), but
> > the ownership of the land and the bridge was not a decisive issue.
>
> > check the bridge from time to time - it was to maintain it in a safe
> > condition.
>
> They were not qualified to do that. That could only be done under the
> supervision of a registered engineer, presumeably the council engineer.
Possibly but, nevertheless that is what they agreed to.
> A registered engineer should have checked the suitability of the
> materials and the work. This devolves on the army and the council.
>
> The council was also responsible for checking the construction of the
> bridge. It did not do so. Councils cannot farm out responsibility for
> works carried out on council land to people who are totally unqualified.
The reality of rural life is that many, many farmers, like the
Berrymans, put bridges across drains and natural waterways on public
land to get access from roads to their paddocks, and this is done
without reference to the local authorities and, quite likely, without
even their knowledge. Was the local council ever consulted about this
bridge? If the Berrymans were to go to court and say that they and
the army had put in a rather poor bridge that needed critical
maintenance, and the council should have found out about it and
stopped them or taken over the maintenance obligation, I wouldn't
fancy their chances.
LW
Lyndon Watson
> The court was a bigger ass than the army or the council.
The court applied the law as it is. If you don't like that, get an
M.P. to introduce a bill amending the law to your satisfaction.
Good luck.
LW
WorkHard
Yeah. But he's talking morally. The law is wrong, obviously.
I had a feeling you'd be one of those the 'law is above all else"
blokes. Can'r argue against the law, now, can we?
And it wasn't on the Berryman's land, either.
WorkHard
Totally irrelevant.
hellicopter
> On Jan 5, 2:24 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>> Lyndon Watson wrote:
>> > The prosecution failed because the bridge was
>> > not a place of work for the man who was killed. If it was on council
>> > land, that may have aided the district court judge in coming to that
>> > conclusion (since the work was to be done on the Berrymans' land), but
>> > the ownership of the land and the bridge was not a decisive issue.
>>
>> > . . . And the obligation was to do more than
>> > check the bridge from time to time - it was to maintain it in a safe
>> > condition.
>>
>> They were not qualified to do that. That could only be done under the
>> supervision of a registered engineer, presumeably the council engineer.
>
> Possibly but, nevertheless that is what they agreed to.
The contract wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Bridges take years to rust. The timber used was rotting
twice as fast as normal. Since the timber was selected by
the Berrymans, built by the Berrymans own hand, and since
this is all the Berrymans do, then they must be responsible!
LOL.
So to recap.
The Berrymans, had no authority to certify, no expertise,
were told they didn't have to do so for a number of years,
the construction was at fault for using duff timber, and
so it seems were the lawyers and the integrity of the Army
builders who sat on and frustrated justice. And now to add
one last dagger into the Berrymans, they are too old
and need the money and so took a bum deal. They will go
to their graves knowing the truth about the heart of NZ
government, its heartless capricious soulless bastardy.
hellicopter
> On , , Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:42:19 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> You have a rich fantasy life.
You have nothing.
Hint, when you sign a contract remember to check that
the other party not only can forefill their side of
the agreement, and that both parties aren't ignorant of
facts of the case and legal responsibility of councils
to inspect all bridges on council land.
The engineers failed to get council permission to
build, and have the council inspectors sign off on the
contraction. Shocking! I can just see it now, some
council janitor took the phone call from the Engineers
who ask if they needed building permission on private
land and did council need to inspect it. Without
due diligence.
Roger Dewhurst
As I said, the law is an ass. I do not believe the judge had a clue
about the law as it applies to local government.
R
Roger Dewhurst
> Lyndon Watson wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2:14 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>> The army used an unregistered engineer to design the bridge
>>> and
>>> supervise its construction. That puts 100% of the
>>> responsibility onto
>>> the army. R
>> In your mind, perhaps, but not in law.
>
> Yeah. But he's talking morally. The law is wrong, obviously.
Not entirely. The law governs the activities of local government. I
suggest that the law was not complied with. I wonder if the legal
gentry, on both sides and the somewhat off-centre middle, has a clue
about local government law and responsibilities.
R
liberty
>
> - Show quoted text -
It’s a case of do as the state demands not do as the state does.
hellicopter
It is inconceivable that an arm of a government, the army, can
write a contract that can revoke the local councils legislated
obligations to inspect its council bridges. It is necessary
that both parties to a contract do due diligence, and the army
being the author of the idea (that it benefits by placing
liability on the Berrymans), to check whether it had the
authority. Its staggering to me that to think that if the
Berrymans could be asked to sell their first born into slavery
because it's a private contract between an arm of the state
and its citizens. The contract could not give duties to
Berrymans that already were the preserve of government (local).
The army could in theory could ask it soldiers to give up
their citizenship rights! The hidden fact that the Berrymans
were responsible for the bridge inspections fell over when
final investigations discovered them.
It goes to the logic of the neo-liberal, that since government
is useless, neo-liberals can ignore the usefulness of government
and shaft the little guy, cannibalize society for profit and then
watch while either massive value lose on markets (and government
debt forcing increase taxation) or some other global collapse.
Because neo-liberals don't need to check themselves, so don't
check their actions (which would cost money and the extra
spending would make their activities far less atractive).
Its like a kid who takes all the stuff in his home to the pawnshop
and then his dad findshis work tools are gone and has to pay
heaps of money to get them back. This is kid is neo-liberalism.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Now be fair, National couldn't afford any more compensation - they
need the money for their tax cuts....
liberty
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:37:59 -0800 (PST), liberty <libert...@live.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are once again posting rubbish Richbot.
There is no such thing as tax cuts.
What we had was the state not pillaging as much.
If the state is short of funds. Simple down size the state.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 5:23�pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
You got sucked in by National with that one did you? National have
made only minimal reductions in government spending - and increased
spending to some of their supporters pet areas like private schools.
They need all the income they can get to keep other payments up.
Unempoyment benefit costs must have skyrocketed as they have done very
little to encourage employment for just one example. The last thing
they want to do is have to increase the top tax rate - why do you
think they are getting an increase in GST pushed by commentators?
EMB
> It is inconceivable that an arm of a government, the army, can
> write a contract that can revoke the local councils legislated
> obligations to inspect its council bridges.
Privately owned and maintained bridges on public land are very common,
normally with the same liabilities and obligations as were attached to
the Berryman's bridge.
hellicopter
Don't you mean one off Army Engineer job, who have no market
presence to protect, infinite legal resources to pull upon,
who are expert in throwing up bridges for short usage in
battle conditions, or to be handed on to foreign governments.
Yeah, I can just see the early pioneers pulling up a bridge
and maintaining it themselves, piled high with paper work
from Auckland 'to have their' bridges inspected! Oh, yeah
that would have gone down well! Look the bridge was put
up by government, on council land, which council would
expect to use if their were a fire in a backlot, or a
runaway convict, or bureaucrats out tramping. We would
expect over time private bridges to come under the council.
Also it would also be expected that you build it you own it
applies equally to farmers as it does the government.
As for it being very common, how so? Should we have more
than one leak rotten bridge problem! Simply a private
contractor would have been sued for putting up such
a bad bridge, but the government sat on the inspection
and let the Berrymans take the fall along with a BeeKeeper.
A private contractor would have be pissing themselves when
a government inspector paid by the court investigated the
health and safety issue. But the government, for political
expediency sat on the case and didn't give these citizens
justice. This case should go to the Supreme Court because
its shocking. Eight YEARS, the Army Engineers managed to
build a bridge that lasted only Eight years! Shocking, no
wonder they wanted to bury the Berrymans.
liberty
> On , , Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:26:22 -0800 (PST), Re: Berrymans shortchanged, liberty
“how how”
Practice what you preach.
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.- Hide quoted text -
liberty
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:26:22 -0800 (PST), liberty <libert...@live.com>
“Unempoyment”
Please be more careful with you spelling Rich.
I know it. You know it. Any rational person knows it. Mistakes
happen.
But there are some very pedantic gits who troll the posts for such
irregularities.
Then they wet themselves in angriest. It is all very pointless.
One has to make allowances for such people. Their world is not very
big. Pin pricking keeps them occupied.
EMB
You really haven't got a clue have you chopper - some of us have real
world experience. I grew up on a property that was accessed via a
bridge outside the boundary that served only our driveway. The bridge
was built some time in the very early 20th century (1906 is the best
estimate) by a farmer and his two sons. There were neither engineers
nor treated timber involved in its construction. My family bought the
property in the 1960's, well before compliances, OSH or blame were part
of the everyday vocabulary. Common-sense and responsibility seemed to
feature far more in everyday life then - despite having no "legally
written" obligation to ensure the safety of the bridge my father
organised (and paid for) periodic inspections by an engineer. He also
took the actions recommended after said inspections - I spent a couple
of weeks one school holidays refixing the decking timbers.
A decade or so after that as "blame" became more commonplace the
engineer recommended that a weight limit be posted on the bridge, not
because the bridge had changed, but because common-sense was less common
and scapegoats more so. Eventually about 10 years ago as the main beams
were showing signs of deterioration we replaced the bridge decking with
a pre-cast concrete deck - core drilling and sonic testing of the
original abutments showed they were of suitable construction to be
re-used (this done for out own peace of mind after the council had
raised no objections to doing this without any investigation). Despite
being on public land there was zero council input and beyond sighting an
engineer's signature on the drawings they showed no interest whatsoever.
I think much of the council's stance was driven by a "if we have no
input we bear no responsibility" attitude.
Compare the above with the Berrymans' situation. *They* specified the
use of untreated timber, and knew this would compromise the lifespan of
the bridge. *They* signed a legal document taking responsibility for
the maintenance of a structure that they commissioned for their own
convenience. *They* failed to undertake inspections and maintenance of
the bridge. Why do you not feel that *they* are responsible for the
collapse of the bridge despite their involvement from the very start,
and despite their not taking the actions they had legally agreed to
take? Oh, I know, you support the nanny state controlling every facet
of everyone's life because you judge everyone else to have your complete
inability to think, act for, or look after themselves.
liberty
>
> >> Please learn how how to parse and punctuate.
>
> >“how how”
> >Practice what you preach.
>
> else.
> Doubling up of a word is not as egregious a mistake (it was due to me editing
> and rearranging the post) as deliberate stupidity, inability to spell or use a
> spell checker or being totally unacquainted with the concept of grammar or the
> ability to parse a sentence which are all hall marks of your posts.
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don’t talk piffle.
You were once again trying to be a smart arse . Instead you made a
dick of yourself.
Which is nothing unusual. It explains why Google delete your posts
after a week.
hellicopter
I don't have a clue yet you still try to reason with me. How
unfortunate that you don't have a sense of reason.
>
> A decade or so after that as "blame" became more commonplace the
> engineer recommended that a weight limit be posted on the bridge, not
> because the bridge had changed, but because common-sense was less common
> and scapegoats more so. Eventually about 10 years ago as the main beams
> were showing signs of deterioration we replaced the bridge decking with
> a pre-cast concrete deck - core drilling and sonic testing of the
> original abutments showed they were of suitable construction to be
> re-used (this done for out own peace of mind after the council had
> raised no objections to doing this without any investigation). Despite
> being on public land there was zero council input and beyond sighting an
> engineer's signature on the drawings they showed no interest whatsoever.
> I think much of the council's stance was driven by a "if we have no
> input we bear no responsibility" attitude.
>
> Compare the above with the Berrymans' situation. *They* specified the
> use of untreated timber, and knew this would compromise the lifespan of
> the bridge. *They* signed a legal document taking responsibility for
> the maintenance of a structure that they commissioned for their own
> convenience. *They* failed to undertake inspections and maintenance of
> the bridge. Why do you not feel that *they* are responsible for the
> collapse of the bridge despite their involvement from the very start,
> and despite their not taking the actions they had legally agreed to
> take? Oh, I know, you support the nanny state controlling every facet
> of everyone's life because you judge everyone else to have your complete
> inability to think, act for, or look after themselves.
The argument you seem to be trying to make, interspersed with ad hom
and patently irrelevant history of your rather pathethic lineage, is this.
That the Berrymans sign a contract because they thought it accepted
practice when it was not. You admit as much by bearing out how
you figure it was accepted practice, and I quote, because the
'blame' industry, evil council practice, culture of the market
imposition on a backward way of living, etc, etc. This don't
merit much of a response, but a large raspberry.
Do you actually have a legal objection? The bridge was on
council land, the army had in its power to have the Berrymans
get a inspector to sign off on the bridge. The army has its
own duty of care not to bring itself into disrepute by building
a structure that only lasted 8 years. As for the nonsense that
the Berrymans used timber that then went on to be used in countless
leak homes and they 'knew' what they were doing, that is farcical.
Geez, no farmer would take such nonsense that you blather.
Find a mark, who doesn't have a clue, get them to sign on the dotted line
and you have your water tight contract. No, says the courts.
But back comes EMB, no you say, your people are victims,
they are culturally backward, you have stronger values. Please.
Fact is we a populated country where council
takes on more bridges ever year, that is imposed upon
by legislation to inspect all bridges on its land.
The army had no such ownership right over the bridge
and should have been contracting with the land owner,
the council! Where bridges are on private property
that's a different debate.
But what hits worse for the army, is it was a training
exercise, this suggest they never took the job seriously
or had much experience of building bridges and worrying
about their family crossing over them. As our population
ages we will find more old couples who live in rural
areas and need help, not plagued by dogooders whose
objective is a media 'training' exercise.
I draw you to the final court decision...
The prosecution of the Berrymans failed when it was discovered that the
bridge was on council road reserve outside the boundary of Margaret's
property.
It was a council responsibility, the army needed to have the COUNCIL
sign off on a bridge on COUNCIL land, since ownership is nine tenths
of the law, the armies due diligence lawyers Fr*k up. Then they
committed a heinous crime over covering up the fault. Now the
government have stuffed up the compensation packages, undoubtedly
because the Bain compensation is coming up.
hellicopter
> On , , Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:59:43 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> You have never said a more true word
Thank you.
liberty
> On , , Thu, 7 Jan 2010 01:55:46 -0800 (PST), Re: Berrymans shortchanged, liberty
>
>
>
>
>
> <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Please learn how how to parse and punctuate.
>
> >> >“how how”
> >> >Practice what you preach.
>
> >> If I stooped to post all of your mistakes, I would have no time to do anything
> >> else.
> >> Doubling up of a word is not as egregious a mistake (it was due to me editing
> >> and rearranging the post) as deliberate stupidity, inability to spell or use a
> >> spell checker or being totally unacquainted with the concept of grammar or the
> >> ability to parse a sentence which are all hall marks of your posts.
>
> >> --
> >> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> >> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> >> Anatole France.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Don’t talk piffle.
>
> No need to get snippy, all you have to do is ask and I will attempt to dumb it
> down so you will understand.
>
> >You were once again trying to be a smart arse . Instead you made a
> >dick of yourself.
>
> Just ask one of the uphill gardeners at your school, they will explain and
> demonstrate to you.
>
> >Which is nothing unusual. It explains why Google delete your posts
> >after a week.
>
> There is still a lot you have to learn.
Think before you write. Then you want be so embarrassed of what you
write.
Lyndon Watson
> I draw you to the final court decision...
> The prosecution of the Berrymans failed when it was discovered that the
> bridge was on council road reserve outside the boundary of Margaret's
> property.
The prosecution failed because the bridge was not a "place of work"
within the meaning of the health and safety legislation.
LW
hellicopter
> On , , Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:33:19 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Br. Scooter wrote:
>>
>>> On , , Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:59:43 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
>>> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>
> You dishonestly snipped my comment
I was agreeing with you that you said you didn't have a clue.
Anyone can see the thread to see who did what, your pathethic
attempts at a joke fall flat, as usual. I recommend everyone
see your poor humor.
hellicopter
You mean it wasn't on the Berrymans property and so was council
responsibility to ensure the safety of council structures.
Like I said, when has a government been in the business of
letting one arm of government (Army Engineers) ignore the
will of legislative requirement on another arm of government
(Local Authorities)?
Lyndon Watson
> Lyndon Watson wrote:
> > The prosecution failed because the bridge was not a "place of work"
> > within the meaning of the health and safety legislation.
>
> You mean it wasn't on the Berrymans property and so was council
> responsibility to ensure the safety of council structures.
No, I don't. I mean what I said.
> Like I said, when has a government been in the business of
> letting one arm of government (Army Engineers) ignore the
> will of legislative requirement on another arm of government
> (Local Authorities)?
Gibberish.
LW
hellicopter
> On Jan 8, 6:29 pm, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> Lyndon Watson wrote:
>> > The prosecution failed because the bridge was not a "place of work"
>> > within the meaning of the health and safety legislation.
>>
>> You mean it wasn't on the Berrymans property and so was council
>> responsibility to ensure the safety of council structures.
>
> No, I don't. I mean what I said.
No, you mean to say the "place of work" was pertinent and that
it was no longer the place of work, Berrymans property. I'm
not imposing on a conclusion. I'm just stating what you said.
That the bridge was on council land, or in lawyers speak,
it was not a place of work.
>
>> Like I said, when has a government been in the business of
>> letting one arm of government (Army Engineers) ignore the
>> will of legislative requirement on another arm of government
>> (Local Authorities)?
>
> Gibberish.
You don't know what you don't know.
I repeat. When has a government Army Engineers been able to tell
the council it no longer had to satisfy its duty toward structures
on council land?
You cannot base your conclusion on you own inability to understand.
Either fr*k off or man up.
You quote that in a statement from an unspecified source, that
locality was an issue in response to my pointing out that
exact point.
That the bridge was on council land.
I repeat how is that important? If you agree, you agree.
Berrymans had no responsibility for a bridge on council land!
I have no right to use council land as I see fit, so why
would the Berryman's?
I can't just go and fit a bridge when I feel like it,
and the Army Engineers cannot tell me its ok!
>
> LW
hellicopter
> On , , Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:04:38 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> Humour has nothing to do with being as dishonest as you are.
> You were the original one who said they didn't have a clue.
I let the record stand, you recidivist lying is too much.
hellicopter
> On , , Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:49:50 -0800 (PST), Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> He doesn't so much argue, as wear people down with his idiocy.
Non-sequitor. Appeal to your own ignorance and inability to comprehend.
hellicopter
> On , , Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:21:23 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Br. Scooter wrote:
>>
>>> On , , Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:04:38 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
>>> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Br. Scooter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On , , Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:33:19 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
>>>>> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Br. Scooter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On , , Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:59:43 +1300, Re: Berrymans shortchanged,
>>>>>>> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You dishonestly snipped my comment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was agreeing with you that you said you didn't have a clue.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone can see the thread to see who did what, your pathethic
>>>>attempts at a joke fall flat, as usual. I recommend everyone
>>>>see your poor humor.
>>>
>>> Humour has nothing to do with being as dishonest as you are.
>>> You were the original one who said they didn't have a clue.
>>
>>I let the record stand, you recidivist lying is too much.
>
> Here is the message in which you made the comment about not having a clue,
> complete with headers in case you lie again:
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Path:
> feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> Newsgroups: nz.general
> Subject: Re: Berrymans shortchanged
> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:59:43 +1300
> Organization: circlepad
> Lines: 144
> Message-ID: <hi4b8l$vst$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
> References: <hhm76b$36v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
> <4178bd22-3c1b-4b7e...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
> <0f535714-1e19-45a2...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
> <64bec89c-c92a-45d9...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
> <73dcb87f-bae5-494d...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
> <3f655ee0-56f0-4ed3...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
> <hi0d5u$lnp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz> <hi0s7v$hm8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
> <hi1smh$bl0$1...@news.datemas.de> <hi22q1$5i3$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
> <hi45lo$u52$1...@news.datemas.de>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: g70Oa7n6c95brNBx1JlrZw.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:vEqvbsAwjd2ZGNXDgY1zU86s8FA=
> User-Agent: KNode/0.10.1
> Xref: eternal-september.org nz.general:65547
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is the line above.
> You can't deny that.
What? You are quoting me replying to EMB, not you!
You then burst into the thread with snipping everything but...
"""
>I don't have a clue
You have never said a more true word in anything you have posted here.
"""
Get over yourself.