Skip to main content
Had to take advice on the situation in Fiji as I could not understand why a native Fijian would be opposed to the return of land to indigenous Fijians. The answer is that the problem is the legislation that the supposed democratic government of Fiji intends to pass through Parliament returning the Foreshore to indigenous Fijians. This is a similar exercise to the legislation passed in New Zealand in relation to the Foreshore. The issue in Fiji is one of Sovereignty. Fijian nationalists do not want a parliament legitimising what has always been theirs. Filtering this issue through a colonial parliament dilutes the issue. It has been explained to me in this way.There was a dining table in Fiji.The British Empire put a table cloth on the table and proceeded to invite a whole lot of people to dinner. The Fijians are now saying we want our dinner table back.You can have the table cloth.

Comments

  1. Anonymous5:17 PM

    Tumeke! a timely feast was had after a great little football toss, between the men in blue and the men in green. Poor aunty Helen rocks up to John's BBQ with her best mate shrek, turns up the gas and scares the chops off of shrek, leaving remanants of a smoking BUSH kinda trail. Best to secure the ground you walk on before you play games :)e.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How do Defence Lawyers sleep at night.

How do defence lawyers sleep at night?
I must admit when I saw the photos I was totally creeped out. It took me a while to get over them.  I had a flashback of defending a person charged with having sex with a woman who had an IQ of around 70. I agonized about the case and taking it to trial. But it was resolved on the court steps with a guilty plea and no prison sentence. A week of hot showers finally washed the case off me. I don’t think I did many more cases after that involving sexual crimes. Not because I wouldn’t or couldn’t. But perhaps word got around that I didn’t like women being raped and those defendants didn’t gravitate towards me. I felt more at home defending people charged with stealing vast amounts of money, sometimes off old people in Rest Homes. Was there something about the fact that no blood was spilled which enabled me to shut off the devastation inflicted on these victims? Did I have a fatal flaw? Should I get psychotherapy? Should I change to family law, where I…

Be wary

Be wary of the lawyer who says he can get you off the charge without knowing anything about it. Look for a lawyer who is nosy and wants to know what happened. Sometimes the lawyer who says no problem I can get you off this very serious charge will change their minds just before you are about to be arraigned before the jury and say I think you should plead guilty. A trained monkey can tell people to plead guilty. You might be better off with a lawyer who appears a little pessimistic but when the bullets start to fly doesnt wave the white flag.

David Bain.

The distressing thing about the David Bain case is that there are many more cases like that where people have been convicted of murder on the shonkiest of evidence. Take for example the case of Gail Maney who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Dean Fuller Sandys in 1989. She was convicted of murder at her first trial but this was over-turned because the Trial Judge did not put the defence adequately to the jury. She was convicted again at a retrial in 2005. On appeal to the Court of Appeal one of the appeal court judges was the judge who failed to put her defence at the original trial. Does that sound fair to you.Three court appeal judges.You need two to win and one of the judges was the previous trial judge. Fuller Sandys was allegedly murdered by Steven Stone at the behest of Gail Maney in the garage of her Henderson house in 1989. His body was never found. His car was found at a west coast beach some time after he disappeared. It was alleged that he was d…