My My How the WDC worm doth wriggle

Posted below is the letter received from the WDC CEO. I am sure the viewer is astute enough to work out the justification for my response or otherwise also posted below. What is of concern to the ratepayer is the fact that we are paying these people wages and sometimes in extremely healthy figures. Now the obvious thing to ask yourself is if they were in the real world would they earn their keep- I think not. The other point of concern is if the WDC can’t follow their own bylaws etc., then when it comes to outside contracts etc., where does that leave the poor old ratepayer- paying through the nose as always whilst the WDC operates on Glidetime Bigtime.

Dog Attack and the Wanganui District Council

Posted below is the e-mails I have sent to the Wanganui District Council requesting copies of the correspondence they claim to have sent me. A reasonable request I am sure. To date I haven’t had a response from them. I wonder why? Im sure the viewer will get the gist. Now the fun thing is that the Privacy Commission is more than happy once the 20 working days have passed to enforce the handing over of the correspondence
as they see a nil response as a refusal to comply with my perfectly reasonable request.

Dog Attack- Council ineptness or corruptness

You decide. Posted below is the questions I asked the Wanganui District Council and their responses

Lies and yet more Lies

Relevant excerpts of Stuart Hylton’s report to Michael Laws dated the 17.8.06 are set out below.
So if you believe the report as the dog was released on the 15.8.06 even though Pleasants couldn’t get out because of the road conditions until the 18.8.06 – REALLY– and even stranger they managed to sign an agreement on the 17.8.06 that they were nowhere near –HOW– do share it with us Stuart.
I was notified of the decision as per the e-mail below 15.8.06
I am sure any court is going to greet these discrepancies with some considerable scepticism.
Footnote: Waikupa Rd., was closed to traffic 11.8.06

Inefficiency or Something More Sinister?

There is a considerable discrepancy in the paperwork covering the release of the dog which attacked me. The dog was released on the 15.8.06 as per the Enviromental receipt yet the S31 ( dangerous dog classification) wasn’t served until the 16.8.06 and even stranger the agreement wasn’t signed until the 17.8.06 by Pleasants and the 18.8.06 by Stuart Hylton (Agreement or Window Dressing)

Even stranger I have a witness who espied Stuart Hylton in the part-time ranger’s silver ute on the Waikupa road (20.10.06) the day I insisted that I be supplied with a signed copy of the agreement rather than an unsigned copy.Very unusual to supply an unsigned copy of an agreement when a signed copy exists.

Now wouldn’t you expect all the paperwork to be done on the one day and certainly before the dog was released.

Even stranger is the fact that Kensington Swan were also supplied with an unsigned copy of the agreement

after the agreement between the parties has been signed and (we assume) implemented

Surely after what went on i.e. hearing etc the Wanganui District Council wouldn’t have released the dog and not done the paperwork until I got on their tail in October-surely not

Agreement or Window Dressing

The agreement struck between Pleasants and the Wanganui District Council is reproduced as follows:

The agreement had it been correctly enforced was robust enough to keep the community safe which is the first duty of any Council.
It should be appreciated by the owners that the grim reality is that the agreement they have signed means that they can never go away and leave their dog in the care of anyone else.

A Question of Ownership

What most people will not realise is that the dog that mauled me so badly is actually owned by Graeme Pleasants , President of the RSA and one of the citys 12 ambassadors.
As an aside many people have questioned the choice of ambassadors and are not impressed that there was no apparent public input- it would appear that it was yet another vision. For those not in the know the Mayors party is called Vision.
Note the owner as per the notes taken by Stuart Hylton at my hospital bedside on the 17.7.06.

These notes also neatly dispel another little “myth”
that I was ever made aware that I was the figurative owner as regards the Dog Act 1996 or its amendments.Up until the decision of the “hearing” that denigrated into a meeting courtesy of the lack of chairing on the part of Cr. Murray Hughes and the unchecked rampage of Graeme Pleasants I was left rightfully thinking that the Council would represent myself and the community- just shows you, you can always learn.Considering that I was told by Stuart Hylton (then Head of the Dog Section) that he would be very angry if the dog walked-I had no reason to think there would be any other outcome.Graeme Pleasants closing speech I’m sure would leave no doubt as to ownership.(as per minutes of hearing)

He is to retire next year and Ori was to be his retirement mate.

Now ask yourself the obvious question why would someone distance themself from their “retirement mate”?