It wasn't McKean Estates.
Faced with a 50-50 chance of who would be the offender, Mckean estates have wriggled off the hook. (See previous post here)
But into the firing line comes Paul Vegar (Auckland investment fellow) and his able Manager Daniel Watson.
The quick witted amongst you will recall the previous article here about "reckless, irresponsible and deliberate" taking of water in the Wairau Valley. And the stuff. co.nz article here on the same topic.
Well guess what?
Same fellows.
The land is cleverly tied up in investment speak parcels so that the title holder gets stung for the legal stouch while the investment manager wrings his hands. Real viticulture artisans. The sort of people to whom wine-making is not so much a calling as an art form to be elevated to the highest levels. I've no doubt they are skilled at making money. If you want a successful investment, see this guy.
In fact, if you're a lawyer, he's probably looking for some extra help too. And you know what? That's probably what will happen here. He won't decide to operate the fans at a compliant level. He'll fight it in court and chew up your hard earned rate dollars.
5 comments:
Thanks for posting this, and all the extra details. -- It does high light the folly of abatement notices. -- These arrogant thorns just put up a fight because they know the system has more inertia than the moon. They have money and they don't give a toss about the people they annoy.
Jack, why is it you will call out and identify these growers for rnning at excessive noise levels when you will not identify the manufactures that are having blade failures? Seems like you may have more of an ax to grid than you want to people to believe. Are you really concerned for the pulic safety or not?
Fair Question.
Ultimately, I believe that the growers have the final responsibility to ensure that their fans are running correctly.
The manufacturer on the other hand is required to ensure that their product is suitable for use.
If I have an axe to grind it is certainly more with the operators rather than the suppliers. Kind of for the same reason that in the hands of a responsible farmer, a shotgun is a suitable tool for pest control. Whereas in the hands of a masked criminal in a bank, it is a clear and present danger to all and sundry.
So, in short. I would prefer to allow the manufacturer to sort their act out without me exposing them in public. I would prefer that , because their product is not evil, although it can be used irresponsibly. I am relatively certain that appropriate authorities have been alerted to the concerns that I am raising, and I am hoping that the manufacturer concerned will act responsibly and make appropriate changes to make their product safe. To that end, I will need to think of a means of allowing the manufacturer to show a responsible action, but at the same time ensure that those actions are followed through. If I 'out' them in public, that may limit their options in the long run, but rest assured, the truth eventually catches us all.
Jack, if a law abiding citizen was using a certain type of gun that was failing and had the potential to hurt someone. The public would know about it immediately. Seems to me that if you withhold information regarding a failing product that could potentially cause someone physical harm. That you and your blog may have some culpability maybe not legally but certainly morally. Things are not always about what you do. They are sometimes about what you don't do.
You are still right.
And please don't regard your prompting as being the reason for my ultimate decision to act. While the surface of the waters are calm, there is much moving behind the scenes. The decision to act has never been mine it is the manufacturers and they will make it for me.
Post a Comment