Day 28

Where's your story Hanna McCallum, Blair Jackson, Olivia Shivas, Denise Piper and Avina Vidyadharan? Lazy Journos
_________________________________________

Have the Youth Forum council meeting tonight.
For my wee go I'm planning on a poem.

Is Doctor Sharma's smile smarmy?

Is he a trouble maker made and practiced?

Does he work for the common good?

And are his efforts channeled right?

Is he dumb, or is he bright

  for joining in that joint's endeavours?

Perhaps Sharma is society's switch?
One of many, is he getting lucky?

Good doctor aside, I have to say -

Mentioning wrong,
   stupid,
      bullying,
          is always die-lem-you-us

Should I speak of Ludlow's wrongdoing?

Could I?

Sure, I will

You deserve to know,
                           and now time's out on my elevator pitch

 

 

I guess I should provide a summary regarding previous comments in my diary. This is from memory. Ludlow, Bailey, Thompson and Carey will have these details.

I'm not bringing up the emails or letters. I had moved on. Wild horses couldn't drag me back.

I was green regarding what Radio Southland could offer me. I approached Rach in a friendly manner, but not realisng my rights.

It was a good start. At the time, I didn't know who Rach was! (Rachael sang at our wedding as a twelve year old.) When I clicked, I said a proper hello. This led to Rach starting a private email thread. 

 

Rach was totally unconcerned about my voice being cancelled, while also gaining my sympathy. I poured my love into our communications as she kept up with provocations followed by false accusations.

At work, Rach had initially been affirming of my plan, but then things turned strange. Darren puddled around, wasting my time, and I got to thinking that maybe if I shared about myself he might be friendlier. I forwarded him my Parliament Protest testimony. For a moment there, I was desperate for Ludlow to like me. I really wanted a fair go at the station!

Darren said that Rach was unavailable, and made the unnecessary point of saying that it was not my business to know the reason. He said things about himself and hurtful innuendos about my motives. He drew me in to share more about my life then used that against me, saying that it was not suitable for the radio. I already knew that, but also I could not tolerate his random censoring. I assured him that I was back to the drawing board.

It got to the point where I thought I should just take the lead. We were getting nowhere. I wrote a definite statement regarding my expectation to be helped at the station to prerecord. Darren then became undeniably nasty.

Like I say - Socialists. They think they know best. They think they know what society needs, and to hell with following the laws that they spent your money on putting into place.

There was no problem going to Peter. Darren had made it abundantly clear all along that I could go to the board chair if I needed. I hadn't needed - I thought I was getting along ok with Darren, until suddenly the custard curdled. I looked back on Darren's early mention of the board chair and clicked - they're chums, no matter what. Darren was free to hassle from the get go. I got the impression he was practised.

Peter Thompson declined to investigate even from his own seat. He quickly closed off the matter, completely ignoring one particular letter. I was given no material from the other party during this 'process'.

Over several weeks, I sought to know who the trustees were and kept coming up empty. I began wondering whether there is only a manager and a chair. Recently, I learnt via a chance encounter that Sheree is on the board.

Sheree was happy to communicate during her working day at home. She wanted a phone call but I messaged that I needed to address my complaint in writing to all the trustees to which she replied that their details must be kept private. After my response to this annoyance (published in my first post, 31st of August, Day 7), I was informed that Sheree was off sick. I have not heard from her since, and I had shared from the outset that this was a serious matter and that I felt vulnerable.

If you read this Sheree, do you still think that you need to 'protect' the other trustees?
Why do Radio Southland trustees feel they sit above members of the public?
Who are they?

Lesley Soper?

Our 'women supporting women' advocate?

How does Lesley think her fellow women cope when she says that we are destined for painful destruction if we don't do things her way?

I . do . not . support . your . Socialism . Lesley . and . co .

I wish you would step away, like ordinary New Zealanders of integrity would. You've had your turn. Do you really think you are indispensable?

I've mentioned Lesley here, not because I think she is a trustee of RS. I simply don't know. But everyone knows Lesley is supported by Labour. 

 

Partisan blocs are dangerous to society.
I could never sell my soul like that.
Becs?
Alex?

That question - is it fair? - draws a blank from Socialists. It's like teetering at the edge of the gaping black hole of an oft wide open mouth. Then, when they get angry, there's no mercy. And when they, the mighty crowd, feel trapped they slander their victim.

Have you ever noticed how the rich Socialists tend to say they'd be happy to pay more tax? They don't just privately share with all and sundry. They have to make sure that if they're giving more, then the Joneses must too. They can't just give for the fun of it. They have to belong to nasty Group Think before giving makes sense to them.

I hate Socialism. It's ruining us.

While I am on the topic, I attended a Just Transitions meeting (April I think) - a farce - and if I hadn't known who Rebecca Amundsen is, I would have assumed that was a security guard at the front, detached from the people whom central government pretended to hear. Despite this, several spoke from positions of vulnerability for the common good. Becs was a lackey at that meeting. Not only were we pushing back on central government, I also perceived that we, the Majority, were viewed as a problem to fix by one of our own.

Becs didn't start out that way. She used to have a servant stance  - or, that's how it came across in the media.

 

And....because I must (back to the radio saga) -

 

Rach praised her involvement with youth accessing their 'gender rights'. Now that I am standing for mayor, I cannot let this pass.

Gender adjustments for youth are a long way off being scientifically proven safe. There is research from overseas and an increasing abundance of victim testimonies. New Zealand is refusing to heed the warnings. 

 

This is not All Us Moderates!   

 

The aggression comes from a minority who are behaving mentally unstable. Our schools are being used as indoctrination camps and our universities are struggling under the increasing weight of entitled idiots.

 

If we need proof of safety regarding gender reassigning, then we should be patient and wait for it ---
or we could simply respect parents, our yesterday's children. How novel!!!

 

Rach also said that (as Rachael Goldsmith) she was earlier closely involved with the Green Party's work regarding matters of well being and that this was wonderful because these policies then transcribed into our law books.

 

As for Ludlow, when I pointed out to him that there is a nice media piece about his soft changed heart in the public domain, he then banged on about his right to keep his private life and professional life separate, and also to keep those two lives separate from his political one.

 

He did a lot of preaching, did Ludlow, in those emails. delicious.
It was a dessert I couldn't enjoy, and still can't now.
I cannot afford to get the stitch.

Run with me, aums.
I'm holding back in the race, just for you.
The final push will be ours together at the vote of many colours.
(My dad coached me to run a longer race like this. It's because Dad wanted a win.)
We do have this sussed, and I'm accustomed to running for pleasing others.
We are the south, and the south always gives generously for the common good.