Whanganui District Council is to ask people whether they want a bylaw to allow shops to open on Easter Sunday. Here are some of your views.

I oppose Easter Sunday trading.

I am not allied to any church but I love the particular silence of that day, not much traffic and a different feeling around our city ... a feeling of tranquility that we hardly ever get in our busy lives.

I have been in the United States where only Easter Friday is upheld and I felt a sadness about a Sunday which was the same as other trading days.


I also think it is very naive to say people can refuse to work those days - when people are desperate to hold on to their employment, employees can't afford to stand up against management.

We have too few days which can be used as family days, let's not keep whittling them down. Once we have lost them, we won't get them back.

Three-and-a-half days a year non trading! For goodness sake, let's stop worshipping at the feet of these international market forces and stop filling their tills at least for a few days.

ANN HANDLEY, Whanganui

I think it's good thing to have Easter Sunday shopping. We have many visitors in town so we can offer them a service.

DEB MUNRO, Whanganui

I don't shop any Sunday of the year, so I certainly wouldn't be shopping Easter Sunday.
When can families ever spend time together when so many businesses are expected to be operating seven days a week?

D THOMAS, Whanganui

No to Easter Sunday shopping.

And letters on Denise Lockett's call for an inquiry into the police prosecution of Chester Borrows, and a retrial.

How can Denise Lockett think anyone other than herself is at fault when she steps in front of a car and gets hurt?

We've all seen the video and it's patently obvious that the car was moving very slowly. She had more than enough time to step back.

Cars do not ever stop instantly when some twit stands in front of them, no matter how quickly the driver puts the brakes on.

Own up to your own mistake, Ms Lockett.


When are the Trans-Pacific Partnership protesters going to stop wasting taxpayers money and everyone's time?

Don't they get it? New Zealand will never have any great influence in this.

Why don't the protesters spend their time educating themselves on how to effect real change?

They have the intelligence to see the problems but cannot channel their energy sensibly into constructive directions.

Whatever does it achieve for adults trying to stop an MP's car?

Did Denise Lockett and Tracy Treadwell want to hold the driver Chester Borrows and the government minister Paula Bennett hostage? If that was achieved, what would be their next step?

It's clearly been forgotten how, after the incident, the protester yelled out to the camera crew, something like: "Did you get that on film?"

ROBYN WEBB, Whanganui

Disappointing to see the Chester Borrows thing on the front page of Friday's paper.

Two people thought it was their right to stand in front of a moving vehicle to "make their point" about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

What is a "lawful protest"?

Having a view on an issue is everybody's right, expressing it is part of that right also, but there is no corresponding right to force your views on to anybody else by blocking roads, standing in driveways, chaining yourself to gates etc.

These protesters should take some responsibility for their actions. Chester had an office in town and, like anybody else, an appointment should have been made to discuss their concerns with him directly. That is the process, and if that isn't working that is what needs to be changed.

Our new MP may wish to sponsor a new piece of legislation that deals with the actions of protesters where they intentionally break the law and put themselves in front of vehicles or block roads to force others to hear their viewpoint.

Private property owners can use "reasonable force" to remove objects from their property that shouldn't be there. Intentionally standing in a driveway is public nuisance and that is the charge that should have been laid in the first place.


I am not sure why this is news and what is hoped to be achieved.

We have a double jeopardy rule in New Zealand, if someone is found not guilty, they cannot be re-tried on the same charge.

This is particularly for a matter as (legally) trivial as this and can only change if there is significant new evidence but the threshold is very high.

The police could re-examine the case and see if additional charges were appropriate but the risk for Ms Lockett is that those additional charges would fall to her since she and the others were obstructing someone going about their lawful business.

There is also the separation of the state and courts, which means that writing to the attorney general is a waste of time.

Alternatively, she can file a private claim in the appeal court seeking to strike out the not guilty finding and seeking a retrial but again the chances are slight to say the least.