Your view: Readers' have their say

O'Donnell not in SAS

Jay Kuten is at it again, exposing his lack of intelligence (Chronicle, July 5), all designed to continue his attacks on the establishment.

He states that Lieutenant Tim O'Donnell was a decorated SAS trooper and then goes on to link him to SAS troops who were involved in later operations.

This is wrong -Mr McDonnell was a junior infantry officer serving with the 1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment, not an SAS trooper as Mr Kuten states. Even using the word "trooper" is an insult as that is the lowest rank in several branches of the army and equates to private in others, including the infantry.

The "link" to the SAS conveniently allows Mr Kuten to then embark on his mission to besmirch both the NZ Defence Force and the Government in his love for Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson and their book Hit & Run.

How can any credence be given to a book claiming an incident occurred in a certain place when it actually occurred miles away?

There seems to be a degree of acceptance that any civilian casualties that may have occurred at either location were not due to direct action by the SAS.

Innocent until proven guilty is the usual mantra, so let's see Hager, Stephenson and Kuten prove their assertions beyond any doubt instead of screaming for an inquiry in which the accused have to prove their innocence.

While on the subject of civilian casualties, I wonder if Mr Kuten is as vocal about the atrocities against civilians carried out by the Israeli Defence Force? Unlike him and the agitating authors, I have witnessed the total disregard for and, indeed, specific targeting of civilians by IDF in Lebanon.

As for the rubbish about SAS permeating the highest reaches of NZ Defence Force, some former SAS officers have reached the pinnacle of command through merit as have those without any SAS service in their CV. Who knows, perhaps we may see a female in the top echelon of command in the future?

D PARTNER, Eastown

No pushing

D Partner is wrong in his letter (Chronicle, July 20) which claims I said I pushed Denise Lockett and Tracey Treadwell into the path of Chester Borrows' car.

I never said any such thing, and I did not push anybody.

I had a police officer on either side of me at the anti-Trans Pacific Partnership agreement protest in Liverpool St that day.

PHIL 'BEAR' REWETI, Whanganui

Forests earners

Rob Butcher (Chronicle, July 17) can express his opinion that the destruction of kauri forests a century ago is somehow the fault of the plantation forest industry 100 years later.

But his erroneous comparisons of forestry with other contemporary primary industries cannot go unchallenged.

The forest industry will earn $5.47 billion this year, not $4.8 billion as Rob Butcher claims. Not much different, but he shouldn't be years out of date.

He then goes on to claim the forest industry is "fast being overtaken by the kiwifruit and manuka honey industries".

If he checked, he would see that forest exports are worth three times the value of kiwifruit exports. He would also find the returns from honey exports (not all manuka) are about a 20th of those generated by the forest industry.

From an environmental point of view, perhaps he would care to look at the benefits of forests, native and planted, in preventing erosion and flooding. He might also inform himself of the ability of planted pine forests to lock up carbon emissions our transport and agriculture produce.

DON CARSON, Communications manager
Forest Owners Association

Ridiculous ref

I agree with Gary Stewart regarding the All Blacks versus Lions series - they should have had an agreement in place to play extra time in event of a draw.

The French referee had no idea.

All through the Lions tour when a penalty or knock-on occurred, the ref played the advantage law. If he had ruled correctly, the All Blacks would've scored or at least had a penalty. To blow the whistle, stop play and then give the All Blacks the scrum put-in was ridiculous.

G PETERSEN, Whanganui

Turbine trouble

Regarding the Waverley wind farm - "Positives of wind turbines aired" (Chronicle, July 19):

There is an enormous amount of information about wind power generation that we do not get told by the mainstream media.

We are told that burning fossil fuels is bad. We are informed that, apart from some noise and visual pollution, these quixotic monsters provide cheap, renewable energy to feed into the grid.

The truth is very different.

Wind turbines require massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce them - coal for the steel and cement; fuel for the machinery that erects them.

This huge carbon footprint is not repaid until near the end of their expensive lives.

Then we have the problem that the wind is a very erratic source. A power grid can collapse if input drops too much and getting it up and running again is a slow and costly operation - we have an example recently in Australia when strong winds caused the turbines to "feather" so as to avoid self-destruction.

In New Zealand we have a slight advantage - having so much hydro power, we can store water when the wind blows and use hydro when the wind does not blow. But wind power is NOT cheap, so power prices must rise. We are subsidising the construction of this costly and ugly means of power generation.

Carbon taxes that increase all our costs of living are used to subsidise an expensive form of power generation that will, in turn, increase the cost of our electricity.

Do not think for one moment that it is environmentally friendly or remotely cost-effective.

WILLIAM PARTRIDGE, Hunterville