March 26, 2008...5:47 pm
Act unsure whether Roger is Mr or a Sir
Jump to Comments
The Act Party has issued a press statement in which Sir Roger Douglas calls on Helen Clark and John Key to say which Rogernomics policies they would reverse. Pretty ho hum. What stands out about the statement is its calling Sir Roger “Mr Douglas” not once but twice. Act’s shining economic knight was gonged way back in 1990, when we still had knighthoods. Maybe whoever wrote it is so young they don’t know the style for referring to a Sir. Whatever, it is slapdashery that even a newspaper would be ashamed of if it got into print.
7 Comments
March 26, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Sir Roger doesn’t refer to himself as “Sir”. It was his release, after all.
[Poneke says: Sir Roger did not write this release issued in his name. Of that I can assure you. He is a literate man. The release is not literate. I recommend you read it, and shudder.]
March 26, 2008 at 9:06 pm
It could be worse. A recent Oamaru Mail story about Brian Lahore referred to him as Sir Lahore.
March 26, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Roger Douglas is a perfect example of why we should not have knighthoods. Rewarding him for what he did to us is like giving George W Bush the Nobel Peace Prize.
March 27, 2008 at 8:45 am
Idiot/Savant,
As much as you may have distaste for his reforms, he saved New Zealand from the bankruptcy SIR Robert Muldoon left it in.
March 27, 2008 at 9:19 am
Quite… and on the point of knighthoods, when was the New Zealand public consulted about discontinuing them?
What right did the Liaborites have to just blithly strike this tradition off? Is there any political party that would consider reinstating knoghthoods, or are they all too bloody politically indoctrinated and correct?
March 27, 2008 at 10:24 am
Well at least it wasn’t “Sir Douglas”
March 27, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Sir Roger did not write this release issued in his name. Of that I can assure you. He is a literate man. The release is not literate. I recommend you read it, and shudder.
But the release was written FOR him. Those of us who have met him will know that he doesn’t like being referred to as “Sir” Roger. I have no doubt that he would have wanted to leave the “Sir” off.
[Poneke adds: Again I invite you actually to read the release, which my article links to. Sir Roger would never have allowed such a shoddy thing to be issued in his name, had he seen it. The shoddiness is the point of my post, not what Sir Roger calls himself. For the record I have met him many times.]
Leave a Reply