This is the bizarre moment a barber set a customer’s hair on fire — on purpose — while giving him a haircut.
Footage shows the hairdresser ditching the scissors to use gel before using a lighter to set his hair on fire. The barber then used two combs to cut and style the flaming hair as the customer smiles nervously in the hot seat.
The strange styling technique, which was filmed at a salon in Chennai, south India, sees the hairdresser continue to brush the customer’s burning hair until the flame burned out after 12 seconds.
Apparently, the unusual technique has been growing in popularity across India over the past couple of years.
Customers are said to pay between $26 and $52 for the maverick haircut, with many salons offering the style without a license to keep up with growing demand, sources claim.
Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva is “in hospital but he is fine,” his media spokesperson Lōpeti Senituli told Kaniva news last night.
It is understood the 77-year-old was diagnosed with pneumonia and is recovering.
In a previous interview Hon Pōhiva said his routine check-ups with his doctors showed he was healthy but he sometime felt the burden of his duties for the country.
Hon Pōhiva, who will turn 78 this Sunday, said he was often attacked by the Opposition in Parliament accusing him of his health conditions and claimed he was not fit medically to continue on his job.
“Kou longo pe au. Kou tala ange mou taki taha o
tokanga’i ho’omou mo’ui. Kou sai pe au,” he said in Tongan.
This translates into English as: “I just kept silent.
I told them look after yourself. I am fine.”
He said he was happy that he was not diabetic or suffered one of the diseases which links to diabetes-related conditions.
In January last year he was admitted into Vaiola hospital in a “stable condition.”
At the time, a spokesperson said Hon Pōhiva has been moved to the hospital’s intensive care unit to avoid being disturbed by visitors who arrived to see him.
Acting Chief
Justice Cato has acquitted a man charged with reckless driving causing death.
Ngana
Tatafu Folau ‘Alovili wa charged
following an incident in late 2017.
The Supreme
Court was told that on September 23 that year ‘Alovili was driving a car which
hit and killed ‘Onesi Lino.
Police said
‘Alovili was speeding on Taufa’ahau road at Ha’ateiho and not paying proper
care and attention.
Witnesses said
‘Alovili was speeding and there was no other car on the road at the time.
One witness
said he saw the deceased get out of a vehicle in which he was a passenger and cross the road.
He said it was about five seconds between getting out of the car and when he was
hit.
Another
witness said the area was brightly lit. He said he saw car approaching and
because of the way it was moving he felt cared and ran out of it way. The witness
admitted to drinking kava but denied being affected by it.
Another
witness said he had been drinking vodka with Lino earlier in the evening and
had dropped him off so he could continue drinking with some other friends who
were going to pick him up.
After assessing
the evidence, Acting Chief Justice Cato said he thought it probable that Lino
had crossed the road and walked into the path of ‘Alovili’s vehicle.
He said he
accepted that it was possible that ‘Alovili’s vision of Lino crossing the road
had been blocked by a vehicle passing in an easterly direction shortly before
the impact.
“The fact
that there was no evidence of skid marks suggests to me also that the accused
had no opportunity to take any evasive action and this suggests to me that the deceased probably walked out
into the path of the accused’s car without pausing to look,”
the judge said.
He said the
witnesses who suggested there was no passing car were being asked to
reconstruct events that arose suddenly and it was highly unlikely they would be
able to give a reliable account on whether a vehicle had passed by, when their
attention would not have been focused on this.
“Because I am
left in a state of doubt on this point,
the Crown has failed to convince me that the impact was anything more than a
tragic accident as the deceased crossed the road,” the judge said.
“I cannot
find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused in these circumstances materially
caused the impact. As such, the accused is not responsible for the
deceased’s tragic death and he is
acquitted of the charge of reckless
driving causing death.”
The Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against a presenter who described the Pacific Islands as leeches.
It found Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan’s comments were inflammatory, devalued the reputation of Pasifika people within New Zealand and had the potential to cause widespread harm.
The Authority (BSA) ruled she breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards.
NZME Radio was ordered to pay $NZ3,000 in costs and to broadcast a statement during Wellington Mornings with Heather du Plessis-Allan, summarising the BSA’s decision.
Her comments came during a discussion about the prime minister attending the Pacific Islands forum in Nauru, when she questioned the use of the visit.
“I mean, it’s the Pacific Islands,” she said. “What are we going to get out of them? They are nothing but leeches on us. I mean, the Pacific Islands want money from us. We don’t need money from them.”
In a follow-up broadcast, Ms du Plessis-Allan attempted to clarify her comments saying: “[some] chap … from the Green Party said I ‘casually dehumanised our Pacific peoples’. Oh my gosh. Did I? Or did I say the Pacific Islands? I don’t know, confusing people with islands?”
In acknowledging the important role talkback radio plays in cultivating discussion and debate about controversial ideas and opinions, the BSA noted this “does not mean anything goes or that the host is able to offend without censure.
“[On] this occasion we found the severity of the comments and their significant potential to cause harm, through distress and denigration, justified the upholding of these complaints and the restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. We consider that even in the talkback context these statements went too far.”
The BSA said Ms du Plessis-Allan was disingenuous in subsequently arguing that she had been referring to the Pacific Islands as leeches, rather than the people themselves.
“Countries are not just plots of land. They are the land and their people,” the Authority stated.
It noted the public condemnation of Ms du Plessis-Allan and acknowledged the Authority’s responsibility to reflect the values and attitudes of New Zealand.
This article is republished under Kaniva’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
Noble MPs did not walk out of Parliament in 2014 when Lord Tu’ivakano’s government moved to remove the powers of Judicial Appointments and Discipline Panel to make elections in the king’s Privy Council.
The Nobles-led government also planned to put an end to the
Panel in the future.
Lord Tu’ivakano’s government also moved to remove the constitutional power of the king to appoint a commissioner for the Anti-Corruption Commission, which was being planned at the time, according to the Parliament’s record (minutes) numbers 21, 22 and 23 on August, 2014.
The government also submitted to the House a Bill to remove
the Attorney General from the king’s Privy Council and bring the position into the
cabinet.
Other noble MPs who were in the House at the time, including Lord Nuku , Lord Tu’ilakepa and Lord Tu’iha’ateiho described the move by the government as a “liliu faka’aufuli,” (absolute change) to the constitution.
According to the minutes the noble MPs supported the bills and the amendments submitted by the government.
However, they moved in the House for the government to meet the people and consult with them about the bills. Despite heated debates in the House the Noble’s motion to take the Bills to the people was rejected after a majority ballot.
The reasons
The then Minister of Justice, William Clive Edwards in his attempts to clarify the Bill for the Anti-Corruption Commission said this would made the Commission an independent body.
He told the House all the new Bills and amendments which had
been tabled in Parliament were to make sure these were executive roles which had
to be carried out by the government and not the Law Lords in the Panel.
In Tongan he said: “Ko e ngāue faka-executive kā ‘oku ‘ikai
ke ‘ave ia ki he kau Law Lords mo e kakai ‘oku ‘i tu’a ‘oku ‘ikai ke ‘i ai
hanau tu’unga he fonua ke nau tu’utu’uni. Pea ‘osi ko ia pea tau toki lele
holo. Ko e ‘ū ngaahi ‘uhinga ia. Pea nau fai ‘enautolu ‘o ngāue’aki e me’a ki
he ‘Ene ‘Afio ka ‘oku tau’atāina pē ‘a ‘Ene ‘Afio ‘ana.”
This translates into English as: “These are executive jobs and they are supposed not to be given to the Law Lords and people outside who have no role making decision in this country. After all, we do not know where to go. Those are the reasons. And they did it using what was there for His majesty, but His Majesty was free.”
Hon. Edwards said it had been several years since the
previous government attempted to set up the Anti-Corruption Commission, but
still had not happened.
Constitution review
report
The then Minister of Police, Siosifa Tu’utafaiva, told the
House these amendments were made after the government received a review report
from a Commonwealth sponsored Constitutional expert who reviewed Tonga’s
constitution.
According to Hon. Tu’utafaiva, the then Minister of Law believed there were clashes in the Constitution clauses and how they gave powers to the Panel to appoint the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, the Judges and Commissioner for Anti-Corruption Commission.
He said the review report supported what the then Minister of Law and Attorney General have come up with in regards to the constitutional problems the bills and the amendments had to deal with.
According to the Parliament’s minutes the Chair of the Whole House Committee said most of the noble MPs supported the Bills and the amendments to the constitution submitted to Parliament.
As Kaniva Tonga news reported last year, the review report which was conducted by Peter Pursglove said Tonga’s constitution was one the poorest in all the Commonwealth countries.
Conflict of interest
He said a conflict of interest existed because the Attorney
General sat on the king’s Judicial Advisory and Discipline Panel, which had the
responsibility of appointing him.
The Attorney General should be a Minister and member of both
the Legislature and the Cabinet, he said.
The Pursglove report was approved by the king and was given
to Lord Tu’ivakano government to work on it.
Homework for the Pōhiva
government
Hon. Tu’utafaiva told the House, according to the minutes they were running out of time as the next general election was about three months away. And Parliament only had 15 days before it was closed by the king, according to the then Speaker.
Hon. Tu’utafaiva told the House to expect the rest of the works for the Bills – including the recommendation by Pursglove – to be dealt with by the incoming government. Lord Tu’ivakano was ousted by the Pōhiva government in November 2014.
In a previous interview with Kaniva Tonga news, Hon. Pōhiva said his government was working on
the report as it was left in the cabinet by the previous government for them to
deal with.
The Nobles walk out of
Parliament
The government of ‘Akilisi Pōhiva undertook to continue
working on the Pursglove report and what had been passed on from the Lord
Tu’ivakano’s administration.
Some of the recent Bills they submitted to the House
including ones to remove the power of the Panel to elect the Commissioner for
Anti-Corruption Commission and Judges.
They were similar to the Bills submitted by the Tu’ivakano
government.
The Nobles, led by Lord Nuku and Lord Tu’ilakepa, insisted
these Bills should be subject to consultation with the public in face to face
meetings.
After the government conducted its own radio talk back show
public consultation and disagreed with the Nobles, the noble MPs and the
independent MPs walked out of the House.
Lord Tu’ilakepa became Acting Speaker of the House and used
his power to block the move by the government to table the Bills in the House.
The
main points
Noble
MPs did not walk out of Parliament in 2014 when Lord Tu’ivakano’s government
moved to remove the Judicial Appointments and Discipline Panel from the king’s
Privy Council.
The
Nobles-led government also planned to put an end to the Panel in the future.
Lord
Tu’ivakano’s government also moved to remove the constitutional power of the
king to appoint a commissioner for the Anti-Corruption Commission, which was being
planned at the time, according to the Parliament’s record (minutes) number 21
on August 5, 2014.
By Radio New Zealand. This article is republished with permission.
The King and Queen of Tonga made an official visit to New Zealand’s National Library last week to discuss upgrades to Tonga’s Palace Archives.
King Tupou VI and Queen Nanasipau’u were presented with a range of Tongan archival material held by the library.
The library holds film footage of Queen Elizabeth II’s tour of Tonga in 1954, and various Tonga government records.
Archives New Zealand has hosted Tongan government ministers and officials on matters of record keeping for good governance and best practice for storing physical archival materials.
While at the library in Wellington, the royal couple also viewed He Tohu, the permanent exhibition of New Zealand constitutional documents.
He Tohu comprises the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and the 1893 Women’s Suffrage Petition.
The Supreme
Court has referred a spousal maintenance case back to the Magistrate’s Court
for a re-hearing as soon as possible.
Lord Chief
Justice Paulsen said he would allow the appeal in part.
In his
report on the case, Mr Justice Paulsen said this was an appeal from a decision
of the Principal Magistrate at Neiafu of February 20. The magistrate ordered
that Tonga Kupu pay Lotolangi Kupu spousal maintenance of $20 per week and
child maintenance for five of their seven surviving children of $20 per week.
Tonga Kupu
asked that the amount of maintenance be
reduced to $70 a week.
Tonga and
Lotolangi Kupu were married in 1996 and had eight children of which five children
were the subject of this proceeding.
After their marriage the parties lived in their own home at Lapaha, Tongatapu and Tonga had a commercial operation growing squash and pumpkins.
In 2013,
marital difficulties arose and the respondent and the children moved to live
with the respondent’s mother at Makave. There were attempts at reconciliation.
In September 2017 the appellant considered that the relationship had
been restored and he had his tractor and truck shipped to Vava’u to
re-join his family. He leased land to farm and has been growing crops.
The parties
lived together until September 2018 where Tonga grew crop and his wife ran a
small grocery shop.
The parties’
marital problems continued and in September 2018 the wife obtained restraining order
against him.
Tonga has
been living on his leased land since then.
Tonga provided food for his family until December 2018. He paid for three children to go to New Zealand for a vacation in December. He has again provided some food. He pays the school fees of one child.
In his
report on the case, Lord Chief Justice Paulsen said it had been argued that the
Principal Magistrate failed to give proper consideration to the evidence as to
the parties’ respective means and
that it was unreasonable to
require him to pay an amount of
$120 per week.
He said the
order that Tonga Kupu pay Lotolangi Kupu
$20 per week for the maintenance and support of each of the five youngest children of their marriage was
upheld. It would remain in force until the children left school or turned 18.
However, the order that he pay Lotolangi Kupu spousal maintenance of $20 per week be set aside and re-heard in the Magistrate’s Court on the first available date.
The
main point
The
Supreme Court has referred a spousal maintenance case back to the Magistrate’s
Court for a re-hearing as soon as possible.
Lord
Chief Justice Paulsen said he would allow the appeal in part.
A dispute
over the ownership of a bull has been sent back to the Magistrate’s Court after
the Supreme Court upheld an appeal.
Lord Chief
Justice Paulsen said the case should be heard by a different magistrate to the
one who heard the original case.
The case grew out of a dispute in Neiafu in September 2016.
Kaati
Halatoa brought a claim against Sam Tamale, seeking an order that he return a
brown bull which had been removed from land where Halatoa kept his animal.
The
Principal Magistrate in the original case ruled that Halatoa owned the bull and
ordered that it be returned to him within one week.
Halatoa said
he owned a brown bull that
was born in August 2014. It was kept,
together with other animals, at the tax
allotment of Sione Fisi’ihoi. The bull went missing
towards the end of 2015.
In June
2016, the respondent’s son reported to him that he had seen the bull roaming at
the tax allotment of one Tu’i’afitu.
This bull was retrieved and tied up at the tax allotment of Sione
Fisi’ihoi.
About two
weeks later the bull was taken Tamale.
Tamale
argued that he had a brown bull that was four years old when it went missing in
around May 2016. The bull was called Hercules and it was friendly and would
come when called. The bull fled a couple of times and on the last occasion it
went to the tax allotment of Fisi’ihoi where there are other animals.
He retrieved it and kept it on the tax
allotment of Siope Lonitenisi. He did
not return the bull to the respondent because he was certain it was his bull.
Both side of
the case produced two witnesses and Tamale produced three photographs of the
bull.
Lord Chief
Justice Paulsen said that with one exception the Principal Magistrate at the original trial did not summarise or
analyse the content of their evidence
or give reasons why he accepted or
rejected the evidence of any witness and in
what particular respects.
The
Principal Magistrate accepted that
the bull in dispute was the
same bull shown in photographs.
Lord Chief
Justice Paulsen said there was contradictory evidence about the identity of the
bull and who had accepted the identity of the animal. There were also questions
about how the bull had behaved when visited by a delegation during the
magistrate’s court hearing and whether the same animal had been identified.
He also
noted a submission that the Principal Magistrate in the original case had failed
to take into account that the bull had been gone for months before the
respondent retrieved it.
“I did not
hear the witnesses and have no way of assessing their respective credibility
upon which the case falls to be determined,” Lord Chief Justice Paulsen said
“I have no
alternative but to allow the appeal and refer the matter back to the
Magistrates’ Court for rehearing.”
The
main point
A
dispute over the ownership of a bull has been sent back to the Magistrate’s
Court after the Supreme Court upheld an appeal.
Lord
Chief Justice Paulsen said the case should be heard by a different magistrate
to the one who heard the original case.
The
case grew out a dispute in Neiafu in September 2016.
A legal
dispute which has “serious implications” for preparations by the
Pacific Island nation of Tonga for this year’s Rugby World Cup has come before
the High Court.
The dispute centres around a judgement for NZ$ 275,702.19 ( €143,000) obtained by a French-based media company called SARL Team One Events against the Tongan Rugby Union over image rights.
The company
is seeking to enforce the judgement in this jurisdiction by obtaining an order
compelling rugby union’s world governing body World Rugby Ltd, which is
registered in Ireland, to pay Team One Events money due to be paid to the
Tongans.
The matter
was briefly mentioned before Mr Justice Tony O’Connor at Monday’s sitting of
the court.
Stephen
Byrne Bl for World Rugby said his side is opposing the company’s application
but would need time to reply to the matter.
Counsel
said there was an urgency to the matter, given that Tonga will soon commence
their preparations for the Rugby World Cup (RWC) in Japan, which starts on
September 20.
Counsel
said that the case has “serious implications” for those preparations.
Paul Binchy
Bl for the company said his side were consenting to the adjournment.
READ MORE
Fundraising
appeal for young man diagnosed with rare form of bone cancer launched
The judge,
after making directions in the case, adjourned the action to a date later this
month.
Team One
Events, which is based in Toulouse, France claims it entered into an agreement
with the Tongan Union in March 2014 concerning the use of the sporting body’s
image rights until the end of the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
The company
claims that under the contract it was to get 30% commission on any income
generated from the exploitation of the image rights, and the Union would get a
minimum of US$300,000, half of which was paid up front after the contract was
signed.
As part of
the contract, the company claims the Union was forbidden from entering into
contracts with third parties as Tonga’s match or tournament sponsors until
after the conclusion of the 2015 RWC.
The company
claims in June 2014 the contract was breached when Tonga, in a game against
Samoa, had the name of a sponsor on their shirts without Team One Events
permission.
This
resulted in the company bringing a claim against the Tongan Union in the French
courts.
The company
subsequently obtained a judgement for €143,000 against the Tongan Union, which
it says has not been satisfied.
In order to
enforce the French Court’s judgement, the company seeks an order from the Irish
courts known as a garnishee order.
This type
of order is used to enforce a judgment debt against a creditor to recover
money.
The order
would compel World Rugby Ltd, which is due to make a payment to the Tongan
Union, to instead pay the judgment creditor, One Team Events.
The company
claims that in relation to the 2019 RWC World Rugby Limited it intends to make
staged payments of fees for image rights to various Unions including Tonga’s.
It is
understood the payments to the Tongan Union will be used to cover the costs of
its preparations for RWC ’19, including the rugby’s teams travel and
accommodation expenses for the tournament itself.
Rugby Union
is the Pacific Island nation’s national game.
While
always been competitive, the Tongans have never made the knockout stages of the
competition.
They face
England, France, Argentina and the USA in Pool C of this year’s RWC in Japan
Tonga must be alert to potential security threat, Deputy Prime Minister Semisi Sika said on Friday.
Hon. Sika
was speaking at an early morning memorial service for the victims of the
Christchurch massacre held at Tonga Police Headquarters in Nuku’alofa.
“The World
changed for us all on March 15,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.
“Tongan
Police must be alert and prepared for anything that comes their way. We must
all be alert and prepared for anything that comes their way.
“We must all
be alert to potential threats to our border and work together to ensure Tonga’s
security is not compromised.”
The short
ceremony began with the raising of the Tongan flag to half-mast whilst the
Tongan and New Zealand national anthems were being played by the Tonga Police
Brass Band.
This was
followed by verses from the hymn, ‘Abide With Me’ and a prayer offered by Rev.
Viliam Fanaika.
“We raise
our Flag today at half-mast to show our respect, our deep sense of loss and
mourning for the 50 New Zealanders murdered at their place of worship in
Christchurch,” Hon. Sika said.
“As we pay
our respects we salute the leadership and humanity of Prime Minister Jacinda
Ardern and the courage and solidarity shown by New Zealanders to this tragic
event.
“I take time
to commend the courage and professionalism of the New Zealand Police in putting
themselves in harm’s way to protect their citizens, the other courageous First
Responders and Emergency Services and all individuals, that went to help with the dead, dying and wounded
and those that were blessed to survive.
“This is a
day of Remembrance to the families and loved ones of the fallen and also to
show our respect and solidarity with New Zealand in their hour of sorrow and
reflection.”
Present at
yesterday’s service were the Acting New Zealand High Commissioner, Elena
Procuta, the Australian High Commissioner, Adrian Morrison, the Minister for
Lands and Minister responsible for His Majesty’s Armed Forces, Lord Ma’afu and
other Cabinet Ministers, Police Commissioner Stephen Caldwell and his senior
officers and advisors and the Chaplain of Tonga Police, Rev Viliami Fanaika as
well as other Church leaders.
As Kaniva Tonga news reported earlier,
Members of Parliament took part in a one minute silence last Monday morning to
pay respects for the victims of Christchurch’s terror attack.
Acting
Speaker Lord Tu’ilakepa said the minute was in respect for the memory of those
killed and hurt in the attack on Friday, which left 50 dead and at least 50
injured
Lord
Tu’ilakepa said in Tongan: “Oku ou fie ‘oatu ‘a e fie kaungā mamahi ‘a e Fale
Alea ‘o Tongá mo e kakai ‘o Nu’usilá, ‘oku ‘oatu heni ha faka’apa’apa, mo e
fiekaungā mamahi mo’oni ‘a e Fale Alea ‘o Tonga, mo e kakai ‘o Nu’usila koe’uhi
ko e pulonga kuo tō he fonuá, tupu mei he fakapō ta’e’amanekina, ne hoko ‘i
Christchurch, ‘i he ‘aho Falaite 15 ‘o Mā’asi, 2019.”
Last week we
reported that Tongans living in New Zealand had been asked to wear black this
week as a sign of support for the country’s Muslim community.
Tongan
church groups have been holding special prayer sessions for the cessation of
terrorism.
Last Sunday
the brass band from the Pulela’a Methodist Church in New Lynn played
outside an Auckland mosque. Church
members prayed and laid flowers.
The
main points
Tonga must be alert to potential
security threat. Deputy Prime Minister Semisi Sika aid yesterday.
Hon. Sika was speaking at an early
morning memorial service for the victims of the Christchurch massacre held at
Tonga Police Headquarters in Nuku’alofa.
“The World changed for us all on March
15,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.
For
more information
NZ marks Christchurch massacre with
week of vigils and prayers, more events planned today
