Brian Rogers Rogers Rabbits www.sunlive.co.nz

The Waterfront weekend was a huge success, with many local yokels turning out to enjoy the refreshed cityscape on our harbour edge. Nice work by those working to a budget, under intense criticism from so many who always know so much better.

Shame about the elephant in the room: The railway line that rips through the middle.

This column has banged on at length about the absurdity of the arrangement and the continued failure of successive city leaders to address it, despite at least two apparent opportunities to whack a rail crossing over the ditch with one or other of the harbour bridge projects.

So I'm probably wasting my breath and your eyeballs by rabbiting on further.

However, we have an excellent letter (pages 44-47) from David Dalton, calling for passenger train services between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga.

This would seem to be a great idea, and we'll be investigating further on David's suggestion.

If we have to have a railway track through the middle of the downtown area, plus the wider urban extremities of the city, why on earth can we not catch a ride? Even commuter trains would make sense, since the tracks pass through all the harbour side suburbs and the satellite townships including Katikati and Te Puke

What about special trains for the major events? Rugby in Auckland and Hamilton, The Strand boat show on the waterfront in Tauranga in November. The home and leisure show last weekend, at Baypark (next to the railway line!) If it can be done for the jazz festival, why not other events? And why not for every day travel. Surely that would rejuvenate a flagging CBD.

After all, the region between those three major cities is considered 'the golden triangle” so why is there not a slick passenger rail connection? Read David's letter, and drop us a line with your thoughts.

We'll get in the ear of a politician or two and see if we can get a head of steam up on this one.

If we have to put up with an elephant in the room, we may as well ride it.

Burning questions

This ACC outfit needs a kick in the pants. Yet another ridiculous case has come to light this week.

An illegal immigrant who poured petrol on himself and set himself alight has been mistakenly paid $15,000 and is allowed to keep it.

Santokh Singh (should that be pronounced ‘singe'?) was in NZ illegally in 1997 and had an argument with his wife. So he got sloshed, set himself on fire and suffered serious burns to head, chest, thighs, back and arms.

An ACC claim was lodged that year, but denied because the injuries were self-inflicted. He did not appeal the decision, but in 2008 applied for an independent allowance. An ACC claims officer, unaware of his previous application, advised him he was eligible and granted him a weekly $30.40 allowance plus about $14,000 backdated to April 1997.

ACC is reported to have continued to pay Singh until April 2010, when it reviewed his case and advised him that the decision had been a mistake.

His lawyer appealed, claiming Singh had a mental illness.

Judge Martin Beattie dismissed the argument, saying there was no evidence that the decision had been made in error. He found ACC had been correct to revoke its decision to pay Singh because it had been made in ignorance of his past history.

Singh claims his injuries meant he was unable to work, relying on a sickness benefit and the help of his friends.

He complains that his skin is stretched and has scar marks all over his body. People look at him funny in public.

Here at RR we reckon this loser should have thought about that before turning himself into a walking bonfire.

There are numerous cases of ACC claimants being turned down – hardworking, tax paying legal residents. Many who are injured through no fault of their own. More namby pamby decision making, rewarding bad decision making and penalising decent folk.

All Singh should be entitled to is another can of petrol, a box of matches and told to do the job right this time.

More burning questions:

Why can those supposedly clever psychics from Sensing Murder not tell who killed Scott Guy? Why have they NEVER SOLVED a case? Why does the official website ask US to tell THEM more information on the cases featured? How do you spell charlatan?

Why is the Aussie Cricket team not called the Wombats?

Do naturists catch the Naked Bus?

Parting shot:

A message from this bloke said I could get 20 per cent off a couple of nights at the Rydges.

I replied I was surprised I'd have to pay for it, Matthew never did. Plus I'd seen the first night of the Ridges and wasn't impressed. Why would I want to go back a second night? Plus the rubbish ratings for those couple of masterminds suggested no-one else was interested either.

There was quite a long silence.

Turns out he was talking about the hotel. I was talking about Matthew's ex.