Judith Collins: fudging evidence

32 comments on “Judith Collins: fudging evidence ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Clean_power 1

   26 April 2014 at 10:30 am

   The decision ought to be popular with responsible people who knows where to stop drinking and who should have to pay for the excesses of a minority.
   A sensible decision by Collins not to pander to the killjoys.
   • amirite 1.1

     26 April 2014 at 10:36 am

     clean power, people who are drinking ‘responsibly’ as you say, a $1-2-3 more per drink is not going to break their bank.
     If anything, this report by the MoJ should have included all RTDs as well.
     • Clean_power 1.1.1

       26 April 2014 at 10:39 am

       No, amirite. You are behaving like a control-freak who want to tell others what to do. If so, you should extend your perverse “logic” to sugar, salt, fats, bread and so on.

       You, like other elitists, seem to know better, don’t you?
       • amirite 1.1.1.1

         26 April 2014 at 1:48 pm

         It worked for ciggies, idiot.
         People who eat too much salt, sugar, fat etc don’t tend to go vandalise shops, beat up their missus or slam their can into a sober driver.
         And it’s not your goddamn right to get pissed and do all those things. Because an innocent person is on the receiving end of your stupidity.
   • Bill 1.2

     26 April 2014 at 10:49 am

     Done properly, minimum alcohol pricing only impacts the cost of loss leading alcohol sales at supermarkets (overly discounted wine) and, possibly, RTDs.

     It has absolutely no impact on pub prices or the price on the vast majority of alcohol at retail outlets.

     Nothing really ‘kill-joy’ about it. What it would do is kill cynical marketing of low cost, shitty product.
     • Psycho Milt 1.2.1

       26 April 2014 at 11:24 am

       Yes, if done properly (a big if, with the wowser lobby constantly yapping for it not to be done properly), minimum pricing can affect only loss-leader sales. However, you missed the bit where you explain how it’s any of your or the government’s business if someone is willing to sell me something at a discount.
       • karol 1.2.1.1

         26 April 2014 at 11:29 am

         Alcohol as a loss leader in supermarkets is cynical. A big problem is that they compensate somewhat by keeping the prices relatively high on necessities like fruit and veges. And,this then impacts on pushing up the prices at fruit and vege shops.
         • BM 1.2.1.1.1

           26 April 2014 at 11:35 am

           I for one support our cheap booze supplying overlords.

           Long may they reign.

           Also thank goodness we’ve got politicians such as Judith Collins who’s strong enough to tell the wowser bores to take GTFO.
           • Paul 1.2.1.1.1.1

             26 April 2014 at 11:42 am

             The usual incoherent rant.
           • David H 1.2.1.1.1.2

             26 April 2014 at 7:38 pm

             What’s this?? BullshitMan sounds just a 17 year old alkie on Pocketmoney. Because any sane ADULT that has seen the damage that Alcohol can do will despair at yet another lost opportunity to rein in the cheap booze merchants.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2

         26 April 2014 at 3:53 pm

         The government certainly should be regulating a practice that causes society harm.
         • Psycho Milt 1.2.1.2.1

           26 April 2014 at 4:26 pm

           And it does – useful stuff like licencing the producers and suppliers, applying standards, proscribing stuff like drunk driving. Telling supermarkets what discounts they’re allowed to apply doesn’t fall into the category of “useful.”
           • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2.1.1

             26 April 2014 at 8:41 pm

             Yes, actually, it does as it reduces the harm done by alcohol. That’s what the studies show. You may not like it but that’s just you being selfish.
2. Psycho Milt 2

   26 April 2014 at 10:44 am

   Please don’t present anti-alcohol lobbyists as objective commentators on alcohol policy – they’re not. They start from the position that getting drunk is a bad thing, which makes their studies straightforward exercises in confirmation bias. Williams, Sellman et al are just more liberal faces of the War on Drugs – the politics may be less conservative, but the authoritarian inclinations are the same. It pains me to say it, but for once Collins is doing the right thing.
3. captain hook 3

   26 April 2014 at 11:06 am

   clean power, it should be noted that some people do know better. especially the people who benefit from selling legalised addictive substances and those who sell food products injurious to good health.
   Now you dont seem to know anything, do you?
4. captain hook 4

   26 April 2014 at 11:09 am

   anyway apart from the interjections from the national party toadies Judith Collins cant lie straight in bed.
   Her total MO is to bully and lie and to hell with anyone that gets in the way. Its time for her and these other lowbrow thugs to get the push.
   They aren’t interested in government per se. They are only interested in what they can extract for themselves.
   • karol 4.1

     26 April 2014 at 11:30 am

     And they are currently breathing a sigh of relief from the pressure on Collins & Key over Oravida. Meanwhile, someone out there is trying to revise the public record and downplay the controversy.
5. Jrobin 5

   26 April 2014 at 11:48 am

   Clean Power, tell me how many teenagers do you know? It is the damage that cheap alcohol is causing to them not concerns of puritanical wowsers , that is driving these concerns. Your attitude could be seen as selfish, pricing does limit teen drinking and traffic accidents. The research is very clear on ths point. Are we a community or a bunch of of indulgent consumers?
6. joe90 6

   26 April 2014 at 12:03 pm

   Bought.

   http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/doing-the-business-with-john-key-heres-how-part-rua/
   • ianmac 6.1

     26 April 2014 at 1:18 pm

     Crikey joe90! Do you mean that ORAVIDA and CRAFAR Farms and NATIONAL PARTY and DONATIONS and therefore Collins/Key are all directly connected.
     Surely not because the perception or worse of collusion/corruption would reach even the least interested public and therefore voters. Still, I suppose it is all legal but the Perception could be very interesting couldn’t it?
     • joe90 6.1.1

       26 April 2014 at 1:35 pm

       Well Ian, we’ve just witnessed the ruling party use taxpayer funds to pay off make an opposition member an offer he couldn’t refuse and not a squeak was heard so anything goes I suppose.
       • RedLogix 6.1.1.1

         27 April 2014 at 2:45 am

         Yes joe. They are showing their own people that they believe in nothing and stand for nothing except their own power.

         ” Empire often crumble when their own people become disillusioned and disgusted with massive discrepancy between what the ruling elites say and what they do and as a result, it is not so much that the Empire is faced with formidable enemies as it is the fact that nobody is willing to stand up – nevermind die – in defense of it. “
7. TightyRighty 7

   26 April 2014 at 1:12 pm

   So those who can only afford bargain basement liqour after all the other costs of living get affects the most? This makes all the outrage about gst to 15% so phoney. In your haste to deny one sector of society a cheap way of abusing alcohol, you completely remove it from the grasp of those who enjoy it in moderation because that’s all they can afford to.

   Small wonder authoritarian lefties are considered intellectual lightweights. Or nanny staters. Or middle class pseudo intellectual know it alls who can afford better so assume everyone else can.
   • Murray Olsen 7.1

     27 April 2014 at 1:57 am

     You’ll be alongside us fighting for an immediate 30% rise in wages, and 50% in benefits then Tighty? Can’t have anyone missing out on that cheap crap you drink, can we? With the rises, they might even be able to buy food as well, at the prices that loss leading on alcohol and soft drinks pushes it up to.
8. red blooded 8

   26 April 2014 at 1:45 pm

   So, did you not notice the comment above, about how loss leading alcohol prices affect prices of other goods like fruit and vegetables? Or maybe it just doesn’t matter to you that many people can’t afford regular supplies of these necessities… Oh, and let’s remember that the rest of us pay for the effects of alcohol abuse in a myriad of ways (traffic accidents. health costs, policing, family support systems…). On top of that, we also pay for the health problems caused by lack of adequate nutrition. Still, so long as you’re alright, mate, I guess we have nothing to worry about.
9. Psycho Milt 9

   26 April 2014 at 2:02 pm

   So, did you not notice the comment above, about how loss leading alcohol prices affect prices of other goods like fruit and vegetables?

   There are instances in which how supermarkets choose to price their goods is the government’s business (eg cartel pricing). Offering product discounts isn’t one of those instances.

   Oh, and let’s remember that the rest of us pay for the effects of alcohol abuse in a myriad of ways (traffic accidents. health costs, policing, family support systems…)

   It always depresses me when leftists present user-pays arguments about the health system. Do we really want to go down a cost-recovery path for health care? It’s bad enough that we’ve done it with tobacco, without chucking alcohol in there as well. Do that, and what can you say when the right-wingers want fat people, lazy people, drug addicts, fornicators, sports players and sundry others to cover the costs of their treatment?
10. Populuxe1 10

    26 April 2014 at 3:31 pm

    No, I don’t think that’s what happened at Wikipedia at all – the account of events has been streamlined, certainly, but the facts haven’t changed, nor the have the original cited sources. If the Wikipedia community considered it any kind of breach, they would be all over it by now because of the high profile. Brooking is a paranoid nutter. On Wikipedia style grounds I would question the relevance of 30km either way when one has travelled from the other side of the planet, and the deleted paragraph didn’t really contribute anything more to the summary of the case and gave it undue weight compared to the rest of the article. It’s an encyclopedia entry, not a PolSci essay.
    • Murray Olsen 10.1

      27 April 2014 at 2:04 am

      Given my own experience with Wikipedia and Paula Bennett’s page, I believe Roger’s version. You, on the other hand, are a right wing nutter trying valiantly to disguise the fact. It seems very likely that the National Party has people who are paid to keep an eye on any changes made to politician’s pages. All I did was add how Paula had raised her daughter with help from her parents and a benefit, had tried working, but had found it far too difficult. All with citations. It was removed three times, with each argument more spurious than the last, and I gave up.
      • Populuxe1 10.1.1

        27 April 2014 at 2:49 pm

        I think you should read Wikipedia’s POV guidelines, and the whole No True Scotscam shtick of accusing anyone who doesn’t buy one hundred percent into whatever you think being left is supposed to be of being some sort of right wing spy is tiresome and purile. Believe me, if I was some sort of fifth columnist for National I would be making more of an effort to agree with moronic utterances like yours. Given that politicians far more globally powerful than yon wee Judith Collins can’t cover up shit on Wikipedia suggests that you probably harbour paranoid delusions.
        • Murray Olsen 10.1.1.1

          27 April 2014 at 9:02 pm

          It was Paula Bennett’s page that I had problems with. Please try to keep up.
11. Matt K 11

    26 April 2014 at 6:29 pm

    People need to be careful quoting Alcohol Healthwatch. On multiple occasions the spokesperson mentioned has been so single-minded in her loathing of all things related to alcohol to have plainly misused/concluded incorrectly statistics or made statements which are more “truthy” than provable.

    As a government-funded organisation they appear to have developed a carte blanche attitude towards framing opinions as if they were fact, and probably encouraged by how often the media run to them for comment. You will never find a non-polar comment by them about alcohol.
12. redfred 12

    27 April 2014 at 8:47 am

    I wonder if her husbands sits on the board of any alcohol companies or holds any shares in said companies… I’m sure their would have been a “private” dinner or two with that odd alcohol baron or two paid for.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS