Comments on: Nat censorship

By: Robert Owen

Robert Owen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:53:42 +0000

At least he is in “o” I have been cast out

By: Robert Owen

Robert Owen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:39:15 +0000

I don’t really Know
I did say his Satire was pathetic but that is hardly indefinite ban stuff . I will email him and find out

By: Nih

Nih — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:37:49 +0000

What I want to know is, what month is at 0 and how did redbaiter get into it? Tricky nazis and their unholy science.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:05:36 +0000

What exactly did you say that got Farrar so wound up?

By: Robert Owen

Robert Owen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:58:25 +0000

Current Demerits:
Dad4Justice – 35 (15/10/07) and 20 (15/10/07) and 20 (16/10/07) and 50 (17/10/07) = 125
Redbaiter – 35 (15/0/07)
Current Suspensions:
Robinson/Robinsod (until 1 November)
Robert Owen (indefinite – for grossly abusive vitriol towards the blog owner)
Dad4Justice (1 week until 25 October 2007)
I appear to be worse then Redbaiter and D4J

By: ahod

ahod — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:16:43 +0000

A blog about National party censorship posted today:
http://www.publicaddress.net/cracker

By: Sam Dixon

Sam Dixon — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:32:56 +0000

santa, I’m well aware of Labour’s overspend. I’m asking about National’s. I forgot they had done that shifty trick with the charities (wonder which they were incidentally), effectively it was the broadcasters donating to the charities of course – they were the ones who got an asset (the money National owed them) wiped off their books.

By: Nih

Nih — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:27:20 +0000

You’re not very jolly.

By: Santa Clawz

Santa Clawz — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:23:34 +0000

Oops, you are letting your calm discussion standards slip there Nil.

By: Nih

Nih — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:03:07 +0000

I’d be surprised if you ever showed any moderation, fattie.

By: Santa Claws

Santa Claws — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:58:53 +0000

Sambo

Remember this, for the paragons of virtue on the ninth floor?
http://www.oag.govt.nz/2006/election-spending/

or this?

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/05/summary_of_the_case.html

For the conclusion to the saga see this

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0611/S00421.htm

And for the expected ‘calm discussion’
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/11/gst_donated_to_charity.html

Sant-a

By: Santa Clawz

Santa Clawz — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:48:56 +0000

Moderation eh?

By: Santa Claws

Santa Claws — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:37:02 +0000

Hey Sambo

Perhaps you’d like to review these before beating off over the poor old Nats
http://www.oag.govt.nz/2006/election-spending/
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/05/summary_of_the_case.html

Remember dat?

By: Sam Dixon

Sam Dixon — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:16:20 +0000

Graeme – do you know if the broadcasters just forgave National’s debt to them, and if so how does that sit in terms of electoral fiance law?

If, (if), that’s the case, there’s a transfer of wealth from the broadcasters to National. Presumably, that has to be counted as a doantion, and reported if over $10,000.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:37:05 +0000

“Burt.Sorry but you missed the point.
GST has nothing to do with the retrospective legislation.
It is a tax matter not an electoral one.”

Partly true.

GST did have nothing to do with the retrospective legislation. However it is not a tax matter. It is a debt matter.

GST is paid by the seller to the Government. In this case by the broadcasters. They will have paid the GST, no GST is outstanding.

National’s problem is/was that they hadn’t paid their debts. They arranged for $1m of advertising and paid $900k for it.