On national’s smear tactics

Written By: - Date published: 9:34 pm, September 25th, 2013 - 100 comments
Categories: crosby textor, same old national, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

As Irish predicted, the Nats continued their desperate smear campaign today with the revelation that David Cunliffe doesn’t actually have a qualification he never actually claimed to have. Honestly, you couldn’t make this shit up.

The irony is that this latest desperate spin came at the same time as Mathew Hooton’s kamikaze smear was proved to be fraudulent by timesheets showing Cunliffe worked on the Fonterra merger (before it was called Fonterra).

Just on the Hooton interview I’d recommend that all readers post a complaint to Radio New Zealand about this. Their complaints form is here, the radio broadcasting standards are here (PDF), and the BSA guide to the complaint process is here. I’d suggest that standard five (accuracy) and standard six (fairness) are the best grounds for complaint. You’ll need to list the date, time, and name of the programme (Monday 23rd September, 11:06am, Nine to Noon).

To be fair, Katherine Ryan gave her best shot at an immediate remedy before Hooton shouted her down however as a broadcaster they have a responsibility to avoid these situations. Not having Hooton on air would be about the only way to do so for sure.

But back to the Nat’s dirty tricks machine. To his credit Felix Marwick asked the nats about whether they were doing opposition research on Cunliffe today. Their answer?

Acting Prime Minister Bill English denies National has any involvement in the checking up on the New Lynn MPs background.

That’s right. Labour has a new leader who is already polling high enough to knock the government out of play and they’re not really interested in figuring out who he is at all. Not even a quick google. Either National’s dark arts team have got lazy to the point of total negligence or English is lying through his teeth. I think we all know which is the most plausible scenario.

As an aside, John Key’s Chief Press Sec, Kevin Taylor, stepped back into a more strategic role a few months ago. The word at the time was his new role included acting as a liaison for Crosby Textor contractors. If that’s true, National should be asking for their money back.

100 comments on “On national’s smear tactics ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gobsmacked 1
    25 September 2013 at 9:59 pm

    It’s worth noting the back-pedaling from Nat-hacks today. A sure sign they know they’ve screwed up.

    One was Hooton’s comments in the Stuff article, a noticeable climbdown from his “liar” rant on RNZ. The other was Farrar on Radio Live (approx 5.25 pm, audio should be on their website) when Mike Williams said Hooton should apologise, Duncan Garner said Hooton had gone too far, and Farrar was quick to distance himself. DPF is no mug, he knows when it’s not working for his team. And it clearly isn’t.

    • Tracey 1.1
      26 September 2013 at 7:56 am

      nah it’s part of DF’s stratey to paint himself as the voice of reason and moderation. Hooten goes off on one, and is therefore in the extreme position… in comes DF looking all reasonable and even-handed. Common tactic.

  2. Puddleglum 2
    25 September 2013 at 10:00 pm

    “Fairfax news can now report that David Cunliffe has had to confess to yet another ‘mistake’ about how he has been trying to present himself to the public of New Zealand.

    He was overheard, last Tuesday, to quip, in response to a question about his personal grooming, that he always get’s his hair styled at a local barber. Fairfax enquiries, however, have determined that no such hairstyling happens at ‘Joe’s Barber’s’.

    “Hair styling? No, not me”, said Joe looking confused. “I only do hair cuts“.

    When approached by a Fairfax reporter, political savant Matthew Hooton exclaimed that “This Cunliffe guy has a real cheek. Here we are again faced with yet another ‘mistake’ being put about to make him look better than he his. So, he wants us to think that his personal hair grooming is of a high quality does he?

    “And to think this man expects New Zealanders to elect someone as Prime Minister who has such a loose relation to the facts about his true self? Unbelievable!”

    Fairfax have contacted Roget’s Thesaurus to check out the validity of Cunliffe’s defence that “hairstyling means the same thing as haircutting today”.

    Fairfax is committed to reporting further on this breaking story once a response from the world famous compiler of a thesaurus is received.”

  3. chris73 3
    25 September 2013 at 10:26 pm

    I think we all know which is the most plausible scenario.

    – You forget about the ABC club because thats where I’d put your money on

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.1
      25 September 2013 at 10:33 pm

      Watchu talk’n bout Chris73? Eddie didn’t forget the ABCers? Bot Nat’s research team and strategists were mentioned. The are:

      Awfully
      Big
      Con-artists

    • miravox 3.2
      25 September 2013 at 10:34 pm

      ABC? Not a chance in the world chris. This has NAct attack written all over it.

    • Hanswurst 3.3
      26 September 2013 at 5:36 am

      “You forget about the ABC club because thats where I’d put your money on”

      Typical NActoid, itching to gamble with other people’s hard-earned wealth.

      • chris73 3.3.1
        26 September 2013 at 7:32 am

        Damn straight

        But seriously are you lot all saying that somehow the ABCs have suddenly changed their minds about Cunliffe and are now right behind him?!?!?

        Sounds interesting because its kind of the same thing they said about being united behind Shearer and being united behind Goff…

        But I’m sure its different this time 🙂

        • Hanswurst 3.3.1.1
          26 September 2013 at 7:36 am

          Can you point to instances where members of the Labour caucus called Goff’s or Shearer’s CV into question?

        • miravox 3.3.1.2
          26 September 2013 at 7:50 am

          “But seriously are you lot all saying that somehow the ABCs have suddenly changed their minds about Cunliffe and are now right behind him?!?!?”

          No. I’m saying they’re keeping quiet. It’s in their interest to do so.

          If the polls go the way of this first one, then they may get united behind Cunliffe – because it then will be in their interests to do so as well.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.3.1.3
          26 September 2013 at 11:20 am

          @Chris73
          Nope, I’m saying that there are con-artists in NZ who will say anything to get NZers voting against their own interests.

          We need to stop buying into their framing.

  4. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4
    25 September 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Who pays for the textor-crosby bill?
    How much do they cost?

    • chris73 4.1
      26 September 2013 at 7:36 am

      Probably more then blue star but then they get better results 🙂

    • The Pink Postman 4.2
      26 September 2013 at 4:45 pm

      Well blue leopard I would presume that the huge amounts of money that Textor-Crosby spend on their anti Left campaigns is The Democratic Union via the Pacific Union. Just remember the senior party on the DU ,Is the Republic Party USA . You know the “Gone by Lunch Time “crowd. Also no doubt the financiers of the infamous Cossack adverts in Muldoon years .

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.2.1
        26 September 2013 at 5:06 pm

        Thanks Pink Postman, I didn’t about them and am looking them up now.

        I think it must be the Democrat Union.

        (Not democratic, far from it. Demonic perhaps?)

  5. Rogue Trooper 5
    25 September 2013 at 10:42 pm

    ffs.

  6. Benghazi 6
    25 September 2013 at 11:43 pm

    Wonder when Matthew Hooten’s conflicts of interest will come home to roost?

    How can he publicly and repeatedly attack the Opposition ICT spokesperson at the same time he advises the Coalition of Fair Internet Pricing. If Fran O’Sillivan has reported correctly today that Hooten is providing PR advice to the Coalition, then its an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

  7. amirite 7
    26 September 2013 at 7:28 am

    And another alarmist editorial piece from the National Herald, they’re calling Cunliffe ‘dangerous’:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11130101

    Is it just me, or has the Herald managed to put their foot into their mouth, right here:

    “The Reserve Bank is not expecting to bring about a fall in house prices next month. Its loan-to-value restriction is intended only to slow the rate at which prices have been rising, particularly in Auckland.

    When it announced the proposed restriction the Prime Minister made it known the Government wanted an exemption for first-home seekers. The bank was unmoved, pointing out that first-home buyers were about 30 per cent of low-deposit borrowers and they had to be included if the measure was to be effective.”

    But when Cunliffe plans to do the same, it’s bad news?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      26 September 2013 at 8:20 am

      I quite like the editorial actually. It makes it clear how skewed and biased Granny actually is, and also reminds people of how successive governments have fucked the housing market and that banks are in the middle of it.

    • Rogue Trooper 7.2
      26 September 2013 at 1:04 pm

      ASB cancelled pre-approved finance to low deposit lenders under new LVR requirements.

  8. felix 8
    26 September 2013 at 7:29 am

    “Honestly, you couldn’t make this shit up.”

    Not honestly, no.

    • Tracey 8.1
      26 September 2013 at 7:44 am

      Or as Key so eloquently put it yesterday “it hasn’t seemed necessary to be honest”

      Now THAT’s a billboard right there.

      • Harriet 8.1.1
        26 September 2013 at 7:59 am

        I think you are not reading into what Key is really saying, that is :

        It is already well known that David misleads people.

        As DPF said over the same matter, “….David already has an impressive CV, there is no need for him to then ‘pad’ it.” –

        DPF is referring to the fact that David had said that he had done work for the Auckland City Mission – he had alright – doing something very small for someone who was doing something bigger for the Mission at that time.

        just sayin.

        • Tracey 8.1.1.1
          26 September 2013 at 8:04 am

          Hi Harriet

          Key was commenting on Nick Smith not David Cunliffe.

          Can you post all the links to wear DF critiques Key’s “misleading” statements.

          Wont raise taxes
          Will pay down debt from asset sale proceeds
          Labour locked us into the BMW’s
          Labour locked us into the financial guarantee scheme for SCF

          and many more.

          Still having a litany of misleading statements hasn’t harmed Key now has it?

        • Jenny Kirk 8.1.1.2
          26 September 2013 at 8:06 am

          Harriet – you really are dragging the chain…… its getting boring.

          Tracey – where did you see that Key quote please – where he said “it hasn’t seemed necessary to be honest”

            • Jenny Kirk 8.1.1.2.1.1
              26 September 2013 at 8:21 am

              Ah ! Ta, Tracey. This is the second time Key has used the word “honest” that I’ve noticed.
              The first time was when he was talking about NZ being an “honest broker” for the seat in the Security Council.
              If you repeat something sufficiently often – so political legend has it – then people start to believe it. Is this an attempt by Key to portray himself as “honest” ? ? ? Just wondering.

          • karol 8.1.1.2.2
            26 September 2013 at 8:14 am

            Yeah, agreed Jenny, really boring. Shows how little the righties have to challenge Cunliffe with.

            John Key, Steven Joyce, Nick Smith, etc too many dodgy cronyist deals – see BLip’s long list of lies and misinformation re-John Key.

  9. outofbed 9
    26 September 2013 at 7:46 am

    I just complained about Hooten using the above process it was really simple and straight forward took under a minute

  10. Tony Moder 10
    26 September 2013 at 8:04 am

    Hi there I cant believe the muck raking going on here ,its disgusting ,but also brings out of the shadows some of the dirty activity that is really behind this National govt ,it also smacks of extreme desperation their current slander and character assasination ,National are fair %&*^%*&^% themselves so go David Cunliffe and Labour just keep that pressure on ,keep that policy and take out this Govt .

    • Tracey 10.1
      26 September 2013 at 8:09 am

      Tony

      Still waiting for the avalanche of National supporters decrying the dirty tactics they claim their party doesnt indulge in. Not holding my breath. So far Chris73 has avoiding this by pretending labour is supplying the ammunition to Hooten

      • David H 10.1.1
        26 September 2013 at 8:45 am

        Tracey, I await the latest missive, in the sorry story writing for the Hootens horseshit column. NOT.

  11. Delia 11
    26 September 2013 at 9:11 am

    Katherine Ryan has just confirmed on National radio that David Cunliffe did work as he stated and they have seen the documents. They have apologised for the inaccuracy of the statements made last week.

  12. gobsmacked 12
    26 September 2013 at 9:16 am

    At 9.08 am on Radio NZ, Katherine Ryan has apologised on air for Hooton’s comments, citing the documentation received from Cunliffe’s office.

    No indication of Hooton apologising, or whether he will contine to appear on the programme.

  13. Te Reo Putake 13
    26 September 2013 at 9:22 am

    Ouch! Kathryn Ryan has just read out a fulsome apology for Hooton’s liar claim about Cunliffe, including a a summary of the work it’s now confirmed Cunliffe did on the formation of Fonterra. I guess we know who the real liar is now.

    edit, as noted by Delia and Gobsmacked above

    • Tracey 13.1
      26 September 2013 at 9:37 am

      Sadly it wont stop him putting out more…

      First the House in Herne Bay
      Second the Fonterra stuff
      Third the Harvard stuff

      And as long as the media give him oxygen this particular parasite will thrive. It is NOT journalism to regurgitate Hooten, or anyone else’s lies. It is their job to sift through the allegation, investigate and if found wanting dont print.

    • Ad 13.2
      26 September 2013 at 9:42 am

      Glorious. That will echo back on him for a while.

  14. marsman 14
    26 September 2013 at 9:49 am

    Andrea Vance’s ‘article’ on Cunliffe is a pathetic piece of drivel. She desperately wants to find something wrong even though she knows there is nothing there.
    Meanwhile the shrieking, malevolent parasite Mathew Hooton adamantly keeps spouting his tripe a la John Key.

  15. North 15
    26 September 2013 at 9:57 am

    Choice ! Nastiest girl in school Shouty Hooton is damaged. Badly damaged. Karmically, poetically so.

    Ball’s in your court RNZ………show us you respect your brand.

    Stand the poisonous little bitch down.

  16. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16
    26 September 2013 at 10:20 am

    God I hate smear tactics. The only tricky thing is working out what is a smear and what is valid criticism.

    All that ridiculous H fee bullshit in 2008. (“This could be big!” “Batman”) What side of the line did that fall on, ya reckon?

    • Tracey 16.1
      26 September 2013 at 11:13 am

      Person said “Cunliffe is a liar over fonterra.” Proof shown he wasnt. Yup smear not valid criticism. It’s quite easy. Perhaps one pint which wafts over your head is that when Williams was raking over stuff to find dirt on Key it was regarded as smear, dirty tricks, personality politics and so on…which it was.

  17. North 17
    26 September 2013 at 11:08 am

    Ridiculous falls short of smear which falls short of the poisonous screech “Liar Liar Liar !”

    Routinely RNZ tolerates indeed solicits ridiculousness (listen in to The Panel at 4.00 pm any day), it also sits on its hands re smear.

    By broadcasting an apology it has however acknowledged the distinction between poison on the one hand and ridiculousness and smear on the other.

    Fail at recasting the issue there Gormless. And at batting off what is patent.

  18. Delia 18
    26 September 2013 at 1:48 pm

    I have to say that in 40 years of following the NZ media, I have never seen a hatchet job like Vance did on Cunliffe. Trouble is, all that stuff kind of looks dirty to fair minded New Zealanders, it usually has the opposite affect. Andrea Vance should learn New Zealanders are known to back the underdog.

  19. Sable 19
    26 September 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Looks like the dodgy mainstream media monkeys are up to their old tricks, pushing a right wing agenda at all costs.

  20. amirite 20
    26 September 2013 at 2:27 pm

    And as predicted. Hooters continues with his bullshit, now on RadioLive.
    It’s sad to see the standards of the MSM falling to an all time low.

  21. Tracey 21
    26 September 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Colonial and north

    words are powerful. If you knew someone would come back on it why not choose a different insult? Why choose that one. Just be honest you think calling hooten a girl is insulting cos theres nothing worse or more demeaning to you as a boy to be thought of
    as a girl…. unless hes a poofter?

    its not about word police or pc its about recognising the power of your words and what they can reveal.

    • karol 21.1
      26 September 2013 at 5:45 pm

      Agreed, Tracey.

      It reinforces the message to women aiming to operate in the public sphere that they are second rate & don’t have the gravitas to gain respect.

      Those who claim such expressions are OK, maybe should try to imagine walking a mile in someone else’s shoes, instead of making knee jerk reactions to defend regressive language.

      • Colonial Viper 21.1.1
        26 September 2013 at 6:46 pm

        I’d certainly never use that languaging myself as I don’t agree with it.

        But I’m also not going to tell other people how they should speak nor how I think they should mind their p’s and q’s.

      • North 21.1.2
        26 September 2013 at 7:01 pm

        Karol – “It reinforces the message to women [aiming to operate in the public sphere] that they are second rate & don’t have the gravitas to gain respect.” Note the brackets, they’re mine.

        If the thinking I’m meant to be having even though to my certain knowledge I’m not having it is so damaging, surely it’s damaging to all women, not just those [aiming to operate in the public sphere] ?

        In that you choose thus to emphasise egregiousness in the thinking you allege in me I am dragged non-consensually and far too far into your (reflexive ?) issues.

        Don’t see the point of going there.

        • karol 21.1.2.1
          26 September 2013 at 7:08 pm

          Agree, North. It does impact on all women.

          • North 21.1.2.1.1
            26 September 2013 at 9:03 pm

            Well why didn’t you say so in the first place ? It’s disingenuous of you to suggest that I accept in the slightest degree your (assisted by me) updated complaint. Again, your issues, none of my business or concern.

            You’ve never known a nasty, catty, foully motivated, smirking at the mischief, bullying schoolgirl (person who is in fact female) ? You see how I might immediately be put in mind of Shouty Hooton ? Nastiest “person” or “school pupil” or “school boy” doesn’t do it.

            I quail at saying this because I’m not unmoved by your reaction but no, it’s not your province to require me to walk in linguistic mocassins of your making, made according to your personal imperatives and the suspicions in your fertile mind.

            • karol 21.1.2.1.1.1
              26 September 2013 at 9:18 pm

              Well why didn’t you say so in the first place ?

              Really, North? You really are jumping to conclusions to say it is somehow about “my issues”, other than it’s about my issues with gender slurs.

              I was actually, in the first instinct was to type, “Politician”. Then I stopped myself, realising Hooton was not actually a politician, so I diverted to person in the public sphere. I had Hooton in mind, not specifically myself, so please don’t tell me what i was thinking. Exactly who has a fertile mind here?

              I do have a particular concern about the masculine culture of politics. And feel it undermines women in politics, and deters many women from going into politics. I have posted about it before, more than once – check through some of my past posts. That is the big issue for me. But not because I personally have any desire to be a politician, or directly involved in politics, although it does spill over into discussions here.

              But, you are correct that particular phrase would have an impact on all women. So I agreed. So?
              \
              You’ve been called on a sexist comment. For you to then turn aggressively on me for being one of the people who has been critical, just adds to it.

              My point stands. It’s from experience of how such phrases impact on women, hearing them all their lives.

              • Colonial Viper …
                26 September 2013 at 9:32 pm

                You’ve been called on a sexist comment.

                Do you often do this to friends of people that you socialise with? IE “call” them out on use of languaging and words you personally don’t like or have a negative reaction to? How about family members and in-laws? Strangers that you hear talking at the table next to yours in the cafe? A group of lads at the local pub? Your boss? Your workmates?

                • McFlock …
                  26 September 2013 at 9:54 pm

                  Strangers can be a safety issue, boss can be a power issue (but it’s handy for a bigger cheque at PG time).

                  But the rest? Do you often stand by when your friends use as deprecation and insults words like “gay”, “girlie”, “fag”, or even more loaded terms? Are you conspicuously silent, or do you encourage such alienation with fake laughter and agreement? What if they used terms that alienated and belittled you, rather than people who belonged to other groups?

                  Fortunately, most of my friends aren’t neanderthal bigots, so they can insult people without accidentally belittling innocent parties.

                • karol …
                  26 September 2013 at 10:04 pm

                  Yes. I have done, CV. I’m amazed that you are suggesting it’s something that shouldn’t ever be done.

                  I have said said something to relatives and workmates in various instances. I wouldn’t say something to strangers, unless it was very exceptionable circumstances.

                  If someone has said such a thing in front of me, I’d ask them why they think that’s an insult.

                  I did use to comment more on language in the family and among friends and colleagues in my younger days, especially racist language. Actually, in teaching, appropriate language was often a subject of training and/or in service training.

                  These days, I actually don’t hear such sexist terms at all much, but I don’t mix very much in particularly macho contexts. So it’s been quite a shock when I see some of the language used here. Mostly I metaphorically bite my tongue and say nothing – but at times I have been silently offended. But why should any woman have to keep doing that all the time, while some guys continue to mark this forum as a masculine dominated space?

                  Are some guys not able to take such things being pointed out to them from time to time without responding with more aggression?

                  Usually, I hold back. But I imagine it puts quite a few women off getting involved in such political forums because there’s a masculine style of verbal biff here at times, and also the casual use of sexist language at times.

                  On this occasion, Tracey made a point, and as it met with total non-acceptance, I stated that I agreed with her and gave a bit of an explanation.

                  I notice Annette King recently had something to say about an insult she thought had been directed at her in the House – kind of mixed agism & sexism. Good on her.

                  Sometimes if you say nothing, how can one expect anything to change?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    26 September 2013 at 10:25 pm

                    Yes. I have done, CV. I’m amazed that you are suggesting it’s something that shouldn’t ever be done.

                    Did I say that it shouldn’t ever be done? Of course I did not, you did.

                    Sometimes if you say nothing, how can one expect anything to change?

                    Is it working for you? If you think it is, keep going.

                    Are some guys not able to take such things being pointed out to them from time to time without responding with more aggression?

                    Who are you to judge how someone else should, or should not respond to your comments? Is it only your reactions to their comments which are legitimate and acceptable here?

                    • karol …
                      26 September 2013 at 10:42 pm

                      Well it certainly seems being critical of sexist comments is not acceptable to some guys here, and will just dismiss us as “language police”.

                      Of course, I should just STFU, or expect aggressive responses.

                      Is it only your reactions to their comments which are legitimate and acceptable here?

                      Well, the message I’m getting is the reverse – criticisms of sexist language, according to some, are not accepted.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 September 2013 at 11:02 pm

                      seems being critical of sexist comments is not acceptable to some guys here, and will just dismiss us as “language police”.

                      But you’re not seeking acceptance of your criticism. You’re seeking an opportunity to make a point, regardless of whether there is likely to be acceptance or not. And if an eventual lack of acceptance seems to be overly aggressive (or overly “masculine”) to you, well, that’s just another opportunity to make a further point of criticism.

                      Of course, I should just STFU, or expect aggressive responses.

                      Well, perhaps it’s the problem guys who are the ones who should just STFU. Maybe until they can grow up enough to conform to the languaging standards that you set and police.

                  • North …
                    26 September 2013 at 11:04 pm

                    “So it’s been quite a shock when I see some of the language used here.”

                    What ? That vile four letter word “[school]girl” ?

                    I don’t have pearls to clutch sorry.

                  • Not Another Sheep …
                    26 September 2013 at 11:32 pm

                    Fair and just call Karol, it is a sexist comment made. Perhaps made unwittingly to start with? But it is a sexist comment that piiisses me off, one of a fair few phrases that are uttered as if still acceptable. E.g. a comment the other day on Holly Walker inferring she wasn’t up to a job portfolio with the added “ sidelined by maternity”. WTF?

                    Reminds me of….
                    “Key defends ‘gay’ red jumper comment.” (RNZ)
                    Once Key had people call him out on his ‘thought-less-ness’, he then made it justifiable as just an innocuous, throw away comment ….like everyone else says. He appeared to own responsibility but…. negated his apology with flicking blame on “young people”. (2nd group then insulted and disparaged by Key.)
                    “He told press today “gay” was “just a slang term” used by young people and found in the Oxford dictionary.”If someone was offended by it then I apologise ..
                    *[ but not really]* …” but it’s not exactly like a term you don’t hear everywhere” says Key. Key then said that he was simply giving Mackay a “hard time” because his jumper was red and “our colour is blue you know”.
                    Finishing with “I voted for gay marriage, I’m hardly homophobic. I led the charge on it.” (TV1 Nov 2012).

                    North, even ten years or more ago we ‘called out’ kids who said “girl’s blouse” or “that’s gay”. We haven’t progressed very far if Key was right in his justification.
                    And as for….“You’ve never known a nasty, catty, foully motivated, smirking at the mischief, bullying schoolgirl (person who is in fact female) ? You see how I might immediately be put in mind of Shouty Hooton ?”…. That’s digging a bigger hole!

                    And yes I have dealt with a fair few- nasty, catty, foully motivated, smirking at the mischief, bullying school BOYS too. The worst ones I still remember their horrible little faces and names all these years later and a few of them were in an all boys school ! One BOY in particular had a Dad on the Interview Committee, of the same ilk who asked only the female candidates for Principal “ And what will you do for child care?”. ‘Called out’ on it he then weaselled himself into a bigger hole and said, “Well, we all know women go and get pregnant and it interferes with the children’s learning here.” !!!
                    Yes, I called him out in a very public way and place and instead of the offensive comments being apologised for; the bigshot Dad turned on others…….familiar??

                    [Eddie: you had your email address in the name field of this comment but I’ve fixed it. Please be more careful with your personal details, we don’t like to encourage stalker trolls]

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    27 September 2013 at 2:05 pm

                    personally, I value the nurture of ideas undertaken that Result in your posts karol. I read your bias , yet hey, clearly we all have them. 😉

                    personally, I watch my language (Book of James) unless I’m intentionally being mischievous. 😀

            • ghostrider888 21.1.2.1.1.2
              26 September 2013 at 9:26 pm

              😀

              • North …
                26 September 2013 at 10:46 pm

                I started by saying that I’m unrepentant. That remains with nothing more for me to say but this (you’re free to filibuster as it suits): the utra-touchy busybody be they male or female will righteously employ this rationale –

                “Sometimes if you say nothing, how can one expect anything to change ?”

                Unrepentant and feeling more and more justified in being so. Don’t flog me for what you say I’m thinking when whatever I’m thinking at all is not the point at all. When the point is your special buzz which you’re trying to template on me.

                And becoming more and more shrill by every confirming minute.

                Shouty would love this you reckon ?

                • North …
                  26 September 2013 at 11:22 pm

                  One more thing my friends – I’m trying this business of walking in another’s mocassins and damn, I’ve ended up (or feel like I have) in Shane Jones’.

                  Gimme a break. They are not a good fit. Honestly.

  22. finbar 22
    26 September 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Check out Keys C.V.A graveyard of humans exploited usury.

  23. North 23
    26 September 2013 at 6:17 pm

    If you knew me Tracey you’d laugh like a drain. At the got-it-all-wrong spectacle of you hanging your thinking in my brain and with mild stridency ticking me off for the state of my (?) thinking.

    Oh about that “drain” business above. I have absolutely no interest in marginalising drains.

  24. Rhinocrates 24
    26 September 2013 at 6:35 pm

    The formal complaint process is simple. Here is the content of my complaint:

    Guest Matthew Hooton’s behaviour was unacceptable.

    He was shouting and bullying, making unfair, libellous and inaccurate remarks, despite being cautioned to stop.

    Radio NZ has accepted that Hooton’s remarks about David Cunliffe were false and inaccurate.

    He was also apparently or even obviously trying to harass and intimidate the host, Kathryn Ryan by ignoring her and shouting over her.

    Unfortunately I believe that Radio NZ has compounded her embarrassment by requiring her to read out an apology on the 9 to Noon slot of the 26th of September on behalf of Radio NZ.

    This, I believe, was utterly inappropriate. Ms Ryan acted professionally and was the target of abuse and harassment by Hooton. Radio NZ should not have added to her embarrassment by forcing her to issue an apology as if she were responsible when in fact she was also victimised.

    One person is responsible and that is Matthew Hooton. He is the one who should apologise on air to David Cunliffe, Kathryn Ryan and the public of New Zealand, both for his false statements and his harassment of her on air.

    This is not the first time he has behaved in such a manner, despite warnings and I believe that he should no longer be invited to comment on Radio NZ

    For anyone else wanting to make a complaint, I suggest Good Taste and Decency as a point of complaint for his bullying of Ms Ryan.

  25. finbar 25
    26 September 2013 at 10:58 pm

    We have the rabid elequent Smith, on the ropes again,a place he almost teer!s when he is cornered by the truth, that he attemps to flinch off.No Hooton,smear is this man accused of,just factual truth.Lets get Mr Smith on the canvas as he bounces of the ropes of his mis truth.

  26. tracey 26
    27 September 2013 at 5:54 am

    If you knew me Tracey you’d laugh like a drain.

    you wrote something on a public forum. I challenged it. you defended yourself. I cant know you other than by the words you use here.

  27. irascible 27
    27 September 2013 at 7:18 am

    Hooton, Woodlouse Slater, Vance and The Herald are busy using the Bellman distractor yet again in desperate attempts to discredit Cunliffe in the face of the UK Press perceptively describing Key as a “galloping colonial clot.”

  28. Vagabundo 28
    27 September 2013 at 4:51 pm

    I’m assuming a bunch of you have seen this, but Garner tweeted that a UMR poll has put Labour and National virtually neck-and-neck. According to him, the poll said:
    National – 39%
    Labour – 36%
    Green – 14%
    NZF – 5.1%

    https://twitter.com/Garner_Live/status/383427592579076096

    No idea what the sample size was and I haven’t seen it published anywhere outside of the findings uttered by Garner on Twitter, so take it for what you will. I guess this means the National spin machine will spin into overdrive within the next couple of weeks.