Open mike 02/07/2015

154 comments on “Open mike 02/07/2015 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. AsleepWhileWalking 1

   2 July 2015 at 7:58 am

   Mandatory vaccination law has just passed in California, a major blow to human rights.

   Meanwhile in NY the public have been warned not to buy an iphone case shaped to look like a gun

   https://twitter.com/queensnorth_ssd/status/615968250476806144/photo/1
   • northshoredoc 1.1

     2 July 2015 at 8:42 am

     I’m strongly supportive of vaccination but the law passed in California is very poor legislation.
   • weka 1.2

     2 July 2015 at 10:24 am

     the phone case looks like Darwin Award territory.

     The compulsory vaccination bill isn’t quite compulsory (it’s mandatory for children in school), but I agree it’s a very very bad move in terms of human rights.

     http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/california-vaccine-bill-jerry-brown
     • Puckish Rogue 1.2.1

       2 July 2015 at 10:41 am

       I’m kind of ok with it, Its sad obviously that people in this day and age don’t get their kids vaccinated (hope that herd vaccination works out) but its generally only the middle class that’re that dumb as to believe in anti-vaxing so a couple of days of their kids running around home will convince the parents that vaccination is a good thing

       I mean don’t get me wrong Jenny McCarthy looks good without any clothes on but shes one of the last people I’d listen to when it comes to medical advice
       • Molly 1.2.1.1

         2 July 2015 at 10:52 am

         Does it have to be spelt out – once again – that not all vaccinations are the same?

         This move IS an infringement of human rights, regardless of whether you think the outcome is desirable or not. Essentially, you are requiring all children to have a medical treatment for a condition that they do not have. Without choice.

         I doubt if California has legislation that requires all children to have food, or shelter, or free medical for conditions they do have.
         • te reo putake 1.2.1.1.1

           2 July 2015 at 11:06 am

           If I can be contrary for a moment, this is actually a victory for human rights. We all have the right not to be harmed by our neighbours. This change supports that right.
           • Molly 1.2.1.1.1.1

             2 July 2015 at 11:11 am

             Contrary, but not logical.

             You assume that there is a credible, and justifiable danger from all illnesses that can be vaccinated for – that allows for the removal of the right of choice.

             That is not true.

             Also, it is appalling that in a country where medical assistance for existing conditions is not universal – this compulsory vaccination programme will be funded by the state.
             • te reo putake …

               2 July 2015 at 11:14 am

               Well, State by State is pretty much the default system in the US. And this measure follows on from an outbreak of measles at Disneyland, as I recall. So, yes, a credible danger.
               • Molly …

                 2 July 2015 at 11:27 am

                 You are in danger from the next door neighbour’s house catching fire and having that fire leap over to your property.

                 Credible? Likely? Sufficiently life-threatening?

                 Would you then agree to have your living environment sprayed regularly with flame-retardant chemicals in order to protect you from this occurrence?

                 Or would you agree that you would wish to know the following before taking away this choice?
                 1. How likely is is that the next door neighbour performs actions that increase the chances of his house catching fire?
                 2. What materials is his house made of?
                 3. Does he have a sprinkler system?
                 4. Where is the nearest emergency response service?
                 5. How far is my house from next door’s property?
                 6. What negative effects might you expect from the application of chemicals to your place of residence?
                 etc… etc..

                 As I have said before, I have chosen to vaccinate my children for some childhood diseases, but did not take up Gardasil. The supposed benefits did not make sense.

                 Compulsory vaccination is an infringement of human rights, regardless of whether you agree with the vaccination programmes or not.
                 • te reo putake …

                   2 July 2015 at 11:36 am

                   Thanks for the example, but I’m not sure it covers the situation where it’s already known that the danger not only exists, but has actually happened and caused harm. The right to not be harmed by the actions or inactions of others is a fundamental element of both human rights and tort law.

                   The parents who want to be irresponsible with their kids can still opt out anyway, as I understand. This law only applies to public schools, so they have alternatives, if they want to put their money where their mouths are.
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 11:42 am

                     Funny how the poor and low incomed are also sacrificed so easily.
                   • Molly …

                     2 July 2015 at 12:00 pm

                     In your cheerleading for the removal of choice – and infringement of human rights – you haven’t defined any limits to the programme or shown any interest in each vaccination being tested for possible benefits/outcomes ratios.

                     Higher levels of scrutiny are required.

                     The measles outbreak in Disneyland – how many serious outcomes, including fatalities resulted? Is this due to inadequate diagnosis or treatment?

                     I remain surprised at progressives that see this as a move forward because they themselves support universal vaccination.

                     We have had the discussion at national level about informed choice, and the example of it’s failure documented in The Unfortunate Experiment, and you honestly can’t see a problem inherent in this move?
                   • te reo putake []

                     2 July 2015 at 12:10 pm

                     You’re reading way to much into my support for this move, weka, which is clearly progressive. I’m opposed to the infringement of human rights, which is why I support the change. There are plenty of articles on the Disneyland outbreak and the damage done. Here’s one, but there are many, many others. The victims included non vaccinated kids, hence the change to the law.
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 12:19 pm

                     trp, you are advocating some rights at the expense of others. It’s pretty clear that you have no idea what the human rights issues are regarding forcing people to have medical treatment.

                     I’m not getting into a pro/con vaccination discussion, because it’s irrelevant to the human rights issue until the human rights issue can be well understood.
                   • te reo putake []

                     2 July 2015 at 12:53 pm

                     Far from having “no idea” I’ve spent a fair bit of this year studying human rights and associated law. It’s a question of balance. Some things should be compulsory. Some things are best left to individual choice.

                     In this case, the state of California is responsible for its public school system, and it has decided that the protection of all people within the schools (including children, employees and other parents) is more important than the feelings of the minority of parents. That’s a reasonable position to take, especially as the parents concerned have the option of going elsewhere for their kid’s schooling. They remain free to spread the harm in the private education system, so their rights are not significantly affected.

                     Just as an aside, note we’re talking about parents who are treating their kids like chattels. What about the kid’s human rights to not be harmed by their parents odd beliefs? Where’s the law on that?
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 1:08 pm

                     Nothing in what you’ve just said suggests that you have the first idea what the human rights issues are in this instance.
                   • te reo putake []

                     2 July 2015 at 1:16 pm

                     Ok, well that comment says more about your education and comprehension than mine. But that’s OK, we can differ on this matter without it causing any harm. Unlike wilfully failing to vaccinate your kids, which does cause harm.
                   • tracey …

                     2 July 2015 at 1:20 pm

                     the analogy kind of works cos you can insure your house against the fire from their house burning down your house and you can vaccinate your child to protect them from the unvaccinated child’s illness?
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 2:14 pm

                     “Ok, well that comment says more about your education and comprehension than mine”

                     No it doesn’t. You’ve made a single obloque reference via saying that some rights are more important than others, but I see nothing in what you have written today that suggests you are even aware what those other rights are.
                 • Puckish Rogue …

                   2 July 2015 at 11:41 am

                   Naah in this case California got it right
                 • Lanthanide …

                   2 July 2015 at 11:54 am

                   Molly, I think you’ll find the number of house fires in any city in a given year are quite minimal, however the number of infections for diseases in general amongst children are significantly higher and they spread from child to child.

                   Also if a house does catch on fire, it can usually be prevented from spreading through fast response of emergency services. When a children catches an illness like chicken pox, measles or even the flu’, they are generally infectious for several days before they show any symptoms.

                   House fires are therefore a tempting, but ultimately poor analogy for child illnesses and vaccination.

                   It’s all about likelihood. If houses were literally made of matches, then yes, dousing them with flame-retardant annually would probably be a good policy, as long as the scientific studies showed that the flame-retardant was safe and effective.
                   • Molly …

                     2 July 2015 at 12:04 pm

                     The analogy was only used to explain that usually there is more than one perspective when it comes to health and probability.

                     But you are right, it does not provide an example of susceptibility to childhood diseases or not.

                     The vaccination programme should do, but also, does not. It just provides the universal application of a medical intervention regardless of whether the likelihood of catching that disease is imminent, or the result of catching that disease is serious or fatal.

                     As mentioned, in a country where access to medical treatment for existing childhood diseases and ailments is limited to those that can afford it, not only is this an infringement of human rights, it is an appalling priority of state health spending.
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 12:27 pm

                     I think the fire analogy works in the context of trp’s idea that our neighbours should be forced to take actions to protect us from harm. Obviously there is a line there, and the argument is about where the line is.

                     There are plenty of places in NZ where people routinely put their neighbours at risk of fire eg people that plant highly flammable plants in their garden.

                     The other obvious point here is that the state of California had other options to prevent outbreaks and it didn’t use them. What it has done is highly discriminatory. I’ll be interested to see what legal cases ensue.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     2 July 2015 at 12:43 pm

                     @ Molly:

                     It just provides the universal application of a medical intervention regardless of whether the likelihood of catching that disease is imminent, or the result of catching that disease is serious or fatal.

                     Herd immunity requires very high vaccination rates, otherwise it doesn’t work at all. There will always be some people for whom the vaccinations are simply unsafe, so those people rely on everyone else to have the vaccination in order to be protected.

                     Also, you’re very unlikely to catch these diseases, right up until the moment when you do. Suggesting some sort of “as-needed” vaccination system is pretty daft, because diseases can spread very quickly and it probably isn’t logistically feasible to roll out a mass-immunisation programme in response to an outbreak.

                     Similarly, most of these diseases aren’t fatal and don’t have serious complications, up until the moment that they do. It’s not possible to predict ahead of time who is going to have serious complications from an illness and/or will die from it, and who won’t.

                     As mentioned, in a country where access to medical treatment for existing childhood diseases and ailments is limited to those that can afford it, not only is this an infringement of human rights, it is an appalling priority of state health spending.

                     From the article: In California more than 150 schools have exemption rates of 8% or higher for at least one vaccine. All are in areas with incomes averaging $94,500, nearly 60% higher than the county median

                     Seems like this measure will be helping the poor, in terms of herd immunity.
                 • McFlock …

                   2 July 2015 at 12:09 pm

                   Although I seem to recall that firefighters have greater powers than cops to enter private property. And yes, there are regulations requiring sprinkler systems in certain criteria (even residential), and restrictions on storage etc of highly flammable materials.
           • weka 1.2.1.1.1.2

             2 July 2015 at 11:40 am

             “If I can be contrary for a moment, this is actually a victory for human rights. We all have the right not to be harmed by our neighbours. This change supports that right.”

             Thanks for sacrificing my rights as a disabled person trp.
             • te reo putake …

               2 July 2015 at 11:48 am

               How have I done that? Does it affect my disability too?
               • weka …

                 2 July 2015 at 12:16 pm

                 You are advocating mandatory medical treatment. if you don’t understand how that’s a huge human rights issue, I suggest you educate yourself.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   2 July 2015 at 12:57 pm

                   Others have a right not to be harmed by somebody else’s actions especially when they know the possible consequences of those actions. A person who doesn’t vaccinate is, in many cases such as measles, endangering everybody else’s life.

                   That’s a hell of a right you’re claiming for yourself. The right to kill.
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 1:06 pm

                     Ideology trumping human rights. I’m guessing you also don’t understand what the human rights issues are here.
                   • Iron Hoof …

                     2 July 2015 at 1:18 pm

                     Vaccine affected, killed, maimed, injured, sickened by the decisions of those who feel their position is righteous to enforce medical procedures onto others

                     That’s a hell of a right you’re claiming there…
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 July 2015 at 2:39 pm

                     I’m guessing you also don’t understand what the human rights issues are here.

                     I understand them. It’s obvious that you don’t.

                     You cannot make a choice in isolation. It always has affects upon others and others have a right to say how you will be able to affect them. This right overrides your right to have a choice.
                   • Iron Hoof …

                     2 July 2015 at 3:43 pm

                     You cannot make a choice in isolation. It always has affects upon others and others have a right to say how you will be able to affect them. This right overrides your right to have a choice

                     Sweetheart you seem to be a little bit challenged, logically .

                     If you can’t identify how your statement applies to every point of view and opinion around subject matter of this nature, there is little hope that you ever will.

                     Helpful hint: claiming the right to injure, maim or kill belongs to neither side
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 July 2015 at 4:04 pm

                     Sweetheart you seem to be a little bit challenged, logically .

                     Actually, arsehole, my logic is pretty much flawless.

                     Helpful hint: claiming the right to injure, maim or kill belongs to neither side

                     Vaccines have side effects for a very small section of the population. Typically, significantly less than 1%. This is far lower than the debilitating effects of the actual diseases that antivaxxers want to reintroduce to the population.
                   • Iron Hoof …

                     2 July 2015 at 4:58 pm

                     Darling you’re still arguing that your point of view has the right to injure, maim and kill human beings like some magical trump card

                     That you attempt to qualify the position shows you have not a shred of human rights understanding despite your claim. That makes you delusional.

                     Add comprehension limitations to the arrested state of logical capacity and delusion , shared with a couple of other sweeties

                     Tootles
                   • McFlock …

                     2 July 2015 at 5:11 pm

                     protip: Simply repeating half of the other person’s arguments in the most exagerrated paraphrasing possible while ignoring the other half which genuinely matches your hyperbolic paraphrasing of the former argument isn’t “logic”, it’s idiocy couched in passive-aggressive terms of endearment.
                 • McFlock …

                   2 July 2015 at 12:59 pm

                   Funny. You should see what happens when someone tests positive for the clap.

                   edit: read I think it’s the last form at the end of the act, which threatens a patient with detention and mandatory treatment.
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 1:07 pm

                     I can’t see what comment you are replying to.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 July 2015 at 1:19 pm

                     Your one about mandatory medical treatment.

                     When a condition (or even a disability) puts other people at risk, treatment is mandatory. Society is funnyweird that way.

                     Oh, it’s a balancing act to be sure, but to argue that mandatory medical treatment isn’t a line already crossed daily in this country is pretty bold.
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 2:17 pm

                     Thanks. I’m aware of some of the situations where medical treatment is mandated. But like trp, you’re still not even close to what the issue are.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 July 2015 at 2:50 pm

                     And once again you pretend other people don’t understand what the issues are, while never actually explaining what you think they are.

                     I think it’s a balancing act between person A’s autonomy over their body and person B’s right not to be harmed or killed by person A’s stupidity. With serious harm possible if the balance is tipped in either direction.

                     And unless your disability endangers people around you, your status as a disabled person is irrelevant to that discussion – and if it does pose a danger to people around you then there are probably already legal criteria for mandatory treatment, so it is still irrelevant to the discussion.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     2 July 2015 at 8:51 pm

                     But you haven’t explained your reasoning about what the issues are (warbling on about ‘balance’ is meaningless).
                     I seem to recall you don’t support compulsory or pseudo-compulsory vaccination, so I guess you can distinguish between venereal disease control measures and draconian vaccination measures after all?
                     And if so, why raise the comparison?
                     It’s a little unfair to say weka has not explained her view, as on this blog she has written extensively and lucidly on personal autonomy in respect of vaccines as well as more generally.
                     In fact, it’d be good to have her match taking the opposing view in a rational and dynamic fashion, instead of the belligerent blockheadedness that typifies most of the pro-vaccine side on TS.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 July 2015 at 9:51 pm

                     oh, hallo.

                     But you haven’t explained your reasoning about what the issues are (warbling on about ‘balance’ is meaningless).

                     Actually, “balancing act” is the entire point: “balancing act between person A’s autonomy over their body and person B’s right not to be harmed or killed by person A’s stupidity”.
                     What’s meaningless about that? You do know what a vaccine is, right? You do know why California legislators voted for that law, right? What general area of meaning have you failed to grasp?

                     I seem to recall you don’t support compulsory or pseudo-compulsory vaccination, so I guess you can distinguish between venereal disease control measures and draconian vaccination measures after all?
                     And if so, why raise the comparison?

                     Bam, right there: you have to call not letting idiots endanger kids in schools “draconian”, yet use a bland term to summaise “You are hereby informed that if you fail to produce a medical certificate as herein required you may be committed to a hospital or other suitable place, and may be detained there for examination and treatment”.

                     Compulsory treatment (or, god forbid, prevention) is a human rights issue. But so is recklessness based on idiocy (sorry, “alternative worldviews that are not consistent with demonstrable evidence”). California legislators made their decision based on the threat to public health vs personal autonomy. Not necessarily a decision I’d make in the NZ context, but I’m not overly bothered about nailing down to the micrometre where the line is given that the discussion here is well into the tipping area of “my personal autonomy to make stupid decisions is more important than everyone else’s safety”.

                     It’s a little unfair to say weka has not explained her view, as on this blog she has written extensively and lucidly on personal autonomy in respect of vaccines as well as more generally.

                     Well, extensively anyway. But, as with this thread, Weka does tend to go from “there are huge human rights issues” straight to “you also don’t understand what the human rights issues are here”, without addressing the all-important middle bit.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     2 July 2015 at 10:37 pm

                     ”Actually, “balancing act” is the entire point:”

                     Of course it’s the entire point – that’s why it’s banal to say ‘it’s a balancing act’ to justify curtailing human rights.
                     We have a balance now. People who want to tilt the situation in a draconian direction need to justify their argument.
                     Trying to frame it as a human rights victory is a blatant distortion and falsehood.
                     You compared it to local venereal disease control, but said in a non-committal fashion you wouldn’t ”necessarily” support this vaccine shift in the NZ context.
                     Why not advocate clearly for the same degree of compulsion and control over both important public health issues, if you really think it’s as simple as protecting public safety?
                   • McFlock …

                     2 July 2015 at 10:53 pm

                     So you acknowledge it’s a balancing act, yet want me to commit to a firm position on the NZ levels based on what information?
                     That seems to miss the point of balancing – you stand on the centre of gravity. In California that centre changed when they had an outbreak sourced to Disneyland.

                     In NZ I’m not sure where the centre of gravity is – we don’t really have anything like Disneyland, and the schools-based response seems to work fairly well in NZ. But then we do get the occasional outbreak of several kids in an individual school or similar point of exposure, so there’d be a fair bit of math involved in sorting out which response is preferable – shutting schools or at least sending unvaccinated kids home for the duration like we do now, or making vaccination conditional on school attendance barring contraindication or explicit religious doctrine, something like that (I think I read somewhere that the california law still has some provisions like that).

                     Basically, to rationally judge between those responses and identify other alternatives, anyone would need a comprehensive literature review, then consult a panel of experts, and maybe do some modelling based on NZ exposures and projections. Meh. That’s the MoH job.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     2 July 2015 at 11:06 pm

                     Nice try but removal of civil liberties and political decision-making are not forces of nature like gravity.
                     And these aren’t decisions to be left to pubic servants without community input, however much that appeals to your technocratic outlook.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 July 2015 at 11:18 pm

                     Seriously?
                     You have to pretend that you don’t understand the concept of an analogy?

                     And nice try yourself – I was merely pointing out the level of information required to determine an informed position, not the process by which the government does stuff. In case you didn’t notice, the Californians even had to pass specific legislation, involving loads of public input.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     2 July 2015 at 11:29 pm

                     Yep, I know there was a law change McFlock and what that involves. That’s what I meant by political decision-making.
                     As for the analogy – it’s a very tired one.
                     The exact same is trotted out to justify economic TINA decisions. You do get why it’s valid to push back on its clear implication of inevitability, right?
                   • McFlock …

                     2 July 2015 at 11:51 pm

                     You asked me, personally, to commit to whether I think the california law should be cloned in NZ:

                     Why not advocate clearly for the same degree of compulsion and control over both important public health issues, if you really think it’s as simple as protecting public safety?

                     I pointed out the amount of information one would need to make a rational answer to that specific question.

                     Nothing to do with “inevitability” or a kneejerk response to it.

                     BTW, it’s a cute slide to take a “balancing” analogy between two conflicting principles (personal autonomy and public safety) and then accuse your opponent of thinking that an issue is “really as simple” as only one of those principles. Only just noticed it.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     3 July 2015 at 12:00 am

                     says the chief practitioner of the cute slide. That was why I tried to get you to answer that question.
                     must get some sleep now.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 July 2015 at 11:34 am

                     Right. I did a slide by deviously answering the question you asked (or, more accurately, pointing out why it was a silly question).
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     3 July 2015 at 9:10 pm

                     Initially I had been under the false impression you opposed pseudo-compulsion in principle, which is different from saying it would be a case-by-case decision.
                     And I think those conversations had been in response to measures taken in other jurisdictions.
                     But whatever. I’m just sick of seeing bully-boy wind-ups here about compulsory vaccination – which do upset people – when they don’t represent the mainstream NZ health sector view, and waste people’s time to rebut.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 July 2015 at 10:19 pm

                     Being against something in principle is not the same as declaring a categorical imperative that is inviolable regardless of circumstance. You’d be gobsmacked at some of the things I’ve done or been prepared to do in extremis. I sure was.

                     Do you know what upsets me? Folk who consistently misrepresent vaccine efficacy and safety and the level of harm to which an unprotected population is vulnerable, especially when those claims clearly “don’t represent the mainstream NZ health sector view”. Because legitimising that level of ignorance kills.

                     But I guess you’re not so bothered about that. Each to their own, I guess.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 July 2015 at 12:07 am

                     There’s a reason many doctors don’t support compulsory measures, and that’s because they’re antithetical to the actual outcomes you’re seeking.
                     But I’m not engaging with you further.
                     I object to the insinuation in your comment; you haven’t grasped what I’m ”bothered” by, just like you don’t actually understand the issue at hand.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 July 2015 at 12:59 am

                     Insinuation shminuation. Your selective defence of “the mainstream NZ health sector view” speaks for itself. Not to mention your abuse of words like “draconian” and the (probably wilful) inability to understand your own questions or the concept of an analogy. I understand pretty well what page you’re on.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 July 2015 at 1:57 am

                     Stop grossly misrepresenting my comments.
                     That was not a ”selective defence” of the mainstream view. It’s my understanding of the mainstream view in a practical sense. It’s important because it means people shouldn’t need to be wound up here on a semi-frequent basis about something that is highly unlikely to happen in New Zealand.
                     It’s a marginal view (compulsion) but you wouldn’t think so from reading these threads at times.
                     Claiming I don’t understand analogies or my own questions – willfully or otherwise – is rather pathetic.
                     If you can’t push back on an analogy, if it’s supposed to be impervious to contest, there’s no point using it. I highlighted that analogy’s use in economic TINA arguments to try to illustrate that.
                     And yeah, you’ve made it abundantly clear you have no respect for my perspective or concerns, but claiming I ”abuse” the English language is really low.
                     As I indicated in the last comment, I’d prefer not to engage with you.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 July 2015 at 7:06 pm

                     You took an analogy about the work needed to find the correct balancing point and the foolhardiness of arbitrarily choosing that point with little information, and turned it into a neoliberal TINA argument. You started talking about “community input” after you simply asked me my opinion.

                     And you claiming I don’t understand stuff is fine, but when I do it in the face of such obvious non sequiters I’m being “pathetic”.

                     You talk about mainstream medical view when it comes to compulsion, yet made no comment when antivaxxers grossly exagerrate the risks involved in vaccines. So yeah, selective.

                     Hell, your first comment referred to not enrolling some unvaccinated kids (who endanger others, as the Disnet outbreak showed) in schools as “draconian”, yet used no such term to describe forcible detention and treatment of syphilis patients (who also endanger others). And then you moan about “misrepresentation”.

                     🙄
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 July 2015 at 7:48 pm

                     You appear to be chronically disingenuous.
                     My only question now is: Are you doing a wind up, or do you have a lack of comprehension skills disguised by your sardonic affectation?
                     A case in point is your claim I tried to turn the argument into one about TINA economics.
                     That’s transparently false; I used the parallel to demonstrate a point. It’s not a non sequitur to point to the implication of inevitability invoked by alluding to natural forces.
                     And this might be news to you: We’re all selective when forming an argument, it’s how we make sense of the world.
                     But that’s not the same as a selective defence; if you pretend not to (or fail to) understand the distinction, it’s not my problem.
                     I could go on but it’s come to the point where trying to communicate with you has become farcical.
                     BTW I’m not suggesting I’m perfectly consistent, but I have a degree of honesty that’s patently lacking in your own contributions.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 July 2015 at 8:04 pm

                     funny.
                     I’ve reached the same conclusion about you.
       • weka 1.2.1.2

         2 July 2015 at 10:54 am

         It in no way surprises me that you support the abuse of human rights PR.

         (not going to comment on your other prejudices because they’re plain to see and just tell readers what you are like).
         • Puckish Rogue 1.2.1.2.1

           2 July 2015 at 11:17 am

           My point being that Jenny McCarthy is best known for taking her clothes off and not as being a recognized expert on medical issues and speaking of (Jenny McCarthys ex if people didn’t know)

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/baby/caring-for-baby/69894779/jim-carrey-goes-on-antivax-rant-poisoning-more-children-with-vaccines

           I’m also pro-fluridation if that helps 🙂
           • Molly 1.2.1.2.1.1

             2 July 2015 at 11:28 am

             So – a Clayton’s point then?
           • weka 1.2.1.2.1.2

             2 July 2015 at 11:41 am

             Jenny McCarthy has nothing to do with it, neither does your misogyny.
             • Puckish Rogue …

               2 July 2015 at 11:43 am

               Jenny McCarthy has quite a lot to do with it, she is one of the the most well-known celebrity anti-vaxxers and, unfortunately, due to her celebrity status her words carry weight

               Seriously i’m not actively looking for these but heres same more celeb-driven bollix

               http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11474018
               • Molly …

                 2 July 2015 at 11:45 am

                 “…due to her celebrity status her words carry weight…”
                 This may be true for you.

                 Most commenters on here seem to be more concerned with content.
                 • Puckish Rogue …

                   2 July 2015 at 1:23 pm

                   If that were true I’d be anti-vax, as it is I’m pro-vax because i think that the pros of vaccination far out-weigh the extremely small negatives

                   So if the anti-vaxxers are up in arms and don’t agree thats fine they can find a provate school that’ll allow them to not vacinate their kids or go homeschooling

                   So the kids still get an education, the anti-vaxers can keep their kids “safe” and the rest of the people in the public school system will be safer as well
                   • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                     2 July 2015 at 5:48 pm

                     Trouble is that it wouldn’t be long before they’re asking for tax free status for their schools, and then for state funding, and then for the surplus anti-vax parents to run the public schools, and then for special indoctrination sessions in public schools where kids have to get permission not to attend, and then for their own special fully state funded schools….

                     “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
               • weka …

                 2 July 2015 at 12:14 pm

                 This sub thread is about how compulsory medical procedures violates human rights. It’s not about the pros/cons of vaccination.
                 • Molly …

                   2 July 2015 at 12:17 pm

                   Thanks, weka.

                   I agree. Started getting a bit off-topic myself. Kudos also to northshoredoc who upthread could make that differentiation.
                   • weka …

                     2 July 2015 at 12:28 pm

                     Indeed, and northshoredoc seems able to be pro-human rights and strongly pro-vaccination at the same time.
               • tracey …

                 2 July 2015 at 1:23 pm

                 but but but I thought you used popularity as a measure of what is best… John key is very popular, lots of people like him, ergo he is the best person to be PM notwithstanding other shortcomings… be consistent PR by your own “logic” if she says don’t vaccinate she must be right until someone more popular than her from the pro vaccine side ousts her.
                 • Puckish Rogue …

                   2 July 2015 at 2:11 pm

                   Ok then more people vaccinate their kids then people who don’t so popularity says vaccination is the way to go

                   Cheers for that
           • tracey 1.2.1.2.1.3

             2 July 2015 at 1:22 pm

             I don’t know of her at all.
             • Puckish Rogue …

               2 July 2015 at 1:24 pm

               I’m sure theres plenty of people in California who do
     • RedBaronCV 1.2.2

       2 July 2015 at 9:42 pm

       Might help if they taught logic in the schools instead of compulsory vaccination.

       FFS the only kids who are going to catch it are the unvaccinated whose parents have made the choice not to vaccinate, An unvaccinated kid is not going to harm any other kid other than those who have also chosen not to vaccinate. So the state has usurped the parents/ children’s rights to make that decision. ( of course parents can still have guns in the home – no danger of that decision being taken away from them) So if you’re pro vaccine – knock yourself out – go for it – vaccinate for everything but stop making other people’s choices for them,
       • McFlock 1.2.2.1

         2 July 2015 at 10:01 pm

         FFS the only kids who are going to catch it are the unvaccinated whose parents have made the choice not to vaccinate,

         Well, no. Also in danger are the people who were in the few percent of vaccinated folk who are on the bad side of the 95% (or whatever) efficacy rate of the particular vaccine, and the people who couldn’t be vaccinated because of legitimate contraindications, and so on.
         • Iron Hoof 1.2.2.1.1

           2 July 2015 at 10:22 pm

           Precious Flocky, would you consider those ‘few percent’ to be more or less disposable than those ‘few percent’ who are injured, die or are maimed when receiving the medical procedure via injection ?
           • McFlock 1.2.2.1.1.1

             2 July 2015 at 10:42 pm

             well, you’re posing a false dichotomy because the adverse reaction rate for vaccines on the NZ schedules is nowhere near a few percent. Your faux concern about harm is obvious.
             • Iron Hoof …

               3 July 2015 at 10:23 am

               Come now tinkerbelle the boundary of the New Zealand Realm is not a constraint for vaccine injury and death, so stop being silly

               It is well documented the reporting and recording of vaccine related ‘reactions’ is in the region of 1-10% and that’s in the ‘developed world’

               Little angles around the globe hurt, injured, sickened for life or killed at the tip of a needle and nay a public record of who / what the assault or murder weapon was

               Those (uniformly provide the appearance of being male commentators in this thread) who endorse and propagate the ‘minimal side effects’ lies are accomplices to the injected assaults and murders, and the true owners of ‘faux concern’ and denigrators of human rights

               Stop projecting in public and put the little thing away

               Tootle pip
               • McFlock …

                 3 July 2015 at 11:31 am

                 It is well documented the reporting and recording of vaccine related ‘reactions’ is in the region of 1-10% and that’s in the ‘developed world’

                 Oh, sorry, I didn’t realise you were including things like “pain and tenderness at the injection site which is generally mild” in your description “injured, die or are maimed”.

                 Now compare the levels of hospitalisation or, like, actual death from the disease in an unprotected population.

                 Fucking first-world problems 🙄
               • northshoredoc …

                 3 July 2015 at 11:49 am

                 Let us take MMR which seems to be the vaccine that most anti van persons/websites have an issue with.

                 Adverse reactions are grouped into three type

                 Mild Problems
                 Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
                 Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
                 Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
                 If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.

                 Moderate Problems
                 Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
                 Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
                 Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

                 Severe Problems (Very Rare)

                 Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
                 Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
                 Deafness
                 Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
                 Permanent brain damage
                 The severe problems listed are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

                 As with all vaccines those giving them have a duty of care to monitor the patient for a period of time post giving the vaccine. Needless say the rate and nature of adverse events is far lower and less serious and less serious than what would be the case if we ceased to vaccinate.
2. tinfoilhat 2

   2 July 2015 at 8:22 am

   Rest in peace sir.

   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/01/british-schindler-sir-nicholas-winton-dies-aged-106

   http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-33350880

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nFuJAF5F0
   • Puckish Rogue 2.1

     2 July 2015 at 10:43 am

     Helluva guy
   • mickysavage 2.2

     2 July 2015 at 8:21 pm

     That is such a touching film. Everyone should aim to do that much good that they have a similar experience in their elder years.
     • tinfoilhat 2.2.1

       3 July 2015 at 8:32 am

       Yes he was extraordinary and awarded an MBE for services to the community In 1983 before his pre wartime deeds came to light.
     • tinfoilhat 2.2.2

       3 July 2015 at 12:02 pm

       @MS also re it being a touching film…. yes each and every time I see it it brings a tear to my eye… am getting very soft in my old age.
       • McFlock 2.2.2.1

         3 July 2015 at 12:30 pm

         lol

         There needs to be a pithy term for “quietly crying at work because of something you just saw on the internet” 🙂

         Youtubeschade?
         Bytebawl?
         • tinfoilhat 2.2.2.1.1

           3 July 2015 at 1:54 pm

           🙂
3. Enough is enough 3

   2 July 2015 at 8:37 am

   From Radio New Zealand, “The controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement will go ahead and a deal is close, a senior American government official says. Assistant Secretary of State Danny Russel said he could not give assurances on two aspects vital to New Zealand’s interests – access for dairy products and protection for the country’s medicines regime”.
   • David H 3.1

     2 July 2015 at 8:49 am

     Then its time to walk away. But they won’t. It’s more ideology, than practical, now.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       2 July 2015 at 1:06 pm

       The TPP and the TTIP seem to be about securing corporate control over the world.
   • tracey 3.2

     2 July 2015 at 1:27 pm

     Yup, the fast track approval in US, brought about mostly by elected reps holding out for donations to assist their impending re-election before changing sides accordingly.

     Actually quite a good metaphor for the TPP
     • Ron 3.2.1

       2 July 2015 at 4:07 pm

       Worth reading this article on TPPA from The New Yorker
       http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/trade-agreement-troubles
4. Charles 4

   2 July 2015 at 8:44 am

   And now for a musical interlude…

   “…Walked around the neighbourhood, one hundred n one million billion trillion times…”

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVZcc_iy4DA
   • te reo putake 4.1

     2 July 2015 at 9:00 am

     Nice! The Breeders meet They Must be Giants at Jonathan Richman’s house?
     • tracey 4.1.1

       2 July 2015 at 1:29 pm

       Ah Johnathan Richman., Saw him live and got his pick when at the GluePot back in the 80’s.

       Ice Cream man, man.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu3TvC9CH18
5. Molly 5

   2 July 2015 at 9:33 am

   Britain once again leads the way for our MP’s – just when you think they can’t get any worse: Tories have redefined child poverty as not just about having no money. – Guardian
   • weka 5.1

     2 July 2015 at 10:28 am

     had a quick scan but can’t bring myself to read that article, it’s such an appalling move. What the fuck are the English doing?
     • Molly 5.1.1

       2 July 2015 at 10:45 am

       weka, I don’t blame you.

       In a weird way, watching Russell Brand’s Trews adds lightness to the day, it acts as a counterpoint to reading/watching the MSM – even though it is discussing those same issues.

       The last two days are a good starting point if you haven’t seen him before:
       Kanye At Glastonbury – Do We All Need Festivals?
       Tunisia – Minute of Silence – Total Bullshit

       Second one particularly resonates. I remember being similarly unimpressed with Christine Rankin’s 3-min silence for children of abuse. My view went down like a lead balloon with others at the local Playcentre. (Heh, – good times…)
     • mickysavage 5.1.2

       2 July 2015 at 8:24 pm

       They do it here too. Every day they look at another statistic that shows them up to be total losers and absolutely heartless and they scheme how to change that statistic to give them plausible deniability.
     • RedBaronCV 5.1.3

       2 July 2015 at 9:33 pm

       Migrating to the highland spring if they have any sense
   • Charles 5.2

     2 July 2015 at 1:11 pm

     Tories being Tories:
     (Motivated by perversely interpreting the claims of opponents, “Poverty isn’t just about having no money…”)

     Take symptoms

     rename them the cause

     use a set of “easy to see aberrations” as identifiers,

     defined by an external culture/class/power structure,

     create a tautology

     and arbitrarily assign a meaning;

     usually to support some backward social oppression that shifts more money into private hands, and increases inequality.

     e.g. is an addict living in poverty because of his addiction, or did the addiction cause the poverty? Chicken or egg? Neither, of course, but people see what they want to see and “assistance is always better coming from private hands” etc etc blah blah blah fart pop.

     Then tell your enemies, “But you yourself say poverty isn’t about money!”

     So now the UK Tories (and we say the same thing here – “Get an EdjuKASHUN!”) are saying a poor education is a cause, and since everyone goes to school, it’s just your own plain old fault if you don’t do well and therefore your fault if you live in poverty.

     Apparently there is no history in England anymore, or logic, or even facts. The World started last week, as is, and people live in a state of non-emotional, equal intelligence and circumstance, within a neutral stimulus/response sterile vacuum. That is just a few of the many problems with the claim.

     As far as NZ is concerned, we have situations to address that have been identified as contributing to poverty, wherever you go:

     Unstable/Poor housing
     Low/unliveable wages
     Inequality and discrimination

     In any order or all at once it doesn’t matter. Hopefully people won’t get bored with the constant delays of disinformation and fall lazily into the tautologies before anything useful is done.
6. te reo putake 6

   2 July 2015 at 11:12 am

   Phew! What a scorcher! The hottest July day ever recorded in England.

   http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/01/heatwave-hits-heathrow-temperature-airport-flies-past-32c
7. Puckish Rogue 7

   2 July 2015 at 11:50 am

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11474631

   Skynet has begun!
8. Chooky 8

   2 July 2015 at 1:04 pm

   NSA’s XKEYSCORE spy program is ‘as easy as typing a few words in Google’

   http://rt.com/usa/271108-xkeyscore-nsa-training-documents/

   “….XKEYSCORE was one of the first programs that the Guardian wrote about when Snowden began leaking NSA documents in 2013. On Wednesday, the Intercept, where former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald now works, began delving deeper into the program, specifically looking at how NSA analysts are taught to use the system and sift through the tens of billions of records that are believed to be stored in its database….
9. Draco T Bastard 9

   2 July 2015 at 2:36 pm

   Leaked TPP drafts shows restrictions on Pharmac

   A leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership draft suggests the United States is demanding increased protections for pharmaceutical companies, restricting access to lower-cost generic drugs that agencies such as Pharmac buy.

   Yep, the TPPA will be soooo good for us – NOT!
   • Willie Maley 9.1

     2 July 2015 at 3:03 pm

     There was a discussion on Democracy Now a couple of weeks back where it was stated that drug companies will be able to slightly alter the make up of their product just as the patent is coming to an end, this allows them to extend the patent for up to twenty years.
     Pharmac ain’t got a hope under those conditions.
   • Molly 9.2

     2 July 2015 at 4:07 pm

     Australia’s version of White Man Behind a desk – The UnderCurrent – outlines the process fairly well in the Guardian today.
10. Skinny 10

    2 July 2015 at 2:55 pm

    Show us the money… it’s all about the money!

    http://m.tvnz.co.nz/news/national/6350968
    • BM 10.1

      2 July 2015 at 4:10 pm

      Hiding behind parliamentary privilege is a bit dickless.

      Just looks like dirty politics .
      • McFlock 10.1.1

        2 July 2015 at 4:18 pm

        Really?
        Using a centuries-old parliamentary protection to expose possible government corruption to the public (with the credibility of your claims being open to testing) “just looks like” secretly coordinating supposedly independent bloggers to unscrupulously attack political opponents via uncoscionable and possibly illegal methods?

        Your moral compass is broken, fyi.
        • BM 10.1.1.1

          2 July 2015 at 4:43 pm

          Yeah, but this is only about slagging of National and dragging peoples names through the mud.

          If you’re going to shit all over people you better stump up with some proof, other wise parliamentary protection should be waived and the individuals making the accusations can be done for defamation.
          • McFlock 10.1.1.1.1

            2 July 2015 at 4:55 pm

            See, no, it’s not “only about slagging of[f] National”.

            It’s about parliamentarians being able to represent the people, not just the party donors.

            It’s about whether individuals are looting our natural resources using transparent manipulations of the law.

            It’s about whether any government ministers or MPs who are connected with those individuals have been seen to have dealt with any possible conflict of interest.

            It’s about whether te national party itself has been seen to address any possible conflicts of interest with party donors.

            It’s about whether those possible conflicts are affecting the responses of relevant government departments to those possible legal manipulations.

            Bugger lightbulbs and paintings: let’s all remember when the most corrupt thing we knew about the nats was that jokester key keeps giving people bottles of wine from a plonkery that he theoretically doesn’t know if he owns, what with it being a blind trust and all.
            • half crown 10.1.1.1.1.1

              2 July 2015 at 6:42 pm

              1st class McFlock
      • Skinny 10.1.2

        2 July 2015 at 4:35 pm

        For good reason Tung has been threatening the media with legal action, bully boy tactics.
        • BM 10.1.2.1

          2 July 2015 at 4:45 pm

          Where’s the proof?

          Looks to me like he’s copping crap because he’s married to Judith Collins.
          • Descendant Of Sssmith 10.1.2.1.1

            2 July 2015 at 6:01 pm

            The thing is it wouldn’t matter who is exporting them in this way. This has been reported now for a couple of years and the “tables” are still cropping up for sale overseas.

            So what is the government doing about it – seems to be nothing.

            Those questions have been asked openly and I certainly haven’t seen anything substantial from this government in response. In fact their responses are trite to the point of being insulting.

            The secondary consideration then becomes why?

            When you then look at who is apparently involved and their connections to the party it seems a good use of parliamentary privilege to ask further questions.

            It seems a simple question he could actually answer:

            Are any of the tables etc he (his company) exports later onsold as slabs, wood for alternative manufacture, etc. If so how much and in what quantities?

            If the answer is “no it’s not anything I export” then lets find out whose it is.

            At this point all the media seems to be suggesting it is his business. I’d like to know if that is true or not.
            • BM 10.1.2.1.1.1

              2 July 2015 at 6:13 pm

              So is it only Collins husband that’s taking advantage of this loop hole?
              • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                2 July 2015 at 6:25 pm

                Nope and there’s some illegal extraction as well.

                I understand though they’re one of the largest.

                If there’s others I would expect the same questions to be asked.

                http://publicaddress.net/envirologue/swamp-monsters-the-looting-of-northlands/
                • BM …

                  2 July 2015 at 6:40 pm

                  Hmm, just had a read of that, can’t say I’m particularly impressed.

                  I agree the government does need to get of it’s chuff and tighten up the rules and regs regarding swamp kauri.

                  I think one of the reasons that this isn’t getting any traction is that when people think swamp kauri, the first thing that pops into their heads are those fucking awful super high gloss wooden clocks that you see throughout all the tourist shops.

                  Hideous things.
                  • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                    2 July 2015 at 6:50 pm

                    Yeah one of my mates is German.

                    Don’t get him started on cuckoo clocks.

                    Detest isn’t even close to what he thinks about them.

                    The thing about the Kauri too is that when you look at those pictures of the 40 metre lengths there’s not even a hint of pretense at the other end that they are table tops.
                    • BM …

                      2 July 2015 at 7:04 pm

                      Yes, definitely looks like a bit of a rort.

                      I’m guessing quite a lot of ‘brown table’ involvement which rather makes it tricky for the government.
                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                      2 July 2015 at 7:11 pm

                      Greed is greed is greed.

                      Race is irrelevant.

                      Can’t even believe that you said that.
                    • BM …

                      2 July 2015 at 7:19 pm

                      Why not?

                      The treaty industry provides a great shield for the unscrupulous to hide behind.

                      It’s a mine field for any government.
                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                      2 July 2015 at 7:36 pm

                      “The treaty industry provides a great shield for the unscrupulous to hide behind.”

                      Well I guess first you have to buy into the racist concept of a “treaty industry” and all that entails.

                      Greed has no racial, gender or religious preference.

                      What the greedy use as a method of extracting wealth for themselves will be whatever than can utilise for their own benefit.

                      It might be the treaty for some, it might be politics or religion for others.

                      The Treaty no more provides a shield than does running a church, running a company, providing investment advice, running a door to door delivery van, being a lawyer and so on.

                      There’s greedy dishonest bastards amongst the whole lot.

                      Anyone who wasn’t greedy would genuinely export value added tables.
                    • mickysavage …

                      2 July 2015 at 8:30 pm

                      The treaty industry provides a great shield for the unscrupulous to hide behind.

                      Now you are being a dickhead BM. Evidence is presented of a company with close National links rorting the system and you attack Iwi.
                  • half crown …

                    2 July 2015 at 7:15 pm

                    “I think one of the reasons that this isn’t getting any traction is that when people think swamp kauri, the first thing that pops into their heads are those fucking awful super high gloss wooden clocks that you see throughout all the tourist shops.

                    Hideous things.”

                    Yeah I agree also I put them in the same category with plastic fucking garden gnomes and Flamencos.
                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                      2 July 2015 at 7:39 pm

                      I assume hand painted Plaster of Paris garden gnomes are fine!

                      Put them next to your re-utilised rubber tyre swans.

                      And yeah dancers in your garden is just plain weird.
                    • Hateatea …

                      2 July 2015 at 7:45 pm

                      Is BM our latest pro NACT trole?

                      Please, BM, define the ‘brown table’ for my enlightenment.

                      Define further how the ‘treaty industry’ has anything to do with this activity.

                      I await your clarification, preferably with relevant supporting links.
                    • Hateatea …

                      2 July 2015 at 7:48 pm

                      I assumed Half Crown meant flamingos (es?) Descendant but I like your take too 😉
          • Skinny 10.1.2.1.2

            2 July 2015 at 6:11 pm

            I can confirm I am in receipt of an email outlining threats to a major news outlet that has been covering this dodgy trade. TRP can confirm this, however due to the threats I’ve asked it isn’t posted. The NZH has also had the same threats so had to retract or face costly legal action. I shared the link to this the other day, so go fetch if your so interested.
            • Anne 10.1.2.1.2.1

              2 July 2015 at 7:44 pm

              The search section is buggered so I’m presuming the threats are coming from Tung’s lawyers?
              • lprent …

                2 July 2015 at 8:09 pm

                Our search at TS?

                BTW: I have returned from the state of work sucking up my attention….
                • Anne …

                  2 July 2015 at 8:23 pm

                  Yes. Its all over the place. Anywhere from 2010 to 2014. Nothing up to date. I use Google chrome.
                  • lprent …

                    2 July 2015 at 10:07 pm

                    Ok, the most likely thing is that “relevance” is turned on rather than the “freshness” in the Search Advanced panel

                    

                    It remembers what settings you set last by using a cookie. The default (for some reason is relevance). So if you shifted machines, browsers, or zapped cookies it will have reverted to the default.

                    Check that out.

                    BTW: Relevance is for multi-word/phrase queries. It weights each factor and brings up the closest matches based on frequencies. Good when you know what you are looking for to find tune it. Sequences or dates usually scramble when you are looking at that.

                    If that isn’t the case, then give me a an example query.
                    I just tried a few and got expected results
                    • Anne …

                      3 July 2015 at 4:19 pm

                      Ahh got it. Thanks for that lprent. With a memory like a sieve I need it sometimes to find out what I’ve actually been saying… 😯
            • te reo putake 10.1.2.1.2.2

              2 July 2015 at 8:00 pm

              Just confirming I’ve seen what Skinny’s seen and I’ve no reason to think the legal threat isn’t real. It’s certainly been taken seriously by both parties.
            • Skinny 10.1.2.1.2.3

              2 July 2015 at 8:06 pm

              Thought as much… blind man (BM) see’s and hears what he wants to.

              “It’s a mine field for any government.”

              I will credit National and in particular John Key for wanting to settle the Treaty. During last years election campaign I attended a National economic forum. The crowd was predominantly a blue ribbon business set. Key spoke at length on the importance of settling the Nga Puhi settlement, the Tory crowd were grudgy and bored, more concerned about their own economic plight. When they boardered on rudeness by muttering amongst themselves
              he deliberately paused steering at them in disgust with a facial expression of ‘you ignorant fucks’ this is important. I actually softened my hardliner view of the man, i.e he could be a lot worst.
              • b waghorn …

                2 July 2015 at 8:15 pm

                He could of been brash that would be worse.
                I saw you talking about Jones being a possible replacement for Winny. Could Jones hold northland ? And am I right in thinking no nzf member could stand in a Maori seat due to there stance on the Maori seats.?
                • Hateatea …

                  2 July 2015 at 8:28 pm

                  Northland is a different issue to Te Tai Tokerau, which is a Maori seat.

                  I don’t know whether or not Shane Jones was on the Maori roll but he did stand for Northland and lost, entering parliament via his ranking within Labour.

                  Apart from being from the same iwi cluster as Winston Peters, I wouldn’t have thought his leadership style or pro iwi background would make him a good fit for NZ First. However, there is little doubt that he has shown himself to be ambitious in the past so who knows.
                  • b waghorn …

                    2 July 2015 at 8:40 pm

                    Cheers I wasn’t very clear I meant him trying to hold winstons seat which would be preferable to him taking on Kelvin Davis IMO
                • Skinny …

                  3 July 2015 at 8:14 am

                  I believe the logical move should Jones be enticed back into poilitics would be for him to stand in the general seat of Whangarei, which is ripe for the picking off National. Especially since the incumbent Nat MP Dr Reti made a disgraceful speech opposing 3 free doctors visits per annum for gold card holders, Labour & the Greens would have to vote strategically in order for him to win of course.
                  • b waghorn …

                    3 July 2015 at 3:40 pm

                    Cheers although labour and the greens opening doors for NZF is like the frog who excepted a ride across the river from the crocodile, there’s a good chance it would end badly.
              • marty mars …

                2 July 2015 at 8:25 pm

                He sure as hell isn’t doing for any other reason than his. I wouldn’t get sucked in by his ability to appear sincere there skinny.
      • b waghorn 10.1.3

        2 July 2015 at 8:59 pm

        Says a man who comes here only to stir shit from behind a pseudonym!
        • greywarshark 10.1.3.1

          3 July 2015 at 4:22 pm

          @bwaghorn
          What’s that about stirring shit from behind a pseudonym? I’m surprised that TRP didn’t pick up on that. He seems everywhere these days, jostling Colonial Rawshark anyway. People using a regular pseudonym can be as sincere as those who use their own name. And remember that most of us don’t know whether a name used is actually the commenters real name! So don’t throw the dirty water at us. And out of shit may grow some roses. All of us with good intentions hope for that sooner rather than later.
          • b waghorn 10.1.3.1.1

            4 July 2015 at 9:03 pm

            I have know problem with pseudonym s but bm was taking the high ground about around people hiding behind parlimentry privilege which I took as being hypocritical. . b waghorn is a pseudonym
11. half crown 11

    2 July 2015 at 8:42 pm

    ” assumed Half Crown meant flamingos (es?) Descendant but I like your take too 😉”

    Ha, thanks for that and correcting my appalling English at times. Should have checked the word checker.
    • Descendant Of Sssmith 11.1

      2 July 2015 at 8:50 pm

      Knew he meant flamingos – I just thought flamencos was funnier.

      Word for the day

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism
      • Hateatea 11.1.1

        2 July 2015 at 8:56 pm

        It all added for a bit of a giggle to take the edge off my ‘go for the racist bastards jugular’ which was my first reaction to BM so thank you both 😀
12. half crown 12

    2 July 2015 at 10:17 pm

    Hateatea I like to collect snippets of wisdom and sayings. One of my favourites is:-

    “Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves.
    As they shall always be amused.”
    • Hateatea 12.1

      2 July 2015 at 10:30 pm

      I like it and shall write it in my own book of pithy, witty, and apt sayings. Thank you 🙂
13. cogito 13

    2 July 2015 at 11:49 pm

    From The Guardian: David Cameron abolishes poverty, just like that :

    “In the long history of political fakery and mendacity, Cameron is the most effortlessly shameless practitioner – “no ifs and no buts”. ”
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/02/david-cameron-abolishes-poverty-poor
    • McFlock 13.1

      2 July 2015 at 11:53 pm

      key with a vengeance.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS