Open mike 12/04/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 12th, 2016 - 148 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

148 comments on “Open mike 12/04/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Penny Bright 1
    12 April 2016 at 7:10 am

    A year ago – who had even heard of Bernie Sanders?

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders-become-democratic-nominee-even-if-clinton-leads-in-delegates_b_9657952.html?

    Bernie Sanders Will Become Democratic Nominee Even If Clinton Leads in Delegates
    ____________________________

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    • Jenny 1.1
      12 April 2016 at 7:34 am

      Great point. Penny.

      An avowed socialist, a champion for raising the minimum wage, campaigning on recalling all overseas troops, and campaigning on climate change. And raising taxes on the rich, and controls on banks.

      The opposition parties in this country should be taking notes.

      https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/poll-flag-flop-fails-dent-governments-popularity

    • Lanthanide 1.2
      12 April 2016 at 8:27 am

      It’s a typically poor analysis. Obama was winning in pledged delegates by about 60 when they went into the convention – so the superdelegates seeing the “voice of the people” swapped to his side.

      Sanders is unlikely to have the pledged delegates lead in this race – so the superdelegates will see the “voice of the people” calling for Hillary and stay where they are.

      • Wayne 1.2.1
        12 April 2016 at 8:54 am

        Penny and Jenny,

        For this outcome to be credible, Sanders would have to win New York and Pennsylvania. This is not very likely. But we will all actually know in a week.

        Sanders claims 7 out of the last 8 primaries, but they are mostly small caucus run primaries comprising of party activists. It seems in the US, as with left wing parties elsewhere, that the activist membership is much more left than the general public who are inclined to vote left.

        Interestingly, at least in NZ and Australia, that seems less true of centre-right parties. The activists pretty much mirror the voters who are vote for their parties.

        • Bearded Git 1.2.1.1
          12 April 2016 at 9:07 am

          Sanders was 10 points behind in the last NY poll, so he has that in the bag.

        • adam 1.2.1.2
          12 April 2016 at 9:19 am

          Those who vote Wayne.

          We have seen one success of the last 30 odd years, that you lot are not quick to champion, and that is massive disillusionment with the political process. Your so called centre-right is about what, 1/3 of the population – if we lucky? Begs many questions, and yes of the labour party as well.

          That said, I find it funny that the narrative keeps changing on Sanders to fit your world view. Congratulations for not asking him to stand down, at least that old chestnut has stopped. I’d like him to win, then we would see what the centre looks like again. Because lets face it – Bernie is nothing if not centre.

          Also are you trying to deflect from the fact that many independents vote in the party primaries? And these people are not leftist on the whole, as you claim. Yes some are, some are even greens. But the overwhelming majority of these Americans see something is rotten in their system – that being corporate money in politics, and are voting against it.

          Good luck with your narrative Wayne, but more and more people are becoming disillusioned with a system set up to enrich the already rich, at the expense of the poor and middle class.

          • Wayne 1.2.1.2.1
            12 April 2016 at 9:53 am

            Adam,

            As I said we will all know within a week.

            In a literal sense only those who vote count.

            Bernie will not persuade a single super delegate by trying to say that all those who don’t vote would support him, or that he can dramatically improve voter turnout in the general election.

            Whoever wins, wins. Bernie cannot make a loss mean a win. He actually has to win on the votes.

            • adam 1.2.1.2.1.1
              12 April 2016 at 10:11 am

              Wayne,

              I’d say Bernie has done really well in getting disillusioned voters to vote. And independents are a group we don’t understand well in New Zealand.

              I don’t think Bernie has ever said he represent those who have not voted. Can’t think of a time when he has.

              I look at New York with much interest, it has been rather enjoyable to watch Bernie been written off so many times, only to see him come back stronger.

              • Ad …
                12 April 2016 at 10:34 am

                But if Sanders loses, he will be following the spectacular fall of the left’s vote that has occurred in Australasia and Europe for a decade. It’s bad for your reflux to hope and risk so much on so little. You may have to learn to settle.

                • Bill …
                  12 April 2016 at 10:45 am

                  I’m glad I don’t have to wake up in the morning and wrestle with that kind of tortuous logic coming from my own head Ad. 😉

                  A guy who stood on a centrist (statist) programme, began at 5 or 10% (something like that) and will, at worst, run Clinton close. And that’s a ‘spectacular fall of the left’s (statist’s) vote’?

                  Still shaking my head here trying to get a grip on the thought processes behind your conclusion.

                  • Ad …
                    12 April 2016 at 11:28 am

                    Hope can be terrible.

                    We can see the backlash ready if Trump loses.

                    Same on the left, with less blood and more handwringing.

                    Check out thus weeks’ Economist; it tracks the decline of the leftie vote.

                • Jenny …
                  12 April 2016 at 9:30 pm

                  “But if Sanders loses, he will be following the spectacular fall of the left’s vote that has occurred in Australasia and Europe for a decade. It’s bad for your reflux to hope and risk so much on so little. You may have to learn to settle.” Ad

                  Getting a wee bit previous there, aren’t we Ad? Be careful you don’t peak too soon. And blow the whole scam.

                  Ad, the left’s vote has fallen for the very reason you are promoting, the Tony Blair’s and the Roger Douglas’s and the Kevin Rudd’s who have taken their parties to the right, disillusioned their support base.
                  Personally I think you are being a bit premature suggesting that the Labour Party go down this path this early in.

                  Bernie Sanders genius, is in ignoring all this “accepted wisdom”.

                  As I said before; it is my opinion that Labour, (and the Greens) would be well advised to take a lead from Bernie Sanders and start openly promoting similar and even more radical left policies.

                  Let’s see how the electorate responds.

                  Like Bernie Sanders they might be pleasantly surprised at the support they receive.

                  And, what have Labour got to lose, they seem to be on a downward spiral at the moment.

            • Kevin 1.2.1.2.1.2
              12 April 2016 at 2:52 pm

              Which recent state win did Bernie have recently where only days before the polls had him 20% behind Clinton?

            • Kevin 1.2.1.2.1.3
              12 April 2016 at 2:53 pm

              Which state win did Bernie have recently where only days before the polls had him 20% behind Clinton?

            • Jenny 1.2.1.2.1.4
              12 April 2016 at 7:42 pm

              “Penny and Jenny,

              For this outcome to be credible, Sanders would have to win New York and Pennsylvania.” WAYNE

              Though it is contained within the link. I didn’t, make any comment on the outcome.

              It is my opinion that it is a pretty foregone conclusion that the establishment will close ranks to avert the threat from their left posed by Sanders. (Probably more effectively and with more determination than they will to oppose the threat from their right.)

              What is noteworthy is the thirst for openly expressed Left wing policies by the American public.

              Which seems to go against all accepted wisdom. Or so we are told.

              Just watch this space:
              When the Labour Party lose the next election, (which seems from all polling quite likely), I expect a huge hue and cry will be raised from the media and all the establishment pundits, (even from those within their own Party) that for Labour to win they need to be more like National and John Key, and even more conservative than they are now.

              The real lesson of Bernie Sanders will be buried under an avalanche of right wing columnists and editorials and ernest to-camera monologue’s, urging Labour to move rightward.

              • Jenny …
                15 April 2016 at 7:05 am

                The best Prime Minister New Zealand almost didn’t have.

                Norman Kirk, as leader of the Labour Party lost two elections before he was elected Prime Minister.

                The best Prime Minister New Zealand will never have.

                David Cunliffe lost one election and was tumbled in an undemocratic coup by a right wing cabal inside the Labour caucus calling themselves the ABC group.

                It can be strongly argued that Labour lost the election not because of David Cunliffe’s leadership but due to the fact of his very last minute promotion (over the objection of the ABC cabal) that the die had already been cast. That and the fact that David Cunliffe had to make some unpopular compromises with his right wing dominated caucus.

                It is my opinion that David Cunliffe could have turned Labour’s fortunes around if he had been given the chance during this election cycle.

                Instead from where we are now it looks certain that Labour is looking down the barrel of another defeat.

                It is all water under the bridge now. But the sacking of David Cunliffe compared to the retention Norman Kirk, is a good example of how the conservative establishment do their best to make sure that Business Continues as Usual.

                So how can this situation be remedied.

                I would strongly suggest that Andrew Little start listening to David Cunliffe and promote him to a senior role in his shadow cabinet, and that Andrew Little needs to show more ABC neo-liberal hardliners where the door is.

                This would be a good organisational start. But more than this Andrew Little needs, contrary to the advice of Wayne and others like him, take on board the lesson of Bernie Sanders.

        • swordfish 1.2.1.3
          12 April 2016 at 6:24 pm

          @ Wayne

          “It seems in the US, as with left wing parties elsewhere that the activist membership is much more left than the general public who are inclined to vote left.”

          And yet Sanders does appreciably better than Hillary in all of the one-to-one match-ups with the various possible Republican nominees (interestingly, that’s also true in the New York State Polls).

  2. Jenny 2
    12 April 2016 at 7:20 am

    Was Unaoil one of the oil industry lobbyists for New Zealand deep sea oil concessions?

    Serious questions need to be asked in parliament by opposition MPs of the government and the Labour Party.

    The two biggest companies and only individual named so far in the New Zealand Shell company tax haven scandal,

    Mossack Fonseca (Tax evasion)

    Unaoil (Bribery)

    And their Kiwi Frontman Ian Taylor (Gun running)

    Have all been raided by the police, and are facing serious investigation, in overseas jurisdictions.

    Have any government, (or opposition) MPs ever met with agents of Mossack Fonseca, Unaoil, or Ian Taylor?

  3. vto 3
    12 April 2016 at 7:44 am

    So all the world’s rich bankers and wankers avoid their tax all over the planet…

    … meaning that the people’s representatives (the government) does not receive proper tax income for use in that society….

    … so how about this for a means of raising income for the government…..

    Abandon tax.

    Government issues its own money as a proportion of the economy each year and uses that. That hits the entire economy equally across the board – fat cats, bankers and wankers, everyone, especially those with wealth and richness, who then suffer the proportionately same amount as the cleaners, drivers, teachers and preachers.

    Of course there would inflationary / deflationary and other effects as well, but that cancels itself out.

    So – no more tax.

    Government issues its own money, at a set proportion of the economy each year, and spends it into the economy as necessary.

    No more hiding from tax.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      12 April 2016 at 9:39 am

      Government issues its own money as a proportion of the economy each year and uses that.

      Kinda. The government would create the money that it needs to fully fund itself every year. None of this proportionate BS.

      But can we abandon tax? I’m not sure on that one. I think it would be more that we would be changing what, when and how things are taxed.

      We would be looking at demurrage. And we’d make it progressive so that the more money you had in the bank the more you would pay.

      We would be looking to decrease interest rates to zero.

      With these two actions we make hoarding money worthless.

      We would, of course, bring natural monopolies back into government ownership and make it so that they cannot be sold. In fact, no government service will be provided by private businesses. They’re government services for a reason or three: More efficient, benefit from economies of scale but are limited to the people in the nation (i.e, extending outside the nation doesn’t extend the scale), Everyone benefits from them.

      Limit income to $100k. Anything over $100k will be taxed at 100%. Really, no one needs an income greater than $100k and so anything more than that is just greed and greed is destroying our society and the environment.

      These will make it so that no one will own major assets at all and remove the incentives to own ever more minor assets.

      Ban offshore ownership. This will keep the prices in NZ within the bounds of those living in NZ. As far as owning housing and businesses go the market is local, not global.

      That’s for starters. Haven’t got time to too much in depth but my posts and comments on TS cover quite a bit.

      • Reddelusion 3.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 10:06 am

        Under your system Draco what incentive is thier to be industrious, innovate, efficient ( ie the opposite of monopolies) , etc. How competitive would NZ be as an economy if we went with your prescription over time, Would our best and brightest stay, would we evolve or end up like eastern Europe under communism living in a time warp as the west moved on in nearly every human endeavour

        • Brutus Iscariot 3.1.1.1
          12 April 2016 at 10:21 am

          Yes, comical.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.2
          12 April 2016 at 4:36 pm

          Under your system Draco what incentive is thier to be industrious, innovate, efficient ( ie the opposite of monopolies) , etc.

          Lots. People aren’t motivated the way that RWNJs think that they’re motivated and, in fact, they fuck up badly when paid more.

          How competitive would NZ be as an economy if we went with your prescription over time,

          Massively so.

          Would our best and brightest stay

          Yes they would as they would actually have something to challenge them rather than being forced into being a bloody farmer.

          What’s destroying NZ is RWNJ ideology. In fact, it’s destroying the environment and all other societies as well.

          • Reddelusion 3.1.1.2.1
            12 April 2016 at 5:34 pm

            Not convincing Draco, sorry and F

          • vto 3.1.1.2.2
            12 April 2016 at 9:10 pm

            Draco and others…

            I mean tax the economy. Don’t tax the people – they are too tricky…

            The economy would effectively be taxed because the additional money issued would lower the value of the existing money in the system. This would happen equally and across the board. Kinda like a flat tax – so it doesn’t address the “progressive tax” issue…

            But taxing people is all too hard. I was trying to think of a way to tax something inert and large and unable to be individually fiddled.. and something that applies across everyone….

            … which is f course the whole lot of it…. the entire economy …. just take slice of the economy each year to pay for the essentials etc … and a slice can be taken by issuing more money….

            conceptually I think it works…

            • Reddelusion 3.1.1.2.2.1
              13 April 2016 at 8:28 am

              Just print money and trust the politicians, who decides essential, when does can’t be bother just print me money become an essential. Both Draco and yourself fail to appreciate human nature in your prescription assuming we just all live in one big homogenous hippy community re our values, goals, aspirations and motivations,likewise we are totally disconnected from of the rest of the world, thus no unintended consequences ie every one chose to stay in our little paradise

    • Ad 3.2
      12 April 2016 at 10:40 am

      If the UK required one single set of tax laws across its Caribbean protectorate we would start narrowing further the Rabbit holes of the 1%.

      I suspect the UK review will broaden to this.

    • Ad 3.3
      12 April 2016 at 10:43 am

      Very few would trust the government to have this amount of power.

      I wouldn’t.

  4. Nick 4
    12 April 2016 at 8:12 am

    Winston Peters was excellent this morning on RNZ. The interviewer was very cynical and didn’t know his stuff, Winston schooled him.

    • TC 4.1
      12 April 2016 at 11:02 am

      Yes winnie runs rings around these jonolists we have.

      The opposition in general need to treat them as the shills they are to wrest back the narrative from CT spin lines

  5. Sirenia 5
    12 April 2016 at 8:29 am

    On Martyn Bradbury’s Waatea TV last night Nicky Hagar gave an example of an Indonesian billionaire who burned down the rainforests for palm oil and all the profits were channelled through paper companies in untraceable tax havens so he paid no tax in Indonesia to benefit the local population. Or anywhere.

    Meanwhile, as a result of this destructive industry orangutangs die (and the NZ dairy industry imports the palm kernel for cow feed). These are the stories we should be told in the mainstream media.

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    12 April 2016 at 8:35 am

    Tolley office “Molotov firebombing”–anyone got any updated info on this?

    the PM smeared the TPPA movement via TV and other media on 5 Feb after the impressive actions of 4 Feb, by attempting to link TPPA protests to graffiti and an apparent attempted fire setting in one of Anne Tolley’s four electorate offices (one is shared with another Nat MP)

    no statement from Police or Nats since, Tolley’s office is situated in an alley near a bank, with various security cams in place so some idea should have been gained as to the perpetrators

    another cold case? it is frustrating that the Nats get a nationwide “hit” on the TPPA movement for free

  7. esoteric pineapples 7
    12 April 2016 at 8:54 am

    This Waatea Fifth Estate panel discussion with Winston Peters, Grant Robertston and Nicky Hager on the Panama Papers is excellent – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7F54KgYjkQ

  8. ianmac 8
    12 April 2016 at 9:04 am

    I don’t get it. This morning on National Radio a man was describing how careful his firm is before accepting Trusts from overseas. But why are, say English rich, putting their money in NZ Trusts? Why do they not put their Trusts in their own country like the Honorable John Key?
    Oh. And no one has ever asked his firm for Trust details. Not IRD or anyone else!

    • Peter 9.1
      12 April 2016 at 11:26 am

      His views are more relevant to the UK situation, and are superficial at best. I really hate the word ‘Islamophobia’, but I think that many who are dragging up his comments are guilty of just that. Its less about Muslims and more about the source of the Muslim immigrants.

      Just do the maths: India (133m Muslims), China (133m Muslims), Indonesia (196m) Muslims, and so on. How many terrorists come from these populations? Many people from these Muslim populations are already well settled and reasonably well integrated in NZ and Australia.

      The common thread in the Islamic terrorists, lack of integration and so on in European countries (with a few exceptions) are more related to Middle Eastern and Bangladeshi immigrants. Most of these have had to make a quantum change from poverty, oppression and so on.

      Don’t tar all Muslim immigrants around the world with the same brush.

      Muslim population data:
      http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

      • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 11:45 am

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Phillips

        Superficial? He’s the former chair of the EHRC, a former leader of his student union

        “When I was chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I played a principal role in the creation of UK laws against religious discrimination — and it was a report that I commissioned exactly 20 years ago that first introduced the term Islamophobia to Britain”

        I think he’s well qualified to talk about this subject

        • Peter 9.1.1.1
          12 April 2016 at 12:00 pm

          Being a former head of his student union is relevant how exactly?

          Former head of EHRC does not mean his views now are correct, any more than his views then were correct.

          Its superficial in that he treats all muslim immigrants as though they are of one mind.

          • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2016 at 12:36 pm

            You are part of the problem and that’s why I hope that our refugee intake isn’t increased unless we give equal measure to other religions because I don’t want NZ to become like Europe

            • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1.1
              12 April 2016 at 1:00 pm

              You are part of the problem and that’s why I hope that our refugee intake isn’t increased

              Lol

              You want to determine immigration policy based on Peter’s comments? sounds rational. /sarc

              As for your idea of a quota system to allow equal representation of other religions, we could probably do with more Zoroastrians and Satanists in the country, although agnostics and atheists should be recognised, too. But is this consistent with your previous stance on Labour’s so-called “man ban”?

              • Puckish Rogue …
                12 April 2016 at 1:12 pm

                Not quite sure how you’re linking man-bans with religion but that does remind me of something, where’s Tracey got to?

                I always enjoyed reading her posts

                • McFlock …
                  12 April 2016 at 1:19 pm

                  I’m just intrigued as to why you favour a quota for religion but not for gender.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    12 April 2016 at 1:27 pm

                    I’m ok with adding atheists and agnostics in as well but its more that why does one religion seem to get more publicity then any other religion (or indeed those without religion)

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 1:51 pm

                      You sure it’s not more why some people get their knickers in a bigger twist over one religion than they do over many others?

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      12 April 2016 at 3:21 pm

                      I don’t mind saying that I’d like to stop all Muslim refugees from entering NZ from this point on if that’s what you’re getting at

                      There are plenty of refugees out there we can take from many religious beliefs or none at all

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 3:35 pm

                      ISTR watching John Oliver a while back, and he made a persuasive case that “muslim” refugees (and refugees in general) have a lower crime rate than the population into which they flee.

                      Just food for thought, should you decide to think.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      12 April 2016 at 4:10 pm

                      So what?

                      I’m sure a case can be also made for child sex rings run by Muslims:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

                      As can cases for random bombings (far too many to link to but I’m sure you’ll agree that I don’t need to prove it)

                      Or the dangers school kids face:

                      https://www.rt.com/news/270214-bavaria-muslim-school-clothes/

                      Or how about this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-attacks-what-happened-after-1000-women-were-sexually-assaulted-a6867071.html

                      So yeah bring in our quota of refugees but lets leave the Muslims to other countries

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 4:22 pm

                      Not, the proposition wasn’t that there was no crime associated with immigrants. Just that the crime rate, even of the “muslim” immigrants who scare you so much, is lower than the general population they flee to. So a higher proportion of slave trafficking rings would be ruin by non-muslims, similarly with other sexual assaults. And your link to the school was about the local school princopal being as racist as you.

                      Like I say, if you want to start actually thinking, there are places you can go for help.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      12 April 2016 at 4:28 pm

                      No McFlock, we have enough problems in NZ without importing more, known, problems into NZ

                      What makes you think that whats happening in Europe and, recently in Australia, can’t happen here

                      I know you’re that naïve so what is it?

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 4:33 pm

                      What do you think is happening in europe and aus, first?

                      Let’s say criminals in a population are like alcohol concentration: if you take a drop of wine and put it in a bottle of whiskey, is the resulting concoction more or less alcoholic? Wine is refugees, whiskey is the population they flee to.

                    • adam …
                      12 April 2016 at 4:34 pm

                      Wow so adding child like xenophobia to your list of faults Puckish Rouge.

                      Desperate for a distraction from you corrupt and bent mate John Key.

                      Woken up the fact that this national government is possibly the worst in our history have we, so looking for scape goats and new things to raise false flags about.

                      What a sad, sad human being you are.

                      Look the Alpha programme may help, let me know where you live and I’ll see if we can infuse some love into your heart.

  10. Graeme 10
    12 April 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Well, whatever happened to the Special Housing Areas being for “affordable” homes?

    The first one to come on stream in the Wakatipu hits the market with a house package at $755,000.00 More like special developer profits

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/379362/entry-level-home-755000

    • Rosie 10.1
      12 April 2016 at 12:55 pm

      That’s an astronomical price for a 124 square metre house on 360 square metres of land. Who’s going to be fool enough to buy that?
      I thought it was bad enough around our way. One developer has been trying to flog off 124 square metre houses in an MDH project. 30 units crammed onto a hillside, with the plan that they will be developed in 3 stages. Well, they started out on stage one two years ago with the units being marketed at $465K. It went up to $485K, then to $494K and now they are $508K. 3 units have sold from the first stage. The first purchase was 18 months ago and none of the units have been completed yet. Developer logic is “houses won’t sell, raise the price”.

      Time will tell how any of of these SHA’s around the country will contribute to the stock of “affordable homes”. I’m not holding my breath for the Wellington region. Our council has a disturbingly cosy relationship with developers.

      • saveNZ 10.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 1:35 pm

        The SHA is another government farce and botch up – in Auckland they are selling for 1 million in Huapai.

        It really is some sort of Marie Antoinette moment of the government.

        Thanks for those ‘affordable’ houses Key. Neoliberalism really works! A bit like how NZ is ‘not a tax haven’ for his offshore buddies even though we are mentioned 60,000 times. sarc.

    • Puckish Rogue 11.1
      12 April 2016 at 12:45 pm

      I guess the issue is, from what I’ve read, is that the offending is at the lower end of the scale so there’s no other physical evidence to back the complainant up so it comes down to their word against his and since you need to be sure beyond reasonable doubt…

      • Rosie 11.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 1:06 pm

        Which is always the case with the nature of this type of offending. It’s so easy for offenders to get away with it, they have the immediate advantage of a lack of physical evidence of their offending, over their victims.

        I worry that these girls, alongside thousands of others that have gone before them, won’t get the justice they deserve.

        • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1
          12 April 2016 at 1:15 pm

          Yes but only if what they say is true of course (I’m inclined to believe them as their stories seem to corroborate each other but of course I haven’t sat in on the case)

          • b waghorn 11.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2016 at 1:39 pm

            Firstly why would two young girls lie and put themselves thru the wringer,
            And secondly if you were going to lie to get someone in the shit wouldn’t your allegations be of a more serious nature than these ones are?

        • James 11.1.1.2
          12 April 2016 at 1:32 pm

          You are assuming that he is guilty. It may be that the people who have heard the evidence think he isnt (well enough of them to cause this stalemate).

          It could be that he is innocent – so no justice to the girls is required. Just the opposite in fact.

          I guess we have to wait for the jury decision to know huh.

          • Rosie 11.1.1.2.1
            12 April 2016 at 1:54 pm

            Yes, well I guess the girls thought it would be a real hoot to make something up, make a police complaint, talk to adults about intimate parts of their bodies that a young girl is only getting used to the idea of, spend ages waiting for it to go to trial and then have their experiences laid bare to strangers and cope with a defence that rips them to shreds and belittles them.

            Totally in it for the lols.

            So yes, I do have a bias to support girls and women who make such allegations, knowing how often such experiences are never reported and how much strength and courage it takes for a person to go through this process. So if I’ve got my blinkers on, it’s for good reason.

            • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.2.1.1
              12 April 2016 at 1:57 pm

              Its good you have your blinkers on and the stats are skewed against complainants but its still innocent until proven guilty

              Peter Ellis may have a different view though

              • The lost sheep …
                12 April 2016 at 2:16 pm

                Comments above show why similar cases often end with Jury stalemates.

                In any group of 12 jurors there is highly likely to be at least one who believes the victim/s would not make the claim unless it was true, and at least one juror who believes that an accusation without evidence cannot possibly meet the test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

                if neither is prepared to shift their position, Jury is stalemated. I was involved in one of those juries once, and before dismissing us the judge informed us not to feel bad because we were the third jury to be ‘hung’ on the same case.

                So the victims and accused had been through the wringer 3 times….and the expense to taxpayer was?
                Personally, I would rather see such cases be tried purely by a Judge.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  12 April 2016 at 5:19 pm

                  Pretty sure that’s why we no longer go for unanimous jury decisions.

                  Or is that still in the too hard basket for National?

                • left for dead …
                  13 April 2016 at 1:07 pm

                  Very good point The lost sheep, thanks for making It.
                  I feel being a prom…… in NZ and being tried in your home base,Judge along wound been mandatory, does anyone now were the law stands, will the defendant choose.

            • James 11.1.1.2.1.2
              12 April 2016 at 2:01 pm

              I can understand that Rosie.

              But there are also cases of where men have been unjustly complained against, and had their lives ruined.

              Im not saying that in this case at all (I havn’t been watching it that closely) – but I do know that cases like this people need ALL the information and blinkers (from any side) – are harmful.

              however, you obviously have some history – and I can understand that impacts your view on things – which is only natural. So can understand (as much as I can) where you are coming from.

              But there are a lot on here that want him found guilty – simply because of the damage it could do to [you know who].

              Honestly – I just hope that justice prevails – whatever the outcome and that people can accept the verdict from people who have heard all the facts.

              Note – if he is guilty – I hope they throw the book at him.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                12 April 2016 at 2:16 pm

                Agreed, if found guilty then he needs to be named while suppressing all details of the victims and his relationship to the victims

              • Rosie …
                12 April 2016 at 3:11 pm

                He’s been found not guilty. Stuff still have the story under the original heading:

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/78824702/prominent-new-zealander-trial-jury-at-stalemate.html

                You know what? I do know of one man who was accused of attempted rape and he was actually innocent. The complainant had a certain motivation against this man. I do know how his life was affected for quite some before the charges were dropped.

                However, the issue is that, to quote a completely misunderstood politician, “family and sexual violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men, so the first message to men out there is to wake up, stand up man up and stop this bullshit”.

                Key word is “overwhelmingly”. So you know the odds are stacked against women and children.

                http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/

                I think it was quite normal to be suspicious of the man in this case, given our statistics in NZ. But he has been not found guilty. That has to be accepted.

              • left for dead …
                13 April 2016 at 1:25 pm

                To james

                But there are a lot on here that want him found guilty – simply because of the damage it could do to [you know who].

                You believe that, your fucken idiot.

                To many prominent people are getting away with this heinous crime, and you Mr are politicizing this, their is censorship, so I will stop here for the moment.

  12. Puckish Rogue 12
    12 April 2016 at 12:57 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78821057/labour-leader-andrew-little-to-release-tax-records-back-to-2010-but-key-refuses

    – Wow a publicity stunt from a Labour leader…theres no way this could backfire

    Little said he could not speak for his finance spokesman Grant Robertson. “He tells me his tax affairs are more boring than mine.”

    A publicity stunt and a mention of Grant Robertson… this is smart from Andrew Little

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/snapper-review/9065298/David-Shearers-dead-snapper-stunt

    • James 12.1
      12 April 2016 at 1:33 pm

      Do you think thats little trying to push robertson under the bus?

      • Puckish Rogue 12.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 1:39 pm

        Well anything’s possible and he is a lawyer but in this case I’m thinking it wouldn’t be the first time Mr Robertson has set up a rival

  13. saveNZ 13
    12 April 2016 at 1:41 pm

    I think we are more interested in seeing Key’s tax returns for the last 8 years he has been PM.

    Nothing to hide nothing to fear and all that.

    Plus John Key is sooooo honest, cos he tells us that. And gives all his salary to charity. NZ is not a tax haven and he his blind trusts are irrelevant. I’m sure he doesn’t have quillions in his kids names around the globe.

    Lets find out if he is telling the truth?

    • Puckish Rogue 13.1
      12 April 2016 at 1:50 pm

      Oh you poor blind, deluded fool (and I don’t mean that harshly) you and others like yourself have so much irrational hatred for John Key built up that you’re just like a dog barking at any passing car in the forlorn hope that’ll finally be the issue to bring down John Key

      Most people will see it for what it is and that’s just a cheap, meaningless political stunt.

      They’ll think that they wouldn’t want their tax returns published so why should John Key

      They’ll think of course John Key has trusts because he’s wealthy (he’s never hidden it) and they’ll think they’d do the same if they were in his position

      They’ll think as long as he’s following the rules then its ok

      and then they’ll think of Labour and all they’ll think of is spite, negativity and malice

      • Gabby 13.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 1:57 pm

        It’s not really all that irrational.

      • b waghorn 13.1.2
        12 April 2016 at 1:57 pm

        I have meet people who still think saint key gives all his pm wages to charity so at least it would clear that little myth up.

      • BM 13.1.3
        12 April 2016 at 1:57 pm

        Most people will see it for what it is and that’s just a cheap, meaningless political stunt.

        This, especially when Littles tax records are just his pay slips for the time he’s been a MP.

        Obvious political stunt is obvious.

        • saveNZ 13.1.3.1
          12 April 2016 at 2:02 pm

          I can see this has clearly rattled a nerve with our Troll Key Cheerleaders.

          Not really irrational when David Cameron is releasing his tax returns.

          And the Icelandic PM has had to resign.

          But Key still claims NZ is not a tax haven he himself advocated for when NZ is mentioned 60,000 times in the Panama papers.

          • BM 13.1.3.1.1
            12 April 2016 at 2:03 pm

            Not really irrational when David Cameron is releasing his tax returns.

            And the Icelandic PM has had to resign.

            What has that got to do with John Keys tax?

            • Macro 13.1.3.1.1.1
              12 April 2016 at 2:09 pm

              What has that got to do with John Keys tax?

              That’s what we want to know!
              What is it that he is desperately trying to hide?
              Remember that this is the result of only one of the four largest firms dealing in this sort of stuff. It implicates 140 politicians around the globe avoiding tax in their own countries or worse.
              We know Key has “blind” trusts.
              The chances are he is as heavily implicated in this sort of shinanagans as the rest.

              • BM …
                12 April 2016 at 2:19 pm

                Has John Key been implicated?

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  12 April 2016 at 2:26 pm

                  Apparently that doesn’t matter, he just looks guilty

                  • Macro …
                    12 April 2016 at 2:28 pm

                    If he looks guilty and he is not – then he should prove that he is not.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 2:33 pm

                      Or in other words, it’s not good enough for our public officials to merely be honest. They must be demonstrably honest.

                      That’s one thing I learned from my security days – someone checking up on me wasn’t that they didn’t trust me, it was so that if shit happened in a high risk environment, they could vouch that I’d done everything properly.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      12 April 2016 at 2:48 pm

                      “If he looks guilty and he is not – then he should prove that he is not.”

                      I think you may have had an intimate relationship with a farmyard animal because you look guilty of it, please provide proof that you haven’t.

                      *Just as an example of why that line of reasoning is not a good one to use

                    • BM …
                      12 April 2016 at 2:52 pm

                      Or I think you have child pornography on your computer.

                      If you don’t hand over your computer so we can check it out, you’re obviously guilty.

                      Maybe someone should run that one past Andrew Little, see how he reacts.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 3:14 pm

                      Seems only fair that the people know whether the person who railroaded through the changes that made NZ a tax haven (and then ignored advice on seven separate occasions to rectify the problem) benefitted personally from those changes.

                • Macro …
                  12 April 2016 at 2:27 pm

                  that is what we want to find out!
                  We know he is a lying bastard – especially where his personal trusts are concerned. He has been the one driving, the new zero tax regime for foreign investors (quid pro quo?), and he is the one who has appointed the sham Shewan to do a whitewash of the whole affair. His actions speak of one giant arse cover-up!

                • saveNZ …
                  12 April 2016 at 2:28 pm

                  Yep, in the panama papers NZ has 60,000 mentions.

                  I’m sure with all those long holidays in the US, that is probably the tax haven of choice for Key though, and with friends there to protect him.

                  • ranfurz …
                    12 April 2016 at 3:28 pm

                    60,000 mentions out of what, 1.1 million documents?

                    So mentioned in 0.55% of them? Amazing.

                    • dv …
                      12 April 2016 at 3:42 pm

                      Ooooooh another who can do arithmetic
                      WOW

                    • ranfurz …
                      12 April 2016 at 5:29 pm

                      I’ve seen much higher percentages (falls in Labour polling for example) dismissed on this forum as not important.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 5:36 pm

                      yes. Because numbers get their meaning and importance from their context. 60 is a number. $60 in your pocket is pretty good. 60 charges against you in court is pretty bad. But your IQ of 60 should get you off most of those charges due to mental incompetence.

                      The meaning and importance comes from the context.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      12 April 2016 at 10:05 pm

                      Hi ranfurz,

                      You might want to check your arithmetic.

                      1,100,000 documents. 60,000 mentions. Think about it.

                      Here’s a clue: 60,000 is 1% of 6,000,000

                      More than 1 in 20 documents, on average, mentioned New Zealand.

                      (Of course, presumably some documents mentioned New Zealand more than once.)

                    • The lost sheep …
                      12 April 2016 at 10:44 pm

                      @ Mcflock
                      60 is a number. $60 in your pocket is pretty good. 60 charges against you in court is pretty bad. But your IQ of 60 should get you off most of those charges due to mental incompetence

                      60 is pretty good or pretty bad? And this from someone who once claimed that…
                      “75,000 might or might not be significant”

                      It’s all in the context….and the context is what suits you at the time as far as I can see.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2016 at 11:09 pm

                      That’s because you can’t see very far at all.

                      Fuck 75,000, 75 million might be insignificant: 75 million tonnes of gold or 75 million gold atoms would have significantly different value, no?

                      But you’d argue that 75 million gold atoms (a tiny fraction of a gram) is just as a significant amount of gold as around 100 times all the gold ever mined. Because you’re a moron.

                      context is what suits you at the time

                      No, context is “the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.” Learn english, fucko.

                • adam …
                  12 April 2016 at 3:05 pm

                  Oh stop with the poor me routine BM, it was tiresome days ago. Today it just a bit sickening. Add to the conversation.

                  If you want to winge, go over to whale oil, I’m sure that hate munger will wallow in crap you are spinning.

                • Sabine …
                  12 April 2016 at 3:39 pm

                  I really don’t see what the fuss is about. If dear Leader has got nothing to hide he should simply roll out his tax returns.

                  Fuck, we ask for more from someone who is simply applying for an unemployment benefit after they lost their jobs.

                  If he has nothing to hide he should show his returns.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    12 April 2016 at 4:25 pm

                    “If he has nothing to hide he should show his returns”

                    Because hes done nothing wrong or been shown to have done anything wrong or theres been nothing to link him to anything wrong because you’re just fishing for evidence…any of the above really

                    How long have these documents been out for…over a year, I’d bet Nicky Hagers already had a look so if there was anything it’d be known about already

                    Unless of course Nicky just sits on it until about 4 weeks out from the next election like the little creep he is

                    • Graeme …
                      12 April 2016 at 4:57 pm

                      There’s really only one response to that, and that’s a quote from Frank Marvin, the late editor of Mountain Scene, my local paper.

                      “If you don’t want it on the front page, don’t do it”

                      Frank was a top man, and utterly fearless in his reporting of the goings on around Queenstown and always had plenty of material. He was very effective at keeping the place in order. His world view was quite different to Hager’s though.

                    • Macro …
                      12 April 2016 at 9:58 pm

                      Every year since 2006 MP’s have been required to declare their Financial Interests
                      MP’s should also be unaverse to declaring their tax returns as well if they have nothing to hide. They are the ones who set the taxes – they should show they they are above board in that regard as well.

          • Puckish Rogue 13.1.3.1.2
            12 April 2016 at 2:09 pm

            Seriously, some on the right comment on something dumb a Labour leader does and its taken as we’re rattled

            So let me guess if we don’t comment on something dumb the Labour leader de jour does then that also proves we’re rattled?

            • adam 13.1.3.1.2.1
              12 April 2016 at 3:00 pm

              When you cry wolf all the time, when most of what you say is a lie, and sorry Puckish Rouge, but your track record is quite bad – especially when you parrot the party line.

              So here is some hints; Try not lying, try being reasonable, try not ranting with hyperbole some time, and we may listen.

              Then again in this case the national government dropped the ball, they created a tax haven, tarnished our good name and besmirched us all.

              The problem is national party supporters like yourself rather than own up to that, go on the attack. Engage in dirty politics and then moan about it when we call you on it.

              The poor me routine is very bloody tiresome. As is the distractions. I see your boy Brash decided Racism was the distraction the government needed this time.

              So quite frankly Puckish Rogue, a amoral punter like yourself, could take a look at the lack of morals shown in the last few days or you could just carry on moaning.

      • Macro 13.1.4
        12 April 2016 at 2:05 pm

        But when one thinks of Key and Trusts – all one can think of is lying and feathering his own nest

  14. ianmac 14
    12 April 2016 at 2:10 pm

    Andrew Little has just tabled his Income Tax Records in the House. Now where is Key’s?

    • BM 14.1
      12 April 2016 at 2:16 pm

      Everyone already knows Andrew Little’s tax record, MP’s salaries are public knowledge.

  15. Anno1701 15
    12 April 2016 at 2:17 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/78824702/prominent-new-zealander-trial-jury-at-stalemate.html

    “Prominent New Zealander trial: Not Guilty”

    Any one really surprised ?

    • Magisterium 15.1
      12 April 2016 at 2:18 pm

      Since I wasn’t on the jury and didn’t hear the evidence, I’m neither surprised nor unsurprised.

      • Anno1701 15.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 2:20 pm

        “I’m neither surprised nor unsurprised.”

        clearly some kind of nihilist….

        edgy !

    • McFlock 15.2
      12 April 2016 at 2:23 pm

      Not really. Tough on the kids.

      Still, I doubt that many people who know him would now ask him to be a child-minder.

  16. ianmac 16
    12 April 2016 at 2:18 pm

    Prominent Kiwi sex charge case: Not guilty to all charges

    • saveNZ 16.1
      12 April 2016 at 2:24 pm

      Helps so much if you are protected by people in high places, what career you used to have and expensive lawyers to plant seeds of doubt.

      • Macro 16.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 2:38 pm

        Exactly – I’ve sat on the jury one of these sort of cases and after 2 weeks of evidence and a whole raft of “prominent NZers” giving “evidence in support” of the accused – convicted and discharged.
        Anyone else would be in the big house.

        • James 16.1.1.1
          12 April 2016 at 2:41 pm

          He was found not-guilty based on the evidence.

          and far from a whole raft of “prominent NZers” giving “evidence in support”

          It sounds like it was more the evidence of the girls not being backed up, or changing.

          You were not there, nor did you hear all the evidence – so its stupid, to suggest that anyone else would be in the “big house”.

  17. ianmac 17
    12 April 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I suppose we have to accept the jury decision. Assuming he is innocent it will find it hard to be left alone with other people’s kids. Stigma is not always fair.

    • McFlock 17.1
      12 April 2016 at 2:29 pm

      Fuck, I avoid being left alone with kids anyway, and haven’t been accused of a damned thing.

      Massaging kids is a bit weird (regardless of everything else), too.

      • BM 17.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 2:33 pm

        Physios, fucking deviants.

        • McFlock 17.1.1.1
          12 April 2016 at 3:02 pm

          There’s a difference between that and doing it socially. Although I’m prepared to accept it might be a cultural variation I have, but the only people I’ve given or received social massages from have been folks with whom it added a little frisson of enjoyment to both. Just as Tony Rockyhorror should have known.

      • Anno1701 17.1.2
        12 April 2016 at 2:41 pm

        “Massaging kids is a bit weird ”

        we had a teacher who did exactly that at my primary school many many years ago….

        he was arrested, charged and did 18 months…

      • ianmac 17.1.3
        12 April 2016 at 2:42 pm

        I wonder how it would have panned out had it been a teacher giving massages to kids?

        • Puckish Rogue 17.1.3.1
          12 April 2016 at 3:03 pm

          Will the guy get his old job back…will they want him back?

        • Expat 17.1.3.2
          12 April 2016 at 3:19 pm

          I wonder if he’ll be [r0b: deleted for obvious legal reasons] now?

          History repeating it’s self, ignoring evidence from children, because their children, and therefore lack credibility.

          • McFlock 17.1.3.2.1
            12 April 2016 at 3:29 pm

            that’s one of those comments that you expect to be replaced by modface bold reasonably soon…

            Aye!

          • James 17.1.3.2.2
            12 April 2016 at 3:31 pm

            That has to be close to be breaking suppression orders.

            Mods may want to make a call on that one.

            Indeed.

          • Expat 17.1.3.2.3
            12 April 2016 at 4:17 pm

            Ooops, apologies!

            Regardless of this case, all too often, the “privileged” are able to manipulate outcomes in court hearings, justice, sometimes, appears to be a commodity.

            • Anne 17.1.3.2.3.1
              12 April 2016 at 5:39 pm

              http://thehandmirror.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/making-him-stop.html

              Excerpt:

              See, here’s the thing. I don’t believe you, Mr “Prominent Man.” I think you were grooming the girls so you could keep sexually abusing them. I think that’s why you were buying them things. I think it was going to get worse – as one girl said, she was scared you were going to rape her – and I think the best outcome of this whole travesty is that the girls actually got it to stop.

              I was up against a Public Service superior years ago who was terrorising me (no, not sexually but something equally as frightening) both in the workplace and beyond. I reported him to the management. He lied to them. They believed him because of his superior position. My career ended in tatters but at least the terrorising stopped.

              • Expat …
                12 April 2016 at 6:29 pm

                Anne

                My wife had a similar experience with one of her previous employers, at the final hearing, the employer thought they had the case wrapped up, my wife is not good at defending herself, so knowing the circumstances of the case, I spoke up and put forward a couple of very pertinent questions surrounding the validity of the accusations against my wife, these questions resulted in a win for my wife, but if I hadn’t been there, the employer would have won, he had tried to pay off our lawyer with a bribe as well, I’m just glad Iv’e got a big mouth and a willingness to challenge the BS.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 17.1.3.2.3.2
              13 April 2016 at 9:10 am

              Yeah, fucking Doug Graham and Bill Jeffries buying their convictions.

  18. ianmac 18
    12 April 2016 at 4:34 pm

    “Prime Minister John Key has declared a short term deposit to a company specialising in foreign trusts.

    The latest register of MPs pecuniary interests listed the Antipodes Trust Group Limited as a debtor in Key’s entry. The register was released today.

    On its website, the Antipodes Trust calls itself a specialist provider or trustee and associated services for foreign trusts using New Zealand as their jurisdiction of choice.”
    Anyone know what this means? Good or Bad?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78838228/prime-minister-john-key-deposited-money-with-company-specialising-in-foreign-trusts

    • ranfurz 18.1
      12 April 2016 at 5:26 pm

      It’s the firm his lawyer works for now. So likeliest explanation is that Key’s lawyer held the deposit for something in trust (the firm’s trust) for a short time, as is usual when making decent sized financial transactions. One example – many here bought a house? The usual process is the deposit is held by your lawyer in a trust until settlement.

      Keep in mind the declarations for this register were made before 31st Jan 2016 – it’s not like Key has suddenly declared this transaction in the wake of the Panama Papers.

      • te reo putake 18.1.1
        12 April 2016 at 5:46 pm

        Its not like he declared it publicly himself either in all those interviews he’s done since the Panama papers came it. It must have slipped his mind.

      • William Joyce 18.1.2
        12 April 2016 at 6:17 pm

        Unfortunately, it’s not a smoking gun. This appears to be just a financial “interest”, held in trust by a lawyer, acting on Key’s behalf, for some as yet unknown purpose.
        There appears to be no tax avoidance or evasion that we can see. He was required to declare it and was right to do so.
        Despite the attempts by Patrick Gower et al to suggest that the funds held are suspect by association with the company the lawyer now works for are a bit much.
        To have Key caught out would a delight but alas – but I will be watching this space

        • Muttonbird 18.1.2.1
          12 April 2016 at 6:26 pm

          Not sure any legitimate poster here has suggested this is a smoking gun. BM and his right wing allies are suggesting the socially conscious left believe it to be a smoking gun but that is not the case.

          Given the current attention around New Zealand being a soft touch for secretive funds, this is what the media says it is – embarrassing for John Key.