Open mike 17/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 am, April 17th, 2014 - 312 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open 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 …

312 comments on “Open mike 17/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    17 April 2014 at 6:57 am

    The Karam defamation case should be a warning to bloggers and other forum hosts, and anyone who uses social media who thinks they can make unprovable and potentially defamatory comments with impunity.

    From Karam awarded $535,000 over defamation:

    In her ruling, released yesterday, the judge identified about 50 defamatory statements published on Facebook and on a private website by Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss — members of the Justice for Robin Bain group — to which there was no defence.

    Mr Karam said the men had made “an all-out assault on me [in] an attempt to show that I’m shonky”.

    He and Fairfax NZ had earlier agreed to settle defamation claims, on a confidential basis, arising from articles on stuff.co.nz that drew attention to the websites that contained the defamatory comments by Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss.

    People commenting anonymously may think they are immune from defamation but that could be put to the test legally.

    And bloggers who allow open slather comments should note that Fairfax NZ has been also held responsible in this case and have settled privately. I frequently see potentially defamatory comments made on a number of blogs.

    Most people being attacked online don’t take defamation action and the attackers probably think they are safe from being held to account.

    Parker and Purkiss probably thought they were untouchable and could make unsubstantiated claims with impunity. They may have thought they could exploit the power of free speech.

    They may have believed their own hype and thought that believing something was sufficient justification for attacking someone’s integrity. This seems have continued “in choosing to use the defence of truth at the trial”.

    Perhaps hose who think they are safe attacking and defaming online should have a good look at this case.

    [karol: I don’t know why you chose to make this warning on The Standard, Pete. But The Standard Policy is very strong on not allowing comments that are a legal risk. Also, anonymous comments are not allowed.]

    • Not a PS Staffer 1.1
      17 April 2014 at 7:06 am

      Hey George, are you trying to warn off those people who are questioning the ethics of Peter Dunne, Minister for Legal Highs, not disclosing that the person paid for advocating on behalf of the scum who run the Legal High business is his pride and joy, my son James?

      Are you?

      • Tracey 1.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 7:49 am

        I came to post on the finding and found pete had already. what was my ulterior motive?

        I am no apologist for pete but the pouncing has become more volumous and less specific to any relevant point recently?

        • tinfoilhat 1.1.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 8:05 am

          Agreed Tracey the blogs getting more and more like an old boys club to beat up on anyone that they don’t agree with.

          Pathetic really.

          • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 8:15 am

            Actually i thought the comments were beginning to resemble commenters on WO and kiwiblog.
            I dont agree with many things Pete posts but apart from ownering twice if he was being stupid or naive, I have tried not to stoop.

            I do want to point out tinfoilhat that it is not just left commenters either. Srylands repeatedly accuses me of being drunk and others on the right get very abusive.

            • tinfoilhat 1.1.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 9:11 am

              Yes I agree that there are many on the right that are just as bad.

              And I’ve been guilty of some bad behaviour myself, i think we’d all be much better behaved towards each other if we met face to face rather than on the internet which does tend to lend itself to bullying and other bad behaviour at times.

              • Pete George …
                17 April 2014 at 9:20 am

                This particular issue was particularly pertinent to Kiwiblog because there were extensive Bain /Karam discussions there with a lot of abuse and accusations and probably defamation. That’s why I posted there first and again on today’s General Debate. No reactionary abuse there and there’s been some sensible discussion on it.

                After the usual few have calmed down addressing the issue rather than attacking the messenger seems to be taking over here. It’s an important issue for all who comment in social media.

                One comment on KB from Nostalgia:

                Trade Me have also settled. TM was the nest of this and ignored advice that they were indeed a publisher in the first instance and responsible for third party posts in the second.

                Parker now claims that he only had a small membership, that’s irrelevant and in this case his ‘followers’ posted the defamatory material on this blog and else where.

                KS is running a good model for a blog to ensure it remains legal – others claim not to have the ‘resources’ to monitor their own boards well, that won’t stand up now, nor should it have in the past.

                The Herald report skims the surface of the Judgement, but you are right about things being ‘proveable’ and the test is not that “I read it somewhere, or in a paper,” it’s a satisfactory conclusion reached on facts, not repeated mantras or false assertions.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  17 April 2014 at 9:56 am

                  So what Pete?

                  On this board the history is different. Over here the history is of you clogging up threads with passive aggressive bullshit, and of you making weird arguments about what oppositions ought to able to talk about.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    17 April 2014 at 10:24 am

                    Yes, PG does have a habit of talking baloney and leading a discussion around in circles but that’s not a good enough excuse to attack someone without reading what they’re saying first. In this case it was a reasonable point.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.1.2
              17 April 2014 at 9:21 am

              The irony there Tracey is that PG commented on the wrong blog. As Karol pointed out, ts authors are already aware of what the legal situation is, and have been very clear on that. If PG wasn’t implying that this case has implications for ts, then he needs to learn how to communicate better.

              • Tracey …
                17 April 2014 at 11:52 am

                i suspect he hasnt read the ploicy carefully or reaquainted himself with it. something many here are probably guilty of.

                i am working on some stuff and not ignoring your other questions.

                • felix …
                  17 April 2014 at 12:37 pm

                  I doubt there is a single commenter here who has had the policy explained to him more often than Pete, often in great detail and with enormous patience.

                  He really has no excuse.

                  • Tracey …
                    17 April 2014 at 4:22 pm

                    this is my point about his new role. he doesnt seem to read the right stuff before posting, like the actual court decision.

        • miravox 1.1.1.2
          17 April 2014 at 8:18 am

          It’s the passive-aggressive thing that Pete does, Tracey. The cumulative body of work.

          I’m quite sure that if you had commented first on this we would have had, when taken in the context of your previous comments, and also as a comment that stands alone a reasoned comment that doesn’t put in the judgments that Pete does.

          • weka 1.1.1.2.1
            17 April 2014 at 9:30 am

            +1 miravox.

            Let’s not pretend that this is anything other than the fact that PG creates a whole bunch of distruption, and then decides that he has a right to continue doing so. And then he plays disingenuous.

            • Pete George 1.1.1.2.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 9:36 am

              It’s obvious here that I didn’t ‘create’ any disruption, rather there’s a few very familiar pseudonyms who chose to disrupt something that should be of interest to anyone using social media.

              Typical ignore the issue and attack the messenger. It’s something that’s obviously supported here. And then trying to blame me for it is a common part of the game.

              • weka …
                17 April 2014 at 9:45 am

                That’s right, it’s everyone else’s fault, nothing to do with your ongoing and historical behaviour.

                Remind me again why you got banned last time, and what you were doing leading up to that ban?

                • Pete George …
                  17 April 2014 at 9:51 am

                  Check it out. I was suggesting that some of the behaviour here was not a good look, and I was being attacked and abused for doing that. Same old.

                  • weka …
                    17 April 2014 at 10:03 am

                    Ah, now Pete the Martyr.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    17 April 2014 at 10:29 am

                    But nothing actually goes into defamation because the owners/moderators look for and remove that type of shit. It was well worth posting but now you’re getting into your usual BS.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 April 2014 at 12:49 pm

                      Now now, pete was only warning folks here of an issue that they were already aware of. He’s a very helpful chap that way.

              • Tracey …
                17 April 2014 at 11:54 am

                when did you post your commentary at whaleoil… the publisher there isprobably pretty susceptible

              • greywarbler …
                17 April 2014 at 4:07 pm

                weka
                Absolutely.

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                17 April 2014 at 9:37 pm

                I’m not using a pseudonym, Pete, and I’m happy to agree with others that your contributions at The Standard are frequently disruptive and come across as very disingenuous. This is a case in point – you’ve high-handedly warned “[t]hose who think they are safe attacking and defaming online” when you have a lot of history of making rather nasty insinuations about others. This is an example:

                http://yournz.org/2014/03/03/mathers-story-seems-odd/

                Of course, everything you write is carefully vague, or couched as questions. So you ‘get away’ with basically stating in that post that the entire story about Mojo Mathers’ trip to Masterton was deliberately leaked by the Greens to the Herald in order to ‘sting’ the Taxpayers’ Union and smear the government. The whole conspiracy’s laid out there, including your snide comments about Green supporters expressing their contempt for the TU on Twitter.

                It’s just as vicious and personal as anything which I’ve ever seen posted at The Standard, but as far as I can tell you think it doesn’t count as long as you can wring your hands and pretend to be distressed by the muckiness of politics.

            • miravox 1.1.1.2.1.2
              17 April 2014 at 8:53 pm

              “And then he plays disingenuous.”

              You’re right – his pattern of commenting shows he’s just a stirrer, and he plays until he gets caught out not having researched the thing he’s talking about, has his own previous comments with a 180 deg different ‘opinion’ quoted back at him, or is proven comprehensively wrong. Then he just refuses to engage at all.

              I understand Tracey’s frustration with people who are sick of PG, but jeez – any look back at his commenting will show he does have a pattern of passive aggressive pontificating and then running.

              • felix …
                17 April 2014 at 10:29 pm

                You know what he really doesn’t like? Following through to the logical conclusion of his statements.

                It’s frequently awful and he has pretty much never thought it through himself.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.3
          17 April 2014 at 8:35 am

          I don’t think you would have couched your comment in such a way as to start a flame war, Tracey.

          Once Fairfax settled it was obvious where the case was going. The remaining defendants were mad to continue it; I suspect a retraction and apology even at that late stage might have brought out some of Mr. Karam’s undoubted generosity.

          • Tracey 1.1.1.3.1
            17 April 2014 at 8:42 am

            agreed. Karam said exactly that. A retraction and apology in 2009 would have been enough.

    • bad12 1.2
      17 April 2014 at 7:33 am

      What we do know George is no-one will be attacking your integrity round here right???,

      That’s because of despite there being an exhaustive and ongoing search by everyone here we have yet to find it…

      • karol 1.2.1
        17 April 2014 at 7:44 am

        As greywarbler pointed out yesterday. It’s often better not to rise to the provocation, and feed the tit for tats.

    • Tracey 1.3
      17 April 2014 at 7:46 am

      and if a blogger or commenter defames someone who can afford to sue them. this is an important aspect pete cos bringing defamation proceedings is very expensive and most awards are below 50k.

    • kenny 1.4
      17 April 2014 at 7:46 am

      Have you posted this on WhaleOil and KiwiBlog as well? Haven’t got time to look myself.

      • Pete George 1.4.1
        17 April 2014 at 7:58 am

        At Kiwiblog over an hour before here:
        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/04/general_debate_16_april_2014.html/comment-page-1#comment-1307574

        Some comments there already that recognise the potential implications. And I’ll post again there in today’s General debate (it doesn’t start until 8 am).

        Also (attracting immediate interest): http://yournz.org/2014/04/17/karam-defamation-case-a-warning-to-blogs/

        Odd but perhaps not surprising that some here have taken this as a threat or somehow attacking The Standard. I think anyone commenting online should be aware of the risks.

        • felix 1.4.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 8:06 am

          It’s cowardly to make veiled threats and then deny them.

          Cowardly but not at all surprising.

          • Pete George 1.4.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 8:13 am

            You would know.

            • felix 1.4.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 8:19 am

              Yep I’ve dealt with bullies before. Passive-aggressive dishonest cowardly ones like you are the worst.

              • Pete George …
                17 April 2014 at 8:24 am

                Very funny Mr Brave.

                • Tracey …
                  17 April 2014 at 8:47 am

                  Interesting responses to felix, he is one person who on at least two suggested people give you a chance at politicheck and has often taking people to task for suggesting someone else, anyone else, shouldn’t post here.

                  • tinfoilhat …
                    17 April 2014 at 8:53 am

                    IMO Felix is one of the worst offenders at this site Tracey, just because he says he’s of the left doesn’t mean his bullying and defamation shouldn’t be called out.

                    • Tracey …
                      17 April 2014 at 8:58 am

                      wasn’t saying he should be immune to anything. show me where I said he ought to be? no one is immune from responses to their comments. Just cos you are on the right doesn’t mean you only have to comment on the behaviour of those on the left here. Yet you do so discriminate.

                    • felix …
                      17 April 2014 at 9:00 am

                      *shrug

                      Maybe you don’t know Pete like I know Pete.

                    • Pete George …
                      17 April 2014 at 9:09 am

                      You think you know or you say you know?

                      I’m not aware we’ve ever met. You’ve made claims that I think are a way off the mark. Either you don’t know me very well or you deliberately make shit up.

                      Another irony is passive aggressive accusations. Yes Tracey, I agree, there’s different felixes.

                    • tinfoilhat …
                      17 April 2014 at 9:09 am

                      Not sure why you think i’m on the right Tracey unless you take the rather odd view of DtB that he Green party is centre right. 🙂

                    • Tracey …
                      17 April 2014 at 9:43 am

                      mickey accused me of leading a green attack on cunliffe yesterday. its all through the looking glass these past few days on here. I apologise for calling you as one on the right.

                    • Mainlander …
                      17 April 2014 at 9:52 am

                      Couldnt agree more Tinfoilhat Felix is just an abusive ranting idiot, he may have said he would give Pete a chance but everytime Pete posts you can guarantee Felix is right behind with his crap along with that idiot OAB never any facts or reasoned and balanced arguements just swearing and throwing their toys out of the cot, it disruptive and boring for those that dont comment often but read often

                    • felix …
                      17 April 2014 at 12:32 pm

                      “You think you know or you say you know?

                      I’m not aware we’ve ever met. “

                      You’re really not much good at interpreting teh english, Pete. Bit concerning, considering you’re the Factmaster General.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      17 April 2014 at 12:37 pm

                      I’ve never said that the Green Party is centre right. I’ve said that about the Labour Party.

                    • swordfish …
                      18 April 2014 at 7:32 am

                      @ Mainlander “Couldn’t agree more Tinfoilhat Felix is just an abusive ranting idiot.”

                      Brighter, more enlightened and more compelling than you’ll ever be, my thoroughly pointless Tory chum.

                  • felix …
                    17 April 2014 at 12:01 pm

                    If you think there are different felixes, Pete, why not just say so?

                    Instead you pretend Tracey said it. Why?

                  • Tracey …
                    17 April 2014 at 12:11 pm

                    I don’t know how you got

                    ” I agree, there’s different felixes.” from my comment that “he is one person who on at least two suggested people give you a chance at politicheck and has often taking people to task for suggesting someone else, anyone else, shouldn’t post here”

        • Tracey 1.4.1.2
          17 April 2014 at 8:18 am

          whaleoil commenters are probably most in need of the warning Pete.

        • kenny 1.4.1.3
          17 April 2014 at 7:20 pm

          So not on WhaleOil?

          Probably the worst offending blog there is.

          • Pete George 1.4.1.3.1
            17 April 2014 at 7:55 pm

            Has been one of the worst there but seems to have toned down, they’ve made an effort to do that. Wanting to be seen as a more serious site.

            It was mentioned briefly there this morning there but wasn’t picked up on. I wanted to see if there was a post on it, they cover a of of relevant things but haven’t been pro-Karam what is not said and posted on can say as quite a bit sometimes. There’s plenty of time yet. You could do it if you wanted to see it there.

            It doesn’t seem to have been mentioned at The Daily Blog either, it’s a lottery whether comments are allowed through there. Nor on other blogs. It would have been mentioned at Kiwiblog and here regardless of what I did. More general topics covered at the two more moderate political blogs.

    • felix 1.5
      17 April 2014 at 7:50 am

      Pete George can fuck off and take his veiled threats with him.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.6
      17 April 2014 at 7:50 am

      The truth is an absolute defence against libel, Petty George, you bland, banal, biased, passive-aggressive incompetent dishonest waste of oxygen.

      Anyone employing you as a fact checker needs their head examined. Your continued employment in the role can only lead to the ridicule and contempt that attaches to you rubbing off on your employer and co-workers.

      [karol: the “truth” still needs to be tested in court. The moderators here are very strong on not allowing potentially defamatory comments, where there is no public evidecne available as to whether the accusations are true or not. I’d suggest commenters don’t leep rising to the provocation – it leads to a flame war that, among other things, gets boring for other readers.]

    • Pete George 1.7
      17 April 2014 at 7:51 am

      Karol, I think this is something all blogs and participants in social media should be aware of. I know what The Standard policies are.

      [karol: your intitial comment did come across as a veiled attack on posters and commenters on The Standard. The anonymity of bloggers had nothing at all to do with the Karam case you cited. It was a provocative statement to post here as starkly as you did. It’s bound to wind people up.]

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.7.1
        17 April 2014 at 7:53 am

        …I think…

        [citation needed]

      • Te Reo Putake 1.7.2
        17 April 2014 at 7:56 am

        I know what The Standard policies are … after being banned for breaching them. Fact.

      • Pete George 1.7.3
        17 April 2014 at 8:05 am

        “did come across as a veiled attack”

        There’s commenters here who take all sorts of things as ‘veiled attacks’. Most of that is imagined or invented, often that seems to be an excuse for them to attack.

        Irony abounds.

        [karol: The TS policy states clearly that anonymity and legal risks are not allowed. Your comment pontificated as if people here did not know that. I jumped on it quickly hoping to prevent the predictable retaliations and flame war.]

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.7.3.1
          17 April 2014 at 8:26 am

          @Karol, and one could hardly blame you.

          I’ll confine myself to rolleyes from here on in.

        • Jenny 1.7.3.2
          17 April 2014 at 9:06 am

          Don’t fret Pete, as long as you don’t make demands on our politicians whether Left or Right to do something about climate change.

          I don’t recall any Right Winger being called a Goebbels by the lprent for demanding that climate change become an election issue so you should be alright.

    • Tracey 1.8
      17 April 2014 at 8:45 am

      anyone who wants to read the decision, it is here.

      https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/58/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/d2156730-d467-4a54-b8fe-b5d95dce9e3e/d2156730-d467-4a54-b8fe-b5d95dce9e3e.pdf

      Am very interested in defamation myself and am considering taking an action. However the expected award is probably 10,000 to 30,000, with only scaled costs (about a third of the costs of a decent lawyer). So, like many who believe they have been defamed and their business and reputation hurt, I am in a position where taking the action will cost me, and I don’t have the money.

      I am glad that karam stood up but I know he could afford to. us ordinary folks sometimes have to accept the appalling malice of others,a nd the damage it causes… until they do it to someone who can fight back.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.8.1
        17 April 2014 at 12:54 pm

        And that really is why we need to have better legal aid.

        • Tracey 1.8.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 1:15 pm

          I understand the need to weed out the vexacious litigants. Ms P Bright and many of her group would come into this category. BUT having a panel or a single judge (not able to hear the actual case) read the initial pracey, view supporting evidence, and decide if a prima facie case exists would be a start.

          However, if you have a home and any equity, that’s where the attachment order comes in. When you sell your house, the LA group/crown get their money back.

    • amirite 1.9
      17 April 2014 at 9:24 am

      PG: “Perhaps hose who think they are safe attacking and defaming online should have a good look at this case.””

      A timely warning for the likes of WhaleOil and Kiwiblog who overindulge in such practices.

      • Pete George 1.9.1
        17 April 2014 at 9:29 am

        Yes, as has been pointed out this morning at Kiwiblog:

        And in respect of the judgment, several of those regular commenters on KB, DPF included, would learn much from reading all 69 pages.

        Here’s a PDF of the judgement.

        • Tracey 1.9.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 10:01 am

          when did you read the judgment?

          • marty mars 1.9.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 10:38 am

            lol – nice one Tracey

            • Tracey 1.9.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 11:49 am

              its just that having read it i was going to post the link in my post here. i was surprised pete hadnt.

              • marty mars …
                17 April 2014 at 12:01 pm

                It was a great comment because it encapsulated the issue i have with pete – his sanctimonious, holier than thou persona is not backed up with reality – I find that irritating.

                I’m glad you read it – I may, although i’m not worried personally as I’m usually nice to people 🙂 at least to people i think might not be able to take it. Kia kaha.

                • Tracey …
                  17 April 2014 at 1:17 pm

                  I hear you marty.

                  I read it cos I have a legal background and at the moment a genuine personal interest in defamation law. I don’t expect most people to wade through a 60+ page judgment.

                  your kia kaha and plus 1.

  2. bad12 2
    17 April 2014 at 7:48 am

    Nothing to see here folks,there’s been the odd comment recently about the corrupting influence big Pharma could have on our medical ‘profession’ with news that staff employed by the DHB’s had reported $170,000 worth of ‘gifts from the drug manufacturers in a year,

    Buried in the ‘Economics’ pages of today’s Herald Online version is a little story which states that one of these giant companies,(incidently the worlds biggest enabler of the manufacture of the drug P with its factory in China cranking 24/7 pumping out the main precursor substance used in the manufacture of the illegal drug), GlaxoSmithKline is under investigation in a number of countries for you guessed it ‘Corruption’,

    China, Poland, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon are all apparently investigating the drug maker and in Poland the company is being investigated for allegedly ‘bribing’ doctors to prescribe the companies drugs,

    There is no corruption in New Zealand tho right???, or is that simply because we refuse to look with private medical practice having no legal requirement to report all ‘gifts’ it receives from the drug manufacturers…

  3. Dan1 3
    17 April 2014 at 7:54 am

    While the mud flies at Key and Collins concerning the Oravida dinner, etc, I received a note from a friend in China which puts an important perspective:

    ‘ I’m aware there has been a lot of publicity about the trade with China, especially in the areas of dairy and meat products. One thing that could investigated a bit closer is: who owns the dairy and cattle farms who are sending so much produce to China? I think you will find they are owned by Chinese business-people. Also, at least one of the largest meat-works in NZ is owned by Chinese interests. So – the trade figures look good but where are the profits going? Don’t get me wrong – this is not anti-Chinese. We love the people here. Voters need to be made aware of the full picture, though. Why does NZ allow the sale of key assets? Australia doesn’t allow it; nor do many of our other major trading partners. When Key visited China and made such a big fuss about the show put on for him, he clearly lacked any knowledge of Chinese culture. What the Chinese Government was saying was: this is what we can do for you; what are you going to do for us? Being described as a good friend of China should also raise some concerns. In business here, if you are a good friend, you are expected to lower your price to the extent you are barely making a profit. I don’t think Key understands the cost of being a good friend. “

    • Tracey 3.1
      17 April 2014 at 8:20 am

      key only cares that they made HIM feel special.

      • felix 3.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 8:30 am

        He’s going to get a bit of a shock next year when the invitations are no longer forthcoming and he figures out that it was “THE PM OF NZ” that played golf with the President, and had tea with the Queen, and sang the national anthem with the All Blacks.

    • Rosie 3.2
      17 April 2014 at 9:22 am

      Interesting observation by your friend there Dan1.

  4. vto 4
    17 April 2014 at 8:00 am

    Look at this looney …. all wired and dataed up to 700 gadgets …..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9950896/Personal-informatics-trends-tracked

    what a laugh that is

    gotta happen though that, like using lippie makes your lips stop producing their own lip protection, he will lose the ability to assess his environment, completely contrary to his stated aim.

    foolish methinks, foolish

  5. Wyndham, George 5
    17 April 2014 at 8:13 am

    Pete George is a Troll who us threatening Standinastas. He is doing the dirty work of Legal High drug pushers, Chen Palmer and the Dunnes, Pere et fils.

    Ban him, after telling him to go fuck himself.

  6. bad12 6
    17 April 2014 at 8:30 am

    ”My Daddy was a bank robber but He never hurt no-body”, the tables appear to have turned, in what appears to be a ‘bank robbery’ the Reserve Bank recently raised the Official Cash Rate which in turn had the Trading Banks cranking up their interest rates,

    Basing it’s decision on the ‘expected’ rate of inflation the Reserve Bank is said to be again raising the OCR in April and again in June/July, with every .25 rise in the Official Rate translating to an extra 20 bucks on interest paid for every $100,000 of debt,

    Spurred on by the cheer-leading Trading Banks in what looks like a major exercise in profit gouging the Reserve Bank is said to be expected to raise the OCR again despite inflation being lower than expectations for the year coming in at an annual rate of 1.5%,

    Given that the ‘expectation’,(from the Trading Banks),is that the rises in the OCR in April and June/July will again be .25 basis points each time this will result in an increase in interest payments weekly of $60 a week for every $100,000 of debt owed in the first 6 months of this year alone by individuals and business effectively kneecapping an economy nowhere near the 3% of inflation where the Reserve Bank could be expected to act,

    Consumer information from the Consumer Price Index shows across the board from big ticket items, to clothing and food, prices are stable or falling, the exceptions being the 2.9% rise in retail electricity costs(again), and, a 10% rise in Government Taxation of tobacco products,(which makes all those lives ‘saved’,(snigger),by the upward trajectory in tobacco taxation,(when you consider the role this taxation has in inflation and the Reserve Bank’s response to this), an extremely costly exercise for everyone with an iota of debt,

    The only winners in this little equation of raising interest rates off of the back of incorrect data, the Trading Banks who get a ‘free’ jump in profits and the Reserve Bank Governor’s ego who gets to be the ‘enabler’ of the trading banks ‘profit gouge’ and kill off any growth in the economy befor it occurs…

    • Tracey 6.1
      17 April 2014 at 8:37 am

      slylands will be along presently to tell you that you are

      a. wrong
      b. paying extra is a good thing, or the fault of those who bought houses
      c. it’s not as bad as 2008 (which English banged on about yesterday to blame Labour and ignore the GFC and gouging financial institutions)

      he may or may not discuss how landlords with mortgages will raise rentals.

      last month the cost of poultry, meat, fruit and vegetables rose.

      • bad12 6.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 9:00 am

        Ah it all depends on how and what you eat Tracey, poultry and meat are off my menu, as is butter and cheese,

        i can get 3 meals out of a $7 Wharehou fillet, and,buying the fruit and vege at the weekend market has allowed me an extra ten(at least)in my pocket at the end of the week while the volume of fruit and vege has risen by at least 50%…

        • Tracey 6.1.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 9:40 am

          seafood not caught yourself in auckland… simple fish is v expensive. im glad you are finding ways. milk and cheese and nuts and bread went down.

          before christmas coke was being sold at countdown . 8 1.5 ltr for $15. crazy shit

          • bad12 6.1.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 10:13 am

            Depends how you look at fish Tracey, ,my $7 fillet turned into two hunks big enough to make two separate meals,(in tinfoil steamed in the juices along with a bed of finely chopped onion and a cap of sliced tomato, an optional squeeze of lemon juice or a dab of honey right in the middle of it to get the mind singing),

            Plus a decent enough amount left for a bowl of raw fish saturated with lemon juice which along with the onions and tomatoes soaking in the coconut cream is a good meal,(tonight’s tea),

            i can understand the ‘meat-eaters’ comparison tho, i used to ‘judge’ the price of fish against how much fish i could buy measured against how much beef or pork i could get for the same amount of coin,

            Sure by volume you get more Pork and Beef for the bucks, but then, the ‘jam tart’ gets a load more bad fats for the sake of being economical…

            • Naturesong 6.1.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 11:49 am

              Mmm, sounds delish.

              If you can get a good price on shallots, I find they work better with fish than onions due the milder, almost sweet flavour.

              That’s it, I’m going to stop at the fish markets on my way home tonight.

              Plus a decent enough amount left for a bowl of raw fish saturated with lemon juice which along with the onions and tomatoes soaking in the coconut cream is a good meal,(tonight’s tea),

              I do something similar, soy sauce, cubed hard tofu, chopped onions, finely chopped sweet peppers – leave to marinate for at least 30 mins.
              Get a baking dish and place a couple of fish fillets (where the flesh will still hold together), tip the marinade on top of it, spinkle a few breadcrumbs and bake.
              Serve with whatever seasonal veges you have on hand.

              • Tracey …
                17 April 2014 at 11:57 am

                or grow chives

                • Naturesong …
                  17 April 2014 at 12:03 pm

                  Hmm, chives have a much sharper flavour than shalotts.

                  I am lucky enough to have handed down from my grandmother a variety of multiplying leeks that are in size, somewhere between chives and spring onions, and are stronger in flavour than chives.

                  Fantastic for all sort of dishes, though I find them just a little too strong for scrambled eggs so I tend to go with parsley or garlic chives.

                  • Tracey …
                    17 April 2014 at 1:18 pm

                    use fewer of them 😉

                    joking aside my chives last for month sand months and nothing seems to kill them… take up less space than shallots too

  7. Tracey 7
    17 April 2014 at 8:34 am

    Ode to Money (and John Key)
    hat tip owed to Lorde, of course.

    Last night she received another award. And prizemoney. She said she doesn need the money as much as others and asked for the prizemoney to be divided amongst the nominees. In sport you constantly hear the refrain “who would turn down a money to break a contract”. In the business world you constantly hear about how |everyone” would do the same (low ethic) thing in that position.

    Well done Lorde.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/9950870/Lorde-wins-Taite-award-for-Pure-Heroine

    I’ve got many diamonds in the flesh
    I cut my teeth on dollar dealing in the trade rooms
    And I’m proud of my addresses,
    Parnell and Hawaii, livin off dodgy dealins

    Cos every speech is like I’m funny, safety’s loose, dyin in the workrooms
    Blood stains, wages down, trashin’ all the unions,
    We don’t care, we’re driving BMW’s on main streets.
    But I just love Cristal, Maybach, diamonds on my timepiece.
    Jet planes, islands, bodyguards on a gold leash.
    I don’t care, I’m not caught up in your need for welfare.

    And I wanna be royal (royals).
    I can buy that strain of blood’
    That kind of luxe is just for us.
    I crave a celebrity sized buzz.
    Cos I became your ruler (ruler),
    You can call me Lord Key
    And stoolies I’ll rule, I’ll rule, I’ll rule, I’ll rule.
    Yea, I’m living that fantasy.

    [Verse 2]
    My friends and I—we’ve cracked the code.
    We count our millions at the donor parties.
    And everyone who knows us knows that we’re fine with this,
    We do anything for money.

    Cos every speech is like I’m funny, safety’s loose, dyin in the workrooms
    Blood stains, wages down, trashin’ all the unions,
    We don’t care, we’re driving BMW’s on main streets.
    But I just love Cristal, Maybach, diamonds on your timepiece.
    Jet planes, islands, bodyguards on a gold leash.
    I don’t care, I’m not caught up in your need for welfare.

    And I wanna be royal (royals).
    I can buy that strain of blood’
    That kind of luxe is just for us.
    I crave a celebrity siezed buzz.
    Cos I became your ruler (ruler),
    You can call me Lord Key
    And stoolies I’ll rule, I’ll rule, I’ll rule, I’ll rule.
    Yea, I’m living that fantasy.

    Ooh ooh oh
    I’m bigger than I ever dreamed,
    And I’m in love with being Lord.
    Ooh ooh oh
    Life is great without a care
    I’m not caught up in your need for welfare.

    And I wanna be royal (royals).
    I can buy that strain of blood’
    That kind of luxe is just for us.
    I crave a celebrity siezed buzz.
    Cos I became your ruler (ruler),
    You can call me Lord Key
    And stoolies I’ll rule, I’ll rule, I’ll rule, I’ll rule.
    Yea, I’m living that fantasy.

    • Jenny 7.1
      17 April 2014 at 8:58 am

      This needs to be set to music with the backing video of Key wining and dining and living it up with the Royals.

      Brought here by Key in election year to epitomise the principal of a glittering born to rule elite, that Key seeks to stamp on the consciousness of this country.

      • Tracey 7.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 9:01 am

        Yup, and don’t forget his hollywood friends… he does like to celebrity it up

    • Chooky 7.2
      17 April 2014 at 9:12 am

      Speaking of Odes

      Where is our Philip Ure?!…..come in Philip Ure and your Vegan Sausage(s)….we miss you ( that is everyone except bad12 and he does not count)

      …we miss you odes and witticisms…stop sulkiing!

      • tinfoilhat 7.2.1
        17 April 2014 at 9:22 am

        Agreed Chooky, I know many don’t like Phillip’s writing style but having met him once in person I can say he is a lovely guy and I miss his musings.

        • Belladonna 7.2.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 9:42 am

          I miss Phil too. Seems even Bad does. I think it is the healthy diet turning Bad into a nice guy, we may have to call him Sweet12 soon. He just needs to drop the fish, too much mercury or it will be Mad12!

          • bad12 7.2.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 9:56 am

            Ffffing Mad is an epithet often attached to me round here,(i think there is some documentation in the box under the sink that somewhat supports this allegation, although of the 3 ‘doctors involved there appears to be an inability to reach a consensus)

            Mad/bad12 as a handle might have been confusing for those logging on to the Standard in the morning,(especially me, its hard enough coping with being a million different people from one day to the next without having to ascertain my ‘mental’ state every morning, so best stick to bad),

            Miss Phill, nah not a bit,(that might provoke his return), in relation to Phill V PG, well yeah Phill was way more fun,(my idea of fun tho having to be tempered against expectations of being caned),

            i have it in my mind that i will have to greet Phill’s BS with either ignorance or 🙄 to avoid having myself ‘going down in flames’ upon his return, but, probably wont be able to resist…

      • bad12 7.2.2
        17 April 2014 at 9:44 am

        Heh, Heh, Heh, certainly ‘counted’ in that little ‘contest of ideas’, Phill only brought one to the debate, idea that is, it encapsulated my impression of the sum total of His intellect and as far as ideas go simply added a No…

  8. mickysavage 8
    17 April 2014 at 8:43 am

    Final electoral boundaries are due to be announced today. I am interested in the result as my home is about 50 metres away from the edge of the draft New Lynn electorate boundary and if it moves towards me then John Key may become my local MP …

    • Tracey 8.1
      17 April 2014 at 8:50 am

      You can make appointments with his office and see who actually turns up.

      • felix 8.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 9:07 am

        Due to golfing and drinking considerations this office no longer takes appointments, however Mr Key is always happy to speak with his constituents, hear their concerns, and help where he can. To arrange a meeting, please approach either Antione’s Restaurant or The Northern Club with a minimum of $5000 in cash.

    • felix 8.2
      17 April 2014 at 8:52 am

      Lucky you!

      • Tracey 8.2.1
        17 April 2014 at 8:56 am

        could be worse, you could be in the 3 legged pig with lipstick electorates of Oahariu and Epsom

    • ExKiwiforces 8.3
      17 April 2014 at 3:10 pm

      My Mum and Dad aren’t to happy about to electoral boundaries too, they live in a part of Hei Hei that could be a tory seat by tonight and they have in touch with Mike Mora (He and merry bunch are trying to stop the change) to stay in a Labour held electoral seat where their 2 votes will count.

  9. Jenny 9
    17 April 2014 at 8:44 am

    The drought has broken, (this time).


    Drought: ‘The impact is huge’

    “We’ve had droughts before but the last decade has seen, in my opinion a lot more droughts and coming more frequently and closer together so the impact is huge now….”
    Normally speaking anyway, this farm is self sufficient in its milking platform which is 250 cows, that is we make enough feed on farm usually to support stock to supply through dry periods such as this, as long as they are not extensive so long as it is a normal dry summer….
    Now we are buying in Palm Kernal…..
    Palm kernal prices are over $300 dollars so it is expensive.”
    Brent Erceg Dairy Farmer, Mata

    “Three droughts in four years is not something we would expect the usual is perhaps one maybe two so to have three in four years has placed a huge strain on the Northland economy….
    This is our third drought in four years so it’s huge this time and its a little bit later than usual….
    Julie Jonker Northland Rural Support co-ordinator

    “The speed that it has dried off and the speed that it has disappeared has been the worrying thing for us but in the last three weeks the grass growth has just stopped…
    It is not just the farmers who are going to get hammered here it is all of the rural people…..”
    Bob Campbell Dairy Farmer, Waiharara

    Drought: Rain still on track for weekend

    Rain is still on track to spread across the country this weekend, bringing much-needed relief to the parched North Island and parts of the South Island heading the same way.

    The remnants of Cyclone Sandra and a weather system in the Tasman Sea would move across the New Zealand from late tomorrow, bringing wet weather until Monday, the MetService said.

    Severe weather warnings were in place for Westland, Nelson and Buller.

    Farmers are experiencing widespread drought from an extended dry spell, with the entire North Island declared a drought zone and parts of the South Island getting drier by the day.

    The announcement was made on a Manawatu sheep and beef farm by Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy this morning.

    Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Hawkes Bay have already been declared to be in drought…..

    “ACT OF GOD”

    Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills said he could not recall a time when the entire North Island had been in drought….

    “These are people that are suffering through no fault of their own, through an act of God. We have real concerns about the emotional stress and difficulties that many families are coping with and that’s the predominant benefit that comes from a drought declaration.”

    • Tracey 9.1
      17 April 2014 at 8:53 am

      “through an act of God. ”

      Yup, he will be voting for the climate change deniers again… and asking all of us to subsidise his union members because he thinks his invisible friend in the sky is responsible.

      PS I know Act of God is an insurance/legal term, but he is still deliberately framing his comment this way. ie climate change denier and farmers don’t choose where to farm, what to farm, or to stay farming.

      • Jenny 9.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 9:41 am

        “Yup, he will be voting for the climate change deniers again… and asking all of us to subsidise his union members because he thinks his invisible friend in the sky is responsible.”
        Tracey

        Officially only ACT and the Conservatives deny the reality of human induced climate change

        DROUGHT GREAT TIME TO SHOW SOME COMPASSION

        “Another week and no drought declaration yet it is the second driest year on record in Waikato, and my has it revealed some peoples true colours! Default settings with graziers contracts are being ignored, and cooperatives are pretending there is no drought.”
        James Houghton Federated Farmers Waikato provincial president

        I don’t think Bruce Wills and the Feds are climate change deniers, and so are unlikely to vote for ACT or the Conservatives. Like the “cooperatives”, (Fonterra?) the Fed and Wills are ignorers.

        In this area there is a lot more electoral choice.

        In fact there is a whole vipers nest of climate change ignorers, right across the political spectrum it’s a much bigger field with lots to choose from.

        The snakes that ate the elephant in the room

        “You know what really strikes me about climate change in the election? It’s the absence. It is as if climate change is nearly completely absent from the campaign. When climate change does pop up, it’s portrayed in simplistic soundbites.”

        • Tracey 9.1.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 9:49 am

          you dont think a chunk of acts low polling is farmers?

          nationals actions and inactions speak volumes on their attitude to climate implications and the environment.

          john key reminds me of slampacker from the stark novel by ben elton… buying his way to a new home on the moon once hes shat all over earth.

    • bad12 9.2
      17 April 2014 at 1:21 pm

      Meanwhile back in the jungle, it appears that the recent trip to China by Slippery the Prime Minister to sort out ‘trust’ issues over the Fonterror false positive whey scare worked so damn well that Fonterror’s whey products are still banned from that country,

      Quoted on RadioNZ National news this afternoon the PM claims that there is no ban in place the Fonterror whey products are ”just not allowed into China as the Chinese await a New Zealand Government report on the original ‘contamination”,

      i have the impression that inside the mind of our Prime Minister is a cracked CD firmly stuck on BULLSHIT which forces Him to find novel definitions for everything…

    • Rosie 10.1
      17 April 2014 at 9:33 am

      Heard about the Oravida expansion into gold mining in NZ on Radio Active this morning, on the regular Thursday morning slot with Redbird, Alistair Thompson and Grant Robertson. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse……….!

      Thompson’s view was that APN and Fairfax haven’t covered the Collins/Oravida saga consistently due to the lack of investigative journalism and that there is much more to uncover. He did suggest however that the story may have reached a tipping point and the MSM would have to start paying more attention. He also suggested that despite Key’s complicity in the saga that it’s possible that her position as Minister may be untenable……

      Sorry, no link to that interview.

    • Tracey 10.2
      17 April 2014 at 9:50 am

      judith can hear the jug boiling from her office

  11. weka 11
    17 April 2014 at 9:25 am

    “People commenting anonymously may think they are immune from defamation but that could be put to the test legally.”

    Leaving aside the fatuousness of how that comment has been phrased, it’s point is actually wrong. The people that got sued were the people that published the defamation, not that people that made comments ie the website owners and Fairfax. It’s an important distinction.

    • Tracey 11.1
      17 April 2014 at 9:54 am

      this is why people need to read the decision before posting it. the decision has all anyone need know. the media will have relied on a press release. I read the decision before coming here to post about it.

      its this part of petes posting that bothers me about his new position at politicheck. editor has a skill set and it is disrespectful to those who have these skills and experience to say you can just become one. like slater and the truth.

      • weka 11.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 10:07 am

        Haven’t had time to look at the decision. Were commenters mentioned at all? I’m curious at what level FB was accountable. Was FB approached to remove comments?

        Agreed about PG/politicheck. That he won’t take feedback about this or his behaviour also is a concern.

      • tc 11.1.2
        17 April 2014 at 10:15 am

        +1 and what does it say about politicheck that such a partisan wannabe polly can get such a gig.

        PG is part of that CT architected media landscape with a probable mandate to produce as much inconsequential waffle as his copy/paste allows across blogland.

    • Pete George 11.2
      17 April 2014 at 10:53 am

      “The people that got sued were the people that published the defamation, not that people that made comments ie the website owners and Fairfax. It’s an important distinction.”

      Purkiss was judged against for making comments only.

      [3] The second defendant, Victor Purkiss, was a contributor to the Facebook page, Counterspin and other sites. Mr Karam has sued him only in respect of comments that he himself posted.

      [232] Although Mr Purkiss was responsible for some egregious remarks, I treat him as less culpable than Mr Parker for two reasons. He is liable only for his own posts and is therefore responsible for much less of the defamatory content than Mr Parker.

      • Tracey 11.2.1
        17 April 2014 at 12:51 pm

        Although I understand Mr Purkiss was also an administrator, along with Kevin James. One of Kevin’s statements was found to be defamatory but he didn’t get sued.

    • Pete George 11.3
      17 April 2014 at 10:58 am

      Parker for both commenting and publishing.

      [2] The first defendant, Kent Parker, was an administrator of the Facebook page “Justice for Robin Bain” and creator of the Counterspin website. Mr Karam has sued Mr Parker in respect of comments that Mr Parker himself posted on these sites and also as the publisher of comments posted by third parties. Mr Parker denied being the publisher of statements by third parties, relying on the defence of innocent dissemination under s 21 of the Defamation Act 1992.

    • Tracey 11.4
      17 April 2014 at 12:49 pm

      No, one was sued as a publisher the other as an author. I should add, that some of the defamatory statements were written by named people, and they were not sued.

      Below she succinctly outlines the status of publisher for the purposes of the law (and her decision) and refers to Wishart, (which can be found here http://www.buddlefindlay.com/static/Wishart_v_Murray.pdf (46 pages))

      In my decision in Wishart v Murray & Ors I traced the history of US, UK and
      Australian decisions that considered publication via Facebook I concluded that the status of publisher in an internet context depended upon editorial control rather than actual knowledge of the existence of defamatory material. A Facebook page is to be regarded as similar to a noticeboard.

      [13]I concluded in Wishart that those who host Facebook pages or similar sites
      are to be regarded as publishers of postings made by others in two circumstances.
      The first is if they know of the defamatory material and do not remove it within a
      reasonable time in circumstances that give rise to an inference that they are taking
      responsibility for it. The second is where they do not know of the defamatory
      statement but ought, in the circumstances, to know that material being posted is
      likely to be defamatory.”

      Bagelo v Smith seems to traverse the kind of “cut and thrust” commenting that people make here, WO and KB, to name only a few. Courtenay does, imo, send a warning to people who post, namely, that they are not protected from the law of defamation. I suspect she is saying between the lines, that because people are not being sued on a daily basis doesn’t mean they are not defaming people. For example a comment by Kevin James was found to be defamatory, with parker being held responsible as publisher, but James himself was not sued.

      part of the reason for this is that people sue the ones with money (hence fairfax or trademe get sued) and I hope, for karam’s sake, the settlements with them covered his legal costs, permitting him to sue the other two on principle. Without knowing anything about either defendant, I wonder if either can afford to pay out? One made no appearance and the other defended himself.

      “Baglow v Smith which distinguished internet fora and blogs from other forms of publication.
      This distinction was made on the basis that the context of an ongoing debate would reduce the sting of the defamatory comments as sharp and witty replies are seen merely as part of the ‘parry and thrust’ of the debaters.

      [29]
      However, there is no principled basis on which internet fora and blogs
      should attract a different test for what constitutes a defamatory statement.
      There may well be a degree of casualness associated with contributions to online conversations
      . In this regard they might be likened to talkback radio. However, the capacity for harm
      resulting from the permanent nature of posts means that those posting statements
      should not be relieved of the usual constraints imposed at law.”

      Her honour usefully goes three each alleged defamatory statement and explains why they are or are not defamatory. Not all were found to be defamatory. It makes useful reading to help understand the distinction.

      • Pete George 11.4.1
        17 April 2014 at 1:00 pm

        “No, one was sued as a publisher the other as an author.”

        Parker “sued Mr Parker in respect of comments that Mr Parker himself posted on these sites and also as the publisher”:

        [2] The first defendant, Kent Parker, was an administrator of the Facebook page “Justice for Robin Bain” and creator of the Counterspin website. Mr Karam has sued Mr Parker in respect of comments that Mr Parker himself posted on these sites and also as the publisher of comments posted by third parties.

        Purkiss “only in respect of comments”:

        [3] The second defendant, Victor Purkiss, was a contributor to the Facebook page, Counterspin and other sites. Mr Karam has sued him only in respect of comments that he himself posted.

        • Tracey 11.4.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 1:04 pm

          yes, Pete, I know that. Thanks for fact checking me.

          when did you read the decision pete

          • Pete George 11.4.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 1:32 pm

            I’ve read parts of it since mid-morning-ish but as I’ve already said I need time over Easter to read it properly. Someone I know advised they had a copy before 7 but I didn’t have the time nor need to get one off them then, I knew it would become available soon enough. I’ve also seen useful comments on it, including from lawyers. And I’m sure there’ll be a lot more to be added to the discussion.

            Blogs are for initiating discussion aren’t they?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.4.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 1:37 pm

              🙄

            • Tracey 11.4.1.1.1.2
              17 April 2014 at 4:31 pm

              but you felt you could post warningss based on something you hadnt read.

              i didnt see your comment about needing time to read it over easter, so i reread your opening post

              you dont have to wait for lawyer friends, you can google seach judicial decisions online nz, put in karam and bingo.

              a new tool for your fax checking armoury.

              i thought you wanted to make change, but posting before reading the crucial favts, when they are available to you, not linking to that document and purporting to give advice on it, isnt really what you are trying to achieve are you?

      • karol 11.4.2
        17 April 2014 at 5:36 pm

        I haven’t read the full file. However, my understanding is that the “cut and thrust” that happens on the Standard is not defamation.

        This is what Karam is stated as being unhappy with at the beginning of the case file:

        Mr Karam claims that many of the comments defamed him by conveying, among other things, that he lacked integrity, was dishonest, was motivated to support Mr Bain by the prospect of financial gain and had defrauded the Legal Services Agency (LSA).

        I think the discussion here has been confusing ad hominems and general personal abuse of the “you’re a dickhead” kind (basically an opinion), with defamation (something far more specific and stated as fact without any evidence supporting it). A certain amount of abuse is accepted on TS as part of the “robust debate”. Defamation is deleted as soon as, because the trustees of the site regard themselves as being the ones who would be taken to court over it.

        So something more general stating someone lacked integrity would be allowed. But something like that quoted above (allegations that Karam “had defrauded the Legal Services Agency”), is getting far more specific and could be supported or not by evidence – without evidence, it could be judged as defamation.

        On TS, it’s more usually “pointlesss” abuse that gets moderated, especially if it looks like tr0lling or a deliberate thread derail. But other abuse is often left unmoderated.

        Defamation in the US also takes into account a person’s public reputation, and whether that has been damaged. A well known person is more likely to be able to prove defamation than a non-entity. ie they need to show their reputation has been publicly damaged.

        In Karam’s case, the complaint was that there had been a concerted attempt to damage his reputation over time. So the general “cut and thrust” on blogs where people abuse each other, probably wouldn’t count.

        • Tracey 11.4.2.1
          17 April 2014 at 5:55 pm

          the comment must lower the persons reputation in the eyes of an ordinary person. that is a very nutshell version of one of the main tests.

          hence calling a politician a liar is hard to prove as defamation because politicians are frequently described in surveys and polls and by the public as untrustworthy.

          it is wrong to think only public figures or people known to the public can be defamed.

          • karol 11.4.2.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 6:02 pm

            Agreed. Good eg about politicians. I was just thinking why MPs don’t usually pursue defamation – eg Cunliffe could claim Gower had defamed him in repeatedly stating that Cunliffe had attempted a leadership coup. Generally, there is a fair amount of leeway.

            it is wrong to think only public figures or people known to the public can be defamed.

            I didn’t say that. I said, it’s more likely. But context is very important, I think.

            But, if a non-entity felt they had their work reputation defamed, they’d be more likely to take out a complaint.

            • Tracey 11.4.2.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 6:25 pm

              i think, with respect, you might be confusing being able to sue for defamation and being defamed. most people simply cant afford to sue to redress the damage done to them or their business. public figures tend to have easier access to funds or pro bono lawyers.

              i agree entirely, context of a statement is crucial.

              i hope you get time to read the decision, and the wishart ruling. i think you will enjoy the analysis of the statements.

              at my first law firm patricia courtenayhad just been appointed a partner. an incredibly earnest and intelligent lawyer who cut her teeth on insurance law. i always enjoy reading her decisions even if i dont agree with every point.

              • karol …
                17 April 2014 at 6:50 pm

                Oh, I imagine if it was some smear against a business person they would want to sue for defamation, whether or not they could afford it.

                But I was thinking most non-entities don’t have widespread enough reputation to be damaged. And if something was said/publicised about such people, it would mean little to most of the public – unless it was something extremely sensational,

                Most people in the public eye don’t sue people for every single public smear or criticism. Someone with a lot of social capital would probably have the power to refute the allegations without having to take it to court.

                I note (in the NZ Herald article) in awarding costs for damages to reputation, the judge took into account Karam’s previous good reputation in various realms of activity – ones that would give him a fair amount of standing in certain sections of the community/public sphere:

                In awarding costs (yet to be decided) and damages, the judge said Mr Karam had enjoyed a “positive and significant reputation” before becoming involved in the Bain case, with success in sport and business.

                She accepted his evidence of the great distress the comments had caused him and Mr Reed’s description of the defamation as a “full-scale assault on Mr Karam’s reputation”.

              • karol …
                17 April 2014 at 6:53 pm

                PS, I’ll read the judgement another day. I’m still recovering from being battered by an extremely strong and wet gale this morning – a total drenching, after a drive though some pretty treacherous conditions.

  12. Public Films 12
    17 April 2014 at 9:48 am

    The flowerbeds and duckponds of Auckland’s Domain look innocently picturesque – but they tell a strange story about imperialism and war: http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/gardening-and-imperialism.html

  13. Wyndham, George 13
    17 April 2014 at 10:20 am

    Karol/Lyn
    Has The Standard been contacted by Chen Palmer in the past 36 hours?

  14. aerobubble 14
    17 April 2014 at 10:55 am

    What a disaster. Govt debt is 60 billion under Key. And now English wants to claim a surplus!
    How corrupt is that, its the false belief that cutting taxes would increase govt revenue, that
    ideological nonsense of the right, that has cause this disastrous fiscal mess.

    • Tracey 14.1
      17 April 2014 at 12:54 pm

      yup, the debt that is defended by saying “it would have been higher under labour”… hard to prove or disprove that, which is not the same as it being true.

    • Draco T Bastard 14.2
      17 April 2014 at 1:24 pm

      Can’t have a surplus until the borrowings are paid back. Probably need to have that written into Law.

  15. Sanctuary 15
    17 April 2014 at 11:18 am

    Just a helpful hint for the Standardistas.

    When reading Pete George, I find it best to think of him as a backwater tram conductor who aspires to one day be like Stephen Franks.

    Then you’ll just chortle and ignore him.

  16. Enough is Enough 16
    17 April 2014 at 11:28 am

    Where is Lynne….been quiet for afew days/

  17. Puckish Rogue 17
    17 April 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Something that might bring a smile to you lefties:

    http://imperatorfish.com/2014/04/15/a-statement-from-david-cunliffe/

    and just to let you know its not that bad:

    http://imperatorfish.com/2014/04/02/chin-up/

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1
      17 April 2014 at 1:35 pm

      😆

      Means nothing, if the purpose of the dinner was to impress upon a Chinese border official that Oravida is a very important company that owns its own Minister of Corruption Justice, why on Earth would they need to be overt about it? Her presence would be enough.

      Just as John Key promotes Oravida when they pay him to model for them, just as Dan Carter promotes that shampoo by walking past a camera with his hand on his head: nothing need be said.

      • Tracey 18.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 6:14 pm

        a private dinnerwith friends, but the advisor says it was short cos people there didnt speak the same language. so collins is friends with people who she doesnt understand and dont understand her?

        the advisor doesnt say that border control issues werent discussed…

        so to summarise collins private dinner with friends included an employee and at least one person she couldnt speak with due to language differences.

    • Weepu's Beard 18.2
      17 April 2014 at 1:57 pm

      What was her adviser doing at a private dinner with close personal friends, and their close personal friends?

      • not petey 18.2.1
        17 April 2014 at 2:23 pm

        having dinner ?

        • Weepu's beard 18.2.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 3:25 pm

          Quite! I ask because the dinner was either private, or official, but surely not both. Does Margaret Malcolm accompany Judith Collins to all private dinner engagements? What about the movies?

          • Populuxe1 18.2.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 7:08 pm

            Heather Simpson attended quite a few things with Helen Clark – people often develop close friendships with the people they rely on. Yes, it does look bad, but not so bad it couldn’t be perfectly innocent. Way too much confirmation bias here.

  19. BM 19
    17 April 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Not looking good chaps

    Latest Roy Morgan

    National 48.5% (+5.5%)
    Labour 28.5% (-3.5%)
    Greens 11.5% (-1.5%)
    NZFirst 5.5% (no change)
    Conservatives 2% (-0.5)
    Maori Party 1% (-0.5)
    Mana 1% (+.5)
    Internet Party 1% (+0.5)
    Act 0.5% (no change)
    Other 0.5%

    Keep up the Orivida attack, it’s such a winning strategy.
    Idiots.

    • not petey 19.1
      17 April 2014 at 1:58 pm

      Meh I don’t think much has really changed.

      The only thing that surprises me is that there is 1% and 2% of people dumb enough to say Internet party and conservative party respectively although perhaps like the 0.5% saying ACT they are just taking the piss out of Roy Morgan.

      • BM 19.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Labour dropping significantly into the 20% zone ain’t good.

        I’m predicting it to go quite a bit lower.

        • not petey 19.1.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 2:21 pm

          Oh there’s no doubt that Labour’s in tatters and that the hope they had in Cunliffe was seriously misplaced. I think the Greens will do quite well at this election as people who can’t stand the Nats see them as a better option than labour.

          What will be interesting is to see who the Nats try and stitch up a deal with as Winston first is a bit like one of those vampires that you can’t seem to kill even with a stake through the heart.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 2:54 pm

            It will also be interesting to see whether the Nats really have jumped 5% in two weeks – apparently at Lab/Greens’ expense – whether the increase in Mana and the IP’s support continues, or whether the whole poll is a bit of an outlier.

            A Royal blip, I’d say.

            • Seti 19.1.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 3:38 pm

              In relation to National’s support it looks like they’re just back to where they were in late Feb/early March (48 & 48.5).

              Just had a look at Roy Morgan specifically. In 2012 National averaged 45.5% in all RM polls, 44.4% in 2013 and so far this year it’s 46.3%.

              They will be comfortable where they’re at.

        • Blue 19.1.1.2
          17 April 2014 at 2:26 pm

          Ha, now that has made my day.

    • Puckish Rogue 19.2
      17 April 2014 at 2:19 pm

      But but but the trend is looking upwards according to Mickey Comical ali savage so its nothing to worry about

    • ScottGN 19.3
      17 April 2014 at 3:41 pm

      I’d doubt this has much to do with the Collins/Oravida scandal and Labour’s pursuit of it. I’d hazard a guess that this poll is a reflection of voters dislike for disagreements between Labour and the Greens over whether or not to outline potential coalition arrangements in the lead up to campaigning.

      • BM 19.3.1
        17 April 2014 at 3:45 pm

        So you think Labour dropped because they won’t commit to the greens and this is voters punishing them for not making that obvious choice?

        • ScottGN 19.3.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 4:23 pm

          No I think it’s voters expressing their displeasure at public disagreement between Labour and the Greens over campaign strategy. For what it’s worth my preferred outcome for the General Election is a Coalition Government comprised of Labour and the Greens plus maybe Mana. But I think the Greens tactic of trying to shoehorn Labour into that position before the election was a mistake and this poll, I think, bears that out. By the way BM have you seen today’s ODT editorial? The one that calls on Key to sack Collins? It’s saying something, don’t you think when one of the conservative daily broadsheets calls for a Cabinet Minister’s sacking?

          • McFlock 19.3.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 4:28 pm

            don’t forget the royal visit 🙂

            • ScottGN 19.3.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 4:36 pm

              How could I forget McFlock, I got about as close to them as possible while they were here in Queenstown and to be honest, like everybody else (it seems), my anti-monarchist sentiments melted away like ice in the Sahara. She’s that bloody lovely.

          • Matthew Hooton 19.3.1.1.2
            17 April 2014 at 8:08 pm

            Likewise, that story only broke on 9 April and the poll started on 31 March so I don’t think the Labour/Green thing has yet impacted on any published polls.

            Also, I doubt any newspaper editorial counts for anything. Sadly, people don’t read them, except for political tragics like all of us here.

      • mickysavage 19.3.2
        17 April 2014 at 5:58 pm

        Presuming it is valid, and RM does bounce around, it seems that the Royal Tour has had the desired effect …

        • Matthew Hooton 19.3.2.1
          17 April 2014 at 6:33 pm

          Roy Morgan call cellphones and therefore doesn’t have that anti-Labour / pro-National “landline bias” we hear so much about.

          • mickysavage 19.3.2.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 6:37 pm

            So Matthew do you think the royal tour has had an effect? Anne’s cartoon (linked below) sums things up!

            • Matthew Hooton 19.3.2.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 6:46 pm

              Maybe some effect but certainly not all of it.
              Polling was carried out from March 31 to April 14, presumably with most calls completed in the first week – seehttp://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5549-new-zealand-voting-intention-april-17-2014-201404170455 (The second week is usually spent doing call backs if they use the same methodology that other polling companies use.)
              The royal tour started on 7 April and the cute Plunket thing wasn’t until 9 April – see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-william-kate-middletons-itinerary-3206058

            • BM 19.3.2.1.1.2
              17 April 2014 at 6:52 pm

              Yep,Cunliffe dorky comment about not getting enough face time with the royals no doubt contributed to the poor poll result.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                17 April 2014 at 7:03 pm

                No, that happened after most of the polling was completed.

                • BM …
                  17 April 2014 at 7:13 pm

                  So it was just Cunliffes natural drag factor?

                  You’ve been around a while, how would you rate Cunnliffe, Bob Jones said he’s never heard a politician talk so much shit, would you agree?

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    17 April 2014 at 7:53 pm

                    Put it this way, I think that by now, David Shearer, despite all his faults, would be regarded as the incoming PM and John Key seen as a two-termer. Labour made a terrible mistake going for David Cunliffe.

            • Paul 19.3.2.1.1.3
              17 April 2014 at 6:53 pm

              Please ignore, Micky.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                17 April 2014 at 8:23 pm

                Hamish (above) – because he was focussing on the median voter and also came across as an “ordinary kiwi bloke” but one with a social conscience and a background in working for the most disadvantaged people in the world, at personal risk to himself.

                • Hamish …
                  17 April 2014 at 8:27 pm

                  But he stammered in front of the cameras. Don’t you think that John Key would have easily beaten him in a debate?

                  • Paul …
                    17 April 2014 at 8:29 pm

                    Hamish, please ignore the bait.
                    You have better things to do with your time.

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    17 April 2014 at 8:34 pm

                    Yes, but the expectations would have been so low, the MSM would have called it a “draw”.

                    Plus, you have to consider that Cunliffe will also be a disaster in the debates, but the MSM expectations for him are much higher.

                    • Hamish …
                      17 April 2014 at 8:38 pm

                      How does the MSM’s take on it come into it?

                    • mickysavage …
                      17 April 2014 at 8:41 pm

                      Hey Matthew I am brimming with ideas about who should be the next National Party leader and I really want to share them with the right wing. Judith Collins has to be your next leader. No ifs no buts she will lead National to a fifth term. After her I think you should go with either Kanwaljit Bakshi or Paul Goldsmith. Both of these candidates would be excellent leaders and would respect National’s traditions.

                      And by the way I would get rid of John Key as soon as possible. He is obviously a closet socialist and I expect that he will start the socialisation of the means of production any time now …

                    • srylands …
                      17 April 2014 at 8:46 pm

                      I know you jest but he does run a left wing, progressive government. That is why he is popular.

                      And I hope Judith Collins is the next leader. However it is looking increasingly likely that National will get a third and fourth term. So the next New Zealand Prime Minister may not currently be a member of Parliament.

                    • mickysavage …
                      17 April 2014 at 8:53 pm

                      Key runs a progressive left wing government? If that is where he occupies the political spectrum the world is doomed …

            • Paul 19.3.2.1.1.4
              17 April 2014 at 8:57 pm

              Micky, please ignore these people.They are not interested in debating with you.
              They merely want to waste your energy on nonsense and they enjoy making provocative comments to get a reaction.

              • Hamish …
                17 April 2014 at 9:04 pm

                Paul, some of us really don’t have better things to do with our time and are quite aware of what the motives are of the people we are engaging with. Call it doing it for shits and giggles if you like.

                • Paul …
                  17 April 2014 at 9:06 pm

                  It makes for very dull reading on this blog and it gives those people a sense of importance.

                  • Hamish …
                    17 April 2014 at 9:10 pm

                    In your opinion.

                    Anyway…

                    Have you considered writing a guest post for TS?

                  • felix …
                    17 April 2014 at 9:30 pm

                    Paul, what is your end game with this campaign of non-engagement?

                    How do you imagine the blog will be better to read if it is just wall-to-wall right wing propaganda?

                    Or do you suffer from the delusion that these people will stop posting if they don’t get a response?

                    • marty mars …
                      17 April 2014 at 9:51 pm

                      silence means assent to those types and they never shut up plus i can’t stand reading their bullshit cascades where 2 or 3 of them comment to each other – no, much better to slam dunk them (just about) every time and I appreciate those who enjoy doing that and take the time to. If it becomes excessive – just scroll on by.

          • Weepu's Beard 19.3.2.1.2
            17 April 2014 at 7:09 pm

            Yes and in today’s world Labour voters are too busy making ends meet to shoot the breeze of an afternoon with a pollster.

        • Anne 19.3.2.2
          17 April 2014 at 6:34 pm

          The Royal Effect

          Edit: Oh #^*% – off Matthew. You’re like a school kid with a lollypop sometimes.

          • Paul 19.3.2.2.1
            17 April 2014 at 6:37 pm

            Ignore him. You have better things to do with your time.
            His job is to spin for right wing interests. His job is a create a narrative or meme ; by discussing it with hIm, you amplify it. The MSM will repeat his words and publicise his views anyway.
            He is not interested in genuine debate. As a paid opinion maker for the right, he is only here to divert, distract and disrupt.

  20. Draco T Bastard 20
    17 April 2014 at 2:13 pm

    And just to piss off the drivers:

    New Zealanders accept more than oppose the police practice of imposing a 104 kph open road speed tolerance limit during holiday periods.

    Asked if the 104kph tolerance should be imposed year round, 42.6% support the idea, but 37% oppose or strongly oppose.

    It seems that less and less people are supporting speeding.

    • Puckish Rogue 20.1
      17 April 2014 at 2:30 pm

      I don’t support speeding but i’d like to see an increase in the limit in certain areas (SH1 between Oamaru and Christchurch in particular) + an increase in overtaking lanes

      • BM 20.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 2:36 pm

        Agree, I’d like to see the speed limit raised to 120kph in certain areas.

        100kph speed limit in modern vehicles is just ridiculous.

        • Tracey 20.1.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 2:45 pm

          you passed your drivers test??

        • Draco T Bastard 20.1.1.2
          17 April 2014 at 3:22 pm

          Actually, anything above 80km/h is ridiculous as it exponentially increases fuel consumption.

          • Not Petey 20.1.1.2.1
            17 April 2014 at 3:33 pm

            We really should be developing transport that runs on our own poo.

          • Chooky 20.1.1.2.2
            17 April 2014 at 4:46 pm

            @DTB+100…the slower you go the more fuel you conserve….i once drove in the snow/ice between Chch and Arthurs Pass and back again on one tank and one chain ….a lot of the time it was at a crawl no faster than a horse …5-10 k/hr ….but i passed about 40 vehicles that had skidded off the ice road and I got home

            ….the lesson i learned was that it is possible to go a very very long way on very little fuel if you drive very very slowly…..no faster than a trotting/walking horse and coach…..so there is hope yet…..when the fuel crisis bites we wont have to jump on a horse or donkey as our ancestors did ….just learn to drive very very slowly…like Granny or Grandad….safer too…and better for your health

        • Weepu's beard 20.1.1.3
          17 April 2014 at 3:27 pm

          It’s the roads that are the problem. They are for the most part not modern.

          • Chooky 20.1.1.3.1
            17 April 2014 at 5:40 pm

            nonsense…the problem is in people’s heads…like yours

            • Weepu's Beard 20.1.1.3.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 5:50 pm

              The only nonsense around here…is your…posts. I stand by my comment that most NZ roads are not good enough to warrant a speed limit of 120km/hr. Cars are safer, yes, but our roads are not.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                17 April 2014 at 7:31 pm

                You’re probably right about that. The big problem though is that speeds over 80km/h aren’t rational as it uses up more resources.

              • Chooky …
                18 April 2014 at 11:34 am

                @ Weepu’s Beard …. i still think what you say is nonsense ..why go 120km/hr?….no point…if you want to be a racing car driver join a racing club and get on the track …or join a rally car club…or go and live in Germany

                ……i have seen plenty of people drive past me at 120km/hr only to have me catch up at the next major intersection or lights….. and really speeding does not save much time in NZ, the distances for speed are too short

                ( btw i used drive my Peugeot at 120 km/hr on occasion on the motorway until i suspected cops were watching for me and my partner got on to me about fuel waste….

                Speed Kills even on the autobahns

                http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths

              • Chooky …
                18 April 2014 at 3:58 pm

                @ Weepu’s Beard ..re “most NZ roads are not good enough to warrant a speed limit of 120km/hr. Cars are safer, yes, but our roads are not”….

                Our young German visitors from Berlin after travelling around NZ for six months think our New Zealand roads are very good and there is no need to speed here

                ….They say that in Germany ( with a population of 80 million) there is a movement to put in place speed restrictions because of Co2 emissions.

                They do not like using the autobahns because they are too fast/ dangerous and not relaxing ….and the difference in time ( saving about 15 minutes) if you go 160km/hr as opposed to 120 km/hr is not worth the effort

                They say Germany has a very good public transport rail system and this is the way New Zealand should go…put the motorway money into cheap affordable Public Transport.

        • srylands 20.1.1.4
          17 April 2014 at 8:30 pm

          Hopefully over the next 30 years we can invest in better roads so we can have higher speed limits. A motorway from Wellington to Auckland for a start.

          • Chooky 20.1.1.4.1
            18 April 2014 at 12:03 pm

            Labour and the Left should invest in Public Transport and axe the hugely expensive motorways which no one wants except NACT property developers and their mates who would like to privatise the roads for tolls and further marginalise and exclude the ordinary NZer from free travel

            The money should be put into State education , Public Health hospitals , reduced Retirement age to 65, cleaning up the rivers and lakes , Research and Development, support for technology startups and entrepreneurial business development

            Shows the Righties are getting very concerned about the issue of motorways under a Cunliffe led coalition government imo

      • Tracey 20.1.2
        17 April 2014 at 2:44 pm

        you can use your genesis dividends and start building them yourself

    • karol 20.2
      17 April 2014 at 7:00 pm

      I wish they’d keep to one speed tolerance level and not do these special holiday period deals. I tend to continue to work (part time) through holiday persiods, and forget when traveling to and from work that there’s been a change of approach.

  21. lprent 21
    17 April 2014 at 3:06 pm

    Very quiet out there today. Down to running two webservers, something that usually only happens in the middle of the night after the backups are done.

    Easter break early eh?

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    17 April 2014 at 3:23 pm

    New electorate boundaries out. I’ve shifted in to Kelston as expected.

    • Rosie 22.1
      17 April 2014 at 3:47 pm

      Thanks Drax.

      Was Kelston previously part of the Waitakere electorate, and what will the changes mean for Kelston?

      I see our electorate of Ohariu has taken on Wadestown as had been suggested. Come on down from those swanky hills Pinot Noir socialists and vote Dunne out!

      (PS, saw your reply on yesterdays Open Mike re the you- know -who commenters. Thats an understandable view you have – I just don’t think those who you are replying to are big on logic and evidence. Cognitive dissonance seems to be more their thing. Agree that clarification may be helpful for the silent readers)

      • Tracey 22.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 3:58 pm

        fascinating how quickly bennett abandoned the west

        • Draco T Bastard 22.1.1.1
          17 April 2014 at 5:07 pm

          There was a good article about politicians not being from the electorate that they represent a few days ago on the Guardian. Paula Bennett is one of those parachuted politicians – going to where the grass is greener, where they’re more likely to be voted in.

          • Tracey 22.1.1.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 5:22 pm

            bennett is from taupo and schooled there but a “westie”
            bridges is from auckland and educated there but describes himself as a “tauranga boy”

            knowing how it will be heard by their electorates

      • Draco T Bastard 22.1.2
        17 April 2014 at 5:03 pm

        Was Kelston previously part of the Waitakere electorate, and what will the changes mean for Kelston?

        The new Kelston electorate has parts from New Lynn (Where I was previously), Waitakere and a part of Te Atatu – if I’m reading the map right.

        And I really don’t know what that’s going to mean. I have a feeling that it’s probably going to be good for the people here especially if we get a left MP. I’d prefer Greens or Mana or even Alliance but we’ll probably get Labour.

        • Rosie 22.1.2.1
          17 April 2014 at 6:01 pm

          Ta Drax. All the best for a Left win for Kelston.

          I have a bit of a soft spot for West Akld from the days when I used to visit my friends out west who were of Dalmatian descent. I never forget their their amazing hospitality. I got the feeling that people were more on the level in the West and it didn’t feel like the natural home of Blue to me – I hope it turns shades of red, green and red/black on 20th September, enough to kick out that faux westie, as Tracey points out, comes from Taupo anyway.

        • Anne 22.1.2.2
          17 April 2014 at 6:53 pm

          …but we’ll probably get Labour.

          If its Carmel Sepuloni then you should be right. She’s impressive in every way.

        • karol 22.1.2.3
          17 April 2014 at 7:10 pm

          I’m in Kelston, too. It goes as far as Sunnyvale, near Henderson, and out onto the North Western – anyone living on the causeway is in Kelston. And includes part of Titirangi.

          I was previously in New Lynn.

    • mickysavage 22.2
      17 April 2014 at 4:24 pm

      I’m still in New Lynn … just. Mind you John Key is going to find out that campaigning in the Waitakere Ranges is not a pleasant experience. Too many of the talented educated people there have far too much concern for the environment.

  23. Rosie 23
    17 April 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Lols. Seen this?

    http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/take-action/Take-action-online/sack-simon-bridges/?utm_source=scoop&utm_medium=banner&utm_term=sacksimon&utm_campaign=sacksimon

    Sorry about the massively long link. Haven’t mastered writing over a link yet. Have only just mastered rolly eyes, today!

    Anyway, no harm in trying eh? Over 17,300 signatures already.

  24. Penny Bright 24
    17 April 2014 at 4:15 pm

    ttp://www.nbr.co.nz/article/opposition-damages-public-morality-oravida-claims-dc-154962

    (My comment – yet to be published)

    Yes – note the difference between the NSW situation, where the Premier has resigned because he misled the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption.

    NSW has an Independent Commission Against Corruption – New Zealand does not.

    High time we did – because – in my considered opinion, New Zealand is rotten with corruption, and our ‘perceived status’ as the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ is nothing more than a sick joke.

    http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

    Please be reminded that on the watch of Minister of Justice Judith Collins – New Zealand STILL has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption.

    Has she even read it?

    It would appear that she has not.

    Have these mysterious ‘Cabinet officials’ who purportedly give advice on corrupt ‘conflicts of interest’- read it?

    It would appear that they have not.

    Here – read it for yourselves – and ask how can it be possible for the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ to have not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption?

    http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/Convention/08-50026_E.pdf

    What a CROCK.

    Penny Bright

  25. Pete George 25
    17 April 2014 at 4:38 pm

    What’s going on with Labour and welfare fraud? Last month in an interview:

    Gordon Campbell: Does Labour oppose the government’s new welfare fraud policy whereby the partners of welfare fraudsters will be criminally liable for the fraud, and for the repayment of the entire amount – and not simply for the amount from which they might have indirectly benefitted. If re-elected will Labour retain this provision or scrap it ?

    David Cunliffe: Scrap it.

    Today:

    Hon Chester Borrows ‏@ChesterBorrows

    Welfare fraud bill passed 102 votes to 17. Thanks to my Parliamentary colleagues for such broad support for these fair, sensible reforms.

    Greens, Maori Party (2 votes) and Mana voted against it.

    Would Labour scrap legislation they’ve just voted for?

    • Draco T Bastard 25.1
      17 April 2014 at 5:21 pm

      Labour Pains

      We’ve got ten minutes. I haven’t asked about your welfare policy, so I’ll make it specific. We all oppose fraud. Does Labour oppose the government’s new welfare fraud policy whereby the partners of welfare fraudsters will be criminally liable for the fraud, and for the repayment of the entire amount – and not simply for the amount from which they might have indirectly benefitted. If re-elected will Labour retain this provision or scrap it ?

      Scrap it.

      Your fact-checking still needs work.

      • karol 25.1.1
        17 April 2014 at 7:14 pm

        Isn’t that the same thing that PG quoted?

      • karol 25.1.2
        17 April 2014 at 7:29 pm

        OK. Sue Moroney explains in her speech, why Labour decided to support the Bill. It has to do with submissions to the select committee by many women who felt they were unfairly being left to carry the penalty for relationship fraud. As I understand it, the women’s complaint was, when a woman fraudulently claimed she was a single parent/woman, the partner was complicit in the fraud, and should be penalised as well as the woman.

        Sue Moroney’s speech is here in a video. She also slams National’s beneficiary bashing, especially in a time of high unemployment. She also says tax fraud should be dealt with harshly.

        Sue Moroney said if the bill was about fairness then it would be talking about dealing with tax fraud on the same basis. The bill was part of the “relentless beating up” of beneficiaries, but Labour would support it because it had some good points.

        • Ergo Robertina 25.1.2.1
          17 April 2014 at 7:56 pm

          Well, vote for it and own then, even if there are bigger priorities.
          Saying you’ll scrap it once in power, at the same time as supporting it in the House, just makes Labour MPs look like prevaricating prats.
          What it really shows is that the right is still firmly in control of caucus. There are other remedies for the scenario outlined in submissions.

          • karol 25.1.2.1.1
            17 April 2014 at 8:32 pm

            Yes. I don’t agree with Labour on this, and am happy to see that Mana and the Greems didn’t support it.

            Saying you’ll scrap it once in power, at the same time as supporting it in the House, just makes Labour MPs look like prevaricating prats.

            Although, Moroney indicated Labour had changed their minds upon hearing some select committee submissions. So they weren’t sayign scrap it while simultaneoulsy supporting it.

            • Ergo Robertina 25.1.2.1.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 8:48 pm

              Labour was stating the two positions simultaneously. Gordon Campbell’s interview with Cunliffe was published on the very day Labour voted for the Bill’s second reading (March 18).

              • karol …
                17 April 2014 at 9:12 pm

                Although, Cunliffe was interviewed on March 10 for that Werewolf article – says so at the beginning of the article. He does seem to be saying something different from what Moroney and Jacinda Ardern said later in debating the Bill and supporting it. Their consistent line was that they wanted to see tax fraud treated as strongly as beneficiary fraud. They were concerned about the low level of evidence needed to find someone guilty of relationship fraud and were supporting an amendment to change that – don’t know if the amendment passed.

                Labour could still scrap that particular part of the amendment later on, I guess.

                I do think Labour could come out more strongly generally in supporting social security, and turning totally away from the punitive beneficiary bashing policies of National. I would have preferred Labour not to support the Bill.

                • Ergo Robertina …
                  17 April 2014 at 9:33 pm

                  Yep, I said published, rather than when the interview was conducted.
                  An eight day lag time. Submissions on the Bill were due last October 10, so the concerns were aired well before Cunliffe’s interview.
                  I agree with your point about social security, but notwithstanding the issues in this particular legislation, its handling feeds into a bigger perception that the party doesn’t know where it stands.

                  • karol …
                    17 April 2014 at 10:14 pm

                    Well. I think the Labour Caucus is pretty consistent in its main lines – including on how they debated the Welfare Fraud Bill. They put primary focus on employment and jobs, and benefits as a back up to that. They also made a big repeated line about there should be as harsh a penalty for tax evasion as for benefit fraud.

                    They talk about beneficiary bashing in the context of rising unemployment. So, while they pay lip service to challenging bennie bashing, they want to be seen of the party of employment, jobs, and “fairness” for taxpayers.

        • Pete George 25.1.2.2
          17 April 2014 at 8:14 pm

          Sue Moroney seems to be talking sympathy pandering claptrap.

          @DavidCunliffeMP
          Welfare fraud, $23 million = National obsession. Tax dodging, $6 BILLION = National doing nothing.

          @ChesterBorrows

          @DavidCunliffeMP Welfare fraud budget flat after 40% up under Lab, tax fraud budget up 40% under Nats. Actions speak louder than words mate.

          I haven’t seen Labour try and substantiate their claims that National are doing nothing on tax fraud (and I asked them).

          Borrows’ office provided:

          The figures on tax fraud use the “Management of Debt and Outstanding Returns (M57)” appropriation, which I was advised was the best measure of spending on combating tax fraud. The figures given were a 2008/09 budget of $89 million, and a 2013/14 budget of $125 million – a 40% percentage change.

          The Vote Revenue budgets are on the Treasury website – obviously the 2013/14 figure is appropriated not actual.

          I checked the Treasury website and what is claimed stacks up.

          Labour are opposing and complaining a lot but they don’t seem to be doing their homework and backing up their claims, hence whenever they release new policy it’s automatically viewed with skepticism. In contrast Greens seem to have a functional and competent research unit and they communicate far more effectively.

          • karol 25.1.2.2.1
            17 April 2014 at 8:44 pm

            I think there may be differences between how the figures are calculated. Deborah Russell talks about tax evasion as a “fraud” – ie people avoiding taxes through doing things that look legal. So they may not show up the Treasury calculations.

            • Pete George 25.1.2.2.1.1
              17 April 2014 at 9:10 pm

              The problem is Labour don’t give many details. Cunliffe talked about tax dodging and they published graphics showing $6 billion of dodging, but I haven’t seen them elaborate.

              http://yournz.org/2014/04/04/labours-fraudulent-claim/

              • Hamish …
                17 April 2014 at 9:15 pm

                Have you heard of this thing I like to call Google?

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10871292

                Labour’s numbers are probably based on the research of Victoria University lecturer Dr Lisa Marriott.

                • karol …
                  17 April 2014 at 9:22 pm

                  Yes. Also The Greens have published a lot of info on tax evasion and how National has been lax on it… but I’ve had a long day. I don’t have time or inclination right now for further research. PG’s research seems to have been pretty limited. – tweets hardly amount to indepth research.

                • Pete George …
                  17 April 2014 at 9:28 pm

                  That is vague and lacks a lot of details.

                  Does it put the most effort into tracking down:

                  e) Those costing $23.4 million a year.

                  Surprisingly, the correct answer is “e”.

                  No quantifying of “put the most effort into to” at all. And it sounds dubious. For example from budgets:

                  Management of Debt and Outstanding Returns (M57)
                  Taking follow-up action where returns are outstanding and where payments are overdue, including providing people with assistance on the actions they need to take to meet their obligations.

                  2012/13 Estimated Actual $116,874,000
                  2013/14 Budget $124,896,000

                  http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget

                  They spend five times as much on Management of Debt and Outstanding Returns as they recover on benefit fraud, which is about five times what they spend on it.

                  But MacLennan seems to be correct on one thing:
                  “The total amount of unpaid tax not yet detected is unknown.”

                  Try some more Googling.

                  • karol …
                    17 April 2014 at 9:52 pm

                    Well, of course, any newspaper report is going to be fairly general. So, instead you could try looking for some actual research papers by the likes of Lisa Marriott.

                    Do you think someone doing scholarly research in such an area is not going to have detailed stats to back their arguments?

                    Treasuries stats are part of the problem. They are not looking so much at tax avoidance.

                    Russell Norman has also pointed to stuff like the tax working group, and cuts at IRD, etc.

                    You seem to just be looking for some quick to find stuff that will discredit Labour, and aren’t doing any indepth research into National’s claims. But…. that’d take a lot more time and reading than I want to do right now …. I need some down time.

                  • Hamish …
                    17 April 2014 at 10:10 pm

                    Try some more Googling.

                    Pete George YOU are the one claiming Labour is being fraudulent, how about YOU back up your own claims?!

                    Unbelievable.

                  • weka …
                    17 April 2014 at 10:40 pm

                    Pete, tell me, what is the definition of benefit fraud being used? Of those numbers, how many were the intentional, I have no right to this so I am going to tell a pack of lies to get it, kind vs my boyfriend has moved in, but isn’t really contributing to the household yet so I won’t notify WINZ yet?

                    • felix …
                      18 April 2014 at 3:14 am

                      I’d like to know how much of it is just overpayments by WINZ being erroneously classified as fraud to make the numbers look worse in order to justify another kicking.

    • Te Reo Putake 25.2
      20 April 2014 at 3:01 pm

      Poor Pete. The fuckwit factchecker can’t tell the difference between a Bill and a provision in that Bill.

      “If re-elected will Labour retain this provision or scrap it ?

      David Cunliffe: Scrap it.”

  26. Penny Bright 26
    17 April 2014 at 5:27 pm

    EVIDENCE that New Zealand has yet to ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption:

    https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html

    Yet New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark, according to Transparency International’s 2013 ‘Corruption Perception Index’.

    http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

    If New Zealand was genuinely the ‘least corrupt country’ – shouldn’t we be the MOST transparent?

    If New Zealand was genuinely the ‘least corrupt’ and most ‘transparent’ – then arguably – shouldn’t we be the least financially secretive?

    So – how then is New Zealand ranked the 48th most secretive out of 82 nations, in the 2013 Tax Justice Network ‘Financial Secrecy Index’?

    http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2013-results

    File (again) under ‘You Couldn’t Make This Sh*t Up’?

    Want to see a ONE page ACTION PLAN which would establish a genuine, meaningful framework for transparency and accountability in New Zealand?

    Try this:

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ANTI-CORRUPTION-WHITE-COLLAR-CRIME-CORPORATE-WELFARE-ACTION-PLAN-Ak-Mayoral-campaign-19-July-2013-2.pdf

    ‘Where the people lead – the politicians will follow …..?”

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

  27. Jimmie 27
    17 April 2014 at 6:56 pm

    So did the GCSB hack into the Roy Morgan website to change the latest findings?

    Maybe it was the SIS?

    http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/voting-intention-summary

    Must be because David Cunliffe didn’t get enough face time with Prince Willy?

    28% = bummer…..

  28. Ergo Robertina 28
    17 April 2014 at 8:20 pm

    The Otago Daily Times publishes a 100 year old ‘from our files’ column, and I did enjoy today’s, a well argued missive about the pressing need for a servants’ union. Especially in the wake of the visit from the royal family, which among many other businesses in the UK, enforce zero hours contracts on domestic staff.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/100-years-ago/299228/servants-union-needed

    • Jan Rivers 28.1
      17 April 2014 at 11:05 pm

      And in a similar announcement today the National Library and Auckland Council have launched a huge new resource – 82 years of New Zealand Herald has been digitised including letters and announcements and advertisements. It’ll be a fantastic resource for progressive bloggers. Any articles with a “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” flavour you’ll find something suitably pithy in here to suit.
      For a taster here’s Michael Joseph Savage on Labour Policy in 1938 – adequate wages, recognition that productivity gains should go to workers, health service, social welfare and pensions policy.
      http://bit.ly/1ismYcR

  29. Draco T Bastard 29
    17 April 2014 at 8:44 pm

    UK Tory MP who helped kill Legal Aid is wiped out by defending himself

    Nigel Evans used to be in Parliament. While there he helped cut legal aid. As a result, people who are charged by the government but found innocent can’t recover costs. Mr Evans is now looking at a (UKP) 130,000 legal bill (plus VAT) after defending successfully against an allegation of sexual assault.

    Thing is, he’s actually surprised by this:

    He said he was stunned to learn he would have to pay his legal fees even if he was acquitted – plus value added tax.

    One wonders if he read the bill before voting on it.

  30. Instauration 30
    17 April 2014 at 10:58 pm

    Anyone following Laudafinem on the Blomfield stuff ?

  31. hoom 31
    17 April 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Haka law passed
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11240050
    Seems like a very good thing 🙂
    Protects existing common use of Kamate while providing recognition to Ngati Toa.

    Granny Herald hasn’t even managed to find anything to maori bash about it which itself is cause for minor celebration O_O

Links to post