Audrey Young trashed in her own comments section

64 comments on “Audrey Young trashed in her own comments section ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Dot 1

   28 March 2016 at 10:58 am

   A good story ,
   I do not buy The Herald any more , therefore would have missed
   this reaction. I doubt that it will dent the paper’s editorial attitudes.
2. tc 2

   28 March 2016 at 11:15 am

   Yes but it is Easter and we aren’t in an election cycle yet.

   Many times the NACT shills get this type of crap out there without a comments section for folk to point out the obvious bs and spin.

   Granny shilling for the hollowmen as always and providing some pointers for the next diversion strategy.
   • Henry Filth 2.1

     28 March 2016 at 5:28 pm

     For a whole bunch of people, we are always in an electoral cycle.
3. Anne 3

   28 March 2016 at 11:34 am

   It is always good for the soul to discover there are lots of people out there who can see through the veneer of spin and deceit. As time progresses I hope their numbers will continue to increase.

   Poor old Audrey. She was having a major fit of the sulks cos her side lost the debate.
4. North 4

   28 March 2016 at 12:00 pm

   Yes. Audrey Young has passed that critical point beyond which she is immediately dismissable as a helpless Key sucker. Not wilful. Just helpless. Seduced. I mean unless you believed it you’d be too embarrassed to write it, surely ?

   Pathetic in a grown person who claims special experience and insight. Check out the biographical notes at the foot of her articles. A tutor in journalism ???
5. Chris 5

   28 March 2016 at 12:47 pm

   The trouble is that the result was way closer than expected. More people seemed to warm to the idea as time went on, almost forgetting about how flawed the process was. Labour MPs, for example, throwing support behind red bloody peaks or whatever it’s called seemed quickly not to care that what they were doing was buying into key’s idiocy. If key et al had somehow extended the discussion period he may very well have succeeded and we would’ve been given with a flag with key’s narcissistic face all over it until the end of time.
   • sabine 5.1

     28 March 2016 at 12:56 pm

     56% vs 43% is not just barely passing. He lost, NZ won. full stop.
     Red Peak (and i was no more fond of this dishrag then the others) was to introduce a somewhat third choice into a selection that was sorely lacking of diversity and genuine choice. Misguided perhaps, but it was pointing out just how odious the choices given to us where. Three times nothing and a black/white hypno flag. National was mocking the whole country, but somehow some of the blame must go to Labour and the Greens?
     • Chris 5.1.1

       28 March 2016 at 3:28 pm

       “…but somehow some of the blame must go to Labour and the Greens?”

       Yes, for giving support however tacit to key’s ridiculously misguided and narcissistic exercise. Diehard Labour supporters like Leftie are blinded to what happened. I’m not saying that Labour wasn’t critical of things but they certainly weren’t united in opposition to key’s filthy and irresponsible ploy. If they had been I don’t think the result would’ve been so close. And yes, I do think that 56% v 43% is close. The margin was far greater at the beginning of the process and it may have easily been a matter of time for that gap to close. For a lot of people key’s choice “grew” on a lot of people and I think many got sick of the negativity around the exercise how ever fucked up it was. As I said, if key had allowed more time for the discussion the result may well have been different. Thank goodness he didn’t.
       • Leftie 5.1.1.1

         28 March 2016 at 4:55 pm

         @Chris, you don’t need to get personal. All the blame and failures rests solely on John key’s shoulders, no one else. You are just parroting Audrey Young. Almost 2 years is plenty of time for key to have engaged the public properly, after all didn’t he first raise it back in 2010? John key made it all about him, he politicized it, he did say he wanted it as his legacy.

         What would have been the real result if people hadn’t of tried to game the system in favour of John key? So how trustworthy are the results? In all likelihood, the gap between the winning current flag and the failed John key’s flag could be even greater.
         • Chris 5.1.1.1.1

           28 March 2016 at 5:28 pm

           Again you’re not addressing one single point I’ve made. Are you doing that deliberately? Or are you just really thick?
           • Leftie 5.1.1.1.1.1

             28 March 2016 at 8:01 pm

             Shows you can’t read Chris.
           • the pigman 5.1.1.1.1.2

             28 March 2016 at 11:43 pm

             What points, Chris? Glad Leftie pulled you up on this already. Your central point was that Labour supported this process. But that is revealed for the baseless lie it is. Is there anything else to address in there, from the sea of contradictory jumble at 5.1.1? All I see is that your one-eyed hatred for Labour being profoundly dull – anything I’ve missed?
             • Leftie …

               29 March 2016 at 6:41 pm

               No, Pigman, you are on to it, you haven’t missed anything.
   • Leftie 5.2

     28 March 2016 at 3:04 pm

     @Chris, it was the Greens who pushed for the inclusion of Red Peak. Others supported the move to give people more choice in an inherently flawed process. Key, in his desperation, changed the rules to allow it, but refused to allow a yes/no question, that would have saved tax payers a lot of time and money.
     • Chris 5.2.1

       28 March 2016 at 3:29 pm

       For fuck’s sake. You’ve been back for 5 minutes and already I’m sick of your inability to read.
       • Leftie 5.2.1.1

         28 March 2016 at 4:36 pm

         I can read well and respond accordingly. Just pulled you up on your bull, that’s all. You don’t have to read my posts Chris.
         • Chris 5.2.1.1.1

           28 March 2016 at 7:48 pm

           I enjoy reading your posts.
           • Leftie 5.2.1.1.1.1

             28 March 2016 at 8:02 pm

             You have contradicted yourself Chris.
             • Chris …

               29 March 2016 at 11:26 am

               I enjoy reading your posts. They make me laugh by providing light relief in what’s often a hectic working day.
               • Leftie …

                 29 March 2016 at 1:36 pm

                 Stop wasting my time by lying Chris.
         • Chris 5.2.1.1.2

           29 March 2016 at 11:23 am

           I didn’t say Labour supported key’s flag change fiasco in an upfront way as you’re suggesting I said. I did say that by not taking a strong united position Labour was giving tacit support to the idea that the flag could be changed via the process key was foisting upon us. The red bloody peaks campaign is proof of that. And I’m just as critical of the Greens and other parties that also failed to take a proper stand against what key was trying to do. I single Labour out because they’re supposed to be the main opposition party leading the attack on what key and his mates have done to NZ over almost three terms and who are about to embark on a fourth. Labour ought to know better.

           http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/284312/50,000-names-speak-for-the-peak
           • Leftie 5.2.1.1.2.1

             29 March 2016 at 1:31 pm

             @Chris. Why do National supporters like yourself think that the Key government will be in line for a 4th term? rofl, in your dreams. The blame for the flag fiasco that wasted tax payer time and money lies with John key. No one else. You are senselessly singling out Labour for no other reason than to bash it. Thanks for the supporting link that shows it was the Greens who pushed for the inclusion of Red Peak. Others supported the move to give people more choice in an inherently flawed process. Key, in his desperation, changed the rules to allow it, but refused to allow a yes/no question, that would have saved tax payers a lot of time and money.
             • Chris …

               29 March 2016 at 2:59 pm

               “Others supported the move to give people more choice in an inherently flawed process.”

               There’s your tacit support there, little man.
               • Leftie …

                 29 March 2016 at 4:15 pm

                 Well no, it is not actually. Have you got little man syndrome? You are implying that Labour was trying to change the flag via the process, which is untrue. Remember, it was Labour that wanted the inclusion of the yes/no question to save the tax payer a lot of time and money.
                 • Chris …

                   29 March 2016 at 6:09 pm

                   I think I know what I was implying.

                   “it was Labour that wanted the inclusion of the yes/no question to save the tax payer a lot of time and money.” Again, more evidence of Labour’s tacit support for Key’s narcissistic personal project.

                   Read what I’ve said: at no time did Labour take a forceful and united position against what key was doing. How do you think Jacinda Ardern ended up showing public support for the inclusion of red bloody peaks or whatever it’s called? Because Labour showed no guts as an opposition by slamming key and the whole process. Instead we see Ardern in a photo op showing active participation in that flawed process, which equals tacit support.

                   If you don’t get this now you are extremely fucking thick.
                   • Leftie …

                     29 March 2016 at 6:37 pm

                     @Chris. There are no doubts about it, you are thick, and all you want to do is bash Labour. What you have implied, no matter how many times you repeat your bull, it is still not true.

                     “It was Labour that wanted the inclusion of the yes/no question to save the tax payer a lot of time and money.”…. AFTER John key refused point blank to put a halt to his referendum. National’s “standfor” website overwhelmingly showed the majority of NZers had no stomach for change. Labour acknowledged the will of the majority, said its not the right time for it and told Key to stop. So why didn’t your leader John key listen to the people like Labour did?
   • the pigman 5.3

     28 March 2016 at 11:39 pm

     Ahaha Chris your Labour vendetta would make another author on this blog blush…! Shameless!

     It wasn’t Labour MPs backing Red Peak.
     It was the Greens.
     It was the Greens who gave the process legitimacy by doing a shabby little deal with Key.
6. Keith 6

   28 March 2016 at 1:10 pm

   Audrey Young is an advertorial writer for the National Party and a warning should be given as such. Labour convinced Judith Collins to vote for the current flag to follow Audreys logic, amazing stuff really.

   I reckon had the red and blue version of Keys flag , the one that won the first ballot, been left the winner rather than the Mickey Mouse voting system to give John the flag he wanted, well that would have sneaked the flag change over the line. But I believe Key didn’t like the redness, too Labour. Dumb arse!
   • BM 6.1

     28 March 2016 at 1:20 pm

     Have you not seen the Labour logo?

     http://iforce.co.nz/i/kzciwi1h.4ni.jpg

     I think it is you, who is the dumbarse.
     • North 6.1.1

       28 March 2016 at 4:04 pm

       Poor BM – stampeded and hurting as much if not more than Audrey ‘Sprung’ Young. As evidenced by his/her ridiculous non-sequitur centred on Labour’s colours at 6.1 above.
   • Anne 6.2

     28 March 2016 at 2:06 pm

     You are spot on Keith. I, too, have suspected the red/blue/white version might have won but Key and his toadies wanted the blue/black/white version because they are the National Party campaign colours. They saw it as a permanent subliminal reminder of themselves that would see them in govt. forever and a day. Dumb arses is almost too kind an adjective for them.

     I’m looking forward to driving past Maggie Barry’s electorate office to see if the tall flag pole – from which the tea towel has been proudly billowing since the beginning of the year – has been taken away in a fit of pique.
7. swordfish 7

   28 March 2016 at 1:21 pm

   Banal, barely-disguised, apologetics from Audrey (I’m assuming she, rather than her National MP brother, wrote it ? – has more than a whiff of Nat Comms about it).

   Suggesting (somewhat tortuously) that it “should be easy for John Key to defend himself against inevitable criticism in the immediate wake of the result from critics”, Our Audrey goes on to list a few examples (and, by employing the term “easy”, she’s clearly implying that most of the general public/voters will accept Key’s responses):

   Here are two examples of her mendacity:

   (1) “To those say who say (sic) people should have been asked first if they wanted change, it was a question biased toward no change.”

   Audrey clearly believes most voters will accept that argument. But here’s what the polls suggest …

   In an April 2015 Herald-Digi (ie The Herald’s very own Pollster) almost 80% believed that the first referendum should ask if the public wants a flag change in the first place (rather than waiting to pit the current flag against the alternative in the second referendum).

   In the UMR Poll of February 2016, 66% of voters (including a plurality (47%) of Nat voters) agreed that The Flag Referendum has been a distraction and a waste of money. New Zealanders should send John Key a message by voting for the current flag.

   And back in February 2014, a Colmar Brunton Poll found only 2% thought that changing the flag was an important issue.

   Taken together, those 3 pieces of polling evidence would appear to undermine Audrey’s attempt to reassure our esteemed PM and his supporters.
   .

   (2) “To those who thought it was a waste of money, it is not what they were saying in 2013 on the referendum for state asset sales for which the government had received a clear mandate at the 2011 election.”

   For a start, as we’ve seen (above), fully Two-Thirds of voters agree that the whole thing has been a waste of money – not some sort of small harping hardcore lefty minority as Audrey implies. I really don’t think 66% of people are suddenly gonna change their minds and cheerfully accept that, hey !, the flag referenda wasn’t a waste of money after all because, you know, there was that asset sales referendum a while back, so we’d be hypocrites if we objected to this. What ever were we thinking of ??? There is such a thing as Wishful Thinking, Aud.

   Second, there was no clear mandate for asset sales at the 2011 General Election. Every single poll carried out on the issue found large-to-overwhelming majorities (including a large minority of Nat voters) opposed to asset sales. And the 2013 Referendum Result = 67% against.

   As numerous political scientists, other scholars and various commentators have painstakingly pointed out over the years, Election ‘Mandates’ just don’t work like that.

   And, of course, a number of Polls carried out immediately after the 2011 Election confirmed that large majorities remained opposed to the planned partial privatisations (eg 3 News Reid Research Feb 2012 – 62% opposed (including a third of Nats).

   As Political Scientist, Stephen Levine, commented at the time: it was only Key’s personal popularity in 2011 that was “preventing opposition to asset sales from hurting National in the polls.”

   Maybe Audrey should have read the editorial of one of her own Paper’s Herald-DigiPoll reports: It suggests that “Not even the most ardent National party supporter would claim the party had convinced a majority of the public of the merits of flogging off our assets” and “clearly, a crucial number of those uncomfortable with the idea of floating even a minority stake in state companies supported National (at the 2011 Election) despite the policy”.
   The editorial was, of course, mistaken – there was, and apparently still is, one ardent Nat (dear old Aud herself) who’s happy to make this claim.

   Third, I don’t think Audrey is quite so daft that she really believes what she’s arguing here – that voters think this Flag Referenda has been a waste of money because they believe ALL Referenda are. As the Polls on asset sales revealed, large numbers were mobilised over an issue that angered them. Hence, it was a Citizens initiated Referendum. In stark contrast, only 2% of New Zealanders thought changing the flag was of any importance whatsoever, with these two Referenda forced on voters. Theres a crucial difference for those without ideological blinders to see.
   • Jenny Kirk 7.1

     28 March 2016 at 1:41 pm

     Its good to have your reminding us of all these polling events, Swordfish – because now that the MSM have cried and booed and YanKey is over in his favourite place, they are going to come up with another distraction.

     Fran whatshername has started in the Herald with an item saying Key wants to make NZ the Switzerland of the Pacific. Deja vue. Just what Roger Douglas wanted almost 30 years ago – he wanted to make NZ the Hong Kong of the Pacific. Nothing new here …… it didn’t work then, it won’t work now.
     • Tautuhi 7.1.1

       28 March 2016 at 3:08 pm

       New Zealand is the Hong Kong of the South Pacific with all these [Nat: nah] little people buying up most of Auckland’s cheap real estate?
       • fender 7.1.1.1

         28 March 2016 at 4:27 pm

         Wish you could have thought a little more deeply about your choice of language here.
         • Anne 7.1.1.1.1

           28 March 2016 at 6:37 pm

           Yes.
       • ropata 7.1.1.2

         28 March 2016 at 10:26 pm

         Seems accurate. The whole “immigrant investor” scheme is legal money laundering approved by NatCorp Inc™. There are thousands of immigrants buying up all the fscking property under the “investor” scheme (have to “invest” 1.5 million NZD within 2 years) and Kiwis don’t get a look in.

         South China Morning Post:

         China was the nation’s biggest source of long-term arrivals at 6,200, followed by 6,100 from India and 5,800 from Britain over the same period. Ming Tiang, head of Chiwi Immigration Services in Auckland, said that half of all Chinese immigrants to the country arrived through the investor scheme. The rest were parents whose children studied there.

         It’s the biggest election bribe of all time, pleasing FJK’s well heeled constituency & fuxking hard working Kiwis
   • Incognito 7.2

     28 March 2016 at 1:49 pm

     I thought the flag referendum was a little unusual because it was a binding referendum while all other referenda have been non-binding IIRC.
   • Sacha 7.3

     28 March 2016 at 4:04 pm

     Thanks for laying out the detail, mr swordfish. #onya
   • Hanswurst 7.4

     28 March 2016 at 9:05 pm

     I think that two separate issues are often conflated when talking about National’s mandate or otherwise for asset sales. The asset sales were an election issue, and National won the 2011 election. Therefore they had a mandate – clear as day – to carry out the sales, which they did on pretty much exactly the terms they had laid out before the election.

     It’s also true that most people voted for parties that were against asset sales, that a large swathe of the voting public felt strong enough about it to kick off a citizens-initiated referendum on the issue, and that an even larger number were moved to vote against the sales in said referendum.

     However, citizens-initiated referenda don’t confer a mandate in NZ, whereas a general election does. In following through with the asset sales, the National government were not going over the heads of the public, flouting electoral principle – or, in fact, doing anything at all out of the ordinary as regards the functions of government in this country. It’s apparently important in NZ to stress a fairly elementary principle: if you don’t want the policies that National are offering, don’t vote for them.
8. Bearded Git 8

   28 March 2016 at 1:44 pm

   Can’t believe I’m saying this but I almost miss John Armstrong’s columns after reading Audrey’s Key arse-licking poison. The Cunliffe “resignation-time” letter fiasco aside Armstrong at least tried to give a veneer of balance to his pro-Gnat articles.

   No such subtlety with Audrey. She hasn’t the wit to realise that by being so biased her status as a political commentator is devalued and because of this she is ignored by many.

   Or maybe she is simply acting under orders.
   • Jenny Kirk 8.1

     28 March 2016 at 2:18 pm

     She must be acting under orders, BG – no-one could possibly believe the tripe she writes, not even her.
     • RedBaronCV 8.1.1

       28 March 2016 at 2:35 pm

       Heaven forbid, that the flag referendum =Nact popularity. I’m suspecting strict instructions are around to try not to let that idea get a toe hold. Hence the level of diversion..etc
     • Stephen Doyle 8.1.2

       28 March 2016 at 4:10 pm

       We must remember who her father was, Venn Young, National minister under Muldoon. Her brother is current National MP Jonathon Young.
       Apples tend not to fall too far from trees.
     • Hanswurst 8.1.3

       28 March 2016 at 9:20 pm

       I don’t think propaganda necessarily works that way. Granted, Young’s points are not remotely plausible, to the extent that it’s difficult to discern an argument from the collective thrust of her points. I think, though, that the article relies on there being a large number among the readership who are disposed towards thinking favourably of Mr. Key, but whose opinion of him might be dented by the publicity surrounding the flag referenda and the way the vote went. Young’s function is to provide a comforting headline and a readable article with a vaguely reasonable tone that will convince enough of those readers to think, “My favourable opinion of Key is justified – after all, there’s even an article in a newspaper to prove it”.
9. Anne 9

   28 March 2016 at 2:28 pm

   In contrast the outgoing GG makes this simple statement on RNZ:

   “Sometimes we’ve got distracted, and that’s the nature of politics, and that’s also possibly the nature of such an important emblem of who we are – this represents us. That’s the thing I think is special, and should have been special about what we were talking about.”

   “The neatest thing I’ve heard about this was last year. It was a young woman from Auckland who said: ‘This is not a branding exercise. This is our flag, this represents us. It’s important’. And that’s the thing that was special, and should have been special to talk about.”

   A strong criticism of the govt. and John Key wrapped in diplomatic speak?

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201794767
   • ropata 9.1

     28 March 2016 at 10:39 pm

     Very well put, I would go further and state that the Lockwood flag ONLY represented the NatCorp™-loving well-heeled gated community class. They have gotten away with an awful lot in the last 8 years but this one was so obnoxious and transparently ego driven that Kiwis saw through the BS spin campaign.

     Plus it came just after the huge TPPA outcry where FJK further pissed off a large proportion of NZ, who were already annoyed by his asset sales & housing crisis & disdain for the poor.
10. Richard@Down South 10

    28 March 2016 at 2:57 pm

    National Debt Clocks.org

    New Zealand National Debt
    National Debt of New Zealand

    NZ$ 117,832,178,641

    and climbing…
11. Tautuhi 11

    28 March 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Evidently the debt isn’t a problem according to Key and English, if Labour had run up this debt National and the Press would be screaming “blue murder”?
12. mary_a 12

    28 March 2016 at 3:30 pm

    And both of Audrey Young’s NZH’s opinion pieces were closed off early, before too much critical debate could go up!

    Under strict instruction to keep the masses uninformed, with the intention of praising Most Deceitful Leader in any situation, through subliminal thought manipulation!

    Crosby Textor working hard to save their golden boy, who’s surface is becoming somewhat tarnished now! Good.
13. newsense 13

    28 March 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Well, Audrey likes to be the reasonable moderate. To find out that people have different interpretations of that and for once in a blue moon the blue rinse team has jumped the wrong way needs explaining some how. Grant dunnit.
14. Sacha 14

    28 March 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Real journalists are capable of rising above their own cognitive dissonance.
    • TC 14.1

      29 March 2016 at 2:27 pm

      Exactly pity the herald doesnt employ any.
15. logie97 15

    28 March 2016 at 6:22 pm

    So many losers still flying the flag that came second from their flagpoles. Wonder if they will be replaced by the original and official flag by ANZAC day.
    • maui 15.1

      28 March 2016 at 10:10 pm

      Laser kiwi strikes back..
      http://giphy.com/gifs/radiolivelaserkiwigif-3o7WTt2pplT3F3bGCI
16. grumpystilskin 16

    28 March 2016 at 6:25 pm

    I worked on the pro flag change video. All the business people voiced an opinion on the flag being a marketing tool to differentiate our products overseas. As I’ve said time and time again, whats wrong with the “Made in NZ” Kiwi logo? Doesn’t warrant a flag change in my opinion.. Like most, that 26 million may have boosted nz posts income ($12Million from memory) but I’d rather someone like rape crises in Chch not be closed along with other important social providers getting some well needed cash.
17. Wendigo Jane 17

    28 March 2016 at 6:48 pm

    The PM’s admirers lost the plot long ago. I’m still laughing about this in Tracy Watkin’s column of 5 March about cyber bullying: “One meme apparently doing the rounds on Facebook, for instance, has Key standing in front of a flag bearing a silver fern which slowly morphs into a ponytail. And that’s a tame one. ” OMG – that’s a TAME one??!!! Gasp!! Can you imagine how completely shocking and offensive the others must be??!!
18. Nick 18

    28 March 2016 at 6:56 pm

    I voted specifically against key, because he tainted the whole thing because he forced it onto NZ. I would love to know the real reason he drove it, I don’t believe he had any real interest in a flag, he’s too shallow to worry about deep stuff with meaning….. So what was his true motive?
    • Anne 18.1

      28 March 2016 at 7:22 pm

      So what was his true motive?

      Simple. He wanted to be sure his name was writ in historical lights as the prime minister who gave NZ a new flag. In other words his motivation was self interest. The only thing that matters to PM Key is: what’s in it for me?
      • peterlepaysan 18.1.1

        28 March 2016 at 9:16 pm

        That is what Wall Street traders believe in,absolutely. Nothing else matters.
    • Ffloyd 18.2

      28 March 2016 at 10:19 pm

      @Nick. I think that key uses these sort of issues as a litmus test. Like thinking that,if he can get away with rail-roading us into the result that he wants then all is as usual and he can carry on using the same strategies. Compliant media, derision of the opposition, lies, deceit, disappearing when the going gets tough (cowardice), the list goes on. If, in spite of all his machinations his pollings stay up then he will see this as validation that what he is doing is working. Therefore the status quo applies. He’s like a little bulldozer. He won’t quit until his fuel runs out. Until he is called out on every thing that he does,every time he does it, straight away, and loudly, he will carry on in his same little rut. His fuel will run out eventually. It might be sooner than he thinks. His only cheerleaders seem to be A.Young TWatkins, Pinky Hoskins(baby mouse), sad delusional p Henry and Rat up the drainpipe Gower. Everyone is so fed up with their boring predictable Labour/Little bashing and rs licking key/National that you don’t have to read their scribbling or listen to their world weary man of the world ramblings to know what is coming. Oh, forgot about Trevvie. Where has she got to. Banished to anonymous Editorials perhaps.
    • Jerko 18.3

      30 March 2016 at 7:31 am

      Good observation Nick! Key is too shallow to worry about deep stuff with meaning. That is what became obvious to the people who voted to keep the current flag. He wanted a flag that was a symbol of the ” shallow meaningless” people who continue to be duped by him and his puppeteers. I should emphasize Puppeteers because, I doubt that he can produce an original idea to save himself. And if that was it – well he is history. What hasn’t been mentioned is that the percentage of votes for his choice was about the same as his support in the polls which I find interesting. That has got to say something about the polls surely.
19. AB 19

    29 March 2016 at 8:36 pm

    New high point in hysteria from Audrey.
    They can’t bear the truth – a shallow, vulgar design almost foisted on us by a shallow, vulgar man. A bullet dodged.
20. Lloyd 20

    29 March 2016 at 10:54 pm

    The flag fiasco provides a wonderful slogan for the next election –

    “FLAG JOHN”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS