Big Brother bringing in National’s cash?

71 comments on “Big Brother bringing in National’s cash? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. rjs131 1

   6 December 2007 at 3:45 pm

   For a blog that is produced supposedly by the labour movement, why are there so many posts about the exclusive brethren compared to defending workers such as erin leigh.

   Arent you a little obssesed. Why is it great for labour to spend taxpayers money getting elected, yet they cant spend their own money as they please. Arent you being a little discriminatory against the bretren. I am sure if national supporters posted as many posts about says gays that you posting hysterically against that.

   And when are going to post and condemn taito philip field, since you are so concerend about the rights of the underprivilged.
2. SweeetD 2

   6 December 2007 at 4:06 pm

   rjs131

   Haven’t you worked it out yet. This blog only exists to cast doubt, scorn and bile on all that threaten labour. It is just a labour party mouth piece, think of it as a written version helen clark and trevor mallard.

   They seem very keen on pointing out this splinter in their oppositions eye, but can’t see the huge piece of 2 by 4 in their own.

   Oh, and did I miss the news that the John Key ‘Cold Play’ DVD had now costed $200K? Care to point to a link for this?
3. James Kearney 3

   6 December 2007 at 4:10 pm

   There’s a link in the text you illiterate fucking moron.
4. SweeetD 4

   6 December 2007 at 4:15 pm

   Time for you temper medicine James, better ask Trevor where he keeps them.
5. insider 5

   6 December 2007 at 4:36 pm

   But Tane assured us the DVD cost 50k…

   Once again the Standard invests a number with a completely new meaning unsupported by any facts to suit its agenda
6. the sprout 6

   6 December 2007 at 4:38 pm

   the fundifascists really don’t like having their money scrutinised do they? no wonder National is so very upset.
7. rjs131 7

   6 December 2007 at 4:42 pm

   the fundifascists really don’t like having their money scrutinised do they? no wonder National is so very upset.”

   Sprout, are you able to advise us on how much taxpayer money labour spent getting elected in 2005. Or much it has cost to investigate taito philip field.

   Or maybe how much mallard has cost the taxpayer with his latest erin leigh outburtst?
8. Tane 8

   6 December 2007 at 4:48 pm

   I do worry if this is the best you guys can do.

   Insider, the post you’re referring to cited $50,000 as the minimum cost to produce that DVD from what we knew about the staffing levels, equipment, production values etc. It was not a maximum, but a minimum. It also explicitly did not include the costs of the tour, scripting, the MediaOne advertising campaign or any potential royalties owing to Coldplay.

   rjs, we’re a bunch of different people with a range of interests. John A has quite a bit of knowledge about the brethren and is happy to share it. You’re welcome not to read if it’s not your cup of tea.

   We’ve done around 20 posts in our short time on the topic of workers’ rights. That’s more than you’ll probably find in any other blog in the country. I’d like to do more but my time is limited. As we get more posts up and running we’ll definitely focus more in that direction. As for Erin Leigh, that doesn’t really interest me, but I’ve said elsewhere that Mallard’s a prat and Labour’s better off without him.
9. Matthew Pilott 9

   6 December 2007 at 4:50 pm

   Insider, it was an estimate on the production of a 12 minute or whatever DVD. A conservative estimate makes sense, as an estimate can’t take into account bad taste, or wasting money and getting little or no value. How on earth they managed to pay $200,000 for it only God knows, if it didn’t put Him to sleep before he could find out.

   SweetD, James had a point, if somewhat belligerently stated. It was in the Dom Post, and several posts here, the Herald had $130k, and National won’t say. Don’t blame ’em.

   rjs131 I understand the Exclusive Brethren has a fairly anti-worker point of view (among other things). Perhaps you might wish to investigate that before complaining to The Standard. Going after a group that promotes that will do much more than blogging about an individual case, wouldn’t you agree?

   And as always…..you could write your own blog, any and every day of the week! Ain’t that wonderful news – go get ’em!
10. Sam Dixon 10

    6 December 2007 at 4:52 pm

    Estimates of the cost of the National DVd rose as more information became available. The Standard had an estimate within a day based on IrishBill talking to some people in the industry and making educated guesses – Tracy Watkins has inside information.

    What is interesting is that the industry people’s estimate was so much lower – I wonder if National got ripped off? Lucky the Execlusive Brethern is here, no doubt bringing huge wads of cash across the border http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/brethren-in-alps-firing-line/2007/11/22/1195321951585.html to cover it.
11. Sam Dixon 11

    6 December 2007 at 4:53 pm

    rjs131- the standard writes on workers’ rights all the time, check the catagory. Of course, its the end of the year, industrial disputes usually trails off. Most wage talks happen in the middle of the year.
12. Matthew Pilott 12

    6 December 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Tane – are you Matthew Pilott?
13. Dean 13

    6 December 2007 at 4:57 pm

    John A said: “The Brethren have themselves acknowledged on their website that they transfer cash around the world, “to do the work of the Lord.” They say that none of this money is used for political donations. To which one can only answer – yeah right!”

    Are you suggesting that religions shouldn’t spend their own money for political purposes? A simple yes or no answer will be fine.

    Tane: “…but I’ve said elsewhere that Mallard’s a prat and Labour’s better off without him.”

    Agreed, and I don’t think anyone who’s trying to remain in any way rational could disagree with this.

    I know it’s off topic, but why do you think he’s so well protected within the Labour party?
14. The Double Standard 14

    6 December 2007 at 5:00 pm

    “the fundifascists really don’t like having their money scrutinised do they?”

    So, where did Labour’s $800,000 theft payback come from then? How about disclosing this eh you dick. Couldn’t be partly funded by an overseas donation eh?

    And, why not go for zero anon donations eh? What is Labour trying to hide – remember its them that has the power here.

    More of what we have come to expect from the stupid – lies and innuendo from the party that is lettings it envy of “rich pricks” show, finally.
15. Historian 15

    6 December 2007 at 5:05 pm

    It’s Bruce Hales (John was his father).

    If you subscribe to traditional conservative values, like being tough on crime, pro-family, pro-freedom, then you should probably learn a bit more about Mr Hales before defending him against those nasty lefties:

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/brethren-bid-to-hide-sex-assaults/2006/12/29/1166895479254.html
16. The Double Standard 16

    6 December 2007 at 5:07 pm

    Sam – I’m surprised that you haven’t been updating wikipedia to reflect your version of the truth.

    Here’s the link if you are having trouble finding it

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren

    BTW have you guys noticed the shit that the British Labour party is in over dodgy funding?
17. Tane 17

    6 December 2007 at 5:07 pm

    What I find funny is how the righties were initially shitting all over the idea that Key’s abortive DVD could have cost anywhere near $50,000.

    Now it’s been revealed to have cost four times that amount they’re trying to score points by claiming our deliberately conservative estimate was, um, far too conservative.

    Oh well, nothing wrong with taking a bob each way eh guys?
18. The Double Standard 18

    6 December 2007 at 5:13 pm

    “What I find funny is how the righties were initially shitting all over the idea that Key’s abortive DVD could have cost anywhere near $50,000.”

    What I find funny is the Teh Party though it was completely justified on rorting $800,000 dollars from the taxpayer, and when finally facing up to its responsibility to repay it, won’t disclose where the money came from.

    Oh well, nothing wrong with being hypocrites eh guys?
19. Sam Dixon 19

    6 December 2007 at 5:14 pm

    Matthew Pilott said:
    Tane – are you Matthew Pilott?

    No Tane is r0b, r0b is mardypants, mardypants is Wat Tyler, Wat Tyler is Whaleoil, Whaleoil is Sam Dixon, Sam Dixon is Robinsod, Robinsod is DPF, DPF is Matthew Pilott.

    but, shush, insider doesn’t know
20. Robinsod 20

    6 December 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Tane – it’s called flip-flopping and I hear there is an underground training camp for that and other tory “tactics” some where in the Urewera’s. No hold on it’s in *Remuera*.
21. insider 21

    6 December 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Matthew/Sam/Tane

    The point is one of your fellow bloggers has conflated a cost for a whole tour and turned it into the cost of “a video”. GIven that you guys have been trawling over this in such detail, you’d have to assume quoting that figure was deliberate dishonesty. Odd given the speed you show pointing the finger at DPF or anyone else around figures you have suspicions over.
22. the sprout 22

    6 December 2007 at 5:18 pm

    nothing new about the right being inumerate. i mean, they “forgot” they has to pay gst on their last election spend, take the highest quotes available for any tender, and look what they do to economies and surpluses.
    so wonder they so desperately need so much secret money.
23. The Double Standard 23

    6 December 2007 at 5:22 pm

    “hey “forgot” they has to pay gst on their last election spend”

    Oh, and Teh Party “forgot” that the Auditor General was going to take a close look at election spending in 2005?

    Makes you wonder why they need to keep so much of our taxes, and spend 10’s of millions in “information” campaigns in election years.
24. Pascal's bookie 24

    6 December 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Speaking of the royal tour, I saw a phot of His Lordship leaning on his transport, a shiny National branded ute. Man of the land that he is. I figure he doesn’t really need the ute now that he doesn’t have to cart all those DVD’s around with him.
25. Robinsod 25

    6 December 2007 at 5:28 pm

    Hey DS – what’s the score? You say here public spending on advertising is electioneering but over at Kb you deny it?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/relative_spends.html#comment-378671
26. The Double Standard 26

    6 December 2007 at 5:30 pm

    Robbo – I don’t see anything that I wrote at that link. Please try to keep your wank-fantasies in check in public dude.
27. Dean 27

    6 December 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Matthew said: “rjs131 I understand the Exclusive Brethren has a fairly anti-worker point of view (among other things). Perhaps you might wish to investigate that before complaining to The Standard. Going after a group that promotes that will do much more than blogging about an individual case, wouldn’t you agree?”

    I’ve worked for a couple of businesses owned and run by members of the Exclusive Brethren in my time (and before you start the witchhunt, I am an atheist and have never been a member or a believer in their faith, much less any religious organization ot church), and I would strongly disagree that they were “anti-worker” at all. They were fair, and payed very well – 40% above union award rates at the time, with the same or better conditions. I was even getting 4 weeks paid annual leave years before it was law. Therefore, I would suggest that tarring them all with the same brush just makes you look.. well.. stupid.

    I find it decidedly interesting that memebers of the self professed “left” are so worked up about the Brethren on the strength of Hagar’s book, when he was widely decried and condemned by the same people in his work “Seeds of distrust”. Fairweather friends, all of you, with no other conviction that labour good, national bad.
28. the sprout 28

    6 December 2007 at 5:51 pm

    deano, the difference is Seeds of Distrust was based on bad science, zero unstanding of stats, and helped along by John Campbell’s friendships with both Hager and Craig Potton.

    Hollow Men, is largely written by the National Party. the meat of the story is all those emails written by National and it’s backers.

    another great Hager read is Secrets and Lies, all about Brian Nicolle and Shandwick’s experiments with creating astroturf organisations. bit like the anti-EFBers really.
29. burt 29

    6 December 2007 at 6:18 pm

    TDS

    You hit the nail on the head when you asked why the EFB didn’t specify zero anon donations. The EB should just look after their own businesses. Take what is on offer from the govt de jour and get on with living their lives. They are supposed to be an apolitical group after all.

    However if I’d been denigrated from such a high level as they have then I’d probably be putting out a “when they came for the trade unionists I did not try and stop them…” type pamphlet.

    However it would seem if they want to displace Labour then they should openly campaign supporting them.

    I wonder what their game plan will be. I’m predicting that it will be done within the law, just like in 2005, it would be nice if a few other big spenders joined them in that position this time.
30. Tane 30

    6 December 2007 at 6:21 pm

    But burt, the EFB EB did come for the trade unionists. Workers in Brethren-owned workplaces are denied basic union rights under the Employment Relations Act. Dean seems to have got by okay, but I tell you I’ve heard some horror stories.
31. Santi 31

    6 December 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Sam Dixon, I heard you are a nutter but your latest circular posting takes the cake.

    Maybe a case of too much idle time under the sun in Hawkes Bay.
32. burt 32

    6 December 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Tane

    Thanks for clarifying that the EFB didn’t come from the trade unionists. Perhaps I should be a little clearer.

    The EB have been denigrated by the govt of the day in ways which disenfranchise them from society. Now as a group that voluntarily disenfranchises it from society to some degree some people may say “so what”. Which is what you appear to be doing by taking the piss about trade unionists and the EFB.

    However the “so what” is a social conditioning response. You know deep down that singling out groups for preferential or discriminatory treatment is wrong. It seems you are comfortable when it’s not a group you identify with – where are your principals?

    [Tane: Burt, clearly it was a typo. But misread it if you will…]
33. Dean 33

    6 December 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Tane said: “Dean seems to have got by okay, but I tell you I’ve heard some horror stories.”

    I can tell you I’ve heard some horror stories too, even from people working in the same companies as I did.

    I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions there as to why, but suffice to say, not everything is as black and white as the villifcation of the Brethren would have you believe. I’m not saying they’re perfect human beings, but they are in my experience and the experience of several other people who have worked for them excellent, understanding employers who will go above and beyond the call of duty for committed, focused employees.
34. Dean 34

    6 December 2007 at 6:43 pm

    Sprout said: “deano, the difference is Seeds of Distrust was based on bad science, zero unstanding of stats, and helped along by John Campbell’s friendships with both Hager and Craig Potton.”

    Uh.. LOL.

    The difference is that that book disagreed with your politics, and Hollow Men agreed with it.

    The guy is a nutbar, albeit one who knows what to publish selectively in order to sell a book.

    If you want to rationalise it any other way then you’re just fooling yourself. Perhaps he ought to be included in the “Haters and wreckers” group as defined by Helen Clarke.
35. the bean 35

    6 December 2007 at 7:45 pm

    who is Helen Clarke?

    last time I heard Helen Clark was the leader of our current government. dipshit.
36. the bean 36

    6 December 2007 at 7:49 pm

    and actually, sprout is right.

    most scientists canned the scientific rational that was used in seeds of distrust. i for one think that we missed the biggest opportunity to create a real difference for our country and be completely g.e free, so me disliking hager’s scientific prowess has nothing to do with my politics. i especially loved the simplistic and inane commentary the issue was given by our media.
37. Dean 37

    6 December 2007 at 7:50 pm

    the bean said: “last time I heard Helen Clark was the leader of our current government. dipshit.”

    Im terribly sorry, I made a mistake. I am not too big a man to admit it. Your milage may vary.

    Do please forgive me, the bean. I wouldn’t want to be called a dipshit again. And please don’t address the point, and especially don’t think about Helen Clark calling people “haters and wreckers”. I fear for your sanity if you did, such is your vehemence for even a typo.
38. Dean 38

    6 December 2007 at 7:52 pm

    “i especially loved the simplistic and inane commentary the issue was given by our media.”

    So with all this against Hagar’s credibility, you’re still willing to support him as long as it’s against the national party, becayse that’s politics, not science.

    labour good! national bad!
39. the bean 39

    6 December 2007 at 8:02 pm

    dean i ain’t a man so dunno if i am a big enough man to admit if i ever made a typo or not. i am guessing that would mean I am not.

    “i especially loved the simplistic and inane commentary the issue was given by our media.”

    So with all this against Hagar’s credibility, you’re still willing to support him as long as it’s against the national party, becayse that’s politics, not science.

    labour good! national bad!”

    This comment does not even make sense. a man uncovering a “conspiracy” that is based on science he doesn’t understand seems quite different from a man receiving emails that demonstrate clear lies and deception.

    the emails kinda speak for themselves as do, actually, the video with key meeting the brethren, the orewa speech, brash et al’s lies about not meeting the brethren, brash and his “family values”.
    these things have nothing to do with my perception of hager.

    however that is great to see you believe labour to be good and national to be bad. here was me thinking you were a total tosspot.
40. the bean 40

    6 December 2007 at 8:16 pm

    “The Double Standard
    Dec 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
    Robbo – I don’t see anything that I wrote at that link. Please try to keep your wank-fantasies in check in public dude.”

    wank-fantasies…plural?

    do tell
41. Dean 41

    6 December 2007 at 8:19 pm

    “This comment does not even make sense. a man uncovering a “conspiracy” that is based on science he doesn’t understand seems quite different from a man receiving emails that demonstrate clear lies and deception.”

    So you’re ok with someone talking about something and giving them the benefit of the doubt as long as it’s not based on faulty science, because he obviously has no other agenda, previous faulty assertions notwithstanding. Because you just happen to agree with him.

    Well done, you.

    Perhaps you might like to explain why “Haters and wreckers” is also completely acceptable from the Prime Minister. I’m sure your response will be equally illuminating.

    You really ought to get a sense of perspective. Sure, rain down on the Nats – they bloody well deserve all the derision they can get – but agreeing the Hagar when it suits you based on a set of suitable principles while denying the same benefit to your preferred party is just more nonsense.
42. the sprout 42

    6 December 2007 at 8:20 pm

    it’s ok beany, Deano comes from the School For Kids Who Don’t Read Good. be kind to him, he’s still learning with the big words and obviously he gets lost on the longer sentences or he’d try a more cogent line of argument, or at least one that hasn’t already been exhaustively refuted upthread and elsewhere. i think his still is kind of cute, all sort of grumpy and frothy, like a toddler when it’s time for nigh nighs.
43. the sprout 43

    6 December 2007 at 8:23 pm

    “explain why “Haters and wreckers” is also completely acceptable”

    umm Deano, i think that has something to do with accuracy. when a person says something that is supported by empirical observation, it’s said to be “acceptable”. otherwise you’re doing real good.
44. Dean 44

    6 December 2007 at 8:30 pm

    So, “haters and wreckers” was supported by empirical observation and accuracy? Or are you talking about Hagar’s book again? You’ll have to excuse me for being a thicko, I’m just trying to make sure I have your opinion straight. If i’ve misinterpreted it, feel free to correct me.
45. the bean 45

    6 December 2007 at 8:30 pm

    “So you’re ok with someone talking about something and giving them the benefit of the doubt as long as it’s not based on faulty science, because he obviously has no other agenda, previous faulty assertions notwithstanding. Because you just happen to agree with him.”

    who is giving him the benefit of the doubt? seemed to be no doubt to me. brash lied, brash engineered his agenda to manipulate public opinion, which was all quite clear without any help from hager.

    haters and wreckers sounds pretty up wiv the homies to me- shout out to ya’ll. i quite like my perspective, the view is great from down here
46. burt 46

    6 December 2007 at 8:31 pm

    the sprout

    What about “chinless scarf wearers” and a “weird and dangerous sect”. Acceptable from the PM toward a law abiding tax paying non violent religious group?
47. Dean 47

    6 December 2007 at 8:35 pm

    “haters and wreckers sounds pretty up wiv the homies to me- shout out to ya’ll. i quite like my perspective, the view is great from down here”

    Well, at least you’re prepared to admit you’re one sided and not open to rational debate about something utterly stupid the Prime Minister has said. And for all her excellent political abilities, as well as economic and social reforms which were all to my mind a great idea, she’s said some really stupid things.

    And more power to you for it. Unfortunately for you, real life is a little more complex than that and things are never black and white. Have fun believing it does, while it lasts at any rate.
48. the bean 48

    6 December 2007 at 8:40 pm

    ahaha cheers dean, you seem like you have a lot to teach us all. i am so enlightened now, for the better
49. Dean 49

    6 December 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Keep playing the man rather than the ball if you like. It seems to work for you.
50. the bean 50

    6 December 2007 at 8:47 pm

    ahhhh sport analogies, how fitting
51. the sprout 51

    6 December 2007 at 8:48 pm

    show me balls Deano, and i’ll play them.
52. Billy 52

    6 December 2007 at 8:59 pm

    “it’s ok beany, Deano comes from the School For Kids Who Don’t Read Good. be kind to him, he’s…”

    At what school, Sprout, were you taught that it is quite acceptable for a sentence not to start with a capital letter?

    If, as it seems you must, you are going to hold yourself out as being smarter than everyone else, a basic grasp of the use of the English language will go some way to stop you looking like a total tosser. But only some way.

    By the way “real good”, should be “really good”. It’s an adverb thing.
53. the bean 53

    6 December 2007 at 9:10 pm

    oh billy, how we missed your dulcet tones. tell us again about how hot you are and how much you and robinsod are a match made in heaven
54. Tane 54

    6 December 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Dean, I think the sprout and the bean are taking the piss. They’re very good at it and I find them funny.

    For what it’s worth I didn’t agree with Clark’s ‘haters and wreckers’ comment, and it was the same deal for many others on the left. What that has to do with the topic at hand I’m not sure. Do you want me to go through everything John Key’s ever said and ask you if you agree with it?
55. burt 55

    6 December 2007 at 9:29 pm

    Tane

    I think you are on track for going over John Key’s every deed and asking us for our opinion. I reckon given how little time he’s been in politics, at the rate you are going, you should be all done in about two months. Who’s next…
56. Billy 56

    6 December 2007 at 9:32 pm

    “Do you want me to go through everything John Key’s ever said and ask you if you agree with it?”

    Classic. That’s what this blog is all about, surely.
57. Dean 57

    6 December 2007 at 9:49 pm

    Tane said:

    “Dean, I think the sprout and the bean are taking the piss. They’re very good at it and I find them funny.

    For what it’s worth I didn’t agree with Clark’s ‘haters and wreckers’ comment, and it was the same deal for many others on the left. What that has to do with the topic at hand I’m not sure. Do you want me to go through everything John Key’s ever said and ask you if you agree with it?”

    Shit no. Noone can defend that guy. He’s got certain good qualities about him but ultimately he’s a screw up of epic proportions.

    I just get tired of some people asserting that Key is all bad and no good. You’re smart enough to know it isn’t the case, as with Labour and Helen Clark, and you’re prepared to talk about it rationally.

    It’s just very amusing to bring up a few of her statements to rabid supporters of the current Labour administration and then sit back and see the reactions.

    You end up with 2 groups – people like yourself, and people like sprout and bean, who like to think they’re winding up, but not really contributing towards any kind of intelligent debate.

    That being said, apart from the obvious replies on both sides of the political spectrum, I’ve found this site to be far more rational that Kiwiblog or it’s compatriots. I hope you keep up the good work.
58. Dean 58

    6 December 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Billy said:
    “At what school, Sprout, were you taught that it is quite acceptable for a sentence not to start with a capital letter?”

    Don’t be an ass, Billy.
59. the bean 59

    6 December 2007 at 10:08 pm

    well deano, i have never asserted key is all bad
    http://thesproutandthebean.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/broken-english/
    in fact here is a direct quote where i am almost nice about him…but in context not quite
    “well having had the joy of meeting the man on several occasions i will clearly state for the record he is personable”

    nor actually have i ever asserted i voted labour- i think you might see me say i disagreed with the g.e stance. i appreciate your informed assumptions though.

    and cheers for the comments, your intellect is obviously so far above mine i cannot engage with it
60. Matthew Pilott 60

    7 December 2007 at 11:29 am

    Dean, I missed all this last night, but my point wasn’t whether the EB were good employers. Anathoth and Naylor Love or whatever are all good organisations, I can only assume.

    My point was that thier ideals are anti union – nothing to do with their practices but their ideals – look at what they advocate!

    So please think about what you write, before you post something like “Therefore, I would suggest that tarring them all with the same brush just makes you look.. well.. stupid”

    Just because they follow the rules doesn’t mean they like them; the individual employers might play ball but their masters would have it otherwise.

    Burt, for once you’re on the money!

    How good does it feel!?!

    Y’see, you’re probably right about getting through all JK has said in a couple of months – JK will be goneburger soon enough, judging by National’s predisposition to dump its leaders. Funny you mention this when Dean is talking about ‘fairweather friends’ – I can see where he gets that notion from!
61. PhilBest 61

    7 December 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Tane, read THIS

    http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/documents/Brethren Life.pdf

    Quote: (Page 7, under “poverty relief and welfare support”)

    “Poverty is rare but all people in needy circumstances have ready access to detailed assistance and care within the brethren community. One of our priority objectives is to provide every member of the Church with the opportunity to be equal with other members. We do not want class distinctions to cause dysfunction, friction, or division between any members of our community”.

    (Further,under “Our role in the community”:)

    “…most are paid wages above the national average for the relevant work classification. Any shortfall in wages or underpayment that comes to our notice is treated seiously and is recompensed based on an independent assessment of the EMPLOYEE’S situation” (my emphasis).

    And (page 6, under “housing”)

    “Brethren adopt an objective of equality as a key principle governing housing selection to prevent status differentiation and to provide a social environment where all brethren families can entertain each other at home without discrimination or unnecessary distinction……”

    And lots more like it. Read it all.

    Tane, these sound like people inimical to everything you stand for, eh? People hand in glove with the “business roundtable” and the super wealthy plot to screw the proletariat, eh?

    Or are you gonna stick to your line, “yeah right”, anything the EB’s say must be lies, because they’re forever tarnished by the mental associations you have formed about them, guided by those paragons of honesty, the MSM journalists and of course Our Dear Leader and her crew.

    The comments made by Dean at 5.44 yesterday seem to me to lend the ring of truth to the EB information.
62. Tane 62

    7 December 2007 at 12:26 pm

    Phil, I didn’t come down in the last shower. You don’t judge groups by what they say about themselves, you judge them by their actions. The Brethren’s political activities have been secretive, dishonest and tilted towards the far-right of politics. Don’t expect me to think they’re all joy and happiness just because they say so.
63. PhilBest 63

    7 December 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Oooooooooh, nasty. You can’t let any possibilty into your broad, capacious mind, that the EB’s may be the ones who are being told untruths about?

    Come on, I can see even from reading Hager’s book and from the media reporting, that these guys have been unfairly labelled. What they say about themselves rings true. The media have done a big shock, horror, beat up of some proprieters of some very small businesses. One guy “lives in a sprawling villa in Mount Eden”. Yawn. You guys working up a plot of “the super rich”, including these guys, has me wetting myself with mirth. If only it wasn’t so damn ugly, and demeaning, and vicious, where these people are concerned.

    Moving envelopes of cash around. Foooooooooooo. How much cash can you get in an envelope? When has Customs arrested any of these guys for having over the legal limit of cash on them?

    In spite of the media’s massive efforts, including, I hear suggested now, massive payments and financial inducements to former members of the church in return for information/appearances, we have yet to see any tax havens, transfers of millions, or private yachts.

    Come ON. This is a very nasty, propagandised, beat-up of a group who represent not “super wealth”, but thrift, hard work, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Not that you might not still hate them all the same for that, but part of the great plot against the proletariat the EB’s AIN’T.
64. PhilBest 64

    7 December 2007 at 12:51 pm

    And my point about the Hollow Men book, is that Hager had all those e-mails, and he seems to have known who Don Brash was meeting every minute of every day. But he had NO e-mails FROM Brash to the EB’s, and NO details of any meeting other than one where some alleged EB bumped into Brash in a shopping mall or something.

    If there was one thing the book utterly FAILED to prove, it was any “link” between Brash and the EB’s. Nothing but Hager’s conjecture. And to my mind, it proved the opposite – because if there HAD been any evidence, Hager would have had it, such was the thoroughness of the political hit on Brash’s privacy.
65. Draco TB 65

    7 December 2007 at 3:14 pm

    PhillBest said:
    “Moving envelopes of cash around. Foooooooooooo. How much cash can you get in an envelope?”

    I think it’s about 10k per envelope and carrying up to 40 envelopes.
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20071015_brethren/interviews.htm

    “And my point about the Hollow Men book, is that Hager had all those e-mails, and he seems to have known who Don Brash was meeting every minute of every day. But he had NO e-mails FROM Brash to the EB’s, and NO details of any meeting other than one where some alleged EB bumped into Brash in a shopping mall or something.”

    I suspect Hager was limited to information that his informants were limited to. This being the case I would suspect that he wouldn’t have had enough to establish a clear link but there was certainly enough to raise some serious questions.
66. PhilBest 66

    7 December 2007 at 4:26 pm

    I anticipate the arrests of some EB’s next time they try the spiriting-illegal-amounts-of-cash-through-customs rark. This week, perhaps? Or don’t the Customs people read newspapers or watch TV?

    Hey, we’re getting much more decency into this debate here. Draco TB: so now its just “enough to raise some serious questions”? Hey, I thought EVERYONE KNEW that the EB and Don Brash were in cahoots to “steal the election”. I thought people like Tim Pankhurst, Chris Trotter, John Campbell, et al, had ESTABLISHED ALL THAT BEYOND A DOUBT in the minds of the public?

    Now, doesn’t all this start to look just a bit like the sort of shameful bully politics that have deeply stained the heritages of some of our fellow modern enlightened civilisations? Hasn’t this sort of stuff been the small beginnings of what developed into ghastly crimes against humanity?

    We have a choice, here, guys – the truth, or the advancement of YOUR political cause by whatever it takes. And you, and Our dear Leader’s regime, and their media lackeys, are NOT looking good. Some of the media lackeys are waking up, the arseholes – they helped us into this mess. But it appears that of the regular bloggers on the Left, very few are decent, “moderate” leftists.
67. Matthew Pilott 67

    7 December 2007 at 4:32 pm

    PB for all your bluster about the EB you clearly know very little or you wouldn’t be talking about the EB as ‘very small businesses’. Unless you’re comparing them to GM or IBM, or perhaps Peru…
68. PhilBest 68

    7 December 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Matthew Pilott, if you think the EB businesses that the media have done a beat-up of are NOT just “small” businesses, but VERY small businesses, YOU are the EPITOME of the small-mindedness that is ruining this country. That lawnmower and chainsaw shop musta had AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN STAFF, FOOOOOOO, EH, OOOOOOH, the ENVY, BLOW YA PUNY SOCIALIST MIIIIIIIIIIND.
69. the sprout 69

    7 December 2007 at 5:00 pm

    have a drink phil
70. PhilBest 70

    8 December 2007 at 1:07 pm

    Actually after some of my visits to the Standard I want to immerse myself in a vat of alcohol.
71. the sprout 71

    8 December 2007 at 1:10 pm

    that would be good too, but don’t have any candles too close by

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS