Borrows charged for injuring protestors

Written By: - Date published: 11:48 am, July 12th, 2016 - 114 comments
Categories: national - Tags: , ,

Good – MP Chester Borrows charged after driving into protesters

MP Chester Borrows has been charged over injuring two women with a car during a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) protest.

The Whanganui National MP and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives told NZME he would defend the charge of careless driving causing injury for the March incident in Whanganui.

He would not comment further.

Coverage at the time –

No Right Turn wrote about the potential consequences.

114 comments on “Borrows charged for injuring protestors”

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1

    Hard not to be cynical about the fact that the charge makes a by-election unlikely. Or is it more a case of no-one who has a public difference of opinion with Oravida Collins is above the law?

    • red-blooded 1.1

      I’m interested: what do you think he should have been charged with?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1

        I didn’t say the charge is wrong, I said it’s hard not to be cynical about it.

        • red-blooded 1.1.1.1

          My question wasn’t an attack; it was a genuine attempt to understand your reasoning. I think it’s bloody good that he is being charged, and I just can’t see how Burrow’s being charged makes a by-election LESS likely (which is what you said in your original comment). What way of handling this do you think would have made a by-election more likely, given that he hasn’t stood down and Key hasn’t taken action against him? What action could the police prosecutors take that wouldn’t be “hard not to be cynical about”, from your point of view?

          Sorry, Anon Bloke, but I just can’t understand your reasoning.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1

            If he is found guilty and fined, he’ll keep his seat. Being found guilty of a more serious charge would trigger a by-election automatically, no matter the sentence.

            Idiot Savant’s post (linked in the OP) lays out the options.

            Edit: perhaps not: according to DtB below, Borrows seat is on the line…

            • red-blooded 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Hey, I’d like to see a by-election as much as the next person (even if that person was you, Mr B). The problem is, that there’s a difference between being “careless” and “reckless”. Burrows was definitely careless:

              “The test for careless driving is whether the motorist exercised the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances.”

              But was he reckless? “The test for reckless driving is whether:
              -The driver fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and competent driver;
              -The resulting situation was objectively dangerous; and
              -The driver was aware of the potential danger and continued to act despite knowledge of the possible consequences.
              This is a higher degree of culpability than careless and dangerous driving, and requires police to prove a specific state of mind.”
              http://www.drinkdrivelaw.co.nz/dangerous-driving/

              I think it’s the state of mind issue that’s the sticking point. Plus, while he did leave the scene of an accident, that law is written to compel people to ensure that help can be accessed for anyone injured, that the right person is identified for any future prosecution, that insurance issues can be worked out… etc. Burrows was being filmed, there was a police officer at hand; it’s not like he fled away into the night, never to be seen again.

              I guess I’m just saying, don’t let’s get over-excited about this. It’s perfectly right that he should be charged, but let’s keep it in proportion.

              • Draco T Bastard

                But was he reckless? “The test for reckless driving is whether:
                -The driver fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and competent driver;
                -The resulting situation was objectively dangerous; and
                -The driver was aware of the potential danger and continued to act despite knowledge of the possible consequences.

                This clearly describes exactly what Borrows did. He drove into the protesters fully aware of the danger but did it anyway.

                I think it’s the state of mind issue that’s the sticking point.

                His state of mind is quite obvious in the video – he simply didn’t give a shit if he hurt anybody or not.

      • Erik Bloodaxe 1.1.2

        Assault with a blunt instrument?

      • Sebbie 1.1.3

        “Careless” implies accidental but there’s nothing accidental about driving your car directly into people standing right in front of you. So it should be a more serious charge really.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2

      I suspect that’s why it took so long to lay charges. He was obviously guilty but they had to find a way so as not to get him kicked out of parliament as he should be.

      EDIT:
      Actually, he’s been charged with causing injury which means that he faces up to 5 years in prison which means that, if he’s found guilty, that he will be kicked out of parliament and there will be a by-election.

      • mary_a 1.2.1

        @ Draco T Bastard (1.2) … but will he be convicted? I have some doubts there. You know, the usual Nat’s old boys club in action (bribery and corruption), like the ferals they are, protecting their own toxic lot!

      • Jones 1.2.2

        Which means he won’t be found guilty.

        • mosa 1.2.2.1

          GUILTY!! whats that where the Nast Natz are concerned.
          Line em up and ride them down its only a anti TPPA protester.

      • red-blooded 1.2.3

        Really? What I see when I go looking at the various reports bouncing around is that he’s been charged with careless driving causing injury or death. It’s actually a really low-level charge:

        “Under Section 38(1) of the Land Transport Act, “A person commits an offence if the person operates a vehicle on a road carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person” The maximum penalty is three months imprisonment, and there is a mandatory six month disqualification from holding or obtaining a drivers licence following conviction. In the grand scheme of charges that arise from often serious injury or death, the penalty is very, very low. The reason the penalty is so low is the same reason it is one of my favourite charges to defend: it could happen to anyone, and, there is no criminal intent.” – taken from http://www.iornslegal.co.nz/#!Careless-Driving-Causing-Injury-or-Death/ca6b/55ab165d0cf25466c2a3ad6f

        He did a stupid thing and hurt someone who didn’t deserve to be hurt. Probably, this was caused by arrogance and ill-temper. Possibly, it was caused by poor judgement and sloppy driving skills. I think it’s more likely the former than the latter, but we can’t know 100%. Personally, I think the charge fits the action.

        • McFlock 1.2.3.1

          However, what I find interesting is whether he stopped to ascertain injury and render assistance. His current charge is that injury occurred and he was merely careless, but if he injured someone and failed to stop, that is a five year maximum.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.4

        Are you sure?

        Contravention of section 8 causing injury or death
        (1) A person commits an offence if the person operates a vehicle on a road carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person.
        (1A) A person commits an offence if—
        (a) the person drives a motor vehicle, or causes a motor vehicle to be driven, carelessly; and
        (b) by that act or omission, causes an injury to or the death of another person.
        (2) If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1) or subsection (1A),—
        (a) the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and
        (b) the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.
        (3) The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

        LTA S.38

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.4.1

          No, you’re right. It’s section 7, Reckless Driving, that has the 5 year imprisonment and he’s been charged under section 8. It is, of course, Reckless Driving causing injury that he should be charged with because he did drive into the protesters on purpose.

      • Wensleydale 1.2.5

        It’ll be a cold day in Hell before Borrows goes to prison. And if, by some miracle, he did — it would be one of those day-spa prisons with a golf course out the back ordinarily occupied by rich white financiers who got caught fleecing the elderly of their life savings.

  2. James 2

    I think that the protesters had no right to be blocking his way. But he had less right to do something that could (and did) cause any of them harm.

    A minute of time and the police could have easily cleared his way.

    He deserve to be charged and (looking at the evidence available) be found guilty.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

      You have it the wrong way around: it’s Borrows and the misery factory he props up that are in the way.

      • James 2.1.1

        yes dear. Are you incapable of a reasoned reply?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

          What’s unreasonable about it? The protesters are performing a valuable public service, which is more than can be said for the occupants of the vehicle: Borrows (or his passenger) can cross the floor any time they want to.

          How many more families become homeless for every day they fail to do so?

          • James 2.1.1.1.1

            “The protesters are performing a valuable public service, which is more than can be said for the occupants of the vehicle”

            According to you – which does not make it a fact. It just shows you are a little think and can only beat your chest and go left good – right bad when trying to have a discussion.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Oh well, if we’re going to discuss facts, what underpins your idea that the protesters have no “right” to be there? The police response to the recent anti-TPPA actions in Auckland suggests otherwise.

              Perhaps your characterisations apply closer to home than you intended.

              So much for little think.

              • dukeofurl

                can you see the video, the protesters were standing on footpath- its where the cars have to give way to pedestrians

              • James

                No – I know you have little reading skills – but I said they had no right to block his way.

                FFS – how thick are you.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Since the whole point of the protest was to block his way, your opinion simply reveals which side you’re on.

                  My response – comparing the one protest with the other, and noting the Police response – is valid.

                  Charitably, I’m prepared to explain this to you.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  …but I said they had no right to block his way.

                  Actually, they do as they have a right to protest.

                • stigie

                  Yep, totally agree, they should have been protesting from the footpath and not in front of the vehicle. What a lot of fuss with medical people etc. i believe she was up and walking ok next day.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Observation isn’t your strong point: the protesters were on a footpath (yes, they were). I suggest you remove your bullshit-smeared right wing facemask and have a look at the photos.

                    Even if they’d been on a road, the police response to the TPPA protests – ie: to allow them – shows exactly how grounded in reality your lickspittle opinion is.

                    • Being on a footpath and/or being a protestor doesn’t magically endow you with the right to obstruct a vehicle entrance or other public way. That’s why the cops will come along and tell you to fuck off. Also why they’ll drag you out of the way and arrest you if you don’t. Borrows’ offence was more serious than the protestors and resulted in injury, which is presumably why he’s been charged, but both parties were committing offences.

                    • dukeofurl

                      Generally these sort of things have strict liability, what ever the reasons you did the illegal maneuver, you have to wear it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      @Psycho Milt: I’d like to see the argument in court. They weren’t obstructing a right of way they were expressing their disapproval of government policy.

                      Borrows and Bennett aren’t Joe Public going about their lawful business. They’re ministers of the Crown ripping the guts out of this country.

                      They have every right to expect hostility, obstruction and contempt wherever they go. Diddums.

                    • I get your point – they’re politicians so a certain leeway for political protest has to apply. It would be outrageous if the cops present had actually charged the protesters with obstructing a public way, but no similar outrage arises from Borrows being charged.

            • Sebbie 2.1.1.1.1.2

              People have been protesting things for thousands of years. That’s how we got the vote for women etc… it’s a democratic country people have the right to protest. They may not have had a legal right to block his way but he had much less right to deliberately drive straight into them especially when the police were right there to help him. It was extreme arrogance and recklessness. Also when exiting a drive way pedestrians have the right of way.

    • Sabine 2.2

      Ahhh the excuse that if the protester would not have protested then the defended would have never driven over them.

      Protesting is legal in NZ, there are ways to deal with non violent and not co-operating protesters i.e. the police can / and often has carried these guys away to make space.
      However it is still illegal to just simply drive over people that are lying on the ground.
      Does not matter why they are lying on the ground, it is and should be considered assault at the least – attempted murder at the worst. Simple as that.

      The dear Minister and his mate had a choice to make, wait until the police clears teh way (something they are trained for) or drive over people with a vehicle that has the capacity to crush the people. Ahhh, choices, if people would just not always make those poor choices under a National led government. Its weird.

      • James 2.2.1

        Sabine,

        You misunderstand my comment.

        “Ahhh the excuse that if the protester would not have protested then the defended would have never driven over them.”

        No – That is not what I said. To be 100% clear – I am not making that excuse, and nor do I think any rational person could (or should) try to make it.

        What he did stands alone and he should be accountable for it.

        I agree with the rest of your post (in the most part).

        • Sabine 2.2.1.1

          as i said protesters are protesting. Usually there is always someone who said :” they have no right, it inconveniences me, and besides who cares, and if we could just all go along and be submissive and obedient little drones.

          Ghandi, the Suffragettes, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the antiwar protesters of 2003, heck the Protestors here in NZ during the spring bock tour and the lady from the recent protests Leshia Evans all stood in the way of someone and inconvenienced them. And luckily for us they did.

          None of the freedoms we enjoy today came because we got given them, people fought for them.

          you might want to remember that.

          the minister was a stupid prick for driving over people on the floor, he showed that a. he is happy to commit murder in front of cameras = stupid prick, b. he is not fit for government as he can’t control his urges = stupid prick, and his government should have kicked out this stupid prick the moment they saw the images. As for his colleque in the car who did nothing to stop him from being a stupid prick? Should be charged as he was.

          so hold your contempt for the little inconvenient protesters they did not attempt to drive over a human being to bring home a point.

    • mpledger 2.3

      Pedestrians have right of way on the footpath.

    • Chuck 2.4

      Borrows was stupid to fall into the trap that was well planned for him. Block his exit, maximize the reaction from Borrows, and have it splashed over the 6 o clock news.

      The court will decide on all the available facts.

  3. red-blooded 3

    Well, this’ll be interesting to keep an eye on. Any chance of getting the original video up? The link just takes me to today’s story, with no visual.

  4. save nz 4

    With John Banks getting off, and now trying to milk the tax teat again, I think there is less and less trust in the judiciary being fair.

    Anyway if Key gets his way, the police will become a commodity anyway under TPPA and police will be on low wages and poorer conditions with cheaper obediant police being imported in.

    • Jones 4.1

      Oh yes… the gradual privatisation of the police force.

      For most of the people there will be freemium service: some-day response times and the law to follow, while those who want to pay for the premium service can have rapid response times and some discretion over what laws should apply to them.

      We could even have gold, silver, bronze etc. service standards tailored to our individual needs. Who needs gated communities when you can afford to pay for a personalised police service…?

    • North 4.2

      The purpose of the Judiciary is to keep the underlings in line. For the benefit of those who are not the underlings. No question about it.

  5. fisiani 5

    No Court will ever find Borrows guilty of a driving offence. Watch the video.

    • dukeofurl 5.1

      they are standing on the footpath- look up rules about cars and footpaths

      • dukeofurl 5.1.1

        Road rules

        Pedestrian right-of-way
        Pedestrians have the right-of-way over vehicles on footpaths. They also have priority over vehicles when vehicles are entering or exiting a driveway across a footpath.

        In this situation, a driver entering or exiting a driveway like this must give way to pedestrians on the footpath

        Likely that Borrows will go for a plea bargain for a lessor charge – and get it.

        • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.1

          You don’t seem to understand right-of-way. Having right-of-way at an intersection means the other traffic lets me move first – it doesn’t mean I get to stop my car on the intersection and block the other traffic for as long as I feel like it.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1

            Therefore they can drive into me and the judge will say “Good for you Sir Mr. Borrows sir, and please may I lick your spittle?”

            • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.1.1.1

              False dichotomy – I’m not arguing Borrows had some kind of right to drive into them.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                To be clear, I’m arguing that they had every right to get in his way, because he’s an MP, and this has nothing to do with right of way and everything to do with freedom of expression.

      • fisiani 5.1.2

        They are jumping in front of a car and had their tootsies squashed.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.1

          They were impatient and suffering from an overweening sense of moral authority and instead of waiting for the Police to clear the way, drove into a pedestrian.

      • Psycho Milt 5.1.3

        they are standing on the footpath- look up rules about cars and footpaths

        Yes, do look up the rules, for instance the Summary Offences Act 1981:

        “22 Obstructing public way

        (1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any public way and, having been warned by a constable to desist,—

        (a) continues with that obstruction; or

        (b) does desist from that obstruction but subsequently obstructs that public way again, or some other public way in the same vicinity, in circumstances in which it is reasonable to deem the warning to have applied to the new obstruction as well as the original one.

        (2) In this section—

        obstructs, in relation to a public way, means unreasonably impedes normal passage along that way

        public way means every road, street, path, mall, arcade, or other way over which the public has the right to pass and repass.”

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.3.1

          unreasonably impedes

          They were nihilist protesters???

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.3.1.1

            I’m pretty confident that courts wouldn’t consider “I was obstructing that guy on a public way because I was angry with him about something” to be “reasonable excuse.”

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.3.1.1.1

              Ah, then you probably need to consider who is on trial here.

              • Sure – the public-way-obstructors’ offence was a trivial one and they weren’t charged for it. Doesn’t alter the fact that they didn’t have some kind of right-of-way that entitled them to block the footpath, as alleged in 5.1/5.1.1.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Were they on trial, and were I a lawyer, I guess I’d defend them on the basis of their freedom of expression rather than their right of way.

                  • red-blooded

                    Hey, there are lots of ways to express an opinion, even on a protest. I’ve taken legal and illegal action when protesting. Just saying, “I was expressing myself” doesn’t make an action legal.

                    Good on these people for getting out there and confronting Burrows with their views. Don’t let’s pretend that the law should only apply to one side in a protest situation, though.

                    As it happens, there were no charges laid against the protesters because they were not really hurting anyone. Burrows did hurt someone and he’s been charged.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I said I’d defend them on that basis, not that I’d expect to win. It’s a strong argument though, and not without precedent.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3.2

          And how does the right to protest change that?

          Because we can be assured that it does.

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.3.2.1

            Wrongly assuming that the right to protest implies the right to commit offences is a mistake that’s seen quite a few people surprised and outraged at being arrested over the years.

            • Sabine 5.1.3.2.1.1

              so if it is a protester who is standing / lying in front of you then it is ok to drive into them.

              if it is your wife/child/dog than it is not ok to drive into them?

              i thought it is just generally considered bad taste to drive into / onto people full stop?

              • False dichotomy – not having the right to obstruct a public way doesn’t imply that other people have the right to run you over if you do.

              • red-blooded

                Of course it’s not OK to drive over/into them, Sabine. It’s OK for the police to move them, though. People who protest by blocking access know that they’ll probably be moved; this didn’t happen on this occasion and Burrows did what he shouldn’t. It wasn’t OK. He’s been charged. Surely this is a good thing?

        • William 5.1.3.3

          But the protesters haven’t been charged with an offence under the Summary Offences Act, so that’s all irrelevant.

          Possibly the police examined whether that would have been a goer but observed the constable didn’t warn them to desist, he merely ushered them to the side. They were moving there when silly old Chester drove on through before the way was clear.

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.3.3.1

            It’s not irrelevant to the implied claim in 5.1 and 5.1.1 that the protesters had the right to block the footpath – the Summary Offences Act makes it clear that they didn’t.

            And just in case that particular logic fail comes up again: no the fact that the protesters were illegally obstructing a public way doesn’t imply Borrows had a right to drive into them.

            • William 5.1.3.3.1.1

              Read the section of the act you quoted. It doesn’t create an offence of blocking a public way, only of unreasonably blocking it. The corollary of that is that it is possible to block it in a reasonable manner, which is not an offence.
              Watch the video, the blockage lasts no more than 15 secs before they’ve moved aside. I don’t envy you arguing in a court that they created an unreasonable blockage.

              • The concept that you have a right to obstruct a public way if you want to is as bizarre, if not quite so scarily insane, as the Kiwiblog commenters’ view that you have a right to run people over if they’re in your way. For future reference, no it’s not “reasonable” to deliberately obstruct other people, regardless of how long you do it for or what you personally feel about the people you’re obstructing, and yes you can be arrested for it.

                • Ross

                  Yes, you can be arrested for it. But they weren’t in this case, which suggests police were not concerned by their conduct. But this isn’t about the protestors. It’s about the actions of two MPs who, after injuring protestors, drove off.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  “if you want to”

                  Is that what “reasonable” means in a legal sense?

    • William 5.2

      As dukeofurl commented above, the protesters were on the footpath. Borrows was exiting a driveway.

      The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 states:

      “4.4 Giving way when entering or exiting driveway
      A driver entering or exiting a driveway must give way to a
      road user on a footpath.”

      The interpretation section states:

      “road user means a driver, rider, passenger, or pedestrian”

      From watching the video, he did not give way.
      An injury occurred.
      Are you still confident!

      Bingo with dukeofurl, my reference was actually to your earlier comment at 1.22.

  6. James 6

    Charged with careless driving causing injury.

    Under section 38 of the Land Transport Act, the maximum penalty for careless driving causing injury is three months’ jail, or a fine of up to $4500.

    • Sabine 6.1

      no loss of drivers lisence?
      the stupid prick gets to stay on the road and further risk injuring others?

      • McFlock 6.1.1

        Minimum six month disqualification:

        If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1) or subsection (1A),—
        (a) the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and
        (b) the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

  7. dukeofurl 7

    Careless driving causing injury cases have even reached the Supreme Court

    eg Peter Miles DAVIES v New Zealand Police – Courts of New Zealand SC 83 2007 , however in that case ( mattress fell off trailer which then injured a motorcyclist) the issue was reparations rather the circumstances.
    Im sure this sort of charge would be well supported by case law to the CA level over the culpability of the driver in all circumstances

    But I found this gem.

    In 2010 while Minister of Transport, Joyce admitted to two prior driving convictions, careless driving resulting in a fine in 1988, and careless driving causing injury resulting in a fine and loss of licence in 1989.- wikipedia

  8. Neil 8

    Move along nothing to see here, Burrows will only get a wet bus ticket across the wrist

  9. Steel-bodied car .v. soft-bodied human

    Nice optics, National.

  10. Accelerator .v. agitator

  11. ropata 11

    I hope they throw the book at Chester the Festerer. The arrogance of car drivers knows no limits in NZ. Can’t count the number of times I’ve nearly been run over by dickheads on driveways, dickheads on the wrong side of the road, dickheads who fail to stop on a stop sign, etc etc ad infinitum

    • “chesters”?

    • You really, really don’t want to go over to the Kiwiblog thread on this subject then, as it features a surprising number of commenters who apparently need to have it explained to them that no you’re not actually allowed to run someone over if they’re in your vehicle’s path.

  12. If I can be a tad contrarian , I can see a couple of points worth making about the debate so far.

    First up, the protesters were not pedestrians. They weren’t using the footpath for the purposes of travel. Having been on about a zillion protests and pickets (and having organised a good percentage of the same), I can assure readers that blocking driveways isn’t legal. But it is terrific fun.

    Secondly, Borrows is actually one of the better Tory MP’s. He’s an old fashioned kind of Nat and tries to behave decently. He’s also publicly anti-racist. That combination possibly explains why he has never been given senior posts by Key and Joyce.

    If the Whanganui seat was redrawn to reflect the wishes and needs of the town and district, he wouldn’t be the MP. The excellent Hamish McDouall would be instead. But the electorate is gerrymandered so that the urban majority are disenfranchised in favour of the Taranaki rump. So, a by-election would be likely to return a Nat MP, which is a boost I don’t think they deserve, So lets be careful what we wish for there.

    For all of the above, Borrows has broken the law and deserves a conviction. However, I wonder if he’ll be offered diversion, as I imagine this will be his first serious offence (other than a speeding ticket a few years ago),

    • dukeofurl 12.1

      Police guidelines mean you cant be offered diversion for a traffic offence which carries a mandatory minimum disqualification, as this one does.

      I thought i was the only one who could see the blatant gerrymanders of central NI electorates.

      • te reo putake 12.1.1

        Cheers, good knowledge!

        The shape of the Whanganui seat really bugs me, as it effectively separates the town from its hinterland and near neighbours. Basically, I reckon that anywhere the Whanganui Chronicle* is sold should be part of the electorate. That would include Waverley to the west, Marton to east and Taihape to the north. That would be the area that actually forms the Whanganui district economically and socially.

        *NZ’s longest surviving newspaper or so I’m told. I’ve unintentionally featured in front page photos on two occasions. Sales plummetted.

        • Anne 12.1.1.1

          I’ve unintentionally featured in front page photos on two occasions. Sales plummetted.

          Why’s that? You surely can’t be that ugly. :mrgreen:

          • te reo putake 12.1.1.1.1

            Actually, both occasions were in my youth, when I fancied myself as a punk/new romantic/Sebastian from Brideshead style icon. The chiselled cheekbones are long gone, but I’ve still got a full head of hair and most of my teeth. And I still hate the Eagles.

            • Psycho Milt 12.1.1.1.1.1

              And I still hate the Eagles.

              Fuck, yes. Glad to hear it.

            • Rosie 12.1.1.1.1.2

              Fair enough on the Eagles and go the new romantics buzz you had going on back in the day. Back in the day, way way back, (eg, up to 19th century and possibly early 20th) “a full set of teeth” used to be a trading bonus for those using the services of professional match makers in Ireland. True Story.

              If things get any worse in our economy you may have to trade in your teeth for a new set of whiteware if your appliances crap out on you, or you need a new set of tyres or something. Best to take care of them.

              • Good advice Rosie, I’ll give ’em a good going over in a few minutes. Sadly, I seem to recall hearing that NZ has one of the worst rates of tooth decay in kids. Something to be proud of, eh?

                You might find this bit of dental news interesting: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/pogues-frontman-shane-macgowan-reveals-7046421

                And apropos of nothing, anybody know why we scrub our teeth in cold water? We wash pretty much the rest of our bodies in hot water. Is there a good reason for turning the cold tap on?

                • Anne

                  Probably to do with the toothpaste. Hot water would probably cause it to dissipate faster and be less effective. That’s an educated guess from an ex-School Dental Nurse – a long time ago.

                • Rosie

                  Always good to keep up with the dental news in Shane McGowans world, thank you TRP. This bit explains the issue prior to the restoration and is a timely warning to any of us, who risk straying off the straight and narrow:

                  “Shane’s oral issues were the result of years of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as constant fighting.”

                  As for water temperature and oral hygiene, I go for tepid to warm water when cleaning me pearlers. Cold water is not good for sensitive teeth.

                  Jim Anderton once said we should have universal dental care in NZ btw, and I fully support that.

                  As for staying on topic, please see comment at 16.

                • William

                  When I was a child I did once rinse my toothbrush under the hot tap. All the bristles fell out.
                  We usually wash our bodies using warm water, not hot. Most handbasins have separate hot & cold taps rather than a mixer arrangement so for those of us who use a cupped hand to get rinse water to the mouth it would be painful. Next time you remodel your bathroom talk to your designer about the latest trends in mixers 🙂

  13. stigie 13

    “They have every right to expect hostility, obstruction and contempt wherever they go. Diddums.”

    Yes and someone gets their little toes run over and then a big fuss over nothing.
    One can’t help thinking this was staged. BTW OAB Diddums !

  14. Ross 14

    Wasn’t Paula Bennett sitting next to him? She should have had a good view of the protestors. I’m surprised (nah, not really) that she didn’t tell him to stop.

    The worst part of this is that after running over the two women he kept on driving. I mean, that’s the sort of behaviour you’d expect from Paula but not from other Tory ministers.

  15. fisiani 15

    Just saw the picture accompanying the post. No one was taken to hospital by ambulance. Very misleading. Typical.

    [Oh, do piss off. The photos are from the incident and are of the injured woman being treated by ambulance staff before being taken to A&E. I hope nobody minds if I give Fisiani a holiday for abject stupidity? No objections? Righto, a week it is. TRP]

  16. Rosie 16

    In 1999 Christine Clark, the wife of a port worker in Lyttleton was intentionally run down whilst on a picket line at the port. She died that new year’s eve in hospital as a result of the brain injury sustained from the impact of the SUV. The driver was charged with manslaughter.

    When I saw the footage of Chester Burrows, several months ago, wilfully driving at the protesters, albeit at snails pace, I saw the same ugly hatred that comes from those who refuse to tolerate lawful dissent and who will go to the extreme of using a weapon, in both cases a vehicle, to shut people up because in their eyes they are a nuisance.

    While Derek Powell’s actions can’t be compared to Chester Burrows, and while one intentional act resulted in death and the other the injury of two women, the intention of abuse is the same.

    Chester Burrows needs to be fully held to account for his actions, but I doubt he will for reason’s pointed out already in the NRT link, despite the fact this behaviour is unacceptable in anyone, but especially an MP.
    He should stand down. Our PM, who, by some sick joke is STILL a white ribbon ambassador, should tell Burrows to man up and take responsibility for intentionally injuring these two women.

  17. Repateet 17

    No problem for Chester. He’ll just get to be chauffeured everywhere in a Ministerial car. He is the Minister for Wanganui Collegiate isn’t he?

    You know Wanganui Collegiate, which I saw quoted recently as the answer to the argument about schools not being closed if they’re “failing” state schools whereas “failing” private schools do close.

    Ministry of Education thought it shouldn’t be bailed out by letting it become integrated but they and Parata were over-ruled by Cabinet.

    Wanganui Collegiate’s cost us more than $9 million so far and though Chesters wearing it this time he’s done us a service by proving to wankers like David Farrar that failing private schools do not just close. His lowlife buddies like Borrows see that their interests are looked after.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8345722/Parata-overruled-on-Collegiate-integration

    • dukeofurl 17.1

      Hes been dropped from ministerial ranks for a few years now. So it will be taxis

  18. Ross 18

    Burrows didn’t seem to want to stop and it’s clear the protestors were standing directly in front of his car. He says: “I was inching forward, they were taken out of the road, and I didn’t drive until the road was clear.” In fact, at no time did he stop. I do hope he doesn’t lie to the court.

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/police-investigate-whether-borrows-ran-over-protesters-foot/

  19. john 19

    Lesson 1: Don’t stand in front of a moving car?
    Don’t we teach 4 year olds this?
    Lesson 2: “Protesters” have the right to protest. This does NOT give them the right to stop others from exercising their rights, in this case driving a car in a driveway.
    When no injuries (of note) are sustained, stop lying around like an acting soccer player. Just to get political attention for your protest.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Seventy-eight new Police constables
    Extra Police officers are being deployed from Northland to Southland with the graduation of a new wing of recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College. “The graduation of 78 constables today means that 1524 new constables have been deployed since the government took office,” says Police Minister Stuart Nash. ...
    3 weeks ago