Chainmail

43 comments on “Chainmail ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stephen 1

   14 November 2008 at 1:07 pm

   That is of course an abhorrent act…

   …but if people did the same to Farrar, would he be justified in saying on his blog that the people behind Clark are ‘orrible too?
2. Monty 2

   14 November 2008 at 1:13 pm

   I agree with Stephen and I do not believe that threats should not be made to someone and that it is cowardly to do so annomously.

   Of course Labour did use dirty negative tactics throughout the whole campaign. I was especially disguisted with the negative and vile posters put up around Wellington concerning Stephen Franks. Although I took much pleasure in taking them down, and also reporting/ complaining to the WCC where they were put up illegally (like on Lamposts) I regarded that as the extent of my objection.

   To make abusive threats is unacceptable and degrading the right down into a level that quite frankly is more what I would expect from the left.
   But what exactly did they say???
3. Brett Dale 3

   14 November 2008 at 1:13 pm

   If someone sent you offensive and threatening message in the mail, then that is a crime and you should contact the police.

   Then again, judging by your reaction to people who have been threatened and have had thier property damaged, its no big deal, and you should get over it, and its probably society’s fault anyway.
4. Steve Pierson 4

   14 November 2008 at 1:14 pm

   Well, these are tories and far from unique in my experience with tories. Key heads the Tories.

   But by-God it’s a nice smile, he just seems so happy all the time it makes me forget that many of the people he represents are of the Kiwiblog Right/Whaleoil ilk.
5. MikeE 5

   14 November 2008 at 1:18 pm

   Its disgusting that someone would send threatening material to you and in no way to I want to excuse it. But, they would not have had the ability to do so, if the EFA hadn’t of made it a legal requirement for you to put your home address on there.

   Same goes with the idiots who stuck knives into the Family First guys lawn.

   [the requirement to authorise political advertisements has existed since at least the Electoral Act 1993. the EFA broadened the definition of electoral ad but my ads would have been included in the old defination anyway. Remember, the Exclusive Brethren’s pamphlets had authorisation on them, just fake names. SP]
6. Steve Pierson 6

   14 November 2008 at 1:19 pm

   Brett, I’m sure the Police have more important things to deal with.

   Monty. This is a family blog, so I won’t quote the comments, they’re a little blue. Not very creative though.
7. the sprout 7

   14 November 2008 at 1:20 pm

   SP I have no doubt Key will be keen to start flushing his Brown Shirts now they’re more hinderance than help. And the more they are exposed and brought to account, the more of a hinderance to Key they’ll be.
8. Ianmac 8

   14 November 2008 at 1:24 pm

   And who would you report if it was unsigned hate mail?
   Was the knives event a self inflicted stunt like Wodney’s jacket?
9. Ianmac 9

   14 November 2008 at 1:27 pm

   Sprout: Not Brown shirts anymore. They have swapped to the black shirt “Make Way! Make Way!” Brigade.
   Helen used to shop at the local supermarket unaccompanied. Will John, or will he send the Black Shirt Brigade.
10. Tim 10

    14 November 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Statistically there are going to be idiots and thugs on both sides of the spectrum.
    I don’t condone it at all, but I would like to say that it in no way represents the majority of Mr Smiley’s supporters. I’m sure there are a number of left supporters that wouldn’t be above similar acts, and the more reasonable among us also don’t hold them as representative of the majority.
11. Rex Widerstrom 11

    14 November 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Which is why the EFA’s insistence on the authoriser publishing their home address is an invitation to every dangerous nutjob in the land to beat a path to your door. That people who’d run campaigns and no doubt seen the fruit loops they attract could force such a provision on their own party workers and supporters beggars belief.

    As someone whose family has been attacked in our home during a political campaign I’m going to come across as acting like your mother, Steve, but be wary of the potential for a small percentage of these crackpots to decide to remonstrate with you personally.
12. Kerry 12

    14 November 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Just goes to show….theres no such thing as a decent Tory!

    Lets hope while Keys jetting around the world at our expense he decides to stay away!

    He likes getting around does John…..seen Johns bill for the Ministerial Limos?? Was way more then the PM’s…..
13. Tim 13

    14 November 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Thanks Kerry for proving my point.
14. Vinsin 14

    14 November 2008 at 2:12 pm

    SP, any chance of going all CSI on the leaflets? Threats are never cool, i got a few after putting up some posters on our fence. I think Horatio Cane could track them down and then act all hard boiled, then they’d think twice.
15. randal 15

    14 November 2008 at 2:24 pm

    read the ‘fern and the tiki’ by david p. ausubel for an outsiders view of just how nasty creepy kiwis can be when they think they can get away with it
    mind you it takes the real tory spirit for it to be shown in all its glory
16. Inventory2 16

    14 November 2008 at 2:31 pm

    So Steve, you might now have an idea of how Bob McCoskrie felt when nutbars stuck hundreds of knives in his front lawn…or was that acceptable because you disagreed with what he was supporting?
17. Robinsod 17

    14 November 2008 at 2:34 pm

    No IV2 – that was funny… I mean, plastic utensils? That’s really really scary…
18. Vinsin 18

    14 November 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Inventory2, stop acting like a Reginald Smith, no-one here condones violence or threats of any kind be they made by lefties, or righties. You’re trying to throw unnecessary mud at someone for the sake of being a doosh. Well done, you’re a total doosh. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars go straight to dooshville and have a diet coke on me.
19. Chris G 19

    14 November 2008 at 2:44 pm

    Wow thats really unfortunate SP, fuck there are some dorks out in the world.

    Tim, I agree with you to some extent, but naturally i wouldnt say its 50/50.

    Do you reckon Bush got death threats to the level Obama has received upon being elected?

    I mean we could too and frow but I think the right have some serious bad apples. granted we’ve got anarchists – but I always wonder… do they even vote?

    Oh and inventory, I doubt anyone here thought putting knives in his lawn was a smart idea.
20. randal 20

    14 November 2008 at 3:08 pm

    file under goodbye natoinal
    this keys government will be lucky to finsh next year intact
    I can see an early election looming
21. Brett Dale 21

    14 November 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Steve:

    Just out of interest, what did they actually say? was it a threat? Or did they write abusive language? What was the context?

    If it was a threat, I would call the police.
22. Daveski 22

    14 November 2008 at 3:27 pm

    No one supports the actions of the lunatic fringe.

    But the lunatic fringe of any group should not be seen to be representative of the entire group.

    It’s obvious distressing for SP and it should be distressing for anyone on the right who is therefore associated with these nutters. Tosspots.

    I agree with Rex (actually, I find that happens a lot!) and it does seem unnaturally risky to compel that people use their home addresses. Heck, most of us here won’t even divulge our real names on a web site!
23. randal 23

    14 November 2008 at 3:32 pm

    yeah well
    as I said
    Keys and his mob will be gone by late next year anyway
24. Tim 24

    14 November 2008 at 3:48 pm

    randal, such a prediction from you is reassuring given your success rate so far. Key for 9 years it is then 🙂
25. gingercrush 25

    14 November 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Yes Randal, you lot here at The Standard have not exactly been accurate this election.

    SP said the Maori would get all seven seats. They didn’t. SP said internal polling pointed to a left victory it didn’t. Most said how inaccurate the polls would be. That wasn’t the case.

    In essence most assumptions and conclusions around here when it comes to the numbers game have been very wrong. And thus unlikely to be true.

    [lprent: Blog ~= opinion. It means that idea(s) are put up to be assessed for the backing ideas and the interpretation. If you’re looking for ‘truth’, we can’t help you. Even science has some very strong limitations about certainty. Try asking a physicist if the physical constants are all the same over long periods of time, say in the first 100 nsecs of the universe or at 200 billion years. ]
26. lprent 26

    14 November 2008 at 4:22 pm

    gingercrush: The polls were inaccurate. If you looked at the polls at the start of the campaign (say 6 or 12 weeks out), how close were they to the final result?
27. gingercrush 27

    14 November 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Um you always expect polls to be further out 6-12 weeks before an election. In 2002 which always showed an obvious left win polls showed a possibility for Labour to govern alone without a coalition partner. That never happened. As the election came closer Labour’s led eased and there was an increase in votes for New Zealand First and United Future (yes well that lousy worm). The polls in 2005 were volatile and this was because the difference between a centre-right and a centre-left win wasn’t much. That was evidenced by the small difference between Labour and National on election day. Thus, polls that year were largely inaccurate.

    It is wrong of me to say polls are accurate. Polls are never accurate in the sense that they typically just show trends. This year that the Greens would increase their vote; National had a clear lead; New Zealand First not making the 5% threshold; Labour polling low-mid 30s; Act’s vote slowly increasing, while United Future and Progressives were unlikely to get another seat. The polls did show that. In the middle of the real campaign it showed the possibility of the Maori party having the balance of power. This likely pointed to Labour’s strength in the first week of the campaign. As that strength seemed to fizzle out and National got themselves back into shape. The polls released on Thursday before the election pointed to that.

    If we look ahead to 2011. One possibility is that National’s support falls and Labour is an effective opposition and polls 12 weeks before the election show both sides are close. In that situation, look again to 2005 which will likely show high volatility between polls.

    Lets say National fizzes out and Labour has a great three years and polls 12 weeks out from an election show a clear centre-left win. Then the polls are likely to continue to track that, but what you may see is some tightening much like what we had this year except it still shows more likelihood of a Centre-left government.

    And if god forbid a situation like 2002 happens and Labour polls high numbers, likely 50% or more then expect that support to drop. More votes will go towards the centre but they will still show a clear centre-left victory.

    I’m quite hoping National remains where it is and Labour has an awful result like National had in 2002. But that would be wishful thinking.

    But to answer your question. We’re both right. In that polls can’t be accurate but can show clear trends. But in some situations as in 2005 they can also be highly volatile. And sadly for those who favour the Greens. No matter how high they poll don’t expect that result on the day.
28. randal 28

    14 November 2008 at 4:57 pm

    yeah well gingakrush all the twobob tinpot tories around here are looking ashamed of themselves and wont even speak
    all they do is hang their heads when supposedly they won
    they know they have done something really horrible and its coming to get them
    its ok being right for five minutes but its the longhaul that counts and if John Keys is not stopped by the end of next year then people will be really hurting
    just as well parliamentary terms are not fixed so he can be disposed of before he does too much damage to the economy
29. Chess Player 29

    14 November 2008 at 5:01 pm

    GC,

    “We’re both right.”

    How can that be? Isn’t someone always to blame (someone other that ourselves, that is..)
30. gingercrush 30

    14 November 2008 at 5:15 pm

    I love how several people purposely spell my name wrong. I don’t even know why I chose the name I’m not even ginger. More bitter.

    Being a torie I am quite willing to speak up and not hang my head in shame. Thank you.
31. Phil 31

    14 November 2008 at 5:42 pm

    …and wont even speak

    You’re doing a great job filling the void.
32. randal 32

    14 November 2008 at 5:54 pm

    well you might speak but you have nothing to say
33. Rex Widerstrom 33

    14 November 2008 at 6:11 pm

    gingercrush

    I don’t even know why I chose the name I’m not even ginger. More bitter.

    Oh, a masochist eh? [insert redundant David Benson-Pope joke here].
34. lprent 34

    14 November 2008 at 7:10 pm

    ging: That is my position about polls. Useful for trends, useless for prediction. However that isn’t how they are presented in the media, where they are presented as being accurate predictors of end-results. Now if they had to put up as additional figures:-

    1. How many people contacted refused to answer
    2. How many people from the initial sample selection were unable to be contacted
    3. How many people using the techniques of the poll could not be selected

    Then there’d be a more accurate assessment of the validity of the polls. At present I suspect that they are largely measuring the much smaller set of the population with strong opinions (except for a brief period before the election).

    I’m also concerned that their techniques are getting more irrelevant. Being able to get in direct contact with people using listed landlines (the main technique) has been diminishing for decades. In some areas of the country it is the exception rather than the rule. I think that the polls should also be required to give some details about how the polls are conducted. Otherwise the ‘consumers’ of the polls, ultimately the public, have no way of establishing the likely validity of the polls.
35. randal 35

    14 November 2008 at 7:59 pm

    hey gingacrucnch
    these guys at the standard are not my mates
    they know I’m the chief redneck
    the vandal from hell
    chuckle
36. Akldnut 36

    14 November 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Hey ginge don’t fret it mate, Ive got a quick poll for you,

    1.How long do you feel Key will last before he gets kicked as leader.
    2.Will he resign from the party if he gets kicked.
    3.How many police will be needed to quieten drunken crowds celebrating his sacking.
    4.Will NZ ever learn, or will the be sucked in yet again by another “wolf in sheeps clothing?”
37. gingercrush 37

    14 November 2008 at 10:18 pm

    1. He’ll last two full terms as Leader and knowing how National does things, he’s out sometime during the third term. I’m going with a position that National lasts three terms in office. Cracks will appear in that third term. I’ll say this much, I expect National to be in the best position to govern again in 2011.

    2. If the caucus has the numbers to oust John Key. He will be ousted.National has a long history of ousting its leaders when the polls reach the stage of no return. As per tradition if someone else has the numbers, John Key will have no choice but to resign.

    3. Just the 10 sad left protestors. In otherwords, I really don’t expect things to change much it’ll be like the Clark government an era of stability.

    4. Depends on whether John Key is a wolf or not. As a National supporter who voted National this election. I have full confidence in his ability to lead a good and stable government. I’d like to think New Zealand always makes the right choice when they choose which side to give more support in an election. This year that was a centre-right government.

    —
    You as a left leaning person may well not believe in John Key or the Centre-right government that he is leading. That is your opinion and is shared by others. Just like others see good signs in the centre-right government. History will show whether New Zealand made the right choice or not. Or perhaps history will show that some liked the era of John Key while others did not.

    I say that. Because if you look at the Muldoon government from 1975-1984 which I was born into (1983). For some people they see Muldoon as legendary. Not only was he a charismatic leader but he knew what was good for the country. His “think big” ideas were visionary and today those “think big” infrastructure continue to have such importantance in our life today. His super annuation system too is used today. He set New Zealand up for the future.

    While, others deplore the Muldoon era. The beginning of the end for our status as an economic leader. An era that meant the extraordinary pains of the 80s and 90s had to happen because Muldoon brought so much debt and deficit to this country’s accounts. An era where the Muldoon government lost the popular vote twice and yet continued to lead the country.

    Recent governments starting from the Muldoon era seems to be a love/hate relationship.

    Either you loved the Muldoon era or you despised it. Likewise, the 1984-1990 government which saw the rogernomic reforms and New Zealand saying no to nuclear submarines. Either you love that era, or you hate it. The 1990-1999 National government. Some brutal reforms but an era which saw the possibility of surpluses and treaty claims to Maori. Some still look to that era and like it, others don’t.

    How will people judge the Helen Clark era which saw stable years of economic prosperity. For some this may be an era loved. For others equally they could see an era of political correctness and unnecessary social reform.

    In any of those eras, you may say that was pretty good or you’re in the middle. Perhaps you didn’t love it, but neither did you hate it. History can often be an opinion. All three previous eras before the Clark government are essentially an opinion of that history. I suspect so too will the Helen Clark and John Key eras.

    —–

    I would like to say. Eventually, I don’t see the Clark government as being a love/hate era. I don’t think its going to be history that is largely opinionated. Rather you loved it or it was pretty good. I’m a National supporter. But I too see many good things the Clark government gave to this country. Perhaps the difference between the Clark era and the other three. Was that they adapted to the changes other eras brought and gave New Zealand stability. Meaning they did change things, but it was never the sweeping changes previous eras had. But we don’t know yet. History will show us I guess.
38. deemac 38

    15 November 2008 at 12:22 am

    I think ginger is suffering from delusions of importance if he thinks us busy folk have time to read his loooong whines.
    Thank you SP for all your excellent posts. And shame on the bastards who think anonymous threats are OK. The idea that there is some sort of equivalence between left and right here is fatuous. No-one I know condones that sort of behaviour whereas plenty of the comments here show that some rightwingers think they can be justified. Disgusting.
39. John BT 39

    15 November 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Diddums.
40. Brett Dale 40

    15 November 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Yes people who abuse other people arent cool and its awful if they do it anonymously, kinda like left wing protesters who always hide their faces when protesters yelling out abuse to anyone who disagrees with their world view.
41. giggles 41

    16 November 2008 at 11:59 am

    randal,
    your predictions to date have all fallen flat on their face so I wouldn’t be racing off to ipredict with your latest if i were you.

    you said “if John Keys is not stopped by the end of next year then people will be really hurting”

    really, how do you figure that then? nostradamus you ain’t.
42. Madeleine 42

    16 November 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Steve, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    As someone who has put up with many anonymous threats, abuse, affronts to my freedom of conscience and association and invasions of my privacy for holding the “wrong” political views at the hands of the left I have no time for that sort of conduct from anyone but the left do that sort of thing all the time.
43. Pascal's bookie 43

    16 November 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Madeleine, do you really mean to say that Steve does these things? He’s the one throwing the stone here, are you saying he lives in a glass house?

    Or is it that because some on the left do this, and Steve is on the left then he is somehow responsible for those that have offended against you? Is this the glass house that you say Steve is in?

    The latter seems like a strange position for a libertarian to take, and one that of course cuts both ways and leaves everyone standing in a glass house. If no one can criticise this behaviour, then does that not make it acceptable?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS