Daily review 05/08/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, August 5th, 2019 - 104 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:


Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

104 comments on “Daily review 05/08/2019”

  1. A 1

    Sounds crap.  Here's 20 mins of review of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

    On a similar topic (crap) here's Quentin Tarantino defending Roman Polanski's rape of a 13 year old girl.  My point is don't see the movie because you will support a rape apologist.

    • Puckish Rogue 1.1

      Check out Chris Stuckmann movies on YouTube, hes very accurate

    • James 1.2

      most of the reviews seem to be very positive about the movie.

      Watched a trailer. Looks entertaining.

      [Good evening, James. Have you figured yet who that Green MP is you were thinking about yesterday? I just checked and as it so happens, there is a spot available on the TS naughty step – Incognito]

      • Incognito 1.2.1

        See my Moderation reminder to you @ 7:20 PM.

      • James 1.2.2

        yes – I stand corrected- it was not a MP. Still a snr member in the Green Party. 

        And my comment above is accurate- happy to link to the good reviews if you wish. 

        • Robert Guyton

          Not a Green MP?

          Facts, eh! Who needs 'em! Little wonder people dismiss your claims reflexively, James. Get your act together if you want to be part of a worthwhile discussion; stick to the facts, don't put words in the mouths of others, back up your claims. Easy. Fun.

        • Incognito

          Thank you, James, for self-correcting a silly mistake. Please don’t make a habit out of it.

          I am not interested in that movie or its reviews but thanks nonetheless; undoubtedly, there are others who may feel differently about it.

    • Puckish Rogue 2.1

      And counting down to a ponytail reference in 3.2.1…

      • chris T 2.1.1


        I am picking that, or ignoring the issue.

        • Puckish Rogue

          Looks like you win smiley

          • Robert Guyton

            Christy .v. Pucky – battle of the giants!

            Of course it could be that very few people have visited Daily Review tonight, skewing the result. I also notice that Pucky was straight into mention of a ponytail, again, muddying the sample. Have you guys not done this sort of thing before?

      • Robert Guyton 2.1.2

        Chris T wears a ponytail?

        • Incognito

          Crikey! I thought he was as bald as a bat.

          • Robert Guyton

            Ah! The famed Billiard Ball Bat, you'll be thinking of! That bald bat. Chris T could well be a woman, of course, if she was playing on the sound of her real name: Christy. Therefore, probably not bald and maybe ponytailed. Perhaps.

            • Incognito

              Ok, fair point. BTW, women can go bald too in which case I’d feel bad for Christy

      • Rapunzel 2.1.3

        You know before I even checked in here having seen this on another site, I wish I could bet mega bucks that and how this was raised. Expect more of it IMHO and I would make an offer to the National Party to show them when they show theirs which hasn't happened yet after quite some time.

      • Gabby 2.1.4

        Baggy Marry might be relieved to see the focus shift puckers.

    • Robert Guyton 2.2

      Might not? Hardly likely to add to their allure. Is that gloat I smell on your breath, Chris T?

      • chris T 2.2.1


        It was always going to be one or the other.

        Ignoring beats whataboutism on the day.

        • Puckish Rogue

          Now Twyfords looking shaky with allegations at the CAA

          Cant someone from Labour explain to its members that sexual harrassment is not ok, that it's a big deal, that it's not perks of the job and shouldn't be swept under the carpet

        • Incognito

          Nobody is ignoring you, Christy, but what about Pucky?

    • McFlock 2.3

      It's a bit shit, really.

      Seven complaints and no action? Something stinks.

      • Robert Guyton 2.3.1

        We think it might be Chris's breath, McFlock. That, along with the supposed baldness, makes him/her seem an unfortunate character; still, it's all conjecture, like his story about Labour.

        • McFlock

          The report makes some specific claims about process, though. Easy enough to outright reject.

          Not to mention all talking about the same dude.

          As you point out, the headline is a bit overkeen. And the local tory salivating is a bit shit. But this should still have been handled better

        • chris T

          It is all good Robbo'

          I completely understand how awkward it must be to face the realism of having your leaders office, in reality being a den of debauchery and perversion.

          I doubt I would want to address it either.

          • Robert Guyton

            Not all good, obviously but that office is not that of my leader and your description of it as a den, etc. is just silly. As for not "addressing" it, I've done so plenty of times already tonight; are you reading any comments other than your own?

          • Incognito

            A den on the ninth floor of the Beehive!? Well, strike me down with a bald bat.

        • Rapunzel

          There's a group of them that "hang" together elsewhere who never raised a peep about the non-existent (?) failured to appear inquiry into stuff inside the National Party, the "Tova" at the top of the story was equally predicatable and along that line there appeared to be a couple of women who were always out for a gloat re anything that coule possibly be reflected badly on the PM but then misogyny was never just an aspect solely of male behaviour.

          I'm not pointing that at any of the complainants or their complaints just those carry chips on their shoulders whose sole passion is to gloat.

      • Robert Guyton 2.3.2

        You know, I can't read where Labour were forced to review their investigation. It says so in the headline, but not in the article, so far as I can see; Pucky? Chris T?

        • Puckish Rogue

          Is it really that difficult for people in Labour to not sexually harass someone, I've successfully managed to not sexually harass anyone over the 45 years of my life without really even trying angel

          • Robert Guyton

            Imagine how godly you'd be if you did try, Pucky! How much safer everyone would feel!

            You're underselling yourself. Settling for merely not doing something is easy enough. I don't admire Judith Collins and find that an effortless thing to do but I don't expect credit for it.

            • Puckish Rogue

              I recall you saying something about not taking no for answer in regards to a spinster aunt so I'll bow to your greater knowledge on the subject angel

          • McFlock

            It's the insidious infiltration of the patriarchy into all communities. No organisation is above rape culture, sadly.

          • Gabby

            Baggy Marry might be relieved to see the focus shift puckers.

        • James

          Interesting that having read the article with multiple complaints including sexual assault the wording of the headline was your takeaway. 

          • Robert Guyton

            Couldn't find evidence that Labour was forced to review either, James?

            You and me both. Nothing to support that claim. Probably fake.

            • James

              and the seven complaints about the labour staffer – think they are fake as well Robert?

              • Robert Guyton

                Oh, one thing at a time, James. I'm firstly interested in the claim that Labour was forced to review, James. Can't find anything to back up that claim, can you??

                • James

                  Lol. Typical focus on a minor detail and ignore multiple complaints of a serious nature. 

                  It’s Behaviour like that that allow things like this to go on. 

                  • Robert Guyton

                    Well, James, if you can solve my riddle, I'll move on to attend to your issues, m'kay?

                    • James

                      Nah – you go on ignoring sexual assaults.

                      you seem to prefer that. 

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Can't do it, huh? Me neither; it seems to have been made up! It pays to look closely at the claims journalists and editors make, eh, James!

        • chris T

          The frantic denial anything is wrong in the PMs office is quite funny, well it would be if people weren't being abused in it.

          • Robert Guyton

            Who made the frantic denial, chris T?

            • chris T

              Apologies. Peoples lack of acknowledging the actual issue lead me to think this was happening.

          • Psycho Milt

            Sorry, I just had a terrible flashback to 2014.  But, yes – who made the frantic denial, Chris?

            • chris T

              I don't know what you mean.

              Is it the 26 odd year old's waitresses ponytail pulling?

              Interesting you think the issues are at the same level of seriousness.

              Says a lot really.

              • Robert Guyton

                Says you read your too much into the comments of others, Chris T.

                Best you pin down exactly what other people say and mean before you fill in the gaps with your own prejudice. You've got form doing that, as has James. You mates?

                • chris T

                  I am not going to go trawling back through news reports from 2014 to get a posters point when they could have just said it.

                • Rapunzel

                  Maybe so, if they are, or are not, I think some of this is the overflow from the notification from the Disqus site that "private" chat groups will be discontinued from Sept 1st – there was a strong "tradition" for a "fake" headline on there followed by general gloating via the fake "debates" that often ensued – I'll butt out now but in a few days you may recognise that I may be right. 

              • How soon we forget the frantic denials anything was wrong in the PM's office back in 2014, when it was revealed one of his staff had been running a dirty politics operation therefrom.  Cruel of you to cast us back to those unpleasant times, especially since no frantic denials anything is wrong in the current PM's office have been reported (at least, not that I've seen).

      • Rosemary McDonald 2.3.3

        Seven complaints and no action? Something stinks. 

        Well, stap me, The Standard stalwarts think bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assaults amount to shits and giggles and lols.

        More than a 'bit shit'. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.

        Really disappointed it took nineteen comments before someone actually pointed out how shit this is.

        • Robert Guyton

          No they don't, Rosemary. "They" haven't commented on the substance of the issue, which is something very different from what you claim. James and Chris T are running the same line. What the "stalwarts" have done here is test the voracity of the claims made by the visitors from the Right who have come, glistening with gloat, to make unsubstantiated claims with the intention of whipping up anguish based on an article that seems, to my mind at least, lacking in rigour. I imagine if the matter was posted in the usual way, it would be addressed in the way you indicate wyou'd find more appropriate. James and Chris T don't quite fit the profile of respected commenters here, hence the teasing they received. In my opinion.

          • James

            Sadly Robert seems to be an enabler – quite happy to ignore the sexual assaults and focused on everything and  anything else trying to change the subject. 

            Ignoring the victims- exactly the behaviour that they are complaining about. 

            • Robert Guyton

              You run that line so often, James: if someone chooses not to discuss the aspect you want them to discuss, you attack them for what they haven't said; it's an idiotic ploy and I can see why you favour it, using it over and over, delighting only yourself (Chris T too, I suppose). James, I don't expect you'll be able to fathom what I mean, but others watching might. 

              I'm not going to mention that I'm off to bed now.

        • McFlock

          Oh really, I didn't realise there was a benchmark on the continuum of shit we were supposed to reference in order to meet your required level of outrage. Obviously "a bit shit" was too low. My mistake, I'll make sure to calibrate my shitlevel properly next time and go straight to "completely apeshit" at the first glimpse of an exclusive report that has allegedly been researched for "nearly a month" and yet has no indication of approaching the people who actually conducted the investigation being complained about.


          • weka

            I struggled with the sight of a bunch of men politicising rape culture and using it to have a go at each other and cracking jokes. I saw it and walked away. There are reasons why women find it hard to comment here, and this thread is one of them. Not that all the comments from the men were bad. Just the general tenor of the conversation.

            (btw, I thought Rosemary was pointing to your comment as the nineteenth that finally said Labour's handling was shit).

            • Robert Guyton

              Hi, weka. It risk of further irritating you and Rosemary and any other women who "walked away" from this thread, I think it's worth exploring the tensions here. This has happened many times before and never resolved, so far as I've seen. While I see what you mean when you say the tenor of the conversation was "bad", I think others here will not have found that to be the case. That badness you perceive relates to the claims made in the article linked-to by Chris T. Therein lies the problem. The "stalwarts" here, I think, question the validity of the article and the motivations for Chris linking to it, as well as the inappropriateness of "requiring" everyone to respond to the claims made therein on a late-evening "general" thread, simply because an easily-recognised troll/irritant demanded that we did, aided by James and Puckish Rogue; need I say more? That several "stalwarts" chose instead to wait for an author from the site to post on the issue, should they deem it important enough to do so, when serious commentary would be worth investing in. Teasing and frustrating the likes of Chris and James over details of their claims isn't the same as 'politicising rape culture', though I can see that it feels that way to those sensitive to such behaviour. At least, that's my opinion. I'm sorry that the situation arose where people felt aggrieved, but I think further exploration of the thread would show that something else happened and was misconstrued, unintentionally. Does this help, weka?

            • Rosemary McDonald

              (btw, I thought Rosemary was pointing to your comment as the nineteenth that finally said Labour's handling was shit).

              Thank you Weka. You read that perfectly.

              I struggled with the sight of a bunch of men politicising rape culture and using it to have a go at each other and cracking jokes.   Me too.

              There are reasons why women find it hard to comment here, and this thread is one of them. Not that all the comments from the men were bad. Just the general tenor of the conversation.  Give credit where credit is due weka, it was a successful derail.

              • McFlock

                Sorry – I read it as saying "a bit shit" was inadequate enough to keep me in the y'all category.

            • McFlock

              One or two commenters seemed to be treating the news with unabashed glee.

              It made me quite angry.

        • Incognito

          Sorry to disappoint that “Standard stalwarts” don’t meet your expectations and don’t get your approval. However, you make a grave mistake concluding from this that they think a certain way about a serious topic.

          Nobody is forced here in Daily review to address points raised by others in a certain way. People can ignore issues altogether if they wish or raise their own points. Further, everybody has different ways of letting off steam at the end of a long day.

          With that out of the way, I like to point out that the exclusive article linked @ 2 was not about “bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assaults” per se but about the internal review process of the Labour Party into these alleged actions. They are two different things and it is false equivalence to treat them as equal or even one and the same thing; they clearly are not.

          Lastly, if we were to jump every time some click-baiting headline appears in MSM with accompanying sensationalism, we would spend more time up in the air than on the ground. With an ‘exclusive’ like this, there are basically two options: 1) wait for more info, or 2) challenge the speculative elements and demand answers and facts. A third option could be to accept it as Gospel and put your hands in the air.

          The ‘exclusive’ is not an opinion piece but apparently an investigative story/report by a journalist or team of journalists. It fails on two journalistic counts: 1) balance, and 2) fairness. In addition, it is poorly written; one sentence appeared twice, for example.

          • Robert Guyton

            Yes, Incognito, you explain the situation very well. Cool heads, eh!

            • Incognito

              It is and will be happening more and more, and not just here on TS. I’m thinking of doing a post on this.

    • James 2.4

      Including sexual assault. 

      Here is hoping they involved the police right at the outset on this one. 

      But I’m guessing they didn’t. 

      Wonder why ?  Seems repeated behaviour. 

      • Robert Guyton 2.4.1

        James! With a bit of luck there'll be some unsavoury words you can repeat ad nauseum!

        What a night!

        • Incognito

          James would be so lucky indeed.

        • Puckish Rogue

          Still better than the Labour members actually allegedly committing those unsavoury and illegal acts though wink

          • McFlock

            Impressively high character test you set, there. /sarc

          • Incognito

            Please read my comment to James @ 2.4.3 and please be careful how you choose your words here on TS. I have edited your comment to show you what I mean.

      • Psycho Milt 2.4.2

        Here is hoping they involved the police right at the outset on this one.

        Involved the Police in what?  And do the alleged victims get a say in that, or have you decided it for them?

      • Incognito 2.4.3

        Have you actually read the link provided @ 2?

        Do you know what allegations are and what alleged means? It is even in the headline so it is obviously an important distinction and qualifier and it appears 10 times in the piece. I wonder why that might be.

    • ankerawshark 2.5


      • greywarshark 2.5.1

        Women who walk away – are probably very wise.   Sometimes there is more heat than light.    Banning James and Chris T and some others who are not interested in thinking about the problems of our time and trying to find solutions, but just stirring and upsetting, would be a useful action. And women who think as victims and want sympathy and agreement with everything they say, they may still walk away with feelings hurt, but not so often and not too stay away feeling doubly victimised.

        There would be less of this whirlpool of attacks, yah-boo child stuff at the level of you've got nits, which take up a lot of the time of earnest, sincere commenters (and moderators).    Why do you allow such people to do this when you could give them bans for a decent length of time encouraging the commenters who despise what goes on as above, to come back?  I miss them, and their range of opinions that were worth reading unlike the dedicated deadheads of the RW that we foster so they fester.    When a long-term commenter like me makes a request for change that seems reasonable and effective, I get treated like just another RW stirrer.    There seems a lack of respect for commenters, despite the avowed rules and regs.  

  2. Puckish Rogue 3

    Dude in the top left of the picture totally looks like Logan 

  3. Sacha 4

    Bryce Edwards has extensive reckons about the Greens conference that none of the writers he cites actually attended https://mailchi.mp/criticalpolitics/political-roundup-have-the-greens-done-enough-to-be-re-elected

    • Robert Guyton 4.1

      Pretty much all twaddle.

      • Dennis Frank 4.1.1

        Hard to disagree.  I'll except a single point made by Trotter:  the GP leadership cabal as a cult of zealots.  Groupthink makes it seem true, yet James has clearly been more of a moderate centrist in his practical politics this year.  Gareth & Marama disagreeing with Jack's purist leftism is another sign that realpolitik is prevailing over the groupthink.

        So although Trotter's point is my own perennial complaint about them in different words, over-stated, perhaps the primary symptom of a problem is the `closed to media' signal.  The gloss James put on that seemed unconvincing.

        As if he is tacitly conceding that there's a centrist vs leftist war going on at the grass-roots membership level that the cabal doesn't want the media to discover.  I doubt the Greens are capable of such intensity of political motivation – I've never seen such evidence in them that they have any natural tendency to ideological warfare whatsoever.

        There is, however, a natural division between idealists & pragmatists.  The latter build consensus, whereas the former can't handle the test and default to their tacit narcissism to evade reality.

  4. weka 5

    The call has gone out for local people to head out to Ihumātao again as the police have upped their numbers and are moving on the land.


    "I've just heard police have sent in around 60 cops into the fields and into Ihumātao Quarry Road. Kaitiaki sitting at the front lines are currently sandwiched in, while kaitiaki at the ātea are being blocked from bringing food and blankets in. #ProtectIhumātao"

    "Police have waited for the cover of darkness to swarm in and terrorise a dozen freezing land protectors who have been holding the front line. If you can get to Ihumaatao, go now!"

  5. weka 6


  6. Pat 7

    I dont have a lot of time for Mr Woodford's usual take on CC related issues but on this one I have to agree….this is looking more and more like a poorly designed policy that should have been a walk in the park.

    "If New Zealand is to plant large areas of trees, beyond the ten to twenty-hectare woodlots that farmers might plant on lower quality land within their pastoral farming enterprises, then that planting needs to happen in a considered way using land where forestry is indeed the most appropriate long-term land-use.

    Those areas of suitability need to be officially designated as such, using ecological and socio-economic criteria. The assignment process needs to be led by central government."


    • Robert Guyton 7.1

      Pat, Woodford says,

      "It is also ironic that planting trees for carbon trading is a short-term activity tied to the length of the first rotation" but I wonder if the real value of millions and millions of trees being planted here is that over the next 30 or so years, they'll be becoming forests and forests are not trees, they act on the climate in a way that's unique to …forests. We might all benefit enormously from that and who knows, those forests might never be felled; they might be augmented with diverse plantings to create "real" rather than plantation forests – in 30 years, 20 years, 10 years time the whole situation could be very different. I  say, plant, plant, plant!

      • Pat 7.1.1

        The real value is the habitat but his point is valid, my preference is for forest and permanent in the main (no problem with some plantation for harvest) but the areas to be planted SHOULD be designated based on best outcome and the investment (and returns) should be NZ sourced…..it appears little thought has gone into this policy.

  7. weka 8

    Live Feed of the police escalation at Ihumātao. Looks like a long night. Protectors are still calling for people to go out.

  8. Muttonbird 9

    After NZ's own cesspool, Whale Oil, has been shut down, Kiwiblog's sister site, 8chan has crashed.

    There had been calls to terminate the forum before, which had become home to a cesspool of extremist imagery and bigoted rhetoric.

    Sound familiar?

    even the site's founder (Fredrick Brennan) said it provided a "receptive audience for domestic terrorists" and should be shut down.

    Why so surprised Fredrick? 

    "The rationale is simple: they have proven themselves to be lawless and that lawlessness has caused multiple tragic deaths," Cloudfare chief executive Matthew Prince wrote in a blog post.

    Duh. They are white supremacists and Jordan Petersen groupies, you fucking idiot.


  9. James 10

    i wonder with the escalation at Ihumātao this evening- is Jacinda going to personally try and stop reporters asking about it again ?  


Leave a Comment

Use WYSIWYG comments on next comment (inactive new feature)

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