Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:59 pm, April 12th, 2016 - 27 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
“Duncan Garner @DuncanGarnerNZ 6m6 minutes ago
Late notice – but we asked the PM on tonight to clear up why he has money in a foreign trust here in NZ, he has said no. @TheStoryNZ TV# 7pm” – seems everyone is suffering from “KDS” today!
Antipodes Trust Group Limited = tip of JK’s secret foreign trusts iceberg
He will deny or distract as much as possible
Catch him if you, or anyone, can
Two examples of the limited options women have for stopping sexual assault.
Content warning in links for descriptions of sexual assault.
Prominent NZer not convicted of indecent assault on two girls.
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/making-him-stop.html
Naming a predator/abuser on social media.
(I’ve taken the name out, ts mods can decide if it should be published here).
http://thespinoff.co.nz/11-04-2016/i-will-come-forward/
Good work by all three writers.
That prominent nzr, lawyers are a disgrace, and the simplistic arguments he used from what I heard were very disagreeable to me too say the lest. Pissed off
👿
Yep – me too !
He was found innocent. Yet you guys talk as if he was guilty – and that’s a problem. You don’t know the guy, you did not hear all the evidence and don’t seem to be able to accept that the people who did do not believe he commited the crimes.
Weka. You understand that there was not sexual assault in this instance right?? You have to remember that there are limited options for the innocent party in this matter as well.
i hope the girls will be left alone now by the prominent NZ’ler.
But what about the safety of the girls around where he is now.
The water debate goes from the ridiculous to the ridiculous. At least we are being honest now, we’re willing to destroy our environment if we get paid for it. Enough with the pathetic excuse framing though.
Pushing for swimmable waterways would destroy the livelihood of the Manawatu, according to a regional councillor.
On Tuesday Horizons councillors voted against pushing the Government to aim for a harder target than wadeable waterways.
“It is just not physically possible unless you want to destroy the livelihood of this region and the agricultural sector by imposing those sorts of standards for every day of the year,” Palmerston North councillor Murray Guy said.
The region’s waterways had to contend with silt from hills after major storms, and effluent coming off paddocks after heavy rain, he said.
…
When the council debated the issue, Guy had similar reasoning.
“You can’t expect every stream in the country to be swimmable for every day of the year, for every year of the decade.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/78827128/swimmable-waterways-would-destroy-the-livelihood-of-manawatu
It is official. Money/Profit > clean water.
Cool. now we have that sorted.
Feel free to email him to give him a blast: m.guy@xtra.co.nz.
Sounds like a PR line. A line that will get people to nod their heads sagely and agree.
Thing is, they used to be swimmable every day of the year and our actions shouldn’t change that. If not destroying the environment will endanger livelihoods then those people are in the wrong job. No job should endanger peoples actual lives.
He’s also conflating occassional events, like floods, with permanent pollution form farming, in an attempt to set up a false argument.
Of course he is. As I say, RWNJs have to lie because reality always proves them wrong.
The region’s waterways had to contend with silt from hills after major storms, and effluent coming off paddocks after heavy rain, he said.
And WHY is the silt coming off the hills after heavy storms ? because all the vegetation that would have stopped it, has been chopped down.
and WHY does the effluent come off paddocks after heavy rain? because there is no vegetation between the paddocks and rivers to stop it going into the waterways.
It wouldn’t ruin the farmers to do a bit more planting here and there, and it would do wonders for the environment and the waterways if the, and the councillors were a bit more responsible .
I think I have heard Mike Joy say that even planting is not enough to stop pollution, you have to destock paddocks if you want to clean streams and rivers. That makes sense if each cow is producing something like 25 litres of urine a day times that by a 100 or more cows in a paddock… Planting is at least part of the solution though and it would stop those eroding stream bank you always see driving through the country.
+1
Well said
Search ICIJ’s Offshore Leaks database.
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/
Such a vast amount of work has gone into that database. The visual representation of individual entries provides further clarity.
Love the Photo.
Two midgets between tokes
True
Can I just say – A BIG thank you BLiP,
For years you have being keeping a well documented, and researched list of all of this Prime Ministers lies, and the lies of this government.
At this point I have been able to pull out that list to prove to people that there is a systemic problem with this government, and the way they do business.
For that, Thank you my friend.
Hugs and Bikkies.
National proves that it doesn’t understand human rights:
Just because the law allows the government to piss all over human rights doesn’t mean that human rights aren’t breached when it does so.
This pic shows it as it is. And the correct response.
Have spent 30 minutes tonight with someone in a call centre deinstalling Microsoft 10, which I had not wanted to install in the first place, and then a bit later another box pops up saying a Microsoft 10 upgrade will start in 59 minutes. The call centre has since closed, and I just wondered if anyone knows a straightforward way to stop this from happening?
Half of families denied full benefit increase
Typical Tories. They just can’t stand others having money.
They raised base benefits for half the families.
That’s a damn sight better than what other governments have done over the last 30 years.
True. In fact, most of them have cut benefits – including this one which they did at the same time as increasing benefits.