Daily Review 14/12/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 14th, 2017 - 115 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 …

115 comments on “Daily Review 14/12/2017”

  1. millsy 2

    We should be wary of Seymour’s bill. I know of two people, who are impeccably credible who believe that their loved ones were euthanized unofficially at the local hospice. Were this bill to pass, we will hear even more and more whispers.

    Bill English has no right to complain either. He helped implement health reforms that essentially restricted access to health care for the poor and vulnerable who so suddenly cares about.

    • BM 2.1

      We should be wary of Seymour’s bill. I know of two people, who are impeccably credible who believe that their loved ones were euthanized unofficially at the local hospice

      And the problem with that is? you’re in hospice because you’re going to die.

      If I was dying and in pain and someone could end it all painlessly and in a way that didn’t cause stress to my family, then I’d gladly take that opportunity if it was offered.

      Far better for your family then stumbling across you having bled out from slitting your wrists or any of the other multitude of ways you can end your life.

      • Fireblade 2.1.1

        [deleted]?Do humanity a favour.

        [Nope. No place for that shit. Don’t do it again.] – Bill

      • I feel love 2.1.2

        Agree with BM here, and of course they do it in Hospices, are people that sheltered from reality? It’s always as a last resort, it really is. All Seymours bill is going to do if passed is add more bureaucracy, ironic really coming from ACT.

        • All Seymours bill is going to do if passed is add more bureaucracy, ironic really coming from ACT.

          Not if you have a look at their actions rather than their listen to their words. Their bills always increase the bureaucracy – just usually upon poor people.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3

        We should be wary of Seymour’s bill

        Of course we should: everything else ACT has done is toxic.

        This is the party that says their betters “shouldn’t be allowed to breed”: their end-game is a death camp.

        • BM 2.1.3.1

          Are you one of the Sky Pixie fan club?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.1.1

            Nope. I’m kind-of ambivalent about euthenasia. On the one hand it seems reasonable that people should be able to ‘die with dignity’, and on the other hand, ACT and the National Party author rhetoric that supports eugenics, and pass laws that kill poor people.

            So perhaps some sort of quid pro quo should be arranged.

      • Foreign waka 2.1.4

        BM- you are missing the point. “Unofficially euthanized” implies no consent – this is eugenics or you can call it murder. Since when is that OK?

        • BM 2.1.4.1

          “Unofficially euthanized”

          To me that means

          “Doc I’m in excruciating pain 24 hours a day, I just want it to end is there anything you can do?”

          Who would have a problem with that?

          • Grafton Gully 2.1.4.1.1

            Just ask them not to replace the drip bag and/or stop drinking.

            • greywarshark 2.1.4.1.1.1

              I have read about the not eating/drinking. It is surprising how long it takes to die. Our bodies are programmed to keep us going, our faithful servants, and won’t give up when we want them to.

              If we could get a thoughtful, thorough legal pathway that enables us to go when we want to, how good that would be. Something arranged, but in the background for when we chose, the will made, the accounts and policies to hand, and with family informed and involved and those who wanted, to be there at or around the time. Being there with someone dying is always hard, but if someone wants to go before everything shuts down, or the pain became too intense, you all could talk and reminisce and hold hands, and cry and share feelings and understand that it was just a bit shorter time than otherwise and easier for you all.

              Seeing that living to 50 was a big thing at one time, how can it be regarded as natural to keep being revitalised with hospital visits, transfusions etc etc
              so people can live to 90 and beyond. And it is unpleasant and gruesome to read of the visions that come into people’s heads because others want choice of time to die, ie talking about Nazis etc.

              Just ensure that there is plenty of opportunity for people in the Choice of Death groups to be involved in drawing up draft legislation to go before the Select Committee and then sort out the objections of those who want to speak, as to where they are coming from. Some people will argue about everything because they refuse to consider it. They should state that at the beginning of any objections and disagreement.

              There are some so assiduous at deciding other people’s lives for them that they will hold protests outside the hall where a speaker about euthanasia is invited to a meeting. Learning and thinking is not allowed in their minds. The prejudice of such people is absolute and they want to force their own ideas and objections on to others. They should have the right to their own extended old age, but not insist that others cannot do what they want and be given the right and opportunity to do.

                • greywarshark

                  Thanks Draco. It’s good that there are some people thinking about this matter and seeing that, with careful legal processes spelling out the basics and properly supervised, it could turn out to be a boon for old people.

                  Someone still feeling good could organise a great party and invite old friends, people from school, all the family, the present friends and acquaintances and have a bang-up party uniting everyone in a social event very pleasurable to remember. (Should have some music too.)

                  Enjoy your money instead of hobbling around getting less mobile and savvy and saving it to spend on aged care and sit in a chair waiting to die.

        • weka 2.1.4.2

          “Unofficially euthanized” implies no consent”

          People really shouldn’t use the term euthanasia when they mean murder. “Unofficially euthanized” to me implies an unspoken about arrangement between the patient and whatever staff they can get to help them. That’s not murder and it doesn’t help to conflate the two.

  2. JC 3

    Wording on a plaque unveiled in Greymouth has raised the ire of a West Coast regional councillor….

    “(To mark the completion of council leading a re focus of the District to a sustaianable economy after a reliance on extractive industries)”

    He suggested taking a delegation to Council calling for its removal or he might even “rip it off myself”.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coast/councillor-irked-wording-plaque

    Perhaps a conflict of interest…. just maybe…

  3. weka 4

    Peter Aranyi‏ @onThePaepae

    This does get worse & worse. — A Golden Bay couple suing police for being wrongly targeted in a 1080 blackmail investigation have been shocked to discover their home was bugged.

    The couple believe the police used terrorism laws to bug their home and take samples for DNA testing.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1

      Given the death-threats etc that have been levelled at eg: DOC employees, “1080 activism” probably does fall under the “definition” of terrorism.

      Yet another reason why the Terrorism Suppression Act isn’t fit for purpose.

      • Bill 4.1.1

        Well, since taping a free give-away demo tape to buildings around town that people can take away is…

        https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/charge-laid-over-bomb-package

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1

          He’s been charged under Section 307 of the Crimes Act: “Threatening to destroy property”.

          The TS Act is a different animal entirely. Check out Section 4, for example: the loophole clause for state actors.

        • McFlock 4.1.1.2

          To be fair, if the tape had been labelled as a giveaway and the “poem” had been about rainbows and unicorn farts, it probably wouldn’t have drawn the same response.

          ISTR the charges were dismissed (might be wrong), but even so the response was proper. Especially as the problem with those situtations is that even if you’re sure the person who called it in had had too much coffee that day, if you take it casually and it turns out to be real, your arse is on the block.

          • Bill 4.1.1.2.1

            It wasn’t the only give-away tape. Others had been put up and taken by people with no problem.

            The response was bullshit. It’s an expression of a nasty and aggressive fearfulness.

            The lesson (it would seem) is never to take the piss out of that nasty, aggressive fearfulness because…well, it gets all nasty, aggressive and fearful.

            And yes, the case was stopped. But not before it had driven some poor bastard up the wall.

            • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1.1

              Oh, others had been left without problems, so that’s fine then. Bollocks.

              And if it was supposed to be a piss take, then he got the exact response he was after because he knew what the reaction would be.

              I’d just been under the impression that he was a pretentious jerk who didn’t consider the reactions of people who were unfamiliar with his status as an “underground” artist, and take an out-of-place package with violent text attached to it simply at face value. Your position seems to be that it was a satirical commentary on bomb scares made by something that looked like a bomb, and everybody who thought it looked like a bomb was being foolish because it wasn’t a bomb even though it was supposed to look like one?

              • Bill

                Never a punk then McFlock (back in the day)?

                Never ripped the piss out of social “norms” then?

                Nah. Guess not. Just as nasty, fearful and (defensively) aggressive as that which deserves “ripped” – a cotton candy wrapped liberal though and through.

                • McFlock

                  If he was taking the piss about a society of fear, he knew what reaction his packages might provoke.

                  And it’s not like people have never set bombs in NZ before, for whatever reason.

                  • Bill

                    Do fuck off on your “he should have known and complied with norms” bullshit.

                    And the last time a bomb was targeted in such a way as to take out random members of the public was… when?

                    • McFlock

                      I don’t care if he complied with norms. I just don’t think he should get sympathy for being arrested when he should have known he might cause the bomb alert that occurred. Jump into the tiger cage if you want to make a statement, but people shouldn’t blame the tiger if you get eaten.

                      Trades hall bombing springs to mind. Low incidence / high consequence events are by definition both. And if someone goes “is that a bomb, it looks supicious”, are you volunteering to wander over and take it apart each and every time?

                    • Bill

                      I don’t care if he complied with norms.

                      Yes you do. You reckon it’s fine for there to be consequences meted out in instances where norms aren’t followed and – as seems pretty obvious from your comments – you condone the fearful culture of disproportionate response that has built itself up around those norms.

                      The Trades Hall bombing wasn’t quite random, was it? (And i asked about instances of random targeting – non-targeted in other words)

                    • weka

                      Hang on, it’s appropriate to treat it as suspicious and take appropriate action (so call the bomb squad).

                      It might even be appropriate to initially arrest the man as part of the investigation (although without knowing more detail, that still looks like overkill as opposed to interviewing him).

                      But trying to charge him with threatening to damage property? That’s either stupid or trying to teach him a lesson. Neither of those are appropriate uses of the law. That action also appears to be suppression of artistic expression and political dissent.

                    • Bill

                      “…what the photo that’s been circulated doesn’t show you is not only that the album’s supposedly threatening cover poem is in fact signed by L$D Fundraiser – a Google term which brings enough hits to work out its a musical project, to say the least – but the poem was actually hand typed onto sheets pulled out from the artist’s expired passport, which traditionally has the number stamped on every page.”

                      http://dunedinsound.com/blog/extended-thoughts-on-lsd-fundraiser/

                    • weka

                      Interesting article, thanks.

                      Re the bit you quoted, I suppose it depends how much of that was remotely visible to the policy. The ODT photo isn’t very clear but it looks like the poem only, not the attribution or other detail.

                    • McFlock

                      How do you know the trades hall bombing wasn’t random?
                      More to the point, wasn’t the building the lsd thing was attached to close to or actually the gay bar formerly owned by that publican who skipped town and had some shady connections? Not so random now, is it, if you want to project intent onto the site of the incident.

                      And how the fuck is anyone supposed to know the pages had passport numbers without getting up really close and personal to a package that someone else had worries about? They’re suypposed to take it apart before they cordon off a safe perimeter in the middle of town? Oh, let’s let people walk past the suspicious package until we’ve googled every line of poetry. And hand-typed actually is a red flag.

                      Fuck norms, that jerk should have known someone might shit a brick over it. You reckon it was satire, so that means he did know. I think he was probably just a jerk with no thought about how members of the public might interpret his action.

                      As for the article, the idea that the police “should have pretty readily identified” an underground artist possibly assumes much about your average police officer’s connection with obscure music genres and modern art.

                    • Bill

                      Who said anything about satire?

                      It was a way of getting music out to a broader audience. Was kind of working too by all accounts. (Tapes taken, no bomb squads called.)

                      Aren’t passport pages obvious enough from a distance? I believe NZ passports, in common with others, have pretty damned obvious watermarks, no? And who-ever belled the cops had, it seems, got suspiciously close enough to read the signed off lyrics…on watermarked and numbered pages.

                      What gay bar? What publican?

                      What suspicion? You trying to say that other people who had taken previous tapes were careless idiots, who were just plain lucky that some mad bomb crazed person hadn’t assigned far more strategic significance to the Octagon given its geometric similarity to the Pentagon? 🙂

                      Fear, it seems does strange things to thought processes, common sense and judgments, aye?

                    • McFlock

                      People who took the tapes, yay for them. They picked a strange packet off a random place and it turned out to be a tape from an underground recording artist who is world famous but not in Dunedin, rather than containing drugs, used rubbers, or a bomb.

                      That doesn’t mean that the people who thought “that shouldn’t be there. Gosh, that note is threatening, better call the cops” overreacted. The cops aren’t qualified to second-guess that decision, that’s bomb disposal’s job. All the cops do is cordon a safe distance and wait for the experts, whatever their personal suspicions.

                      I’ll tell you the story of that publican when we next run into each other in the supermarket. It’s pretty funny, for a given trail of debt…

      • weka 4.1.2

        I think it was probably more the threat to put 1080 into baby formula, but “1080 activism” isn’t terrorism and that’s the problem. The couple are anti-1080 activists and appear to have been investigated because they’d written letters to Fonterra before. Not illegal letters, just letters. FFS. One would hope the police had more to go on than that. but then there’s the Tūhoe raids.

        • McFlock 4.1.2.1

          I suspect the police would have been following the traditional model of more widespread movements, where the small “direct action” cell is given logistical and intelligence support from a larger group, which in turn exists within a larger group of generally sympathetic people.

          So those two probabaly weren’t suspected of doing anything directly, but as active members of that population they would have networks of less prominent active people who could in turn be surveilled, and there would be good odds that they are within one or two degrees of separation from the direct action cell..

          • weka 4.1.2.1.1

            There are shit loads of people in NZ who are one or two degrees of separation from other people who commit crimes. There’s a problem if we are now saying that is sufficient reason to covertly surveil someone.

            • McFlock 4.1.2.1.1.1

              But that’s not the level of connection we’re talking about. They were active in that area, people who did the direct action probably had support of some sort, and the people most active would be the people most likely to provide that support.

        • marty mars 4.1.2.2

          I think they will win in court. The police went overboard in their response based on flakey thinking imo. This couple are really least likely in just about every way you could imagine.

    • greywarshark 4.2

      Did the police search for products that could be used for euthanasia while they were at it? That was something else they were looking into a while ago. They could kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

    • James 4.3

      On this instance- I think the police were correct to bug them. If they were the baddies and police didn’t do everything possible and babys were poisoned- you would be complaining about that.

      They were obviously a reasonable suspect.

      Also – they have no idea about if it was granted under the terrorism act – they are guessing.

  4. Carolyn_nth 5

    Bye bye Mike…. from 7 Sharp…. And there is now dancing in the streets!

    • Ed 5.1

      Hosking said it was “always good to leave on your own terms and at your own time, often a rare trick in media”.

      Don’t believe him.
      Think he could see the writing on the wall.

      • ianmac 5.1.1

        A couple of weeks ago there were rumours that Hosking was in talks with management. Wondered if that suggested a “cooling”?
        Anyway they will no doubt exchange them for more frothy populist fare.
        Glad to see Hosking go. Will he still have those awful daily homilies on Herald which were often disguised with false headers?

      • BM 5.1.2

        Wouldn’t surprise me, the left doesn’t really do free speech.

        If we have politicians deciding who’s on TV then TVNZ days are numbered.

        Public TV should never be the propaganda wing for whoever is in government.

        • Ed 5.1.2.1

          Good job.
          TVNZ have been a nest of right wing vipers for too long.

        • fender 5.1.2.2

          “If we have politicians deciding who’s on TV then TVNZ days are numbered.”

          Strange you jump to that conclusion, don’t remember you doing the same when Campbell got shafted.

          • BM 5.1.2.2.1

            Private TV station they can do whatever they please.

            • Ed 5.1.2.2.1.1

              TVNZ?

            • fender 5.1.2.2.1.2

              Yeah private propaganda is fine eh, even if they borrow taxpayers money when no banks are willing to lend to them.

              • BM

                NZ made good coin from that deal, the interest rate was far above what the banks were charging.

                Of course, private propaganda is fine, christ that lefty fuckwit Campbell had his own show for ten years.

                What probably sunk him is that he forgot he was the employee and thought he could do whatever he wanted.

                Those sort of people are toxic to a business and have to be removed, which he was.

                • fender

                  Risky loan to the money losing shambles that is TV3. But National has a special relationship with TV3 and many of its employees.

                  I find it odd that you only condemn State propaganda and not all forms of it.

                  • BM

                    I find it odd that you only condemn State propaganda and not all forms of it.
                    Do you consider Campbell live left-wing propaganda?

                    • Ed

                      John Campbell is not socialist. He is like a Democrat.

                      Do you consider Garner, Young, Richardson, Gower, Tame, Trevett, Smith, Dann, Mora, Watkins……right wing propagandists?

                      There are so many more neoliberal voices than socialist voices in the media.

                    • fender

                      “Do you consider Campbell live left-wing propaganda?”

                      No, he’s a proper journalist, something you seem to have little to no respect for.

                  • Ed

                    He likes right wing propaganda- thestuff we hear all the time

                  • Carolyn_nth

                    It’s worth reading Wayne Hope’s briefing paper on the history of NZ media ownership – about how public service media has been marginalised, and finance corporations now rule the roost.

                    The newly elected government has promised to advance the principles of public broadcasting in a multi-platform environment, by supporting Radio New Zealand. But what about the rest of our media environment? Will Cabinet address the obvious shortcomings in media competition law? This would require some understanding of how transnational concentrations of media ownership damage democratic principles and our national identity.

                    • Ed

                      We need to take back the airwaves for democratic control.

                    • ropata

                      +1 the problem with “private” media is that is is run for profit so its reason for existing is selling stuff to people. And the biggest thing they are selling is Capitalism itself. So any left wing viewpoints will end up very marginalised. Private media is allowed to transmit only those messages approved by its corporate masters.

                    • greywarshark

                      Not long ago the Australian government swept away the last of their limiting laws on media ownership so now one person/family/corporation can own or influence it all.

                      Someone I was reading recently said that Murdoch himself had been largely the death of real journalism.

                    • Carolyn_Nth

                      AKA, The “Murdochisation of the news/media”.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.3

          I agree. Comical Ali was more impartial than Hoskings.

        • Ed 5.1.2.4

          Hosking was the propaganda wing for John Key

        • weka 5.1.2.5

          Wouldn’t surprise me, the left doesn’t really do free speech.

          If we have politicians deciding who’s on TV then TVNZ days are numbered.

          Public TV should never be the propaganda wing for whoever is in government.

          Is that self-satire? if so, it’s quite good.

        • bwaghorn 5.1.2.6

          wonder if Jacinda said ” i want the rightwing bastard gone”

        • Wouldn’t surprise me, the left doesn’t really do free speech.

          Yeah we do. I just don’t think that people on TV should lie and misinform as many of the commenters do.

          Public TV should never be the propaganda wing for whoever is in government.

          true. It should give facts and informed opinion. Something that hasn’t happened in NZ for some time and so it’s become a fact free area that propagates RWNJ ideology.

        • JC 5.1.2.8

          Like the last 9 years!

      • Sabine 5.1.3

        National stopping to supplement his wage 🙂

    • mauī 5.2

      Mike Hosking is super stoked about NZ’s new PM Jacinda Ardern

    • millsy 5.3

      Probably a quiet word in the Koru lounge to have a quiet word to Hosking

    • greywarshark 5.4

      Out on the street? Toni is going to spend more time with her family. Hosking’s family will probably be very tired of him soon and beg someone to give him somewhere to talk his head off.

      If Hosking could see the writing on the wall he must be drinking too much. It would be a bad sign that he could see I should think.

      On the other hand. A countervailing move – would he act as media guru for Jacinda, if she would have him? Sort of like getting a skilled burglar to advise insurance companies on suitable locks and anti-burglary devices. Most of the RW are mercenaries only interested in money. He might be worth getting. But no, he would probably end up like Phil Quin, knowing just enough to be a fly in the ointment for ever, and cunning as a rat causing trouble and aggravation and misinformation.

      • Chris 5.4.1

        “He might be worth getting.”

        To see even the tiniest bit of something positive in that guy surely means you’re way off course. FFS.

        • ropata 5.4.1.1

          Yep, Hosking is a toxic little twerp who hates Labour so screw him.

          He’s also quite thick, has almost no education, and makes no effort to inform himself before one of his drunken rants.

  5. UncookedSelachimorpha 6

    The Gates of Hell must be ajar – RNZ report:

    “TVNZ said it would release the new hosts of Seven Sharp in January.”

  6. Dv 7

    John Key a nd his son

  7. Pat 8

    Larry Elliott (Guardian) makes a straightforward case for a decisive step to the left…. Id like to wholeheartedly agree and his case is compelling ….then I recall that the Nats after 9 disastrous years of austerity and incompetence still managed almost 45% support at the election and I wonder if the populace hasnt been programmed for self harm…

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/14/governments-control-capitalism-class-war-right-undermine-workers

    • greywarshark 8.1

      Sort of bulimic you think. Swallow everything, have too many drinks on the strength of the political news, spew, and start the cycle again? It seems to me that the process must be similar to the above, as otherwise how could the Gnats carry on and ride above the pile of horse manure they constantly meet.

  8. silvertuatara 9

    With Hosking leaving Seven Sharp….perhap’s John Key’s Brighter Future is now just around the corner…..but thanks of course to Jacinda, Winston and Shaw.

  9. JC 10

    I realise this is not Bills awa … think he said he’d gladly swim in the nearby Oreti…. perhaps he could come down to wade…

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/99821147/three-people-hospitalised-after-swimming-in-mataura-river

  10. greywarshark 11

    Fonterra should make farms using irrigated water provide swimming pools for the
    public drawn from their upstream flow so that wherever you go in Canterbury and Southland there is a place to cool down and swim provided by a grateful farmer ensuring that there is recompense to the public for any loss of amenities suffered because of the farmer sequestration of this precious resource.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts