Daily Review 21/10/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, October 21st, 2015 - 33 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Obama Harper

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 …

33 comments on “Daily Review 21/10/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    21 October 2015 at 6:50 pm

    So Annette King stays as deputy. I understand that everyone is pleased with the job she is doing in keeping caucus unified. Congratulations to her.

    • Grindlebottom 1.1
      21 October 2015 at 6:54 pm

      Yep. Agreed.

    • Lanthanide 1.2
      21 October 2015 at 6:55 pm

      Her saying she didn’t want the job is confusing, when she ran a double-ticket with Grant Robertson as his deputy.

      • Ovid 1.2.1
        22 October 2015 at 9:38 am

        Not really. When she ran it was an open position. It’s clear she doesn’t want to betray a valued mentor or upset the applecart. Both valid reasons.

    • whateva next? 1.3
      21 October 2015 at 8:24 pm

      great news, not falling for the usual RW “journo’s bait, and celebrating Annette’s vast experience and amazing stamina

    • Ovid 1.4
      22 October 2015 at 9:34 am

      She’s done really well over the past year. There is a strong correlation between age and whether or not a person votes. So having people like Annette in Parliament in senior positions representing older voters is important if we are to expect our politics to reflect society at large.

    • Ffloyd 1.5
      22 October 2015 at 9:58 am

      Fan -bleeding- tastic. King is great. Takes no prisoners.

  2. Grindlebottom 2
    21 October 2015 at 6:58 pm

    I’m no fan of Heather Du-Plessis Allan but if the police charge her for this they’ve lost the plot.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/73258692/illegal-gun-purchase-prompts-auckland-police-investigation-of-tv3-reporter

    • tc 2.1
      21 October 2015 at 7:01 pm

      They lost the plot at the teapot tapes and continued the rich vein of form with roast busters and slater/eade not being charged so nothing surprises me with what passes for a police force these days.

    • Thinking Right 2.2
      21 October 2015 at 7:04 pm

      I don’t know. Impersonating a Police Officer and signing as such is pretty serious.

      Also using someone else’s firearms licence and using a fake name just adds to the offence.

      There is Public Interest and there is just plain dumb – I suggest what she did was the latter.

      • Grindlebottom 2.2.1
        21 October 2015 at 7:10 pm

        This Herald article (I actually read this one before posting the stuff article link) says

        …She then outlined the process she went through. “I used a fake name. I used a fake gun licence.” She said she filled it out and sent it in.

        According to the police

        “To obtain a firearm online, the buyer must provide the seller with a written order countersigned by Police proving that they have a current firearms license. This is to satisfy dealers that the person is an appropriately licensed user,” the police press release said.

        It sounds like Story are showing she was able to buy a rifle online without one.

        • weka 2.2.1.1
          21 October 2015 at 10:54 pm

          They faked that too (according to the seller). So either the system doesn’t require sellers to confirm the ID of the police officer, or the seller in this case didn’t do it.

      • Anne 2.2.2
        21 October 2015 at 7:19 pm

        Thinking Right is thinking wrong. I’m not much into Garner and Du-Plessis Allan either but that was some smart detective work.

        Btw, Thinking Right, the police have not been shy about planting under-cover cops into criminal groups (eg, illegal drug smugglers) who actually commit offences during the course of their work – all in the cause of justice. What’s the difference.

      • Rosie 2.2.3
        21 October 2015 at 9:20 pm

        “There is Public Interest and there is just plain dumb – I suggest what she did was the latter.”

        The producer of the show would have given the go ahead for the story surely. If that’s the case they then also need to take responsibility for doing something they may have thought was in the public interest, but wasn’t in fact, a well thought out way of investigating the availability of firearms to NZer’s.

    • Grindlebottom 2.3
      21 October 2015 at 8:08 pm

      Whoops. This makes things a bit more tricky for Heather I think….

      Guncity’s owner pledges to prosecute journalist Heather du Plessis-Allan after she bought a rifle without a licence: (Interesting choice to put the item in their “entertainment” section.)
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11532873

      • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1
        21 October 2015 at 8:30 pm

        Something tells me that Public Interest comes in to play and that the person who will be found a criminal is the owner(s) of Gun City for a) Supplying an unlicensed person with a gun and b) not doing the necessary checks to ensure that they were selling to gun license holders.

        • Grindlebottom 2.3.1.1
          21 October 2015 at 8:49 pm

          Sounds to me like du Plessis-Allen did actually fake details of a police officer and sent a fraudulent gun order form to Guncity:

          She said the police had changed the mail order system so online gun order forms were now left at the police station for officers to authorise and then send.

          The previous system had seen the prospective buyer send in the form, which had allowed the details of a fake police officer to be used where the authorising officer should have been.

          I bet the system never required the gunshop owner to check the police officer’s details with police. If so, Guncity may have done all they were legally required to do. She submitted a fraudulent document, and the owner might then have a case. Time will tell I guess.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.1.1
            21 October 2015 at 10:56 pm

            Sounds to me like du Plessis-Allen did actually fake details of a police officer and sent a fraudulent gun order form to Guncity:

            Yes, but in doing so she has the defence of Public Interest, i.e, the public are better off her doing this and telling everyone about it than her not doing it.

            She submitted a fraudulent document, and the owner might then have a case.

            He doesn’t because of the Public Interest.

      • dukeofurl 2.3.2
        22 October 2015 at 2:35 pm

        Means nothing.

        Its difficult to get all the legal proof without the resources of the police.

        And then there is ‘discharge without conviction’, which will defeat his aim of giving her a criminal conviction.

        In a way hes countering TV3 ‘stunt’ with a stunt of his own.

  3. Gabby 3
    21 October 2015 at 7:55 pm

    The big difference is that they get to excuse – I mean fairly investigate – themselves.

  4. Rosie 4
    21 October 2015 at 8:38 pm

    Sorry. Not many will be interested in the sleepy little back water that is the Ohariu electorate, especially outside of election year, BUT, I do feel it in my waters that Peter Dunne will be stepping down down in 2017 and literally handing the electorate to the Nat candidate who stood in 2014, Brett Hudson.

    Everyone I have spoken to within the electorate and outside of it believe that Dunne will just keep going. I think Dunne is simply keeping the seat warm for Hudson.

    Locals will have had the displeasure of meeting him at last years candidates meeting. A nasty little piece of work, who wasn’t capable of gauging the conciliatory and friendly mood of evening, who jumped straight into attacking the opposition in a very rude manner. Who also showed his stunning political ignorance on BackBenchers, a few shows ago too. Who is a a former software rep who got in in on the list in 2014. Lives in another electorate but advertises that he is a “list MP based in the Ohariu electorate”, each week in our daggy local rag, whom he shares a floor with in the same building. I could go on with his track record…………….

    What does it look like when the elected MP, who, In August says he will find a youth MP for Ohariu:

    http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=81026

    doesn’t find that young un, and the list MP, who has nothing to do with the area apart from standing in 2014, instead selects a youth MP to represent the electorate?

    http://issuu.com/the.star/docs/215294ih?e=1420315/30835640

    (who looks like his share portfolio might include Loreal and a lucrative modelling career in the pipeline).

    Who wear the boots in Ohariu? Dunne or Hudson?

    • Lanthanide 4.1
      21 October 2015 at 9:30 pm

      Don’t be so sure that Hudson will be standing again in Ohariu. Katrina Shanks didn’t, after all.

      • Rosie 4.1.1
        21 October 2015 at 9:54 pm

        Katrina Shanks ran for National 2005, 2008 and 2011 in Ohariu. Dunne’s majority has been shrinking in the last two elections and last year won by only 700 and something votes with the fabulous Labour candidate, Ginny Andersen putting a bit of a frightener up him.

        Did you see his face early on election night when he thought he might actually lose the seat? He was ashen. I don’t think he wants to put himself through that again. 33 years holding Ohariu might be enough for him – he might not want to do 36 years.

        Hudson is really putting his feet under the table around here. The example above of the selection of youth MP going to him, (when he’s not the elected MP and the selected person is Blue flavour) and not Dunne, when Dunne said he would pick one indicates that he’s muscling in Dunne’s turf. Or did he select Loreal boy with Dunne’s blessing?

        The selection of a youth MP is not a biggie but it’s not Hudson’s place to be doing it.

        I’m just trying to get across that maybe we shouldn’t continue thinking about Dunne and his influence in the same way as we have for so long.

    • Ergo Robertina 5.1
      21 October 2015 at 10:47 pm

      And this earlier one is also worth reading –
      http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/three-things-you-need-to-know-about-pope-francis-and-the-cardinal-disgraced-in-a-sex-abuse-scandal/

      Francis gave prime position at Synod to abuse cover-up cardinal who, it is suggested, delivered him a swag of votes to become pope.

      ”Now the matter needs to be properly investigated. Pope Francis must explain why a man who tried to conceal sex abuse within a family is a leading participant in a synod discussing the pastoral care of families.
      ”So far, the media have shown no interest in this story. That wouldn’t be the case if Benedict XVI were still pope.”

      • dukeofurl 5.1.1
        22 October 2015 at 2:43 pm

        Oh please. Its mostly a fact free farragio.

        Just because someones name is number 3 ! Its probably only because of his seniority, a procedural thing , and a quick check confirms this.

        • Ergo Robertina 5.1.1.1
          22 October 2015 at 8:47 pm

          I think perhaps you haven’t read it properly.
          Or perhaps you simply don’t know that people can and do lose their ”seniority”, at least in any properly functioning organisation, if they are implicated in cover-ups and professional misconduct.

          • dukeofurl 5.1.1.1.1
            23 October 2015 at 9:26 am

            Perhaps, but I looked it up with the link you gave showing ‘the list’
            They are ranked from 1 to 178, with Cardinal Bishops ? first and Sodano number 1, Danneels is 14 and so on down the list.
            It means nothing when giving a list that some underling has followed centuries of bureaucracy rules. And of course the vatican isnt a normal place!
            Or the UN or any number of the worlds weird and wonderful organisations.
            A Cardinal is a job for life if you havent noticed and doesnt follow american management theories

            The Spectator is just a hardly read paper which specialises in high tory anglican nonsense.
            Like this from the top of googles stack
            “Or, in Corbyn’s case, a non-graduate. Corbyn got two Es at A-level at Adams’ Grammar School in Newport, Shropshire. He did a year of trade union studies at the North London Polytechnic before dropping out. Corbyn is the first Labour leader not to go to university since James Callaghan — and Callaghan only didn’t go because his family, unlike the prosperous Corbyns, couldn’t afford it.”

            • Ergo Robertina 5.1.1.1.1.1
              23 October 2015 at 2:22 pm

              ”The Spectator is just a hardly read paper which specialises in high tory anglican nonsense.”

              What? The Spectator these days is if anything associated with blue blood Catholics. You do realise the author of that piece, Damian Thompson, is associate editor at the Spectator as well as editorial director of the Catholic Herald?
              And Charles Moore, former Spectator editor, now weekly diarist, whose neurotic and never-ending spat with the BBC and other morbid fixations kind of personify the mag’s spirit, is a Roman Catholic convert?

              • dukeofurl …
                23 October 2015 at 4:35 pm

                No one with that name is listed on their website as being ‘editorial director’
                Wikipedia says hes ‘Editor in Chief ( of CH)but the link ( 2009) only says he writes about classical music for the Catholic herald, no mention of Editor in Chief or as you say ” Editorial Director”
                The Spectator , however calls him an ‘associate editor’ on their masthead, its obvious hes a minor columnist, with no connection to the Catholic Herald.

                • Ergo Robertina …
                  23 October 2015 at 6:40 pm

                  His twitter says this:

                  ”Associate Editor, The Spectator. Editorial Director, Catholic Herald. Once described as ‘A blood-crazed ferret’ by the Church Times.”
                  https://twitter.com/holysmoke?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

                  But I’m not interested in a tedious argument about Thompson’s employment status.
                  The point is that the Spectator has some high profile conservative Catholic writers.
                  You seem like someone who confabulates (Anglican, Tory, High Church) and then goes all pedantic and condescending when someone takes issue.
                  This is tiresome. I certainly wouldn’t think less of someone for giving no credence to the Spectator, but Thompson’s stuff reflects how this is playing out in at least one conservative corner.
                  You are free to read or not as you please, but do stop being a tendentious prat over it.