Daily Review 26/03/2018

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, March 26th, 2018 - 17 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 …

17 comments on “Daily Review 26/03/2018”

  1. Anne 1

    Oh gosh, the Local bodies blog site (see Feed column on right) couldn’t put it better! And today’s howls of rage from media commentators HH and H (Hosk, Hawk, and Hoot) are a case in point.

    All those who received preferential treatment from the previous Government will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms. National’s “old boy” networks have been well established throughout business communities and the individuals it placed on various influential boards and committees. It had an open door approach to big business lobbyists and investors with money and it’s willingness to limit or remove regulation was appreciated by them. Even right wing commentators like Matthew Hooton voiced concern at the level of corporate welfare that was naively supported by Key and Joyce. The changing of the guard and dismantling National’s human infrastructure will be a messy business as many will object to losing their past influence and business opportunities. These people have the resources and media clout to make a lot of noise.

    I note Hoots has been mentioned but his “concern” is always dependent upon the wheres’, the hows’ and the who’s.

    • Incognito 1.1

      I have a slightly different view, which is that all people who have been in power for (too) long start to take it for granted and develop a sense of entitlement with a whiff of megalomania. This is also the reason why Julie Anne Genter hit the bull’s eye with her comments about the make-up of board directors [subtle puns].

      • Anne 1.1.1

        I think both views are valid Incognito. The sense of entitlement among the Nat ministers was almost overpowering in the end. They came to believe it was their destiny – and their’s alone – to be in government. And their sycophantic puppets in the media are still immersed in grief at the loss of their personal prestige… hence the howls of rage from so many of them.

        This lengthy diatribe from John Armstrong is a good example. His anti-Jacinda Ardern stance is almost manic in it’s portrayal.


        • Kat

          Armstrong like Hosking, Hooton, Hawksby et al are singing to the choir. They are well outed National Party cheerleaders on a mission. The target is 5% or better lift in support for National. The target group is that easily swayed swing vote that can tip an election one way or the other. So sling the mud and some of it will stick, ramp up the barbs of the “thousand cuts” and the govt will ultimately keel over.

          With the winds of change already beginning to blow, that particular choir will most likely go quiet and switch off when they realise that the congregation is only just these tired old hacks singing from yesteryear and no one else is bothering to listen.

        • Monty

          Hi Anne.

          If your you take your blinkers off and read the article a big chunk of it is about failing from coalition partners.

          The Labour fold is strong, she has been caught out and blindsided by her coalition partners and she has been flustered. Most people would struggle given the last two weeks.

          His article highlighted that PM Ardern Appeared flustered and most would given what hit her in the last couple weeks. So how about taking your tribal blinkers off and not see this as negative but one persons opinion and what he says.

          Don’t just lump into one big assumption. I think it highlights the coalition partners need to do better and communicate as this is what appears is missing.

          • Anne

            Oh look what I found:

            During the past couple of weeks, her prime ministership has looked about as fresh and pure as mud-caked slush.

            All of a sudden Wonder Woman is looking like just another struggling premier side-tracked by side shows.

            Brand Jacinda would seem to be metamorphosing into Calamity Jacinda.

            Her claim this week that New Zealand had been ahead of the international pack in declaring Moscow was behind the attempted murder of Skripal was as outrageous as it was audacious as it was patently incorrect.

            No-one who has kept tabs on how events unfolded will be fooled by the Prime Minister’s blatant and shameless attempt to rewrite history.

            She will get away with it on this occasion. The conduct of foreign policy is not something the public cares that much about.

            Ardern would be well-advised not to make a habit of playing fast and loose with the facts, however. Her patter might be silky smooth. But she cannot expect to talk her way out of every predicament that she finds herself enmeshed in.

            Sooner than later, she will be caught out.

            And you think Armstrong is not doing his dammed best to paint her in an ill light?

            Sure, the rest of the ramble is about putting down NZ First and the Greens (and their leaders) but that’s part of the exercise… to discredit Ardern’s coalition government. Its been his MO for years. See Cunliffe. So many of his ‘reckons’ turn out to be wrong.


            … the wheels are already falling off her Heath Robinson-like contraption of a government.

            • Monty

              He has his views and is writing about it.

              You have your views on what’s said. I disagree and believe that a big chunk is the coalition partners failing and yes i believe it wasn’t a good couple weeks for PM Ardern and it wasn’t handled well.

  2. AsleepWhileWalking 2

    Judge overturns rape conviction after lawyer pressures guilty plea


    Lawyer says he was a witness in the case, not council.

    • McFlock 2.1

      After the initial proceedings the original lawyer was fired, and the new lawyer took this action. The original lawyer was a witness in this action.

      I wouldn’t be hiring that guy as a lawyer, based on that report. Talk about phoning it in…

      edit: and he LOST a case file??? WTF?!

  3. AsleepWhileWalking 3

    Detailed testimony = obvious lying?


    Lawyer Wayne McKean said the complainant gave “way too much” detail about alleged rapes and indecent assaults said to have happened nearly 60 years ago.

    The evidence was given in a jury trial for Raymond Bradley, a 71-year-old man charged with raping and indecently assaulting two girls in Porirua in the 60s and early 70s, both of whom were aged under 12 during some of the alleged offending.


    “This is a 7 or 8 year old girl who would have no understanding of what was happening to her, yet she claims to remember all of that when recalling it after all this time, 60 years later. Rubbish. No way is that possible, I don’t care how good her memory is, that’s not possible. It’s a big signpost pointing away from her version.

    “She gets in the video interview and within a few moments says this: ‘I don’t actually remember much about any events in my life,'” McKean reminded the jury.

    He also pointed out how the woman said something different in her video interview with police to what she told her husband about the alleged incidents.

    “What she tells her husband doesn’t bear any resemblance to what she said in the video on any measure.”

    McKean also criticised how long it took for the woman to go to police with her allegations.

    “Young people may not complain straight away. It’s not unusual to wait many years for a young person to say what happened, but when they finally do have understanding, that’s when we would expect them to go to the police.

    “When she tells her husband, she’s got understanding. When she turns 50 and she finds out about [the other complainant], she’s got understanding. 16 years after that she still hasn’t gone to the police and she only goes to the police the day [the other complainant] goes to the police.”

    McKean went on to argue incidents of alleged rape with the second complainant were actually consensual, and if the woman hadn’t wanted it she only had to say no.

    At the age of 17 she was living away from home, and had already experimented with drugs and been pregnant, he said.

    “A 17-year-old girl like that knows how to say no.

    “Her own evidence is, before sex, he asks for permission. ‘Can I climb into bed? Can I lie with you?’ This rapist asks for permission and she doesn’t reply. ‘Can I cuddle you,’ he asks. She doesn’t reply. These are her words. ‘Can I snuggle into you?’ She doesn’t reply. She doesn’t say boo.”

    McKean said at the time, the woman “wanted it to happen”, or at least Bradley would have had an “honest belief” that she wanted it.

    He also said when Bradley allegedly confessed to the crimes in a heated phone conversation with his son, he was actually only confessing to consensual sex with the second complainant.

    And this is why sexual crime victims need changes to the legal system. Nobody should be pit through this.

    • McFlock 3.1

      That really sucks.

      Oh, and not detailed testimony = unreliable memory of events. Fucksake.

  4. joe90 4

    Among the doom and gloom, success!.

    It took 96 weeks and thousands of volunteers to clean up Versova Beach in #Bombay #India. The payoff? Hundreds of thousands of #SeaTurtles hatching this week. First time in decades. Anything can be cleaned! pic.twitter.com/szlAvX2SVq— Daniel Schneider (@BiologistDan) March 25, 2018

    • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1

      India is the new clean green!

      We should have our own 96 week challenge.

  5. Chris 5

    A real shame the Greens have decided to adopt some kind of ‘primaries’ approach to sorting out the next co-leader.


    • Draco T Bastard 5.1

      Ah, so you’d be one of those National supporters who hate democracy?

      • Monty 5.1.1

        Hey. Apart from your desire to attack posters you don’t like.

        What says that this person is a National supporter and hates democracy. How about disagreeing with the posted article. The person is making a valid point as to what they see and what they don’t like. What wrong with that.

        Hates democracy is a huge call. Some on here want the govt to own most things. I see that as hating democracy as you don’t allow choice.

        So what in the article and what the post says is anti democratic.

        • Draco T Bastard

          What says that this person is a National supporter and hates democracy.

          His attack on the democratic processes of the Green Party.

          How about disagreeing with the posted article.

          Why would I do that when I was disagreeing with Chris?

          The person is making a valid point as to what they see and what they don’t like.

          Except that he wasn’t. He tried to make a scaremongering point about ‘primaries’ as if democracy was bad.

          Some on here want the govt to own most things. I see that as hating democracy as you don’t allow choice.


          The government (otherwise known as The People) owning most things is democratic. It also provides greater choice in how we govern ourselves.

          It’s private ownership that prevents that necessary choice in governing ourselves as it takes those choices necessary to govern ourselves away from us.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts