Hey Laydeez

Written By: - Date published: 9:57 am, January 30th, 2011 - 296 comments
Categories: sexism - Tags:

Is it just me or is the idea of our Prime Minister joking around with Tony Vietch (a guy who threw his fiance down the stairs before kicking her in the back) about celebrities he’d like to shag just a little creepy?

296 comments on “Hey Laydeez ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Marty G 2
    30 January 2011 at 10:05 am

    ewwww

    that’s so gross

    Guess I’m not a ‘typical Kiwi bloke’ then.

    And Dean Lonergan’s comments are fucken outrageous. Apparently, all women are good for is being sexually coveted by men and get bitchy if they aren’t.

    • Marty G 2.1
      30 January 2011 at 4:43 pm

      btw, I know it’s totally beside the point but after Lonergan’s attack on Sue Kedgley it’s worth mentioning that Sue and her sister (twins?) were the ‘it’ girls around Wellington in the early 1970s.

      And, just because it’s a cool factoid, Sue dated Kofi Annan.

      • orange whip? 2.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 7:27 pm

        That’s so cool. That’s like the equivalent for political people of dating Lenny Kravitz for regular people.

    • Vicky32 2.2
      30 January 2011 at 6:17 pm

      Absolutely right, Marty!
      Whoever that Lonergan person is, he sounds like a complete creep..
      Deb

  3. Tigger 3
    30 January 2011 at 10:18 am

    Oh you guys are such wimps. Key is the most masculine man on the planet. If he wasn’t tied down to the ball and chain he’d be boning every pussy from here to…far away. He’s man’s man our John. Mr Sex himself.

    • IrishBill 3.1
      30 January 2011 at 10:25 am

      Have you met him? He’s short and pudgy and fawning. Manliness is the last attribute you could attach to him.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 11:20 am

        Sounds like a Kiwi Benny Hill ?

      • KJT 3.1.2
        30 January 2011 at 4:59 pm

        Hey. Less of the prejudice against short and pudgy. We have sex lives too. Even have women who love us for our cool personalities. Not our pudgy wallets like Key.

      • Tigger 3.2.1
        30 January 2011 at 11:30 am

        Thanks Marty. Key truly is an Adonis. Every woman should want him to sex them up. Every man too for that matter, it’s patriotic not to.

        • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 12:02 pm

          Key is a man’s man. He was at the Big Gay Out, remember.

          • Tigger 3.2.1.1.1
            30 January 2011 at 1:19 pm

            No way, you’re not unloading Creep-Key onto us! That Tiger Woods wannabe is all yours.

            I’m confused as to why the righties are so delighted with Key over this. He is clearly trying far too hard to be a bloke and the worst thing to blokes is usually rich tossers who are desperate to appear masculine by talking about porking any piece of woman they can get their hands on and how they’d like to be an All Black. Key is so fey he makes Liberace look butch.

      • jcuknz 3.2.2
        30 January 2011 at 4:37 pm

        That is the problem you males have in that you don’t appreciate what attracts women. The mere fact that he is Prime Minister is enough without the charming smile and wave so often rubbished here. I suspect Tigger was being sarcastic or ironical but never a truer word said in jest.
        But it is an example of how standards are dropping like the letter written by some school principal, published on Kiwiblog, and the language uses isn’t what I would write in a letter likely to go on-line to the multitudes. She is a rabid anti- National Standards type. Doesn’t say much for her or the people who employed her.

  4. Hilary 4
    30 January 2011 at 10:29 am

    I wonder what his wife and daughter think about this comment? This blokey attitude is not a joke but is dangerous and why we have such high rates of male violence towards women. The message is that women’s role is to be attractive and be available to pander to the whims of men.

    And just too bad if they expect any citizenship rights.

  5. ianmac 5
    30 January 2011 at 10:33 am

    Even if he had secret lustful thoughts it seems daft to voice them.
    But wait. Lonergan represents that chunk who support/vote for such a red-blooded Kiwi.

  6. just saying 6
    30 January 2011 at 10:36 am

    Hey IB, I think it’s worth mentioning that you’re quoting Danyl from the dimpost.
    http://dimpost.wordpress.com/

  7. QoT 7
    30 January 2011 at 10:39 am

    Ew ew ew ew ew ew ew.

  8. NZGroover 8
    30 January 2011 at 10:51 am

    Oh my god! A man who finds some women attractive, call the politically correct police. I don’t need someone telling me what I’m allowed to think…….I can think for myself.

    I think Liz Hurley is hot!
    I think Jessica Alba is hot!
    Angelina……not so much, I’m not a fan of tattoo’s

    But you know what, if they passed me in the street they wouldn’t give me a second look. That’s allright, I’m not offended, they can think for themselves too.

    • IrishBill 8.1
      30 January 2011 at 10:57 am

      Most hetrosexual men find woman attractive. It’s not a signifier of some high level of manliness at all (sorry NZG) and banging on about it on radio with Vietch is just creepy.

      • word 8.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 12:19 pm

        Maybe to you. I couldn’t care less.

        • Jum 8.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 2:27 pm

          Word, whether you care less isn’t the point; this is a tactical ploy on JKeyll’s part to win favour with penile-brained males but which sidelines women as just t*ts and (captcha) legs. It also puts them in danger from these idiots who think women really want to be raped or battered.

          JKeyll knows the importance of sexist language to his gutter base and he is using it without due regard to New Zealand women, including his own wife and daughter and encouraging his own son to regard women and girls in such a way. It’s sick.

          As the ‘leader’ of New Zealand he is deliberately denigrating half the population in order to win votes from the underbelly of New Zealand.

          Divide the masses against one another and you control the country.

      • Just Me 8.1.2
        30 January 2011 at 1:33 pm

        What exactly has Key said that is creepy, Irish?

        • orange whip? 8.1.2.1
          30 January 2011 at 1:45 pm

          If you don’t get what’s creepy about the “family man” Prime Minister going on the radio and having a leery blokey old time chatting about the hot chicks he fancies and how cool it would be to be like Tiger and sleep around heaps on the missus…

          …with a guy who threw his girlfriend down the stairs and kicked the shit out of her….

          Then there’s no amount of explaining that will get through to you.

          • Just Me 8.1.2.1.1
            30 January 2011 at 2:14 pm

            Sorry Orange, thats a cop out.

            If you want to call a person names be prepared to explain why. Hiding behind emotive words like creepy and leery and pulling in the background of the interviewer is about as a poorly a made argument as you can get.

            One of the things I like about this blog is that the authors and generally the commentators are prepared to make well though out arguments but in my opinion I’m sorry to say is crap and is simply drawing in all the usual elements that many of us complain about haunting the comment sections right wing blogs like Kiwiblog.

            • orange whip? 8.1.2.1.1.1
              30 January 2011 at 3:04 pm

              Fine, let’s play devil’s avocado.

              As you say, it’s an emotive term. I think my first comment pretty clearly stated that there’s a degree of subjectivity involved (you either find it creepy or you don’t). Emotions are like that though, you can’t make people feel them.

              So you don’t think it’s creepy and I do. So what?

    • QoT 8.2
      30 January 2011 at 10:58 am

      A man who finds some women attractive, call the politically correct police.

      Yes, Groover, that’s totally what people are objecting to.

    • Psycho Milt 8.3
      30 January 2011 at 11:38 am

      …I’m not a fan of tattoo’s

      You’re not a fan of tattoo’s what? Could you complete the sentence please?

      • Pascal's bookie 8.3.1
        30 January 2011 at 11:44 am

        From the context it’s pretty clear he means tattoo’s lady bits. Which is pretty fucked up in it’s own right, but we laugh at the fuckwits we have, not the fuckwits we wished we had.

      • The Voice of Reason 8.3.2
        30 January 2011 at 11:57 am

        Nah, this is what he means:

        http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2718467072/tt0077008

        Quite why Herve and Ricardo are dressed up as Hide and Key I couldn’t say, but Rodney is clearly green with envy at John’s manly manliness.

    • Boganette 8.4
      30 January 2011 at 11:41 am

      “tattoo’s” – What the fuck? Forget the “politically correct police”. Call the nonsensical use of an apostrophe police.

  9. mickysavage 9
    30 January 2011 at 10:55 am

    I think he is going on CT advice for the support of one of the most important conservative sectors, the male chauvinist pig vote.

  10. higherstandard 10
    30 January 2011 at 10:57 am

    rumpity pumpity gettity lifeity

  11. Craig Glen Eden 11
    30 January 2011 at 10:57 am

    I dont think Key saying he thinks that Liz Hurley is attractive is a problem nor is saying that you find a woman attractive a negative towards woman or a reflection on how they are valued.

    Personally I have a problem with his comments about Tiger Woods and the suggestion that he Key wouldn’t mind the other benefits that go with being Tiger Woods. Having already covered the he has lots of money gimme gimme, he goes on to say he gets other benefits.

    So Tiger is the guy with a serious problem who has had sex with multiple woman which has resulted in the humiliation of his wife and family.Is this what Key thinks is a benefit? So much for the strong family man what a guy!

    • RobertM 11.1
      30 January 2011 at 4:18 pm

      Liz Hurly might have been hot ten years ago- but she’s from Milton Keynes or Essex or somewhere nondescript and the polish and accent is very much acquired and practiced. Certainly Kate Moss couldn’t have done it – but Liz is a bit too aggressive and powerful and Warne is a game and possibly a body. So the women, (Lisa lewis-likewise have certainly now graduated to appreciating and using men as bodies devoid of any intellectual pretense or lie.
      Tiger Woods, poor tiger, every top sportsman and politician in the United States have always done it to cultivate the pussy fields. There has long ceased to be any social mobility by employment or education in the USA- the working class never get beyond a couple of years in mediocre colleges and the cutting down of Tiger showed mobility by sports or sex was also too much, too hot and too truthful for the fundamentalist, waited upon, over privileged Americans. And that’s the real outrage. The outrage and cant over the free loving Tiger makes you want to vomit. They should send Christine Fletcher and Sandra Coney over to Salt Lake City. Give them a green card, Auckland would be well rid of the moralists.

      • Jum 11.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 4:48 pm

        Morals have nothing to do with it. Using America as an example when the porn numbers outnumber the church numbers proves nothing.

        In New Zealand, the safety of women and girls and the rights of women to equal job prospects with pay equity is what JKeyll is trying to destroy. He has not considered the danger to our women and girls and the effect of his words on our men and boys; he is telling females they are not human beings and he is telling males they have the right to attack females because he believes they are less than males.

        The fact that the leader of New Zealand is deliberately using women and girls to increase his vote count and his supporters in positions of public influence approving that behaviour speaks volumes about the many skanky JKeyll and Hide men that inhabit the underbelly zone of this beautiful country.

        Yes, skanky penile-braindead men Robert M, like the ones who use comments like ‘cultivate the pussy fields’ to show their hatred of women and girls.

  12. orange whip? 12
    30 January 2011 at 10:58 am

    So ladies, are you wondering why the govt doesn’t seem interested in doing anything about the fact that you still get paid less than men for the same work?

    Are you wondering why funding for victims of sexual abuse has been slashed?

    Are you curious at all about the govts attacks on the DPB – a safety net for victims of domestic violence?

    Maybe, just maybe, you should be questioning the character of your PM. You know, just to be absolutely certain that he’s not a disgusting sexist pig.

  13. Pascal's bookie 13
    30 January 2011 at 11:07 am

    The family values crowd will be outraged no doubt.

    Matthew 5:28 tells us that this sort of thing is just as bad as homosexuality. Sanctity of marriage baby, so step on up to the plate social conservatives, you have nothing to lose but your credibility.

    Thank god the rugby league gender relations committee thinks it’s cool though. Phew.

    But christ. first coldplay, now starlet celebs.

    Fucking philistinism, that’s what it is.

    Just please god no one ask him what he likes to read.

    • Lew 13.1
      30 January 2011 at 11:11 am

      You forgot about the time he nominated as his favourite Elvis song ‘Rock around the clock’ … by Bill Haley and the Comets.

      Just sayin’. He’s a classy guy.

      L

      • pollywog 13.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 12:52 pm

        and talkin of favourite Elvis songs…

        …’Pocketful of Rainbows’ from GI BLUES is mine. Sung my kids to sleep on many an occassion with it

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELaILNtgIGk

        Elvis…now there was a manz man and ladeez man despite what Chuck D from PE said…

        “Elvis was a hero to most/But he never meant shit to me, you see/Straight up racist that sucker was, simple and plain.”

        …at least they had an excuse back in the day cos it was normal and accepted for whitey to be sexist, racist and homophobic

        • Pascal's bookie 13.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 1:10 pm

          Elvis…now there was a manz man and ladeez man despite what Chuck D from PE said

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FM8ui2ByUI

          I was thinking that night about Elvis
          Day that he died, day that he died
          I was thinking that night about Elvis
          Day that he died, day that he died
          Just a country boy that combed his hair
          And put on a shirt his mother made and went on the air
          And he shook it like a chorus girl
          And he shook it like a Harlem queen
          He shook it like a midnight rambler,
          baby,
          Like you never seen

    • Anne 13.2
      30 January 2011 at 11:55 am

      No worries Pb. He doesn’t read books. Too busy – he says. Think he prefers pictures.

      PB (Paula Bennett) and Key should get together. Two of a kind.

      • Lanthanide 13.2.1
        30 January 2011 at 12:04 pm

        They nominated each other as who they’d take to a desert island. Truly star-crossed lovers that missed their chance.

    • Vicky32 13.3
      30 January 2011 at 6:57 pm

      “The family values crowd will be outraged no doubt.

      Matthew 5:28 tells us that this sort of thing is just as bad as homosexuality. Sanctity of marriage baby, so step on up to the plate social conservatives, you have nothing to lose but your credibility.”
      So, by you, adultery is okay?
      The “family values” crowd isn’t always wrong, ya know!
      Deb

      • QoT 13.3.1
        30 January 2011 at 7:18 pm

        So, by you, adultery is okay?

        I think PB is clearly referring to Biblical edicts against homosexuality, which has no bearing on Biblical edicts against adultery (except in that they are theoretically both opposed by the “family” “values” crowd).

        The “family values” crowd isn’t always wrong, ya know!

        Nor are they always right, which was the entire point of PB’s post. It might help if you tried to stay on topic on this one instead of taking every little thing as a personal jibe (except this sentence, which is one.)

        • Vicky32 13.3.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 7:47 pm

          Sigh.Please, leave me alone, QoT…
          I didn’t realise PB was going on about homosexuality, because the verse he quoted is specifically about adultery! (I looked it up, which IMO you’d have been better off doing rather than leaping to the attack.)
          Thanks for wrecking this thread as well. Well done, girl! Now you can spend the whole night feeling sooooooooooo good about yourself. I am outa here, I don’t want to be put into a world of hurt again, by your bullying.
          D

          • QoT 13.3.1.1.1
            30 January 2011 at 8:05 pm

            Since PB said Matthew 5:28 tells us that this sort of thing is just as bad as homosexuality I kind of assumed that it was fairly obvious he was talking about homosexuality.

            Maybe you’d be better off paying attention to the conversation at hand than leaping to the self-defensive.

            I fail to see how questioning your irrelevant, off-topic comment has “wrecked” the thread, much less constitutes “bullying” but I guess given your history of being unable to see anything other than your own ego I guess anything’s possible.

  14. johnm 14
    30 January 2011 at 11:17 am

    JKeyll is as I thought a rich overpayed figure head PLAYBOY! Well done Kiwis, you voted him in! As Cullen said: “A rich prick”.

    • Jum 14.1
      30 January 2011 at 11:59 am

      I didn’t vote the creep in. What stuns and amazes me is why people don’t see what he is. He’s a construct put in place to bring New Zealand to a place of desperation. It’s working.

      • Just Me 14.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 1:44 pm

        Unfortunately it the NZ public were already at a place of desperation when they voted Key in.

        The real problem is that this election the NZ public have to choose between a Labour Party that has proven over their last 9 year that have have more interest in lining their own pockets than improving the state of the country and the National Party which is well the National party do I need to add more?

        The best thing that could happen at this point is for a new left party to form take on the current parties and campaign on the traditional Labour beliefs of looking after all of society.

        • Jum 14.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 2:36 pm

          Just Me
          Place of desperation in 2008? Government debt zero, unemployment just about zero. JKeyll owns/doesn’t own/owns/doesn’t own a vineyard along with others making money from supermarket sales, lies about the number of shares in rail and speaking of lining his pockets – steals a stone from his Antarctic visit. (I didn’t know it was there Officer…)

          Keep taking the JKeyll pills.

        • the pink postman 14.1.1.2
          30 January 2011 at 3:12 pm

          Tell me do ‘Just Do” whose pockets did Labour line. Wages were raised on a regular basis, the Super was raised each term, unemployment the lowest in the OECD . Plus a surplus of funds.
          Even English admitted the books had been left in good shape . So whose pockets was Labour Lining.? By my calculations it was the workers , families, and pensioners / Beneficiaries. Now under this Right-Wing lot its the rich and tricksters. And tell me do “Just Me” was your hero Key really bought up in a State House and was his mother really a refugee ? Mazel Tov!

          • Jum 14.1.1.2.1
            30 January 2011 at 7:33 pm

            Good point.

            Where was the state house, how much was JKeyll’s mother receiving, what other support was she getting and who was paying for it?

            Oh I know! Pick me! Pick me!

            captcha: support

          • Just Me 14.1.1.2.2
            30 January 2011 at 9:13 pm

            Jum & Pink Postman,

            If the NZ Public didn’t feel that they were already at a place of desperation why did they vote Labour out and National in?

            National have never been the answer to this country’s issues and the majority of NZ’ers know it, however you look at the last elections results and the majority of NZ public clearly felt Labour was no longer a viable option.

            With that being the case the case then I believe that many New Zealanders clearly felt that they were already at place of desperation.

            • orange whip? 14.1.1.2.2.1
              30 January 2011 at 10:00 pm

              You answer your own question quite well when you say they “clearly felt Labour was no longer a viable option.”

              But you then ignore your own consultation and make the huge mental leap to “desperation”.

              It simply does not follow that changing your mind or growing weary of something equals “desperation”.

  15. Mike 15
    30 January 2011 at 11:20 am

    You can listen to the segment here
    http://www.radiosport.co.nz/ThisWeek/60745.wma
    I don’t think the comments are as bad as reported but the fact he is willing to appear on a show with Tony Vetich after all that happened is quite unbelievable.

    • Armchair Critic 15.1
      30 January 2011 at 12:02 pm

      Absolutely. The choice of subject matter is puerile. The thing that made me marvel, again, at his idiocy was that he thought appearing on Tony Vietch’s show was a good idea. We have enough sports boof-head radio jocks without having to resort to retrospectively sorry violent criminals.

  16. Anne 16
    30 January 2011 at 11:21 am

    Perhaps he thinks he’s the Berlusconi of the Sth. Pacific. Nah, Berlosconi at least has a bit of style. I know which…

  17. the sprout 17
    30 January 2011 at 11:29 am

    Standby for Herald article “PM makes strong courageous case for women’s vote”

  18. Psycho Milt 18
    30 January 2011 at 11:42 am

    …just a little creepy?

    A little creepy, definitely. Much more creepy is that neither he nor the bulk of National’s supporters will not only not be able to see anything even remotely creepy about it, but find it “manly” – in that sexy, Clinton/Rickards/Schollum kind of way.

    • IrishBill 18.1
      30 January 2011 at 12:48 pm

      I’ve never really understood why a particular type of rightie seems to think blatantly displaying their hatred and fear of women makes them “manly”. It’s like they live in a world turned upside down.

      • Lew 18.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 1:09 pm

        Not just righties, Bill.

        L

        C: “remind”

        • the sprout 18.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 2:04 pm

          that’s an impressive bit of misogyny even for Trotter.
          it does however illustrate why Goff’s Labour is so hopeless – in an effort to rebrand as a blokey boys club, they’ve alienated many of the activists who actually got things done

        • IrishBill 18.1.1.2
          30 January 2011 at 3:06 pm

          Point taken, Lew.

      • Just Me 18.1.2
        30 January 2011 at 1:59 pm

        Irish are you reading different article? Because what he is quoted as saying is:

        Re which sports star he would be: “Obviously for the money I would be Tiger Woods. You get paid a truckload of money,” he said, adding “there are other benefits that clearly come with the job” too.”

        Re would he like to be Steve Warne: “Yeah, well given his current liaisons with Liz Hurley,” Key said. “I like Liz Hurley actually. I reckon she is hot.”

        Re Lize Hurley: “definite” in his dream date top three, adding that she’s “slightly older”

        Re Key’s Wish List: “Jessica Alba looked pretty hot” despite her latest movie, Little Fockers, being “rubbish” and that Brad Pitt’s squeeze, Angelina Jolie “is not too bad” either”

        There is no Hatred or Fear of women that I can see in Key’s words however the fear and hatred from this post I’m sorry to say is spilling over.

        • IrishBill 18.1.2.1
          30 January 2011 at 3:34 pm

          I wasn’t talking about Key. I was talking about a particular type of rightie. A more perceptive critic might have deduced that from my use of the phrase “particular type of rightie”.

          • Just Me 18.1.2.1.1
            30 January 2011 at 9:19 pm

            Fair call.

            I do still however feel that there far too many more words of fear and hatred around this post and its comments. Its reads more like Kiwiblog which is probably it seems I’m coming off as a prick/ :).

            • orange whip? 18.1.2.1.1.1
              30 January 2011 at 10:05 pm

              I for one hate guys who bash women, and I fear those who feel comfortable in their presence.

              So there you go, two ticks for me.

              As for the reason you’re coming off as a prick: It doesn’t make any sense to claim that it’s because of the “thread” seeming – to you – like some other thread somewhere else. Occam’s razor would suggest that it’s probably because you’re a bit of a prick.

        • orange whip? 18.1.2.2
          30 January 2011 at 3:34 pm

          Maybe he’s reading the same article, but as a human being rather than a robot.

  19. Jum 19
    30 January 2011 at 11:50 am

    When he returned to his old school, Burnside, to deliver a speech he told the young male students to consider well their choice in wife.

    A businesswoman who was all for voting him into government in 2008 shook hands with him; “it was like shaking hands with a dead fish” she said. Apparently, his handshaking has improved, or maybe he doesn’t actually like shaking hands with women. This latest garbage out of his mouth, along with the brotherhood of man speech he gave at the Pike River remembrance is just more evidence of the training he is receiving to appeal to the masses who hate women and hate sharing power with them.

    That’s what is scary about this guy.

    He did not marry his ‘childhood sweetheart’. He married a young woman who was quite happy to be bent into wifely duties, not too ambitious, not too outspoken but able to string intelligent sentences together. Her payback was untold riches and mansions to die for. I still haven’t found out if they have cheap, desperate cleaners on call-up contracts to clean them when the first lady and prime minister are expected. He sought her out in line with the plan he had to become prime minister. There was nothing sweet about it.

    His choice of Helensville wasn’t random; it was a statement. All the stops were pulled out to ensure he won the candidacy and then the seat.

    His ‘DPB mothers are breeding for a business’ comment was a clue to the character of the man. Women were too stupid to pick up on it. They were bought and sold out by that cancer drug being extended, with no clinical proof of its curative benefits.

    captcha: manages

    • Lanthanide 19.1
      30 January 2011 at 12:06 pm

      Don’t forget his vasectomy.

      • Jum 19.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 1:06 pm

        Now I understand, Lanthanide, how his brain patterns have been so disturbed. He’s having to compensate. Men are just so precious, aren’t they…

        With a vasectomy, there’s less chance of an ‘unsecured creditor’; that’s accounting speak for the undercover squeeze being ‘up the duff’. Well, if he’s going to go the Tiger Wood’s way…

        The guy’s a planner, from ten years old. The trouble is, the planning only encompasses what’s in it for him. Not a good choice for a leader.

  20. gobsmacked 20
    30 January 2011 at 12:19 pm

    What we need is a principled, fearless opposition leader who is prepared to take a stand against domestic violence.

    Oh look, here’s one …

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/530850

    “There have been mounting calls from colleagues and family violence advocates for Veitch to be sacked from his jobs.
    National leader John Key said last night he was disappointed by the lack of judgement shown by TVNZ executives. “I am surprised to learn this. The minister needs to ask some questions to find out what the parties knew.”
    If the assault was as serious as described, Key said he could not see how Veitch could continue in his employment.”

    (July 2008)

  21. wasi 21
    30 January 2011 at 12:19 pm

    this one is a classic…

    “Veitch’s rival breakfast host, former Kiwis league great Dean Lonergan said Key’s comment had made him respect the PM even more. ”

    “Those women who might be upset at his comments are obviously just disappointed they never made John Key’s list and never will.”

    …perhaps dean lonergan wants to be on that list…

  22. travellerev 22
    30 January 2011 at 12:24 pm

    The going to strip clubs just for business was a dead give away though wasn’t it.

    Anyway a strip club visiting naked tits drooler is heaps better then a lesbo especially if he screws you up the ass to give his mates a free ride (no pun intended there) according to my husbands colleagues who still think the sun shines out of his ass.

    Funny how it just doesn’t stop once you get started on this double entendre stuff.

  23. travellerev 23
    30 January 2011 at 12:33 pm

    OK,

    Here is when I really started to vomit:

    “”Those women who might be upset at his comments are obviously just disappointed they never made John Key’s list and never will.”

    Gross. What is it with Gerbil wearing aging men whose bodies are clearly passed their sell by date who still think they have a chance with gorgeous young or well preserved women while dissing women who are equally passed their sell by date and are at peace with it just because they go Oh yuk, over their sexist crappy remarks.

    Wanting to be on John Key’s list; give me a break.

  24. kriswgtn 24
    30 January 2011 at 12:34 pm

    What a complete sexist pig
    Hes just trying to divert attention away from what he plans to do to ALL nzers
    frak us til we cant be fraked no more

  25. word 25
    30 January 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Get over it.

  26. fabregas4 26
    30 January 2011 at 12:42 pm

    In the UK two very famous sports presenters have just been sacked for similar discussions. These were held off air and still they were sacked. Key does on Nationwide radio with a convicted violent offender and it’s ok?

    How far has our country sunk? What does leadership mean nowadays?

    Note that Martin Devlin the subject of an embarrassing episode made public last week supported the UK presenters on the TVNZ web site yesterday – when will they ever learn?

  27. Jum 27
    30 January 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Oh look, here’s a mate of JKeyll’s, taking a photo op during NAct’s new age of women-hatred:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4596899/Man-recorded-best-friends-girlfriend-in-the-shower

    He must be part of JKeyll’s brotherhood of men; JKeyll must be very pleased with the way his forcing women out of the workforce, out of equality, out of pay equity and into the way of more rapes, more sex discrimination in job seeking and more batterings with less criminal prosecutions is progressing.

    I just hope women in this country are also out of patience!

    Can they possibly be that unaware of what is being done to them by the leader of New Zealand?

    • Marty G 27.1
      30 January 2011 at 1:25 pm

      I bet you anything that if Key did that there would be a bunch of rightie men on this site saying it just proves Key is a good red-blooded bloke.

  28. Daveo 28
    30 January 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Not surprising Hurley’s at the top of Key’s list. The gnats have made no secret of the fact they like to fuck solo mums.

  29. rellupsinep 29
    30 January 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Shows how normal Key is. Real Kiwi blokes have this conversation some time or another in their life. May even be a topic for conversation at Phil’s BBQ.

    • Marty G 29.1
      30 January 2011 at 1:19 pm

      I’m a real Kiwi bloke and I don’t go round saying it would be fun to be Tiger Woods because then I could have multiple affairs. And I don’t hang out making jokes about women with a woman basher.

      Is palling around with a woman basher your idea of what an ‘real Kiwi bloke’ does? Because you obviously don’t know any if so.

      And a ‘real Kiwi bloke’ doesn’t humiliate his wife in front of the whole country.

      • Mac1 29.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 2:00 pm

        Right on, Marty G.

        I’ve just returned from five weeks in Oz and what the RWNJ’s and social neanderthals are banging on there is the fact that there are so many women premiers at state and national level.

        I didn’t read anything from these women about their disrespect for men, partners and religious beliefs, though. They had no need to propose themselves in such terms. What deficencies, way beyond the vain use of hair colour, does contemplating serial betrayal of solemn vows, sexual objectification and the breaking of commonly held social and religious moral beliefs point to in John Key?

        Capcha “affects”!

  30. graham 30
    30 January 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Any of you lefties ofended by your PMs jokes please feel free to tell your work mates ,ring up talk back and write letters to the newspapers
    Lets see it national can hit 60%
    LMAO

    • Daveo 30.1
      30 January 2011 at 1:20 pm

      Yeah graham, me and your wife were laughing our asses off at you the other day too…

      • Jum 30.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 1:23 pm

        Interesting…

      • higherstandard 30.1.2
        30 January 2011 at 1:26 pm

        ?

      • graham 30.1.3
        30 January 2011 at 7:08 pm

        You know the rules here you cant make up stories that will get you banned for a month

        so give me proof that your were having sex with my wife

        just say what town that i live in or are you a tipical lieing leftie

        • The Voice of Reason 30.1.3.1
          30 January 2011 at 7:18 pm

          Rod Marsh, seventies Aussie keeper, famously tried to sledge top pom Ian Botham by asking “How’s your wife and my kids?” Botham replied “The wife’s fine – the kids are retarded.”

          That’s how to handle insults, graham. Wit. You should give it try next time someone laughs at you. Shouldn’t be long now…

        • Armchair Critic 30.1.3.2
          30 January 2011 at 10:06 pm

          “Just say what town that i live in or are you a tipical lieing leftie.”
          I think that’s a trick question. I reckon you don’t live in a town, you live in the country west of Chch.

    • Jum 30.2
      30 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

      And sadly, Graham, women in New Zealand think men like you see them as human beings.

      Not to mention all those men with wives and daughters, mothers and grand-daughters that actually believe that men like you see them as human beings and love them like they love you.

      Sad but predictable.

      • LynW 30.2.1
        30 January 2011 at 6:14 pm

        Wow Jum my thoughts exactly! It is a conundrum I simply cannot work out! Brothers, husbands, fathers, grandfathers….

    • Marty G 30.3
      30 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

      graham. do you hang out with woman bashers making jokes about having affairs in public?

      You dorks are living in a different world if you think this makes Key look like a good guy.

      And, I know it pains your type of mentality, but women have the vote too, and I’m betting a lot of them are thinking what I thought when I read that article – ‘his poor wife, what’s she done to deserve public humiliation’

  31. Tel 31
    30 January 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Key goes on a show to be interviewed by a prominent girlfriend basher and the best he can come up with is “pretty hot”? In Veitch’s and Lonergan’s circle the least they would say in polite company is “I’d do that” and more usually “I’d root that”.

    What I find the most disappointing about Key is he has no personal opinion on anything that I can believe. His answers are normally wishy-washy, go where the wind blows, and usually clipped and adjusted to be voter favourable (in his eyes) and yet he comes across as the most vanilla middle of the road spineless wimp to ever run in politics.

    Of course his radio show answer could be an elaborate diversion to why he spends so much time with Paula Bennett…

    • Olwyn 31.1
      30 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

      This is all to show that “he is not a politician like the rest of them.” One wonders if people who vote for him on these grounds choose their doctors and dentists on the same grounds.

  32. Dean Reynolds 32
    30 January 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Key is close to his tipping point – trying to sell asset sales to the public & fantasizing over younger women all in the same week, indicate someone who’s become arrogant, out of touch & with delusions of being politically bullet proof. Someone needs to remind him that National won’t win a majority of votes in November & his 2 coalitiion partners are disintegrating.
    Key’s contest with Phil Goff is like the hare & the tortoise, with Key being the hare.

  33. Treetop 33
    30 January 2011 at 1:20 pm

    What does sexual fantasy have to do with sport?
    What does sexual fantasy have to do with politics?

    • Marty G 33.1
      30 January 2011 at 1:22 pm

      why is it that Key’s main media appearances these days are on sport radio?

      And why the hell does Tony Veitch have a job?

      • higherstandard 33.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 1:28 pm

        Why should Tony Veitch not have a job ?

        • Marty G 33.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 1:33 pm

          Shouldn’t have a job as a radio host because, in a sane world, no radio station would employ a woman basher to be one of their public faces.

          • Treetop 33.1.1.1.1
            30 January 2011 at 1:50 pm

            Shame radio do not adopt a higher standard and take a stance similar to that of the police as this is the only way to root out the public having to tolerate immoral behaviour.

            • Jum 33.1.1.1.1.1
              30 January 2011 at 2:15 pm

              If they did that, there’d be no radio, except maybe Radio New Zealand.

              Now that JKeyll and Collins are installing a police and prison state the macho power surge of police will result in a reversal there too.

              • Treetop …
                30 January 2011 at 3:27 pm

                I’ m not talking about low level stuff. What Veitch did was in the top third of offending.

          • Just Me 33.1.1.1.2
            30 January 2011 at 2:06 pm

            Why Marty?

            Has Not Veitch been been convicted of his crime and completed his punishment?

            Does that not mean he has repaid his his “debt to society”?

            Or do you believe that a person who commits a crime be constantly judged on their previousl criminal actions for the rest of their days?

            • Treetop 33.1.1.1.2.1
              30 January 2011 at 3:14 pm

              Convicted and punished yes.
              He didn’t assault me so he doesn’t owe me.
              I am being judgemental because I have a high standard for a person who puts themself out there.

              • Treetop …
                30 January 2011 at 5:32 pm

                Since this post, I have asked myself why I am judgemental towards Veitch?
                Somethings are not right to normalise or to minimise because of the damage they cause to the recepient of the crime and to the moral decline of society.

                Veitch was cut a break with his light sentence.

            • Marty G 33.1.1.1.2.2
              30 January 2011 at 3:21 pm

              It’s not a matter of ‘paying his debt to society’

              I wouldn’t want a woman basher as a front man for my business – would you?

              And, if I was anyone, much less PM of the country, I wouldn’t want to appear on a show with a woman basher and make jokes about having affairs.

              And just because the guy had his 9 month’s supervision and 300 hour’s community service and $10K fine doesn’t mean I can’t think he’s a total bastard for abusing a woman for 4 years and breaking her back.

            • QoT 33.1.1.1.2.3
              30 January 2011 at 6:53 pm

              In a somewhat masturbatory move, I can only reference my own post on the matter from 2009:

              I fully believe in second chances. I fully believe in people’s capacity to change and redeem. Tony Veitch, on the other hand, seems to fully believe in his right to mouth empty apologies and pretend this never happened, and calling his actions “getting on with his life”. So no. He does not deserve a second chance.

              • Treetop …
                30 January 2011 at 7:08 pm

                I second that.

                • QoT …
                  30 January 2011 at 7:21 pm

                  Would you believe the phrase “I make no excuses for my behaviour, except to say …” will send me into an instant rage to this very day?

                  • M …
                    30 January 2011 at 7:31 pm

                    Yes QoT – you knew once he spouted “…except to say…” there was no way he was sorry.

                    A real man would have said, “I’m a violent person who needs intensive treatment and counselling and will immediately tell every woman I meet that may be interested in me romantically of my conviction.”

                  • Treetop …
                    30 January 2011 at 7:41 pm

                    I knew of the no excuses comment which is acceptable, but the instant rage one does not show any self awareness.

        • Daveosaurus 33.1.1.2
          30 January 2011 at 2:11 pm

          Because he should be serving a lengthy time as a “guest” of Her Majesty, as befits a violent criminal.

          • Just Me 33.1.1.2.1
            30 January 2011 at 2:19 pm

            According to Wikipedia Vetich was sentenced to “nine months supervision, 300 hours community service and a $10,000 fine with the possibility of having to attend a Stop Violence programme should this be deemed necessary by parole official”.

            While I agree 100% that I believe the sentence in no way reflects the severity of the crimes that he committed, he has been convicted, sentenced and completed his sentence. Therefore at what point do you want to decide he has repaid his debt to socieyt?

            • orange whip? 33.1.1.2.1.1
              30 January 2011 at 3:16 pm

              Irrelevant.

              He’s a violent thug who threw a woman down the stairs and kicked her half to death.

              Whether he served ten years or ten days is neither here nor there, he still did it and everyone knows it.

              Terrible judgement on Key’s part. Terrible judgement. How does his wife put up with this kind of shit?

              • Anne …
                30 January 2011 at 7:31 pm

                “How does his wife put up with this kind of shit?”

                Because as Jum said @ 11:50am:

                “He did not marry his ‘childhood sweetheart’. He married a young woman who was quite happy to be bent into wifely duties, not too ambitious, not too outspoken but able to string intelligent sentences together. Her payback was untold riches and mansions to die for. I still haven’t found out if they have cheap, desperate cleaners on call-up contracts to clean them when the first lady and prime minister are expected. He sought her out in line with the plan he had to become prime minister. There was nothing sweet about it.”

            • McFlock 33.1.1.2.1.2
              30 January 2011 at 6:23 pm

              His debt to society is repaid as best the justice system can manage.

              But really – at what level would you say “that dude shouldn’t have his own radio show, even if he has served his sentence. The fact anyone wanted to listen to him would just demonstrate how our society is fucked up, and encourage acceptance of that fucked-uppedness.”?

              Charles Manson?
              One of “those” priests?

              A genuine “made a mistake, served my time” like dangerous driving (not habitual, but out of character after facing a significant emotional blow) and injuring someone in an accident – yeah, I can see that they could restart their career. But this guy got pretty brutal on another human being who he theoretically loved at the time, and did so completely intentionally.

              That is the guy our PM wants to associate with.

  34. pollywog 34
    30 January 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Paula Bennett is a chubby chasers ultimate wet dream…

    …drop 40 kegs or so and even i’d think about taking it for a hoon

    CHEEEEEEEEEEHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO….:)

    • Marty G 34.1
      30 January 2011 at 1:30 pm

      steady on, old boy.

      • pollywog 34.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 1:52 pm

        yeah what was i thinking…I’m only good for a pint or two these days.

        Not sayin i love her like a fat kid love cake but Paula can’t always have been large and in charge though can she ?

        hmmmm…bet she’d go off on ‘The Biggest Loser’ cos well ,she’s got a jump start on being big and…

    • Just Me 34.2
      30 January 2011 at 2:07 pm

      Here you go Irish, this is a statement that drips of fear and hatred of women.

      • Just Me 34.2.1
        30 January 2011 at 2:23 pm

        Apologies for this statement. With hindsight its augmentative and not required.

        I would delete but is outside the edit period.

      • pollywog 34.2.2
        30 January 2011 at 4:51 pm

        yeah…i’ll admit it, Paula Bennett scares me. No one that stupid should be allowed to run a state ministry. I don’t hate her for it though…stupid is as stupid does

        … that she’s a woman is irrelevent.

    • Deadly_NZ 34.3
      30 January 2011 at 11:32 pm

      Well at least then you can say you screwed WINZ.

  35. Rharn 35
    30 January 2011 at 1:53 pm

    National leader John Key said last night he was disappointed by the lack of judgement shown by TVNZ executives. “I am surprised to learn this. The minister needs to ask some questions to find out what the parties knew.”

    If the assault was as serious as described, Key said he could not see how Veitch could continue in his employment.

    The above is from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/530850

    And now Key is only to willing to appear ‘with’ Veitch when it suites him. If there was ever an example of Key having no moral fibre or standards of decency this is it.

  36. Jum 36
    30 January 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Re your comment: Lew 18.1.1
    30 January 2011 at 1:09 pm

    “Not just righties, Bill.”

    True. I also found this post on his site from a blogger, Victor:

    “I remember my shock, when I first arrived here with my returning expat wife in 1985 , to discover that men would shake hands with me and not with her, that (despite her obviously greater knowledge on certain topics ) they would talk past her to me and that she was meant to disappear into the kitchen as part of a girly club at social gatherings.”

    This ties in with the way JKeyll shook hands with the businesswoman I quoted, ‘A businesswoman who was all for voting him into government in 2008 shook hands with him; “it was like shaking hands with a dead fish” she said. Apparently, his handshaking has improved, or maybe he doesn’t actually like shaking hands with women.’

    Thanks for this post, Irish Bill. Key’s profile is a telling one. His plan for women is becoming more evident daily. I thought so pre-2008 election and I haven’t changed my mind. Women will be the sacrifice for this country to pay men even more than women and get the jobs women were equally able to do. A conservative backlash is never pretty. It happens every couple of decades when women are getting uppity.

    What does always disappoint me is the weakness of men who simply are unable to handle equality with women. These men need to denigrate, humiliate, attack both verbally and physically any woman who exhibits independence and intelligence. In order to be men they must destroy women. That is what JKeyll is intending to do to the women of this country. What a shame so many men are not defending women’s right to be seen as equal human beings.

    In dividing men and women by making them enemies, JKeyll succeeds in keeping all workers down.

    • jcuknz 36.1
      30 January 2011 at 4:52 pm

      What a load of the proverbial 🙂

      • Jum 36.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 7:48 pm

        Was that a picture of your face or your ass, jcuknz?

        Whichever, it’s spouting bullshit and little else worth reading.

    • Gina 36.2
      30 January 2011 at 5:51 pm

      Theres more than that Jum. Key has gutted the matrimonial property act. Trusts are rife in NZ and most women dont have a clue that trust assetts are not regarded as matrimonial property.

      With the removal of the Gift duty already passed into law men will be able to transfer assetts directly into trusts where their wives cant touch them if the couple split. Currently you can only transfer 27000 per year so it takes a long time for all the potential matrimonial property to run out.

      This has the potential to benefit MR Key 25,000 000 million as his wifes share of the matrimonial property. It would take ages for Key to transfer all that loot into a trust at 27000 per year wouldn’t it. Looks like Mr Key might be enacting laws for his own personal benefit to the tune of $25,000 000. Hes courting electoral danger but relying on the fact that most women don’t have any idea what he’s done and will enact if women dont find out before the election. If Key does not enact the removal of the Gift Duty before the election remember hes passed the law to legalise doing such at any time after the election.

      Read this article by By Deborah Hollings QC and Suzanne Robertson
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10693125

      And we hear that Bill English put a lot of money in his wife Mary’s trust. The thing is who are the trustees. If hes set up a trust in her name if she is not a trustee and he is she has no control over that money anyway and the trust can give it straight back to him if the trustees decide to alter the terms of the trust they wont have to ask Mary unless she is a trustee. Such is the case I believe with many rich men who put large sums into trusts in the names of their wives. If those wives are not trustees they stand to gain nothing unless the trustees agree.

      So once the removal is enacted before the next election people will be able to transfer the family home into a trust without the usual gift duey limit of 27000 per year so put the entire property in immediately. This is true for any assetts. A lot of women have signed documents agreeing to put assetts in their husbands trust without being told or having any idea that should they split they will have a long legal battle on their hands to get their share. Apparantly the courts are only recognising financial contribution not unpaid labour.

      What is really bad about these trusts is that many women don’t understand the implications of what they are signing and their husband knows full well. Thats actually fraud but good old kiwi blokes think that defrauding the mother of their children is OK.

      There are now between 300000 and 500000 trusts in NZ. Women are trustees of the family trust in about 50% of cases. This does not automatically protect them. The trust agreement myust be looked at by their own lawyer. Trusts can also affect widows who may be unable to access their husbands assetts.

      There are now 167 000 family homes in trusts. 50% of housholds where the income is above 250000 have a trust.

      If trusts are agreed to before a woman takes on a lifetime of reponsobnility and unpaid work in bearing children then son be it. If a trust is hidden from a marriage partner who is contibuting a lifetime of free work for the family who is under the impression she is financially propected by the matrimonial property act then that is fraud. If a trust is imposed on a woman after she has born children that will require a lifetime of care that is abuse.
      This is what thousands of Kiwi men are involved in including our PM. fraud. If you don\’t want to share your assetts don\’t tick a woman into providing you with children and free household labour. Be honest and see how many women are willing to sign up to what you want. If you get a taker who understands what you are up to then fine.

      We need a contract for men to sign at the beginning of marriage that goes something like this.

      I acknowlege that my wife will contribute to our marriage by bearing children and keeping house. I recognise her unpaid contribution makes it impossible for her to suced in other areas that her time will be completely taken up looking after family. I thus regard her as having an equal share in any financial sucess I might have becuase my wife will sacrifice her own financial sucess for our mutual benefit.
      Why will we need this. Many men are setting up small businesses and they can put those businesses immediatly into a trust without consulting their partner if the business is not legally co owned.
      A lot of women work hard for their partners becuase we are supposed to share equally in the assetts. Your partner can now do all this without your knowledge and keep you working like a dog thinking your marriage is a partnerships.

      With more trusts in NZ than any where on earth what does that say about Kiwi men. And the removal of the gift duty will make what was once a slow arduous task ( cutting your partner out ) into a really easy thing so I imagine this theft will really take off.

      As I said if its agreed to before a woman makes that commitment to have children and ruin her career prospects and she is aware of just how much work children will be then thats not fraud. But whats happening in NZ is fraud but our courts don\’t care about justice for women much and like in another form of abuse such as rape it your word against his. As I understand it even if you prove financial contribution your sacrifice for the family is not considered when trying to retrieve matrimonial property from trusts.

      • M 36.2.1
        30 January 2011 at 7:02 pm

        Gina

        Excellent post – I read a while ago about a woman whose marriage ended and was trying to get a share of the matrimonial assets (a farm from memory) but couldn’t because it was in a trust. No doubt by the time she receives anything by way of assets it will amount to very little because of the legal fees.

        Sounds like a pretty good way to get the birth rate to drop or to have child care facilities increase markedly for children accepting enrolments from birth.

        One of the best pieces of money my mother ever gave to me was to always have my own bank account and some money to call my own. Looks like women in the future will need to have such arrangements to protect themselves and any children they may have.

        • Gina 36.2.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 7:33 pm

          Thanks M

          “Sounds like a pretty good way to get the birth rate to drop or to have child care facilities increase markedly for children accepting enrolments from birth.”

          Yes and a lot of men would rather put their kids in care than give their partner a cent. But then their is 50 hours plus housework for the average mum with one or 2 kids. This does not inculde childcare and still has to be done so childcare alone does not equal the score. Either your partner does half or your career is still at the mercy of runing the house.

          I think if women knew what Key had done they would drop National like a hot cake.

          National would loose at least 50% of their female supporters. Now if labour activists can get the word out to as many women as possible that might turn the next election into a slam dunk for them. They will piss off men who will never vote for them but they would get a large part of the female vote away from the Nats. Forget the media for this as it’ll be glossed over with disinfo to give women the impression all is well in their financial world .

          The problem is women don’t know whats going on so will continue to be ripped off by their husbands. Their husbands want all that free labour etc so are not going to tell them what’s up. Women will not pursue their careers because they aren’t aware of whats going down and will end up on welfare out of ignorance. Then women and the state will have to pay for this fraud as marriages end we will have destitute women.
          Interesting to see if Key’s marriage ends once he passes this act. Maybe he really has delussions regarding his attractiveness. I have always thought he was boring, I would say hollowness fills his shiny suit.

          • M 36.2.1.1.1
            30 January 2011 at 7:49 pm

            ‘National would loose at least 50% of their female supporters. Now if labour activists can get the word out to as many women as possible that might turn the next election into a slam dunk for them. They will piss off men who will never vote for them but they would get a large part of the female vote away from the Nats. Forget the media for this as it’ll be glossed over with disinfo to give women the impression all is well in their financial world .’

            I think the Law Society should also get the word out via pamphlets as well as Labour.

            The level of misogyny is frightening and I’ve had male friends say to me that there was no way a woman was going to get half of what they’d worked for if things went south. I remonstrated with them about having a free housekeeper, child minder and sexual partner and how much that would all cost but they would have none of it. My reply was always the same “If you’re that jaundiced about how evil women are, don’t marry as it’s a social contract and just hire a hooker, cleaner and surrogate along with the expensive nanny and be done with it.”

        • Gina 36.2.1.2
          30 January 2011 at 7:43 pm

          Its interesting to note that England has one trust per approx 300 famileis. Australia has about half the number of trusts compared to NZ. I would advise NZ women to get a good carreer and emigrate. Who would want a man who wanted all the security for himself and none for you. If you knew a man felt this way could you actually stand him or want to be in a relationship with him. I know someone so selfish wouldn’t get the time of day from me. But men are resorting to trickery so a lot of women don’t actually know the person they have fallen for is just another hollow man.

          • M 36.2.1.2.1
            30 January 2011 at 8:04 pm

            Gina, morganatic unions will now rule thanks to this change and those caught out will rue the day they ever met the other person. I think women may come to view men in the same way women are viewed by some males as fuck buddies, friends with benefits, to the detriment of both.

            Hell, most women get that men like sex without strings and will gorge with alacrity if allowed, but if a man is honest with himself he values the constancy of a good relationship just as a woman does, as a soft place to fall, away from the world and all the crap that can go down – why would men want to turn women off to a satisfying home life?

            • Gina 36.2.1.2.1.1
              30 January 2011 at 8:22 pm

              “why would men want to turn women off to a satisfying home life”

              I don’t think most of them do. I think they are depending on women not finding out so still getting all the comforts of home but not having to give anything back.

              They are also hoping to get rid of thte DPB which would enslave their wife to them. I was going to use the word partner but we all know thats BS. Men don’t want a partner they want a mummy slave hoar. Really they want a robot who has no personal needs.

              • clandestino …
                30 January 2011 at 8:37 pm

                What a load of offensive rubbish. Anyone who has been in a loving relationship should take pity on you.

      • Lanthanide 36.2.2
        30 January 2011 at 8:15 pm

        “This has the potential to benefit MR Key 25,000 000 million as his wifes share of the matrimonial property. It would take ages for Key to transfer all that loot into a trust at 27000 per year wouldn’t it. Looks like Mr Key might be enacting laws for his own personal benefit to the tune of $25,000 000.”

        You’re assuming there are no assets in his trust(s). It’s quite possible, in fact quite likely, that he would’ve transferred say $200k to his trust over 10 years and used that to buy a house some time ago, which then appreciated in value to be worth $1.5m, all held entirely by the trust. Same goes for shares or anything else that can increase in value over time.

        • Gina 36.2.2.1
          30 January 2011 at 8:28 pm

          Yep we don’t know the particulars of Mr Keys personal financial situation but I think there is a strong potential here for him to gain enormous benefit from the removal of the gift Duty. But we can guarantee the serious fraud office will not investigate the passing of a law that financially harms women and the possible massive benefits to those who have passed it.

  37. Puddleglum 37
    30 January 2011 at 2:43 pm

    A good proportion of the men who have absolutely no problem with their Prime Minister talking about women like this in a public forum would have voted for Key in 2008. The remainder of those men presumably had their reasons for not voting for Key and probably wouldn’t be ‘won over’ by this kind of talk.

    In 2008, however, one of the decisive shifts in voting was women voting National rather than Labour. I don’t know how those women who shifted to National would react to this kind of interview, but it seems like an unnecessary risk on Key’s part.

    I wouldn’t be surprised – if the mainstream media really pick up on this – if Key gets lined up for some family and women friendly photo-op soon. When is Breast Cancer week?

  38. ak 38
    30 January 2011 at 3:30 pm

    UNDER-FIRE ASSET-SELLING KIWI PM IN GIGGETY-GIGGETY SMUT GAFFE: “older” Hurley, Alba, Jolie, “pretty hot actually”; “Berlusconi minus the class and testosterone”

  39. just saying 39
    30 January 2011 at 3:38 pm

    http://www.imperatorfish.com/

    Scott at Imperator Fish with a witty post on all this.

    http://ideologicallyimpure.wordpress.com/

    On a more serious note, The Queen of Thorns’ take on it

    • ianmac 39.1
      30 January 2011 at 4:02 pm

      Yep JS. Both underline that this is a serious issue in spite of those here who would dismiss it or laugh it off.

  40. orange whip? 40
    30 January 2011 at 4:36 pm

    So after sharing a racist laugh with the bigot Paul Henry, and fantasising about cheating on the wife with the woman beater Tony Veitch…

    What’s next in Key’s entertainment career?

  41. higherstandard 41
    30 January 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Truly this blog is more vile than the diarrhoea from Beezlebub’s bottom

    • Marty G 41.1
      30 January 2011 at 5:03 pm

      you’re not having a good day, eh, hs?

      I mean, you’re a decent kind of a person. There’s nothing you can say to defend Key here. And yet you’re not going to change your opinion about the man and you can’t bring yourself to actually criticise… so, in desperation you’ll lash out at those that do what you can’t.

      • higherstandard 41.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 5:12 pm

        I’m just taking the piss – I give about as much of a toss what Key says as I did Paul Henry – just another dim politician speaking to his dim audience, we’re overly well served with both in NZ.

        • McFlock 41.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 10:51 pm

          “Truly this blog is more vile than the diarrhoea from Beezlebub’s bottom”
          …
          “I’m just taking the piss”

          So were you going for a Stephen Fry style, or more Bob Hope? Were they in the comedic pantheon of role models for this satirical witticism? Or did you more follow the performance art of Oliver Reid?

          • orange whip? 41.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2011 at 7:09 pm

            From what I’ve observed it’s usually more like the “Michael Richards in meltdown” school.

  42. Chris73 42
    30 January 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Ummm mountain from a molehill anyone?

    Since Vietch was convicted should he be allowed to work in the media or does he have to continue to pay penance for his crime?

    The PM describes some good looking women as attractive, how is this a bad thing?

    • Psycho Milt 42.1
      30 January 2011 at 5:41 pm

      Your wife’s a lucky woman, Chris.

    • Eddie 42.2
      30 January 2011 at 10:33 pm

      his should be allowed to work in the media but what idiots would employ him? What does it do to your reputation: ‘our new breakfast host, the guy who pushed a woman down stairs and broke her back in two places by kicking her, followed by the cricket hour with David Garret’

  43. M 43
    30 January 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Key’s Shag-a-thon list, eh?

    These women wouldn’t second glance him unless maybe he was packing like a porn star as he doesn’t have much going for him in any way apart from his money and that would be the only thing keeping them close. I’m sure conversation with him could only ever be of the most superficial kind, even with intimates.

    Why would a woman want to investigate further if this guy takes pleasure in putting his woman down in the public arena – what’s he trying for? a three-month stand down on knowing Bronagh in the biblical way?

    Physical attraction is often irrational but for most women I think a man’s qualities of having half a brain, humour, kindness and integrity are the things that really light the fires of attraction not matinee idol looks – Key seems to have been at the back of the line for these.

    • Chris73 43.1
      30 January 2011 at 7:49 pm

      Ummm what about money and power?

      • M 43.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 8:21 pm

        I did say Key didn’t have much going for him apart from his money.

        If the question is about men in general, yes, I get that men like to provide and protect and at a basic biological level value health and good looks in women as it means a woman will usually have healthy, attractive offspring. Women need some means of support to rear any children resulting from a union, the old sex for security saw, but what if things go wrong?

        Should a man be able to abandon children he has fathered to the care of a woman who is often at a massive disadvantage because she has given up work and lost earning power and then has the added responsibility of trying to find a full-time job and paying for the concomitant childcare (or if no work exists to go on a totally inadequate benefit), most of the childcare in many cases and all the housework and her ex gets to go out and play bachelor boy leaving her to do all the heavy lifting?

  44. Murray 44
    30 January 2011 at 7:33 pm

    Whats even more creepy is that this thread can conjure smut and degradation of women out of some lighthearted comments by John Key.
    Brings up visions of the labour left as spotty youths frequenting the adult section of video shops and meekcats popping up out of sand dunes.
    My God Ill never look at Phill Goff in the same light again.

    • QoT 44.1
      30 January 2011 at 7:38 pm

      “Smut and degradation”? Yeah, that’s what people are saying.

      Oh wait, actually we’re talking about it being pretty creepy and kind of obviously sexist having a grown, married head of government go on radio to gush about who he’d like to fuck, based purely on their looks.

      But please, carry on trying to somehow make this about how your vote is simultaneously so staunch yet so fragile you’ll change allegiances based on blog comments and we should care.

      • higherstandard 44.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 7:41 pm

        At least he’s not into plumpers

        • Kevin Welsh 44.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 9:18 pm

          I don’t know about that HS. Why else would Bunter get a prime portfolio like Social Development? As the past couple of years has shown, it sure as hell wasn’t talent.

  45. Chris73 45
    30 January 2011 at 7:53 pm

    “I like Liz Hurley actually. I reckon she is hot.”
    “Jessica Alba looked pretty hot”
    Angelina Jolie “is not too bad” either

    What exactly is the problem here?

  46. RedBaron 46
    30 January 2011 at 8:22 pm

    I felt his comments didn’t show any respect for his wife and children. I don’t listen to Radio Sport but does anyone know who the advertisers on the programme are? I can then avoid their products.

    Re the Trusts and marital property, I think the courts busted the Trust in that case mentioned by Gina but it takes a lot of legal fees to get that sort of result.
    Trusts are also widely used to avoid ongoing Child Support (the 180,000 parents receiving child support through the IRD appear to average about $1000 per family per annum) which is a joke compared to male wage distributions. As 110,000 of the recipients are on welfare benefits this child support dodging has a big impact both on the parent caring for the children and the taxpayer at large.

  47. tsmithfield 47
    30 January 2011 at 8:28 pm

    What a beat up.

    I actually think Catherine Zita-Jones is hot.

    Doesn’t mean I want to bang her though.

    There are some male actors my wife comments on as being quite nice. However, it doesn’t offend me in the slightest.

    • orange whip? 47.1
      30 January 2011 at 8:32 pm

      But presumably your wife isn’t on the radio with Lorena Bobbit having a laugh about the studs, right?

      I also presume your wife is not the Prime Minister.

    • Chris73 47.2
      30 January 2011 at 8:37 pm

      Labour will try anything to discredit John Key but this is scraping the barrel, even for them

      [lprent: Read the about.

      Less than half of the authors are actual supporters of Labour from what I can see. Irish definitely isn’t a strong advocate – although he is known to give them probably unwanted advice.

      I’m a member of the Labour party, however I don’t take orders from them or for that matter anyone else. However what you’re impugning is that I do.

      To give you time to read and ponder it and the policy (see the section on self-martyrdom offenses) take the next 4 days off commenting here. ]

      • QoT 47.2.1
        30 January 2011 at 9:46 pm

        Where have Labour said anything about it? Best be careful, Chris, lprent gets ban-happy when people insinuate that The Standard is a Labour-affiliated or -funded blog.

        Unless you were referring to my or Imperator Fish’s posts linked above, in which case please let me know so I can cackle my fat ass off.

  48. ReDBaron 48
    30 January 2011 at 8:38 pm

    This may have posted twice

    I felt his comments didn’t show any respect for his wife and children. I don’t listen to Radio Sport but does anyone know who the advertisers on the programme are? I can then avoid their products.

    Re the Trusts and marital property, I think the courts busted the Trust in that case mentioned by Gina but it takes a lot of legal fees to get that sort of result.
    Trusts are also widely used to avoid ongoing Child Support (the 180,000 parents receiving child support through the IRD appear to average about $1000 per family per annum) which is a joke compared to male wage distributions. As 110,000 of the recipients are on welfare benefits this child support dodging has a big impact both on the parent caring for the children and the taxpayer at large.

  49. tsmithfield 49
    30 January 2011 at 8:39 pm

    “But presumably your wife isn’t on the radio with Lorena Bobbit having a laugh about the studs, right?

    I also presume your wife is not the Prime Minister.”

    Even if she was on national radio making those sorts of comments, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest.

    So far as the PM goes, this sort of stuff only shows that he is human, and thinks and talks the same way as most of the other men in NZ probably do. People will love him for it.

    • orange whip? 49.1
      30 January 2011 at 8:56 pm

      Perhaps the Lorena Bobbit reference was a bit vague for you.

      Key has made a terrible judgement call by appearing publicly with an unrepentant woman-basher. One who threw a woman down the stairs and viciously kicked her, breaking her back.

      Key (like you apparently) sees nothing wrong with associating himself with this violent misogynist, but then goes one further and shoots the shit with him about how cool it would be to be Tiger Woods ‘cos he cheats on his wife with heeeaps of hot chicks.

      Quite astounding that you don’t get just how unbecoming that behaviour is for a PM, but rather than speculate on what “people” might think, why don’t you take responsibility and declare that you love him for it?

      • tsmithfield 49.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 9:08 pm

        NX below is quite right. The left are humourless. Also very unforgiving. Hasn’t Veitch already paid for his crime?

        BTW you need to look up the definition of “misogynist”. You will find it is the hatred of women generally, not a specific woman.

        • orange whip? 49.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 9:55 pm

          Good point, it’s possible that he’s not a violent misogynist but just a violent prick who nearly killed one specific woman.

          In which case it should be sweet for the PM to joke with him about getting pussy.

          • tsmithfield 49.1.1.1.1
            30 January 2011 at 10:02 pm

            So, you wouldn’t be making jokes with Greg Newbold either, because he has a criminal background? Not defending what Veitch did, but he has paid for his crime, and it is very judgemental of you to assume he still holds the same attitidudes.

            • orange whip? 49.1.1.1.1.1
              30 January 2011 at 10:13 pm

              What do criminal records have to do with anything?

              He nearly killed a woman. By his own deliberate actions.

              You can explain why that doesn’t matter to you all night (and you probably will) but good luck convincing any decent person to back you up.

              He’s scum. Key is scum for hanging out with him. You’re scum for defending him (yes, you are defending him.)

              • tsmithfield …
                30 January 2011 at 10:25 pm

                I reiterate I’m not trying to defend Veitch at all. I deplore what he did. However, I don’t hold any particular view on his current character.

                On the other hand, both you and many on this string are being quite hypocritical IMO. Normally the left are all warm and cuddly towards criminals, except when there is a particular example such as this when the offender is a well-known white affluent male. Then its put the boot in despite the fact that the person concerned may have learned their lesson and changed considerably.

                You should be ashamed of yourself. Truly.

                • QoT …
                  30 January 2011 at 10:28 pm

                  Normally the left are all warm and cuddly towards criminals

                  [citation needed]

                  Also, FYI, there’s a difference between “understanding the social reasons behind people from impoverished/underprivileged backgrounds committing crime” and “pretending breaking a woman’s back is a-okay because the back-breaker is a rich, white, famous man”.

                • Eddie …
                  30 January 2011 at 10:29 pm

                  you should be ashamed of yourself, because you’re one of the righties that is better than this.

                  I find the fact that you’re excusing a man who broke a woman’s back and abused her for four years just because it allows you to feel better about your hero Key truly sad.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  30 January 2011 at 10:32 pm

                  Seems to me that you certainly hold a particular view on his current character, and fairly strongly too.

                  However, I don’t hold any particular view on his current character.

                  despite the fact that the person concerned may have learned their lesson and changed considerably.

                  You should be ashamed of yourself. Truly.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    30 January 2011 at 10:40 pm

                    Eddie “I find the fact that you’re excusing a man who broke a woman’s back and abused her for four years just because it allows you to feel better about your hero Key truly sad.”

                    Not defending him at all. I am just trying to extend the same courtesy to him as I try with other people. I try not to prejudice my current views about people based on their past, as it is quite possible that person may well have changed and they will never be able to reform their lives if people don’t give them the opportunity to do so.

                    So, tell me, how is Veitch supposed to get on with his life if you are never going to allow the possibility that he has changed? Or are you forever going to judge him on his past behaviour which I agree was absolutely deplorable.

                    • QoT …
                      30 January 2011 at 10:45 pm

                      Um, hate to break it to you, ts, but Veitch is back on the radio interviewing the Prime Minister. He is getting on with his life. And we’re still allowed to remember that he committed horrific violence against another human being and has never shown any sign of actually understanding that that was inexcusable and that he should apologise for it.

                      (Hint: “I make no excuses … except” isn’t an apology)

                      Edited for typing fail.

            • IrishBill 49.1.1.1.1.2
              30 January 2011 at 10:37 pm

              Newbold was in for drugs. Your mate Vietch beat the shit out of his fiance and then hired a PR company to try to salvage his image. I think Newbold shouldn’t have done time and Vietch should have.

              • tsmithfield …
                30 January 2011 at 10:41 pm

                Perhaps you would like to give a cogent answer to my point above.

                And drugs are OK even though they beat the shit out of people’s lives, but just slowly?

              • McFlock …
                30 January 2011 at 11:03 pm

                Newbold took responsibility for his actions, bettered himself, found a career where he could contribute to society with reference to his personal experiences, helps society understand how to reform other prisoners, and did not return to “business as usual”.

                Veitch minimised his crime consistently, tried to pretend he was the victim, and returned to business as usual.

                No comparison.

                • tsmithfield …
                  30 January 2011 at 11:10 pm

                  Shit. I can’t believe it. I am the one who is arguing like a lefty here. But most of you are behaving like red-necks with respect to Veitch. Thats why I am accusing you of being hypocrites.

                  Really, I don’t give a shit about Veitch or even particularly like him. However, I am taking this position to try and show you how prejudiced and red-necked you are about Veitch when you probably wouldn’t be with other people. Think about it.

                  • orange whip? …
                    31 January 2011 at 12:16 am

                    No you’re not, you’re arguing like a 3rd form debating club member.

                    I think you’ll find that no-one here gives a crap about Veitch (the guy you’re pretending to be concerned for). He’s just a woman-basher who never apologised and never took responsibility.

                    What concerns most here is that the PM (the guy you’re really concerned for) thinks it’s good form to hang out with him and joke about women.

                    It’s not.

                  • McFlock …
                    31 January 2011 at 12:23 am

                    yeah it’s probably fair to say that I’m prejudiced against men who bash their partners and don’t take responsibility for it.

                    As a leftie, I’m all for prisoner rehabilitation. The first step in that is acknowledging your role in your own offending.

                    Obviously Key doesn’t agree.

  50. tsmithfield 50
    30 January 2011 at 8:42 pm

    ReDBaron: “I felt his comments didn’t show any respect for his wife and children.”

    Well, that is the business of his wife and children, isn’t it?

    If Key and Broughan are anything like my wife and I, they probably have light-hearted chat between themselves about who in stardom they fancy. I know my wife wouldn’t be the slightest bit bothered if I made those sorts of comments to my friends or on National Radio because she knows there is nothing serious about it.

    • Rosy 50.1
      30 January 2011 at 10:49 pm

      ‘Well, that is the business of his wife and children, isn’t it? ‘

      In some circumstances I might agree with you. In this case though the prime minister suggested, on public radio, he might enjoy having the benefits attributed to serial philanderers Woods and Warne, both of whom had marriages to ‘hot’ women end in divorce. I’m sure shonkey would understand that some of the public, who he represents *cough*, have a vested interest in anything that may impact on his leadership, and therefore might speculate about how his wife and children would react to that.

  51. hobbit 51
    30 January 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Have Labour tried to gain some much needed traction with this?

    With a bit of luck they will – they need to drop a few percent after Goofy’s “shrink the tax-base to feed the state” nonsense..

  52. NX 52
    30 January 2011 at 8:47 pm

    My gawd, the left are humourless.

    • Eddie 52.1
      30 January 2011 at 10:24 pm

      yeah, did you hear the leader of our country joking with a man who broke his girlfriend’s back about having affairs? – fucken hilarious.

  53. Murray 53
    30 January 2011 at 8:57 pm

    It must be cold nights in hell in the bedrooms of the left.
    Sensible ankle length nightgowns and PJ,s
    Only comments allowed relating to the sanctity of the females role in the working class collective and her self worth as a mother helper.
    Oh I forgot Porn,s okay according to Shane Jones

    • kriswgtn 53.1
      30 January 2011 at 9:22 pm

      at least labour didnt take dead people to bed with them alias garrett hahahhaha

      theres a word for that sorta thing

    • Eddie 53.2
      30 January 2011 at 10:27 pm

      Nah. you see, you get a better sex life when you have some respect and passion for your partner – not when you joke about having affairs with a guy who broke a woman’s back on nationwide radio.

      or do you only think it’s good if you’re imagining doing it with a celebrity?

  54. Jum 54
    30 January 2011 at 9:08 pm

    I see JKeyll’s brownshirts have arrived. Attack the women who are putting a very good case for JKeyll to be dumped and suddenly ‘Key was only having a joke, women. Can’t ya take a joke? I can. It involved Lorena Bobbit and her hubby’s third leg. Heard it? Not a smooth cutoff, I heard. Ha ha.

  55. RedLogix 55
    30 January 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Sighs…what an eyewatering thread. I spent the day tramping and it was far better spent.

    Me thinks you all underestimate Key once again. Picking Veitch to interview with is a deliberate choice. Exactly as Key exclusively patronised Henry for so long. There is a very precise reason why.

    Think about it.

    • Jum 55.1
      30 January 2011 at 11:31 pm

      Yes, and if you actually read my posts, RedLogix, you would have seen my comments about his deliberate cunning used to dredge up underbelly support. He has a plan and nothing and nobody will get in his way. The plan is unfortunately not in the interests of New Zealanders who are not in the top 10 percent income stream.

      • RedLogix 55.1.1
        30 January 2011 at 11:37 pm

        Yeah… truly I didn’t faithfully read all 230 plus comments…. and I’m not surprised you’ve reached the same conclusion.

        Nothing Key does is accidental. (Make that the top 0.1% of incomes and I’d agree more fully.)

        • Jum 55.1.1.1
          30 January 2011 at 11:41 pm

          The point of Key is that he really is a construct. Deconstruct him and what would you get?

        • just saying 55.1.1.2
          31 January 2011 at 8:03 am

          You mean a deliberate ploy to divide the working class into redneck -liberal in the face of increasing working class solidarity?

          Must admit I’ve been increasingly surprised by spontaneous outbursts of working-class anger in the most unexpected settings in my own particular orbit. Maybe not so much toward those at the very top, but at the very comfortably off middle class largely untouched by the recession so far, apparently calling the shots in the media and in politics.

          If this was planned Key is more of a high stakes gambler than I thought. And smarter. That’s the problem I have with it really. While no dummy, Key is no rocket scientist either.

          • Jum 55.1.1.2.1
            31 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

            People were beginning to rebuild after the last lot of rightie scammers were thrown out.

            School gardens were flourishing and children were going home with what they had learned and rebuilding their families from the bottom up. This government pretended this was all their idea, yet the school gardens were in place well before 2009 and well after 1999.

            Now everything is being privatised including school properties and money once more is becoming the god of war against workers. There is no balance within government, unions, companies. This government is working with the companies to destroy the unions, especially the teachers’ union.

            JKeyll is not smart. He displays the cunning of the moneytrader, picking off the enemy by dividing them. He does not see New Zealanders as a group. He sees them as the bosses and the slaves.

            People were promised a ‘same as’ government, with a male face and we know what New Zealanders are like from looking at some of the women-hating posts on this thread – JKeyll lied.

  56. Nick C 56
    30 January 2011 at 11:12 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn

    Perhaps others know a bit about this book – The Listener did a feature on it when it was released (http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3665/features/15907/sex_at_dawn.html). It’s a groundbreaking study into the history of human sexuality. Won’t bore you with the details but it basically came to the conclusion that monogamy is not ‘natural’ for humans as it is not the way we evolved. In fact the social expectation of monogamy which exists in most cultures today only came about in the last few thousand years of human history – not a long time given that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

    Men inside marriage who feel sexually attracted to other women and are happy to express it in seemingly gross ways goes far deeper than mere culture; from a sexual point of view they are trapped in relationships which arent biologically natural. You can object to what Key has said here but there is no question he is simply voicing the thoughts of many married men (and probably women if you started naming male celebrities).

    The authors werent fundamentally against monogamy, they simply stressed that people need to look beyond sex to make long term relationships work. And I dont think what Key has done here fundamentally violates that concept, or is somehow offensive to or embarrising for his wife – im sure they have a great relationship, and she probably takes an extra few seconds to look at the paper whenever theres a picture of Brad Pitt. Couples allowing eachother to express sexual interest in others while still being in ‘closed relationships’ is probably a compromise to allow monogamy to work for those of us who arent sexually repressed the moment they say i do.

    • orange whip? 56.1
      31 January 2011 at 12:19 am

      It’s not about Key fancying other women.

      No-one cares about that.

    • M 56.2
      31 January 2011 at 12:31 am

      NickC

      I did read that article but in some ways feel it gives men and women a get out of jail card. If things are truly not working out lusting after someone whilst in a relationship/married gives no chance for repairing a relationship and if there is no hope then end it, don’t fool around on someone.

      Men by their very nature and hormones I’m sure feel the more urgent pull of attraction and desire but just because it’s natural doesn’t mean that it’s OK to act on it. Even libidinous women tend to act with caution because of the bonding effect of oxytocin and the implications of pregnancy and childbirth. Ask anyone who is dying of AIDs how important sex is and I’m sure they have a whole new perspective.

      Case in point – last year was talking to a chap I know and found attractive who was inquiring as to my status and I told him I was single and not for the faint of heart. He then told me that if he wasn’t with someone he’d ask me out which although flattering freaked me out. This is something he should have said to a close male friend not to me – how did he know how far this information might travel? The same thing applies to Key – what was he thinking? He probably has a wife who is not overly happy with him and will need to bide his time if she is less than happy about his mouthing off. As a leader of NZ he, like it or not, is more shackled to decorum than most other people.

  57. hobbit 57
    30 January 2011 at 11:28 pm

    “so you think the $5,000 tax-free paid for by higher tax on the rich will give Labour a boost then?”

    Yeah, a certain percent of the population love the idea of “free money”..

    • Jum 57.1
      30 January 2011 at 11:58 pm

      Yeah, hobbit, they’re called the top 1% income stream and with their lawyers and their accountants and their money laundering accounts overseas free money is what they love all right. It should be $10,000 given back to the people they took it from. People who don’t have accountants and lawyers to write off taxes against.

      The skimming that this pondscum government has been doing with our assets and our taxes is a crime IMHO. So I’m not surprised JKeyll’s now mixing with convicted criminals.

  58. big bruv 58
    30 January 2011 at 11:43 pm

    I just cannot remember any similar comments from Labour supporters when Shane Porno Jones was caught watching X rated films in his room.

    The usual double standards and knuckle dragging behaviour from the left.

    You people really are scum.

    • Salsy 58.1
      30 January 2011 at 11:51 pm

      Yes but Shane Jones was so incredibly cool about it, unlike pervy Key…

    • Jum 58.2
      31 January 2011 at 12:05 am

      I called you people scum first big bruv, pondscum, I believe the term was. Shane Jones was hauled over the coals by Goff, was ritually humiliated in the media (unlike the pondscum JKeyll will be) and moved to the back.

      JKeyll gets knighted I daresay. You scummy neanderthals. And I raise you two criminals thrown out from NAct or was it more?

      • Chris73 58.2.1
        31 January 2011 at 6:40 am

        I see your raise and call you with the name of the only MP to be sent to jail for corruption…or was it only being helpful, I forget 🙂

        • mickysavage 58.2.1.1
          31 January 2011 at 12:52 pm

          Troll rule no 1.

          If your beloved leader is caught out doing something incredibly stupid and in fact creepy divert attention by grabbing any example from the past and say that the left is just as bad.

          • big bruv 58.2.1.1.1
            31 January 2011 at 5:59 pm

            Micky

            Labour supporter rule no 1.

            Blindly overlook all crimes committed by a Labour MP’s and make up or pretend to be outraged at passing comments made by a National Party MP or PM.

            You people really are the lowest form of life, you are also incredibly stupid, attacking Neville Key is the surest way to another term in opposition for Labour, but hey….keep it up, while Key is not my favourite pollie he is a far better option for all Kiwis than anything you lot can drag up from the sewer.

            • mickysavage 58.2.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2011 at 7:27 pm

              Big Bruv

              I am not overlooking Field’s transgressions. Given what he did he was rightfully convicted. But raising him is a diversion.

              This post is about some really weird comments by Key. He is the same age as Barack Obama and me. I cannot speak for Barack but when I was 17 or 18 I decided that I should not talk about women the way he has recently. He should grow up.

              I also do not trust anything he says. He claims that he canot recall his views of the Springbok tour at the time. To this I say BS. I can recall with exquisite detail what I thought of the tour at the time.

              The attacks on him are perfectly appropriate.

              Why do you then abuse us people? Just because we think differently to you?

              • The Voice of Reason …
                31 January 2011 at 7:37 pm

                It’s not just that we think differently, Mickey. We are different. We pay our bills for a start. That’s enough to drive Bludge ballistic, because he’d prefer to think the left are indolent scroungers, when he knows he’s the one without credibility.

              • big bruv …
                31 January 2011 at 7:49 pm

                Micky

                The Springbok tour?????…

                Mate, you have to be having me on, who gives a toss about the Springbok tour.

                The attacks are small minded and driven by the left’s arrogance and belief that only they can rule, read some of the comments here, so many of your pals are still of the belief that the people of NZ think they made a huge mistake in ridding themselves of the most corrupt PM in our nations history.
                Meanwhile, Key and the Nat’s keep gaining in popularity.

                Key may not be your ideal PM, he is not mine either but neither of us can deny that he is anything other than a thoroughly decent man (as is Phil Goff), he is not a bully as was the previous PM, he is not vicious as was the previous PM and he is not surly and bossy as was the previous PM, Key connects with the average person in a way we have not seen since the early days of Muldoon (I stress the early days) and the days of Norman Kirk.

                Micky your last line is hilarious, while you have not resorted to out and out abuse for a while nearly every comment I make is countered with abuse and insult by others, the left are a vicious bunch and a group who believe that anything is justified in the pursuit of power.
                Personally, it is water off a ducks back and just proves that I am hitting home but I must say that your question is hilarious.

            • Armchair Critic 58.2.1.1.1.2
              31 January 2011 at 8:51 pm

              Blindly overlook all crimes committed by a Labour MP’s…
              There’s no need for anyone vaguely left wing to bring such things up when some underemployed right-leaning twit will pop up with a “but Labour did it too” example.
              …he is a far better option for all Kiwis than anything you lot can drag up from the sewer.
              Left-wing MPs at Kiwiblog? Doesn’t sound like PM material to me, either.

        • Jum 58.2.1.2
          31 January 2011 at 1:02 pm

          Now what was Donna Awatere doing in clink – just visiting – no, she stole the education funding that children were supposed to get; but that’s what the right is all about; stealing from our children’s futures. And what do the right do? Are they ashamed of that behaviour. No. They knight people like that Fay, etc. They put smiley faces laughing at the misfortune of our vulnerable. Fu-Delete, Delete, you Delete.

          • big bruv 58.2.1.2.1
            31 January 2011 at 6:02 pm

            Jum

            It really would be better if you engaged your brain once in a while, and , perhaps stopped telling bare faced lies.
            Awatere was drummed out of ACT, her fellow party members took every measure to have her removed from the party.

            Now..lets look at the way Labour and Clark dealt with Phillip Field, remember, this is the man who Clark said was only guilty of trying to help people, this is also the man who remains in prison for crimes he committed during his time as a LABOUR MP.

            • Jum 58.2.1.2.1.1
              31 January 2011 at 6:46 pm

              Whichever way you look at it big bruv, Key controls the lying field hands down.

              Lies about the number of shares he holds/held in rail
              Pretends he doesn’t own shares in a vineyard or doesn’t know because it’s in a blind trust yet offers bottles from the imaginary vineyard out at Christmas.
              He even lied about stealing a stone from Antarctica – weird or what. No, just another pork-barrelled lie from the male who would be knighted, along with the other thieves and rogues like Fay (except for Sir Ed and a few people who actually worked on behalf of their country and not their own selfish greed).

              You are lying just by pretending to be an ex-Labour follower who wants to destroy all input by women into the party which makes you – a NAct supporter. You liar.

              I still want to know why Pansy Wong went on all those trips – to get money to hide in trusts for National to pay out to its fawning followers? If so, I guess you’ll be right near the top big bruv.

              I think big bruvs on a meltdown.

              And it all happened on a thread that discusses how badly women are being treated by NAct. So I can only assume that big bruv is having a meltdown because several women posters have dared to give an opinion and even worse the thinking men on here actually are listening to them.

              Labour – thinks women are human beings. Big bruv and his NActors don’t.

              I hope no woman suffers because another NActor lost the argument.

              It certainly will happen if the All Blacks lose this year. Aw what the heck, the neanderthal NAct supporters like control so much women will still get assaulted win or lose and the refuges will fill up once again. Another fact that the BBs of this country won’t admit but the records are there along with the black eyes and the broken bones.

              Fact remains: Huata was one of Act’s motley crew – including Garrett the name pincher, Hide the city pincher, Douglas NZ asset pincher,…

              • big bruv …
                31 January 2011 at 7:22 pm

                Jum

                I actually feel sorry for you, I am sorry that you are so blinded by hatred that you have rendered yourself unable to look at things objectively.

                For some strange reason you (and many of your left wing pals) have decided that a throughly decent man (Key) needs to be attacked, of course the more you do this the more popular he becomes with the public.

                You also refuse to acknowledge the lies and crimes committed by the Clark government, these crimes were real, they involved theft, forgery, lies, assault and endless other acts of a dishonest or criminal nature.

                The difference between the left and the right Jum is that we get rid of our crooks, you asked about Pansy Wong, well, what about her?, she is gone, whereas you still have Chris Carter in your corner and you still have Porno Jones as a leadership contender.

                Yes Jum, the real difference between the left and the left is one of honour, the right has honour and gets rid of those who do wrong, the left keeps them and pretends that what they did was no big deal.

                • Jum …
                  31 January 2011 at 7:39 pm

                  Just as well I can work to change this government as well as play silly insult games with a NActor.

                  JKeyll, the smiling assassin referred to as that by his own employees in moneytrading. A moneytrader is ruthless and is wholly concerned about making money off others and then making some more.

                  Your pathetic attempts, to browbeat me and convince me that JKeyll has suddenly turned into a caring sharing New Zealander when he was raised in a state house, on a widow’s pension and is now hell-bent on removing all of that, especially if he gets into government again, are not working.

                  Grow up and stop lying about getting rid of your crooks from NAct. The biggest asset strippers in this country are working hand-in-hand with JKeyll and Co to pull off the biggest theft of our assets this country has ever known, that is everything Roger Douglas didn’t manage to steal from us (that’s you and me) and fire-sell to his mates (certainly not me; I’m not so sure about you…) in the 80s.

                  As for family values; that really makes me wanna laugh out loud. Family values for you is all about the man in charge; no chance of the woman having the decision making chances in your idea of family values families.

                  That’s why you’ve been really earnest about your attacks on any thread that dares to debate issues where women want to be treated as human beings not the family doormat.

                  The odd thing is that you seem to be accusing me of not realising that Labour has feet of clay. I do. That makes them human. NAct on the other hand has their feet deep in the shxt that is associated with very dodgy dealings in politics. They won’t tell us what’s in their trust. Act does but LOL that they think we believe that’s the only money filtering through their hands.

                  PS I don’t know anyone on here; I certainly have huge respect for some of them – colonial viper, micky savage…

                  PPS Remember BIG Gerry Brownlee knocking some old guy down the stairs at some event?

                  • Jum …
                    31 January 2011 at 7:49 pm

                    big bruv
                    Remember Gerry Brownlee knocking some old guy down the stairs at some event? Well I Do.

                    Honour in the NAct parties? Honour? It’s called Honour Among Thieves.

                    • big bruv …
                      31 January 2011 at 8:08 pm

                      Jum

                      Remember Len Richards bashing somebody around the head with a megaphone and then blatantly denying it ever happened?

                      Well I do.

                  • big bruv …
                    31 January 2011 at 7:58 pm

                    Jum

                    Tell me, have you ever voted for anybody but Labour in your life?

                    Me, I have voted for Labour, ACT, National and the Greens (when one year stupidly believed that the Greens actually cared about animal welfare)

                    The reason I ask is that I think you are one of those poor sods who is ideologically blinded, one who refuses to see the cancer in their own party, one who sticks his or head in the sand and cheers on command.

                    Try opening your eyes Jum, Labour need to rebuild, to return to what made them a respectable political force and one that stood for the working man.

                    Remember Jum….you need both eyes (or all three if you are a Cantab) open to be able to see clearly.

                    • Jum …
                      31 January 2011 at 8:41 pm

                      I also remember Brownlee denying the charge when it was actually on film. This year is my turning point. It will depend on what Labour does to defend our assets if it gets in. I know without a doubt that NAct will remove our autonomy and betray so many unthinking NZers’ trust in them; that’s why JKeyll has been placed in New Zealand – the perfect storm. Nice Mr Key/smiling assassin – just a mask bb.

                      You obviously do not know me bb. Notice the change from Big Bruv down to bb? It is a sign of my waning in respect for your viewpoint. You cannot possibly think that voting for National or Act is going to improve this country.

                    • big bruv …
                      31 January 2011 at 8:55 pm

                      Jum

                      I am not sure that voting for the Nat’s would improve NZ, I know that voting for ACT with Sir Roger as finance minister would but sadly Key is not brave enough.

                      What I do know is that nine years of the corrupt Helen Clark and the equally corrupt Labour government is what has led us to the perilous situation we now find ourselves in.

                      That is the depressing part of our current political situation, there is not one party offering any real vision apart from ACT and they have an idiot as their leader, Labour offer nothing but more of the failed policies of the Clark government, National do not have the balls to do what is right and the Greens are nothing but communists and we all know how well communism went.

                      If you really want to change NZ Jum then suck it up and give your party vote to ACT, yes the leader is an idiot but hopefully they can roll him and we will see ALL of NZ prosper again.

        • Irascible 58.2.1.3
          31 January 2011 at 10:04 pm

          And I’ll raise you one cabinet minister forced to resign as a result of her corrupt behaviour, one Cabinet minister forced to resign for suspect dealings with foreign women, a Deputy PM caught rorting the accommodation budget and several others caught misusing their credit cards.
          All Key cards I think.

          • Jum 58.2.1.3.1
            31 January 2011 at 10:57 pm

            At least we now know what rock bb dragged himself out from under – ACT. That figures, and definitely in line with the Thunderbirds villain look-alike Rodney Hide and his talking head Voldemort master Roger Douglas.

            Now I think I know why little bb was so upset; was I picking on his love interest Roger, the dodgy politician who likes to take other people’s property off them.

    • orange whip? 58.3
      31 January 2011 at 12:22 am

      I just cannot remember any similar comments from Labour supporters when Shane Porno Jones was caught watching X rated films in his room.

      Who was the violent woman-bashing psycho he doing that with again? I forget…

    • happynz 58.4
      31 January 2011 at 7:11 am

      Whatever it was that Shane Jones was watching was done in the privacy of his room. I can’t recall him in the public arena commenting on tits and arse or who he’d like to shag.

      • Inventory2 58.4.1
        31 January 2011 at 1:49 pm

        Nor has John Key commented on “who he’d like to shag”. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good dog-whistle though …

        • mcflock 58.4.1.1
          31 January 2011 at 1:55 pm

          No, fair enough. He only said they were “hot”, “pretty hot” and “not too bad”.
          No implication of sexual attraction at all there. Not even saying ‘Hurley was a “definite” in his dream date top three’. Nope, not the slightest suggestion of lust.
          /sarcasm

        • The Voice of Reason 58.4.1.2
          31 January 2011 at 2:02 pm

          Quite right, I2. He only rated these actors on the basis of their looks, age and physical attractiveness out of deep intellectual respect. Nothing to do with wanting to shag them, at all. Thanks for your insight, we can happily ignore how creepy Key looks because pedantry is just such a winning argument, eh.

  59. Jum 59
    31 January 2011 at 12:13 am

    ‘Freedom of speech doesn`t protect speech that you like, freedom of speech protects speech that you hate.’
    ~ Ron Jeremy

    How you pondscum have the nerve to attack lefties after your vicious attacks on Helen Clark certainly highlights that according to that wonderful man from Dad’s Army NAct’s “don’t like it up ’em”.

  60. Roger 60
    31 January 2011 at 1:47 am

    After Key’s abject failure to catch Australia, he now has started a new plan to catch Italy. But just like Australia, he is too far behind Berlusconi.

  61. stever 61
    31 January 2011 at 8:57 am

    I posted the article on John Key on my Facebook and Twitter and one friend from the UK did ask “Is he a student of Berlusconi?” 🙂 — so the behaviour is noted and thought ridiculous!

    • Jum 61.1
      31 January 2011 at 1:31 pm

      I’m not so sure NZers think JKeyll is ridiculous. After Douglas, Richardson and now JKeyll and Hide instilling in Kiwis a greed, a misogynistic attitude towards women for daring to claim equality and a selfishness unmatched in most other countries except the Fatherland of America, with only a small respite from Clark to rebuild shattered lives, I’m not at all surprised by the behaviour here from so many men and women, grasping, selfish and greedy.

      It’s contemptible what JKeyll and the rotundtable who have always been in the background along with the Bush/Ashcroft advisers have been doing to this beautiful country and its people. I don’t think their ugly stain will ever be lifted enough to let a real green grow back through the mire. But, I hope it does.

  62. tc 62
    31 January 2011 at 10:05 am

    As MS said, it’s CT driven manipulation which creates this type of reaction where the MCP’s gravitate toward their guy and the real issues get buried whilst everyone gets outraged as designed thanks to another custom made slot with media mates.

    Sideshow John, veitch etc are all cut from the same cloth….except more of this as it keeps PEDA, tax cuts, ECAN, Ayatolley, basher, corrupto-Carter etc out of the spotlight.

    • Jum 62.1
      31 January 2011 at 1:33 pm

      “it keeps PEDA, tax cuts, ECAN, Ayatolley, basher, corrupto-Carter etc out of the spotlight.”

      You are so right, Tc.

  63. randal 63
    31 January 2011 at 11:07 am

    neither of them are exactly rock stars so it must be something else eh.
    wonder what it is?

  64. Anthony C 64
    31 January 2011 at 1:30 pm

    This won’t be bad for Key in the slightest, sure technically it’s a bad look for a PM, but the people he’s appealing to (women and men) see absolutely nothing wrong with it, it just adds more to his ‘down-to-earth’ persona.

    These are the people who love JK because he’s cultivated an image of being ‘one of them’, it’s not exactly critical thinking but it wins elections.

  65. randal 65
    31 January 2011 at 1:35 pm

    well anyone going to bed with a sports radio jock (excuse the pun) would have to get use to him saying that was good WASNT it everytime they got down to it.
    wasnt it.

  66. Rharn 66
    31 January 2011 at 1:57 pm

    The issue for me is not what Veitch has done or if he deserves a second chance, but the fact that Key is on record saying that Veitch should have done time. See my earlier post on this. Now Key for his own popularity is associating with the man (arsehole) who Key when it suited him, stated that Veitch should have been jailed. This is not about forgiveness on Key’s part but a clear political oppertunity to be one of the boys. It demonstrates Key’s inability to hold any values whatsover. It says much about Veitch too in that he is prepared to host a man who stated he should have jailed. Neither have any respect in my view.

  67. Jum 67
    31 January 2011 at 6:57 pm

    The Office of Prime Minister is sullied by the antics of this usurper Key.

    captcha: stage

    And JKeyll is playing us for fools

  68. illuminatedtiger 68
    31 January 2011 at 9:41 pm

    He’s such a creep!

  69. gobsmacked 69
    31 January 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Update:

    A National MP shares his “thoughts” on the subject …

    http://twitter.com/tauhenare

    Oh dear.

  70. aj 70
    1 February 2011 at 5:48 am

    The good news: this should be fodder for Labour when parliament resumes. Especially the Tiger Woods comparison, what with his reported ‘confused’ sexuality….

  71. mummybot 71
    2 February 2011 at 11:14 pm

    You know you are out on a limb when The Sun is reporting you. Then again any excuse to print a photo of Liz.

Links to post