In for a penny

44 comments on “In for a penny ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Brett Dale 1

   8 February 2009 at 3:48 pm

   Unbelievable post.

   At least we all know it was his cast.

   [lprent: but did he make it himself – I think not!!!! Cue a conspiracy theory.. Where is Wishart when you want a stupid theory promoted?]
2. illuminatedtiger 2

   8 February 2009 at 4:16 pm

   A smelly, stinky (probably full of germs) old thing fit for the dumpster.
3. jaymam 3

   8 February 2009 at 4:18 pm

   It would be worth more than $18,500 to NOT have to have morning tea with him 🙂
4. StephenR 4

   8 February 2009 at 4:29 pm

   Good post…I dunno, maybe a few bidders were investors…

   Saw someone in the comments section of the bid (I think) reckoned one of the bidders was Roger Douglas – then Key would have to talk to him at the morning tea haha!
5. Felix 5

   8 February 2009 at 4:31 pm

   jaymam,

   I would be happy to arrange that for you. Payment in advance, please.
6. Johnty Rhodes 6

   8 February 2009 at 4:38 pm

   As usual, the left telling people to put their own money where they suggest. They can always burn the cast like Helen’s forged painting. BTW Steve, do you Helen’s mobile no as well?
7. rjs131 7

   8 February 2009 at 4:58 pm

   Tags tory charity ?

   Wtf ?
8. Jimbo 8

   8 February 2009 at 5:43 pm

   Unbelievable post really. You have a number of people being prepared to offer extremely generous donations to a charity, and yet it is not “good enough” for you.

   My assumption is that most of these people already give large amounts to charity and will continue to do so. Its frankly none of your business who, what, where and when they choose to give and they certainly shouldn’t be “bullied” into giving away money by John Key or anyone else.

   Simple question – with the Fred Hollows Foundation receiving this extra publicity as a result of the auction, has it prompted YOU to cut them (or any other charity) a cheque recently?
9. Adders 9

   8 February 2009 at 6:35 pm

   “Simple question – with the Fred Hollows Foundation receiving this extra publicity as a result of the auction, has it prompted YOU to cut them (or any other charity) a cheque recently?”

   A: No.

   The post made a good case for raising more money for a worthy cause out of a political stunt.
10. Jum 10

    8 February 2009 at 7:00 pm

    A cynical right political stunt. All touchy feely – keeps Key in the news, continues to mention his arm break, offers tea to a National supporter

    Jimbo
    NZers won’t have money to donate to charity by the time NActM’s finished with them.
11. mattyroo 11

    8 February 2009 at 7:36 pm

    How much have you donated Clinton?
12. higherstandard 12

    8 February 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Jum

    “A cynical right political stunt”

    Ah no …. Key was asked to auction his cast by a Hollows supporter up in the Solomon’s a number of the leaders up there for the meeting kindly signed it and it’s now raised 18.5k for a great charity.

    The only think cynical about the issue is you……. and a number of the other poster on this site.
13. mike 13

    8 February 2009 at 8:33 pm

    Fancy people doing frivilous things with there own money. What a stupid post. The right must be doing very well for you to be scraping the bottle of the barrel like this.
14. Adders 14

    8 February 2009 at 8:39 pm

    Has the tea at taxpayer expense been cancelled?
15. higherstandard 15

    8 February 2009 at 8:39 pm

    Mike you’ve let the side down with your frivolous use of there !
16. Brett Dale 16

    8 February 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Over 18K has been raised for charity, this is a good thing.
17. Felix 17

    8 February 2009 at 9:41 pm

    Well done, Brett – you made it through the first 3 sentences of the post.
18. burt 18

    8 February 2009 at 9:47 pm

    Steve P.

    I think you are onto something. But why stop at the top 14?

    If everybody (not just people that bid) has a think about what their limit would have been to buy the cast and donate that amount of money then the mind boggles at how much the Fred Hollows Foundation will receive.

    I would have topped out at about $10 for the cast, interesting to own but not something I want, how about you – how much would you give the Fred Hollows Foundation?
19. burt 19

    8 February 2009 at 10:11 pm

    Steve P.

    Minimum online donation is $25, guess I was being unrealistic with $10. So I guess the point now is Steve, anybody who would have paid less than $25 was being unrealistic and should make an immediate $25 online donation. I did. Thanks for the post, I hope a few more people also put their money where their mouth (and sometimes their heart) is.

    It would be great to hear news of a sudden deluge of online donations, the Herald would break and exclusive on it.
20. Tim Ellis 20

    9 February 2009 at 12:35 am

    What an excellent suggestion SP. I didn’t bid for the cast, but I’ll tell you what. I’ll give $5 to the Hollows Foundation for every dollar you give. How much should I send them?
21. expat 21

    9 February 2009 at 1:35 am

    I fail to see what your problem is with this charity fund raising event Steve.

    You make zero sense in your ramblings past the first sentence.

    I contend that your Sir are the one grandstanding and looking for personal noteriety.

    Put your money where your mouth is and make a donation if you are so worried about the Holllows Foundation.

    [lprent: Makes as much sense to me as the fuss over ‘PainterGate’ – which I seem to remember you whinging about a while ago. That was also for charity. Perhaps what you are really advocating is different standards depending on peoples opinions, and if you like them. But then I’ve realized that you’re a classic hypocrite for a while now. Which is why you remain in the spam bin as the first default action.]
22. CH 22

    9 February 2009 at 2:05 am

    Steve,

    Get a life. You need to spend more time outside partaking in manly persuits and healthy exercise.

    Clint.
23. jbc 23

    9 February 2009 at 3:04 am

    lol SP. Care to reflect on the sale of non-genuine ‘artworks’ of negligible intrinsic value a few years back to raise some money for a good cause? That was obviously a hell of a lot more of a cynical ploy than Key’s recent effort.

    Are you just sore that the ‘artwork’ thing backfired and this cast thing didn’t turn out quite as shabby as you’d hoped?
24. lprent 24

    9 February 2009 at 7:42 am

    jbc: You mean that it is OK for the right to act like sanctimonious gits about stunts to raise money for charity – but not the left? Remember that ‘paintergate’ was a stunt just like John Keys cast to raise money for charity.

    jbc: Would you care to explain your reasoning? Bear in mind that all it would do to change this into the same as Paintergate is for the recipient to say that they brought JK’s cast as an artwork (for its resale value). But were surprised to find out that he hadn’t made it himself. It’d make as much sense as the paintergate complaint.

    I’d love to meet the fool that laid the paintergate complaint. It’d be fun examining a living joke. A fine piece of art….
25. Kerry 25

    9 February 2009 at 8:54 am

    oh yippy skip a stinking piece of crap has been purchased by some sucker…and they also purchased his cast!!!!!!!
26. Tigger 26

    9 February 2009 at 9:02 am

    Adders – apparently not. We should write to Key and tell him to cancel the morning tea as its an unnecessary expenditure of government funds not to mention use of government money for a private charitable donation…
27. higherstandard 27

    9 February 2009 at 9:09 am

    How about a link in the main post for people who would like to donate to the Hollows foundation…. and a closure to the comments section which is reaching new lows.

    http://www.hollows.org.nz/Donate/
28. burt 28

    9 February 2009 at 9:21 am

    Steve P.

    Did you match my $25 donation ?
29. Steve Pierson 29

    9 February 2009 at 10:31 am

    I give about $25 a week to a few charities. So, I guess you need to put in $125 a week, Tim.

    CH. Re manly pursuits, I ran 30K and engaged in a few other, umm, manly pursuits yesterday (and because I’m a modern kind of joker I cooked us dinner too), as well as writing this post. cheers.

    expat. I don’t have a problem with the auction. where do I say i do?

    rjs131. It’s a joke tag. remember it was a leftie, Trevor Mallard, who used the term last year. It’s poking fun at him.

    You lot sure are a bit sensitive, eh? All I suggested was that people who were willing to donate should do it despite losing and you go off the deep end. Bizarre.
30. randal 30

    9 February 2009 at 10:38 am

    HI SP
    I dont run anywhere, bike anywhere, or bid on trademe for anything
    I dont listen to tory creeps trying to manipulate my behaviour either
    I feel pretty good about life especially when I know that national is a one term party and cute little tricks wont make any difference
31. vto 31

    9 February 2009 at 10:42 am

    Suggesting that all bidders donate their bids is the same as the often made suggestion that those who would like to see taxes increase actually go right ahead and pay the extra tax they want to.

    Great idea Mr Pierson – now, all of you who would like to see taxes increase start writing out some extra cheques to the IRD.

    That’s if you have any credibility of course.
32. dad4justice 32

    9 February 2009 at 10:47 am

    Talking about taxs and government spending, why do state schools have to rely on the donation from the parent so they obtain classroom necessities?

    No wonder we are gold medalists at child abuse. What a sick country.
33. higherstandard 33

    9 February 2009 at 10:48 am

    SP

    Seems rather odd that you have chosen to single out some posters and not the others who make some rather telling commentary as to where there bias lies.
34. Heinie Weinberg 34

    9 February 2009 at 10:57 am

    Schlong city.
35. Sarah 35

    9 February 2009 at 11:33 am

    …

    I can’t believe this was actually published.

    This blog seriously needs to look at what they’re trying to accomplish. I am actually appalled by the quality of writing in this post.

    This site will have zero credibility if it continues posting biased pieces of crap like the post above. Have some sort of integrity Clint, and try not to show your distate of John Key in every single post you write.

    Pfft. Next you’ll try and blame him for family violence.

    [I really don’t get it. I’m not attacking Key at all. I’m saying if people were prepared to donate so much to charity, Key should call on them to do it any,way despite not winning an old arm cast. SP]
36. Inventory2 36

    9 February 2009 at 11:48 am

    Steve – if you’re serious about helping the Fred Hollows Foundation, and you’re not just trying to make political capital, you could be like David Farrar and include a link to allow people to donate to the Foundation if that is what they want to do. At the moment, you come across as an arrogant opportunist who is quick to tell everyone else what to do.
37. Sarah 37

    9 February 2009 at 12:01 pm

    “So, how about it Mr Key? Why not call upon the unsuccessful bidders donate the money to a charity anyway, despite not winning the cast?”

    You’re indirectly trying to defame John’s efforts, by hinting at the fact that what he’s done is not enough of a help towards charity.

    You also know, that the action which you’re calling him to undertake would look unbelievaly stupid in the eyes of the public.

    [No I’m not and no I don’t. I actually think it would be great PR for Key. SP]
38. Peter Johns - bigoted troll in jerkoff mode 38

    9 February 2009 at 12:25 pm

    SP – it would not be great PR for JK. It is tantamount to telling people what they should do with their own money. This is what Labour were good at, telling people what to do.
39. Steve Pierson 39

    9 February 2009 at 12:37 pm

    It’s just asking people to donate what they were willing to donate anyway.

    The inventiveness of you jokers in terms of the attack angles you dream up continues to surprise me. If only you could provide the intellectual punch to match these discussions would be really interesting.
40. Pat 40

    9 February 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Sarah’s right. You can’t hold a charity auction, and change the rules for bidding after the fact. Unsuccessful bidders shouldn’t get a guilt trip laid upon them, by calling for the bidders to make donations voluntarily.

    Throughout this whole broken arm incident Key has maintained his dignity and good humour. He blamed himself, did not complain or shirk appointments despite the pain, or when the two protesters were were tugging on it at Waitangi. He has not tried to take credit for the idea to auction the cast. The incident has shown us a lot about the character of the man.
41. higherstandard 41

    9 February 2009 at 12:44 pm

    “….or when the two protesters were were tugging on it at Waitangi. ”

    Aye Carumba that would have made headlines around the world !!

    Sorry Pat I couldn’t resist.

    Thanks for adding the donation link in the post Clint – hopefully some more people will put their money where their mouths/keypads are.
42. vto 42

    9 February 2009 at 12:47 pm

    intellectual punchment is unnecessary SP, such is the intellectual paunch of this thread and others.

    Show us your own intellectuosity first..
43. Pat 43

    9 February 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Your showing your age, HS. I don’t think it’s been called tugging for the past 20 years. The much (and unfairly) maligned generation Y have more eloquent phrases.
44. jbc 44

    9 February 2009 at 3:47 pm

    lp: “You mean that it is OK for the right to act like sanctimonious gits about stunts to raise money for charity – but not the left?”

    Neither really. And “sanctimonious git” is a little too strong for this post – more like “trying very hard to be unimpressed”. My feeling is that the publicity generated from this stunt will be worth much more than $18k to the Hollows Foundation.

    Personally I wouldn’t give these stunts much thought at all, no matter who is doing them (unless the action has some very significant enduring benefit). It’s next to impossible to determine whether they are good-natured or pure PR or some combination. There’s nothing noteworthy in good-natured PR and neither is it unique to this PM.

    With regards to “Paintergate” the less said the better. Since I obviously alluded to it in my comment I will elaborate. It was obviously a PR fund-raising stunt too. Any reasonable person comparing these two PR auctions would find that this one went smoother than the other. If someone can turn this into another “Paintergate” as easily as you suggest then I guess they will do so. My guess is that would backfire spectacularly.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS