Lies and sanctions

Written By: - Date published: 8:58 am, February 27th, 2013 - 219 comments
Categories: accountability, john key, national, scoundrels - Tags: , , ,

What are we as citizens to do when a government deliberately and shamelessly lies to us? Because it’s now clear that that is what the Nats have done, as even The Herald reports:

The Hobbit documents released: Govt knew union ban lifted

The Government was aware that a union-imposed boycott on Sir Peter Jackson’s film The Hobbit had been lifted, but continued to insist that it was in place, official documents released yesterday showed.

They knew the ban was lifted. They continued to insist it was in place. Lying lying liars.

I’m angry.

As far as I am aware we citizens have no ability to sanction a government that lies to us, other than the three year electoral cycle (which politicians want to extend to four years). It doesn’t seem like enough. Apart from elections – what can we do now?

Looking to the future, what changes would you propose to our political system to allow the public to sanction a government? How can we stop this kind of barefaced lying from happening again?

219 comments on “Lies and sanctions ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    27 February 2013 at 9:07 am

    Good to see you’re angry r0b. I am angry too as I’m sure many have noticed from the tone of many of mine posts. Angry at the constant lies – Ecan, red zone policy, it just goes on and on.

    There are several steps available such as civil disobedience (ramping up in the Chch rebuild with many giving the middle finger to authority). But one that really would put the cat amongst the pigeons is some sort of High Court action.

    What they are doing amounts to fraud. The government (not Parliament) is surely accountable under its own laws.

    High Court action. Get it in there, and lots of it. Ramp it right up in their faces.

  2. mickysavage 2
    27 February 2013 at 9:25 am

    Stand by as Gosman and a bunch of new posters appear and argue about everything except the fact that we have been lied to over the Hobbit.

    • VivaciousViper 2.1
      27 February 2013 at 11:09 am

      Exactly Mickeysavage, the right wing ningcompoops will fly into to the honey pot and
      retreat with sticky faces,or fingers on the keyboards.
      Key’s corrupt govt is one law for him and his ilk and another for the rest of us.
      I have no interest in the films that jackson makes, the titles of sir etc, mean nothing,
      are nothing, but massaging over inflated ego’s.

      S = Sorry
      I = I lied
      R = Repent.

      But he won’t because of the the attitude of entitlement, (you give, i take)
      Helen Kelley deserves a public appology, at least.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 11:12 am

        Steal $50 from WINZ you go to jail

        Steal $50M from the tax payer and NZ workers, get a knighthood.

  3. johnm 3
    27 February 2013 at 9:26 am

    Lying to the people who put them in power:
    An economy of well paid conceited and arrogant chiefs, but declining numbers of braves and the remaining braves getting shafted by the chiefs. Not a happy tribe with a good future. 🙁
    The well orf sector of NZ society believes lying to be a market and business ploy, they won’t be losing any sleep over a minor thing like that. Rentiers and Landlords and Finance privateers Key reflects them.

  4. Blue 4
    27 February 2013 at 9:33 am

    Kiwis don’t actually mind being lied to. John Key has lied over and over and over again, and the high poll ratings still keep rolling in.

    New Zealanders have demonstrated that lying is not a deal-breaker, so have emboldened Key and National to keep doing it.

    • Dr Terry 4.1
      27 February 2013 at 10:12 am

      Anthony asks “Looking to the future, what changes would you propose to our political system to allow the public to sanction a government?”

      I think we have to go right back to square one. Weigh up and explore very carefully the skills and qualifications of a possible candidate for political leadership, not just taking his or her own word for it! Secondly, but no less important, very carefully look into the personal character and qualities of an applicant. For example, let it be made quite clear that lying is still considered unethical and unacceptable. Has the person “what it takes” to be honest with us? That would not cause him or her to lose face, more likely to gain respect from the public.

      Just a couple of quick thoughts!

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 10:54 am

        The current system of political parties is broken. Exacerbated by a broken MSM.

        And unfortunately, what the list system in mmp has done is made MPs increasingly unaccountable to their local communities: their loyalty and accountability sits mainly with a dozen or so party and caucus chiefs.

        • Arfamo 4.1.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 11:12 am

          Every other comparable democracy to NZ’s has a second house that provides at least some safeguard against the ramming through of bad, flawed or socially or economically corrosive legislation. We have a system that allows any majority party or coalition to ram through bad legislation pretty much at will.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 11:13 am

            Second house is no answer

            How has a second house prevented theft from the people in the UK or in the USA?

            • Arfamo 4.1.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 12:02 pm

              Fair point. It didn’t. And the likelihood is that any second house here would end up stacked with those of the 1%.

    • Maggie May 4.2
      27 February 2013 at 11:54 am

      Remember polls are only done on land lines, Perhaps only National voters have land lines and that’s why JK is still high in the polls.

  5. higherstandard 5
    27 February 2013 at 9:33 am

    Good on Jackson and the government for ensuring these films went ahead and were made in NZ.

    It is a pity that a similar pragmatism wasn’t displayed with such things as the rail carriages which could and should have been made in Dunedin and the broad band cabling which instead of being given to the swedes by telecom could and should have gone to a NZ supplier.

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      27 February 2013 at 10:55 am

      The common denominator in all of the above are National lies which favoured foreign capital instead of NZ workers.

      • higherstandard 5.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 11:00 am

        Really, I thought the common denominator was various meddling, ineptness, sloth, ignorance.

        In the case of the Tolkien movies I applaud the government in ensuring they got made here, in the case of the other two examples I castigate them from not ensuring the same.

      • Epping Road 5.1.2
        27 February 2013 at 11:02 am

        Yeah those export dollars are a terrible thing. We should ban them. Works in North Korea doesn’t it.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1
          27 February 2013 at 11:06 am

          Well, John Key is exporting tax payers dollars to Hollywood, if that’s what you mean.

          BTW after Fiji and North Korea examples you should also use:
          – Zimbabwe
          – Burma
          – Iran
          – Soviet Union
          – Communist China

          in your next few comments

          Let’s see if you can get the crony dictatorship trifecta

          • Epping Road 5.1.2.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 11:11 am

            How is JK exporting dollars to Hollywood? Gawd why am I even engaging with you, you’re a troll.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 12:38 pm

              How is JK exporting dollars to Hollywood?

              That would be the extra subsidies that he gave to Warner Bros.

            • McFlock 5.1.2.1.1.2
              27 February 2013 at 12:43 pm

              wow.

              Seriously? You turn up a couple of days ago full of vim and vigour, spouting old nact lies and generally bludgeoning the common usage of the English language simply to defend Key and Jackson, and accuse others of being trooolls?

              Just – wow.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1.3
              27 February 2013 at 1:11 pm

              ER just called ME a troll lol

          • joe90 5.1.2.1.2
            27 February 2013 at 11:24 am

            Gawd why am I even engaging with you, you’re a troll.

            Because you’re a paid toe sucker?.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      27 February 2013 at 12:36 pm

      What a surprise, lowerstandard finds lying by the government to be “ok”.

      • higherstandard 5.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 1:30 pm

        What a surprise DTB adds nothing.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 2:57 pm

          I pretty sure that pointing out that you’re supportive of a lying and corrupt government was adding enough.

          • higherstandard 5.2.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 2:59 pm

            What a surprise DTB adds nothing.

            • McFlock 5.2.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 3:10 pm

              keeping others to a higher standard that you have difficulty achieving yourself, eh?

              • higherstandard …
                27 February 2013 at 3:25 pm

                Another internet inaniloquent leaps to his defense.

                • McFlock …
                  27 February 2013 at 3:55 pm

                  [hs thinks to self]:

                  oh noes, someone caught me. Better throw out a portmanteau so I look smart, and then pretend that I was making a palpable attack rather than merely indulging in narcissistic hypocrisy against someone who gave me some sort of perceived slight a while ago. I’m a smoooooooth motherfucker!

                  • higherstandard …
                    27 February 2013 at 4:18 pm

                    ……and then leaps to his own defense

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    27 February 2013 at 6:01 pm

                    “let me recite the following phrases as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upwards towards increased ability to make human life negligible and cheap: inaniloquent gutter dwellers; the worst type of incontinent, pathetic lounge lizards I’ve ever seen; Youtube surrogates.”
                    -loquaciously yours, Bing.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.1.2
              27 February 2013 at 4:59 pm

              I note that you haven’t denied being supportive of a lying and corrupt government.

  6. Tom Gould 6
    27 February 2013 at 9:34 am

    Say what you like about Shearer, but I can never image him selling out, cheating and lying like Key seems to be able to do so effortlessly. That’s your answer.

    • Dr Terry 6.1
      27 February 2013 at 10:00 am

      Well, Tom, I can assure you that he has lied to me personally, a member of his own electorate. He is at least as much an egotist and braggart as Key. What a choice we are faced with!

    • tc 6.2
      27 February 2013 at 10:11 am

      DS has already sold out and is owned by the mallarfia. Burying DC and others who threaten this group has already been shown as acceptable behaviour.

      • Tom Gould 6.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 11:40 am

        Keep it up, Key is relying on you, counting on you in fact. Might as well be Tories.

        • tc 6.2.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 1:30 pm

          Hilarious TG, Key’s not relying onwhat gets blogged here, we all voted. Slippery needs to worry about the ones who didn’t.

          DS had his chance and blew it with a reshuffle as inspiring as a Bill Rowling speech. He didn’t have to sellout to the mallarfia and become leader, he didn’t even have to stand.

          Fact is he did and has to take what comes with the turf but hey it’s just a blog isn’t it….

  7. just saying 7
    27 February 2013 at 9:41 am

    Another essay question R0b?

    If Labour Party policy is indeed determined by members, the widespread outrage on the left including from party members, means that it would seemingly be pretty easy to draught some sort of toothed judicial or parliamentary consequence for this kind of behaviour, and have it confimed as policy. Labour has a fifty-fifty chance of leading the next government (imo) so it should be quite likely that legisation could be introduced in the next two or three years.

    Essay question for you R0b; Do you think that with the support of the membership, such a remedy would be likely to be enacted by a Labour-led Government if one is elected next time around? If not, why not?

    • r0b 7.1
      27 February 2013 at 11:27 am

      Another essay question R0b?

      Nature of the beast js. Besides, I don’t want to spend every post telling you what I think, sometimes I’d rather ask what you think.

      Essay question for you R0b; Do you think that with the support of the membership, such a remedy would be likely to be enacted by a Labour-led Government if one is elected next time around? If not, why not?

      I don’t think it’s likely, because in general politicians don’t act so as to constrain the power of politicians. But I don’t think that it’s impossible either.

  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    27 February 2013 at 9:42 am

    ‱ Easy recall ballots for politicians that deviate hugely from policy or are proven to have lied, without waiting three years like in referenda. Remedies would probably be pay cuts and a quick trip to the back bench, even for PMs.

    ‱ By some accounts Jackson’s greed in adapting one slim volume into three rear numbing length mega flicks my get him in the end. The Hobbit movies are gaining a rep as three huge ungainly steaming turds so poor box office over time may sting him in a way the truth never would.

  9. mickysavage 9
    27 February 2013 at 9:42 am

    I just reread something Irish Bill wrote on October 2, 2011 and his predictions were astoundingly accurate. He said this:

    When I look at the way this is playing out I suspect that Jackson (or whoever is running the show from the producers’ side) has engaged some sharp operators to run this dispute.

    The playbook is an old one but one that is tried and true:

    1. Find a way to demonise the union as an interfering third party (in this case bullyboy Aussie outsiders)

    This is an essential story to set up from the start because it takes the public focus away from the the workers involved – a move that makes it hard to humanise the dispute and misdirects from the main point of the dispute (in this case the workers’ desire for minimum standards)

    2. Claim the union has no mandate (in this case claiming it has no legal right to bargain and low membership)

    This continues the outsider narrative and drives a wedge between union and non-union workers.

    3. Threaten capital flight.

    This pushes the wedge between union and non-union workers deeper and, in the case of a national industry, helps set the public against the union.

    4. Keep moving the goalposts.

    The news cycle is fast and shallow. If you can keep setting up new stories with different anti-union angles you force your opponents to be constantly reactive which drains their resources and keeps them on the back foot. It also works to keep the focus away from the the core dispute.

    5. Play to your strengths (in this case the saint-like reputation Peter Jackson has)

    I think it’s interesting to see Jackson has not appeared on radio or TV or, as far as I can tell, spoken directly to journalists at all. I suspect this is because his handlers have decided he would not be sympathetic talent in the flesh.

    6. Get it over and done with as quickly as possible.

    It’s hard to sustain the moral high ground for long with spin, over time the facts start to catch up and public opinion turns against you.

    This was written a couple of weeks before the dispute peaked. Pro Jackson comments over the past few days are still following the script.

    • Epping Road 9.2
      27 February 2013 at 9:49 am

      Astonishingly accurate except Helen Kelly got involved and turned it to custard. She ended up representing an Australian union that wasn’t allowed to negotiate in New Zealand and even if it had been legally registered couldn’t legally represent contractors. Smart move that one.

      • mickysavage 9.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 9:53 am

        Well done ER you have managed to follow 1, 2 and 4 all in one comment.

        • Epping Road 9.2.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 10:04 am

          mickysavage was the Actors Equity registered in NZ at the time of the dispute? Were they legally allowed to negotiate on behalf of contractors? Was or was not the MEAA which was not registered in NZ negotiating on Equity’s behalf? Did Equity represent a a big proportion of NZ film workers?

          • mickysavage 9.2.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 10:33 am

            Followed by a number 4.

            All I can say is what does this have to do with the Government lying to us?

            • Epping Road 9.2.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 10:50 am

              The Government wasn’t lying and nor was Jackson. The spin has definitely changed on this though. Just last night Bill was saying that the original boycott wasn’t a boycott at all but a “do not sign” notice. Like a polite “talk to your lawyer first” piece of advice. The twists and turns from Helen Kelly’s apologists is very funny. Apparently the MEAA wasn’t trying to negotiate industry-wide standards with Jackson.

              • mickysavage …
                27 February 2013 at 10:55 am

                Keep moving those goalposts ER.

              • Colonial Viper …
                27 February 2013 at 10:57 am

                The Government wasn’t lying and nor was Jackson.

                Brilliant Newspeak. Slavery is freedom, etc

                • Epping Road …
                  27 February 2013 at 10:58 am

                  Yeah and “Helen Kelly had the interests of NZ film workers at heart” and “Helen Kelly is a really good negotiator” and “Helen Kelly always tells the truth”.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    27 February 2013 at 11:06 am

                    Yeah, spin it all you like. Helen Kelly has not lied, that would be Jackson and Taylor. And you, on their behalf.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:10 am

                      So when Helen Kelly said that nice man from Australia just wanted to sit down and chat about the terms and conditions on the Hobbit and nothing else, she wasn’t lying?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:17 am

                      Correct. And when Jackson claimed there was a risk that Warners would go offshore when he knew that they wouldn’t, that would be a lie. Lie, truth. Are you starting to see the difference?

                    • quartz …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:18 am

                      Paid shill.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:21 am

                      Yeah time for a DNFTT order…I’ll try and comply haha

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:25 am

                      Quite right, CV, I feel a PG style rolling eyes campaign coming on … 🙄

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:28 am

                      Yes I see the difference TRP. In your world Helen Kelly good, Peter Jackson evil. Neither the NZ public nor global hobbit fans agree with you. Helen Kelly is crudely trying to rewrite history that she lost.

                    • geoff …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:30 am

                      Yep Epping Road is a tad slicker than the usual right wing losers we get around here but he’s still furiously trying to polish a turd.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 February 2013 at 12:42 pm

                      In my world? What would you know about my world, ER? Unlike you, I know Helen and she’s straight as a die. Her only mistake was thinking Jackson would act in good faith. But, instead he lied and now he’s paying you to do some more on his behalf.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 1:55 pm

                      Yes poor Helen Kelly. She thought PJ would act in good faith. What an innocent well-meaning lady she is. After Simon Whipp turned up at Jackson’s house with every kind of big gun pointed at the front door, Whipp said: “Come on out, Peter. We just want to have a nice quiet chat with you. We’ll even supply the coffee and you can trust us that we haven’t poisoned it. You have nothing to fear.”

                      Good faith bargaining from the MEAA my arse. They brought every possible heavy down on Jackson as their opening move.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 February 2013 at 3:16 pm

                      Billionaire Jackson cast in this show as the Victim of Bullying! Star scripting by F’ing Epping!

                      Peter Jackson giving foreign actors rights and privileges that he fights tooth and nail against giving his NZ colleagues!

                      Determined to make NZ yet another cheap 3rd world mine for Hollywood moguls.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      27 February 2013 at 3:47 pm

                      Damn you caught me 😈

  10. ianmac 10
    27 February 2013 at 9:43 am

    “However, in a letter written after October 4 but never sent, Mr Brownlee, who was economic development minister, and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson outlined why, despite lobbying from the director, it would be “inappropriate” to change employment law as requested.”

    Never sent? So claimed in the supportive item by Hamish Rutherford in Business Stuff:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8355651/Jacksons-anger-at-union-snake

  11. Te Reo Putake 11
    27 February 2013 at 9:43 am

    Serious Fraud Office. Given that millions were paid to Warners after it was known that there never was a threat to pull out, that appears to be fraud. Or John Key is the worst businessman NZ has ever seen. Or both.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      27 February 2013 at 10:58 am

      John Key made money for his clients*, that would make him a good businessman not a bad one.

      *Clearly these are not the ordinary workers of NZ.

      • Rob 11.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 11:17 am

        Really, the production workers and producing crew at Weta were all gainfully employed. But it is very convenient to forget about those workers, isn’t it team. No movie here and those jobs would be toast.

        Your idea of ordinary workers of NZ appears to be anything but.

        • Te Reo Putake 11.1.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 11:30 am

          Except we know know there jobs were never at risk, rob. We were lied to. Interesting you call them workers, btw. I thought they were supposed to be contractors.

        • Epping Road 11.1.1.2
          27 February 2013 at 11:31 am

          Shut up Rob. Colonial Viper, who has never worked in the NZ film inudustry or tried to organise them is now their spokesman. Since you disagree with him you’re just one of Peter Jackson’s evil paid shills.

  12. Epping Road 12
    27 February 2013 at 9:45 am

    “They knew the ban was lifted. They continued to insist it was in place. Lying lying liars.”

    No they didn’t. The Government knew that MEAA had been saying for weeks that the ban would be lifted but MEAA never announced this and neither Jackson nor the Government had any reason to trust that MEAA would follow through on their word.

    On what date did SAG publish that the ban was lifted?

    • just saying 12.1
      27 February 2013 at 9:50 am

      I believe it was reported at the time, that emails produced by the union showed that the studios asked the union to delay announcing the lifting of the ban until for a few days until a joint statement could be issued.

      You’ve been had, ER.

    • mickysavage 12.2
      27 February 2013 at 9:51 am

      There was a hold up in publishing the lifting of the ban because (and excuse me for shouting) WARNER BROS WANTED TO DRAFT THE PRESS RELEASE AND DELAYED IN DOING THIS.

      Check out this article from the time published on Friday October 22, 2011 … http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682389

      Note in particular the following passage:

      “However, a series of emails between Warner Bros and the Screen Actors’ Guild (SAG), sighted by NZPA, showed the two parties were discussing the wording of a press release announcing the settlement of the dispute from as early as Monday, US time.” Monday was the 18th of October 2011.

      This verifies Helen Kelly’s statement that the advisory had been lifted on the Sunday night but that Warners delayed the completion of the press release.

      • Epping Road 12.2.1
        27 February 2013 at 10:00 am

        Yeah right, so suddenly the SAG which imposed the ban on the Warner Bros production has to kow-tow to the company they’ve boycotted! MEAA was saying for weeks that it would announce that it was lifting the ban on production. They could have made the announcement at any time up until the 18th. Jackson’s statement on the 21st was by then the damage had already been done and the producers could no longer trust the union to act in good faith.

        • mickysavage 12.2.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 10:05 am

          Good diversion ER and I am sure that MEAA will trust Warners now.

          And how about you come up with some of those facty things to back up your proposition? I have Helen Kelly’s statement and NZPA’s viewing of emails verifying that the press release was being discussed and you have …

          • Epping Road 12.2.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 10:14 am

            October 20.

            “The films’ co-producer, Jackson’s partner Fran Walsh, said the ban placed on the film by the actors union remains in place, despite New Zealand actors saying it was lifted on Sunday and that Warner Bros. had been advised.

            “The boycott has not been lifted. If anyone goes to the Screen Actors’ Guild [of America] website now they will see we are blacklisted,” Walsh told National Radio.”

            http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/film/story/2010/10/20/new-zealand-hobbit-peter-jackson-director.html

            So you’re saying that SAG had to wait for Warners to announce the lifting of a ban that SAG imposed, and that somehow prevented SAG from removing the ban notice from their website until Warners made the announcement?

            Nice quoting of Helen Kelly though, she proved to be full of spin and untruths throughout that whole sorry saga.

            • quartz 12.2.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 10:28 am

              So Fran said on Nov 20 that the ban was in place but Peter said on the 18th that it was being lifted. Who was telling the truth?

              • Epping Road …
                27 February 2013 at 10:37 am

                Where does PJ say the ban was being lifted on the 18th? Actors Equity claimed on the 18th that the ban was being lifted, but somehow this prevented SAG from withdrawing their boycott notice until Warners, who didn’t issue the boycott notice against their own production, unilaterally decided on a wording that was acceptable for them for SAG to use when SAG announced SAG’s ban.

                Equity and MEAA told Jackson for weeks that the ban would be lifted leading up to the 21st when it finally was lifted. Even as the ban was being lifted MEAA still wanted to heavy in on negotiations that they weren’t legally entitled to engage in. Why would you want to negotiate with another party if you’ve given away your only negotiation sanction (a boycott), unless you hadn’t actually given up that sanction?

            • mickysavage 12.2.1.1.1.2
              27 February 2013 at 10:35 am

              What about the emails that NZPA saw between the parties? I think the words for these is “verification” or “corroboration”.

              • Epping Road …
                27 February 2013 at 10:43 am

                Where is the evidence that PJ saw or received these emails? The case against Jackson was that he conspired with Warners to say that the ban hadn’t been lifted when he knew it had been lifted. Where is the evidence that he received the emails that NZPA saw? Where is the evidence that Jackson was lying?

                Jackson was going on the facts. As at the 20th the ban remained in place. It was still listed on the SAG website. MEAA had been saying for weeks that it was removing the ban. Yet the ban remained in force on the SAG website. Even after Equity announced on the 18th that they were withdrawing the ban.

                Bad communication between Kelly, MEAA and SAG? Sure. Really clumsy negotiating from ham-fisted unions that were spinning their arses off and covering themselves in no glory whatsoever? Absolutely. But lies from Jackson? Bullshit.

                • mickysavage …
                  27 February 2013 at 10:57 am

                  Keep moving those goalposts ER.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  27 February 2013 at 11:00 am

                  More of 1. 4. and 5.

                  as per MS’s earlier comment.

                • mickysavage …
                  27 February 2013 at 11:31 am

                  Where is the evidence that PJ saw or received these emails

                  Um here tis …

                  It is contained in the email that was released yesterday. The one he sent on October 18, 2011 to the Government. The one that says

                  It seems like the blacklisting will be lifted tomorrow, which is due to Warners discussions with SAG, although Equity will try and claim credit for it.

                  It was still on the website because Warners were drafting the press release and delaying.

                  Care to reconsider?

                  • Epping Road …
                    27 February 2013 at 11:35 am

                    Then why wasn’t the ban lifted the next day? Why did it take three days to negotiate the wording? Because MEAA continued to push to negotiate with Jackson after the ban was lifted, which always raised the prospect of MEAA bringing the show to a stop again.

                    • mickysavage …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:43 am

                      I am not sure why I am bothering to do this but you have:

                      1. Avoided answering my comment. I offered it as proof that Jackson knew the ban was to be lifted.
                      2. Raised something that you have no proof whatsoever of (“MEAA continued to push to negotiate with Jackson after the ban was lifted”.

                      In terms of Irish’s analysis you are now playing rules 1 and 4.

                      You are also refusing to accept the evidence from Kelly, NZPA and Jackson who all clearly knew the ban was being lifted.

                      The only possible way you could say what you are saying are either:

                      1. You are telling big fibbies because you have no evidence or inside knowledge whatsoever.
                      2. You were heavily involved in the negotiations at a senior level either through Jackson or Warners and are currently spinning for them.

                      Which one is it?

                    • geoff …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:44 am

                      You’re a joke. Defending the lying egotist Jackson by attempting to divert the thread. We’ve seen these tactics from your kind time and time again.
                      You’re a disgrace to the country.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:53 am

                      You’re ignoring what were obviously critical events between 18 and 20 October. Why do you think SAG didn’t just front up to Warners on 18 October and say that the ban was going to be unconditionally removed and that SAG would announce that the MEAA would not initiate any further blacklisting on the Hobbit productions? What possible objection could Warners have had to that announcement?

                      Because that wasn’t what SAG were negotiating. It wasn’t the negotiation of the press release. The blacklist lifting was conditional on the negotiations on MEAA’s role going forward, which SAG continued to push for. If you really think that it takes three days of emergency meetings to draft a press release to renounce a blacklist then I have a bridge to sell you.

                      The email from Jackson shows that he was confident on the 18th that the blacklist would be lifted the next day. But it wasn’t lifted the next day. It took three days. No doubt Jackson was briefed by Warners on progress, but the blacklist was still in effect by the SAG until the SAG removed the blacklist. Which they still hadn’t done until the 21st.

                    • geoff …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:58 am

                      Well said Micky, the corporate dumb dumbs that hire the likes of Epping Road haven’t yet realised it does more harm than good to their corrupt cause. It merely draws further attention to the fact that they’ve been caught lying.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  27 February 2013 at 12:54 pm

                  Where is the evidence that PJ saw or received these emails?

                  Just released by the government.

        • just saying 12.2.1.2
          27 February 2013 at 10:06 am

          The emails on this matter, as well as the recently released documents, demonstrate that the union was acting in good faith and Jackson et al weren’t.

          Warner Brothers could have publicised the lifting immediately. For some reason they chose not to.

          I don’t think you are arguing on thise matter in good faith anymore, if indeed you ever were, ER

          • Epping Road 12.2.1.2.1
            27 February 2013 at 10:22 am

            The SAG could have publicised the lifting of the ban immediately. Or they could have removed the ban notice from their website while they were negotiating the wording of the ban lifting. But they didn’t. And even after agreeing with Warners to lift the ban, MEAA still wanted to continue negotiating with Jackson. Which meant if MEAA didn’t get its way there was always a risk of a future ban.

            • mickysavage 12.2.1.2.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 10:57 am

              The SAG could have publicised the lifting of the ban immediately

              I agree. They should never have trusted Warners to play fair.

              • Epping Road …
                27 February 2013 at 11:00 am

                So apparently SAG were happy to give Warners the right to dictate the statement that SAG made on lifting the ban, but SAG weren’t able to remove the ban listing from their website while the wording was decided? Nice spin dude!

                • mickysavage …
                  27 February 2013 at 11:04 am

                  I know this may be a foreign concept but it is called good faith bargaining.

                  So far someone involved in the negotiations (Kelly) has said it happened and NZPA have seen emails confirming it. You are maintaining continuously that because someone who was not involved in the negotiations (Walsh) says it did not happen it did not happen even though the emails say it did.

                  You are cherry picking your evidence to support the lines that you are running.

                  You are also following the script that Irish Bill set out a couple of weeks before the event.

                  And you show up yesterday as this incident again hits the news and posts continuously in a well written but deeply deceptive way.

                  Are you a paid shrill?

                  • Epping Road …
                    27 February 2013 at 11:42 am

                    No I’m not a shill of any kind, paid or unpaid. Are you a paid or unpaid shill for the union movement?

                    I am convinced that Jackson was under huge pressure, that he saw a film industry he created being swept out from under him, and that he genuinely believed that the film was lost to NZ. I believe he truthfully feared that the MEAA’s ongoing involvement in the film industry would cause instability.

                    You accuse me of cherry-picking evidence but you have consistently cherry-picked statements made by Kelly while mysteriously ignoring everything that took place leading up to Simon Whipp getting the Hobbit production blacklisted, everything that Simon Whipp was involved in until Helen Kelly got involved, and Helen Kelly trying to rewrite history.

                    • mickysavage …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:50 am

                      he genuinely believed that the film was lost to NZ. I believe he truthfully feared that the MEAA’s ongoing involvement in the film industry would cause instability

                      Well read his email and then come back and explain how you can still hold this view. The email is the one where he says that the blacklisting has nothing to do with choice of production base and all that Warners wanted was certainty in employment law.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      27 February 2013 at 11:57 am

                      Epping Road can’t read that email. it’ll cause a critical exception error.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 1:40 pm

                      Again michysavage you are cherrypicking evidence. Saying that the blacklisting is not the issue at a particular point in time does not mean that the blacklisting was never an issue or a contributing factor. The blacklisting along with the rest of MEAA’s conduct were what caused fear of instability.

                      Why do you think Jackson feared there was not certainty around the Hobbit’s industrial relations? Could it possibly be because an Australian union tried to muscle in on the Hobbit, use the Hobbit as a means to set industry standards, claim credit for having set those standards and create a union base across the film industry? Could it have been that despite not being a registered union in NZ the MEAA brought down the SAG and several other international unions onto Jackson’s head as its opening gambit? Could it have been that the MEAA wanted to continue to negotiate terms and conditions on behalf of contractors at the final hour, even after the MEAA said they would lift a ban that they had promised to lift weeks earlier, but didn’t?

                      You are taking statements Jackson made in isolation. In Jackson’s statement of 21 October he made clear that the lifting of the blacklist was no longer the issue. It was the confidence that Warners had that the MEAA wouldn’t stir up trouble again and disrupt the production.

                      I think it is telling that not once have you defended Simon Whipp or the MEAA’s role in this dispute. Nor has Helen Kelly. Clearly both of you think his behaviour was indefensible, so instead you try to smokescreen Whipp’s role by abusing the motives of the man who built the NZ film industry. Classy.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2013 at 1:54 pm

                      Why do you think Jackson feared there was not certainty around the Hobbit’s industrial relations?

                      could it be that he’d become used to having a dictatorial fiefdom (unlike every other workplace in the country) that Bryson had challenged?

                      could it be that it’s unreasonable to expect “stability” from one party while offering none in return, yet this is what he wanted?

                      could it be that a handily-timed “crisis” is a useful way to extort money from a country (even if you have no real intent to follow through on your threat), particularly if the pm is a sycophantic groupie?

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 2:05 pm

                      “could it be that he’d become used to having a dictatorial fiefdom (unlike every other workplace in the country) that Bryson had challenged?”

                      Bryson was certainly a factor for Jackson and Warners from the beginning. That’s on the record. Whether you would go to such extraordinary steps of hiring hundreds of people on a production, scouting locations, and then booking flights out of there and then go through all that charade just to change Bryson is a big stretch. Warners knew of Bryson at the time they green-lighted the production. Sure Bryson was a problem, but saying it was a big conspiracy without any evidence is BS.

                      “could it be that it’s unreasonable to expect “stability” from one party while offering none in return, yet this is what he wanted?”

                      This is a film production. There were ways to set up stability around individual contractor agreements, and even negotiate collectively. You just set up a bigger company, negotiate directly with Jackson through that company and get the terms and conditions that you can. There never has been any evidence that the terms and conditions offered to the contractors were any less than offered elsewhere in the film industry in NZ. By all reports The Hobbit paid more, and with better conditions than everyone else in NZ.

                      “could it be that a handily-timed “crisis” is a useful way to extort money from a country (even if you have no real intent to follow through on your threat), particularly if the pm is a sycophantic groupie?”

                      Interesting conspiracy theory but you don’t have to go to all that effort to achieve it. You just sit the PM down and say: “If you don’t change the law then we’re going to announce we’re pulling out of NZ. Peter is making the announcement next week. This is the press release he’s issuing.”

                    • mickysavage …
                      27 February 2013 at 2:19 pm

                      Ahhh Bryson the set model technician whose claim for modest compensation made its way all the way to the Supreme Court.

                      Existing New Zealand law allows people working on movies to be categorised as contractors. All you have to do is make sure that the paperwork is in order.

                      Yet the Bryson case was made out to be a movie ending threat by Warners and by Jackson.

                      Weirder and weirder.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2013 at 2:19 pm

                      So which bits are the things that you don’t think happened?

                      Jackson wanting the law changed because of Bryson?
                      Jackson/Hollywood talking up the union blacklist to justify the tax breaks?
                      The movie reps sitting down with Key and demanding a tax break with the threat of moving offshore?
                      or Key just offering them money and a law change for no reason?

                      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Key was a particularly tough negotiator on this issue by any stretch of the imagination, but it might be a bit much even for him to offer the law change and $60million in taxpayer funds just as koha for them coming to visit him in wellington. He probably gave them actual Gingernuts with their tea, rather than the home brand ginger bisuits, too.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 2:35 pm

                      “Jackson wanting the law changed because of Bryson?”

                      Yes I think ideally Jackson and Warners wanted Bryson over-ruled by Parliament. It caused concern for the industry. That’s a matter of public record. But I don’t believe that Jackson believed that Bryson on its own created so much anguish that Warners and Jackson couldn’t work within it. Warners green-lighted the Hobbit after Bryson came down. They could not possibly assume that the Government would change the law. Of greater concern to Warners and Jackson was the MEAA using Bryson to cause instability in the film industry.

                      “Jackson/Hollywood talking up the union blacklist to justify the tax breaks?”

                      You’ve got to be joking. Talking up the blacklist? The blacklist brought the whole production to a stand-still. It isn’t a warning, or a don’t-sign-yet-notice. It means taht every actor and production member aligned to any international union can’t work on the production. It means that if Warners had proceeded with the production in spite of the blacklist then every global union would have blacklisted all of Warner’s films.

                      “The movie reps sitting down with Key and demanding a tax break with the threat of moving offshore?”

                      It’s a matter of public record that following the dispute, that simply changing the law wasn’t enough to bring the production back to NZ. More incentives were necessary. Would those incentives have been necessary if Simon Whipp and Helen Kelly hadn’t created so much instability in the film industry? No, absolutely not. Whipp’s and Kelly’s actions cost NZers a lot of money.

                      “or Key just offering them money and a law change for no reason?”

                      Not likely, no. When government is short of cash they’re not usually in the habit of just giving money away. I think the mess that Whipp and Kelly created made the extra incentives necessary to lure Warners’ back.

                      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Key was a particularly tough negotiator on this issue by any stretch of the imagination, but it might be a bit much even for him to offer the law change and $60million in taxpayer funds just as koha for them coming to visit him in wellington. He probably gave them actual Gingernuts with their tea, rather than the home brand ginger bisuits, too.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2013 at 2:48 pm

                      It’s a matter of public record that following the dispute, that simply changing the law wasn’t enough to bring the production back to NZ.

                      Really? You can link to it then.

                      Your comment seems to imply that the decision had in fact been made to shift the production offshore, and it was only the tax bribe plus the law change that brought it back. I’ll get my popcorn while you provide a link for that assertion.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 3:14 pm

                      “Really? You can link to it then.”

                      I say that on the basis of Brownlee and the PMs statements after 21 October that they weren’t expecting to pay more, but they would look to changing the law if that was necessary.

                      “Your comment seems to imply that the decision had in fact been made to shift the production offshore, and it was only the tax bribe plus the law change that brought it back. I’ll get my popcorn while you provide a link for that assertion.”

                      Jackson’s statement on 21 October was that Warners were coming down to NZ to shift the production offshore. “Next week Warners are coming down to NZ to make arrangements to move the production off-shore. It appears we now cannot make films in our own country – even when substantial financing is available.”

                      I know that many believe Kelly and Whipp think that Jackson’s statement on this was a sham. But to believe it was a sham you need to prove a conspiracy. Given that of all the people involved in the negotiations at the highest levels of government, including ministers, ministerial staff, government departments, Jackson’s people, Warners, New Line, that not a shred of evidence has leaked out of the sham, I think you are struggling.

                      If the Government could have got away with just changing the law to bring the production back, I think they would have. I can think of no compelling reason to simply fire off a big cheque to Warners if the law change had been enough. I don’t think any law change, or any additional money would have been paid if MEAA and Kelly hadn’t bungled it.

                      You can call it a “tax bribe” if you like, but there have been tax incentives in the film industry for some time for big films. Was the Government pressured at the last moment to bend over backwards for Warners, doing things they wouldn’t have otherwise wanted to do? Bloody hell they were. Did they need to do this to make sure the production went ahead in NZ? Absolutely. Who caused that position to come about? Simon Whipp and Helen Kelly.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2013 at 3:33 pm

                      okay, you haven’t mastered the are of supplying evidence. no problem. You were only using public statements of proven and repeated liars as support.

                      You can call it a “tax bribe” if you like, but there have been tax incentives in the film industry for some time for big films. Was the Government pressured at the last moment to bend over backwards for Warners, doing things they wouldn’t have otherwise wanted to do? Bloody hell they were. Did they need to do this to make sure the production went ahead in NZ? Absolutely. Who caused that position to come about? Simon Whipp and Helen Kelly.

                      The bit I italicised is the crux of two issues:
                      1) was the production really going to go overseas, and if so was it worth the tax cuts and law change to keep it here? and

                      2) did the government know the answer to 1) and negotiate accordingly.

                      Quite frankly, the government was incompetent and the production company and jackson extracted as much out of that as possible.

                      Blame the unions all you want, but either they had enough support to endanger the NZ (and overseas) production, or they didn’t. In the first instance, the protest in favour of jackson was a sham march by a minority of scabs and shills. In the second instance, the tax rebate and law change were needless gifts from the government to the already rich. Either possibility makes your obsession against worker representation somewhat suspect.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 4:09 pm

                      “okay, you haven’t mastered the are of supplying evidence. no problem. You were only using public statements of proven and repeated liars as support.”

                      I quoted Jackson. I think the Hobbit dispute showed Kelly up as a proven and repeated liar. You don’t believe Jackson, I don’t believe Kelly. You use Kelly’s testimony as the basis of your beliefs, I use Jackson’s. We’re not going to advance any further on that point but you can’t accuse me of not providing evidence. It just happens to be evidence that you don’t trust.

                      “The bit I italicised is the crux of two issues:
                      1) was the production really going to go overseas, and if so was it worth the tax cuts and law change to keep it here? and”

                      Yes I believe that the production really was going to go overseas, on the basis that to prove otherwise you have to prove a conspiracy, and for that conspiracy to be kept a secret then you rely on dozens if not hundreds of people privy to the negotiations remaining silent on the conspiracy for two and a half years. Not a single piece of evidence that the production wasn’t shifting offshore.

                      “2) did the government know the answer to 1) and negotiate accordingly.”

                      I think by the 21st the Government believed that it was going offshore, but that it was salvageable if the Government changed the law. You can argue that Warners’ would have sent a lackey or nobody at all rather than their top team to Wellington if it was just to confirm to the Government that they were pulling out. Did Warners think that it was salvageable? Obviously.

                      Do I think the Government had any idea beyond a law change, on 21 October, what was necessary to secure it? Unlikely. It was a moving feast. JK wouldn’t have publicly said that he didn’t expect to have to put more money on the table if he knew that he would. There’s no inclination from the PM’s reaction on 21-22 October that he was softening the public up for a cash payment as well as a law change. The law change, he was certainly softening the public up for.

                      I don’t know when it became clear to the Government that things in an addition to a law change were necessary. What was clear was the moment that the production was blacklisted by the MEAA, and every subsequent action to demonise Warners and Jackson, and every subsequent day that the blacklist remained in force, the more likely the production would be pulled, and the stronger Warners’ hand would be in any subsequent negotiation to salvage it.

                      Did Warners ratchet up the negotiations and squeeze the Government for all it could? Yes, probably. Could they have gone harder and got more? Maybe. Could the Government have struck a better deal for the taxpayer? Who knows. What we do know is that Warners had the upper hand and because of the economic value of the production the Government was in a desperate position to keep the production in NZ.

                      And the Government was only put in that desperate position because Simon Whipp and Helen Kelly desperately overplayed their hand, created absolute turmoil in the film industry, and then slinked off while the Government picked up the bill.

                      “Blame the unions all you want, but either they had enough support to endanger the NZ (and overseas) production, or they didn’t.”

                      The union that represented less than 10% of NZ actors, and wasn’t even registered in NZ. The tiny union in NZ that called down blacklists from every big international film union.

                      “In the first instance, the protest in favour of jackson was a sham march by a minority of scabs and shills.”

                      Come on. Over a thousand protesters. The “sham march” that Kelly was too afraid to meet with. The huge majority of people committed to work on the Hobbit were not union members. Not even MEAA or Helen Kelly ever claimed that they represented anything like a big part of the film industry.

                      “In the second instance, the tax rebate and law change were needless gifts from the government to the already rich. Either possibility makes your obsession against worker representation somewhat suspect.”

                      I disagree that they were needless gifts. Read above. I’m not obsessed against worker representation. Workers have every right to organise within the law. Film workers and unions had every right to lobby the Government for commerce act changes to allow them to negotiate collectively for contractors, which they never tried to do even under a union-friendly government. I think unions are entitled to recruit. But the law says that both parties must act in good faith. Using one production to advance your ambitions for the whole industry isn’t good faith. Bringing down the heaviest possible sanctions as your first move isn’t good faith. Nowhere has Helen Kelly ever justified Simon Whipp’s actions. Nor have any of Helen Kelly’s supporters here. The silence around Whipp is extraordinary.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2013 at 5:14 pm

                      You might want to point to where you quoted, though. That’s the difference between evidence and gossip.

                      Anyway, we know there was a conspiracy to extract as much money from making the film in NZ as possible. It’s called a production company. The question is whether the rumoured move overseas was a genuine concept, or just a hollow threat. The same individuals can be involved in either, as either is a strategic negotiating and production decision. So your “conspiracy theory” basis for believing the public negotiating position is flawed.

                      What we do know is that Warners had the upper hand and because of the economic value of the production the Government was in a desperate position to keep the production in NZ.

                      Hmm. That motive is inconsistent with every other decision the government has made. Of course the difference is movies have more glitz than carpets or trains. You might need a rethink there.

                      The silence around Whipp is extraordinary.

                      Mostly because peter jackson said the employment law change was irrelevant to the film being made in nz, if you read the post’s links. The issue is that national kept pretending the ban was up so they could have idiots like you thinking there was a connection between that and the production in NZ.

                      Tell me something: do you think they would have avoided a blacklist if they went to Estonia because workers here were trying to unionise? Irrelevant to the law change and the rebate. But Key met hollywood bigwigs and got a sword, so yays for us.

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 5:39 pm

                      “You might want to point to where you quoted, though. That’s the difference between evidence and gossip.”

                      I have been pointing most of the time. This conversation has been over two threads in two days already. A lot of the points raised against what I’ve said, once you filter out the personal attacks that a number of commenters have made against me (and I respect you for mostly resisting those), have been repeated. You’re correct that I haven’t added links and quotes each time, but when asked to I have. When asked if I think something is my interpretation based on the evidence then I have been upfront about that.

                      “Anyway, we know there was a conspiracy to extract as much money from making the film in NZ as possible. It’s called a production company.”

                      Likewise you could say that there was a “conspiracy” by the unions to extract as much influence as possible over this period.

                      “The question is whether the rumoured move overseas was a genuine concept, or just a hollow threat. The same individuals can be involved in either, as either is a strategic negotiating and production decision.”

                      I agree, that is the issue.

                      “So your “conspiracy theory” basis for believing the public negotiating position is flawed.”

                      No. My argument against the conspiracy theory is that if it had been a sham by the production company (and allegedly the Government was in on this sham), then there is a very high probability that one of the dozens if not hundreds of people who participated in this sham, to call off a production as an empty threat, would have spilled the beans by now. They haven’t.

                      “Hmm. That motive is inconsistent with every other decision the government has made. Of course the difference is movies have more glitz than carpets or trains. You might need a rethink there.”

                      I call BS on that. The Government intervenes all the time. It does so based on whether there’s political advantage for them in intervening. Of course JK wanted to walk down the red carpet. Of course he wanted the jobs to stay here. If the Hobbit had gone offshore then it would have been disastrous for any government.

                      Even assuming that the CTU and the MEAA would have acted the same way they did under a Labour Government, do you think Helen Clark would have made different decisions if they had been put in that negotiating position with Warners? Do you really think Helen would have let Warners walk away from the table, take their production overseas, and refused to cut a deal to keep them here?

                      “Mostly because peter jackson said the employment law change was irrelevant to the film being made in nz, if you read the post’s links. The issue is that national kept pretending the ban was up so they could have idiots like you thinking there was a connection between that and the production in NZ.”

                      What’s your reference for PJ saying the employment law change was irrelevant? Previous comment from Kelly’s fan-club have been that PJ said that the boycott was irrelevant to Warner’s decision. I’ve argued the latter point with other commenters to death already. The conclusion I’ve drawn is that I don’t believe that anything PJ said on that issue is inconsistent.

                      “Tell me something: do you think they would have avoided a blacklist if they went to Estonia because workers here were trying to unionise? Irrelevant to the law change and the rebate.”

                      That’s the first time I’ve seen it raised, but it is an interesting issue. I would say that SAG’s decision to withdraw the boycott was not contingent on the production staying in NZ. SAG made the decision to withdraw the boycott before Jackson said that the production was all but lost to NZ. So if Warners had gone to Estonia then no ban would have been in place in Estonia.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2013 at 5:56 pm

                      No. My argument against the conspiracy theory is that if it had been a sham by the production company (and allegedly the Government was in on this sham), then there is a very high probability that one of the dozens if not hundreds of people who participated in this sham, to call off a production as an empty threat, would have spilled the beans by now. They haven’t.

                      Who says hundreds of people would need to lie? Just the negotiating team and decision makers. Nobody else.

                      “Hmm. That motive is inconsistent with every other decision the government has made. Of course the difference is movies have more glitz than carpets or trains. You might need a rethink there.”

                      I call BS on that. The Government intervenes all the time. It does so based on whether there’s political advantage for them in intervening. Of course JK wanted to walk down the red carpet. Of course he wanted the jobs to stay here. If the Hobbit had gone offshore then it would have been disastrous for any government.

                      Big difference between “political advantage” and the motive you initially attributed to the government, “because of the economic value of the production the Government was in a desperate position to keep the production in NZ”. And before you call an indirect relationship between the two, our low-growth, high unemployment, high deficit government demonstrates otherwise.

                      I would say that SAG’s decision to withdraw the boycott was not contingent on the production staying in NZ.

                      I’d say that shifting country because the workers there are easier to screw over is likely to piss off unions, including SAG.

                      What’s your reference for PJ saying the employment law change was irrelevant?
                      sorry, Blackwood

                    • Epping Road …
                      27 February 2013 at 6:41 pm

                      “What’s your reference for PJ saying the employment law change was irrelevant?
                      sorry, Blackwood”

                      I think you are mistaken. Neither the Herald article nor the emails assert that the law change was irrelevant. The Herald article asserts that on the 15th October Blackwood said that the production was committed to NZ. But this is not supported by Blackwood’s correspondence in the emails. Read page 10 from Blackwood to Brownlee on Tuesday 12 October http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/20139/NZHHobbitDocuments.PDF

                      “First, and most importantly, when you asked me if the decision had been made to move the films offshore, I told you that that decision had not yet been made. And it hasn’t. As I have said to you on every occasion that we have spoken, we are committed to NZ, both because of Peter and Fran’s deep commitment to be there, as well as our own – we filmed all three Lord of the Rings films in NZ and are not makeng any decisions to move this production lightly. If that were to happen, it would honestly be a blow to all of us. That said, we are in a very precarious position…”

                      Blackwood’s email doesn’t mention the law change, and certainly doesn’t say that the law change was irrelevant to its decision. The point in Blackwood’s email was to alert Brownlee of the increasing risk.

                      Forward three days to 15 October (page 12 of the PDF), when Blackwood sent a furious message to Brownlee via PJ, informing him that Whipp had just turned up in LA to make demands about Warners agreeing to renegotiate the Pink Book before he would rescind the Do Not Work order. That is directly from Blackwood’s email to PJ.

                      In my view there is no question that Whipp turning up to LA to push his case on the day that the SAG was due to announce its removal of the blacklist on 15 October to make further demands of Warners didn’t inflame things, and create a climate of distrust, then I’m afraid on the basis of the email correspondence I disagree with you. PJ would have to be some very special kind of Evil Genius to pull that off. And if you really think that Warners would suddenly turn around and have agreed all the issues with SAG by the 18th, when SAG was supposedly ready to pull the plug on its blacklist, then I think that’s a nonsense too.

                      Of course there’s an easy way to create some balance in the argument. We’ve seen the emails between Ministers and the producers. What we haven’t seen is the correspondence between Whipp and his negotiating team, particularly the SAG and the CTU. Helen Kelly must have received that. Surely she can easily release all the amils she had over the period between the CTU and MEAA and SAG on the Hobbit dispute so that we can compare PJ’s story against hers.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 February 2013 at 1:05 am

                      nice. 12 oct email she says the are deply committed to nz but might move to NSW, to face the same union, and doesn’t mention factoring in a strike by the same union. Seriously?

                    • McFlock …
                      28 February 2013 at 1:06 am

                      oh, you got yourself banned. Never mind then.

                  • Epping Road …
                    27 February 2013 at 2:40 pm

                    Sorry Mcflock, for the sake of clarity I accidentally included your last paragraph in my comment. That isn’t my comment of course.

            • quartz 12.2.1.2.1.2
              27 February 2013 at 10:59 am

              Fuck off paid shill.

    • Ant 12.3
      27 February 2013 at 9:55 am

      Piss off troll, it’s common knowledge they were organising a coordinated press release with all involved parties.

      • Epping Road 12.3.1
        27 February 2013 at 2:45 pm

        Yeah sure it takes three days of emergency meetings of big teams at the highest levels of Warner’s and the SAG to organise a coordinated press release.

        • McFlock 12.3.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 2:51 pm

          it does when someone drags their feet to get more concessions from a compliant government.

  13. ianmac 13
    27 February 2013 at 9:47 am

    The essence of Steven Joyce’s comments is that the ends justify the means. A pretty dangerous line for a government in a democracy, – unless you live in Fiji.

  14. bad12 14
    27 February 2013 at 9:50 am

    Slippery deliberately told a big one in the House yesterday while under fire from the combined Opposition Labour/Green/NZFirst over the absolute mess His Government have made of the States coal miner Solid Energy,

    Being quizzed by the Green Party’s Russell Norman over His support for Solid Energy’s move to diversify into lignite coal to diesel as late as 2011-2012 in public speeches the Prime Minister claimed that while coal prices were high He was happy to support such moves by the State’s coal miner,

    i have to say here that for the first time i was a little disappointed with Russell Norman when He didn’t immediately ask a supplementary question and expose the previous answer from Slippery the Prime Minister as the deliberate misleading of the House or LIE that it actually was,

    Our Prime Minister happy to have Solid Energy diversify into fuel production from coal as the coal prices where high???,

    In 2008 a bare month befor His election to the post of Prime Minister the price of a tonne of coal on the open market fell from US$150 a full third of it’s price to US$111.50,

    By October 2010 the price of coal had fallen a further third to US$71.25 a tonne,

    Hopefully Russell Norman puts the Slippery little Shyster on the spot at next Tuesday’s question time in the Parliament over such utter bullshit the Prime Minister has made up so as to attempt to extricate Himself from responsibility that He and His Finance Minister, Bill from Dipton, must equally share in their total ignorance of the looming crisis faced by the States cola miner Solid Energy….

    • tc 14.1
      27 February 2013 at 10:16 am

      I’m surprised he’s even in QT, unless he really has lost interest now having all his boxes ticked as he’s not competant enough to hold out on a concerted and focused session.

      Maybe someone in the MSM can do this on the oppositions behalf…….yeah right !

  15. bunch of new posters 15
    27 February 2013 at 10:12 am

    In the constitutional system of Parliamentary democracy with its supposed built-in checks and balances it is the job of the Opposition to pick up a Government on lies and expose them ruthlessly with all the privileges of the public forums it has access to.

    On the reasonable assumption that the Party in power whatever its colour will always seek to abuse that power, the question posed by the article really ought to ask what we as citizens can and/or should do when we have an Opposition that through incompetence, laziness or self-interest fails to fulfil its role.

    • Bunji 15.1
      27 February 2013 at 10:38 am

      Okay, so when something is exposed, like this, what happens then? I think that was more the point…

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 11:01 am

        I predict that John Key’s personal rating stays clearly over 40% and National holds steady around 47%.

        But that’s probably not what you meant…

      • bunch of new posters 15.1.2
        27 February 2013 at 4:26 pm

        Well my personal suggestion for a more responsible, accountable Parliament would be to divide the country into, say, twentyfour constituencies each returning five MP’s, one to be elected per annum. You could go even further and stagger the annual elections so that somewhere there are six MPs having to stand for re-election every quarter. The advantages:

        1. It ditches the pre-Steam-Age notion of General Elections, with the tri-annual lie-fest that is the hustings, the concentrated media hysteria and all the baby-kissing while allowing politicians to ignore us all the rest of the time,

        2. It gives us each an annual opportunity to have our say on the Govrnment’s performance,

        3. Having a vote for one of five allows greater nuances of political expression.

        Each consituency would be composed of rich and poor, city, small town and rural districts from across the counry to get rid of the Epsom phenomenon, and the 18th Century notion that your MP had to be within half a day’s horseback ride.

        With each MP having a five-year term I’d limit any MP to two terms maximum – even non-consecutive ones.

  16. RJL 16
    27 February 2013 at 10:42 am

    Sure it is possible to imagine court action, or some more active role for the Speaker or an Ombudsman to sanction lying politicians. But that just seems to move the problem around — who ensures the integrity the judge/ombudsman/etc?

    Our system does work, to the extent that if the public cares about the lies politicians tell, then the politicians simply get voted out.

    It really comes down to the opposition politicians (and possibly journalists and “concerned citizens”) telling the public why they should care, *and* the opposition politicians offering a convincing alternative.

    Of course, a problem is that lots of things politicians (from all sides) say can be spun as lies.

  17. Mary 17
    27 February 2013 at 10:47 am

    Darien Fenton was absolutely piss-weak abysmal on Morning Report this morning. No wonder Key can get away with what he does. Just hopeless.

  18. Draco T Bastard 18
    27 February 2013 at 10:49 am

    When it becomes obvious that an entire government lied to the populace then that government needs to be jailed with the opposition taking over government until a new election is held. Anything less is accepting the corruption that the lies represent.

    • Epping Road 18.1
      27 February 2013 at 10:52 am

      Oh yeah that’s democratic. Worked in Fiji didn’t it.

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 11:02 am

        Newsflash – we are already a crony capitalist banana republic.

        (Without the bananas, admittedly).

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.2
        27 February 2013 at 11:04 am

        Funny how you think that “corruption” and “lies” from Government is “democratic”. I’m pretty sure that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

        • Epping Road 18.1.2.1
          27 February 2013 at 11:08 am

          That big pro National Party conspiracy Transparency International disagrees with you on your corruption claim, and that other big National Party conspiracy, called the New Zealand public, disagrees with you on the “lies” claim. Keep blabbing your nonsense though because it’s obviously very comforting for you.

          • Colonial Viper 18.1.2.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 11:10 am

            Transparency International? When did they manage to study these incriminating Hobbit emails?

            Oh yeah, they haven’t lol

          • aspasia 18.1.2.1.2
            27 February 2013 at 11:19 am

            Still waiting for evidence that the CTU funded Bryson, ER? You will be called on unsubstantiated allegations if you choose to blog here.

            • Epping Road 18.1.2.1.2.1
              27 February 2013 at 11:25 am

              JK made the statement at the press conference announcing the deal to bring the Hobbit back to NZ after the dispute. To my knowledge Key has never been challenged on it. Did I make up the claim? No. Did JK make it up? Who knows. If you think everything Helen Kelly says is gospel then how can you object if most of NZ believe JK?

              • Te Reo Putake …
                27 February 2013 at 11:31 am

                How can it be be brought back to NZ if it never left?

              • framu …
                27 February 2013 at 12:25 pm

                ” Did JK make it up? ”

                who knows – he does however have a history of making shit up so i wouldnt use him as any kind of evidence

              • framu …
                27 February 2013 at 12:29 pm

                “how can you object if most of NZ believe JK?”

                oh, the self appointed spokesman for the people of NZ now are we

                shit mate – your a first rate Augean Stable of BS

                hope youve got waders on – and earmuffs

              • aspasia …
                27 February 2013 at 2:11 pm

                Presumably this is not a reply to my post? If it is, she’s your link?

                • aspasia …
                  27 February 2013 at 2:14 pm

                  Edit function not working? My post should have read “where’s your link?” Not sure what your post should have read…….

                  • Epping Road …
                    27 February 2013 at 4:42 pm

                    Aspasia the statement from Key was on Breakfast on the morning of the meeting with Warners, see about 3.35m in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQsQr02T2pE

                    • aspasia …
                      28 February 2013 at 6:45 am

                      Oh I see….I was looking for actual evidence. Key, on the morning of meeting with Warner Bros, claims that the unions funded the Bryson SC case. Yes he did make it up. It obviously suited the spin at the time.

                      The CTU does not have the deep pockets of Warner Bros. But in any event there was no way Bryson’s counsel was going to pass up the chance to bring the first ever employment law case in the Supreme Court. As the SC decision demonstrates, there was considerable legal concern that the Court of Appeal had seriously distorted well settled common law principle to find for Three Foot Six. The law is about more than the film industry. Gould was quite prepared to appear pro bono in this situation.

                      Helen Kelly?? Ross Wilson was CTU President at the material time.

            • One Tāne Huna 18.1.2.1.2.2
              27 February 2013 at 11:27 am

              Don’t hold your breath. ER’s work here involves repeating finely-spun horseshit, not acknowledging error.

          • framu 18.1.2.1.3
            27 February 2013 at 12:31 pm

            ” Transparency International disagrees with you on your corruption claim”

            yeah, its “perceived corruption” numbskull

          • Draco T Bastard 18.1.2.1.4
            27 February 2013 at 12:57 pm

            Transparency International report perception and that is not the reality. NZ is actually majorly corrupt.

      • tc 18.1.3
        27 February 2013 at 11:22 am

        Stick with sacarcm as the trolling isn’t working out for you.

      • Draco T Bastard 18.1.4
        27 February 2013 at 1:41 pm

        I don’t recall asking for a military coup, just that the government be held accountable for its actions. That would probably require some law changes such as the power of recall and, in extreme cases*, the AG and the governor to be able to instruct the police to act.

        * When it’s obvious that the government has broken the law.

  19. One Tāne Huna 19
    27 February 2013 at 11:32 am

    What to do about the National Party?

    Parliament is a court. Introduce stronger rules of admissible evidence, and harsher penalties for perjury in Parliament.

    Turn prosecution decisions over to the police and crown prosecution.

    • Lanthanide 19.1
      27 February 2013 at 12:33 pm

      If they lied in parliament, then there are already good sanctions available.

      In this case I believe they only lied on TV and radio interviews.

  20. Steady Course 20
    27 February 2013 at 11:56 am

    Give up ER, the left will continue to grasp at pathetic little straws in an attempt to stem the ever gaining popularity of National. Conspiracies conspiracies, i suppose John Key in conjunction with warners organised 9/11 too huh?

    • Arfamo 20.1
      27 February 2013 at 12:43 pm

      Haven’t seen anyone here making that nonsense 9/11 claim but you. Does bollocks like this typify your arguments and evidence?

    • Draco T Bastard 20.2
      27 February 2013 at 12:59 pm

      So, solid proof that the government lied is “grasping at straws”?

      riiiiiight.

  21. bad12 21
    27 February 2013 at 12:20 pm

    There now appears to be 3 official languages in New Zealand, along with Maori and English Slippery the Prime Minister has introduced BULLSHIT as the official language of the Parliament…

  22. Rupert Snodgrass (stupid banned troll) 22
    27 February 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Why are Trade Union filth trying so hard to rewrite the history of the Hobbit Saga?

    Because Kiwi workers rose as one to fight against their treason.

    Helen Kelly and the CTU conspired with a foreign entity to destroy a multi-billion dollar Kiwi industry.

    And Kiwi workers prevented them.

    Two years later, the constant screeching of Union filth reminds us, how bitter their defeat was. We marched on Mayday, their day, to save Kiwi jobs whilst they hid in their offices, squealing that their exploitation of Kiwi workers had come to an end.

    • Steady Course 22.1
      27 February 2013 at 1:22 pm

      Good Call

    • One Tāne Huna 22.2
      27 February 2013 at 1:23 pm

      Just the facts, ma’am. The government lied. The emails prove it. Granny concurs.

    • quartz 22.3
      27 February 2013 at 1:28 pm

      Because Kiwi workers rose as one to fight against their treason.

      Jesus Peter Jackson is posting here now.

      It is true, Peter, that you have moved into a sterile room and stopped cutting your nails?

    • vto 22.4
      27 February 2013 at 1:45 pm

      Snodgrass you malign unions and workers at your peril. You need to grow up and learn some history about them.

      In addition, from reading this thread and hanging around on this site for far too long now it seems abundantly clear that Epping Road and Rupert Snodgrass are only one degree of separation from Jackson and his crew – if not sitting across the desk from each other.

      Straight from the “top”. Top in one sense only, bottom in most humanity measures which stand the test of time and history.

      What a bunch of wankers, bashing on working people and unions. My views tend to the right mostly – except on union matters and workers where some heavy base lines for good society sit. Will never view Jackson films or Jackson himself the same again. What a shame.

      shame

      • Epping Road 22.4.1
        27 February 2013 at 4:27 pm

        vto I am not “one degree of separation from Jackson and his crew”. I have had nothing to do with his production, nothing to do with anything that he has done, or anybody who’s ever been associated with him, never been a supplier or contractor or anybody related to that, nothing to do with Warners or any of their companies, nothing to do with the Government’s deal with Warners or with Jackson. I had no involvement in organising any campaign against any of the unions or any campaign supporting the Hobbit production. As above for any connection that you suspect I might have deliberately left out. Everything I’ve said is based on my personal perspective based on what is on the public record.

        The closest I’ve ever come to Jackson was wandering down the road in Miramar last year and seeing a big black mercedes driving down the road, and realising when it passed that Jackson was driving. Oh, and about a year ago when I had nothing to do on a long weekend, I helped out a friend who was installing a new ceiling on the property of somebody who was a building contractor for the production. I was paid for that gig for two days work, for which I think I earned $380 and an exhausted body. I didn’t do it for the money, but to help out a friend who needed a couple of manual labourers that weekend. I don’t know who that building contractor who owned that property was since they were away at the time but I could probably point the house out if pushed.

        But that is the extent of my conflict of interest, if you can call it that. Oh, and I did pay for a movie ticket to go and see the film in December. Now if anybody else commenting in this thread who has had any contact with Helen Kelly, the CTU, MEAA, Actors Equity or anybody involved in their campaigns wants to declare their associations, then feel free.

    • vto 22.5
      27 February 2013 at 1:49 pm

      Further, snodghrass and epping and others …. do you not see the anger and resentment that this conduct has brought out of the left and the workers movement and the unions? Does it not register, the weight of this? Do you have your eyes open?

      Some of you claim that the union eyes are not open to the ‘wow’ of Slippery and Jackson that the public apparently see, but that is flash in the pan. You should think on the firestorm you have unleashed.

      • Rupert Snodgrass (stupid banned troll) 22.5.1
        27 February 2013 at 5:51 pm

        do you not see the anger and resentment that this conduct has brought out of the left and the workers movement and the unions?

        The workers’ movement, vto, is us: those of us who marched against Trade Union sabotage of our industry, and the tens of thousands of Kiwis who marched with us on Mayday 2010.

        We are the workers. And guess what:

        You Labour/Green/Mana voting, welfare-guzzling, crime-committing, Trade Unionist traitors don’t speak for the actual people who work in this country. So take your entitled arse and get the fuck out. There is no place for you and your kind in decent Kiwi society and we’re tired of carrying you.

        • IrishBill 22.5.1.1
          27 February 2013 at 5:59 pm

          You marched to ensure you can never have the choice to be employees. What are you going to march for next? Abolishing your right to vote? Slow. Clap.

          • Rupert Snodgrass (stupid banned troll) 22.5.1.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 6:09 pm

            We marched to save it from Trade Union treason, you Trotskyite buffoon.

            What shall we march for next? Actually, I’d be keen for us to march to abolish your right to vote.

            A tragedy of the Kiwi condition is universal suffrage. Only those who contribute to society should have a voice in how it is run

            And you, Irish, most certainly would not qualify. So suck back on that welfare some more, and tell decent Kiwis how we should run an industry that you know nothing about..

            [lprent: It is hard to find anything that you have “contributed” over the past few days that could be considered to be informative or worthwhile. Indeed you don’t appear to have any actual knowledge of the film industry in NZ after looking through your comments

            FYI: my partner is a director, producer, and has been around the local film industry for years. I’m a programmer and I’ve worked around the digital arts enough to consider you to be a complete blowhard fuckwit. Basically it sounds to me like you’re more of a wannabe than someone who does anything.

            But I’m taking your “advice” – you don’t contribute here at all.

            You appear to be a simple and quite stupid troll. You are permanently banned. ]

            • IrishBill 22.5.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 6:14 pm

              I know quite a bit about the industry. I was involved in it in a small way some years ago.

              You marched because your boss told you your jobs were on the line when he knew full well they weren’t. Now you’ve found that out, you feel like a sucker. It’s understandable.

              • lprent …
                27 February 2013 at 6:38 pm

                Actually after reading his comments I can’t see any indication that he has any background in the film industry. Looked like a simple troll. I just banned him as one.

                BTW: after nearly 33 months, they’re shipping our project out the door. Stamping out the final version of the code in this evenings build. So I can start moderating out some of these fools again.

                • IrishBill …
                  27 February 2013 at 6:43 pm

                  I liked having him here. I thought he was a fine example of Peter Jackson’s supporters.

                  • lprent …
                    27 February 2013 at 8:04 pm

                    Might have been a fine example of something, however his technique was way way too good in the incendiary arts to have been the simple innocent. I think he was just here for the trolling and really had nothing to say. Certainly in 6 comments he never betrayed any actual knowledge of the topics he was speaking about (apart from an ability to use bold well)

                  • Kevin Welsh …
                    27 February 2013 at 10:04 pm

                    Yeah, keep him on. I’ve never been this close to the rantings of an actual fascist before. I’m intrigued…

                • bad12 …
                  27 February 2013 at 6:45 pm

                  That would be nice as far as giving the idiot brigade a spanking, the posts have been getting harder to read as they become more inflamed…

        • vto 22.5.1.2
          27 February 2013 at 7:39 pm

          Snodgrass “The workers’ movement, vto, is us: those of us who marched against Trade Union sabotage of our industry, and the tens of thousands of Kiwis who marched with us on Mayday 2010.

          We are the workers. And guess what:

          You Labour/Green/Mana voting, welfare-guzzling, crime-committing, Trade Unionist traitors don’t speak for the actual people who work in this country. So take your entitled arse and get the fuck out. There is no place for you and your kind in decent Kiwi society and we’re tired of carrying you.”

          ..

          Sometimes it don’t take much to knock the scab off and see the pus inside ooze out.

          Snodgrass, if you’re watching from inside your cell – why have you mixed up labour, greens, mana? I aint them. Why have you mixed up welfare with unions and working men and women? Why have you brought “entitlement” into it? And decent? It seems you are simply full of assumptions and incorrections and have no room left for thinking or analysis.

          Why do you hate trade unions? It would be interesting to know if you have read any of NZ’s trade union history – it is ugly. Ugly from your side fulla. Read some and shrivel Snodgrass.

      • Epping Road 22.5.2
        27 February 2013 at 6:57 pm

        vto I can see that this issue has inflamed some professional unionists and their small group of supporters, but there is no evidence that has resonated with the general public. I wasn’t at the Hobbit premiere but I didn’t hear of any Hobbit counter-protest among the hundred thousand strong crowd. JK talked about the “hobbit haters” during the election but Labour tried pretty hard to ignore his taunts as an election issue. I’m quite sure that if there had been any mileage in milking the issue politically then Labour would have run with it. But as far as I know they didn’t.

        • IrishBill 22.5.2.1
          27 February 2013 at 7:05 pm

          Are you still here? I see you’ve defaulted to the old saw of “but everyone agrees with me”. Your man lied. He’s been caught out. Everyone has seen him being caught out thanks to media such as Campbell Live and the NZ Herald. Time to put down the desperate sophism and go home – better luck next time, mate.

          • Epping Road 22.5.2.1.1
            27 February 2013 at 7:10 pm

            Do try to keep up Bill. Despite my share of abuse and people telling me to fuck off, I have been debating the issue with McFlock. It’s fair to say that we don’t agree but the debate has been civil. I don’t agree that he lied, or that he got caught out. Read the thread below 12.2.2.1 . I haven’t watched Campbell Live but I disagree with your statement that the Herald says Jackson lied.

            • Colonial Viper 22.5.2.1.1.1
              27 February 2013 at 7:15 pm

              Capitalist shill

              Polite language

              Obscene values

              • Epping Road …
                27 February 2013 at 7:18 pm

                You’re relentless Colonial Viper. First you accuse me of being a PJ shill and then you attack me for not addressing that abuse I declare my (non)-interest with PJ and then you resort to calling me a capitalist shill. You’re still a troll. Too lazy to engage in discussion or to add to the debate you just throw abuse.

                • mickysavage …
                  27 February 2013 at 7:52 pm

                  Epping Road you are one of the better propagandists that I have seen for a while.

                  I am interested though, your professed knowledge of the subject means either that you are heavily involved with Warners/Jackson or you are blowing smoke out of your arse.

                  Which is it?

                  • lprent …
                    27 February 2013 at 7:55 pm

                    He already answered most of that in this comment – http://thestandard.org.nz/lies-and-sanctions/#comment-596456

                    But I agree he is a whole lot more interesting that the silly troll I dumped out earlier.

                  • pollywog …
                    27 February 2013 at 8:05 pm

                    Fwiw I think he’s otm…

                  • Epping Road …
                    27 February 2013 at 8:19 pm

                    Your first option is flattering but wrong mickysavage, as I’ve explained above which I suppose only leaves the “blowing smoke out of your arse” option.

                    I hope I haven’t indicated “professed knowledge of the subject”. I don’t know anything that isn’t on the public record. I have impressions and judgements based on what is on the public record and my conclusions based on those judgements are obviously different from yours.

                    I’ve certainly learned a lot in this thread; people challenging me on issues and quoting things that I haven’t seen before, and my position on some of those issues has changed.

                    The biggest one I would note, which only came to me in the last couple of hours, is why Jackson would write to Brownlee on October 18 that the blacklist, and the lifting of it, was not the issue that would see a loss of confidence by Warners, when all the other correspondence shows that the imposition of the blacklist was so obviously very near the heart of the dispute. Other issues such as Bryson and immigration visas irritations, but the blacklist was the crux of it.

                    The assumption I’ve drawn from that, and I admit it is an angle that hasn’t been raised because I’ve only just come up with it, is that Jackson couldn’t admit that the blacklist was the issue, and he almost certainly would have been instructed by Warners to make it clear that the blacklist was not the issue. Had he said that the blacklist was the reason that Warners was likely to pull out of NZ, even after the blacklist had been lifted, then SAG would have been entitled to slap a blacklist wherever Warners moved to in retaliation for Warners upping sticks from NZ.

                    Which is why in my view PJ couched the likelihood of Warners pulling the plug in terms of the general employment environment in the October 18 email.

                    • pollywog …
                      27 February 2013 at 8:28 pm

                      Which is why I’ve always maintained that it wasn’t about moving sticks it was about canning the project.

                      That is to say, if it wasn’t going to be made in NZ it wasn’t going to be made at all.

                      I only wish Del Toro had directed and that Key weren’t such a corporate suckhole bankster.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 February 2013 at 8:29 pm

                      An interesting possible reason for the lies, ER. There may be hope for you yet! However, I’m pretty convinced he’s bullshitted his workers for the usual Tory reasons; power and control. And shitloads of taxpayer dollars for his mates.

                    • mickysavage …
                      27 February 2013 at 8:33 pm

                      OK so you are blowing smoke. Thanks for that.

                    • Arfamo …
                      27 February 2013 at 8:39 pm

                      I find your reasoning thoughtful and your posts worth reading ER. Wouldn’t this suggest the PJ AND the Government got played by Warners, who were probably actually only after the tax breaks then?

            • IrishBill 22.5.2.1.1.2
              27 February 2013 at 7:40 pm

              Whatever.

              • Epping Road …
                27 February 2013 at 7:56 pm

                Your credibility on this issue was shot last night when you claimed you’d been at the protest and that there were no more than 150 protesters there. I pointed out to you a youtube video showing far more than that, and then you went silent.

                I have now seen the Campbell interview. Quite typically for him, he singled out one sentence in Jackson’s email of the 18th October, which read: “It seems like the blacklisting will be lifted tomorrow…”

                Campbell then didn’t include that in the same email PJ made it clear to Brownlee that Warners’ main concern was the lack of certainty in employment laws and based on MEAA’s actions Warners were looking to move the film. Which completely puts to rest your claim that the film was going ahead anyway on the day of the protest.

                IrishBill: You think you’re in a position to comment on my credibility? Take a week off.

                Also, I was curious to see what you were talking about vis-a-vis the protest numbers. It appears you’ve got mixed up – I was talking about the “spontaneous” protest after the evening meeting. Not the labour day one. If you’d calmed down a bit and check that before slagging me off you might not be banned right now. Never mind

                • Arfamo …
                  27 February 2013 at 8:24 pm

                  How did a supposed lack of certainty about Labour laws end up with Jonkey caving in and foregoing millions in tax breaks? Suggests to me there was more to the whole rort on PJ and Warners’ part than just concern about the unions.

                  • Epping Road …
                    27 February 2013 at 8:34 pm

                    Arfarmo I have addressed this in http://thestandard.org.nz/lies-and-sanctions/#comment-596398. My view is based on my reading of the emails and other public statements made by Key and others at the time.

                    • Arfamo …
                      27 February 2013 at 8:53 pm

                      Fair enough. Thanks. Have gone back and read your other posts too. I don’t think Key was part of any conspiracy of the “evil wealthy class”. I think he just got expertly played by WB. Wouldn’t be surprised if thinks so now, too, though he’s maybe already just forgotten about it by now. He no doubt has many other more important things to fail to remember.

                • pollywog …
                  27 February 2013 at 8:50 pm

                  Weak sauce IB imho!

    • Draco T Bastard 22.6
      27 February 2013 at 1:52 pm

      Not trying to rewrite it – that would be the government, PJackson and other associated people of the right-wing. Everyone else is trying to get history correctly recorded.

      BTW, the people who marched at PJackson’s request were marching against the best interests.

  23. fenderviper 23
    27 February 2013 at 2:06 pm

    ‘How can we stop this kind of barefaced lying from happening again?’

    Firing squad for all concerned should send appropriate message.

    Or just send them to Serco for an extended holiday in a cell.

    • McFlock 23.1
      27 February 2013 at 2:38 pm

      bit much.

      a media that keeps notes might be useful.

      Query: is there a list of the occasions where John Key has said something that was actually true? It might be shorter than his list of lies.

      Sources would be nice, and it doesn’t count if he’s correcting a previous lie because he got caught.

      • gobsmacked 23.1.1
        27 February 2013 at 2:52 pm

        a media that keeps notes might be useful.

        Or the opposition could call him on it.

        Like Winston did just now, in the House. He directly accused Key of “lying” (his word).

        (Shearer had the next supplementary and of course he did what he always does – he read out the next pre-written question. As if nothing had happened).

        Key gets away with this for one reason: he’s allowed to.

  24. aerobubble 24
    27 February 2013 at 3:18 pm

    The high dollar was costing the Hobbit backers enough to consider moving it?
    So in order to save it Jackson started drolling, first to govt, then on live TV.
    The thing I don’t get was why Key used the issue to beat up on unions, and
    actively harm the prospects of the movies, as many would be movie goers
    would be unionists (or their parents who were paying the movie ticket).

    The brand, Hobbit, was besmirched by Key’s ideological hatred for labour unions.
    As for the whole union-contractor issue, the world union can still go out and
    boycott, anytime, anyplace it wants. It hasn’t, and won’t, which puts paid
    to the whole notion that there was some meaningful threat from the union.

  25. mac1 25
    27 February 2013 at 3:27 pm

    There was a second paragraph in the Herald article worth noting.

    “And ministers who felt that there was no need to change labour laws for the filming of The Hobbit yesterday said they could not recall why they went ahead and changed them.”

    Another brain fade for the list.

  26. Rich 26
    27 February 2013 at 6:15 pm

    Simple. Don’t let Tories vote.

  27. xtasy 27
    27 February 2013 at 8:13 pm

    Was it Pinocchio who had a long nose, and was it also not a long nose attributed to those liberal with the truth? Whatever, it was no co-incidence, that even Gerry Brownlee commented on the rather big nose of Key in the Backbencher’s Pub in Wellington last night, it might ring some truth with it.

    Nose knows all about nose, I suppose, so yes, we have a gradual lifting of the mist above the lies and manipulations of NZ’s most corrupted, dishonest and manipulative government for decades.

    More will come out soon, and I am working on it myself. I have some delightful bits of information, and reliable sources, and there are complaints being handled at high levels.

    So wait on, take care, this bit of a “win” before the Supreme Court on the Maori Council’s challenge on water rights may make Key and gang feel a bit “high” and in party mood, just wait for what will come. You guys there will be held to account and there are many that know how rotten and dishonest this lot is, that runs NZ at present.

  28. weizguy 28
    27 February 2013 at 11:31 pm

    I find this entire thread pretty disturbing. I understand many of the contributors have formed their opinion on this issue. However, I don’t understand why, instead of engaging with what appears to be a fairly reasonably held differing position, some contributors are simply casting abuse, making claims of “shill” and “troll” and then banning what appears to be the only person who can be bothered attempting to provide an alternative voice.

    I used to enjoy reading the comments here, because there are (and were) people who were interested in debate. I don’t see that anymore. It’s no sewer, but there doesn’t seem to be much tolerance for alternative views.

    It’s not my place to tell the writers of The Standard what to do, so I won’t. I’ll just say that for me, The Standard was better in the past, and I hope it can turn itself around.

    • framu 28.1
      28 February 2013 at 8:27 am

      i dont know weizguy – sure i havent read all of ERs comments (there IS a lot of them and they are very long)
      But he/she does seem to be engaging in a deliberate campaign of ignoring what others are saying and constantly shifting the goalposts. A lot of the language seems pretty passive aggressive to me.

      Also – they are all over this one subject with quite a bit of vigour and havent commented here before – if it quacks like a duck and all

      so ERs treatment is pretty expected based on the way they are commenting

      Theres also plenty of people who engage in quite civil debates yet hold different views here – even gosman gets treated fairly politely, even though everyone pretty much knows hes just here to shit stir