‘Minister Hitler’ comment upsets Farrar – sad he didn’t think of it himself

Written By: - Date published: 10:59 am, November 9th, 2010 - 82 comments
Categories: education, humour - Tags:

It’s interesting to see the amount of anti-teacher information National is sending to Farrar and Slater. The depth of research involved in uncovering this stuff means it’s clearly research unit work. The latest tidbit they’ve got their knickers in a twist about is a principal referring to Anne Tolley as ‘Minister Hitler’ on her Facebook wall. Amazing how Farrar just happened upon this comment all by himself.

Of course, if anyone knows about comparing Kiwi politicians to dictators, it’s Farrar. He very publicly ran a series of billboards (funded by the likes of Don Brash) doing exactly that during Labour’s last term.

Now, I’m no big fan of Hitler comparisons because they tend to overstrain your point and turn people off – just like Farrar’s dumbarse billboards did.

Unless you have a government actually ramming through enabling legislation in response to a ‘national emergency’ that gives it the power to override or edit any existing law, which is pretty much the model of how to turn an incumbent government into a dictatorship, then comparing them to the Nazis is not a good call.

Oh wait, the Nats have done that, eh?

Nonetheless, comparing Tolley to Hitler isn’t fair. I mean, sure they’re both known for their temper tantrums – a contact high in the tertiary sector says having Steven Joyce replace Tolley has been a godsend because ‘you can’t raise serious issues with her without her having a screaming fit’. And both will be remembered for their inability to listen to advice and failures of strategic judgement.

But the comparison is still completely unfair: Hitler was competent enough to win his first battles. He managed nine years of victories before his first major defeat. Tolley has managed to get bogged down in total war with all three sectors of the education system that she is reponsible for in less than two and they can keep up the fight longer than her.

So, no, Minister Hitler was not a fair call. How’s about Minister Wilhelm II instead? 🙂

82 comments on “‘Minister Hitler’ comment upsets Farrar – sad he didn’t think of it himself ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. toad 1
    9 November 2010 at 11:45 am

    At least Hitler’s propaganda machine worked!

  2. Tigger 2
    9 November 2010 at 11:56 am

    Thanks for highlighting Slater and Farrar’s hypocrisy here. Free speech apparently only matters when they’re the ones speaking.

    Campbell (the principal) is clearly passionate about this issue and she’s made a passionate comment. It is unfair given the way Tolley has pushed National Standards into effect with no consultation and no review in the face of immense revolt? That’s actually debatable. Plus Tolley is clearly being compared to a certain part of what Hilter did (jackbooted change) – no one for a moment thinks Campbell is suggesting that Tolley is rounding up Jews, Catholics, gays, Gypsies and the disabled and gassing them to death…

    • Rex Widerstrom 2.1
      9 November 2010 at 4:03 pm

      Free speech apparently only matters when they’re the ones speaking.

      Fair point. But it seems that emotive, immature Godwinning is only really abhorrent when it comes from a couple of bloggers and not when it’s practiced by a professional who has charge of the minds of a few hundred of our children.

      Farrar was only comparing Clark’s mindset with Mao etc, not suggesting she forced thousands of her citizens to starvation blah blah. Just as Campbell is doing with Tolley. That was as obvious and as true as the point you make above. The difference is Farrar is a political activist whose colours are nailed to the mast.

      Much as I like David personally I wouldn’t want him teaching my kids. But nor, given her behaviour in this incident, do I want Campbell.

      (That applies to most here I’m not singling out just you, Tigger)

      • bbfloyd 2.1.1
        9 November 2010 at 4:33 pm

        pretty weak semantics rex… i hadn’t picked you as an apologist…

        • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.1.1
          9 November 2010 at 7:01 pm

          Not semantics. I don’t care what a political operative thinks or says as it’s certainly not going to influence me and won’t influence my children as they’ve been brought up to assume everything coming from a politician or an operative is nonsense until such time as they empirically test it for themselves.

          They have however been taught to listen to, learn from and respect their teachers. I do therefore care when a person who’s not only teaching children but in charge of others who are teaching resorts to an outburst I’d consider stupid and childish if it came from my 13 year old.

      • Pascal's bookie 2.1.2
        9 November 2010 at 4:41 pm

        Farrar was only comparing Clark’s mindset with Mao etc, not suggesting she forced thousands of her citizens to starvation blah blah. Just as Campbell is doing with Tolley.

        err, no he wasn’t, he was saying that the EFA is just the sort of thing Mao got up to. Which is fucking mental, isn’t it?

        A facebook page is a public place, for sure, but so is a pub. Saying something mental in either place is not the same as putting that something on a billboard as part of a campaign to spread that message.

        • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.2.1
          9 November 2010 at 7:09 pm

          he was saying that the EFA is just the sort of thing Mao got up to. Which is fucking mental, isn’t it?

          Depends what was going on in his mind. If he said what he said because he believed that their actions came from the same place within themselves… that both believed in their own intellectual superiority over that of the peasants and that on this basis both refused to accept the wrongness of their actions or the validity of people’s protests against those actions and in fact were outraged by them, then no… it’s just advertising hyperbole.

          It’s a billboard… hardly the place for subtlety when you want to get your point across to someone who glances at your message while doing 50 km/h.

          If he meant anything beyond that, then yes it’s mental.

          Saying something mental in either place is not the same as putting that something on a billboard as part of a campaign to spread that message.

          No it’s not; it’s less justified. As above, a slogan on a billboard has to be distilled into a tagline and a powerful image if it’s to work. That’s why they sometimes have the word “Labour” and a big tick and nothing else.

          Facebook can accommodate a more cogent argument. Clearly we have someone in a position of authority in an educational institution incapable of, or unwilling to, make one.

          • Andrew Geddis 2.1.2.1.1
            9 November 2010 at 8:53 pm

            Rex,

            With respect, you’re splitting hairs here surely. The issue isn’t “which medium allows for the more cogent argument”. It’s whether resorting to using history’s greatest monsters as a means of defining your opponents arguments indicates a degree of ideological hyperventilation and loss of perspective on the issue. The Free Speech Coalition’s signs may have been more clever use of the trope, but they were just as guilty of overstating their case.

            As John Stewart’s signs at the Rally to Restore Sanity put it, “I disagree with what you are saying, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler”. Or Mao. Or Kim Jong-Il.

            • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.2.1.1.1
              10 November 2010 at 4:28 pm

              The Free Speech Coalition’s signs may have been more clever use of the trope, but they were just as guilty of overstating their case.

              That’s a much better and clearer way of expressing what I was trying to say. I agree both went a bit OTT, but the FSC had some justification (the momentary attention span their message would command) while the principal didn’t.

              Though Farrar’s billboards never said Clark was Mao, or even like Mao, they just had Mao et al approving of the EFB. Hair splitting again, perhaps, but still a point in mitigation.

              I see the principal’s now apologised, which is good… but my concerns that someone prone to such an outburst is teaching impressionable children – rather than writing a blog and putting up billboards – still holds.

              • Gosman …
                10 November 2010 at 5:09 pm

                Hardly an apology at all. She basically stated that her ill thought out comments may have distracted from the fight against National Standards. This roughly translates as I’m not sorry I said them just that people thought I was a dickhead for stating them and don’t take my opinions as seriously as they should.

                I note that the Principal Federation is receiving funding for their campaign from Taxpayer funded Principal Associations. Nice to see the left is abusing the taxpayer for their own political purposes once again.

              • Andrew Geddis …
                11 November 2010 at 8:15 am

                “…my concerns that someone prone to such an outburst is teaching impressionable children – rather than writing a blog and putting up billboards – still holds.”

                I don’t think there’s any real correlation between how an individual expresses themselves in their private life (which is what this really was – she just hadn’t out the right privacy settings on her Facebook wall) and how they conduct themselves in their professional capacity. So, for instance, I have a colleague who in private conversation swears like a trooper – yet in front of a lecture room never does so. That’s because different norms of behaviour apply in each realm – and people are more than capable of following them quite coherently.

    • Swampy 2.2
      10 November 2010 at 11:42 pm

      There is not immense revolt. A handful of schoolslike about 10% have said they are not implementing it.

  3. grumpy 3
    9 November 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Speaking of Hitler and modern politicians, here’s the best so far,

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4799802/kevin_rudds_downfall/

  4. Bored 4
    9 November 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Just went to Farrars site….did a search on SAS…zippo, no results…too hot to handle David?

    PS The site is visually and user wise pretty crappy, DPF has let the left steal a march by comparison.

    • AndyB 4.1
      9 November 2010 at 12:19 pm

      link

      Edit: like DPF says, i dont see what all the fuss is about.

      • Bright Red 4.1.1
        9 November 2010 at 12:34 pm

        If you were a comapny owner and I used your equipment and my apid time to raise $35K for my private interests, would you consider that fraud or corruption?

        • Bored 4.1.1.1
          9 November 2010 at 4:53 pm

          Bloody good question…perhaps NACT wants our government employees to act as self employed feifdoms, then they stop funding them……

      • Bored 4.1.2
        9 November 2010 at 12:53 pm

        Thanks Andy, it was posted after I did a search….

        The contents of the letter from Direct Capital (in itlalics) is truly a work of spin..includes the following..(my questions in bold).

        As not all of the media coverage was accurate, we would like to provide you the background to this.

        Every two years Direct Capital hosts a conference for key people (generally owners, Chairmen and CEOs) from portfolio companies from the funds we manage, plus a small number of key advisors and prospective company partners. It is one of the key marketing initiatives we commit resource to. It is a unique opportunity for all of our company owners, and prospective new partners, to meet and exchange views and experiences on common topics of interest. It has always been well attended by our portfolio companies, and we use it as one of our selling points when we are marketing to prospective companies.

        This year’s event was very special. We were very privileged to be able to arrange to be hosted by the NZ SAS unit at the Papakura Military Camp. While it is not a regular occurrence for the SAS to host such groups, it is something they do from time to time with high-performance teams.

        Time to time, really, who else with, why and when?

        It is also consistent with their intention to engage more with the community. We had 70 representatives of some of New Zealand’s leading private companies in attendance – a group that the SAS rightly identified as sharing a number of attributes consistent with the SAS’s own pursuit of excellence.

        So Direct Capital claim the SAS go around identifying leading private companies who share their pursuit of excellence? Is that true? Have the SAS endorsed the claim? If so why? What for?

        This year it was two of the senior members of the SAS unit and their presentation focused on the selection process, their unrelenting pursuit of excellence, their ethos and the key tenets of the unit. There was a particular emphasis on how these attributes applied in a business sense.

        So we have the SAS as experts on business now? We as tax payers fund them to be experts as soldiers. Is this what soldiering is about? On our time? Does it fit within their legislative remit?

        The balance of the conference entailed a number of presentations from our company owners on specific topics. Following the conference we were provided a standard demonstration of SAS capabilities. We then completed the day at the base with refreshments and were delighted to be joined by unit members, before having dinner in the city.

        In appreciation, the Manager paid for consumables and made a substantial donation to the NZSAS Trust – a trust established to benefit members that have actively served in or been posted to the SAS, and their dependents. The trust provides welfare assistance, support and financial assistance to maintain a reasonable quality of life for members, to provide support and assistance in times of crisis, and to provide support and financial assistance for further education and vocational training.

        So did the Trust get a donation for providing services for time, facilities and more that was paid for by the taxpayer?

        We feel very privileged to have been hosted by the SAS and the overwhelming feedback we received from those attending was that it one of the best, or the best, corporate day they had experienced.

        So do the SAS believe that they are there to provide a great experience for paying corporates? Do the corporates believe that the SAS is there for their benefit?

        We regret that there has been media coverage of the day, and that some of that has been negatively focused. We have never sought media coverage for these conferences, but the nature of this one obviously led to it.

        Yes, it would be a shame if the media did not pick up on this obvious issue. Did not Direct Capital and whoever at the SAS organised this really think it would pass unnoticed?

        I would love to hear some questions from labour and others to this effect, heres hoping.

        • toad 4.1.2.1
          9 November 2010 at 1:00 pm

          Bored, I think you are on the wrong thread.

          • Bored 4.1.2.1.1
            9 November 2010 at 1:14 pm

            Maybe, its with regard to Farrars site and the link Andy B gave. I got onto it by criticising Farrars site and content, questioned why he did not post on this…feel free to cut / move elsewhere, the whole issue is a disgrace.

    • Rex Widerstrom 4.2
      9 November 2010 at 4:09 pm

      I’m assuming the clocks on KB and here are set the same. If so…

      This went up before your search, Bored.

      It’s a cut-and-paste of Direct Capital’s position. DPF’s one-line conclusion:

      I really don’t see what all the fuss has been about.

      Amongst Direct Capital’s spin is this claim:

      we were provided a standard demonstration of SAS capabilities.

      A “demonstration” implies you sat on rows of seats and watched. If that was the case then, although I think it a little demeaning, it’s not much different to when the police or fire brigade run demonstrations at a station open day.

      But I thought Direct Capital staff had participated in some sort of exercises alongside SAS soldiers?

      • Bored 4.2.1
        9 November 2010 at 4:52 pm

        Rex, they posted at midday, I searched prior to posting at 4 minutes past…that said the whole thing raises a lot of questions about what and why and by whom for whom? Bright Red asks a very pertinent question above as well.

        • Rex Widerstrom 4.2.1.1
          9 November 2010 at 7:35 pm

          Yeah it’s bizarre… what would the SAS “demonstrate”? I have this image of them rapelling out of choppers and pretending to slit the throats of store mannequins dressed up like Osama.

          I suspect it went much further than passively watching a demonstration… more like some form of the corporate paintball days so popular with bosses… but incorporating our supposedly elite fighting force. It beggars belief…

  5. OleOlebiscuitBarrell 5
    9 November 2010 at 12:11 pm

    But the comparison is still completely unfair: Hitler was competent enough to win his first battles.

    So she is worse than Hitler, eh? Oh, well played.

    • Blighty 5.1
      9 November 2010 at 12:35 pm

      you need to check the ‘humour’ tag, old boy.

      • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 5.1.1
        9 November 2010 at 12:56 pm

        So anything goes under a “humour” tag?

        Humour

        Kkkklllaarrk, Liarbore, likspittle, Helengrad.

        • Richard 5.1.1.1
          9 November 2010 at 1:42 pm

          Only stuff that’s funny counts as humour.

          • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 5.1.1.1.1
            9 November 2010 at 2:13 pm

            But the comparison is still completely unfair: Hitler was competent enough to win his first battles.

            Haw-de-fucking-haw. What a thigh-slapper that one is.

            • Richard 5.1.1.1.1.1
              9 November 2010 at 2:36 pm

              It is funnier than your offerings above.

              • OleOlebiscuitBarrell …
                9 November 2010 at 2:52 pm

                But you understand, right, that my point was that posting something offensive is not saved because the author claims it to be funny. And if this is what I was trying to show, Richie, would I have posted something genuinely funny, or something offensive?

                • Bright Red …
                  9 November 2010 at 2:58 pm

                  how is it offensive for eddie to point out that Hitler won his first battles? Pretty PC if you get upset about that

                  You better not watch the history channel, mate, you’ll be reduced to whimpering tears

                  or are you whinging because Tolley is being called incompetent?

                  • OleOlebiscuitBarrell …
                    9 November 2010 at 3:08 pm

                    how is it offensive for eddie to point out that Hitler won his first battles?

                    Not at all.

                    It is the comparison of Tolley to Hitler that is, at best, tiresome. The author accepts this near the beginning of the post when s/he claims to be no big fan of Hitler comparisons.

                    Blighty went on to say that the author’s comparison is OK because it was posted under a “humour” tag. Richard thought that it was OK because it was funnier than my (intentionally) offensive comment. Somehow, I have thus become some sort of gauge for rendering Hitler comparisons inoffensive.

                    • Richard …
                      9 November 2010 at 3:25 pm

                      Hitler comparisons *are* inoffensive.

                      They are usually lame and/or stupid. Or (very, very rarely) they are slightly funny. Sometimes they might be ironic, or even sarcastic.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 November 2010 at 3:56 pm

                      They are usually lame and/or stupid.

                      And sometimes they’re just downright scary.

                • Richard …
                  9 November 2010 at 3:01 pm

                  You don’t seem to have posted anything either funny or offensive. Is that your intention?

                  Anyway, something offensive *is* saved if it *is* funny.

                  The author’s claims don’t matter either way.

  6. deemac 6
    9 November 2010 at 12:14 pm

    if you are so sensitive that you are upset by what individuals say in Facebook comments then you are really not suited to a life in politics

  7. Jeremy Harris 7
    9 November 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Now, I’m no big fan of Hitler comparisons because they tend to overstrain your point and turn people off

    Then maybe you shouldn’t do it later in the post… Just a thought…

  8. Sanctuary 8
    9 November 2010 at 12:29 pm

    National are in trouble over national standards. Tolley was appointed in the clear expectation that her pig headed stupidity would be an asset when bulldozing through a poorly thought out bumper sticker policy against the advice of everyone who actually knows anything about education.

    The problem with the Hitler analogy isn’t that the minister is behaving like an hysterical dictator (which she is), but rather the better lesson to be learnt is the one discovered as far back as King John in 1215 – you cannot rule without the consent of the governed. Tolley has managed to align the entire education establishment against her. She has not one credible supporter in that sector. Right wing authoritarian fantasists like Farrar and Slater and their troll farms invite us to see this as evidence of an over-arching plot or a conspiracy to undermine their authority, a communist plot against the nation hatched over tea and home baked goods in the staff room.

    The trouble is the conspiracy involves everyone….

    This is the chickens of Key’s lazy leadership style coming home to roost. Allowing an unsupervised Tolley to dig her self deeper and deeper into a whol until her only support comes from ignorant and paranoid fantasists has completely painted his government into a corner from which the only way out for her is to be disposed of when the time is right.

    In some ways, you have to feel sorry for Tolley. She has been played as the fool she is, being used as the useful fool of the Joyce-English cabal who everyone knows make all the real decisions in the leadership vacuum at the top of the government. When asked to make cuts, instead of being smart enough to defend her portfolio like a Spaniel eager to please she found them, and more, in the expecation of a reward from a grateful government. When asked to implement a policy that was nothing more than a bumper sticker designed to feed into the background noise of the “nanny state” meme she has eagerly bounded off and made enemies of the entire education sector. In doing so, she has made herself utterly dependent on the patronage of Joyce and English, and they’ll dispose of her when they judge she has outlived her usefulness.

    Oh and useful? how is she useful I hear you ask? Well, the fight with the teachers allows Farrar and co to continue with the politics of distraction. Instead of discussing ACC, or the economy, or the ECE cuts or the sector wide opposition to national standards, her polarising idiocy allows Farrar to prattle on in faux outrage about a principal calling the minister a Hitler. That is a handy thing for government that is full of hollow men.

    • Swampy 8.1
      10 November 2010 at 11:45 pm

      “Tolley has managed to align the entire education establishment against her. ”
      Rubbish. There is a bit of whinging but it is by no means entire.

  9. ianmac 9
    9 November 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Sanctuary: You might be interested in long-standing Educationalist Kelvin Smythe’s comments. Look under “Latest.” Sums up the reasons for teacher concerns and the implications for MOE and for Tolley.

    http://www.networkonnet.co.nz/index.php?section=latest&id=258

    • Swampy 9.1
      10 November 2010 at 11:53 pm

      Kelvin Smythe is an educational stirrer who left the state education system more than 20 years ago. So that he could become a critic of it according to his own web site. It is very opinionated and self centred. His website is just a platform for left wing politics. He admits as much that he is now retired and not actually involved in the sector any more. I wouldn’t consider his views particularly credible or up to date. Anyone can write an opinion blog these days. He even attacks his fellow workers in this campaign against NS, I read an article that was critising the Principlas Federation because they didn’t toe his line, well they aren’t his puppets.

      • lprent 9.1.1
        10 November 2010 at 11:57 pm

        ..who left the state education system more than 20 years ago..
        He even attacks his fellow workers in this campaign against NS

        Even someone as ummm opinionated as yourself should be able to understand that you appear to be trying to have it both ways with those two statements. He is retired and working?

        Do you ever read what you say with a critical eye? Or does this mindless blather just pour out of you like a drunk puking?

        • Zorr 9.1.1.1
          11 November 2010 at 12:14 am

          Not really a valid comparison there lprent. You may in fact -want- a drunk to be puking. Can’t yet imagine a situation where I would want to be further exposed to Swampy.

  10. Jaghut 10
    9 November 2010 at 3:20 pm

    “The depth of research involved in uncovering this stuff means it’s clearly research unit work.”

    Reading a facebook wall requires deep research?

    Think it’s time to go mend your tinfoil hat…

    • Bright Red 10.1
      9 November 2010 at 4:06 pm

      have you got the time to stalk the facebook pages of hundreds of principals, and track down their media appearences from the 1990s?

      No, me neither.

      • Jaghut 10.1.1
        9 November 2010 at 6:46 pm

        If one of my friends posted an update on their facebook wall, it would take all of 30 seconds to email it to a blogger if I were so inclined.

        I also have the time to type someone’s name into youtube.

        see Occams Razor 🙂

  11. Jim Nald 11
    9 November 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Frankly, this Government is more like an abhorrent case of a ministerial pack of ‘Hit and Run’ cases.
    At the rate they are muddling and messing up, the shambles at the end of their first term will require a lot of tidying up to restore credibility and integrity.

  12. Fabregas4 12
    9 November 2010 at 9:14 pm

    Bit of a reference to Tolley as Hitler in the Manawatu Evening Standard Editorial yesterday – http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/4319138/National-Standards-crisis-looming

    (and by the way an accurate (IMHO) summation of the situation right now).

  13. ghostwhowalksnz 13
    9 November 2010 at 9:33 pm

    Heres the details of NZSAS Trust
    Just put the NZSAS into the Charities Commission search page
    http://www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/Search.aspx

    Legal name of the charityNZSAS TrustRegistration detailsStatusRegisteredDate27/03/2008Registration numberCC22148IRD NumberRestrictedAnnual Return Due Date30/09/2010Address for serviceCharity’s street address Burrows Lair , Papakura Military Camp
    Walters And Grove Road
    Papakura
    Auckland
    Charity’s postal address P O Box 72848
    Papakura
    Auckland 2244
    Charity’s other detailsPhone (day)(09)2981081Fax(09)2981083Emailnzsastrust@xtra.co.nz Website
    Charitable purpose
    Note: Main sectors, activities and beneficiaries are in brackets

    Sectors(Education / training / research)
    WelfareActivities(Education and welfare grants)
    Makes grants / loans to individualsBeneficiaries(All ages)
    Children / young people
    Older people
    People with disabilities

    Officers
    Officer Name Effective Date
    Stephen John Franklin 12/10/2004
    Sir Wilson James Whineray 12/10/2004
    Derek Sinclair Firth 12/10/2004
    Geoffrey Laurence 12/10/2004
    Past Officers
    Officer Name Past Since
    John Haddleton 13/05/2010
    Exemptions
    This charity has been granted an exemption from filing an annual return by 30 September 2008 under Section 43 of the Charities Act 2005. The first annual return is due by 30 September 2009.

    Notices of Change
    Date Reference
    04/09/2008 NOC002
    31/08/2010 NOC

    looking up the FY2009 numbers shows its a good little earner

    Total Gross Income $303345

    Who knew that scaring the shit out of City shiny pants could bring in so much money

  14. jcuknz 14
    10 November 2010 at 8:01 am

    I am amazed that anybody as immature to write such rubbish could be a head mistress of a school …I thought such people were supposed to be intelligent clear thinking people leading our children forward .. what a fool I am to be so naive.

    • Maisy Mouse 14.1
      10 November 2010 at 8:18 am

      “…what a fool I am to be so naive.”

      Those last four words are completely redundant.

  15. Robb 15
    10 November 2010 at 10:11 am

    Comparison would have been more realistic if Tolley was compared to Stalin

  16. NZ Groover 16
    10 November 2010 at 10:29 am

    Eddie, I suspect the real reason for this post is to link the National Party research unit to right wing bloggers. I guess if you repeat it enough times then people perceive it as “real”.

    Maybe it did come from them, but I highly doubt it. Do you have any proof that this is the case or is it merely opinion.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      10 November 2010 at 10:32 am

      Maybe it did come from them, but I highly doubt it (1). Doubt you have any proof that this is the case our is it merely opinion (2).

      (1) Do you have any proof of that, or is it merely opinion?
      (2) I think Eddie draws a fairly sensible and simple inference, if you have a more plausible scenario do please share.

      • NZ Groover 16.1.1
        10 November 2010 at 10:47 am

        CV,

        (1) It’s obviously my opinion
        (2) I’d prefer to hear from Eddie re: what he meant.

        “if you have a more plausible scenario do please share”.
        There are no secrets on the internet. Any information you publish on-line is going to found out about, and quickly. If people think any opinion they put on-line is not not going seen they’re fools.

      • Gosman 16.1.2
        10 November 2010 at 10:55 am

        How about David Farrar did the research himself. This person’s name in conjunction with the anti-National Standards campaign isn’t exactly top secret and the internet is a wonderful tool for finding things pretty quickly. It therefore isn’t beyond the realms of possibilities to think that someone as technically savvy as David Farrar could find this information out for himself is it?

        Now where is your evidence that he got this from the National Party Research Unit?

  17. Gosman 17
    10 November 2010 at 11:03 am

    What I find bizarre here is the likelyhood that if any person attempted to claim that any piece of information posted on here was received from the Labour Party Research Unit the person making that claim would be moderated almost immediately and told in no uncertain terms that unless they had actual evidence to back that claim up they should desist from making such allegations.

    Yet a number of leftists are able to continue to make baseless claims against right wing bloggers and refuse to back these up with actual EVIDENCE. When challenged they state “Well it’s logical to infer isn’t it” and then shift the burden of proof to trying to show why this isn’t the case.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      10 November 2010 at 11:34 am

      Labour Party doesn’t have a ‘Research Unit’, too poor mate.

      with actual EVIDENCE

      We see its fingerprints on everything, what more do we need to infer?

      The National Party Research Unit digs up the dirt, and the Right Wing bloggers dish it out. Organisational simplicity and efficiency in itself. Thought you would have been proud Gosman.

      • Gosman 17.1.1
        10 November 2010 at 12:01 pm

        I’m pretty sure the Labour Party has an equivalent to the National Party Research Unit. If they don’t then they are pretty incompetent.

      • Gosman 17.1.2
        10 November 2010 at 1:44 pm

        You perceive fingerprints on something but you don’t show how they are linked back to the National Party except for wild theorising.

        The closest I have ever seen is people stating that Cameron Slater has admitted working for them. However all that entailed was him passing on the details about someone to them ONCE. He subsequently came out and stated quite categorically that he does not work for them and does not do their dirty work for them.

        So where is the EVIDENCE people that this information is being passed to them by the National Party Research Unit?

        • felix 17.1.2.1
          11 November 2010 at 12:49 am

          Gosman you’re still retarded I see.

          Slater admitted to working with them, not for them. That doesn’t imply any official arrangements it just means they co-operate with one another which is all anyone here has claimed AFAIK and is hardly a controversial claim seeing as Slater bragged about it himself.

          Also you’re going to need to show some evidence (sorry, I mean EVIDENCE11!!!!) that Slater has only ever worked with them once. Else you’re just making it up.

          • Gosman 17.1.2.1.1
            11 November 2010 at 9:38 am

            Ummmm…. if you know anything about the burden of proof it is normally beholden on the one making the claim, (in this case that Cameron Slater and David Farrar have been passed on information from the National Party Research Unit) to back that claim up.

            You seem to want to warp this to trying to get me to prove for some reason that one of these people have only ever worked with them once as if that somehow validates the claims made about information being passed to both of them by NPRU. That is truly bizarre thinking.

            As for the Cameron Slater claims – If you provide information at one point in time to the Police that does not mean you are a Police Stooge and anything you do after this point is likely to have Police involvement? I think most rational thinking people, (a species in short supply here admittedly), would say that it does not mean this at all. Equally Cameron Slater passing on information to the National Party Research Unit once does not mean he is being fed information for his blog on a continuing basis.

            You have the EVIDENCE that either Slater or Farrar or both do get information from NPRU, (rather than pure supposition and inference), then post it here and WIN THE ARGUMENT.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 17.1.3
        10 November 2010 at 1:51 pm

        Plus Farrar has admitted to working in ‘research’ when he first started working for the Nationals. Plus he got arrested for some of his antics.

        • Gosman 17.1.3.1
          10 November 2010 at 2:04 pm

          So no EVIDENCE apart from that laugable supposition then?

          When did David Farrar stop working (directly if you wish ;)) for the National Party by the way?

          Doesn’t The Labour Party engage in research by the way?

          • Swampy 17.1.3.1.1
            10 November 2010 at 11:55 pm

            Course they do, remember they sent Mike thing to Australia to try to dig the dirt on John Key

          • Colonial Viper 17.1.3.1.2
            11 November 2010 at 12:00 am

            If they don’t then they are pretty incompetent.

            Yeah and its tough for you to be regularly trounced by ‘incompetents’ yeah?

            So no EVIDENCE apart from that laugable supposition then?

            EVIDENCE is NOT necessary because the inference is clear – and you have no other plausible scenario.

            The National Party Research Unit is spinning its wheels faster and faster. They need to.

            • Gosman 17.1.3.1.2.1
              11 November 2010 at 9:41 am

              The inference is only clear to someone like you with a biased political outlook.

              You have already been told a much more likely option. David Farrar did the research himself.

              Why is this less believable than your more complicated theory involving the NPRU?

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 November 2010 at 10:21 am

                Because David would prefer someone else do the legwork? And who better than the NPRU – nothing complicated about it, since its their job.

                • Gosman …
                  11 November 2010 at 10:32 am

                  “Because David would prefer someone else do the legwork?”

                  Have you got anything from David Farrar’s previous actions that suggests he prefers to get other people to do his legwork for him or this another one of your biased opinions?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    11 November 2010 at 10:34 am

                    What am I, paid to try and chase around for all the breadcrumbs you want?

                    You must have me mistaken for the National Party Research Unit.

  18. Swampy 18
    11 November 2010 at 12:08 am

    That would be the principal who has been reprimanded by her board and has had to apologise for her comments, would it?

    The board issued a statement saying her views were not the official views of the school.

    I remember earlier this year a John Langley who apparently many years ago used to do something in schools or something like that, he went overseas with a ministerial delegation to Dubai I think. There was a change of plans and Key came back early because of the defence helicopter crash. This fool Langley put out a press release making a political attack on John Key. Result, his board of his organisation called him in to explain himself.

    This principal has just been told in no uncertain terms that she has besmirched the reputation of her school in the public eye. A very silly thing to have done. She is employed by the Board and they could easily choose to dismiss her.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      11 November 2010 at 12:25 am

      The board issued a statement saying her views were not the official views of the school.

      No links, no truth.

      She is employed by the Board and they could easily choose to dismiss her.

      Honour to those who speak out in sincerity and knowledge, even in the face of threats from a gutless empty machine.

    • lprent 18.2
      11 November 2010 at 2:16 am

      Link? Because I haven’t seen it.

      With your sloppy use of language, that could mean anything. Employment law doesn’t have ‘reprimands’, it has warnings, verbal and written. A dismissal would require those to happen. A reprimand is just meaningless.

      But I’d suspect that the board was disassociating themselves from comments made by a private citizen expressing their opinion (just like you’re doing here), who also happens to be a principal. It doesn’t mean that they disagree with the principal. It just means that they will express their own opinion.

      Sounds a bit like the spinning that DPF or Whale are mostly known for – bullshit with a vague kernel of actual fact.

      What is interesting though is the number of school boards going on record to say that the implementation and even the idea of Tolleys National Standards is crap.

  19. Nathan 19
    11 November 2010 at 9:55 am

    This is the link here
    [Bunji: fixed link]

Links to post