Old Boys Club

36 comments on “Old Boys Club ”

• Comments are now closed

1. fender 1

   5 June 2013 at 9:40 am

   “They get dressed up with their lipstick and make-up on t.v. …….”

   Don’t forget to mention the botox favoured by the stupid old fool gifted a seat by our corrupt PM!
2. Ted 2

   5 June 2013 at 10:16 am

   There is only one reason for the charter schools. To break the teachers’ union. Just wait and see where schools are closed and charter schools opened. Unions will be fragmented.
   • kiwicommie 2.1

     5 June 2013 at 10:37 am

     Also to create schools to brainwash kids in fundamentalist religion, just like in the UK.
     • dumrse 2.1.1

       5 June 2013 at 8:46 pm

       And you, don’t need to send your children to any fundamentalist sponsored school. It’s your CHOICE.
       • felix 2.1.1.1

         5 June 2013 at 9:49 pm

         Why should I pay for your dumb choices?

         etc
         • Populuxe1 2.1.1.1.1

           6 June 2013 at 2:30 pm

           What like public health care? When did you turn Libertard, felix?
   • Augustus 2.2

     5 June 2013 at 11:15 am

     You’re forgetting the chance to make a private profit from public money. ACT’s raison d’etre.
   • Winston Smith 2.3

     5 June 2013 at 3:14 pm

     It gives parent another option but yes an added bonus will be to break the union stranglehold. The teachers union is the main problem here.
     • Gillian Crawford 2.3.1

       5 June 2013 at 4:35 pm

       Winston Smith, are you for real?
       • felix 2.3.1.1

         5 June 2013 at 6:51 pm

         No. Just another whale-trool.
     • georgecom 2.3.2

       5 June 2013 at 9:48 pm

       Your comments suggest you haven’t a particularly good grasp of Education Winston.
3. Ancient Ruin 3

   5 June 2013 at 10:38 am

   Soooo, let’s conflate questioning Bank’s integrity to the same level as childish name calling. Good one Roy…
   • karol 3.1

     5 June 2013 at 10:45 am

     Yes, Roy says the putting on lipstick and going on TV line is on “the same plane” as questioning Banks integrity over the Dotcom funding, and enabling private profiteering through Charter schools.

     At the end of Banks’ speech he repeats the lipstick line:

     They can wear the lipstick and look good on TV and make a big impression and don’t like it.

     Roche again objects to the sexism line. Roy then contradicts his earlier ruling, and asks Banks to withdraw the comment. Banks withdraws in an extremely half-hearted and unconvincing way – no apology.
     • Tigger 3.1.1

       5 June 2013 at 11:19 am

       Having seen Mr Banks swishing around Ponsonby in an effete leather jacket about a decade ago I suggest he may not want to resort to stereotypes…
       • North 3.1.1.1

         5 June 2013 at 9:39 pm

         There’s always been that hint about that bint !
       • North 3.1.1.2

         5 June 2013 at 9:40 pm

         That bent bint.
     • emergency mike 3.1.2

       5 June 2013 at 12:34 pm

       Wow I thought this wife-beater singlet level of sexism was long gone from parliament. Nope.

       So if a woman questions a man’s integrity in the house that makes it ok for him to respond with sexist taunts? Really Eric Roy? What decade is this again?

       There’s three things wrong with this. The sexism, the stupid ‘two wrongs make a right’ argument from the speaker, and the fact that Turei didn’t do anything ‘wrong’.
     • North 3.1.3

       5 June 2013 at 9:38 pm

       The botox pumped troughing fool Botox Archibald Banks ! Babs !
4. tracey 4

   5 June 2013 at 1:08 pm

   This is the man who said that he thought Doug Graham would show “leadership” and hand back his knighthood and who didn’t note any irony in that statement
5. amirite 5

   5 June 2013 at 2:52 pm

   http://www.exposures.co.nz/?p=41
6. Murray Olsen 6

   5 June 2013 at 4:54 pm

   Eric Roy seems almost as intellectually challenged as John Banks is ethically challenged. How can the blue rinse Tories of Epsom not hang their heads in shame?
7. Rodel 7

   5 June 2013 at 5:40 pm

   This is unbelievable. I hope it is aired on prime time news.
   Why would those women and those men even stay in the same room as Banks.
   They should all walk out immediately holding their noses whenever he stands up.
   He is the shame of NZ.
   Question: Will the Johns give each other knighthoods?
   • vto 7.1

     6 June 2013 at 2:50 pm

     This government has cheapened knighthoods.

     All you need to do today is be a top sportsperson ha ha ha ha

     pathetic
8. Rodel 8

   5 June 2013 at 8:37 pm

   I am incensed by Banks’ speech. How do I circulate this video clip to all my feminist friends, male and female.
   Christ1 this ‘thing’ has been made New Zealand’s Associate Minister of Education by John Key.
   Am I dreaming this? Even my Tory friends shudder.

   [karol: I moved your repeat comments to trash. You’re the second person that’s done that tonight. Is there a technological issue?]

   [lprent: http://www.youtube.com/embed/mt2WyqhbucY ]
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     5 June 2013 at 8:44 pm

     You click on the clip above, you go to the youtube logo, click on that, and go to the video directly on the youtube site, which will have a URL that you can copy and paste into an email.
   • Rodel 8.2

     5 June 2013 at 9:24 pm

     Karol NO It’s not a technological issue….I think we are just so blindly incensed by (and I don’t usually resort to expletives….by this fuckwit Banks) that we have lost technological self controll !!! My apologies!
9. Brett Dale 9

   5 June 2013 at 9:27 pm

   Maybe put the whole thing together, and a transcript.
10. Brett Dale 10

    5 June 2013 at 9:29 pm

    why would she bring up kim dot com in a speech about schools?
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      5 June 2013 at 9:32 pm

      It’s not the schools part which is relevant, it’s the John Banks part.
      • Brett Dale 10.1.1

        5 June 2013 at 9:50 pm

        Dont want to watch a nine minute video of a gren party member speaking, what did she about banks, I stoped after she started giggling talking about dot com.
        • felix 10.1.1.1

          5 June 2013 at 9:55 pm

          Mostly she said he took big donations and wasn’t honest about them, pretended he couldn’t remember things that no-one really believes he couldn’t remember etc.

          You know, stuff that everyone knows is true and is all a matter of public record.

          Didn’t hear her giggling about Dotcom though, how far in did you get?
11. felix 11

    5 June 2013 at 9:51 pm

    old mason’s club.
12. Brett Dale 12

    5 June 2013 at 9:55 pm

    If a parent wants to send their kid to one of these charter schools that should be their choice.
    • felix 12.1

      5 June 2013 at 9:59 pm

      And why should I pay for their dumb choices?
      • Populuxe1 12.1.1

        6 June 2013 at 2:33 pm

        And again, what, you mean like health and welfare?
    • vto 12.2

      6 June 2013 at 2:46 pm

      Not everything in a society is about freedom of choice. Sometimes such open choices to do as one wishes entirely and completely leads to the breakdown of society – so no, not everything should be a free choice.

      You can’t even choose whatever you want for your childs name ffs.

      I might choose not to pay taxes.
      I might choose to burn someone’s house down.
      I might choose to not educate my kids at all.
      I might choose to waste my time on here.
      I might choose to not choose anything.
      chooses….
      sheesh
      dim bulbs

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS