On the Mapp defense

18 comments on “On the Mapp defense ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   11 December 2008 at 2:39 pm

   How embarrassing, I left the comments off.

   Umm the comparisons with NACT come to mind.
2. Steve Pierson 2

   11 December 2008 at 3:07 pm

   i saw that but thought you must have clever reasons
3. gingercrush 3

   11 December 2008 at 3:14 pm

   Pity you didn’t leave comments off. While I realise the left is very passionate about the 90 day bill and upset at National moving this bill into urgency. Surely, its in the best interests of “The Standard” for arguments and comments on such things to be done in fewer posts rather than every post about the subject. In particular, those that are simply youtube videos and the like.
4. lprent 4

   11 December 2008 at 3:37 pm

   gc: It is in the nature of the meme for PR. While it may be boring for people that have already gone over the topic, the evidence says that a lot of repetitious analysing on the blogs helps to get the issue out amongst the public. Generally by going over and over the issues bit by bit by bit by bit.

   For a good working (and extreme) example go back and have a look at KiwiBog earlier in the year on the subject of Winston Peters and his supposed crimes against humanity.

   Now in the end the allegations amounted to bugger all apart from being a sloppy bookkeeper. However they helped to taint Winston and NZF by about 0.8%. It may be boring, however it is also critical.

   Besides, in case you hadn’t noticed we are kind of pissed about this level of blockhead stupidity in government. If Labour had tried anything like this then the whinging from the right would have started with a cry for impeaching Helen and carried on downwards from there for years. This is moderate and will carry on for at least 3 years (and probably longer until the Nats forswear this kind of stupidity).
5. jafapete 5

   11 December 2008 at 3:50 pm

   Just went over to Farrar’s blog, and he’s trying to retail some nonsense about workers can only be sacked for non-performance under the proposals. Amazing. Ignorance, or a wilful attempt to sow disinformation?

   Thanks for the kind words, Lyn. Enjoying California. Lots of Obama stickers on the roads

   Captcha: profit hurried… uncanny sometimes, eh?

   [lprent: Was exactly what I was thinking – so I borrowed the quote 🙂 ]
6. Tane 6

   11 December 2008 at 3:52 pm

   JP, I’m pretty flat out, but if you’ve got time a guest post would be more than welcome.
7. roger nome 7

   11 December 2008 at 4:46 pm

   Just posted the following over at K-Blog in response to a kiwiblog poster who claimed that workers will be protected against sexual harassment under National’s 90 day no rights bill. It doesn’t seem to have gone through so i thought i’d post it over here.

   llew:

   “making it clearer that workers will still have the right to lodge personal grievance claims on the basis of sexual harassment or discrimination.”

   scenario:

   Employer asks employee to have sex with them – employee says no – employer says do it or you’ll be fired, employee still says no – employer fires employee.

   Under Labour’s Employment Relations Act an employee could take a personal grievance and win, because the employer didn’t follow the correct dismissal procedure.

   Under National’s new legislation the employer will be able to do this. The employer can simply claim that the employee was fired because they are lazy (they don’t have to go through proper procedure). So the burden of proof is on the employee to prove that there was sexual harassment – which is often very difficult because you need witnesses and not many bosses are stupid enough to sexually harass employees in front of their co-workers.

   So National’s 90 day get the sack bill doesn’t protect workers against this type of sexual harassment (i.e. using threat of dismissal to gain sexual favors).

   So National’s claim, that workers will be protected against sexual harassment with their “wild west” 90 day get the sack Act is bogus.
8. Simon 8

   13 December 2008 at 2:09 pm

   Let’s face it – the Left’s objection to the 90 day rule is motivated by one factor – laziness.

   Workers need to be productive and the fear of actually having to work for a living as opposed to sponging of an unwitting employer (or the overburdened tax-payer) has the Left in a panic.

   My advice is this – get off the dole, stop committing crime, work for a living. New Zealand can no longer afford Left-wing parasites feeding on those few productive Kiwis who didn’t flee Pol Clark.

   Now that we’ve returned to democracy, decent New Zealand isn’t going to tolerate Left-wing indolence. Introducing the Left to what is to them the novel concept of “decent pay for an honest day’s work” is one of the new government’s greatest challenges.
9. lprent 9

   13 December 2008 at 2:19 pm

   Simon: lets put a new criteria into the bill.

   If a employer turns out to not be what they professed during the hiring interviews, that they shall be fired from their position. Ok, that now means that a small but significant number of my previous employers should now be down the road.

   Fair is fair, that at least would add some equity to the situation.

   BTW: I notice that you didn’t address the actual argument in the post, which wasn’t about the Fire at will bill, but was about the government playing autocrat over the processes of parliament. By the sound of it, you probably wouldn’t have understood it.
10. Anita 10

    13 December 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Simon,

    Let’s face it – the Left’s objection to the 90 day rule is motivated by one factor – laziness.

    Workers need to be productive and the fear of actually having to work for a living as opposed to sponging of an unwitting employer (or the overburdened tax-payer) has the Left in a panic.

    My advice is this – get off the dole, stop committing crime, work for a living.

    How do you explain someone like me? I work hard, I earn well, I pay heaps of tax, I think 90 days no rights it Bad and Wrong.
11. Simon 11

    13 December 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Iprent – I didn’t address it because it’s a hypocritical argument – the Liarbour regime was the moxt autocratic in the Commonwealth – surpasing evenRobert Mugabe. The shrill cries of the Left now are laughable due to their timing; where were all those proponents of democracy six months ago when Pol Clark removed the right to free speech? Where were you when Caucasians driving European cars became nmore of a law-enforcement quota focus than baby murdering gang members?

    Besides that fact, the “scorched earth” approach adopted by the previous Liabour regime has left New Zealand in desperate straights. Desperate straights require desparate measures -which is why decent, law-abiding Kiwis are applauding the National government’s expeditious efforts to undo the harm.

    Get used to the idea Iprent; decent New Zealand has spoken, the days of sponging off the overburdened are over. Stop committing crime, get off welfare, produce more than you consume.

    [lprent: The short answer is that you are completely full of crap. At a rough guess you are a person who is pretty worthless, doesn’t do anything, and has little inherent value.
    I also suspect that you’re going to be unwelcome on this site as a troll with little to contribute]
12. Simon 12

    13 December 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Anita – I’m not altogether certain that you really meant for me to answer. To give you the benefit of the doubt I’ll allude rather than answer directly;

    Two words. The first word begins with the syllable “chard.” The second word ends with the syllables “cialist.”
13. Anita 13

    13 December 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Simon,

    I’m not altogether certain that you really meant for me to answer.

    Yeah, I did mean for you to answer, I’m genuinely curious as to how you fit the non-lazy non-criminal and employed into your model.

    To give you the benefit of the doubt I’ll allude rather than answer directly;

    Two words. The first word begins with the syllable “chard.’ The second word ends with the syllables “cialist.’

    *laughs* Yeah, perhaps I am. Although I’m probably more socialist than most.

    But that still doesn’t tell me how your model explains why people like me are against 90 days no rights.

    How about the hard-working working class?
14. Felix 14

    14 December 2008 at 9:20 am

    Poor Simon.

    Comes up with the brilliant “Pol Clark” a month after the election and too late to use it, but realising that it’s probably the creative and intellectual high point of his entire life he decides to push on with it anyway.

    Truly sad. I pity you.
15. Simon 15

    14 December 2008 at 1:12 pm

    And it’s… ..IPrint by a nose.

    As is typical of the Left and those of limited intellectual calibre, (there is a correlation) IPrint descends into ad hominem when thoroughly obliterated by an opponent in a debate.

    IPrint – While sadly you’re pretty much stuck with your current intellectual constraints, you can mitigate your shortcomings somewhat by behaving as an adult. Stay on topic. Admit defeat rather than descend into purile name-calling. Stop committing crime. Get off welfare. Produce more than you consume.

    Oh and one last thing – encourage the other slobbering imbeciles who share your misguided political views to do the same. The fraternity of decent, law-abiding and productive New Zealanders will welcome you to the path of goodness and light with open arms once you’ve repented your evil ways and desisted from sponging off of us.

    We might even give you a job – helping to deprogramme those that are like you.
16. Simon 16

    14 December 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Simon,

    I’m not altogether certain that you really meant for me to answer.

    Yeah, I did mean for you to answer, I’m genuinely curious as to how you fit the non-lazy non-criminal and employed into your model.
    
    Easy Anita, I have another category; “the deluded.” A bit of a catch-all I grant you but my guess is that numerically, more Labour/Green voters fall into one of the other categories you mention than into this one.

    
    To give you the benefit of the doubt I’ll allude rather than answer directly;

    Two words. The first word begins with the syllable “chard.’ The second word ends with the syllables “cialist.’

    *laughs* Yeah, perhaps I am. Although I’m probably more socialist than most.

    But that still doesn’t tell me how your model explains why people like me are against 90 days no rights.

    How about the hard-working working class?
    

    “hard-working working class” is such an edge case it’s almost an oxymoron, evidenced by NZs lowly OECD productivity ranking. One would hope that these people have the perspicacity to vote for progress and prosperity, as opposed to the communist luddism of the Labour/Greens.

    Let’s face it – even the working class should be able to discern that the Labour/Green future, in which we all live in mud huts and only people who are Caucasian and wear eye glasses have to work on the state farms isn’t going to offer them much in the way of opportunity.
17. Felix 17

    14 December 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Lynn,

    I’m getting a feeling about “Simon”. Is he what I think he is? If so I’m very impressed. If not I’m sure he’ll be put to good use.

    [lprent: Not sure what it is.
    Doesn’t do a good match to any usual suspect.
    Talks like one of the libertarian / extreme act. Sort of a G with a brain upgrade.
    The key signature is the insistence on ‘winning’ which speaks to the usual black/white spectrum personality.
    Probably using an out of current topic for practice on personality projection (which is what makes me suspicious about previous persona’s here).
    Anyway, not hitting any of the triggers apart from the interest I had in a late comment on an old thread. Will be interesting in seeing how it plays out. Doesn’t look like it’d hit any of my usual criteria (apart from the ‘winning’ (pronounced ‘whining’)). But would probably have to watch out for a IB blasts.]
    
18. Felix 18

    14 December 2008 at 3:06 pm

    G with a brain upgrade Heh.

    I actually thought it might be part of your “project” at first, but when it started quoting and replying I wondered just what sort of monster you’d built.

    [lprent: Not mine. That is ticking away in the background, but nowhere near complete enough for the realtime. But not nearly as sophisticated as Simon. I designed it around a simple eliza style system, so it will respond, but only asking questions. Just dont’ seem to have the time to finish at present]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS