Open mike 02/07/2010

108 comments on “Open mike 02/07/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tigger 1

   2 July 2010 at 6:47 am

   Dear Granny Herald. Can you explain why you used a picture of a laughing Phil Goff in your web version of the article called MPs in Line for a Big Pay Increase? Goff isn’t quoted in the article at all. And he’s hardly going to be the biggest winner in any rule change. I mean, you could at least try to look impartial…
   • Bored 1.1

     2 July 2010 at 8:01 am

     Get with the programme Tigger, this is responsible paper ownership in process.
   • mickysavage 1.2

     2 July 2010 at 8:02 am

     I thought that too. Why use Goff’s photo when he is not accused of anything or even mentioned in the article.
   • Croc 1.3

     2 July 2010 at 11:33 am

     It’s pretty obvious that it’s all Phil Goff’s fault. And communists. And that bloody didymo.
     • Bored 1.3.1

       2 July 2010 at 11:58 am

       Dont mention that didymo to me….I did however find it slightly amusing that it was really good at blocking nozzles in irrigators on the Canterbury Plains.
   • the pinkpostman 1.4

     2 July 2010 at 3:29 pm

     I thought so too Tigger. I think Granny Herald is beginning to get geared up for the election next year ,so be ready for this type propogander
     Did you notice the article regarding Shane Jones. Well according to the Herald Shane hired 50 porn movies. At first it was two however every time I read the Herald or listen to the likes of Garner ,the number of porn films hired increases.The only conclusion I can come too is that Shane is now addicted to Porn Films. I just wish I could apply the same formula to my Super pension.
     • mickysavage 1.4.1

       2 July 2010 at 5:15 pm

       The Herald now has an article with a grim looking John Key described as being “tight lipped”.

       The contrast is so palpable.

       The link is at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10656054
2. Tiger Mountain 2

   2 July 2010 at 8:09 am

   Right are getting panicky about Supercity mayor it seems. Campbell Live had a text in poll with the options: Banks, Brown or neither. Campbell looked rather sick as he announced Brown had attracted 48%, beating neither and Banks into second and third respectively, particularly after running the usual head slapper video several times. Brown just needs to hold his nerve, keep meeting people, and keep away from journos and he could get there. If he does get the job I hope the 4 Manukau staff sent on prof. development can be hired to utilise their new skills!
   • Lew 2.1

     2 July 2010 at 8:24 am

     I just think we can all be happy at yesterday’s news that Auckland CEOs dislike both candidates.

     L
3. Tiger Mountain 3

   2 July 2010 at 8:15 am

   Oh, and one more thing, add to my above comment-that Matt McCarten not ad a last minute “wonder’ candidate i.e. splitter candidate. But I won’t hold my breath on that.
4. Dans 4

   2 July 2010 at 8:18 am

   Chopper Tolley in Queenstown today! Pity she is only spending 15 minutes with the leaders of her primary schools. Maybe if she sat down and listened for a while, she might get the reasons why they are so united in opposition. It does seem a long way to fly for 15 minutes.
   Maybe its the bungy jumping that appeals?
   • ianmac 4.1

     2 July 2010 at 9:56 am

     No. Anne Tolley has to leave the Teacher Principals’ Conference to go and open a gymnasium. Gotta get your priorities right!
   • Rex Widerstrom 4.2

     2 July 2010 at 4:07 pm

     National have a history of such “education” Ministers. reminbds me of when I trundled in (in those days dragging a tape recorder the size of a Corolla behind me) to interview Las Gandar. I’d just walked in, said hello and shook his hand when the division bells rang and he excused himself.

     “No problem,” I said. “I’ll wait here for you”. A look of utter confusion crossed his face. “Oh, I thought you just wanted to meet me” he said.

     Yeah Les, I was planning never to wash my hand again.
     • Dan 4.2.1

       2 July 2010 at 6:39 pm

       And Les was followed by Merv Wellington. Those were the days!
5. Bored 5

   2 July 2010 at 8:27 am

   News service again at the ready, headlines from around the egdes of the NZ coast outwards…enabling you to know and RELAX (be at one with the rest of the blissfully ignorant).

   Leading economic analysts predict the US will resort to printing money, heres why:

   The ECRI leading indicator produced by the Economic Cycle Research Institute plummeted yet again last week to -6.9, pointing to contraction in the US by the end of the year. It is dropping faster that at any time in the post-War era.

   The latest data from the CPB Netherlands Bureau shows that world trade slid 1.7pc in May, with the biggest fall in Asia. The Baltic Dry Index measuring freight rates on bulk goods has dropped 40pc in a month. This is a volatile index that can be distorted by the supply of new ships, but those who watch it as an early warning signal for China and commodities are nervous.

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7857595/RBS-tells-clients-to-prepare-for-monster-money-printing-by-the-Federal-Reserve.html

   News from the markets overnight, flat as…..slightly edgy, but hey relax, Bernanke wants to print paper…will there be enough trees to make enough paper for a zillion zillion $10 notes?

   http://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/markets/overview/overview.asp

   Meanwhile over the ditch in OZ, the place we slavishly want to emulate…..Peak Mineral predicted…

   In the 1950’s, an American geoscientist came up with the term ‘peak oil’, to describe the moment when the maximum rate of petrol extraction from the earth would be hit – and academics in Australia are starting to talk about the very same problems faced by our metal mining industry.

   http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1245657/Peak-Metals-What-happens-when-we-run-out

   Relax, we can grow sheep indefinitely, even give them water…..now over to Polly for local news from South Auckland…..
   • pollywog 5.1

     2 July 2010 at 11:24 am

     Thanx Bored 🙂

     In following up the latest PEDA LTD revelations as highlighted on Russell Browns Media 7 programme of last night, it appears English and Te Heu Heu have well and truly washed their hands of the debacle.

     Signalling their intention to not comment further, by their inattendance at question time in pariliament yesterday, shows a massive disrespect for the institution and the processes of democracy in being answerable to the wider public and those elected officials charged with representing us.

     The questions asked at such time generally reflect the views of many concerned citizens and can often be the only voice articulated in parliament on our behalf. That they didn’t deem them worthy of answering is equivalent to giving us the middle finger reply requiring no further response.

     I would rather the ministers to whom questions are directed front up, if only to verbally ‘flip the bird’ to the opposition by muttering inane shit that obfuscates the real issues or sit in their well stuffed chairs, rocking back and forwards, humming nyah nyah nyah…we won, you lost. Surely that’s what we pay them for ?… to turn up, take their seat in the big house and act like know it all privileged brats.

     Regarding PEDA LTD though. Expecting that the Pasifikan community would fall inline behind them with their hands out, grateful and silent, shows not only do English and Te Heu Heu have no understanding of the community they claim to represent but shows a disgusting unwillingness to personally confront the real cause of massive Pasifikan youth unemployment.

     These 2 clowns have gone beyond needing a wake up call to get their arses to parliament and front the issue. They need shown the door, with a one way ticket to Dipton and Tuwharetoa never to be heard from again if thats how they want to play the game.

     It’s just not good enough and Lockwood really needs to get a handle on this shit or start docking their pay if they cant produce a medical certificate for legitimate absenteeism.
     • Bored 5.1.1

       2 July 2010 at 12:00 pm

       What risk amongst the Pasifika community to the reputations of Michael Jones and Inga? Or will they be “followed”?
       • pollywog 5.1.1.1

         2 July 2010 at 1:14 pm

         IMHO 🙂

         Inga’s already been seen as a lackey and mouthpiece for PEDA LTD while initially denying he had his snout firmly in their trough. The fact he’s involved in a silent partnership with PEDA through the ‘PI chamber of commerce’ and is accepting junket trips for the gov’t doesn’t exactly improve his stock or elevate his standing.

         If theres one thing the Pasifika community can’t stand, it’s dishonour and disrespect for protocols and thats what ultimately this is about. The community never forget your instances of it but traditonally would have dealt with it inhouse behind closed doors.

         PEDA looked to circumvent these natural processes and heirarchies, thinking the community would settle for hush money, but that only works if you have the mana and respect of the community and you are seen as worthy of being in a postion to act as a provider.

         Few if any of this PEDA lot have that. A flash suit, an island shirt and a tidy line in Pasifika inspired bullshit might get you alot in Bill Englishs circles but in ‘real’ Pasifikan culture it means jack shit.

         And Michael Jones is seen as a rugby munter with a heart of gold, but his foot firmly planted in his mouth should he be required to speak on anything of note. It’s why you wont hear him say anything about anything unless its talking to kids or John Key about God and rugby. Best he sticks to what he knows. Imagine him in parliament ?

         That just leaves Peseta Sam “loves to linger” lingering lovingly in the background, too frightened to peep up in case he unwittingly lands Te Heu Heu and English in the shit by adding another layer of ineptitude and ineloquence to the PEDA bungle cake.

         The thing with silence is, in Pasifikan culture, as with politics, it can work against you more than it can work for you, especially if you dont know when to speak up, when to shut up, when to listen and when to act. Watching him grovel for approval in the National party backbenches is, while entertaining, also distressingly humiliating and embarassing for all Pasifikans given he aspires to lead us in the political sphere.

         …its just not a good look all round eh ?

         What needs to look good on all fronts, is the procurement contract the gov’t puts to PEDA
         LTD. It needs to be sound and rock solid, with acutely quantifiable objectives, real measurables outcomes, irrevocable consequences for lack of accountability in allocating any monies to subcontracted providers and transparently open to the Pasifika community for scrutiny and approved buy in by existing providers expected to deliver on PEDA’s promises.

         These guys have, according to Bill English’s rhetoric, charged themselves with addressing the piss poor employment stats of pasifikan youth and been given 4.8 mill of our money to do it. Kids these days, especially Pasifikan ones, can smell bullshit and token effort a mile off and if they don’t like what you’re cooking, they’ll just switch off and give you shit with their parents usually none the wiser for it.

         So either PEDA LTD need to be able to walk the talk or step to the kerb and walk away. If the plan was to talk the walk, cook the books, take the money and run. I’m afraid thats all gone out the window. That’s how we used to role but no more…enough is enough !!!
         • Lew 5.1.1.1.1

           2 July 2010 at 1:25 pm

           PW, this is the most worthwhile thing I’ve read all day. Cheers.

           L
         • Pete 5.1.1.1.2

           2 July 2010 at 2:33 pm

           Ditto what Lew said – thanks pollywog.

           Your Humble Opinion, frankly, mirrors mine.
         • pollywog 5.1.1.1.3

           2 July 2010 at 3:59 pm

           OH NO HE DIDN”T ???…OH YES HE DID

           Now according to pacificeyewitness.com and substantiated by written answers to questions by Su’a Willam Sio directed to the prime minister John Key…

           ….it appears Key met with Inga, the iceman and the PEDA bros to discuss…erm rugby and God and ummm… handing over 4.8 mill to some dodgy backroom company to address Pasifikan youth unemployment.

           If only he could remember…hmmmm

           Question 12758 (2010). Su’a William Sio to the Prime Minister (22 Jun 2010): On what date did he meet with JR Pereira, Michael Jones, Va’aiga Tuigamala and National MP, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga in Auckland last year when funding for the Pacific Island community was discussed and where did that meeting take place?

           Hon John Key (Prime Minister) replied: 30 Jun 2010

           On 11 June 2009 I attended a Pacific Leaders meeting at the Columbus Cafe in the Onehunga Mall with Peseta Sam Lotu-liga, Michael Jones and Va’aiga Tuigamala. There were other people present but I have no recollection of their names. J R Pereira may have been at that meeting.

           Question 12764 (2010) to Prime Minister (22 Jun 2010): When he met with JR Pereira, Michael Jones, Va’aiga Tuigamala and National MP, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga in Auckland last year, did he discuss any proposal to provide government funding through the budget process to any private sector provider; if so, what provider or providers were discussed?

           Hon John Key (Prime Minister) replied: 30 Jun 2010
           Not that I can recall.

           http://pacificeyewitness.com/2010/07/02/prime-minister-admits-onehunga-cafe-meet-last-year-with-key-players/

           No wonder Georgie didn’t have a clue what was going on and couldn’t answer the initial questions about PEDA LTD….cos she wasnt invited to talk shit with the bro’s.

           Surely the mainstream media can’t ignore this story if Goff decides to hammer Key about his involvement now ?

           and whats with the troll account by someone using parliament computers to run interference at pacificeyewitness.com ?
           • Pete 5.1.1.1.3.1

             2 July 2010 at 6:37 pm

             To be fair to Labour I think they’re doing a decent job of asking more from the government – particularly at question time. The obfuscation from the government has been very telling.

             That said, chucking it back to Goff again can’t be a bad thing given this info.
         • mickysavage 5.1.1.1.4

           2 July 2010 at 7:37 pm

           Amen to that.
6. ak 6

   2 July 2010 at 9:04 am

   You’re onto it Bored…..toss in the stubborn ginormous debt, dropping commodity prices, increasing Sino-US tension, indications of an imminent proverbial sino “turning-inwards” and the inherent confusion/contradiction of current austerity/QE measures, and it’s looking more and more like “double dip”.

   Ironic, innit: our own “Double Dipton” and “John W” facing a double-dip-dubya economy in time for the Chrissy hols. Could explain the recent rash of “big gun” Righty PR – Maori-bash, bennie-bash, teacher-bash, Creditgate…and now prisoner-bash.

   The Left by-passed the MSM with great success on Mining and Privatisation: learn the lesson and burn that shoe-leather in Auckland for a Supercity Rout to match Jim in Chch.
   • Bored 6.1

     2 July 2010 at 10:01 am

     Good point on the MSM, funny thing is that to come up with the above I got links to MSM sites…the truth cannot be hidden away too tightly despite the “filtering’ we see locally. Overall as you note and add to the trend is very obvious for anybody prepared to atke off the shades.

     Im in Wellywood, we have people here working hard against the privatisation of water, a story the MSM ignores…really pleased with the Auckalofa and Chch MSM sidesteps. The next step is to challenge the assumption from the right that what they “contract” out or privatise represents a fait accompli. They are relying on us to stick by the “rules” as they see them. More news to come!!!!
7. mickysavage 7

   2 July 2010 at 9:05 am

   Is John Banks guilty of treating?

   Check out http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/3855793/The-battle-for-Auckland where it is disclosed that he did the following:

   1. He bought a box of confectionery from one shop, popped into a cafe nearby and gave it to two women.
   2. In a TAB, Banks placed a $10 bet and gave the chit to an older woman.

   Check out also section 126 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 which says it is an offence punishable by 2 years imprisonment for someone to “corruptly, before, during, or after an election or poll, … gives any food, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person—
   (a) for the purpose of influencing that person or any other person to vote …; or
   (b) for the purpose of obtaining his or her election …”

   Is he a treater?
   • True Blue 7.1

     2 July 2010 at 10:59 am

     No different to Mike Williams and the KFC.
     • lprent 7.1.1

       2 July 2010 at 12:18 pm

       It was an interesting myth from the 2005 election beloved by moron wingnuts who are suckers for any stupid fable – in other words – you. However that is all it is – a myth.

       Try and find a credible (ie not a wingnut blog site) source for the myth and you’ll find it never happened.
       • True Blue 7.1.1.1

         2 July 2010 at 1:37 pm

         And I suppose he never went to Australia to dig up dirt on John Key, is that a myth also?
         • mickysavage 7.1.1.1.1

           2 July 2010 at 7:47 pm

           Bloody wingnuts. They think that politics is a contact sport and not a contest of principles. So if one of their stars gets caught they come out with “but blah blah blah did blah blah blah” and if this does not work they come out with “but blah2 blah2 blah2 did blah2 blah2 blah2”.

           It is the same as an admission of defeat. It is as far as an admission as they can go.

           They should learn the Catholic mea culpa thing.
   • Rex Widerstrom 7.2

     2 July 2010 at 4:11 pm

     The “treating” law is bloody ridiculous. I ran afoul of it for operating a bbq during a campaign. Apparently the price of a vote nowadays is a single friggin sausage.

     I admit I was trying to buy their time… no one wants to listen to a would-be pollie these days and I figured if I handed the buggers a snag they’d at least have to listen to me bang on for as long as it took them to wolf it down. But if I thought I could buy votes that cheap I’d have travelled the electorate flinging pounds of suasages at passers-by 😀

     There needs to be some minimum value beneath which the gift is seen as so trifling it’s unable to sway a voter… because the alternative is to assume a level of stupidity and venality in the populace which frankly is pretty scary. $10, maybe?
     • Mac1 7.2.1

       2 July 2010 at 8:28 pm

       The only positive from two failed parliamentary campaigns, Rex, was the ‘faux apology’ which I used when turning down the opportunity to pay for my round in the pub- “Sorry, couldn’t possibly, it would be treating.”

       I certainly saw a lot of stupidity which was scary and enough venality to confirm my politics.

       Anti-spam word “crisps”- couldn’t even buy them!
8. Tiger Mountain 8

   2 July 2010 at 9:15 am

   Chopper Tolley our very own Dubya?

   On RNZ this morning, en route to meet 500 principals, heh, she said “parents are the silent majority in all of this, and they are being quite vocal…’
   • prism 8.1

     2 July 2010 at 11:07 am

     LOL Great spotting TM
   • Lanthanide 8.2

     2 July 2010 at 12:08 pm

     Aside from the obvious contradiction, is this even true?

     It seems Tolley can say what she likes about “parents” supporting National Standards, simply because there is no general organised “parents” union or collective that can say otherwise. It also smacks of telling people what they should think by repeating it over and over, as well as divide and conquer – “you’re a parent, do you identify with other parents who support National Standards, or do you identify with those stuck-up teachers that don’t want to educate your child properly?”.

     captcha: thinking
9. freedom 9

   2 July 2010 at 9:41 am

   this pic is great. the highlighted ‘spill’ has been moved east so it is physically positioned over the state of Florida landmass. OOOPS. How do they get away with this crap?
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/7863283/Hurricane-Alex-in-pictures.html
10. big bruv 10

    2 July 2010 at 10:06 am

    There are very few things that unite the left and right, however, opposition to the proposed 10% increase in MP’s pay should be one of them.

    At a time when we are all facing increased costs it is an outrage that these parasites should even consider paying themselves more.

    If they really wanted to show leadership they would vote themselves a 10% reduction in pay.

    Every single one of them has a sense of entitlement that is breathtaking.
    • Bored 10.1

      2 July 2010 at 10:13 am

      The only thing bigger than their sense of entitlement is the breath taking expectation of the public and media that their representatives lives are an open book, their privacy able to be invaded and their whole existence scrutinised. I would not go near the job for the current money…I might however do it to represent a constituency of like minded.
      • big bruv 10.1.1

        2 July 2010 at 10:22 am

        Bloody oath they should be scrutinised.

        If they are unable to deal with that then they should not go into politics, do not forget, they are using our money, we have a right to know what they are doing with it.
        • Bored 10.1.1.1

          2 July 2010 at 10:26 am

          And we are using their time (and demanding access to their personal life as a bonus)…bloody oath, we need scrutinizing too. Please send me your expenses receipts NOW!!!!!!
        • prism 10.1.1.2

          2 July 2010 at 11:14 am

          big bruv Can you act as an impassioned advocate also on behalf of nurses of dementia sufferers. What you say about being paid a fair rate from the taxpayers purse should see the nurses pay shoot up. It’s an awfully hard job, underpaid, and still women think it worthwhile and step forward to give it a shot. It’s not something that everybody can or are willing to do. The pay may not match what their peers are receiving and doesn’t reflect the strictures of the job though.

          Politicians are in the same basket, but fortunately better paid.
    • BLiP 10.2

      2 July 2010 at 11:47 am

      What about those who feel so entitled as to be feel righteous in walking away from their debts by lying and welching on their word? What sort of person would do that, big bruv?
      • big bruv 10.2.1

        2 July 2010 at 11:58 am

        So you support a pay rise for MP’s as well BLiP?
        • mickysavage 10.2.1.1

          2 July 2010 at 12:28 pm

          What are you talking about blip?
11. big bruv 11

    2 July 2010 at 10:36 am

    I have no interest in their personal life as long as I am not funding it, I do not want to pay for flowers for anybodies partner.

    I agree that what they do in their own time should remain private just as long as it is legal.

    The issue here is that the greedy sods are going to give themselves a pay rise far in excess of what the average bloke can even dream about.
    • felix 11.1

      2 July 2010 at 11:21 am

      Not much you like do paying for though, is there bruv?

      You welching , lying, reneging, bludging, cheating worm.
      • big bruv 11.1.1

        2 July 2010 at 11:42 am

        felix

        I take it you support a pay rise for MP’s?

        Is that because most Labour party MP’s could never earn that much in the private sector?

        I sure as hell don’t like paying for parasites Felix, I detest funding union hacks, failed teachers, dole bludgers and DPB slappers.
        • True Blue 11.1.1.1

          2 July 2010 at 11:45 am

          1 nil to BB
          
          [lprent: Counting score is a *fast* way to attract my attention. It is a particularly pointless way to start a pointless flame discussion. It is pointless because no-one can agree on the basis for evaluation and the debate (with agree to disagree rules) veers into monumental stupidity that I have to read.

          I usually just ban the idiot who I consider started to do it as my particular contribution to that debate. Consider yourself warned. ]
        • BLiP 11.1.1.2

          2 July 2010 at 11:48 am

          What about those who say one thing and then try to wriggle out of it with lies? Sound familiar, big bruv?
          • big bruv 11.1.1.2.1

            2 July 2010 at 11:49 am

            Are you talking about Helen Clark ?
            • Lanthanide 11.1.1.2.1.1

              2 July 2010 at 12:10 pm

              No, he’s talking about you, and your failure to live up to the bet for either $50 or $100, I can’t recall which.

              Watch as bb fails to reply to this comment, because he would rather ignore the whole incident!
              • big bruv …

                2 July 2010 at 12:19 pm

                Lanthanide

                As I said last week (it might have been the week before) the debt has been paid to a charity (SPCA), if that is not good enough for you then tough bloody luck, unlike Labour people I am a man of my word.

                Now, would you care to debate the issue of our MP’s awarding themselves a pay rise when the rest of NZ is struggling?

                Or, do you not really care about that?
                • mickysavage …

                  2 July 2010 at 12:31 pm

                  Wasn’t the bet to be paid to a charity of the winner’s choice?
                • Pascal's bookie …

                  2 July 2010 at 12:31 pm

                  But paying the SPCA, as good as that is, doesn’t fulfill the bet.

                  So you are not an anything of your word, you’re just a reneging liar.

                  Your word was to pay the charity of the winners choice. You lost, so you don’t get to choose the charity.

                  People aren’t going to just forget about it you know.
                  • big bruv …

                    2 July 2010 at 12:51 pm

                    Pascal

                    Tell you what, prove to me that Wikileaks is a charity and I will donate another $100.

                    Now, care to comment about the MP’s pay rise?
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      2 July 2010 at 1:01 pm

                      Pathetic bruv. Wikileaks was mentioned when the bet was accepted. That would have been the time to dispute it. Too late now. Cough up.
                    • big bruv …

                      2 July 2010 at 1:06 pm

                      Pascal.

                      I set the terms of the bet, it was to a charity.

                      Like most pinkos you do not bother letting the facts get in the way of your bullshit do you.

                      I repeat, prove to me that Wikileaks is a charity and I will gladly send them another $100.

                      Now, given that you are doing your best to distract from the topic I raised I can only assume that you do not give a toss if our MP’s award themselves a pay rise, I also have to assume that you do not care if the average man in the street is suffering at this time.

                      Typical, you Chardonnay socialists are all the same, you use the poor for votes and then forget about them.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      2 July 2010 at 1:22 pm

                      Typical authoritarian nutjob, thinking that he gets to dictate both sides of a contract.

                      Here are the terms:

                      big bruv 16.1.1.1.2
                      26 May 2010 at 9:51 pm

                      Blip you are an idiot.

                      Let’s have a wager about this shall we?

                      $100 to the charity of the winners choice (mine will be the RSPCA just so you can start writing out the cheque) if this story even dents his popularity.

                      Or you could stop frothing at the mouth and start getting real.

                      BLiP 16.1.1.1.2.1
                      26 May 2010 at 10:18 pm

                      You’re on I think its a bit of a fuss sending them a cheque but have a look at the donations section on Wikileaks, I think they will accommodate your predilection for last century technology (rather like your political beliefs) let the next preferred Prime Minster poll be the arbiter.

                      http://www.thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30052010/#comment-220811

                      and here’s you tacitly accepting those terms when you stupidly thought you had won:

                      felix 11.1.1
                      30 May 2010 at 7:48 pm
                      Who did you have the $100 bet on with? Was it BLiP?

                      big bruv 11.1.1.1
                      30 May 2010 at 8:02 pm
                      Dunno, I need to find out though, because I want proof that he has paid up.

                      http://www.thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30052010/#comment-220795

                      It’s an open thread so i can talk about what I want, but FTR, I think it is pretty typical tory bs. Much like Key’s grandstanding efforts to turn down a years increase when he knows that the HSC will be required to just make up the shortfall by effectively backdating it at the next review.

                      Face it, you don’t want to pay wikileaks because they publicise warcrimes you approve of, but too bad, a bet’s a bet.
                    • big bruv …

                      2 July 2010 at 1:35 pm

                      Here are the terms Pascal

                      “$100 to the charity of the winners choice ”

                      Actually, given that BLiP did not nominate a charity then I could have refused to pay anything to anybody.
                      However, as a conservative and therefore a man of my word I paid the SPCA.
                    • BLiP …

                      2 July 2010 at 1:40 pm

                      You’ve been learning from King John The Blind of Charmalot in your weasling welching attempt to distort reality by redefining terms post the event. You have no honour and your word is shit.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      2 July 2010 at 1:42 pm

                      Still doesn’t work bruv.

                      You were going to try and make him pay up when you thought you had won. End of story.

                      Just pay the debt.
                    • BLiP …

                      2 July 2010 at 2:22 pm

                      .
                  • big bruv …

                    2 July 2010 at 2:02 pm

                    Pascal

                    Of course I was going to try and make him pay up, in hindsight it would have been a massive waste of my time as he would have refused to do so given his political leanings.

                    You can try and twist it as much as you like, I know you are well used to doing so given the way you bent yourself out of shape trying to defend the previous Labour governments theft of tax payer funds but the reality is that the terms of the bet were perfectly clear.

                    Having said that, I repeat that I am perfectly happy to pay $100 to Wikileaks if you can prove that they are a charity.

                    BLiP.

                    Clearly I was correct when I called you an idiot.
                    • BLiP …

                      2 July 2010 at 2:23 pm

                      Who offered the bet and who owes $100?

                      I should have realised it was a futile gesture on your part given that you never had any intention of paying up, preferring instead to wear the moniker of lying welcher with the pride reserved only for the self-satisfied, smug who delight in the false belief they’ve got “one over” on the under class. You are the epitome of that which makes Aotearoa weaker.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      2 July 2010 at 2:49 pm

                      You said he got to name the charity if he won. He, in advance, named wikileaks.

                      When you thought you had won the bet, you sought to make him pay up.

                      When you did this you implicitly accepted the terms under which he entered the bet. Thus, wikileaks is a charity for the purposes of this bet.

                      Charity is doing good work. Wikileaks exposes war crimes and uncovers other state secrets and wrongdoing. That is good work.

                      I accept that ‘good work’ is a subjective term, but that’s ok, because the terms of the debate that you brought to the table said ‘of the winners choice’. that means the winner chooses.

                      You lost so you don’t get to choose, you just get to pay up.

                      So stop quibbling, lying and pretending you have honour, and pay the damn debt.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      2 July 2010 at 3:16 pm

                      You are right though, that the terms of the debate were clear.

                      They were:

                      That if the next pref. PM poll shows declining support for John Key, BB would pay wikileaks $100

                      If not, BLiP would pay the SPCA.

                      Clear as.

                      His support did drop.

                      So pay up.
                    • wtl …

                      2 July 2010 at 4:00 pm

                      “Having said that, I repeat that I am perfectly happy to pay $100 to Wikileaks if you can prove that they are a charity.”

                      While PB has already given you a good response, I’ll just point out that the problem with the above ‘condition’ is that you can simply refuse to accept any evidence or argument that Wikileaks is a charity so you aren’t offering anything really.
                    • felix …

                      2 July 2010 at 4:15 pm

                      wtl,

                      I think bb sees that as a feature rather than a bug.
                    • big bruv …

                      2 July 2010 at 4:19 pm

                      wtl

                      “While PB has already given you a good response, I’ll just point up that the problem with the above ‘condition’ is that you can simply refuse to accept any evidence or argument that Wikileaks is a charity so you aren’t offering anything really.”

                      PB has given nothing more than a juvenile and petulant response.

                      For the last time, the conditions of the bet (or challenge if you like) were laid down by me, the loser had to pay the CHARITY of the winners choice the sum of $100.
                      BLiP did not name a charity, BLiP named a highly dubious left wing website.

                      You are damn right that I refuse to accept the site nominated by BLiP is a charity because clearly it is not.
                    • BLiP …

                      2 July 2010 at 4:24 pm

                      Thus, you never had any intention of honouring the bet. Instead, you make up some bullshit story about having paid the SPCA.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      2 July 2010 at 6:39 pm

                      Too late bruv.

                      You already did accept the terms of the debate, including paying wikileaks should you lose, when you sought to seek payment.

                      In this very thread you said you were right to seek payment. That can only mean you think BLiP was bound by the bet. And he was bound by the bet, on that we agree. He agreed to be bound by the bet and gave his terms, which you accepted and are now reneging on, because that’s the sort of thing you are.

                      You now, conveniantly, don’t think wikileaks is a charity. What is your argument for that?

                      Is it that they exposed things of which you approve, but would rather be kept secret? Or just a more generic belief that the state should be deferred to and trusted?

                      I seem to remember you taking a similar dislike to the NY Times and some reporting they did about torture and extra-constitutional spying and such like. You, ridiculously, called that ‘treason’ if I remember correctly, (not the torture and illegal spying on US citizens by the US state, but the reporting of same in the free press). Is it that sortt f thing that makes you think wikileaks isn’t a charity?

                      Or perhaps you think charity can only be that if it is registered and given the name by the state. Is that your angle?

                      Or do you only have foot stamping and flat denials to support your patheticism?

                      In any case, it doesn’t matter, you asked why wikileaks is a charity in terms of the debate, I told you why.

                      Cough up.
        • ak 11.1.1.3

          2 July 2010 at 12:43 pm

          DPB slappers
          Like John Key’s mum and Mauler Benefit you mean?
12. G8 12

    2 July 2010 at 12:21 pm

    All experts on Campbell Live agreed that if voter turn out is more than 40% then Len wins. Both sides polling shows we will get a 59% turn out. The “Flood Bank” is broken and John boy is gone – let’s just make sure we all vote!
13. Santi 13

    2 July 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Questions for the lying Prime Minister Key:
    “Prior to your invesments being moved into management of a blind trust, did you or any afiliated person have any direct or indirect investments managed by Global Forest Partners?”

    “Subsequent to your invesments being moved into management of a blind trust, have you or has any person under your direction given any form of written or oral investment recommendation to the trustees of that blind trust?”
    • I dreamed a dream 13.1

      2 July 2010 at 2:15 pm

      Pardon my ignorance. Could you please elaborate on the background to those interesting questions? Thanks.
      • Santi 13.1.1

        2 July 2010 at 3:06 pm

        There must be money to be made by interested parties behind the Emissions Trading Scheme supported by national. It will be interesting to know if Key is gaining from it. Could it be?
14. Mako 14

    2 July 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Farrar’s just posted about a long, boozy lunch with Odgers, Slater and others yesterday. According to Slater’s tweetstream, the “others” included David Fisher (Herald journalist) and Jonathan Marshall. Can we expect more anti-Len muckracking in the Sunday tabloids this weekend?
    • pollywog 14.1

      2 July 2010 at 1:33 pm

      hah…the marauders

      Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail and Prongs. I wonder if they foursquared their location on the marauders map so Rita Skeeter could tattle about it to The Daily Prophet…

      …and did John ‘Gringotts’ Banks pick up the tab ?
    • True Blue 14.2

      2 July 2010 at 2:25 pm

      At least he devulges who he went to lunch with unlike Len’s $810 rort on the ratepayer.

      [lprent: Another daft troll style comment with little content and after just being warned. Umm, are you worth keeping around here? Do you add anything to the debate apart from idiotic one-line slogans?

      I just had a look through your comments and found absolutely no content of any interest over the last two months. You’ve been warned several times before about looking like a troll. It looks like you’re too stupid to learn.

      You’ve earned yourself a permanent ban. I’d suggest that your talents would be best at somewhere with a lower threshold of intellectual ability – gotcha, no minister, or the sewer come to mind. ]
      • BLiP 14.2.1

        2 July 2010 at 2:29 pm

        Maybe Dick Quax would like to tell us what was so important that he couldn’t attend a $1500 course the ratepayers paid for . . . and maybe also the reasons why he voted against having to repay the money? Its not as if Dick Quax isn’t exactly fastidious in his own history of claiming back that which he feels entitled to . . . all $1.54 of it. Watta guy.
        • Armchair Critic 14.2.1.1

          2 July 2010 at 3:16 pm

          “…and maybe also the reasons why he voted against having to repay the money…”
          Voting when he had such a clear conflict of interest should have some action resulting. He should never have voted. Instead he should have recused himself – not doing so speaks volumes about his lack of suitability for public office.
        • MikeG 14.2.1.2

          2 July 2010 at 4:43 pm

          Why couldn’t the Council just say – “ok – we will just keep the next $1500 worth of expense claims that you submit”. Although that could then have the effect of him claiming for things like the 50cents postage for that letter he mailed out at his own expense.
          • Armchair Critic 14.2.1.2.1

            2 July 2010 at 10:15 pm

            Or, better than that, why couldn’t Mr Quax have postponed, or cancelled as soon as he knew he could not attend? And failing that, why couldn’t he do the decent thing and pay up?
            Probably because he’s a hopeless hypocrite NActoid – says one thing, does the opposite.
      • big bruv 14.2.2

        2 July 2010 at 3:06 pm

        True Blue

        ” Another daft troll style comment with little content and after just being warned. Umm, are you worth keeping around here? Do you add anything to the debate apart from idiotic one-line slogans?”

        You have to be aware of the rule around here, simply put there are rules for the left and rules for the right.

        Under no circumstances will they allow any comment that shows the left in a negative light, it does not matter how truthful that comment is it will be banned.

        [lprent: Wrong again. You do seem to make a habit of that.

        In this case true blue made about 40 comments over 2 months. None on them that I saw extended for more than 2 lines. None of them had any content that wasn’t a simple slogan – usually incorrect in terms of facts. No-one was bothering to engage with him any more. He was simply wasted space in the comments section.

        From what I know of you – I dislike your politics, personality, and think that your understanding of the world around you has little basis in reality (especially in science). How often have you been banned? I think it happened once in 2008?

        You have an ability to argue and debate. true blue doesn’t. ]
        • big bruv 14.2.2.1

          2 July 2010 at 3:38 pm

          I thank you for your kind words 🙂

          However, even you would have to admit that the rules do not apply evenly across the board.

          Of course, they do not have to, it is your blog and the opinions of 99% of the contributors are clearly wrong but as it is your property you have the right to do as you see fit.

          Just don’t pretend that they do.
          • BLiP 14.2.2.1.1

            2 July 2010 at 4:13 pm

            Meanwhile, you carry on pretending you don’t owe wikileaks $100.
            • big bruv 14.2.2.1.1.1

              2 July 2010 at 4:33 pm

              BLiP

              Do you know how much I am enjoying being right inside your head?

              I have had a very enjoyable day knowing that you are sitting there bashing your keyboard in frustration simply because you were not smart enough to appreciate the bet you accepted.

              You need to learn a few things before you start playing with the big boys, first of all you need to be clear about the conditions of the bet, you could have nominated a pinko charity like Barnardoes, having to pay them $100 would have made me ill, instead you nominated a website that is in no way a charity.

              Silly, silly boy.
              • felix …

                2 July 2010 at 4:38 pm

                So you admit you had no intention of honouring the bet you made. Goodo.
                • big bruv …

                  2 July 2010 at 4:44 pm

                  I had every intent of paying money to a charity of the winners choice, stupidly the winner never nominated a charity.

                  What else was I supposed to do Felix?

                  Anyway, the SPCA thanked me very much.
                  • wtl …

                    2 July 2010 at 4:48 pm

                    Actually, you never said that the winner would have to nominate a charity before the result was known. Therefore, the winner is entitled to nominate a charity now, and you will have to pay $100 to that charity.
                    • felix …

                      2 July 2010 at 5:00 pm

                      Perhaps we need Graeme or Mickey or one of the other lawyers who visit here to weigh in.

                      (I suggest offering to have a look at it on a “charitable” basis and then send bruv a bill for your services anyway, as he isn’t really a charity)
                  • felix …

                    2 July 2010 at 4:56 pm

                    The only way I am able to interpret your 14.2.2.1.1.1 comment above is that BLiP was a “Silly, silly boy” for nominating wikileaks whereas you were one of “the big boys” because you realised it gave you a loophole.

                    It is this realisation which gives you away, bruv. The most (ahem) charitable reading of the situation shows that you believed the conditions of the bet were not being met but went ahead with it anyway.

                    The alternative is that you believed the conditions were met.

                    Your choice: Welcher or Cheat.

                    Wriggle and squirm, bruv. Everyone can see through you.
                    • The Voice of Reason …

                      2 July 2010 at 5:13 pm

                      Welcher or cheat? I’m going with sore loser, felix. Stop whining, BB, and cough up. What happened to personal responsibility, eh? You willingly made the bet, you lost the bet. Pay up, Bruv. Or are you waiting for the state to bail you out, oh mighty Atlas?
                  • mickysavage …

                    2 July 2010 at 7:55 pm

                    Looks open and shut to me. Pay up Big Bruv.

                    Someone get him wikileaks bank account’s details.

                    Captcha determines!
              • BLiP …

                2 July 2010 at 8:57 pm

                heh! Big Boys!! What a dick, you are. My 12 year old nephew would try something like that – but even he would realise the folly. I’d love to see you try it down at my local, we’d quickly see how big a boy you were there. Face it. You lost the bet and now are taking childish delight in refusing to pay up. That’s fine. But don’t expect not to be reminded about your decision to relish the titles liar and welcher. In some ways its quite good to have it out in the open now . . . that way each and every comment you make will be an opportunity to remind you.
                • big bruv …

                  2 July 2010 at 9:14 pm

                  And that folks is the typical response of a knuckle dragging Labour supporter.When faced with an argument you cannot win you revert to violence.

                  Obviously I have got under your skin BLiP, you have no idea how much that pleases me, as for your childish threats, well take a ticket and join the long line of people, I think you might have to wait a while, in the mean time you can have a chat with D4J, he tells me he is at the very front of the line.

                  I admit that I lost the bet, I also admit that I set the rules of that bet and the loser had to pay $100 to a charity (actually, what bloody part of that do you not understand?) a charity has received the money, the bet is settled.

                  However, as I have said before, if you can prove to me that Wikileaks is a charity I will bung them a $100 as well.

                  As for reminding me, go for your life, it is water off a ducks back and only goes to prove how much I have messed with your mind.
                  • mickysavage …

                    2 July 2010 at 9:35 pm

                    Big bruv is a deal welcher and a lame war-mongering Einstein-impersonating corpulent ugolicious rectum-sniffing dickhead (thanks insult.net).
                    • Bored …

                      2 July 2010 at 10:45 pm

                      He is not that nice, you insult the types you just mentioned.
                  • BLiP …

                    2 July 2010 at 10:12 pm

                    Your fear and your ignorance are showing, big bruv. You’re the only one talking violence. Pull your word-twister stunt down my local and it would be well deserved scorn, contempt and ridicule you’d get, and then we’d see how much of a big boy you were drinking on your own with no seat to sit upon and no table to lean at. We don’t bring much into this world and we take even less when we leave. Some of us still have our honour and our word, all you have the $100 that belongs to wikileaks.
                  • felix …

                    3 July 2010 at 1:20 pm

                    “And that folks is the typical response of a knuckle dragging Labour supporter”

                    I was wondering how long it would take you to try the “commun1st plot” diversion and pretend it’s about politics.

                    Maybe you’re right. Maybe it is only lefties who wouldn’t see it your way. Maybe that’s why all the righties are leaping to your defence…
15. Santi 15

    2 July 2010 at 1:48 pm

    You wonder how much money Farrar is making from selling Curia to NationaL? The mercenary is well paid.
    • Ed 15.1

      2 July 2010 at 11:28 pm

      I hadn’t heard that Curia was being sold. I doesn’t seem to make much sense – a captive friendly company must have been very useful to channel donations and to get polling done at ‘mates rates’ when needed. It does appear that Farrar has not had a full time job for some time – perhaps National are going to re-employ him; not many buy the ‘independent political commentator’ line any more. Do you have a reference for the purchase of the company?
16. Armchair Critic 16

    2 July 2010 at 10:11 pm

    PM tight-lipped on MPs’ perk review say Granny.
    But why would he be tight-lipped? I mean, he doesn’t stand to benefit from any changes, right? He gives his salary away. Doesn’t he? So he’s free to have an opinion, and express it.
    Another no-confidence vote for Mr Key, from me.
    • Bored 16.1

      2 July 2010 at 10:29 pm

      Me too, all that salary Mr Key and no cycleway. Did you take a helicopter instead of a bike and go fishing with Paul Reynolds to talk about the finer points of “delivery”?
17. BLiP 17

    2 July 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Not a good move by the new Aussie PM but typical of John Key to back a closet racist willing to stir up hate in order to win an election who now has the gall to try and stand for an international position.
    • I dreamed a dream 17.1

      2 July 2010 at 11:08 pm

      Another popularity stunt by Key, but I think he’s misread the NZ public on this one.
18. joe90 18

    2 July 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Yay!

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 1 July 2010 at 6:08 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS