Open Mike 06/05/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 6th, 2018 - 173 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

173 comments on “Open Mike 06/05/2018”

  1. Andre 1

    A thought-provoking read about some of the thinking behind attempts to sow mistrust towards media and institutions of society in general.

    How to respond? The final paragraph seems worthwhile:

    ” If the left is to succeed in replacing the status quo with something better, then it must create an international movement and reject all the worst impulses of postmodernism and once again get behind what German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has called the “project of modernity.” Most importantly, leftists must be careful to avoid political alliances (voluntary or involuntary) with reactionary movements or “anti-modern” ideologues like Dugin. If a true progressive believes in the notion of “progress,” then she would sooner defend the status quo than align with political forces that hope to restore some forgotten “golden age.” ”

    https://www.salon.com/2018/05/05/did-philosopher-alexander-dugin-aka-putins-brain-shape-the-2016-election/

    • Ad 1.1

      Look I loved Habermas, but the last survivors of modernity are a rag-tag battle fleet heading for Elysium’s New Earth.

      Forget the idea of trust.

      Save what you have of the best of us.

    • Observer Tokoroa 1.2

      @ Andre

      I do not wish to be negative, but the left does not have to do anything like the jargon list which you breezily preach.

      The Left has only to approach persons of integrity and goodwill and demonstrate that Capitalism has failed – world wide.

      Threadbare capitalism and its greed, has prevented home ownership on a massive scale. It has also put millions of families in the hands of ruthless landlords – charging exorbitant rents.

      For instance: From 1915 to 1988 there was a cap on rents that could be charged in the UK. Why was that thrown away? You well know the answer to that. The Capitalists wanted to take from the poor. Thievery. Robbery. Untold Crime.

      Capitalism has to be removed from our towns, our communities, our Parliaments. Worldwide. No Capitalist should have any benefit; any access; any property; any status in the real world.

      Capitalism has been a total failure.

  2. cleangreen 2

    Letter sent by the FMA/Reserve Bank of New Zealand

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1805/S00158/letter-sent-by-the-fmareserve-bank-of-new-zealand.htm

    Good luck ‘Reserve Bank’ at getting at the truth of how these Australian banks operate.

    Letter from RB.
    (brief)
    To clarify, we request a written response from your organisation outlining:

    • The actions you, your Board and your senior teams have taken to identify and address conduct risk – including any “gap analysis” work against the expectations set out in the FMA’s Conduct Guide

    • Any specific plans and actions you have taken (or have underway) to respond to the issues and themes arising from the Royal Commission

    • Any other work you have underway or that is planned to proactively identify and address potential conduct and culture risk

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1

      Yep. Rather ridiculous that the RBNZ thinks that writing a letter will get the truth.

      This is why they’re supposed to have full investigative powers. So that they can go and find the truth whether the banks like it or not.

    • Incognito 2.2

      The letter is quite specifically asking for information and not just a reassurance that ‘she’ll be right, mate’. It is asking for formal responses and thus an early step in and of a formal (and ongoing?) process. I think the (potential) implications are quite clear, especially when reading between the lines.

    • Ad 3.1

      Your link is something to do with CO2 concentrations.

      Also, Labour were in prime position to sweep the Tories out of local governments left right and centre, but because they are poorly led by a guy who cannot form a sold shit let alone a solid Brexit policy, they made on balance very few inroads.

      • Ed 3.1.1

        It’s Tony Blair’s last fan.
        Thank you for sharing the views of the treacherous members of the UK plp.

      • Macro 3.1.2

        Exactly. The main story of this election is the exit of the Brexit vote led by UKIP. The Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, and Greens all gained seats at the expense of UKIP (God Bless Em and thank Christ their gone – down from 82 seats to 2).
        Ed simply repeats the poor and one sided view of his opinion makers. There was a massive 1.5% swing to Labour in London and a pathetic 1% swing to the tories in the country. /sarc
        The BBC reported what actually happened – not what someone dreamt up in their head.

    • Ed 3.2

      Wrong attachment !!
      Here is the correct one.

      http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2018/05/bbc-reporting-of-elections-in-orwellian.html?m=1

      And for a more honest appraisal of the election results

      “People are showing they won’t be fooled by the BBC’s anti-Corbyn bias.”

      https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2018/05/05/people-are-showing-they-will-not-be-fooled-by-the-bbcs-anti-corbyn-bias/

      • Ed 3.2.1

        George Galloway on the election on Twitter.

        “If there was any journalism left in this country there would be a major analysis in tomorrow’s papers of the giant Goebellian lie spun to the British people over #LocalElections2018 A systemised deception of which any dictatorship would be proud.”

        • Ad 3.2.1.1

          George Galloway is a racist failed Labour political retread who can stick his opinions up his ass.

          Two days ago at TS Bill the UK local elections were about to herald a grand revolution overcoming “liberalism”.

          The Centre, the Left and UK local elections

          Today the result according to you is all the media’s fault and so instead of the revolution of some imagined extremists happening, in reality few useful Councils changing to Labour and people like you are not ready to face the reality that Corbyn is actually pretty incoherent and as a result average in voter appeal, and the Labour successes are more due to vigilant grassroots campaigning.

          • Bill 3.2.1.1.1

            Two days ago at TS Bill the UK local elections were about to herald a grand revolution overcoming “liberalism”.

            No Ad. That’s not what I claimed, and I was pretty damned clear on that front.

            • Ad 3.2.1.1.1.1

              You weren’t clear about anything except an obscure allegory about voting and a glacier calving. For the rest, you just need to be more honest about what you were indeed about. And honest that the results jet didn’t go your way.

          • Ed 3.2.1.1.2

            As usual from the Blairite and Douglas sectors, no actual argument.
            Just shoot the messenger.

            The fact is that the BBC is partisan against Corbyn.
            As are you.

            You just loved Labour when it kowtowed to neoliberal ideology.

          • millsy 3.2.1.1.3

            So who would you have as Labour leader?

          • reason 3.2.1.1.4

            James tried to float the anti Semite boat …

            Where as most honest or thinking people know Corbyn is concerned about extreme Zionism …. and its documented attempts to influence and take down British politicians …

            This is what Corbyn is against

      • Ad 3.2.2

        Telling us that a great number of new Labour people were elected is as useful as saying that Labour nearly won the last national election. It’s a nice warm feeling like weeing in the bath.

        Which Councils did Labour win, and which did the Conservative win?

        A good test is whether Barnet shifts. That will measure whether the anti-semitism controversy has had any effect.

        • Stunned Mullet 3.2.2.1

          if the UK is anything like NZ there’ll be a large disinterested non voting population – does anyone know the turnout in their council elections ?

        • Zorb6 3.2.2.2

          You appear to have an anal obsession.
          ‘ led by a guy who cannot form a sold shit ‘
          ‘ who can stick his opinions up his ass.’

          It’s a nice warm feeling like weeing in the bath.’
          Get some help.

          • greywarshark 3.2.2.2.1

            Zorb6
            Fair comment by you.
            Highly emotional comment never convinces of reasoned opinion or knowledge.

  3. cleangreen 4

    6th May 2018

    Watching David Parker this morning on Q+A explain the Legal challenge he is facing over the threat of steel/aluminium tariff about to placed on NZ exports by the US by President Donald Trump has now left me very worried about this ‘legal’ fight he is drawing us all into at the WTO that may carry on for years it was explained to us.

    If we are now entering into yet another “Trade agreement” in the TTP 11 are we now about to become more restricted from the same ‘legal’ claims in courts over yet more unfair treatments from other ‘trade agreements’ and is these ‘legal’ claims we will be making to secure our trade agreements going to bankrupt us all because we all know just how very expensive any ‘legal case’ will cost us all as NZ taxpayers.

    A statement came out in a warning today from a legal agency that reminds us all that during the beginning of the 1929 depression there were many trade disputes arising when countries begun tightening their imports from other countries in an attempt to preserve the local domestic workforce for political reasons and this bankrupted several countries who sought legal claims over restricting imports of products then.

    So has the Labour government actually considered these costs and financial effects to our economy when they finally agree to TPP 11?

    I am very worried here that to much haste has been made to get into this deal as I see many cases where we have not secured protection for our own workers and exporters inside the TTP 11 at all as the agreement is very ‘vague’ in its many confusing confusing wordings.

    David Parker may be gone in a few years and leave us all with many crippling issues that may ruin us all.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/episodes

    • Pat 4.1

      whether we signed TPP 11 or not dosn’t change the drawn out process of a WTO ruling…indeed the ISDS provision (whatever your opinion of it) provides an alternative remedy….no agreement signed, be it the WTO or individual trade agreements are guarantees of compliance or honourable behaviours by any party.

      Some agreement and process is better than none when the barriers start to be raised…it is why the WTO was invented in the first place

      • cleangreen 4.1.1

        Pat,

        Are you saying that if we have issues with any country inside the TTPA will be disputed both in the ISDS and WHO also?

        Will we be bankrupt by both legal challenges made to both dispute systems as Canada has sadly found?

        Thanks for confirming our worst fears that (Quote) “no agreement signed, be it the WTO or individual trade agreements are guarantees of compliance or honourable behaviours by any party”

        Why are we then taking these ‘risks’ even entering into these agreement when they are not binding? Ana if we have no easy way of exiting from them at any time of our choosing?

        They are a fools game and danger.

        They came with fish hooks are some dark places that could end up destroying us all.

        • Pat 4.1.1.1

          no cleangreen, im saying that having agreements which have provision for trade dispute resolution beats the hell out of gunboat diplomacy and/or war….which incidentally is likely to cost more if finance is your sole concern.

          • cleangreen 4.1.1.1.1

            No Pat;
            ‘Money’ is not my main concern; – but since now our environment is very fragile and about to implode, the money paid to fight legal claims are making it worse to save our environment because we will be bankrupt!!!!!

            So that is the concern here.

            ” i am saying why the hell are we now so sold on joining up to these flawed agreements as you appear to accept but i do not as we can not afford “as a small fish” in a big ocean of sharks to even go there.

            Best stay out and be safe.”

            Quote; me here;

            “Why are we then taking these ‘risks’ even entering into these agreement when they are not binding? ”

            And if we have no easy way of exiting from them at any time of our choosing?

            They are a fools game and danger.

            They came with fish hooks are some dark places that could end up destroying us all.

            • Pat 4.1.1.1.1.1

              the real fools game, particularly for a ‘small fish’ would be to engage in a game without any rules…unless you advocate not trading at all?

              As to exiting…we can, provided we are willing to accept the consequences….oddly enough much the same consequences as never having joined….and the ‘we’ to which I refer is the voting public.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2

      Watching David Parker this morning on Q+A explain the Legal challenge he is facing over the threat of steel/aluminium tariff about to placed on NZ exports by the US by President Donald Trump has now left me very worried about this ‘legal’ fight he is drawing us all into at the WTO that may carry on for years it was explained to us.

      NZ won’t be facing a legal challenge over the US putting in place tariffs. The US will be.

      If we are now entering into yet another “Trade agreement” …

      The interesting thing about the WTO (and the GATT before it) is that it was set up so that FTAs wouldn’t be needed. The rules would have been set at an international and multi-lateral level. Something that FTAs don’t do. In fact, FTAs actually complicate things. I disagree with the WTO as well but it’s better than FTAs.

      So has the Labour government actually considered these costs and financial effects to our economy when they finally agree to TPP 11?

      IIRC, they believe that there won’t be any because people are nice. Or something like that.

      I am very worried here that to much haste has been made to get into this deal as I see many cases where we have not secured protection for our own workers and exporters inside the TTP 11 at all as the agreement is very ‘vague’ in its many confusing confusing wordings.

      We shouldn’t even be trying to protect our exporters. That way lies the same failure as the Great Depression.

      Actually developing the economy rather than over producing a limited amount of stuff is a much better option.

      • cleangreen 4.2.1

        Yes Draco; – well said there,

        I am diametrically opposed to any FTA (Free trade Agreement) as the term “free” is flawed and a lie to rort the system.

        So we need another type of control as you state the FTA was set-up to-supply a fair balance.

        So the question is now:

        “Why did we even sign up to another set of controls such as the controversial ISDS in the first place then”???????.

        I am now suspicious!!!!

        • McFlock 4.2.1.1

          Regardless of “free” or not, any trade agreement is essentially a commercial contract. Normal contracts go to the courts for resolution, but if both parties run their own court system, would you be subject to your opponent’s jurisdiction?

          So international agreements look for alternative models of dispute resolution.

          Well, either that or it’s our alien lizard overlords preparing the way for one world government.

          • Nic the NZer 4.2.1.1.1

            Only if you are happy for all trade agreements to be fundamentally anti democratic.

            But there is plenty of evidence that super-national legal juristictions are not needed to facilitate trade. There is not much wrong with requiring international investors to go through the courts where they choose to invest on the other hand, and experience doesn’t indicate international investors need to have influence over what laws politicians can legislate.

            • Pat 4.2.1.1.1.1

              History would disagree with that….
              “When the war came in 1914, I was very soon impressed with two points. . . . I saw that
              you could not separate the idea of commerce from the idea of war and peace . . . . [and]
              that wars were often largely caused by economic rivalry conducted unfairly. . . .   But
              toward 1916 I embraced the philosophy that I carried throughout my twelve years as
              Secretary of State . . . . From then on, to me, unhampered trade dovetailed with peace;
              high tariffs, trade barriers, and unfair economic competition, with war.    Though
              realizing that many other factors were involved, I reasoned that, if we could get a freer
              flow of trade ‐ freer in the sense of fewer discriminations and obstructions ‐ so that one
              country would not be deadly jealous of another and the living standards of all countries
              might rise, thereby eliminating the economic dissatisfaction that breeds war, we might
              have a reasonable chance for lasting peace.”   

              Cordell Hull .US Secretary of State 1933-1944

              • Draco T Bastard

                If one country cannot export to another country what unfairness is there?

                • Pat

                  its not a question of fairness…its a question of best outcomes

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Wouldn’t the best outcomes be fair?

                    And what is the best outcome? One where a nations people become poorer because they no longer have any work?

                    And it would be nice if you answered my first question rather than trying to bypass it.

                    • Pat

                      what first question would that be?…as far as i can see you have only asked one …about fairness, which has been addressed….the best outcome is one that provides options other than armed conflict….you tell me…is that fair?

                      I will add however my surprise that both yourself and Nic would appear to advocate laissez faire in international trade.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      what first question would that be?…as far as i can see you have only asked one …about fairness, which has been addressed

                      No, it wasn’t answered or even addressed so I’ll ask again.

                      If one country cannot export to another country what unfairness is there?

                      It’s actually a really important point that goes to the very basis of free-trade.

                    • Pat

                      who determined the country couldnt export to the other?

                    • Tricledrown

                      DTB what happens if one country can’t export to another.
                      1929 should give you some idea DTB other countries follow suit.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      who determined the country couldnt export to the other?

                      Doesn’t matter.

                      Now answer the question.

                      DTB what happens if one country can’t export to another.
                      1929 should give you some idea DTB other countries follow suit.

                      And that bypasses the question as well.

              • Nic the NZer

                Your completely unaware of the major treaty which created national tensions leading to WWII?

                • Pat

                  if youre referring to Versailles then obviously no…as im sure youre also aware of the terms lebensraum and ‘sphere of influence’

            • McFlock 4.2.1.1.1.2

              What’s anti-democratic? The democratic bit is where the treaty is made by the government. Shouldn’t governments honour the terms of their treaties?

              The mechanism I don’t really care about, but I know that using the local court system didn’t do support care workers much good about their back-pay. Maybe overseas traders prefer to use a system that can’t be overruled by a partisan govt acting under urgency.

              • Nic the NZer

                It should be more than apparent that the TPPA, and similar agreements, are not a democratically proposed set of regulations. Never the less if the NZ government signs it then it will be expected not to contradict its intent in their future law making. This will continue even if we elect a government which is totally against what it stands for, or is doing.

                Of course democracy works best when we (the electorate) are able to replace the government with one which has a mandate from the electorate. This mechanism simply doesn’t work for any un-elected super national organisations.

                “The mechanism I don’t really care about, but I know that using the local court system didn’t do support care workers much good about their back-pay. ”

                And that can happen whenever we elect a government which doesn’t agree with certain interests.

                “Maybe overseas traders prefer to use a system that can’t be overruled by a partisan govt acting under urgency.”

                I expect they would do, yes.

                The question interleaved with your two examples is why you think overseas traders should have stronger protections against law changes than other factions of the electorate? The overseas traders clearly have ready access to alternative jurisdictions, the electorate often do not.

                • McFlock

                  Two successive governments negotiated and signed it. Not sure why the next one would suddenly have a mandate and they didn’t.

                  Interesting point about the courts, but then on the flipside local traders have a vote on which parties are in a position to change the laws.

                  • solkta

                    It’s a basic principle of natural justice that all are equal before the law. Not so for foreign corporations as they have greater rights. The BoRA and common law supposedly guarantee natural justice. Such a load of shit.

                    • McFlock

                      Should foreign shareholders be able to vote in our election, to give them equal rights?

                    • solkta

                      No. They are not citizens.

                      Should tourists be able to vote in our elections? Just as stupid to say. But while they are here they are entitled to the principles of natural justice and to be equal before the law. But not more equal.

                    • McFlock

                      So they should be subject to the whims of law changes that they have no means of affecting? How is that equal rights under the law when compared with locals?

                      Interesting thing about tourists – if they get in shit here, they are often entitled to diplomatic assistance from their governments, up to and including their governments raising their cases at the highest level of our political system. So they don’t get to vote, but they also have avenues that most NZ citizens don’t have.

                      The issue I’m trying to point out is that “equal rights under the law” do not necessarily mean “identical”. And if we want to trade in those countries, our rights would actually be identical to their rights when trading in our country. We would be assured of reasonably consistent investment and trading conditions.

                    • solkta

                      So they should be subject to the whims of law changes that they have no means of affecting?

                      Yes that is how democracy works. Geographical areas are divided off into States and the people permanently living in those areas get to elect representatives who make laws.

                      The people who own the corporations get to vote for the government in countries where they live permanently. Why should these people get multiple votes all over the world just because they are wealthy? One person one vote not one dollar one vote.

                      Tourists getting help from their governments is not them having more legal rights under our law.

                      if we want to trade in those countries, our rights would actually be identical to their rights when trading in our country.

                      This statement is meaningless when we don’t have the large multinational corporations that can utilize this crap based here.

                      If we want to change our laws to protect our environment or public health that is our right. If some multinational doesn’t like that they can fuck off.

                    • McFlock

                      Actually, we have quite a few companies exporting to and trading with other countries. Big and small. It’s what we, as a nation, do: export.

                      In exchange for those companies getting more stable legal frameworks with dispute resolution so they can employ people here to sell things there, we give the same conditions to companies from those countries to do the opposite.

                    • solkta

                      Large enough to pay the huge costs it takes to take such legal action? Get off the grass.

                      There was a reason this was pushed by the USA and other big countries.

                    • solkta

                      ps. note that even David Parker does not want to see this shit in future trade agreements, and EU won’t touch it.

                    • McFlock

                      Whatever, dude. We’re not at the bottom of the OECD by any stretch of the imagination. We might not be a “big country”, but we’re sure in the top couple of tiers.

                  • Nic the NZer

                    “Not sure why the next one would suddenly have a mandate and they didn’t.”

                    They all have some kind of a mandate to govern, make and update laws for their period in office.

                    • McFlock

                      And they all are bound by the treaties made by previous governments.

                    • solkta

                      No they are not bound by them at all. In New Zealand Parliament is supreme and can do pretty much what it wants. If a new government wants to withdraw from a treaty then it can.

                    • McFlock

                      Indeed. Just as it can do with the TPP, so the question becomes what’s the big deal about ISDS clauses in the TPP, then?

          • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.2

            Regardless of “free” or not, any trade agreement is essentially a commercial contract. Normal contracts go to the courts for resolution, but if both parties run their own court system, would you be subject to your opponent’s jurisdiction?

            Bollocks.

            FTAs, and the WTO, are there to ensure equivalency of rules so that a company from one nation can be assured of the same treatment in another. When a company is operating in another country then they’re bound by that other countries rules.

            ISDS and other extra-legal systems were set up to bypass that so that the company was no longer truly governed by the rules of country that they were operating in to the point that they could challenge the nation about rule changes that it didn’t like up to and including suing them.

            • McFlock 4.2.1.1.2.1

              But if a country is stupid enough to promise that it will allow trade under condition X, then changes its laws to condition Y when people have already invested on the basis of X, why shouldn’t the state be required to pay damages?

              It’s not a “free trade” issue so much as a guarantee that the rules you promise today will be delivered tomorrow. Sure, they can sue over anything, but if the state signed a reasonable agreement then frivolous suits would fail.

              • Draco T Bastard

                But if a country is stupid enough to promise that it will allow trade under condition X, then changes its laws to condition Y when people have already invested on the basis of X, why shouldn’t the state be required to pay damages?

                Why should a country even make such an agreement?

                It’s not a “free trade” issue so much as a guarantee that the rules you promise today will be delivered tomorrow.

                But a country should never make such an agreement because new information may require a change in the rules. The only thing that a country can offer a foreign company operating in it’s borders is that it will operate under the same rules that the business native to it operate under.

                And that doesn’t require an agreement between countries at all.

                • McFlock

                  But that’s a free trade agreement.

                  And why would any country open up its markets to companies from another country without expecting something in return?

                  And presuming we want to keep that thing in return, what if a company feels it’s been disciminated against somehow by some new regulation they think was targeted at them? Like if we put a tax on blue cars, and coincidentally all the cars imported from Latvia were blue and almost all blue cars were Latvian – and undercut local car manufacturers? Is that under the same rules, or is it unfairly targeted?

                  Without some manner of impartial dispute resolution, the only option is to take or leave the trade agreement. Brexiting, in other words. And disputes by one or two companies can burn the entire deal.

                  • Nic the NZer

                    “Brexiting, in other words.”

                    Yeah, total disaster, UK economy shrunk by 6% already completely down the toilet.

                    Oh, hang on that’s just what the UK treasury erroneously predicted would happen. Actually, its totally ok when the UK electorate decides they don’t need the EU to dictate laws to their own politicians.

                    I mean WTF do you have against brexit anyway?

                    • McFlock

                      Not much. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, that’s their problem. I’m sure it’ll all be rosy for England when they get rid of all the immigrants and do their own plumbing. And it’ll probably help the Scottish independence movement.

                      But I used brexit as the comparison because it seems a bit silly to have a perfectly fine agreement that then falls apart because a myriad of small participants think they’ve been screwed and have no means of redress.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    And why would any country open up its markets to companies from another country without expecting something in return?

                    They have no right to expect anything in return except that their companies will be able to sell in NZ.

                    Like if we put a tax on blue cars, and coincidentally all the cars imported from Latvia were blue and almost all blue cars were Latvian – and undercut local car manufacturers?

                    I know your using hyperbole but such a tax would never come into existence as it simply wouldn’t pass any sort test of justice.

                    Without some manner of impartial dispute resolution,

                    We already have one – the courts.

                    But I used brexit as the comparison because it seems a bit silly to have a perfectly fine agreement that then falls apart because a myriad of small participants think they’ve been screwed and have no means of redress.

                    Except that it wasn’t fine. People were being hurt by it.

                    • McFlock

                      And why would any country open up its markets to companies from another country without expecting something in return?

                      They have no right to expect anything in return except that their companies will be able to sell in NZ.

                      It’s an agreement. I give you this in exchange for that. If you disagree, I don’t give you this. So what happens if someone thinks they’re not getting the same market access they’re giving NZ, is shit gets held up in customs. They mimic the barriers that they think NZ is imposing on them.

                      So to avoid that we go to dispute resolution. If we use our courts, they think the courts are rigged. If we use their courts, we think the courts are rigged. So we agree an independent ISDS process, and put a buffer between a trade dispute and a trade war.

                      Like if we put a tax on blue cars, and coincidentally all the cars imported from Latvia were blue and almost all blue cars were Latvian – and undercut local car manufacturers?

                      I know your using hyperbole but such a tax would never come into existence as it simply wouldn’t pass any sort test of justice.

                      Yeah, you know what they say about everything before the word “but”.
                      As it is, that’s merely an exaggerated example of what happens. Country A introduces a regulation, Country B decides it’s targeted at Country B’s citizens as an unfair trade barrier. And then Country B does what – appeals to courts controlled by a government that’s specifically targeting them?

  4. Anne 5

    HdPA has written a thoughtful piece today. Yes, it is about the Gayford rumours and I think she’s got it about right. It started out as a bit rumour mongering for the sake of it, then was picked up by the dirty political pros and all hell broke loose.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12044756

    Shutting the rumour down was risky. It almost certainly spread the stories. If 100,000 of us had heard the rumours at the start of the week, 4.6 million of us will possibly have heard them now.

    I suspect the majority of those who didn’t hear the rumours still don’t know what they are, and I’m one of them.

    • Zorb6 5.1

      Are HDA and Barry playing a good cop,bad cop routine these days?

      • greywarshark 5.1.1

        Zorb6
        Someone the other day was saying just that. Setting up a target; then attacking and defending it; this morning announcing (think herald) that numerous and continuous tweets and comments alleging incorrect behaviour being received that should be made public. Forced to publish about it to clear the air. Police also.

        Example of ‘How to hit our leaders without leaving visible bruises’. A lot of media mendaciousness, look our hands are clean. Lots of argy-bargy about it, bringing lots of clicks. From the busy and live media group – look out for – CFC or Clique for Clicks.

    • Ed 5.2

      Don’t click.
      Boycott hdpa and her corporate owners.

    • Gabby 5.3

      Rumour mongering for the sake of it? Ok..

      • Anne 5.3.1

        There are people who get their kicks in life by spreading rumour and innuendo. Social media has made it easy for them and has spawned a group of dirty political right wing pros who are making a career out of the game. They will lie low for a while… until the next target comes along and then they will be back in business again.

        Like it or not Gabby it is a reality and sticking our heads in the sand will only let it continue to fester.

        • Ed 5.3.1.1

          Giving hdpa clicks encourages her.

        • alwyn 5.3.1.2

          Can you actually prove this claim of yours?
          Can you prove that, in the case of whatever the claims made about Gayford were, that there are “a group of dirty political right wing pros who are making a career out of the game. They will lie low for a while… until the next target comes along and then they will be back in business again.” were actually doing such a thing?
          If you can’t prove it then, unfortunately, you are included in the people who, in your own words “get their kicks in life by spreading rumour and innuendo”.
          So who are these right wing individuals or are you simply spreading a rumour that such people exist?

          • In Vino 5.3.1.2.1

            So, alwyn, you will admit that Anne was right when (not if) her prediction comes true? Or will you adhere to your obvious right-wing bias?
            I already know how contemptuous (and contemptible) your reply will be. I’ve seen some of your previous prevarications.

            • alwyn 5.3.1.2.1.1

              Don’t be such a silly little chap.
              When I read what you say I am forced to ask.
              Will you admit that you are completely incapable of realising that you are stupid?
              I already know the answer of course. From all your previous comments I know you are a fool and will always adhere to your obvious left-wing bias but are quite incapable of recognising the fact.
              There, that suit you?

              Now, if you think Anne’s claims are right please produce some evidence for it. Simple saying something, without evidence, doesn’t make it true, particularly when it comes from someone as contemptible as you are.

              If you have nothing except wild claims to come out with why do you bother to reply to me. Let Anne and I have a civilised discussion and confine yourself to the side lines. Are you really so desperate to start flame wars?

              • In Vino

                As predicted. And correct English is ‘Let Anne and ME have a civilised discussion.’ I did not find your tone to Anne all that civilised – accusing her of the very fault she was decrying by making a ridiculous demand. Paralleled by the similar demand (ie, rather silly) I deliberately made of you: When Anne is proven correct, will you admit error? No reply to that, I notice. Just infantile invective.

                • alwyn

                  You say
                  “When Anne is proven correct, will you admit error?”

                  I am willing to answer a slightly different question.
                  “If Anne is proven correct, will you admit she was right?” by saying of course I will agree that she is correct if that happens. I won’t admit that I was “wrong” because I have never said the opposite was, or is, true. I am merely trying to find what the truth is.

                  Please try and read what I say properly and you won’t look quite so foolish when you accuse me of making statements that I haven’t.
                  If someone comes up with any evidence of this claim we will be able to accept the words Jesus said.
                  “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.
                  Don’t you want to be free?

                  • In Vino

                    I distinctly wrote “when (not if)” eliminating the possibility upon which you erroneously base your question.
                    If the truth sets one free, you are obviously still struggling to find it, let alone come to terms with it.
                    See how easy it is to write your style of punctilious invective with no positive outcome?

                    • alwyn

                      You really are thick aren’t you?
                      Why do you think I didn’t answer the question as you asked it?
                      If I had you would of course, in your usual stupid manner, have then claimed that I accepted your premise and therefore accepted that National was to blame.
                      I really am not like you. I would like evidence, and without any it remains an open question about who is to blame.
                      Isn’t it time for your mummy to put you to bed? You are exhibiting the fractious behaviour typical of young children.
                      Perhaps in the morning you will justify your statement “When Anne ….”. Surely you have the evidence. You aren’t just making it up are you? You can surely justify your certainty? Or not, as appears to be the case. If nobody comes up with any evidence I will just have to accept that you are lying and that you haven’t the faintest idea who is to blame.

                    • In Vino

                      QED. Another bucket-load of tendentious drivel. You need to find a healthier pastime, alwyn.

          • cleangreen 5.3.1.2.2

            Tired of hearing; –
            ‘Prove this’
            ‘Prove that’ – all the time, – is like a broken clock spring.

            Give it a rest!!!!

            • alwyn 5.3.1.2.2.1

              I feel bad about this.
              Normally people welcome the opportunity to consider whether the things they say are accurate and are founded in reality.
              If it hurts your head to think about your claims I suggest you stop reading what I say.
              Then you can remain in a state of blissful ignorance. I’m sure you will be much happier and will be able to join the ranks of the Lotus Eaters in The Odyssey where
              “A single taste of this native fruit made my soldiers forget everything they had ever know; where they were from, where they were going, everything.”

              • In Vino

                Punctilious and disingenuous reaction to a fair demand. You constantly troll by making silly demands (prove this or that) then pretend sincerity.
                Your aim is to disrupt and discourage rather than genuinely question, with an occasional friendly pretence, and no, I am not going to waste my time looking up such an example. I think there are plenty of others here who will support my statement.

                • alwyn

                  “who will support my statement.”
                  I am sure there are. Have you never heard the immortal words of Mathew Henry?
                  “None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.”
                  Here endeth the Second Lesson.

                  • In Vino

                    The universally-known quote suits you well. At least you managed to use ‘endeth’ correctly.

                    • alwyn

                      Of course I used “endeth” correctly.
                      Just as the mild mannered reporter Clark Kent has an alter-ego of Superman I am, in my spare time, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is of course only a part time job as the number of the Faithful is diminishing rapidly but I can still manage the Anglican Services.
                      You may refer to me in future, if you are one of the faithful, as The Most Reverend and Right Honourable the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. Or not, as you wish.

                    • In Vino

                      No, you need to be a professor of English at Oxford or Cambridge.
                      Then you would know when to use ‘me’ instead of ‘I’.
                      And you would write less cacklemush. You really do need to find a healthier pastime.

                    • alwyn

                      @In Vino
                      I’ll take your word for it. No doubt you were at one of those trade schools.
                      The last University I studied at was in Cambridge actually, but it was in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I suppose you look down on that home of rebel colonials.

                      I provide this information to entertain you. You mummy says it is very kind of me as you suffer from a mild case of ADHD and my entertaining you gives her a break.
                      Now, off to bed diddums.

                  • Incognito

                    I could swear you are based in Wellington, in which case you’d be the Archbishop of Wellington to be addressed as His Eminence!?

                    • alwyn

                      Eminence is used in for a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic and the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches isn’t it?
                      Do we have a Cardinal in New Zealand at the moment?

                      Don’t you think the full title of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and York I believe) is much more impressive than just Archbishop though?
                      Actually I remember when I was a kid in Napier and the head of the Anglican Church in New Zealand lived there. A gentleman name Norman Lesser. He used to sign his name as Norman New Zealand. How is that for swank?

                  • Incognito

                    http://www.wn.catholic.org.nz/archbishop/

                    I’m not particularly fond of titulary but each to their own.

                    I reckon our PM could sign all her letters with Jacinda 😉

                    And I bet that that she won’t easily be confused, overlooked, ignored, or anonymised by the world press unlike John Key 😉

                    I prefer the down to earth attitude of open & honest people, without pretence and snobbery (and poorly masked superiority with matching arrogance).

                    • alwyn

                      That’s nice dear.
                      I’ll bet you really enjoyed those evenings in The Snug at The Rovers Return in the days when you were there drinking stout there with Ena Sharples and Elsie Tanner.
                      Real salt of the earth like you were they?
                      Do you think our present PM will hit it off with the US President the way Key did with Obama?

                  • Incognito

                    Oh dear, Alwyn.

                    I prefer my coffee strong, black, and no sugar. This neither means I am nor that I want to be a strong long black.

                    Most people develop a sense of Self when they grow up 😉

    • Louis 5.4

      “started out as a bit rumour mongering for the sake of it”

      No doubt by disgruntled National party leaning people who still cant get over the fact that National lost. They cant get the PM so attacked her partner instead. What happened with the unwritten rule of media leaving politicians partners out of it? Media people like D. Hill Cone and HdPA et al are part of the problem.

      • cleangreen 5.4.1

        National was the most to gain advantage from this negative media hype ‘dirty politics’ Loius.

        it follows the same ‘logic’ used by the UN/UK and NATO who put Russia under sanctions following the ‘alleged’ poisoning of a spy they used the logic that it was most likely to be Russia to blame, as they had more to gain than anyone else so we place the same logic on the National party for this latest round of “dirty politics” upon their political opposition the ruling Government of the Labour party.

        Sorry national supporters that shows logic national was most to gain here. so must have been involved in some way.

      • alwyn 5.4.2

        “No doubt by disgruntled National party leaning people”.
        Do you have any evidence at all for this claim? Or do you simply say you have “no doubt” because you don’t want to think about it?

        A lot of people, particularly in the Police Force, appeared to have “no doubt” that Arthur Allan Thomas murdered the Crewes. They had no evidence so they faked some, at least according to the enquiry into the affair.
        If everybody had simply taken your line I suppose Thomas would still be banged up inside.
        ps. I am using the UK rather than the Australian meaning of the term.

        • Nic the NZer 5.4.2.1

          I wonder if there is any important difference in context between,
          The police prosecuting and fabricating a conviction, and a commented accusation on a web site.
          No, probably we should always require exactly the same level of certainty and evidence for everything, always.

      • mary_a 5.4.3

        Louis (5.4) … Absolutely. Well said.

        And I do wonder if Clarke Gayford had not been the PM’s partner, whether he would have been viciously attacked in the cowardly way he has been, to get a hit on the PM and Labour. Somehow I think not, which leads me to think it’s political alright!

    • veutoviper 5.5

      Thanks for that, Anne.

      I was not going to read it but am now pleased that I did after reading your comment. Like you, I think she got it about right, particularly in focusing on the effect on Gayford himself as he – and this – seems to have been lost in the morass of other issues. Perhaps HdPA does have a bit of humanity after all.

      I do know what the rumours have been but have no intention of revealing these, as they have been callous and despicable from day one regardless of whom they have been about/applied to.

      In Gayford’s case, IMO they have been worse because they were aimed not just at him personally (and/or indirectly at JA and the Labour Party etc) but such rumours also highly affect his future professional career as someone in the public arena as a radio/TV host, MC etc – much more so than someone in a less public profession.

      • Anne 5.5.1

        I know from personal experience how much false rumour and innuendo can cost a person both in their professional and personal life. It is insidious and the fallout can continue for years afterwards. It can even become dangerous for the target’s life and limb as it did briefly for a time in my case. I was not a public figure so my experiences didn’t get into the public domain, but these types of individuals never give up – especially when they have someone like Donald Trump et al as role models.

        • Louis 5.5.1.1

          There is no denying that I’m as curious as hell, so I hope one day you will be able to write your story Anne, as it sounds like it is a story that needs to be told.

          • Anne 5.5.1.1.1

            It is a story of many parts..
            full of sound and fury..
            signifying nothing.. cos none of it was true. (apols to William Shakespeare)

            I suspect it had it’s genesis in my father who as a young British soldier many decades ago had a few interesting “adventures”.

        • veutoviper 5.5.1.2

          Exactly, Anne. Been there, done that too – re having had false rumour and innuendo personal experience and the personal costs, healthwise etc.

          And they are not giving up -KB still getting some triers and blubber now playing the victim not the perpetrator.

          Two weeks ago Hooton was posting stuff that suggested he was a perpetrator but then tried to say it was a joke … https://twitter.com/MatthewHootonNZ/status/989372028271538176

          Once the Police Commissioner statement came out he was OK with that but still reckoned it was a Labour Party attempt to smear the National Party (and supported Audrey Young’s comments re this).

          Now he is writing stuff about how bad rumour-mongering and innuendo is – and never believe political rumours. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12044553

          And supplementing it with this – https://twitter.com/MatthewHootonNZ/status/991969249596915717

          and this on Facebook

          How the worms are squirming…

    • I think that it has been handled as well as it could have been by media and by Ardern and Gayford – that Ardern referred to ‘dirty politics’ caused a bit of a stir, but I take it as meaning what was happening was dirty (it was), and it involved politics.

      The police statement raises questions about in what situations they might do that again, but it served a useful purpose, it debunked the worst rumour. Even if the rumour was detailed by media I think it more likely it would have reinforced sympathy for Gayford and Ardern.

      Some on the left have tried to claim it was a National plot, and some on the right have switched to claiming it was a Labour plot to divert, and to nail National, but I have seen zero evidence any political party was involved. Some individuals circulating the rumours may have supported a party or had some connection to a party, but I doubt very much it was party driven.

      Since the police statement spiked the main accusation attempts have been made to switch to promoting the ‘Streisand effect’, but that hasn’t got legs because the MSM haven’t published any details.

      And there have been attempts to promote the other ‘rumour’ I’ve heard which seems to be about supposed historic behaviour – this is also dirty, and if this is persisted with it could open a big can of worms – past behaviour, especially as it now easily recorded and later dredged up from the Internet, could be slung around at just about any MP.

      I have detailed some attempts to promote the rumours and attack Gayford:
      https://yournz.org/2018/05/06/a-record-of-some-rumourmongering/

      • Incognito 5.6.1

        Since the police statement spiked the main accusation attempts have been made to switch to promoting the ‘Streisand effect’, but that hasn’t got legs because the MSM haven’t published any details.

        Uhm, isn’t withholding the ‘juicy’ details actually promoting the Streisand effect!?

        • Pete George 5.6.1.1

          Only if the details get widely circulated as a result, but they haven’t, the MSM have not given the rumour promoters what they wanted.

          And most of those who have found out online are likely to to see it as fake accusations/smears.

          Since the police statement most in media are stating that there was no foundation, and even those intent on inflicting damage have dropped that (which suggests they knew it was false) and switched to other lines of attack.

          • Incognito 5.6.1.1.1

            You provided the answer I was looking for @ 5.7.1.

            The exact details of a rumour are not necessarily the most damaging and most certainly not enough to keep a story alive in MSM. Think of it as the dance of the seven veils or a series of which episodes end with cliff-hangers and whodunits; people keep coming back for more and add their own ‘facts’ and fantasies to it, often without realising it.

            All this leads to a heightened state of collective and individual confusion in which fake cannot be easily distinguished from reality. This further feeds and perpetuates the rumour mill and complicates and prolongs clearing people from ‘obviously’ false accusations/smears.

            The Police statement took the much-needed oxygen away from the rumour mill.

            MSM happily played along with keeping alive the rumour mill because it would have resulted in more clicks, etc. Did National speak out strongly against it and condemned it?

            • Pete George 5.6.1.1.1.1

              National Party leader Simon Bridges says he will not tolerate any of his MPs spreading rumours about politicians and their families.

              Bridges said Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford had his “heartfelt sympathy” after Police Commissioner Mike Bush and the Prime Minister responded to rumours and innuendo circulating about Gayford.

              Bridges said he spoke to his caucus yesterday after hearing continued rumours about Gayford.

              “This week I specifically made it clear that I will not tolerate National MPs peddling rumours or innuendo and I was specific in that being in relation to politicians, Members of Parliament and their families because these things are generally untrue,” he said.

              “I did not mention any specifics because I did not want to propagate it.”
              Bridges said he had not spoken to Ardern himself but he had asked his chief of staff to convey to Ardern’s chief of staff yesterday that National was not involved.

              Asked by the Herald if he was aware whether any of his MPs had been spreading rumours, Bridges said to the best of his knowledge none had been.

              “I do not believe the National Party is involved in this in any way.”

              Bridges said he had twice addressed caucus to set expectations about dealing with politicians’ families.

              “My heartfelt sympathy to the Prime Minister and Clarke Gayford. It is entirely unacceptable and politicians families should be left out of politics.”

              Bridges said if “dirty politics” was involved, it was not from the National Party.

              “If it is, I entirely strongly reject that.

              “I made my expectations to my Members of Parliament, when I heard and kept hearing these rumours, very clear.”

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12043574

              The only party leader to try and score political points off the story that I’ve seen is Winston Peters, in his usual style of implying without saying specifically who he thought might be responsible – insinuations without evidence.

              • Venezia

                I have not heard these rumours/innuendo/insinuations and neither has anyone I know. But given the history of Dirty Politics being run out of the ex PMs office and the evidence in Hagers book of key Nat MPs involvement, it is hard to believe the dirty politics machine has not been at it again. There is plenty of evidence WO has been targeting the PMs partner for months (see 5.6 above). The fact that there are various versions of the rumours would suggest attempts to try any which way to get publicity. And as HDPA says, the calls to the media to draw attention to them are just one part of the strategy. Disgusting.

              • McFlock

                Yes, Bridges had to tell his MPs not to spread reprehensible lies about their opponents’ families.

                Seriously, who the fuck needs to be told that?

              • Incognito

                Thank you; I no longer read the NZH and thus had not seen that.

                I could be wrong but it appears that this was a response from Simon Bridges after after the PM had mentioned dirty politics or Dirty Politics – hard to tell from a verbal account. In any case, it is hardly a condemning statement, is it? At least he didn’t go all sanctimonious like John Key holding his flock to “the highest standards”.

                I noticed that you cherry-picked the least interesting part of my comment 😉

                • I noticed that it was your only question.

                  I don’t think the MSM played along to keep the rumours alive. They seemed reluctant to give them what they craved, mainstream coverage. As it turned out I think the mostly got the balance right with the help of the police and the lawyer letter that exposed it but minimising the oxygen.

                  • Incognito

                    Interesting. So, you think the rumour mill was mostly driven and fed by social media? I mean until the statement signed off by the Police Commissioner it was not given the much-needed oxygen in and by MSM and they actively tried to quell the story?? I have some difficulty with this because there were many articles in MSM keeping it alive. But we don’t all have to agree on degree & extent, do we?

      • cleangreen 5.6.2

        1 – to Gayford/Ardern.. = zero -to Media/National.

    • patricia bremner 5.7

      Anne, I chanced on one tweet that was horrific, and if that is what they have been spreading it was evil.

      I wrote saying how strong the young couple have been, and good on the police for giving Clarke Gayford a Police Clearance.

      Further, HDA, and her husband and friends are trying to say “It grew out of gossip” because police and the law may well be doing a “timeline” which may prove uncomfortable for some I would think.

      Reading three recent articles including hers….. the new meme is “Just gossip” not “Dirty Politics”
      Tui Tui IMO. You can not play with dirt without getting dirty.

      • I think it likely started as dirty rumours and grew through embellishment and accumulating promoters, possibly in part organised by certain people, into a dirty campaign.

        • Anne 5.7.1.1

          That’s my assumption too. It probably started out fairly low key then the DP enablers got into the act and it took off…

    • Stuart Munro 5.8

      Duplicity is very determined to sell the line that the rumours were amateur.

      Let us have them investigated properly, and the identities of the perpetrators revealed, and we can determine to what extent that ‘pleasant fiction’ is true.

      • Anne 5.8.1

        Let us have them investigated properly, and the identities of the perpetrators revealed, and we can determine to what extent that ‘pleasant fiction’ is true.

        I agree it probably started out in a relatively minor way by a bunch of National supporters who couldn’t accept they lost an MMP election, but it was picked up by the pros and became an orchestrated tsunami of lies and innuendo.

        There has been sufficient evidence around since 2014 that a group of shadowy people have been fermenting mischief designed to destroy the Labour Party and using unlawful means to achieve their aims. The damage done is not only to the targets, but potentially to the democratic processes of the country.

        Remember Rawshark? He was the hero who outed the culprits to Hager and for their endeavours the police went after them. Now it’s time for the police to make amends and go after the culprits and leave the messengers alone. The SIS and the GCSB will know who they are. They should spill the beans.

  5. Observer Tokoroa 6

    Rumours are statements

    If defamatory statements have been made then a crime has been committed.
    In the case of Clarke Gayford his entire life and career was set to be savaged and ravaged.

    Those who rumoured and made statements about him should explain their behaviour in Court.

    I presume that Lawyers for Gayford will seek redress for this the most vile treatment ever thrown at a New Zealand citizen.

    Who will have gained from this crime ? certainly not Labour.

    One thing we do know: the truth will seep out. The persons who so blatantly wanted Clarke Gayford to be castrated will weep and whimper in court.

    I am not sure that the divine ZB stars, and the Herald scriblers, are totally clean. But they are rapidly finding ways to say “I’m innocent. Don’t blame me “.

    • Louis 6.1

      “But they are rapidly finding ways to say “I’m innocent. Don’t blame me “

      Yes, very telling that, like Deb Hill
      Cone’s back flip just prior to the release of the Police statement & lawyers letter.

      .

    • “If defamatory statements have been made then a crime has been committed.”

      Defamation is a civil matter, not criminal.

      Unless the rumours continue I think it will end here. Going to court is costly and can publicise what they are trying to shut down.

      • patricia bremner 6.2.1

        If the defamation included statements involving the Police being involved when clearly that is not the case??? What then???

        • Pete George 6.2.1.1

          Still civil – the police made it clear that as far as they were concerned there was no criminal investigation or charges.

          • Robert Guyton 6.2.1.1.1

            Let it go, Pete – release your grip – if you cut off the blood supply for too long, it’ll atrophy and drop off. Ease up, old chum, take a holiday, refresh, LET IT GO!

            • Pete George 6.2.1.1.1.1

              I think you’ve jumped in without thinking, again.

              Perhaps you could take note yourself of what you’ve ranted.

            • Bewildered 6.2.1.1.1.2

              Yuk a bit creepy Robert man of your age intercoursing with Pete on such matters

          • Observer Tokoroa 6.2.1.1.2

            Hi there Pete George

            The Police were so concerned at the viciousness of the “rumours” that they initiated a review of Clarke Gayford’s record.

            If in the the course of that they found that some persons were encouraging persons to get rid of Gayford – would that be a civil case ?

            Or are you unable to think that far ahead Pete ?

            Or, to put it another way: Do police have the authority and the duty of protecting citizens from harmful Criminals ?

            • Pete George 6.2.1.1.2.1

              Which crime? Harassment perhaps.

              The Harassment Act defines harassment as a pattern of behaviour (two or more separate acts within a 12-month period) directed at someone which makes that person feel distressed or unsafe.

              For example if someone is harassing you they might be:

              – watching, loitering near, or preventing or hindering access to or from your place of residence, business, employment, or any other place that you go to
              – following, stopping, or confronting you
              – entering, or interfering with, your property
              – making contact with you (by phone, email etc.) when you don’t want them to
              – giving you offensive material, leaving it where you will find it (e.g. online)
              – acting in any way that causes you to fear for your safety, and would cause any reasonable person in the same situation to fear for their safety

              What’s the difference between civil and criminal harassment?

              The main difference between the two is the intention of the harasser and the consequences for them.

              If the harasser’s intention is to make you fear for your safety or that of your family, and they know that their actions are likely to achieve this aim, this is called “criminal” harassment and is a criminal offence. This means the harasser can be arrested and could be given a sentence of up to two years in prison.

              If the harasser is causing you fear or distress unintentionally, this is known as “civil” harassment. Civil harassment is not a criminal offence.

              http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/gl/laws/Pages/Harassment.aspx

              I think that ‘fear for your safety’ is quite a high bar.

      • Stuart Munro 6.2.2

        It’s a curiosity of the Gayford rumours, that though they were uncivil, their object was clearly political.

        I look forward to some competent journo or one of the many armed forces and police personnel equipped with Palantir tracking down and exposing those responsible – not to defend Clarke’s sensibilities, but to defend our democratic institutions from a malicious incursion.

        • cleangreen 6.2.2.1

          100% Stuart,

          The intelligence can track this and find the people responsible and we will expect this of them as I worked for a global communication company in the 1990’s and there are methods to track where any activities can be looked back to where they originated, so the tools are there for the police to call on when they wish.

    • Bewildered 6.3

      “Who will have gained from this crime”

      It is a common observation that overuse of the cui bono? (“who benefits?”) style of thinking leads to conspiracy theories. They appeal strongly to people who desire to feel special, according to research by Roland Imhoff, a German social psychologist. Joseph Uscinski,

      • McFlock 6.3.1

        However, it also provides a better explanation than “I’m too busy to read my own website” for why Farrar left defamatory comments up on his blog until the media approached him about it.

        • Pete George 6.3.1.1

          It is a huge task monitoring and moderating a blog. Farrar has a hands off approach, relying on reporting, but those who attack don’t report themselves obviously.

          It’s long been an issue at KB. I did a bit of confronting new claims there yesterday (Labour conspiracy) and instead of providing evidence I knew there would be none) the rest of the day was spent attacking. It’s at least as bad as ever and I’ve experienced a lot there over the years (rarely do now).

          Farrar is taking a big legal risk. He also damages his credibility and reputation (or doesn’t repair it), and through association makes National an easy target too.

          • McFlock 6.3.1.1.1

            It’s his operation. Fuck him if he can’t be bothered to monitor what goes on with his site.

            And if those comments were up for that long, then none of his regular readers chose to “report” defamation. Says a lot about his clientele, and the need for him to do his job.

            But it sounds similar to John Banks, who ISTR failed to knowingly sign a false statement through the cunning artifice of not knowing what the statement said.

            I suppose the “I’m too lazy or stupid to do my job properly” defense will be seen again from the tory machine.

      • AB 6.3.2

        “overuse of the cui bono? (“who benefits?”) style of thinking leads to conspiracy theories”
        And underuse of it leads to inanity.

      • Observer Tokoroa 6.3.3

        Hi Bewildered

        I think along with overuse of “who benefits” is the child like ready answer of the majority of human beings.

        We lay blame or praise depending on our personal feelings. Not on rational logic.

        That is because Logic is not taught in school. Hence we end up with all sorts of non sequiturs.

        In the case of Clarke Gaylord, there are four persons at the core. One is the Leader of the Opposition. Two is the Prime Minister. Three is Clarke Gaylord. Four is the Police

        The Police were alerted to all sorts of very evil aspersions against Clarke. Those aspersions grew rapidly over an unknown period. More and more.

        The Police, without consulting anybody but themselves, went through their records on Clarke and found no negative entry. Clarke was free of any crime.

        So The Prime Minister, Jacinda Adern being the Partner of Clarke Gaylord was unlikely to have run up all the vile untrue “rumours” about Clarke. She had been with him for some years.

        That left just one other key area of interest. Namely, The Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges. He would be well and truly aware of John Key’s cabal of Smut managers and Destroyers managed within the Beehive and beyond. For 9 years.

        John Key’s nick name was the Silent Assassin. Although I don’t know why, because unlike Trump he worked through others.

        You can make up your own mind, but the The Country Women’s Association is unlikely to have attempted to castrate Clarke Gaylord. Nor the Good Sisters of the Poor.

        Most Likely, Enthusiasts have tried to rub Clarke out. Thereby taking Jacinda the PM out. Leaving National and their strong Media supporters very very pleased. National are highly skilled in this arena.

        • Pete George 6.3.3.1

          “In the case of Clarke Gaylord, there are four persons at the core. ”

          Nope. There is no public evidence of either Labour or National conspiracies that have been claimed.

          You have left out Whale Oil, who has run nasty attack posts targeting both Ardern and Gayford since last September/October, and continuing, including a still running (today) daily smear.

          There have also been veiled references to the rumour in posts (still up) and open and hint references to the rumours in comments (some have been deleted after this weeks legal fright).

          Slater has been seen as toxic in most National circles since Dirty Politics exposed him.

          I haven’t see any evidence that Slater has done anything beyond WO.

          However I have good reason to believe that someone who has had close links to Slater in the past (they have both been involved in attempted legal hits on me) has tried to spread Gayford rumours.

          But there are obviously others involved to some extent, eg on Twitter. And on Kiwiblog. And there’s a horrible website who has been making outlandish accusations for years that has been pushing fake rumours.

        • Bewildered 6.3.3.2

          Or it simply a malicious rumour that got legs as a result of Clarke profile; it’s happened before re a certain Ab rumour comes to mind,with today’s trolls, social media ; celebrity profile it’s does not take long for news to travel and morph very quickly; just look at social media bulling at the teenage level, not a stretch to see such extrapolating to a national level in regard to network effect This to me from a balance of probability and rationale level is far more likely than a
          Grand centrally controlled conspiracy

      • Gabby 6.3.4

        They sound like a couple of plonkers beewee. They work with Jason Evil?

    • mary_a 6.4

      Observer Tokoroa (6) … yes jumping off the “Not me” mark far too quickly to claim innocence IMO. Why say anything at all, if not involved?

      • Observer Tokoroa 6.4.1

        Yes Mary-a

        I do not think we have as a nation realised just how shocking this assualt on Clarke Gayford has been.

        Simon Bridges is clambering away every otherday that it was unbeknown to him. He says he has told his mighty team of midgets not to do nasty things.

        Given that John Key spent 9 years doing seriously dirty stuff against persons he hated, it is good of Simon to clean up some of the mess. Bill English never fixed anything that we know of.

        However, I guess it will take many moons to clean up national. Not one of them has studied the word – Honesty. Another word they choke on Humility. It makes them giggle.

        Some of us think they have shot themselves in their whatisname this time.

        • cleangreen 6.4.1.1

          100% Observer Tokoroa;

          we should remember who has actually been found to use ‘dirty politics’ mostly over the last 9yrs?

          Read Nicky Hargar’s book “Dirty Politics” to get that answer.

          • Observer Tokoroa 6.4.1.1.1

            Thanks Clean Green
            I congratulate you on the rebuild of the East Coast Rail! Marvellous!

            Honourable men and women do not use dishonesty and outright lies to destroy any persons reputation.

            Dirty Politics will continue to give third degree burns to the National Caucus for some time to come. Not only that, the main Media are heavily intertwined with the Key / English / Collins /Farar/ Slater / Ede / Hooton – combo.

  6. greywarshark 7

    Noon Radionz news – Environment Minister David Parker announced that the pressure on the land and waterways by farmers overstocking will be managed by measuring the leachate from farm pollution and legislating this down. The largest way to carry this forward will be by farmers reducing stock numbers. Government will not pay compensation for this implementation.

    (I can’t find any printed report of this on RadionzRNZ 1 hour after hearing report but there is info of car fire in Dunedin carpark. Our news broadcaster is still addicted to sensation stuff.)

    But read SCOOP:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1805/S00065/qa-minister-david-parker-interviewed-by-corin-dann.htm

    I was thinking that those not farming efficiently will probably find that the results of less stock will be balanced out by not having to buy imported feed, not have sickness passed on from stock held in close overstocking, less fertiliser required, less pollution ponds or whatever they use to try and reduce runoff. It’s just time for some of the large industrial off-farm owners to up their game, and for casual she’ll be right farmers who are trying to cash in on the white oil and running bigger entities than they can effectively and willingly manage.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/environment/351845/oxford-research-director-calls-for-nz-farming-sustainability

    And here is grizzle from 12/4/2018 by Gnashional about irrigation FYI.
    (Note Richard Tindiller’s malicious choice of photo showing Damien Connor with his mouth skewed – seems like a deliberately provocative choice of image from a number he would have snapped.)
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/country/354912/national-takes-swipe-at-govt-over-axeing-irrigation-schemes

    After mismanagement (no management) of rural matters by Gnashional for years, Labour needs to keep in mind the pressure that small farmers have been under while they have been played like pawns on a chessboard. Money is needed in the rural areas by them, to assist them recover, make changes etc.

    Labour please extend your help to the farmers trying to manage from the waves of change and toothy-grinning johnnies selling packages that are sure-fire modernising systems, which have shown increasing failure of promise.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/country/355310/rural-mental-health-service-to-end-after-funding-shortfall

    Last is what many probably know. Bill English gets job with huge Australian corporate that owns NZ businesses. (It started off as a farmer co-op over there.)
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/356412/bill-english-joins-board-of-australia-retail-giant
    Mr English has been appointed to the board of the retail giant Wesfarmers, which owns KMart, Bunnings Warehouse and Target, among many other businesses and is one of Australia’s largest listed companies.

    In a board announcement to the Australian stock exchange, Wesfarmers’ chairman Michael Chaney says he’s pleased with the appointment, given Mr English’s experience and Wesfarmers’ extensive interests in New Zealand.
    The retail giant started life as a farming cooperative in Western Australian in 1914.

    • Nic the NZer 7.1

      Mr English still working in the Farming sector, as for his whole career, I see.

    • Graeme 7.2

      Nutrient run-off monitoring has been underway for some time, even under the past National government. Although it is done by Regional Councils rather than at a Government level and may not be that consistent around the country. And the process has certainly got the attention of farmers. A large farm I do work on has a monitoring programme with regular water sampling and a fencing programme to keep the station’s stock away from the rivers.

      How the Regional Councils would get on once it comes to enforcement could be interesting, and this may have something to do with what David Parker is saying. Legislation might make enforcement a lot simpler.

  7. greywarshark 8

    Graeme
    What you say is an indication of the way that not having a level playing field because of uneven monitoring and enforcement is slowing down improvements in limiting run off for the whole country. We may not even know how many farmers are not complying with regulations, or whether the stats provided are factual. The few that are doing well may be held up to indicate what all are doing, while others dawdle or avoid.

    And many of the rural councils will be stacked by the local farmers being the majority sector, and they are likely to have family connections, who won’t follow the law. The councillors may even keep to the law themselves but be unable to persuade their relatives and friends to sharpen up. And then there are the out of towners, or overseas absentee landlords who have big money, and just put their fingers to their noses!

    It needs outsiders bringing an objective overview, and also to set up an exemplar area that others can be measured against so that there is competition and a desire to not be at the bottom of a league table.

    • Graeme 8.1

      Concur totally grey.

      I have a bit of contact with the technical side of our Regional Council with the water schemes I manage and have found them well meaning but woefully under resourced, both financially and intellectually. They also seem totally subservient to consultants, generally the applicant’s.

      The deemed permit renewal process can best be described as a moving target and I’m glad my schemes are on consents and I won’t be directly involved.

      Reform of the Regional Councils is urgently required, maybe with either a unitary approach or their environmental functions coming under a Ministry.

      • Venezia 8.1.1

        “Reform of the Regional Councils is urgently required, maybe with either a unitary approach or their environmental functions coming under a Ministry.”

        I totally agree Graeme.

  8. Draco T Bastard 9

    The RWNJs are, of course, blaming this on Jacinda Ardern and the new government:

    A modified tanker carrying illegal migrants headed for New Zealand and Australia as part of a human trafficking operation has been intercepted by Malaysian police.

    “This syndicate has been operating since mid-2017 and has international connections across Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and Malaysia.”

    We must accept that this was always going to happen and that it’s going to get worse. At some point in the not too distant future we will be closing our borders the same way that Australia has.

    We simply don’t have the room or the resources to simply take everyone who will try to get here.

  9. Morrissey 10

    SHAME.

    Another distorted New York Times report on Gaza focuses on ‘blazing kites’ instead of Israeli snipers….

    http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/05/05/der-sturmer-times-strikes-again/

    • Incognito 11.1

      Agreed!

      Is it just me or is the responsible Minister mostly missing in action?

      • eco maori 11.1.1

        Good Morning the Am Show Duncan I agree with Denis O’Relly lets get gangs working if you are working you are to busy to get in trouble its not rocket science China makes sure that most of there citizens are working or they would have problems with there unemployed. I see were this is coming from??????????’
        What Stormy Daniels said was hard case I no you don’t believe in climate change but a storm is coming.
        Amanda I say the best system was Ngtai Ruawaipu all of my tipunas actions were guided by sustainability if there choices were going to affect the sustainability of the Hapu in a negative way than that path was not taken hence we are here today.
        I would not take my mokopunas to a Restaurant unless it was designed to have mokopunas a play area for them mokopunas need constants entertainment .
        Here we go Count Down Super Markets is taking the lead and starting 10 of there Super Markets plastic bag free for there shoppers Many thanks to Count Down Supper Markets starting the trend we have seen All the plastic waste poisoning OUR Wild life and Environment hears the link.

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/103623308/countdown-chooses-10-supermarkets-to-go-plastic-bag-free-rest-to-follow P.S Eco Maori says us green Tangata should support Count Down with this Brave move.
        I agree with Chris Trotter statement Duncan about the gangs are being used as a attack on Maori Mana they just have not figured that phenomenon out the powers that be don’t want to shear the Mana of Aotearoa with Maori this I see.
        Thanks for the ——– I have plenty of hair at the minute .Ki Kaha Maori Tangata .
        Ka kite ano

        • eco maori 11.1.1.1

          If McDonalds Family Restaurants were serious about Te Tangata health they would drop there machines that cause Tooth decay and Obesity in te Mokopunas
          and serve non sugar refreshments like water the soft drinks machines make the mokopunas want more sugar on there other foods like weat bix ect
          Ka kite ano

          • greywarshark 11.1.1.1.1

            What ecomaori says:
            I agree with Denis O’Relly lets get gangs working if you are working you are to busy to get in trouble its not rocket science ,

            I remember a story of someone visiting a town that had been badly hit by business closures. He was driven through the main streets by the local cop who was greeted with a wave by various young men on building sites and in workshops. The policeman said ‘See those guys, they were all going through the Court till recently – in trouble because they had no jobs, nothing to keep them occupied. Look at them now, happy to be working and with earned money in their pockets.”

            I hope Shane can pull it off. He can do it if anyone can get things moving for the regions and the young Maori who want some structure in their life, a job with wages that to rely on and get home, his or her living and personal life on track.

          • eco maori 11.1.1.1.2

            Good evening Newshub I heard a bit of bazzing noise .
            Mike Ruaumoko looks so beautiful at night thats Papatuanuku recycling her self in Hawaii.
            Many thanks Marama Davidson and the Green party for pushing for REO to be compulsory subject Ka pai e hoa Mana wahine I have changed my views on this subject as I see more of Maoris reality Eco Maori wants all mokopuna to learn Te reo . Ka kite ano P.S I see a lot of evidence that the STATE never admits they are wrong ???????? When one has manuhiri you all ways treat them with respect

            • eco maori 11.1.1.1.2.1

              The Crowd Goes Wild
              Jonelle Prices win at the Badminton on that amasing Mare Molly what a beautiful horse Mana Wahine .
              Mulls I watched a bit of soccer on the weekend my mokopuan she was playing on a bigger field than she use to she kicked a boy he started crying and that put her off her game a bit it was a draw 1 all.
              That was a good conversion it gave me a sore face .
              It was a good weekend of sports for Eco Maori .
              Ka kite ano

  10. greywarshark 12

    All women and men who want respect and freedom between all humans will want to say a small prayer of mourning for this 16 year old woman and her family.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/356785/key-arrest-in-india-over-girl-burned-alive

    It will be interesting to see what the Indian police do about this outrageous killing. In a society that has such lax attitudes towards harm to females and perhaps to different classes, the death penalty carried out in a proper, quick and clean manner may be needed to respond to this extreme hostility to decent and good citizens.

    Dhanu Bhuiyan and his accomplices are accused of burning the 16-year-old alive on Friday in the state of Jharkhand.

    She was killed after her parents complained to village elders that she had been raped, according to police.

    The elders had told two accused rapists to do 100 sit-ups and pay a 50,000 rupee ($NZ1060) fine as punishment.

    The power held by elders in villages that hold them in an era of vicious and oppressive cruelty to women, must be cut out by the roots in the same determined way that thuggism was last century.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    1 week ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago