Open mike 06/06/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 6th, 2016 - 331 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

331 comments on “Open mike 06/06/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    6 June 2016 at 8:08 am

    Switzerland heavily votes down the UBI proposal. But this debate will continue, as below:

    http://qz.com/699739/why-switzerlands-universal-basic-income-referendum-matters-even-though-failed/

    • b waghorn 1.1
      6 June 2016 at 8:44 am

      I’ve been giving some thought to what effect a ubi would have had on my lifestyle a few years ago when I owned a small block of land and worked as a casual shepherd/rural roustabout.
      It would deffinatly have made it a more comfortable way of living as in sheepnbeef farming there is 3 months of flat out a couple of months ether side that are steady then the winter is a struggle to get casual work.
      This scenario would also fit with shearers , possum hunters and orchard workers .
      So I think a ubi could possible revitalize rural nz.

      • weka 1.1.1
        6 June 2016 at 9:56 am

        I’ve heard arguments that a UBI would be good for farmers/agricultural workers too. Makes a lot of sense.

        • infused 1.1.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 12:15 pm

          It’s always good when someone else pays for it.

          • weka 1.1.1.1.1
            6 June 2016 at 12:17 pm

            that only makes sense if you see your fellow citizens as ‘other’.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2
            6 June 2016 at 1:27 pm

            Nobody else is paying for it. In fact, the UBI would have to become the monetary injection that the economy needs to function. The fact is that the government already does this through the complex and occult banking system. Doing it through a UBI just makes it transparent that the government is funding the entire economy.

            • Cricklewood 1.1.1.1.2.1
              6 June 2016 at 2:03 pm

              It’s the framing that makes it unpopular.
              How but this? Instead of stimulus for banks to lend, ubi for the people to spend.

              I think it essentially sums up the difference between austerity and stimulus.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                6 June 2016 at 2:10 pm

                It’s the framing that makes it unpopular.

                Yes which is why the RWNJs always focus on it costing and ignore that it would actually be funding.

              • McFlock …
                6 June 2016 at 10:07 pm

                well, the “framing” and the fact that the math is still largely based on hand-waving.

                Which is why things like the Finnish experiment are important: it replaces the hand-waving with hard data.

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.3
            6 June 2016 at 4:54 pm

            It’s always good when someone else pays for it.

            This money will quickly end up in the pockets of business owners, retailers and land lords. Why do you see that as being a problem?

            • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.3.1
              6 June 2016 at 7:18 pm

              So not employees, then.

              • Colonial Viper …
                6 June 2016 at 7:28 pm

                *Shrug*

                If you can’t see how more money entering the economy will benefit you and your extended family even if most of you are PAYE employees, you aren’t using enough imagination.

                • Lanthanide …
                  6 June 2016 at 9:19 pm

                  You seem to be imaging a world where employees get pay rises.

                  We’ve already seen that rises in productivity have not flowed through to workers pay packets for the past 30 years, why are you imagining it’s suddenly going to start happening now?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    6 June 2016 at 9:30 pm

                    structural change to the economy Lanth. Massive structural change of which a NZ UBI of ~$115pw will play its role. Another one will be that of a guaranteed job. Another one will be private sector worker co-ops. Another one will be worker directors on every company board.

                    Shall I keep going.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      6 June 2016 at 10:40 pm

                      Right, so when you were saying that the UBI would put money into employees pockets, what you actually meant is the UBI + a whole suite of other unspecified policies would put money into employees pockets.

                      I think you can see why it was confusing, when you talk about A but really mean A + B + C + D + E.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 June 2016 at 11:14 pm

                      Hey Lanth I’ve had enough of these discussions with you today.

                      I’m also sick of two percenters who are too comfortable with the status quo while the other 98% of us try to make some headway through the emerging crises.

      • greywarshark 1.1.2
        6 June 2016 at 10:21 am

        bwaghorn
        That sounds a good idea in the case you put. In the days when work was to be found seasonal workers could go from one job when it finished for the season to another, being in work most of the time, and able to maintain their families the whole year. Now with the economy shrunken and skewed, apparently this can’t be done. The worker wealth generators have been stripped of their opportunities to be self-supporting and a sufficient UBI would sustain them between seasons.

        • b waghorn 1.1.2.1
          6 June 2016 at 10:29 am

          It may also reduce acc claims , as I used to know a shearer who get a” back injury “a few weeks before the end of main shear more than once.
          And I knew him well enough to know his back was fine.

    • AmaKiwi 1.2
      6 June 2016 at 9:03 am

      Here is a much shorter and succinct article about the Swiss Universal Basic Income vote from a Swiss perspective.

      “The campaigners failed to present a convincing funding scheme for their proposal. But they managed to launch a broad debate about an unconditional basic income,” says senior political scientist Claude Longchamp.”

      http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/vote-june-6_basic-income-plan-awaits-voters-verdict/42200378

      My opinion: Yes, economic inequality is at intolerable levels. Yes, modern welfare systems have failed. No, you can’t go off half-cocked with radical proposals that have not been thought through. In NZ, turning over such vast power to elected dictators is insane. The Swiss have binding citizen initiated referendums to control their parliamentarians. Here they fuck us over and we are powerless to stop them.

      NZ political reform must precede UBI. What a nightmare to have UBI under Prime Minister Judith Collins, PM Stephen Joyce, or PM Paula Bennett!

      • greywarshark 1.2.1
        6 June 2016 at 10:08 am

        Amakiwi
        +100

        • AmaKiwi 1.2.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 11:45 am

          Thanks, Greywarshark.

          I was thinking about news headlines from the future. Try this one on.

          “Newly elected PM Joyce, Collins, or Bennett has just announced changes to reduce the cost of UBI. To stop people cheating by collecting the UBI from multiple addresses, the UBI will only be paid to people who can prove they own their own home. Everyone else will require an implanted microchip to collect.”

          “Serco has promised they can insert and monitor the chips painlessly.”

          “The Nats coalition partner, NZ First, has also demanded the UBI will only be paid to NZ citizens, not people with Permanent Resident Visas.”

          • greywarshark 1.2.1.1.1
            6 June 2016 at 12:16 pm

            Amakiwi
            +1
            We can but try. though.

            I have just been looking at the story of the escapees in WW2 who were led over high mountain passes in southern France to Spain where they also had to elude the authorities who would send them to concentration camps. I think that about 5,000 people were saved after a rigorous trek. They hold a commemorative numbers of walks there n July each year and now with better conditions it still takes four days.
            http://www.seniorwomen.com/news/index.php/the-freedom-trail-world-war-ii-escape-route-over-the-pyrenees
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_line

            Many of the passeurs? and no doubt their families were captured, tortured, shot, sent to concentration camps. They were so brave they were so committed to doing their bit against a foul system, they were heroes. And now they aren’t even mentioned in our rituals of remembrance. But they did what they could and laid their lives on the line. When things get desperate, more determination is required. At present just keeping on with trying to better policies and practices requires determination.

            I think we must remember that we can’t hope for great advances, but to get a number of small ones can make much difference. We can only keep trying. I do think that the people in charge here and of the world have become foul and uncaring. The reason for this is being unveiled by various studies and research on human behaviour that is being quoted on TS. We will find a way to lessen this and perhaps eventually stop it, and end this cold war against the people. There is no magic bullet, only incremental changes can still make a huge difference. When we have very little, like nothing, a small amount of help and betterment is 100% improvement.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2
        6 June 2016 at 2:16 pm

        Yes, we need to become a democracy rather than the elected dictatorship that we are now.

    • mauī 1.3
      6 June 2016 at 9:42 am

      The vote was:
      23% For
      77% Against

      • OneTrack 1.3.1
        6 June 2016 at 8:42 pm

        77% of the people didn’t want to have to fund a permanent vacation for the 23%?

    • The lost sheep 1.4
      6 June 2016 at 10:02 am

      Meanwhile, In Finland….
      The preliminary report published at the end of March concluded that a full UBI would be ‘quite expensive’, and recommended a ‘consolidation of the current system of basic economic security into a partial basic income’, on the grounds it would ‘consolidate many of the existing benefits offering basic economic security, while earnings-related benefits would remain largely unaffected’

      As I pointed out some time ago, The Finnish Govt. is actively seeking to reduce Govt. spending, and so it is no surprise that the reports recommendations would appear to achieve that aim….

      ‘According to Roope Mokka, the founder of the Nordic thinktank Demos Helsinki, the Finnish experiment, which will take place in 2017, is likely to involve a maximum of 180,000 Finns being paid a basic income of €500 to €700 a month – considerably less than the average Finnish income of €2,700.
      Given that Finland’s welfare state is comparable to that of other Scandinavian economies, introducing a universal basic income model similar to that used in Kela’s experiment would involve shrinking the country’s social security spending, which currently stands at about 31% of GDP.

      • McFlock 1.4.1
        6 June 2016 at 5:21 pm

        Your italicised quote does not match your link, and seems to have come from a Guardian article from late last week rather than being anything that you “pointed out”.

        • North 1.4.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 7:29 pm

          And that sort of false claim to rare skills typifies your prosaic RWNJ master/mistress of the universe……not unlike
          that superbly macho
          former All Black captain
          ‘Johnno’ Key……having regard to the composition of the latest
          honours list.

          • North 1.4.1.1.1
            6 June 2016 at 7:44 pm

            Anyone running a book on the prospects of the “unknown visitor” (think Nelson Mandela memorial in SA) jetting
            off with Prince Max in
            RNZ Air Force One to
            gatecrash officiations in Louisville KY ? Must call
            David Slack. He would
            know.

        • The lost sheep 1.4.1.2
          6 June 2016 at 7:56 pm

          Yes the quote was reported in The Guardian….so?

          Don’t you have anything to actually say about it?
          Or the Finnish report on UBI?

          • North 1.4.1.2.1
            6 June 2016 at 8:10 pm

            Not to a dog like you ! You’d only come back with masturbatory protestations of love for Dear Leader.

          • McFlock 1.4.1.2.2
            6 June 2016 at 8:40 pm

            I’ll be interested to see the results of the experiment.

            But your plagiarism is there for all to see, fucko.

            • The lost sheep 1.4.1.2.2.1
              6 June 2016 at 9:09 pm

              Masturbatory dog? Fucko?

              Good to see you boys doing your bit to raise the level of debate around here.

  2. b waghorn 2
    6 June 2016 at 8:30 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/80766241/jane-bowron-whatever-happened-to-interviewing-politicians

    I can imagine this fine reporter will be buying her own drinks at the next get together.

    • Rodel 2.1
      6 June 2016 at 9:20 am

      Yes! A great column worth a read. How long before she too gets Campbellized?

    • Paul 2.2
      6 June 2016 at 9:32 am

      Superb article.
      I think she understates the deliberate level of political bias in the media. There is the click bait ratings aspect, but there is also the placement of National party yes men in key positions. Henry, Hosking, Griffin come to mind.
      It feels like we are living in a one party state, where the Dear Leaders’ propagandists tell us over and over again that we live in a paradise.

      • Gangnam Style 2.2.1
        6 June 2016 at 9:58 am

        Wow indeed, no holds barred there!

        Esp loved this bit “Even on RNZ’s Checkpoint with John Campbell, the honourable host who erected a shame wall for the relentless no show of politicians on Campbell Live, has to engage in obsequious Uriah Heepisms to effusively thank any politician so very, very much voicing his deep appreciation for their taking the time to grant him with their presence. The implied sarcasm isn’t lost on some as journalists have been reduced to being terrible grateful for any rare sighting of a politician.”

    • ianmac 2.3
      6 June 2016 at 10:15 am

      Jane nailed it. Fiji does it too or not as subtle as the National grip. What to do about it?

      • b waghorn 2.3.1
        6 June 2016 at 10:17 am

        Keep calling it out in public forums and hope the next government backs a free press.

    • ianmac 2.4
      6 June 2016 at 10:26 am

      The video clips in Jane’s story are defaulted on my computer. Anyone else?

      • whispering kate 2.4.1
        6 June 2016 at 10:54 am

        I am waiting for him to bring back the cardboard cutouts seated with him as he chats with the absent pollies. Yes, he does subtle sarcasm very subtle indeed.

        • North 2.4.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 8:02 pm

          It’s poor Campbell’s insurance against a second crucifixion. I do wish Bowron would lay off HDP-A’s cocktail party grimace though. The ‘work’ she endured to achieve such risibleness did not come cheap !

      • ianmac 2.4.2
        6 June 2016 at 10:57 am

        Switched from Firefox to Chrome. OK.

  3. Paul 3
    6 June 2016 at 8:31 am

    Climate change now having significant impacts, inequality soaring, homelessness at record rates and the Herald thinks this is news.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11651328

    • mary_a 3.1
      6 June 2016 at 9:35 am

      Thanks Paul (3). Again you have made a good point, as most of your posts do. Keep them coming.

      God Almighty, what has this country come down to when a bloody parrot might hold information to a murder, is considered important news, considering what else is going on in NZ??!!

      Thanks msm, the standards of which, are really dredging the sewers now!

      • Paul 3.1.1
        6 June 2016 at 9:46 am

        Anything to keep people from questioning what’s happening to the country and the world.
        Jane Bowron’s article referred to by b waghorn at 2 is good.

        • mary_a 3.1.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 9:55 am

          Paul (3.1.1) and here’s another thought provoking, stimulating news item from NZH this morning, while far too many Kiwi families doing it hard are being totally ignored by most msm networks …

          http://spy.nzherald.co.nz/spy-news/is-this-max-keys-new-girl/

          Yes, Jane Bowron’s article is an excellent piece of journalism. Now that is news. Not the crap being dished up by msm to divert our attention away from the stinking sh*t hole NZ has become!

      • greywarshark 3.1.2
        6 June 2016 at 10:04 am

        mary a
        Well I think that parrot, if it can give info on a murder, is an important witness and should be caged if it is inclined to be flighty till it is worn out from its long squawks. I have heard of stool pigeons but a perspicacious parrot is definitely novel and news.

    • mary_a 3.2
      6 June 2016 at 9:41 am

      And here is another one Paul (3). Headlines on Stuff this morning …

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/80772197/monkey-in-india-robs-jewellery-store-in-broad-daylight

      Give me strength!!

      • Paul 3.2.1
        6 June 2016 at 9:53 am

        Yup, heaps of examples of how corrupt the media has become.
        Topping the Herald’s online news at the moment.
        ‘Bar stool thrown at robbers.’
        http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11651024

        Clearly a more important issue than the disappearing ice in the Arctic.
        Or the homeless of New Zealand.

        The media is complicit in the crimes being undertaken against the poor and against the planet.
        They will be held accountable.

  4. Herodotus 4
    6 June 2016 at 9:27 am

    Those who are at a loose end today should check this out. I only stumbled across this over the weekend. (If you have lightbox) Mr. Robot . Especialy if you can elate to the occupy Wall Street a few years ago.
    Co staring a Mr C.Slater. ….No not that one
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Robot_(TV_series)
    Mr. Robot has received widespread acclaim from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has a rating of 98% with an average score of 8.3 out of 10 based on 55 reviews.[69] It set a record on Rotten Tomatoes as the only show to earn perfect episode scores for an entire season since the site began tracking television episodes.[70] The site’s consensus reads: “Mr. Robot is a suspenseful cyber-thriller with timely stories and an intriguing, provocative premise.”[69] On Metacritic, the first season scored 79 out of 100 based on 23 reviews, indicating “generally favorable reviews”….
    Mr. Robot made several critics’ list for the best TV shows of 2015. Three critics, Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly, Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone, and the staff of TV Guide, named it the best show of the year. The series also placed second on the list from three other critics, and was named among of the best of the year from four other critics

    • Molly 4.1
      6 June 2016 at 9:32 am

      Agree. Watched the first couple of episodes and really enjoyed them. Had to stop when the content became a bit too x-rated for the youngest, but will get around to the rest when they are not watching.

    • Gangnam Style 4.2
      6 June 2016 at 9:53 am

      Loved Mr Robot, the lead guy is so…odd. Just watching something new called Cleverman, Australian weirdo sci-fi TV series that takes a swipe at racism & asylum seekers. Looks really interesting so far. Also nice to hear other accents other than english/american.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleverman

    • Ad 4.3
      6 June 2016 at 9:59 am

      It’s a good fantasy.

      Well written and a nice Robin Hood renewal.

      But just a fantasy – one that glorifies schizophrenia, and pretends that some dude with a keyboard can effectively hand out free lotto tickets to everyone.

      The meat-world people who try to undo the world of banking or of large government control are roasted alive.

      There’s more real hope in maleficent states undoing the parts of the banking world that act against them.

      • weka 4.3.1
        6 June 2016 at 12:23 pm

        It’s not ‘just’ a fantasy, it’s fantasy/SF. Whose purposes are many but rarely are intended to be ‘real’ in the way you imply. I’m pretty sure you understand the value of a good story Ad, so why the downer?

    • Jones 4.4
      6 June 2016 at 10:11 am

      Brilliant show. Just onto the final episode now… the series has been captivating. Love the oddity of the lead… makes everything more real. And they way he’s written puts the audience is in his head and part of him… can’t help but share his emotions.

  5. greywarshark 5
    6 June 2016 at 9:51 am

    Everyone should take note of this guy I heard this morning. “They are just mad.”
    This man speaking on RadioNZ has thought his way through our present world economic debacle, and is able to explain it in words we can understand. Talks about, explains, uber and such.

    Colonial Viper has probably read it, Draco T Bastard would say ‘What have I been telling you all this time’, Robert Guyton would say ‘I and my compatriots are now developing what Rushkoff sees as the major way forward for forward-thinking people.’

    Media theorist, professor, and graphic novelist Douglas Rushkoff’s been in love with the internet since its cyberpunk beginnings.
    He is speaking at the Open Science, Open Source? conference in NZ in August.

    (Remember what our Bruce Jesson wrote decades ago. (The intense effort he put in challenging and winning against the neo lib steamroller probably led to his death.)
    Only their Purpose is Mad by Bruce Jesson – maorinews.com
    maorinews.com/writings/books/jesson.htm
    Book Review: “Only Their Purpose is Mad, The Money Men Take Over NZ”
    by Bruce Jesson, Dunmore, Palmerston North, 1999. The book opens with a clear …)

    09:05 How to fix the digital economy: Douglas Rushkoff
    Douglas Rushkoff book
    Media theorist, professor, and graphic novelist Douglas Rushkoff’s been in love with the internet since its cyberpunk beginnings.

    But in his latest book, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity, he explains how the digital economy failed to live up to its promise – and how we could still fix it. MIT named him the world’s sixth most influential thinker, and he has written more than a dozen bestselling books – and made several documentaries – about media, technology, and culture.

    He is Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics at CUNY/Queens in New York, and is speaking at the Open Source Open Society conference in New Zealand in August. Talk to him on Twitter.

    And here’s an interesting study of Dick Smith by a crowd called foragerfunds which
    calls itself Bristlemouth. Sounds spiky. Note the dramatic title! Sounds like a good read.
    https://foragerfunds.com/bristlemouth/dick-smith-is-the-greatest-private-equity-heist-of-all-time/
    edited

    • Ad 5.1
      6 June 2016 at 10:03 am

      If a guy like Rushkoff can start a world-changing movement like Karl Marx did, you’ll know he’s opened the world to something fresh.
      He hasn’t, and won’t.

      • marty mars 5.1.1
        6 June 2016 at 10:20 am

        Jeez mate you sound a bit dour this morning. Hope the day picks up. Watched the whole 4 series of house of cards the other daze – made me feel like ‘what can we do’ then I realised we do what we do and that is what we can and should do.

        • Ad 5.1.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 10:52 am

          Watching House of Cards just makes me want to have a shower.

          I liked The Wire better because it was very, very close to reality; the good guys were pricks and didn’t last long, the douches were rewarded, bureaucratic inertia was rewarded and patrolled, and the justice and democratic systems only just worked.

          Plus the linking of newer-world black dominated drug dealing systems to old-world unionized seaports was reasonably fresh. Liked that one.

      • greywarshark 5.1.2
        6 June 2016 at 10:28 am

        Ad
        I note a continuing theme from you of put downs for new ideas, new methods to help the nation to a better system. Your latest is just another. Presenting new ideas for changing our present conditions? You haven’t and you won’t.

    • greywarshark 5.2
      6 June 2016 at 10:47 am

      Further – a summary of that piece on Dick Smith ‘purchase’.
      How to buy a business of $115 million using only $10 million of your own money.

      Further – Anchorage purchased Dick Smith for a total of $20 million and year later put it up in the stock market for half a Billion. Oldest trick in the book is to write the inventory down to close to nothing, and then sell the inventory for whatever, and that is all profit.

      That is the sort of quality financial dealing that our present National government uses in transactions in this country. and overseas. National has borrowed heavily overseas to keep running the country, We are to be exploited by the buccaneers who see themselves as bold businessmen, doughty corporate raiders, pirates who can make and move money without getting their hands around actual working tools, actual dirt (if they can help it).

    • greywarshark 5.3
      6 June 2016 at 9:10 pm

      Here is the audio for Dr Rushkoff.
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201803432

  6. Adrian 6
    6 June 2016 at 11:07 am

    An acquaintance used to run the NZ Rail signals workshop in the Hutt, then Fay and Richwhite bought it, sold the entire inventory of spares ( about 7-10 years supply ) for every switching and crossing etc in the country on the premise that, “We can buy it when we need it, more efficent than holding stock ”
    In the next six months they spent all the money released buying needed parts back.
    F and R needed the cash to actually buy the railways.
    The Cleverset Guys in the Room!.

    • greywarshark 6.1
      6 June 2016 at 1:41 pm

      Adrian
      Hollow laugh. That’s the way these cowboys run business. Poor NZ, all our good work to build a country, and our nation’s life blood being sucked out of us by a bunch of house plant pests. No wonder we’re suffering from die back!
      Fay and Richwhite – you wouldn’t make up those names for a satirical piece.

      Also just to add a bit to Dick Smith story – Anchorage in short time after the Dick Smith takeover/purchase got two industry awards for being so clever. Hah.

      dv thanks for link will save it up for afternoon tea reading.

  7. maninthemiddle 7
    6 June 2016 at 12:13 pm

    All politicians lie. Key has told no more than did Helen Clark. The difference between Key and Little is that Key is personally successful and politically competent. Little is a political failure (based on the state of Labours polling, finances and membership) and his CV is barren.

    • weka 7.1
      6 June 2016 at 12:27 pm

      “Key has told no more than did Helen Clark.”

      Really? I’ll put BLiP’s list up. How about you put up a list of all Clark’s lies? Because from what I can see in this thread you are just spouting a bunch of rancid ideology that tries to attack something you don’t like. You make lots of rapid assertions, few actual arguments, and bugger all back up.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/the-great-big-list-of-john-keys-big-fat-lies-updated/

      • leftie 7.1.1
        6 June 2016 at 12:40 pm

        To add, here’s another list recently put up on The Daily Blog a few days ago.

        435 lies by John Key

        <a href="http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/06/04/435-lies-by-john-key/

      • maninthemiddle 7.1.2
        6 June 2016 at 12:43 pm

        Are you serious?

        You can’t logically tell a lie about a future event, otherwise anyone who changed their mind would be telling a lie. That eliminates a huge number from the list.
        Most of the rest are desperate distortions, most don’t even have references so they can be checked.

        Honestly do you even check the stuff you post?

        • Lanthanide 7.1.2.1
          6 June 2016 at 7:33 pm

          Yip, that’s why I find Blip’s list of “lies” pretty unconvincing.

          • maninthemiddle 7.1.2.1.1
            7 June 2016 at 11:53 am

            Based on the reaction to my comments, am I right in suggesting they’ve never been challenged before?

            • Lanthanide 7.1.2.1.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 12:21 pm

              I’ve not seriously bothered to try, because I know the response I’ll get. So I just roll my eyes whenever I see it linked to.

              To be fair, there are a few things in there that are lies, or promises that he blatantly broke, such as not increasing GST. But for the rest of them there is sufficient reasonable doubt that calling them lies is silly.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                7 June 2016 at 5:15 pm

                +1

                The list is diminished by its weaker entries. There are still more than enough slam-dunks to win the match.

                • weka …
                  7 June 2016 at 5:52 pm

                  Can either of you please give examples of the problematic ones? If the list islargely inaccurate it should be easy enough to demonstrate.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    7 June 2016 at 6:06 pm

                    It isn’t “largely inaccurate”. The weak examples are thin on the ground. They provide ammunition for wingnut trash.

                    • weka …
                      7 June 2016 at 6:27 pm

                      Ok, so is your assessment that the majority are true and backed up with evidence? I had a look at some, and some are obviously true and evidence based. Some look true to me but the links don’t back up the claim (or are too lengthy to find out).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      “Say goodbye to higher taxes…”, for example, is a meaningless slogan from the National Party. A lie, absolutely (to the extent that meaningless slogans are of any import). Authored by the Prime Minister? Not so much.

        • Robert Guyton 7.1.2.2
          8 June 2016 at 1:47 pm

          maninthemiddle.
          You say “prove”.
          What do you mean, exactly.
          No one can do what you ask until you define what it is you mean.
          Is it, “provide news reports of the trial that showed … “?
          You are being too vague. No wonder no one bothered to play your game.
          Outside of a legal decision, what proof would you accept?

          • maninthemiddle 7.1.2.2.1
            8 June 2016 at 2:32 pm

            Support with evidence. You know, not just quote some instance where Key changed his mind (as Clark did) or events prevented him carrying out his wishes (eg Pike River), but give an example, with supporting evidence, where he knowingly made a “false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive”. Anything else simply fails the sniff test, and is nothing more than Key Derangement Syndrome. Key’s a politician. They ALL lie. You must be able to find one.

            • Robert Guyton 7.1.2.2.1.1
              8 June 2016 at 2:36 pm

              Evidence from whom? BliP? A journalist? A judge?
              You have to be specific as I notice you’ve rejected evidence of the sort I’ve listed. What form of evidence do you require? Not opinion, surely? Something official, perhaps. Just need to know the level of evidence you are demanding.

              • maninthemiddle …
                8 June 2016 at 2:45 pm

                I have just posted on item #2 on his list. How much digging have you done on the list? Enough to know that Blip’s support for item #2 is a post by Nicky Hager? That Nicky Hager’s post provides no supporting material for the comments he alleges Key made?

                My point is simply this; you and others are swallowing these claims without even a cursory amount of fact checking.

            • Robert Guyton 7.1.2.2.1.2
              8 June 2016 at 2:40 pm

              You’re not demanding, I hope, that commenters here have to supply legal rulings to prove Key has told a lie, are you? That’d be…ridiculous. You reject non-legal forms of evidence, so I’m wondering what exactly it is you want. If you are in fact requiring only legal tried evidence, then surely that makes your crusade a sham?

              • maninthemiddle …
                8 June 2016 at 2:49 pm

                What I’m really trying to ascertain is how much digging you have done before accusing the PM of lying. During the Clark premiership I saw this same phenomena from the right…a deranged obsession with somehow trying to make out Clark was the anti-Christ. Blip’s list of alleged ‘lies’ is the same. I’m sure some of the items on the list are verifiable. The ones I’ve checked so far are utter bs.

      • maninthemiddle 7.1.3
        6 June 2016 at 12:49 pm

        I’ll make this easy. I’ll post examples of examples of Clark’s lies. Real lies, about stuff she knew about, not about future events about which she changed her mind.

        Lie # 1.

        “After months of confusion over the Glenn donations, it turns out Clark has known much more than she has been letting on. The famously candid prime minister has been caught out being economical with the truth.”

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/decision-08/605227/Helen-Clarks-serious-blunder

      • maninthemiddle 7.1.4
        6 June 2016 at 1:01 pm

        Lie #2

        http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.co.nz/2005/05/doonegate-constable-mains-brief-of.html

        Destroying a mans career in the process.

        “Court papers released yesterday revealed that the Prime Minister told the Sunday Star-Times she believed Mr Doone had made a remark which might have meant a rookie constable did not breath-test Ms Johnstone, now Mrs Doone.

        The four words “That won’t be necessary”, which Helen Clark confirmed she understood Mr Doone said to Constable Brett Main, who was holding a breath-test sniffer device, are pivotal.

        Mr Doone has always denied he said that and the newspaper later apologised, saying it accepted the comment was not made.”
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10122718

        • McFlock 7.1.4.1
          6 June 2016 at 1:30 pm

          433 to go. Keep it up. Signing a painting, you jerks love that one.
          432…

          • maninthemiddle 7.1.4.1.1
            7 June 2016 at 11:42 am

            Thanks for reminding me…although I’ve got plenty so I may not use that one.

            • McFlock 7.1.4.1.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 2:36 pm

              “plenty”? lol

              You’ve still got Key telling 431 more lies than Clark, and you’re already running out.

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 5:00 pm

                I’m not running out,just not running foul of the moderators. But you don’t have 433, in fact no-ones yet taken up my challenge to evidence even 1!

                [lprent: If someone else makes an unsubstantiated assertion you may request that they provide links. When however to make an unsubstantiated assertion or an assertion with links that show you are an idiot (from the reactions of other commentators) and then to demand that other refute it with evidence isn’t going to work.

                Demanding people to engage with you, as well as showing a certain degree of self obsession that draws interesting ideas about what you do in your spare time, also may draw the attention of unkind moderators like me. If you are lucky, I’ll merely ban you for misbehaviour.

                But if I have time and have grumpiness to work off, I may choose to savage you with the attention (that you so obviously desire) of evidence and opinion about you and your ideas. I’ve been on the nets for more than 30 years, am rather over educated, have a lot of work and political experience, and have a certain expertise in administering ‘educational’ experiences to fools on the net.

                I’m unlikely to be kind or unconstrained. The attention I tend to give is more sadistic. So I’d be careful about what you ask for.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  7 June 2016 at 5:07 pm

                  Yes, they have. All the entries on Blip’s list are sourced. You disagree with some of the entries, and we’ve already covered that.

                  Your basic problem here is the contempt you’ve earned. Few can be bothered to engage with you on anything other than a superficial level, because you bring nothing to the table other than rote-learned zombie-sock-puppet drivel.

                  That’s the truth, whether you like it or not. Parrots like you come and go.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    8 June 2016 at 2:41 pm

                    All? Really? Take #2. The ‘source’ is a blog by Nicky Hager. Not good enough. In it Hager refers to comments to the media by Key that he does not source. Not good enough. And that’s just # 2 on the list.

                • maninthemiddle …
                  8 June 2016 at 2:39 pm

                  Actually I’m not demanding anything. I’m calling bs on Blip’s list. If people continue to reference it without being able to actually defend the claims with something substantial, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge them. PS Your threats are rather pathetic. If you wish to critique my views, then do so. If all you have is a desire to play the man, as your last sentence suggests, then you’re sad and in need of help.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    8 June 2016 at 2:43 pm

                    Well, you are demanding proof, maninthemiddle, over and over you pressed commenters here to provide proof. If you can’t tell us clearly what you’d accept, people are going to realise that you are gaming them and then they’ll treat you with disdain – oh, hang on…

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:51 pm

                      No, I’m calling for accountability for claiming someone is a liar.

                      For example item #30 “the Pike River Mine was consented to under a Labour Government” isn’t even untrue, let alone a lie.

                      “On 12 March 2004, Minister of Conservation Chris Carter approved the access arrangement for Pike River Coal Ltd. The arrangement included four 1.5-metre (4.9 ft)-wide emergency escape shafts within the boundaries of Paparoa National Park and a requirement for Pike River Coal Ltd to spend NZ$70,000 annually on conservation projects”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_River_Mine

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    8 June 2016 at 3:05 pm

                    I was keen to uncover the mechanism behind maninthemiddles crusade here. I asked what he need/meant by “proof”, as he’d used the word in his challenges here on TS. He seems, in response, to have been “less than truthful”, as evidenced by the two quotes below. Fair call, mitm?

                    maninthemiddle said: 7 June 2016 at 11:44 am

                    “Robert if you accuse someone of lying, it is up to you to prove it when challenged.”

                    maninthemiddle said: 8 June 2016 at 2:39 pm

                    “Actually I’m not demanding anything”

      • greywarshark 7.1.5
        6 June 2016 at 1:53 pm

        maninthemiddle
        Are you stuck between a rock and a hard place? Sounds like you are the maninthemuddle. I notice your pseudo cropping up. Are you having a little holiday from real work where you are expected to produce factual results and think we are going to provide you with some idle amusement? Your worship of our leader seems to be around that he has a lot of money. A Lotto winner would achieve a similar prominence then? What business did Key run to make his?

        • leftie 7.1.5.1
          6 June 2016 at 2:22 pm

          John Key rips people off for a living. He is a derivatives trader and he sets up tax havens. key was never a business owner, he was an employee at large American financial institutions, and by all accounts, he still is.

        • maninthemiddle 7.1.5.2
          7 June 2016 at 11:34 am

          I don’t worship any human. I follow politics. I admire Key for what he has done for this country, and yet criticise him frequently for missed opportunities to implement more free market policy.

          • Robert Guyton 7.1.5.2.1
            7 June 2016 at 11:38 am

            What do you think of Rand, maninthemiddle? Many people of your ilk worship Rand. Are you a Randian?

            • maninthemiddle 7.1.5.2.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 11:57 am

              No. I support her free market ideology to a degree, but I reject many of her other beliefs, including the broader ideas behind objectivism.

    • Robert Guyton 7.2
      6 June 2016 at 12:33 pm

      maninthemiddle does not offer genuine views. His pap is trolling at its most basic. Nothing to respond to there.

      • weka 7.2.1
        6 June 2016 at 1:03 pm

        Even worse, it’s boring. My bad for encouraging it.

        • leftie 7.2.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 1:24 pm

          It was bound to happen. Maninthemiddle is feeling nervous and desperate. It’s not looking good for Key and National.

          • maninthemiddle 7.2.1.1.1
            7 June 2016 at 11:36 am

            You need to check the polls, leftie.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 5:10 pm

              I checked them: they show the opposition with a majority over the “government”.

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 5:17 pm

                What opposition? If you’re including NZF you’re delusional.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  7 June 2016 at 5:21 pm

                  Yawn. You’re an asshole, thanks for the reminder.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    7 June 2016 at 5:23 pm

                    “The NZ First leader is disparaging of a memorandum of understanding his fellow opposition parties have signed – aimed at toppling National – and won’t yet say if he will team up to share power.
                    The MOU would expire on election night, he told Q+A today.
                    “The idea that you would go out there with a pre-arrangement on a deck of cards you’ve never read, we simply can’t see how that works.
                    “I can’t understand why Labour did this because it’s from a position of weakness, the only beneficiaries will be the Greens.””

                    http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/winston-peters-cold-on-greens-labour-alliance-2016060514#axzz4ArtFU96h

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:33 pm

                      …his fellow opposition parties…

                      My bold.

                      I’m sorry, I got it wrong: you’re an illiterate asshole.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 10:20 am

                      Those weren’t Peter’s words, they were the journalists, so I’ll be more generous. You’re just illiterate.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 10:50 am

                      Oh OAB…how are you feeling about the latest poll? Based on your logic, after the MoA National are up and ‘the opposition’ are down 2.4%!!

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 June 2016 at 3:50 pm

                      I’m delighted to be able to burst your bubble. It’s a single poll. You can ascertain my feelings about individual poll results by reading my previous comments. In summation: trends are important, data points not so much.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 4:29 pm

                      Yes, we can agree on that.

      • leftie 7.2.2
        6 June 2016 at 1:08 pm

        Yes, Lol and he’s even struggling with that !!

    • leftie 7.3
      6 June 2016 at 12:45 pm

      You are such a liar Maninthemiddle. I guess like John key, lies are all you have, because you cannot defend the indefensible corrupt PM and his National government of destruction.

      • maninthemiddle 7.3.1
        6 June 2016 at 12:52 pm

        Lie: “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”

        Now go away and explain how each of those 435 statements are lies.

        • Wensleydale 7.3.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 4:06 pm

          Okay, so based on that logic, whenever a politician campaigns for re-election by saying they’re going to do this, or that, or something else, and the voting public elect them based on that articulated policy platform, it’s then okay for the politician in question to do none of those things. Because… you know, they just changed their mind.

          If this is your justification for the endless stream of horse shit that routinely erupts from Key’s diseased maw, then politicians may as well say nothing at all. Ever. Because, really, what are their words worth?

          • maninthemiddle 7.3.1.1.1
            7 June 2016 at 11:39 am

            “Because… you know, they just changed their mind.”

            You simply don’t understand this discussion. It is about lying. By definition you cannot lie about a future event. If you want to argue you can, then you need to condemn Labour for decades of broken promises, including many by Helen Clark. It;s just silly.

            • Wensleydale 7.3.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 12:01 pm

              Yeah… nah. I’m pretty sure I understand the discussion, but it’s nice of you to imply I’m some slack-jawed yokel oblivious to “grown up concepts” like lying. That’s never happened before.

              If I tell my boss that I will have a report on his desk by 6:00am the following morning, and come 6:00am, there’s no report to be found. I lied. I said I would do something, and I didn’t do it. Now, there might be mitigating circumstances, but a lie, is a lie, is a lie.

              And just so you know, I’ll condemn any party of any persuasion for telling lies. I might view John Key with the same fondness I’d reserve for testicular cancer, but I like to think I don’t play favourites when it comes to basic honesty.

      • leftie 7.3.2
        6 June 2016 at 1:02 pm

        Lie: “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”

        That’s John key!!! He fits that definition perfectly. After all the lies John key has told, no one with a sound mind, should believe one word that comes out of that compulsive liar’s mouth. No one has told more lies than John key. No one.

      • maninthemiddle 7.3.3
        6 June 2016 at 1:06 pm

        “He fits that definition perfectly. ”

        Provide one example that fits that definition.

    • leftie 7.4
      6 June 2016 at 12:56 pm

      You’re sounding desperate Maninthemiddle. No one has to argue John key’s lies, it’s public record, even recently Key patently lied about the Salvation Army and the homeless. It’s not the “far left” that think John key is a ogre and a failure, everyone knows it, he’s shown that himself.

      • maninthemiddle 7.4.1
        6 June 2016 at 1:05 pm

        You make a claim and then don’t have to support it? Not in the real world. Making a statement and changing your mind isn’t lying. Signing a painting you didn’t paint is. Lying about what a Police Commissioner allegedly said is. Lying over the Glenn affair is. Shall I continue?

        • leftie 7.4.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 1:20 pm

          Yes continue. Is that all you have got Maninthemiddle? You made claims and haven’t supported it, you said Helen Clark lied more than John key, so how about putting your money where your mouth is, and prove it, because as it stands now, posts with supporting evidence has proven you wrong.

          • North 7.4.1.1.1
            6 June 2016 at 8:48 pm

            “Maninthemiddle”……like the cream in the sponge……more rancid daily. But never mind. Former All Black captain
            macho Johnno Key is
            sooooo rich. All that
            matters……munters !

          • maninthemiddle 7.4.1.1.2
            7 June 2016 at 11:41 am

            Leftie I have asked for a single lie by John Key to be verified. None have been. I have posted lies by Helen Clark that are verified by independent sources. I will post more if you really want.

            • leftie 7.4.1.1.2.1
              7 June 2016 at 12:31 pm

              Why bother with one single lie Maninthemiddle? I posted a list of hundreds, so did Weka, and all verified as lies. rofl you have posted 2 nothings !!!

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 1:01 pm

                Give one example. With independent verification. There must be some, so it cant be that hard.

                • leftie …
                  7 June 2016 at 1:12 pm

                  John key’s lies are a matter of public record Maninthemiddle, you are being ridiculous , you cannot defend the indefensible liar that is John key. Its as Draco T Bastard said @ 7.5.3.1

                  “No, you’re still claiming all the proof provided isn’t proof. In other words, you’re lying to protect your leader just like an authoritarian will do.”

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    7 June 2016 at 1:19 pm

                    Give one example. I have with Helen Clark, and subject my claims to scrutiny. (PS I’m trying to find the link to when Clark told that New Zealanders weren’t been spied on under her leadership. We know that was a lie…can you help?)

        • Robert Guyton 7.4.1.2
          6 June 2016 at 1:41 pm

          He decieves though, doesn’t he. Repeatedly. Over and over. The Great Deciever. Some say, “Bullshitter”. Maninthemiddle admires him for that, defends his behaviour and employs some of his methods as a form of adoration.

          Not impressed.

        • McFlock 7.4.1.3
          6 June 2016 at 2:08 pm

          So when an assurance is made, we shouldn’t take it on ‘blind’ trust?

          • Robert Guyton 7.4.1.3.1
            6 June 2016 at 2:38 pm

            maninthemiddle is providing us with a valuable opportunity to refine our position on the Prime Minister. He is showing us how calling the PM a “liar” is less than effective. It can be challenged simply by saying, “prove it”, shoving all responsibility to the person making the claim. Far better and more effective it would be to play their game and use words that can’t be countered so easily. One could say, the Prime Minister deceives by forgetting, speaking ambiguously; he can’t recall, says he misspoke, changes his mind, has others speak for him, redirects, walks away from questions, doesn’t turn up at all for interviews, chooses pet media etc. In other words, when Key’s flunkies reduce the argument to single instances, they are redirecting attention from the general picture that has developed over the time of Key’s PM-ship, of deceptivenes and untrustworthiness. Maninthemiddle has, unintentionally I expect, given us the opportunity to reposition. The question then is, does anyone else care about that sort of behaviour? I think people are more likely to rationally consider the other descriptions of the Prime Ministers strategy, as “liar” seems a step too far for most people – our PM, a liar? That’s a bit harsh…isn’t it?

            • McFlock 7.4.1.3.1.1
              6 June 2016 at 3:48 pm

              now, now, there’s a 50/50 chance that the pm will go offshore if we start calling him names, rather than continuing his production here.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.4.1.3.1.2
              6 June 2016 at 5:12 pm

              He is showing us how calling the PM a “liar” is less than effective. It can be challenged simply by saying, “prove it”

              And we have done. Time and time again. It doesn’t matter how much proof we have as the RWNJs, like maninthemiddle , just won’t accept it. The Authoritarian types will always defend their leader no matter what atrocious actions they’ve done and we see that in maninthemiddle.

              But maybe, just maybe, we can get the rest of NZ to see the truth by showing that proof time and time again.

              • McFlock …
                6 June 2016 at 5:26 pm

                lol – that’s another bit of information that won’t be in the telephone directory.

              • Robert Guyton …
                6 June 2016 at 5:27 pm

                By “less than effective”, Draco, I meant, not effective. We must be effective. Our/your “proof” doesn’t dent the defenses. Change tack, become effective. Sheesh! He’s telling you something useful. Adapt. Change. Become effective. Succeed.

                • McFlock …
                  6 June 2016 at 6:02 pm

                  I’m not sure that the distinction between “deceives” and “lies” is large enough to change the narrative.

                  Sure, tory trools might like to dance on the head of a pin, but it seems to me that you’re looking for a tactic that will change the perception of the general population. Basing it on the semantic slipperiness of a blogtroll who’s simply looking to spread alarm and despondancy is bashing a square peg in a round hole.

                  I think the best tack for the opposition is what they’ve started with the MoU: the nact distinction in the last couple of elections has revolved around party cohesion vs a disjointed opposition, and their trollines seem to still be focussed on that. Match them on that, and they’ll go with the party who’s leader doesn’t pull hair.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    7 June 2016 at 1:29 pm

                    No, it is those trying to accuse Key of lying yet defending Clark that are ‘dancing on the head of a pin’. For example, a significant number of examples Blip’s list are statements made about future events (which by definition cannot be lies, but…). That being the case, you would have to agree with this, no doubt…

                    “I don’t usually post You Tube stuff here but this one is a gem of a home video. From Gyon Espiner from TV One news from last year.

                    Ms Clark says in similar words that, she would never like to see good parents live in fear of someone knocking on their door should they correct their child by giving them a wee smack.

                    That to pass a law, such as the anti smacking law, would be “defying human nature”, and Labour just would never do such a thing.

                    She in fact was caught out lying, again, but this time it was on video!”

                    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/param-namemovie-value.html

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2016 at 2:32 pm

                      Oh, bollocks.

                      S59 repeal is nowhere near as bad as that. It just means that when parents bash their kids with 2×4 they don’t have a defense in court.

                      But more to the point, making statements about future events is a lie when those “future events” are your actions and you make no effort to follow through on them.

                      But even if we were to grant your “anti-smacking” bullshit, that’s… 431 remaining.

                    • leftie …
                      7 June 2016 at 2:46 pm

                      Like Helen Clark said, that’s pathetic Maninthemiddle.

                      Here’s some videos of John key’s lies.

                      <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFUHAuwEe_Q

                      <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf69eV2uiyE

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 4:59 pm

                      McFlock Clark said she would not vote to repeal section 59. She lied.

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:07 pm

                      Nope.

                      In your linked clip she said that she didn’t want to see anyone who lightly smacks a child dragged before a court.

                      That’s one of the big reasons that police discretion was explicitly included in the law change:

                      To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

                      ISTR that’s a softening of the blanket repeal some people were after.

                      Your allegation of lying is incorrect.

                      Back to I think 432 more lies told by key than by clark.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:09 pm

                      “…making statements about future events is a lie when those “future events” are your actions and you make no effort to follow through on them.”

                      Example?

                      And seriously if you’re going to include unkept promise, you’ll have to keep your head down for the wet stuff flying from Helen Clarks tenure.

                      Example 1: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0810/S00142/labours-broken-promise-no-7-on-law-and-order.htm

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:16 pm

                      Well, the Pike River families certainly feel betrayed.

                      And he won’t release his tax returns so we can tell if he actually gives his pm salary to charity.

                      Lol, as for your link, if an opponent’s press release says they’re doing nothing “except for”, then they’ve done something.
                      Try harder.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:21 pm

                      “Well, the Pike River families certainly feel betrayed.”

                      Says who?

                      And he won’t release his tax returns so we can tell if he actually gives his pm salary to charity.

                      He never said he would give all his salary to charity. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/573560/Key-pledges-PMs-salary-to-charity

                      Do you not fact check anything??

                    • leftie …
                      7 June 2016 at 8:36 pm

                      Do you fact check anything Maninthemiddle.

                      “But for many of the families of those who died, and the New Zealand union movement, there’s no closure. Many who lost loved ones feel betrayed by the government of John Key, who committed to “getting the boys out”.

                      <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/sealing-off-new-zealands-pike-river-coal-mine-tragedy/news-story/a5c62bfa75260f3d465876fe4d657234

                      <a href="http://thestandard.org.nz/nrt-betrayal-at-pike-river/

                      Again you are in denial, Key did say prior to the 2008 general election he would donate his salary or part of if he were to be elected PM. Even in your link, the Sunday News proclaimed ” PM : I’ll Pay PM’s Salary To charity.” John key lied, his mate Sean Plunket posted “the oft claimed fact that john key gives most of, or all of his salary to charity has no basis in fact. Urban myth!!!”

                      Put out there by John key himself as an election pr lie.

                      <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SeanPlunketRadioLive/posts/818434368208109

                      Onto another John key lie…

                      <a href="http://thestandard.org.nz/key-lied-the-smoking-gun/

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2016 at 9:56 pm

                      lol

                      It seems mitm’s “challenge” has been repeatedly accepted, faced, and overcome, even if he was too stupid ro read long lists.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 10:31 am

                      Thanks for engaging. At last! And now I will show you up.

                      1. A statement about the future cannot be a lie.
                      2. Your Australian reference is paywalled, so cannot be checked. You need to do better. Plus, see 1. above.
                      3. A reference from TS that is an opinion piece and NOT from the families, is not evidence. In fact it shows what dishonesty sits behind your claims that Key lied.
                      4. Again you lie. Key never said he would give all his salary to charity. And you have no idea whether he gives any or all.

                      There. You tried, and failed.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 11:43 am

                      1. A statement about the future cannot be a lie.

                      Tomorrow I am going to fuck your mother.

                      And according to you, that cannot be a lie.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 11:54 am

                      “Tomorrow I am going to fuck your mother.

                      And according to you, that cannot be a lie.”

                      That’s right. It could be your best intention to do that, you may even be planning to. But your failure to do so would not make you a liar unless it could be proven you qualified under the definition I have previously given, that is:

                      “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”

                      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:06 pm

                      “Tomorrow I am going to fuck your mother.

                      And according to you, that cannot be a lie.”

                      That’s right. It could be your best intention to do that, you may even be planning to.

                      Ah, but I wasn’t. See? It was a statement about the future that was a lie.

                      But your failure to do so would not make you a liar unless it could be proven you qualified[…]

                      No. Firstly, it’s not whether it’s “proven” to others. If you make a commitment with no intention of following through, you’re a liar. If you say something will happen because it’s politically expedient to say it at that time, and you don’t know or care whether it happens or not, you’re intending to deceive people by providing an assurance that it will happen.

                      And lastly, I said that I’d fuck your mother tomorrow, but I don’t know who you are. Anyone I have sex with tomorrow might actually be your mother, whether I know it or not. In the eventuality that I do have sex with someone who turns out to be your mother, even though I had no intention of having sex with your mother, am I a liar?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:24 pm

                      “It was a statement about the future that was a lie.”

                      But if I’m accusing you of lying, the onus of proof is on me, not you. If you accuse John Key of lying about future events, the onus of proof is on you. Personally I have no idea what you were thinking. Based on some of your opinions, you may well have been telling the truth.

                      I am very tempted to answer your final question, but as you have shot yourself in the foot, I’l leave you to contemplate it for a moment.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:50 pm

                      The last one was a rehash of a Gettier problem, but whatever. If you know the answers to some essential philosophical questions, you can make six or seven figures on the lecture circuit of the top universities in the world.

                      But to recap: lies can be told about future events.

                      Now, proving someone is lying can be a tall order, but when key said in the House (where he is supposed to tell only the truth) he got fletcher’s phone number from directory services, then had to correct his answer in the House to say he didn’t remember who got fletcher’s number or how… one of those statements was an outright lie, because it directly contradicts the other. He either remembered getting the number, or he made a statement about what he did when he did not know what he did.

                      similarly, his statements about pike river (thoroughly linked to in the TS post you disparaged) logically contradicted each other.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:58 pm

                      “he got fletcher’s phone number from directory services, then had to correct his answer in the House to say he didn’t remember who got fletcher’s number or how… ”

                      Not necessarily. One could be a mistaken recollection. Or both. A lie involve’s deliberate intent. Did Helen Clark deliberately intend to claim she painted that painting? Of course not. Yet on the same basis you seem to think Key is the devil incarnate, I could make a case Clark set out to deceive.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 1:29 pm

                      Not necessarily. One could be a mistaken recollection. Or both. A lie involve’s deliberate intent. Did Helen Clark deliberately intend to claim she painted that painting? Of course not. Yet on the same basis you seem to think Key is the devil incarnate, I could make a case Clark set out to deceive.

                      What a load of bollocks. Your defense against the allegation of lying is that Key is afflicted with false recollections of actually doing something? How is that better for a PM than being a goddamn liar? As for the painting thing, even at the absolute worst case where she signs the thing while laughing “ahahahaha everybody will believe I painted this!!! ahahahaha!!!” it’s a fucking charity painting not delivered under any higher obligation to tell the truth – unlike in the House or as a public interest obligation into how government operates.

                      Deception isn’t binary. Some lies are worse than others. And when you combine the seriousness of key’s untruths with their frequency, he’s not the devil but he is a lying piece of shit.

                    • leftie …
                      8 June 2016 at 1:45 pm

                      Like John key and the National government you support Maninthemiddle, you have failed, and the only person you have shown up, is yourself. You just cannot admit or face the fact that John key is a liar and a deceiver. John key has deliberately lied with the intent to deceive the NZ public since he entered NZ politics. And as PM, John key is the most bold faced, habitual and sociopathic compulsive liar this country has ever seen. No one lies more than John key. No one.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:27 pm

                      “John key has deliberately lied with the intent to deceive the NZ public since he entered NZ politics.”

                      And yet, despite your rant, you give not one single example that you can actually prove. What I have successfully proven is that you suffer from Key Derangement Syndrome. I recommend prompt assistance.

                    • leftie …
                      8 June 2016 at 3:22 pm

                      It’s not a rant, it’s fact with numerous examples to support it. And bullshit Maninthemiddle, all you have proven is that you are an unadulterated John key sycophant and apologist, who cannot admit or face the fact that John key lies.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  6 June 2016 at 6:37 pm

                  The problem is that the fact of his lies aren’t getting out there. All we really see is the MSM kowtowing to Key and National and ignoring the fact that he lies rather than calling him up on it.

                  So, those proofs will work – as long as we get them out there. A weekly mailer would be good but we need some way to fund it.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    6 June 2016 at 6:52 pm

                    I disagree. If you play his/their game; reacting in that way, “Liar! Liar!”, they will succeed. They are succeeding now. Change tack. A more subtle approach is needed. What will resonate with people. “He’s not being honest” is much more likely to settle into the consciousness than, “He’s a liar” QED.

                  • marty mars …
                    6 June 2016 at 6:58 pm

                    I think everyone knows that key lies – his supporters don’t care, the media don’t care, overseas tthey don’t care… THAT is the issue.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      6 June 2016 at 7:21 pm

                      If they don’t care, move on. How else might you achieve what you want to achieve? I believe “they” will react to a different approach. “Lies” is blocked. “Not really being honest with us” has legs. So does, “evasive”, ” deceptive” and “playing us for fools” .

                    • marty mars …
                      6 June 2016 at 7:47 pm

                      I want to achieve key gone and the gnats too. Calling him a liar or some euphemism of that won’t work – the people that should care, don’t. Imo getting him to lose his cool, speak off the cuff and the good push at the moment to show he is out of touch, doesn’t care, is quite a good strategy.

                    • emergency mike []
                      7 June 2016 at 1:07 am

                      mm that’s always how I’ve imagined it happening.

                    • joe90 …
                      6 June 2016 at 8:23 pm

                      Imo getting him to lose his cool, speak off the cuff

                      Yup, needle.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:23 pm

                      “Your defense against the allegation of lying is that Key is afflicted with false recollections of actually doing something? ”

                      You’re missing the point completely, hence your ill tempered rant.

                      People forget things all the time. Your illustration was about how Key got someone’s phone number. That is easily forgotten. But that isn’t my point. Whether or not someone is lying can be argued based on bias. You are doing precisely that. You’re arguing Key lied because his recollection failed. I could equally argued Clark set out to deceive by signing a painting (something only the painter should do) she didn’t paint.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:27 pm

                      Hi, maninthemiddle – I’m keen for you to clarify what exactly you mean by “proof”. What proof of Key’s lying would you accept? A ruling by a judge? Hard to answer your challenge if you haven’t made clear what you require.
                      Thanks.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:45 pm

                      People forget things all the time. Your illustration was about how Key got someone’s phone number. That is easily forgotten. But that isn’t my point. Whether or not someone is lying can be argued based on bias. You are doing precisely that. You’re arguing Key lied because his recollection failed.

                      I’m not saying he’s lying because Key forgot something and, upon reflection of consulting with his office, corrected the non-answer.
                      He claimed to know something, he gave a specific answer to a question saying he did something, and then had to “correct” himself and say he didn’t remember whether it was him that did it or how it was even done!

                      People forget things all the time. What they don’t do is suddenly remember that they’ve forgotten something and that their previous, precise claim of how they did it was incorrect.

                      That’s why I’m saying that in this specific instance he lied. I’m sure he has also told the truth on occasion – booking a taxi, for example. But in this instance he told an outright lie.

            • Bill 7.4.1.3.1.3
              6 June 2016 at 7:29 pm

              Bad analogy coming up and apologies in advance.

              As far as I understand what you’re saying, I agree with you Robert – the machine gun approach is far better than the single bullet thang if you want to be sure of hitting the target.

              • Robert Guyton …
                6 June 2016 at 7:36 pm

                Bill – but we’re not shooting, we’re presenting a reasoned view. One approach is violent and foreign to us, the other is our bread and butter.
                Let’s do it our way.

            • maninthemiddle 7.4.1.3.1.4
              7 June 2016 at 11:44 am

              Robert if you accuse someone of lying, it is up to you to prove it when challenged. Shouting even louder, or repeating claims a la Joseph Goebbels doesn’t cut it.

              • Robert Guyton …
                7 June 2016 at 11:49 am

                maninthemiddle – no it isn’t. NZers can make that claim as often as they like, they don’t have to answer to you at all, it’s pretty arrogant of you to believe they do. It’s called ‘opinion’. These people believe Key is a liar. Suck it up. Who are you, his Moral Guardian? You’re doing a terrible job with your man. People believe he’s Very Lacking in that area. Must do better, maninthemiddle.

                • maninthemiddle …
                  7 June 2016 at 12:00 pm

                  I don;t care what people ‘believe’. You may believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. But calling someone a ‘liar’ isn’t an opinion, it is a truth claim. You can hide if you wish, but not bing prepared to have your claims tested is both narrow minded and intellectually dishonest.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    7 June 2016 at 12:29 pm

                    You found some entries on Blip’s list that you don’t agree with, so you are pretending you can discount the whole lot. So far, so authoritarian.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 12:59 pm

                      It’s not a question of what I agree with, it’s a question of whether we should be open to accountability for claims we make. I’m still waiting for someone to put up one alleged ‘lie’ that they can actually support with any integrity. Like Lanthanide, I’m sure Key is not squeeky clean, no politicians are, but Blip’s list is a joke that clearly no-one here has seen fit to challenge. That isn’t very encouraging.

                    • leftie …
                      7 June 2016 at 1:13 pm

                      You are lying Maninthemiddle.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    7 June 2016 at 1:08 pm

                    just checking, maninthemiddle, if you are asking me to back up claims that Key’s a liar, when I’m saying something other than that…
                    Aside from that, you are talking nonsense. Statements made by commenters here are more often than not, their opinions. For example, you state; “I don’t care what “people” believe”. Are you expecting us to believe that? prove it!
                    Once you’ve done that (it may take some time and effort – tricky little things to prove, facts) you might like to have a go at an easy one (@12:04)
                    “maninthemiddle – do you believe Mr Key has been truthful in all that he has said and done as Prime Minister?”

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 1:16 pm

                      I was responding to this comment by you with respect to accusations Key has told lies:

                      “It can be challenged simply by saying, “prove it”, shoving all responsibility to the person making the claim. ”

                      My point is simply that anyone making such a claim rightly has a responsibility to support such a claim. A list of 433 alleged lies, when even a cursory reading shows it is nothing more than the rantings of a deranged blogger, carries with it the responsibility to defend such claims.

                      On the rest of your comments in that same post, I actually agree with you. Using different language would be far more effective. And of all politicians, far more accurate.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      7 June 2016 at 1:44 pm

                      maninthemiddle – oddly enough, I support your efforts to dissuade people from citing “Blips List”, as I believe it’s not an effective approach and those who use it are too easily tripped up by the likes of you. They don’t have to “prove it” as you claim, but declaring that they do is enough to muffle the effect they hoped citing Blip might have. It’s the same with, “liar!”. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter, as its use is easily blocked – it takes very little effort to demand proof and providing such takes a lot of work. Those who use misdirection, deception and untruthfulness know and rely on this to do what they do. You are playing your role in that process, but at the same time offering a chance to transcend the practice. I hope people here will respond by sharpening-up. You’ve made a good point, I reckon but I have to say, you’re a very poor absorber of other views. Single-minded, you are.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2016 at 1:49 pm

                      All 433 eh. Your “cursory” reading didn’t stop you cherry picking the weaker examples. Perhaps you’re too dishonest to judge the matter reliably.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 2:02 pm

                      “You’ve made a good point, I reckon but I have to say, you’re a very poor absorber of other views. ”

                      Hi Robert…I value the critique, Thanks.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 2:05 pm

                      “Your “cursory” reading didn’t stop you cherry picking the weaker examples. ”

                      So you acknowledge there are ‘weaker’ ones. That’s a good start. Progress would be for you to ‘cherry pick’ a ‘stronger’ one and provide some evidence.

                    • leftie …
                      7 June 2016 at 3:15 pm

                      Why don’t you provide evidence to show that John Key’s lies are not lies Maninthemiddle?

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2016 at 3:32 pm

                      lol

                      So far the “lies” you’ve attributed to Clark can be counted on one hand. Of someone who had experienced severe frostbite.

                      Anyhoo, how about when key told parliament that his office got his buddy’s mobile number from directory services? He had to take that one back in the House.

              • Robert Guyton …
                8 June 2016 at 2:34 pm

                hi again, just trying to catch up with you, mitm.
                What is your definition of “proof” please. We have to know what it is you require. Sorry to pester, but my other appeals have gone unanswered.

          • maninthemiddle 7.4.1.3.2
            7 June 2016 at 11:45 am

            We should take nothing on ‘blind trust’ from any politician.

            • leftie 7.4.1.3.2.1
              7 June 2016 at 1:06 pm

              rofl that’s rich coming from you, you should follow your own advice then Maninthemiddle.

            • Robert Guyton 7.4.1.3.2.2
              7 June 2016 at 1:52 pm

              maninthemiddle

              In response to ” do you believe Mr Key has been truthful in all that he has said and done as Prime Minister?” you’ve said, “of all politicians, far more accurate” – yes?

              Can you somehow ease my feeling that you’re using weasel-words here – “accurate”?
              Would you indulge me and expand on your brief response, making reference, if you would, on why you avoided using the word “truth” “truthful” or “truthfulness”.
              Thanks

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 2:01 pm

                Hi Robert…can you please provide a reference for my comment you quote (thread, date, time). I just want to read the context before respondng.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    7 June 2016 at 4:53 pm

                    Thanks. Here’s my full quote:

                    “On the rest of your comments in that same post, I actually agree with you. Using different language would be far more effective. And of all politicians, far more accurate.”

                    My use of the word ‘accurate’ was directed at politicians (“of all politicians…), not what politicians say. To paraphrase, it is far more accurate to describe much of what politicians say in the context of your post of 2.38pm June 6th, specifically “deceives by forgetting, speaking ambiguously; he can’t recall, says he misspoke, changes his mind, has others speak for him, redirects, walks away from questions, doesn’t turn up at all for interviews, chooses pet media etc.”. I’m not sure you can justify all of those accusations with the current PM, although many applied the the previous one. Continuing to claim Key has lied 433 times is just silly, and the pubic turned off ages ago.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:06 pm

                      “Much of what politicians say”
                      I see. You’re holding fast to the “they all do it” position. I don’t accept that claim nor do I respect respect that view. Let’s cut to the chase, maninthemiddle – please answer my respectfully-put question:
                      ” do you believe Mr Key has been truthful in all that he has said and done as Prime Minister?”
                      I’ve presented it to you at least 3 times now – what’s with your avoidance? Did you not notice the question? I’m very keen to read your view on this matter.

                      By the by, this cluster of claims from you;
                      ” I’m not sure you can justify all of those accusations with the current PM, although many applied the the previous one. Continuing to claim Key has lied 433 times is just silly, and the pubic turned off ages ago.” really does come across as weasely. I was enjoying a period of lucidity from you for a while there but that’s a regression into trolling, maninthemiddle. Try to keep the level of your comments up a bit please. In the meantime, please respond to my straight-forward question and if you would, answer it in a straight-forward way (not weasely).

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:31 pm

                      “please respond to my straight-forward question”

                      I did. All politicians lie. John Key is a politician. Helen Clark was a politician. Some lie by commission, some by omission. I don’t trust any of them. That you don’t seem to like this stance is no concern of mine. Your apparent naivety, however, is.

                • leftie …
                  7 June 2016 at 2:53 pm

                  You just don’t want to admit John Key lies Maninthemiddle.

              • leftie …
                7 June 2016 at 2:48 pm

                Good question Robert, the response, if any, will be interesting. Maninthemiddle doesn’t seem to know what he writes.

            • McFlock 7.4.1.3.2.3
              7 June 2016 at 2:33 pm

              I try to remember that, but it’s in the same place as my 50,000 kiwirail shares – or was it 100,000?

              • leftie …
                7 June 2016 at 3:05 pm

                Touche’ Mcflock !!

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 5:04 pm

                …or “what speed were we going at when I needed to get that rugby match” says Helen Clark as she puts her drivers under the bus.

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10340035

                • McFlock …
                  7 June 2016 at 5:14 pm

                  so by matching the clark car thing with the kiwirail share thing, are you acknowledging that this was an explicit lie by key?

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    7 June 2016 at 5:18 pm

                    No, I’m pointing out the silliness of your argument.

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:23 pm

                      🙄
                      You just stick with that line, buddy.
                      Still counting the fingers on the hand of a frostbite amputee.
                      Key’s at 432.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:25 pm

                      Not a single person has taken up my challenge. Not one.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:35 pm

                      Apart from Blip, who has sourced every single one of the entries on the list. Lying just confirms that you’re an asshole.

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2016 at 9:50 pm

                      Hell, I mentioned more instances of key’s lying when I was just having fun than the number of lies you invented for Clark when you were trying to argue equivalence between between the two of them.

                      I didn’t even know it was a competition. I was just laughing at you defending such a prodigious liar.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 10:22 am

                      “Apart from Blip, who has sourced every single one of the entries on the list. ”

                      I’m challenging anyone to engage on the items. Ad you give far too much credit to the author. The list is mostly bs. Meanwhile, Key’s popularity remains unrivalled. No-one believes your hatred.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 10:24 am

                      “I didn’t even know it was a competition. ”

                      It’s not. And you obviously haven’t been keeping up. Clark can be accused of all sorts of skulduggery if you want to be as obsessive about her as you seem to be about Key. It’s an illness, once inflicted upon National supporters about Clark, now inflicted upon the ever diminishing left.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:11 pm

                      Clark can be accused of all sorts of skulduggery if you want to be as obsessive about her as you seem to be about Key.

                      Well, obviously not, because at least two accusations in your tiny list were outright lies on your part: s59 and the law&order.

                      Forget Key: at this rate you’re lying more than Clark did.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:13 pm

                      Good try McFlock, but both are accurate. Clark lied, on the same basis you apply to Key. And that is my point. Your list is the work of an obsessive. Just as were the attacks on Clark.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:31 pm

                      Not my list, but if it keeps blip happy, good for them.

                      See, the problem is that both your s59 and law&order allegations are actually lies by you, for the reasons I put up earlier. In one, you lie about what Clark said, in the other you ignore an entire act of parliament that went towards addressing the point and demonstrated not just an intent to follow through but actual action that followed through.

                      If you are the person with whom I argued a while ago (before their ban), this is the bit where you simply double-down and commit to assertions that have already been shown to be false.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 12:44 pm

                      1. I’m not the person you debated with before.
                      2. You haven’t shown anything I’ve claimed to be false. Clark said “”As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court.”” Then she voted for a bill that banned smacking (“Bradford acknowledges that it would not be legal to smack a child under her bill.”)http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1024326/2591764.xhtml. By the standards you are applying to John Key, Clark lied.

                      You see, McFlock, you are arguing support for a list of alleged lies by Key that cannot stand up to scrutiny if you apply the same standards to Clark. I’ve made my point, well and truly. If you can’t see that, you need to take a long look at yourself.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 1:15 pm

                      1: so there’s more than one of you guys? What happened, did immigrationNZ accidentally class “punchdrunk NFL player” as a priority employment group?

                      2:

                      Clark said “”As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court.”” Then she voted for a bill that banned smacking

                      A bill that leaves police the discretion to decide that smack was so light (“so inconsequential”) that it was not in the public interest to be “dragged before the court”.

                      when the original version of the bill came out of the ballot, it was a straight repeal of section 59. That’s what Clark didn’t support in 2006. And she didn’t vote for that in 2007.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 1:27 pm

                      “A bill that leaves police the discretion to decide that smack was so light (“so inconsequential”) that it was not in the public interest to be “dragged before the court”.”

                      Ah, but that’s exactly what HAS happened.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11359923
                      “Police reviews show that police investigated 143 alleged cases of “smacking” and 435 allegations of minor acts of physical discipline, such as slapping and hitting children, in the first five years of the new law up to June 2012. Eight cases of smacking and 47 alleged minor acts of physical discipline were prosecuted. ”

                      Quote…minor acts of discipline.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 1:36 pm

                      Minor, but obviously not so inconsequential as to not be in the public interest.

                      the most severe penalty reported was 200 hours of community service for a father who was drinking at the time, struck his son across the back of the head with an open hand causing him to fall forward and start crying, and then pulled him backwards and told him to go to sleep.

                      If anything, that’s the sort of thing it’s there for.

                      I have a lot of respect for Mai Chen, but lawyers are like water quality scientists: you can pay them to argue whatever you want. And Family First did just that, it seems…

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:25 pm

                      They were minor. Precisely the sorts of acts Helen Clark said she opposed. And then voted for.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:51 pm

                      Not “light” enough for the police officers who decided it was in the public interest to prosecute, though.

                      Almost 90% of those investigations were not prosecuted.

                      10% were deemed serious enough, if “minor” compared to a kid with broken limbs, to be in the public interest to prosecute.

                      That’s the best Family First’s paid guns (and you) could come up with.

                      Almost 400 parents were not prosecuted. That’s the discretion that wasn’t in Bradford’s original bill.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 2:54 pm

                      “Not “light” enough for the police officers who decided it was in the public interest to prosecute, though.”

                      EXACTLY. Which again shows Clark deceived the public. Changed her mind. Lied. Parents were prosecuted for MINOR acts.

                    • weka …
                      8 June 2016 at 3:11 pm

                      “Not a single person has taken up my challenge. Not one.”

                      I see you haven’t taken up my challenge, which was to provide a long list of Clark’s supposed lies. Did you get past two yet?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      8 June 2016 at 3:12 pm

                      Please refer to my post at the foot of this thread.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2016 at 3:23 pm

                      According to what criteria?

                      They were “minor” offences.
                      Were they “light smacks”?
                      One was hitting a kid on the head while drinking. Another was smacking a kid with a belt.

                      To parse it in the way you love, they need to be both “light” and “smacks”. Using implements or holding him down with your foot aren’t smacks. A hard smack is not a “light smack”.

                      The family first-paid legal opinion mentioned a number of cases:
                      DC v R: the determination of “lightly” smacking was only in the legal opinion, not in any of the quotes from the judgement, simply because the penalty was relatively light;
                      Police v Graham Macdonald Young: same as above – nowhere was the judge quoted as describing the slap as “light”;
                      Mason v R: punching and pulling hair;
                      H v R: hitting with a belt.

                      So, no parents “dragged before the courts” over a light slap.

        • ianmac 7.4.1.4
          6 June 2016 at 2:25 pm

          The Glenn affair is nothing to do with Helen Clark.

          • maninthemiddle 7.4.1.4.1
            7 June 2016 at 11:48 am

            Seriously?

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529970

            And check my earlier link.

            • leftie 7.4.1.4.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 1:02 pm

              Well, Ianmac is essentially right, it wasn’t really about Helen Clark though, was it? it was about a donation to the NZ First party, and since you like being so selective Maninthemiddle,

              “Helen Clark said the question of donations to New Zealand First was on the front page of the paper when she and Mr Glenn were at Auckland University to open its new business school in February.

              “Mr Glenn on that occasion said to me pretty much what he said to the Privileges Committee,” the Prime Minister said this morning.

              “As you would expect, the first thing that I did was go away and ring Mr Peters, and Mr Peters has consistently maintained that he never made that phone call to Mr Glenn,” she said, referring to the solicitation of the donation.

              “So, there’s always been a conflict of evidence.”

              Helen Clark said that at every time the issue had arisen, she had rung Mr Peters and asked for his word.”

              <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529498

              You can see why Winston Peter’s will never support John key and his National government.

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 1:08 pm

                Yes it was about Helen Clark, because the issue we are debating is lying:

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/vote-08/news/features-28605/644704/Helen-Clarks-serious-blunder

                “On Thursday Clark was caught out coming periliously close to breaching one of her own golden rules, which are the distilled wisdom of surviving 27 years of politics. She revealed to a gobsmacked media that Labour’s sugar daddy Owen Glenn told her as early as February that he had given $100,000 to Winston Peters.

                After months of confusion over the Glenn donations, it turns out Clark has known much more than she has been letting on. The famously candid prime minister has been caught out being economical with the truth.”

                • leftie …
                  7 June 2016 at 1:21 pm

                  You brought up the Owen Glen donation to NZ First, essentially that had nothing to do with Helen Clark, who just got dragged into it. Your quote from National biased Stuff, never said Helen Clark lied.

                  “As you would expect, the first thing that I did was go away and ring Mr Peters, and Mr Peters has consistently maintained that he never made that phone call to Mr Glenn,” she said, referring to the solicitation of the donation.

                  “So, there’s always been a conflict of evidence.”

                  Helen Clark said that at every time the issue had arisen, she had rung Mr Peters and asked for his word.”

                  <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529498

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    7 June 2016 at 1:25 pm

                    You’re missingthe point.
                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/vote-08/news/features-28605/644704/Helen-Clarks-serious-blunder

                    “On Thursday Clark was caught out coming periliously close to breaching one of her own golden rules, which are the distilled wisdom of surviving 27 years of politics. She revealed to a gobsmacked media that Labour’s sugar daddy Owen Glenn told her as early as February that he had given $100,000 to Winston Peters.

                    After months of confusion over the Glenn donations, it turns out Clark has known much more than she has been letting on. The famously candid prime minister has been caught out being economical with the truth.”

                    • leftie …
                      7 June 2016 at 2:16 pm

                      But it still didn’t say she patently lied like John Key does Maninthemiddle. I think you are deliberately missing the point.

                      “As you would expect, the first thing that I did was go away and ring Mr Peters, and Mr Peters has consistently maintained that he never made that phone call to Mr Glenn,” she said, referring to the solicitation of the donation.

                      “So, there’s always been a conflict of evidence.”

                      Helen Clark said that at every time the issue had arisen, she had rung Mr Peters and asked for his word.”

                      <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529498

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      7 June 2016 at 4:55 pm

                      “But it still didn’t say she patently lied like John Key does Maninthemiddle.”

                      What does “caught out being economical with the truth” mean?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2016 at 5:29 pm

                      When wingnut trash have their faces dragged through their Daddy’s perfidy, do you ever experience a little bit of personal responsibility, or does the facile squealing that Labour did it too drown out any vestige of ethics you never had in the first place?

                      Please don’t answer that: I’m not interested in your weasel excuses, because I think the best response to “your” “opinion” is contempt.

            • ianmac 7.4.1.4.1.2
              7 June 2016 at 4:03 pm

              Winston was the Leader of NZF and not a member of the Labour Party. He was not answerable to the PM except as the Foreign Minister. Supposing the Act Party did something naughty. Would Key be held to account?

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 5:02 pm

                I’m not interested in what Winston did. Read the background or catch up.

              • leftie …
                7 June 2016 at 7:23 pm

                Ianmac has made a relevant point Maninthemiddle, you just don’t want to admit that John key lies.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.5
      6 June 2016 at 2:43 pm

      All politicians lie.

      Nope. Only the RWNJs of any party.

      Key has told no more than did Helen Clark.

      Nope. John Key does nothing but lie. Helen actually told the truth which is probably what got her voted out at the end. People preferred John Keys lies to the truth.

      In fact, that entire screed of yours was a lie.

      • Stuart Munro 7.5.1
        6 June 2016 at 3:12 pm

        Key is in fact a useless politician, and Crosby Textor aren’t much better.

        Our political system doesn’t work on lies because they are weak.

        “The truth that’s told with bad intent will beat the worse lie you can invent.”

        Key comes across as juvenile as well as incompetent – cannot face his failures – demonstrably unfit to lead.

      • Robert Guyton 7.5.2
        6 June 2016 at 5:31 pm

        Draco. Please. It’s not only right wing nut jobs that lie. Every human knows this. John Key tells the truth on many occasions. People can see this. Helen Clark, being human, clearly told some lies as history records. Let’s get smarter about this.

      • maninthemiddle 7.5.3
        7 June 2016 at 11:50 am

        Still waiting for a single verified example of an actual lie. It amuses me no-one, despite all the hysteria, is prepared to actually put up.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.5.3.1
          7 June 2016 at 12:00 pm

          No, you’re still claiming all the proof provided isn’t proof. In other words, you’re lying to protect your leader just like an authoritarian will do.

          • leftie 7.5.3.1.1
            7 June 2016 at 12:36 pm

            +1 Draco T Bastard. Exactly.

          • maninthemiddle 7.5.3.1.2
            7 June 2016 at 1:35 pm

            You;re simply repeating yourself without addressing the question. There is a list of 433 alleged lies told by Key. Pick one and let’s discuss it. In my view the vast majority of items on the list can be dispensed with in a nanosecond, others may have some merit with some contortion, and finally there are bound to some that could reasonably be argued. But that ‘some’ will be no more than I can post (and have begun to) for Helen Clark.

            • maninthemiddle 7.5.3.1.2.1
              7 June 2016 at 1:38 pm

              Here’s a few more of Clark’s lies, this time about the pledge card:

              ‘spending is allocated to parties to promote their policies’.

              “She also claims that declaring the spending illegal is ‘changing the rules after the event’.”

              Interview with Paul Holmes on Newstalk ZB 7 August 2006.

              http://libertarianz.org.nz/clarks-pledge-card-lies/

            • leftie 7.5.3.1.2.2
              7 June 2016 at 2:30 pm

              Why Maninthemiddle? John key’s lies over the years are public record. Why don’t you go through the 2 lists that have been posted recounting hundreds of lies John key has told and give substantiated evidence that each one is not a lie then.

              • maninthemiddle …
                7 June 2016 at 4:56 pm

                I have, or at least I’ve tried. They are the ramblings of desperate and sad people with a Key obsession.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  7 June 2016 at 5:12 pm

                  And there it is: the tactic of asserting mental illness in your betters is commonly associated with Joseph Stalin.

                  Hey trash, please explain why people shouldn’t spit on you in the street.

      • maninthemiddle 7.5.4
        7 June 2016 at 1:09 pm

        Ae you saying Helen Clark was RWNJ??

  8. Graeme 8
    6 June 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Todd Barclay, the newly pragmatic, kind of left sounding MP for Clutha Southland…

    http://www.scene.co.nz/todd-barclay-act-now-to-fix-housing-shortage/328772a1.page

    Suppose he’s got to rebuild his reputation some how. The idea of converting / refitting / rebuild the old High School has been kicked about for a while. Devil will very much be in the detail of how it’s done and by whom. Ngai Tahu will have first say and that shouldn’t be a bad thing, they have a very good reputation around town as developers.

    • weka 8.1
      6 June 2016 at 2:24 pm

      “Suppose he’s got to rebuild his reputation some how.”

      Or someone does 😉 That looks like a pretty slick piece of behind the scenes engineered rehab to me.

      • Graeme 8.1.1
        6 June 2016 at 3:13 pm

        I’m prepared to have an open mind on that. When Nick Smith was in town he started off by saying that Queenstown’s housing problem was all the council’s fault because they hadn’t “opened up enough land” and talking commissioners. Council and others had to do a lot of work to convince him that wasn’t the problem, there’s around 10000 consented but unbuilt sites. The hold up is shit like this between developers http://www.scene.co.nz/appeals-stall-huge-development/328482a1.page
        That’s just one of many ongoing bunfights and fell out when Smith was in town.

        Barclay’s efforts in Queenstown probably won’t help him much, we don’t vote up here, turnout’s pathetic. And a lot of the people he’ll help aren’t eligible to vote.

        The real work is down south where 90% of the votes are.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          6 June 2016 at 6:12 pm

          You might be right. Or it could be part of a wider rehab plan, including reassuring Queenstown business and powerholders that Barclay is competent, useful, and on side. There’s more to National’s needs than votes.

          Not quite sure how that fits with having an incompetent housing minister like Smith.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    6 June 2016 at 6:44 pm

    To Pay for Subsidies to Massive Corporations, States Are Waging War on Poor Families

    As government increasingly defers to the interests of those who now bankroll political campaigns — not just in a handful of states, but nationwide — union influence has dwindled, deep poverty has soared, and the middle class has collapsed.

    The war on poverty has thus been enveloped and surpassed by a different war — the war for corporations.

    So in NZ we have:

    SkyCity
    Rio Tinto
    Serco
    and others

    against cuts to education, health, beneficiaries being thrown off benefits, and more.

    • Anne 10.1
      6 June 2016 at 6:50 pm

      As always… the final sentence sums it up in a nutshell and we are seeing it all right here in New Zealand.

      It is these corporations, non-human entities in no need of food or clothing, that deserve our scorn for the extent to which they depend on taxpayers for their continued growth — the same taxpayers that, as a result of corporate greed and government duplicity, are forced to endure the consequences of a system that is, as economist Joseph Stiglitz has put it, “of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.”

    • Halfcrow 10.2
      7 June 2016 at 7:14 am

      Thanks for that Draco. I have passed that on to several people, The more people
      who are aware of this, the better. You will not see that mentioned in the Herald or by the likes Henry

  12. Muttonbird 12
    6 June 2016 at 8:02 pm

    Tragic weekend on the roads.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11651647

    Can’t help but think nothing has been learnt by the police and resources continue to be allocated wrongly.

    They cut the speed tolerance in order to gather more revenue and they cut the blood alcohol level as a scare tactic and the road toll climbs.

    It’s what happens when you have a revenue gathering policy and under investment in infrastructure in the face of ballooning immigration.

    • Muttonbird 12.1
      6 June 2016 at 8:52 pm

      Worst in 27 years and points to a failing of policy. The current lot’s penny-pinching, small government approach is notching up some records for all the wrong reasons.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/80772601/queens-birthday-road-toll-rises-to-seven

    • Draco T Bastard 12.2
      7 June 2016 at 11:43 am

      Can’t see anything in there that indicates that the accidents were caused by the cut to blood alcohol or the tighter tolerance of speeding.

      Do you have any research to indicate that you’re not talking out your arse?

      • Psycho Milt 12.2.1
        7 June 2016 at 1:56 pm

        The point isn’t that these accidents were caused by a greater focus on revenue-gathering activities, but that they divert funding from the things that offer the biggest improvements in road safety: infrastructure and vehicle development (ie better roads and safer cars).

        It is a bit unfair to blame the Police for not building better roads, mind…

        • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.1
          7 June 2016 at 2:25 pm

          Yeah, I don’t think that’s a valid point either. After all, we do need to get the dangerous drivers off of the road.

          And they’re not revenue gathering either – if nobody broke the law then there wouldn’t be any revenue gathered now would there.

  13. Muttonbird 13
    6 June 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Interesting. David Farrar’s favourite ever idea with squiggles on, Uber, is found to be forcing it’s drivers to break the law and to work for $8/hour.

    This is typical of Farrar’s type. Load all the risk on those at the bottom. After all, they can take it or leave it?

    Can’t they?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/80698018/unhappy-uber-drivers-abandon-company-after-price-changes

    • Muttonbird 13.1
      6 June 2016 at 8:48 pm

      More star studded behaviour from David Farrar’s friends.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/80787370/uber-driver-harasses-two-gay-female-passengers-in-melbourne

      This is what happens when you deregulate for the sake of a few dollars.

      • Lanthanide 13.1.1
        6 June 2016 at 11:01 pm

        And there are traditional taxi drivers that have assaulted passengers, too.

        • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.1
          7 June 2016 at 11:56 am

          Yeah, which is why we (NZ) have stringent checks on people before they get a P endorsement for their license which allows them to carry passengers. An endorsement that Uber no longer requires before someone signs up to become a driver.

    • Lanthanide 13.2
      6 June 2016 at 10:59 pm

      “is found to be forcing it’s drivers to break the law and to work for $8/hour.”

      It’s not ‘forcing’ it’s drivers to break the law, and it’s not ‘forcing’ them to work for ‘$8/hour’.

      • Draco T Bastard 13.2.1
        7 June 2016 at 11:49 am

        True, it’s not forcing them but it is encouraging them to, Especially the bit about not requiring the proper licenses.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.3
      7 June 2016 at 11:45 am

      Uber needs to be banned as it really is the quintessential exploitation model. Someone else getting rich on the work of many others while those doing the work can barely survive.

    • Colonial Viper 13.4
      7 June 2016 at 11:53 am

      Uber has recently dropped, again, the rate that it is paying Kiwi drivers.

      A co-op Kiwi Uber system would be easy to create and provide more value to Kiwi drivers. (while still undercutting traditional taxi drivers…)

      • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1
        7 June 2016 at 11:59 am

        Uber is now recognised globally whereas the local version won’t be which would make it a lot harder for a new local version to succeed. The same thing is true for TradeMe and the attempts at producing competition for it.

        • Colonial Viper 13.4.1.1
          7 June 2016 at 12:04 pm

          I thought you were all for locally developed technology options. The argument you presented in your comment here would seem to apply to all your calls for going NZ made for most technology products and services.

          • Lanthanide 13.4.1.1.1
            7 June 2016 at 12:19 pm

            Yes, bit ironic coming from Draco ‘we can compete with Intel’ T Bastard.

            • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 2:14 pm

              Actually, one point I’ve always considered if NZ started our own fabrication of ICs was that we’d produce Intel and AMD chips here under license. That there’d be capacity for NZ developed chips as well would be the boost to the local tech industry which is why I think it needs to be government that produces the fabrication plants.

              • Lanthanide …
                7 June 2016 at 5:22 pm

                Why would Intel and AMD want to produce chips in NZ?

                Can we do it cheaper, faster, better than anyone else? Do we have a track record or reputation to prove we are worthy of building their CPUs, which are some of the most sophisticated in the world?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  7 June 2016 at 7:06 pm

                  Can we do it cheaper, faster, better than anyone else?

                  Probably – if we developed the tech well enough. And we can certainly do that. Hell, photo-lithography, the process used to produce CPUS, is a tech that’s over 200 years old.

                  The big question is: Why the hell haven’t we been developing it over the last 40+ years?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 June 2016 at 4:39 pm

                    Photo-lithography is one step in a very long series of steps required to manufacture a CPU.

                    Also why the hell would you go for an x86 style chip if NZ were going to manufacture its own?

                    PS you’d also have to do that illegally as neither AMD nor Intel will license anything newer than an x486 for general computing use

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 June 2016 at 4:51 pm

                      Photo-lithography is one step in a very long series of steps required to manufacture a CPU.

                      There was about 300 steps last time I looked. Most involved coating the photo resistor on the chips, dousing the plate with an ion beam and then washing the photo resistor off.

                      Rinse and repeat.

                      Also why the hell would you go for an x86 style chip if NZ were going to manufacture its own?

                      Compatibility.

                      PS you’d also have to do that illegally as neither AMD nor Intel will license anything newer than an x486 for general computing use

                      You mean my Intel Corei7 chip really doesn’t say ‘Made in Malaysia’ on it?

                      And, no, Intel doesn’t appear to own a fabrication plant in Malaysia.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 June 2016 at 5:12 pm

                      DTB, oh I hadn’t understood, you want NZ to manufacture CPUs for Intel like Malaysia does?

                      BTW, as it seems you are not clear on the logistics chain for Intel CPU manufacturing, an Intel facility in Malaysia is used to assemble the CPUs. No x86 licensing is involved there. You are right however that there is no Intel fab there.

                      The silicon wafers themselves are fabricated at an Intel fab elsewhere, as per that wiki list you linked to, and shipped to Malaysia for finishing.

                      EDIT I agree with you that NZ should manufacture its own CPUs, but I would stay far far away from x86 chips and proprietary MS bloatware. Licensing multi use ARM designs which can be fabbed on a well understood and low risk 90nm process or similar is the way to go.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 June 2016 at 8:02 pm

                      EDIT I agree with you that NZ should manufacture its own CPUs, but I would stay far far away from x86 chips and proprietary MS bloatware.

                      You do understand that Linux also runs on x86 don’t you?
                      And so does MacOSX (Although I tend to think of that as worse than Windows)
                      And many other OSes.

                      The silicon wafers themselves are fabricated at an Intel fab elsewhere, as per that wiki list you linked to, and shipped to Malaysia for finishing.

                      So, according to you, they fab the chips in one place and then ship the highly fragile, can’t be exposed to the open air, wafers halfway around the world to be assembled in Malaysia?

                      Yeah, pull the other one – it’s got bells on.

                      Licensing multi use ARM designs which can be fabbed on a well understood and low risk 90nm process or similar is the way to go.

                      Or we could, you know, develop our own. Or license ARM. And, no, ARM isn’t staying on 90nm either.

                      And WTF are you so enamoured of wasting time developing 90nm processes?
                      As I’ve told you before. They use more power to achieve less. Note the size to the number of transistors. All that extra mass is what makes the 90nm cost more to run.

          • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1.1.2
            7 June 2016 at 2:10 pm

            I was pointing out the difficulty of local brand competing with a global brand. The person coming in from the USA with the Uber app on their phone probably isn’t going to even look for a local app to do the same thing.

            Now, I happen to think that your model suggestion is a far better model than that of Uber but it needs to be a local/global thing where there’s still a single app but it connects to the local taxi cooperative rather the local drivers working for a global conglomerate.

  14. greywarshark 14
    7 June 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Concerning John Key and you commenters on TS who are getting caught up in the sticky spider’s web of maninthemiddle what do you think you are doing? You could be thinking and discussing something that we can change, working out how, or learning something new. Instead you are filling the thread with a lot of dickery-doo about whether the word is lies or not. I have counted 50+ from the start of 7 which was put by mitm himself. It has totally dominated time and page space.

    Call it shiftiness, call it prevarication, look up the thesaurus and choose some other elegant or arcane words instead of lies. ‘A rose by any other name will smell as sweet’ as the saying goes. Have a caption competition to choose a code word for Key’s mumbles! Mitm just stirs you up and you waste your good time and spoil the value of the blog for others. And look incompetent time-wasters. And make TS a laughing stock by RWs.

    • Robert Guyton 14.1
      7 June 2016 at 5:52 pm

      True that, greywarshark. It’s like those one armed bandit machines at the old carnivals – another shilling, another pull on the arm and you might just get that plastic kewpie doll…

  15. greywarshark 15
    8 June 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Robert Guyton
    Ah the good old days when if you kept trying you might get that plastic kewpie doll.
    Now the whole game is totally rigged so the item magically moves away as you aim for it and you never will get a doll, or another chance. You pay to get into the fairground to look at other people enjoying the activities which you can’t afford to join in, and next time the fair comes round, won’t even have the entry fee.

  16. greywarshark 16
    8 June 2016 at 12:54 pm

    Robert Guyton
    This through from Avaaz. Are they going to be able to make an impact. It sounds like a good try.

    “Looking to where we were in the beginning of this year and where we are now, Avaaz is indisputably the driving force of the fight for glyphosate discontinuance.”
    Pavel Poc, Vice-Chair of the EU Parliament’s Environment Committee, and key leader of the glyphosate fight
    This is far from over. But it’s an utter game-changer for countries like Germany, France and Italy to challenge the basis of Monsanto’s entire business model.

    Avaaz delivers glyphosate petition at the EU parliament
    Avaaz petition delivered to European Parliament

    We haven’t been knee-jerk anti-pesticide. Our campaign calls for a suspension until independent science determines the safety of glyphosate. We’ll keep fighting, but if the EU allows 18 months for a new scientific process to weigh in, and we can ensure that process is truly independent, we could win this!!

    We can also use the next 18 months to focus scrutiny on the global environmental impact of the Monsanto model, which is turning the surface of our planet into strange, toxic “biodeserts” where only one genetically modified Monsanto crop can grow.
    Like with climate change and the Paris agreement, Avaaz has mobilised people on this issue at an unprecedented scale – we’ve taken the fight against Monsanto to a whole new level, and now it’s up to all of us, over the next 18 months, to win it.

    First big oil, now Monsanto. We are taking on the dragons of our world. But if we stick together, and choose to believe and act, we can do anything.
    With hope and determination,
    Ricken, Alice, Bert, Pascal and the whole Avaaz team

    • Robert Guyton 16.1
      8 June 2016 at 4:25 pm

      Thanks, greywarshark – yes, I’m following that development with great interest, as are my fellow councillors through the emails I’m kindly providing for them 🙂
      Glyphosate use on NZ farms is alarmingly high, as is its use by city and district councils. I’m strongly opposed to its use.

  17. maninthemiddle 17
    8 June 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I’ve re-read LP’s post to me, and frankly his personal threat is disturbing and rather pathetic, so I’m going to finish on this topic with this. It makes the point very well.

    https://yournz.org/2015/02/22/blip-and-the-list-of-keys-lies/

    You can continue to claim Key has told millions of porkies if you want, but no-one’s buying it outside the Key Deranged left.

    • Robert Guyton 17.1
      8 June 2016 at 3:23 pm

      But maninthemiddle – please don’t go just yet! Could you at least provide me with some honest feedback to my most recent comment to you? It’d only be polite, given the time I gave to you in engaging with you. Here’s that comment again:

      8 June 2016 at 3:05 pm
      I was keen to uncover the mechanism behind maninthemiddles crusade here. I asked what he need/meant by “proof”, as he’d used the word in his challenges here on TS. He seems, in response, to have been “less than truthful”, as evidenced by the two quotes below. Fair call, mitm?

      maninthemiddle said: 7 June 2016 at 11:44 am

      “Robert if you accuse someone of lying, it is up to you to prove it when challenged.”

      maninthemiddle said: 8 June 2016 at 2:39 pm

      “Actually I’m not demanding anything”

      • Robert Guyton 17.1.1
        8 June 2016 at 4:20 pm

        Awww! Maninthemiddle’s done a runner. How disappointing, I’ll miss him so. He was doing okay, keeping everyone distracted with his arrogant demands for attention and proof but that all fell apart under pressure and he revealed himself to be, let’s be kind here, less than truthful. I hope he returns. I’ve something I’d like to ask him.

    • leftie 17.2
      8 June 2016 at 4:38 pm

      What threat are you referring to Maninthemiddle? I haven’t read any responses containing any threats, and putting up a link to a right wing blog site won’t help your failure to prove your point either. It is not a claim that John key has told countless lies and continues to lie and deceive, it’s fact, and everyone knows it, including right wingers like you.
      You have replied to others, why are you refusing to respond and address Robert’s questions?

      • maninthemiddle 17.2.1
        8 June 2016 at 4:52 pm

        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06062016/#comment-1184911

        Read LPrents comment. A cowardly, empty and bankrupt threat from behind a moderators cloak. Obviously I’ve hit a tender spot with my comments about Blip’s list.

        PS here’s a good read.
        https://yournz.org/2016/02/15/blips-lies/

        • McFlock 17.2.1.1
          8 June 2016 at 5:03 pm

          If it’s cowardly, empty and bankrupt, why did you find it disturbing?

          Anyway, you were actually getting somewhere with #30.
          I guess thats back to 431 lies…

          • maninthemiddle 17.2.1.1.1
            8 June 2016 at 5:19 pm

            “If it’s cowardly, empty and bankrupt, why did you find it disturbing?”
            You mean you don’t find ‘cowardly, empty and bankrupt’ behaviour ‘worrying’ (the meaning of disturbing)?

            “Anyway, you were actually getting somewhere with #30. I guess thats back to 431 lies…”
            Well then I was batting 1 from 1. And I’m leaving it there.

        • leftie 17.2.1.2
          8 June 2016 at 5:50 pm

          The thing is, it’s not a “cowardly, empty and bankrupt threat from behind a moderators cloak” though. Lprent has been upfront and has confronted you about your trolling behaviour. Again, putting up a link to a right wing blog site won’t help your failure to prove your point either.

          • maninthemiddle 17.2.1.2.1
            8 June 2016 at 6:15 pm

            Actually he never mentioned trolling. He took exception to my holding people accountable for labelling someone a liar, obviously a sensitive issue for him.

            His remarks were cowardly, because he moderates and therefore can skew the debate his way.

            They were empty, because he has no intention of carrying them out (even if he could!)

            Finally they were bankrupt, because they were of no use whatsoever.

            His comments went beyond rational dialogue into personal threats. If you find that acceptable, then that’s sad.

            As to the ‘right wing blog’, how do you feel about Blip’s use of left wing blogsites to support his list? Are you going to exercise consistency or hypocrisy?

            • maninthemiddle 17.2.1.2.1.1
              8 June 2016 at 6:28 pm

              “I may choose to savage you with the attention (that you so obviously desire) of evidence and opinion about you and your ideas. I’ve been on the nets for more than 30 years, am rather over educated, have a lot of work and political experience, and have a certain expertise in administering ‘educational’ experiences to fools on the net. I’m unlikely to be kind or unconstrained. The attention I tend to give is more sadistic. So I’d be careful about what you ask for.”

              Paranoid. Egotistical. Sadistic. But keep defending him if you like.

              • Robert Guyton …
                8 June 2016 at 7:09 pm

                maninthemiddle – 8 June 2016 at 3:23 pm
                Looking forward to your response with eager anticipation.
                Sincerely
                Robert

                • maninthemiddle …
                  8 June 2016 at 8:16 pm

                  Sure, I’ll engage.

                  “8 June 2016 at 3:05 pm
                  I was keen to uncover the mechanism behind maninthemiddles crusade here. I asked what he need/meant by “proof”, as he’d used the word in his challenges here on TS. He seems, in response, to have been “less than truthful”, as evidenced by the two quotes below. Fair call, mitm?

                  maninthemiddle said: 7 June 2016 at 11:44 am

                  “Robert if you accuse someone of lying, it is up to you to prove it when challenged.”

                  maninthemiddle said: 8 June 2016 at 2:39 pm

                  “Actually I’m not demanding anything””

                  Seems all clear to me. BTW, I answered your question about ‘proof’ earlier. As you seem not to have understood, I’ll rephrase. By proof I men verifiable evidence. Not opinion posts on TDB or TS, which I have seen used to support the contentions. Not blogs by Nicky Hager. Actual quotes, with references, by Key, followed by convincing evidence Key actually knew he was lying. That’s the standard. Nothing less will do. I can’t find a single item on Blip’s list that comes close.

                  Oh, and as a parting shot, the left started this ‘narrative’ attacking Key before he was even elected. Have a read of this little piece. It even appears to have coined the phrase ‘Dirty Politics’. Seems Key Derangement Syndrome began much earlier than I thought.

                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/decision-08/637261/Dirty-politics-and-the-world-wide-web

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    8 June 2016 at 8:31 pm

                    Thanks for getting back, maninthemiddle. Here’s my question to you. I’m keen to get a response from you about what seems to be contradictory statements you made earlier. You were pursuing the issue of truthfulness, but seemed to be untruthful in what you said. I have the evidence you said was so important in such situations; your claim that you didn’t ask for proof alongside of examples of your…asking for for proof. I wonder if you might address this conflict and assure readers that you weren’t being…dishonest. We, the readers and I, need that assurance in order to treat any of your statements as worthwhile, rather than…dishonest.
                    ‘k?

              • leftie …
                8 June 2016 at 8:11 pm

                You have described yourself Maninthemiddle. Get over yourself. You are being an overtly sensitive drama queen.

            • leftie 17.2.1.2.1.2
              8 June 2016 at 8:07 pm

              I said Lprent confronted you on your trolling behaviour, that was my take on it, I never said Lprent said it. Lprent didn’t skew the debate and neither where his remarks empty and bankrupt, you certainly took exception to them, so again you are wrong. People could easily say your comments go beyond rational dialogue, and maybe you have a persecution complex issue if you think it was a personal threat when it wasn’t.
              Well, right wing blog sites that support John key are not going to promote and publish full lists of John key’s lies, that are public record, are they? it stands to reason that Blip and others who have made lists of John key’s lies are going to have them published on left wing blog sites. I think that was a really stupid question you have asked. I see that you are still avoiding Robert’s questions, and I thought you said you were finished with this topic comments ago. You appear to want to carry it on, so why not answer Robert’s questions?

              • maninthemiddle …
                8 June 2016 at 8:25 pm

                If LP wanted to confront me and accuse me of trolling, he should have done so. But if you read his ugly piece of intolerance you’ll find he didn’t. Not once. It is you who have introduced that.

                How you can construe comments such as “I may choose to savage you”, ” and have a certain expertise in administering ‘educational’ experiences to fools on the net”, “I’m unlikely to be kind or unconstrained.”, “The attention I tend to give is more sadistic.” and “So I’d be careful about what you ask for” as anything other than personal I’ll leave up to your conscience. Why he would think I’d be impressed by his “30years on the net” and his bloated opinion of his intelligence is beyond me.

                As to Roberts comments, I have answered them. Above. I said I wouldn’t carry on with this topic, and I’m not. However I will defend my opinions on LP’s vanity and irrationality. It is obvious I touched a nerve.

                [lprent: Not really, I’m very short of time due to work. Normally I’d just do a moderator warning like this when I’m ‘noticing; someone as a moderator. However I was reading on my cellphone and the editing is a pain.

                But clearly the point didn’t get through, so I clearly need to reinforce it with some arbitrary moderator behaviour. It really pays to listen to moderators giving warnings about comment behaviour even if they are routinely as nasty as I prefer to be.

                But since the warning wasn’t in the normal format and I have the dishes to do so there is no time to broaden the point, so I will generously reduce the usual emphasis by half. Banned two weeks. ]

  18. greywarshark 18
    8 June 2016 at 9:40 pm

    Bloody can’t help yourselves. You have got to go on needling, demanding, keeping going the trolling behaviour.of mitm. I think some of you aren’t serious about discussing and learning ways to deal with the future. You just want to play in a sandpit that a dog or cat has done something smelly in.

    Goodbye for now. The comments are trite and trivial.