Open mike 08/08/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:35 am, August 8th, 2014 - 280 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 …

280 comments on “Open mike 08/08/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bad12 1
    8 August 2014 at 7:13 am

    The children of Ngati Hine o te Tai Tokerau give evidence to the Watangi Tribunal describing for the first time publicly the destruction of their homes and businesses by the Crown,

    ”Some of our homes, they just burned them to the ground”, ”One day our mums shop was there, the next it was gone, nothing”,

    1869, hardly, this was 1969, the New Zealand most of us never knew as we grew in the sunshine, free milk, free education and jobs for everyone,

    Ethnic cleansing New Zealand style, as the evidence is given by those who were in 1969 mere children, they weep, as i listen to this, deep down, my soul, i weep along with them…

    • Tracey 1.1
      8 August 2014 at 8:20 am

      hang your head in shame Mr Whyte for the ignorance you have deliberately chosen to spread this past week.

      • aerobubble 1.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:00 am

        Joyce didn’t want a debate over land sales last week on The Nation, the issue
        has to be shutdown, Key goes nuclear on Harre’s sugar daddy.

        Dotcom audience declares ‘fuck John Key’ in response,
        and TV1 calls anyone against assets sales racist.

        Yet, three cases of verbal abuse, two originating from
        National, and one in response to John Key. Which was the
        most egregious?

        A crowd of youth shouting f.u, or the PM sugar daddy comment.

        Fuck John Key, we’re not racists, we’re not whores.

        • karol 1.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:10 am

          Key goes nuclear on Harre’s sugar daddy.

          Dotcom audience declares ‘fuck John Key’ in response,

          I believe your timeline is incorrect.

          First came the video with the ‘fuck John Key’ chant, then came Key’s ‘sugar daddy’ comment, then some people criticised Key, then the Nats made a noise about the ‘fuck John Key’ chant.

          • aerobubble 1.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 10:56 am

            You maybe correct but that was not the timeline presented by the TV.

            And would it really matter, DotCom isn’t after conservative voters, he’s after the non-voter, the disgruntlled voter, the apathetic voter, the alternative voter. So how is a audience declaring FU any different that National media talking head declaring we’re all racists for wanting controls on land sales. I see no difference except the obvious media bias. FU or Racists, same difference.

            • Kiwiri 1.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 1:55 pm

              The interesting thing about the exchange(s): the mainstreaming of “FJK”.
              FJK can now be openly discussed at our family dinner table.

      • David H 1.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 10:35 am

        I thank him for showing his ignorance and bias, plus the fact that he is completely out of touch with most Kiwi’s. The sheeple of Epsom must be muttering into their latte’s about this fool that’s been foisted upon them.

    • Tiger Mountain 1.2
      8 August 2014 at 9:19 am

      Check out this info graphic portraying Māori land ownership in 5 stages from 1860, it is a hell of a lot like a map of Palestine from 1947 to now.
      http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/interactive/maori-land-1860-2000

      You need to spend a couple of decades in a given area imo and look past current use to fully understand the implications of land loss on Māori society. In the Far North for instance a lot of land theft was perpetrated by local government, churches and central government not just greedy farmers and loggers. Margaret Mutu documented how on the Karikari Peninsula in the 1940s fertiliser and other farm supplies were left at Māori farm gates by Native/Māori Affairs and uplifted or not payment was required, failure to cough up resulted in land seizures. Landcorp farms sit on some of this land today. The Ngati Kahu descendents (“a marginal people on marginal lands” as the Muriwhenua Report said) are in the area to this day and will not rest till it is returned with other land.

      All governments should realise there is no final treaty settlement until there is justice in all forms.

      • phillip ure 1.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 9:31 am

        @ t.m..

        chrs 4 that graphic..

        ..i have put it up @ whoar..

        ..and you are correct..i had a similar reaction to this..as to maps/graphics detailing the expansionism/occupation of palestinian lands..by the israelis..

        ..it says more than thousands of words do..

        • Gosman 1.2.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 9:58 am

          Not really. The issue is more how much land was unjustly purchased or confiscated not how much was sold. The graphic also only showns land in classified as Maori land and not maori owned land.

          • vto 1.2.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 10:03 am

            You are being completely disingenuous and avoiding the point. As usual. Stop being so rude and splitting hairs like that.

            http://www.kimberlydurban.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Split-Shift.jpg

          • Tiger Mountain 1.2.1.1.2
            8 August 2014 at 10:16 am

            Needn’t be a dick every day Gosman, contact the site if you don’t think they put enough effort in to satisfy your pedantry (which is a cover for your racism).

            Which ever way you describe the process post colonial Māori remain comprehensively alienated from their ancestral land. The Māori economy was laid waste first by the colonists and then incrementally by assimilation. It is only in the last few decades some redress has started to happen.

            • Gosman 1.2.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2014 at 11:05 am

              The Maori economy should have been largely unaffected by any assimilation policies. What I find interesting is the areas of the country with the highest cioncentration of Maori land seem to have the least economic development. This suggests there may well be a problem with how Maori utilise their land for economic gain. I personally don’t see how this can be blamed on the impacts of colonisation.

              • vto …
                8 August 2014 at 11:19 am

                ha ha ha, fickkin’ hell you’re out there gosman

                perhaps try re-reading several times what you have written there. I think you have unwittingly admitted to one of your shortcomings, and as such your views which are affected by these shortcomings are of little value.

                • Gosman …
                  8 August 2014 at 11:26 am

                  If you disagree then perhaps you would expand on why exactly my view is incorrect.

                  • vto …
                    8 August 2014 at 11:35 am

                    Come on gosman, surely you can see where you inadvertently exposed a shortcoming, let alone its consequent impact.

                    Unfortunately I gotta get going – got some rivers to check out for early whitebait signage

              • tricledrown …
                8 August 2014 at 2:09 pm

                Goose yesterday you lied like your leader got your facts wrong i defended one of your comments .
                Being confined to marginal land with multiple ownership and the FACT that no bank will lend Maori money to develop their land like the privileged who stole confiscated insider traded the rest of the land off Maori your statement reflects your ignorance.
                I can hear the banjo’s in the back ground as you type
                Gooseman ACT supporter no doubt whyte racist supremicist inbred racist fermenting idiot~!

                • Gosman …
                  8 August 2014 at 2:28 pm

                  There were no lies written by me yesterday, There may have been stuff you disagreed with ot even perhaps stuff I got wrong (although what that is I don’t know) however there was nothing posted by me that you can show was a lie.

              • Puddleglum …
                8 August 2014 at 3:54 pm

                My understanding is that, in the 19th century, many North Island iwi/hapu became quite prosperous as they provided much of the food and other supplies for the colonists.

                Quite a few flour mills were owned and one iwi had several hundred thousand pounds in a Wellington bank and trade with Australia was lively.

                What happened – once again, as I understand it – is that as the colonist population increased the colonial authorities started to introduce legislation and other judicial and regulatory processes which enabled the rapid alienation of land and completely abrogated the Treaty in the process. There were also dodgy deals done, of course, and some outright confiscations (especially as a consequence of the land wars).

                It was from that point on that the Maori economy went into decline.

                [Note: I say ‘my understanding’ only because I read this account from a secondary source rather than from the original scholarly works.]

                • Gosman …
                  8 August 2014 at 4:13 pm

                  If you had evidence of a set of policies whereby the settler economy was advanced and favoured over the Maori one (e.g. preferential treatment in internal and external markets) then you have a point. My understanding though is that the Maori economy went in to decline for any number of reasons but the main ones were more to do with decline in demand for the products and services offered and increased competition from non-Maori suppliers.

                  • Puddleglum …
                    8 August 2014 at 8:04 pm

                    It was more complicated than a “decline in demand for products and services offered and increased competition“.

                    That explanation sounds a bit like a market economy simply following it’s immutable logic.

                    Missing from that kind of account is the historical and cultural reality of the time. The following comes from Michael King’s Penguin History of New Zealand (p. 191, start of Chapter 14 ‘New settlers take control’):

                    “By and large the new settlers were safe because most Maori who had an opinion on the issue consented to Pakeha being where they were, on small sections of the country’s coastal fringe. One reason they consented was that they did not yet see the Pakeha presence as something that would substantially change the way Maori lived or behaved. In the next two decades, however, he demographic, economic and political impact of the new colonists would transform the country in ways that the tangata whenua could never have foreseen. That transformation occurred at several levels simultaneously.”

                    Part of that transformation was the systematic geographic, geological and mineral surveying (e.g., for gold and coal) that, in effect, helped to identify land to be exploited for farming, mining and other extractive industries. That was all being done on one simple assumption: That the land would ‘fall’ into Pakeha hands fairly readily as colonisation continued.

                    As King put it (pp. 210-211, start of Chapter 15 ‘A time of turbulence’):

                    “As James Belich has noted, a periphery of European settlements on the coast of the North Island became economically interdependent with the Maori hinterland. The two spheres interacted without either side being dominant and Maori were in complete control of their own tribal territories. Most Europeans, however, regarded this state of affairs as temporary. They took it for granted that the Maori population would continue to decrease while that of European settlers increased; and that Maori land would progressively become available to Europeans for agricultural development.

                    Maori too began to fear this outcome. It seemed to some chiefs that tribal culture and tikanga (customs) might be in danger of permanent extinction unless active steps were taken to preserve them. For some, a prerequisite for such preservation was a ban on further sales of Maori land.”

                    It was apparently from that determination that the first Maori King was chosen and, of course, it was the trigger point for the Taranaki War.

                    Essentially, and quite wisely, many Maori saw that the survival of their culture depended upon their land not entering the Pakeha ‘market economy’.

                    Classical liberal market proponents like John Locke had long promoted the view that it was just to alienate native people’s from the land because they were typically not making productive improvements to it – improvements which supposedly help the general good. Locke famously applied this argument in the context of the North American colonies and the dispossession of the ‘frontier’ from Native Americans.

                    The British were also well-versed in how laws and structural economic changes could compel participation in a market economy. The infamous ‘hut taxes’ they imposed in Africa were deliberately designed to force Africans into a cash economy, into debt and, ultimately, into the ‘sale’ or abandonment of their land – so that it could be turned over to more productive ‘white’ owners.

                    The colonist population was also rapidly increasing – almost doubling between the years 1861-1864 (from 98,000 to 171,000). That process ensured that there would be a collision over Maori land – and therefore with Maori culture and their entire economic and social forms of life.

                    As I understand it, in the 19th century Maori essentially wanted to maintain their traditional ways of life with any ‘evolution’ being on their own terms. Part of that way of life involved collective decision making over such things as land sales. Europeans – and their government – favoured and fought over their right to ‘buy’ land from any and all Maori individuals who claimed some ownership.

                    Capitalist market economies, by their nature, favour individual property rights over collective ones (efficiency, productivity in terms of marketable produce, etc.) and, because of that are inherently destructive of more collectivist cultural forms.

                    So I think the simple conclusion that Maori just happened to have been outcompeted in a fair market process begs the question of whether or not they should have been forced into such an imperial capitalist market economy in the first place.

      • karol 1.2.2
        8 August 2014 at 9:32 am

        Wow. That interactive is really telling.

        And the Sth Island?

    • Gosman 1.3
      8 August 2014 at 9:50 am

      The land did not pass out of ownership of Maori though from what I understand. It was an administrative change where they consolidated smaller land into larger units.

      • bad12 1.3.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:10 am

        Riiii–iiight Gosman, the Americans have a phrase for this form of behavior, ”Burning Down the Village to Save it”

        Remember it do you,

        The morehu, the now landless, homeless, their businesses, their lives, stripped from them, bulldozed and burned, what of them, did they ask for their village to be burned Gosman?,

        Oh they got State Houses, do you ever think Gosman, ever wonder why it is an MP, in this case Hone Harawira puts it all on the line, blocking the removal of State Housing, in some cases the removal is via the bulldozer turning them into matchwood,

        Do you Gosman, ever spend even 30 seconds of thought wondering why???,

        Well you arsehole let me explain it to you, those children, the mokopuna of Ngati Hine o te Tai Tokerau, their village trashed and burned by the government in 1969, landless, pushed into State Housing,

        The current Government in a re-re-repeat of such ethnic cleansing has been busily forcing the children of Ngati Hine out of their State Houses, trashing those houses and flicking off the land to their developer mates for a song…

        • vto 1.3.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:23 am

          It tears viciously at the fabric of one’s soul to suffer these kinds of events. I feel for the poor people who have been subjected to it all.

        • Gosman 1.3.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 10:31 am

          I didn’t state I agreed with the policy. Personally I think this comes from having an activist State. However what seems to be the case here is less land being alienated from Maori and more land passing to different type of Maori ownership.

          • bad12 1.3.1.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 10:47 am

            Riii–iiight Gosman, ethnic cleansing the sanitized version, you should write a book,

            Tell us Gosman, how do you think you would feel if say i was to come round and burn your house to the ground,

            i have a caravan you could rent, after-all you would still have the land, of course, a couple of years later i would be back to torch the caravan,

            i have a tent you could rent, after-all you would still own the land, that’ed be OK right Gosman…

            • Gosman 1.3.1.2.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 11:39 am

              Why are you acting like I agree with the policy. Personally I think it is an indictment against a centralised statist approach to economic problems. My point is that the land was not being lost to Maori just reallocated within the comunity.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                8 August 2014 at 12:58 pm

                Why are you acting like I agree with the policy.

                Because you keep excusing it by trying to paint it as something else.

              • bad12 …
                8 August 2014 at 8:39 pm

                What my comment above Gosman is seeking is any form of empathy that may exist in you heart, i know, from your later comments which others have addressed you obviously have none,

                But try we must,

                To all extents and purposes the land was lost to the owners when you consider the forced removals from their point of view,(its why i use the burning down the house analogy above),

                Your retreat into ‘market economics’ in an attempt to provide ‘legitimacy’ to the Crowns actions even as late as 1969 is simply spurious bullshit,

                What existed up to the point of such forced evictions, and, Ngati Hine were far from the only iwi/hapu to suffer in this manner was a viable village society, admittedly a subsistence economy where the majority of what was consumed was grown on the land or harvested as part of nature from the land,

                While Ngati Hine, as the example we discuss here, but, this applies to all the lands evacuated by the forces of the State, still literally owned the lands what they lost was the rights of occupation,

                Such ‘rationalizations’ explained by you Gosman into terms of market economics only ‘add up’ in terms of those market economics if those forced off the lands were then ignored,

                Which of course they were,

                The reality tho is this, those lands had for centuries nurtured those owners, in this case 18 families,

                However,

                Once forced off the lands the owners had removed from them the right of occupation and their only compensation, as with thousands and thousands of Maori in this current day, was a small yearly annuity from the ‘profits’ those who got to then use their lands made from such use,

                NEVER, and i know hundreds of Maori who receive such payments from land that they own but have no right of use or occupation over, NEVER did such annuities payed EVER reach an amount that the families so removed from their lands could provide for their own well-being and living costs,

                And right there Gosman, your absolutely stupid ‘market analysis’ falls flat on its face,

                Further to the above, as the Maori population rebounded from its perilous state these annual payments having to be shared around more and more whanau members have made them a mere pittance, in many cases a sad joke…

          • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.2.2
            8 August 2014 at 12:57 pm

            Personally I think this comes from having an activist State.

            Not specifically. An activist state could have protected those people and ensured that they kept their land rather than taking it from them. What we see here is the state working for the capitalists – same as we see today as people are kicked out of state houses and our assets are sold off against our will.

    • weka 1.4
      8 August 2014 at 11:48 am

      “The children of Ngati Hine o te Tai Tokerau give evidence to the Watangi Tribunal describing for the first time publicly the destruction of their homes and businesses by the Crown,”

      Thanks for posting about this Bad12. So little passes before the mainstream eye.

  2. crocodill 2
    8 August 2014 at 7:35 am

    It is just another example of TV3 editing real life events to their own definitions, or did the Judgement made on the Dudley boy’s death really happen the way it was shown? That a judge can say that she can’t rule for the charges because the victim might have died of a heart problem anyway ended not only in a lack of justice, but some seriously flawed thinking. I was stunned. Years of expensive learning, in disciplines no one gives a damn about in real life, rang loud alarm bells in my head. And if it was my child lying dead and I heard those words, I cannot imagine the pain and anger I’d feel.

    It’s all very well to have the suspicion, from your own life experience, that the justice system is not only not interested in justice with a capital J, but that it is heavily corrupted by the politics of the day and really just maintains dominant white culture and popular slogans about how certain people, and the State, should interact. But when a Judge openly comes out and says it, it’s always a real smack in the face. And when you realise how corrupted society is becoming and that judges are actively maintaining that immorality and injustice, well… it isn’t paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    There are a lot of jobs a person can do to hold high social status. The status comes with responsibility, since those positions can influence the path of other people’s lives in powerful ways. Most of them have a requirement for the practitioner to know where they begin and end, where philosophical concepts depart from morals, and morals depart from pop culture. I’m of the opinion that the Judge I saw talking last night on the news doesn’t know any of that. I can understand how a certain legal and political framework can end in someone saying that the person who committed a crime is not guilty of a charge that doesn’t match the reality – genuine unfortunate accidents, might be an example. But to imply that school yard fights are normal, to be expected, therefore not crimes regardless of consequences, is going too far. To say that a person had a pre-existing condition and the “normal beating” wouldn’t otherwise have ended the way it did, is a dangerous precedent.

    Following her reasoning we could say:

    (trigger warning)

    “The old man who was victim of a violent home invasion was already lucky to have lived as long as he did. Doctors tell me that old people often die natural deaths from old age. Therefore there is no way of knowing if the beating he received contributed to the expected time of his death. It wasn’t murder. I discharge you without conviction.”

    “The woman was not really raped, because statistics show us that young women who drink often have sex, so the sex that happened was really only inevitable. Her two attackers, who are usually good boys were overcome with normal lust, and now later, remorse. If I sent them to jail it would ruin their lives, too. Let’s stop the craziness here, I discharge you without conviction.”

    It is pure politics that a judge is presumably sure that an existing heart condition was certain to end one person’s life on a particular day, beating or not, give or take a few days, but is also completely convinced that a conviction would only make matters worse for the perpetrators of that beating. On the one hand she uses science and stats to contradict common life experience and support a not-guilty-till-proven ideology; on the other, a metaphorical crystal ball that supports common life experience and then contradicts it with a solid reliance on pre-determination. Both instances actively consider the impact on the perpetrators of the crime, while passively disregarding the victim.

    People who have power over other people are morally obliged to know where they and their beliefs begin and end. This Judge appears to have, either knowingly or not, projected her cultural values onto the case she was offered. In my opinion she has upheld the cultural ideas of the section society she represents:

    The causes of sickness can be attributed to neglect by the individual.
    Neglect by the individual is a matter of fault.
    Sickness is viewed as weakness.
    Weakness is bad and undesirable. Strength and health is good. Power is good.
    The undesirable are to be excluded from normal social activities and freedoms because they are bad.
    The undesirable are not really one of us and do not deserve equal consideration.

    Unfortunately or not, there are places people should not go if they aren’t usually mixing in certain circles, but it should remain a personal choice when that place is also open to the public and the activity is not inherently dangerous. For example, a person could decide to stop going to pubs when they finally realise that booze, anywhere in public situations, attracts a high level of avoidable stupid. As a personal decision, they would not be able to impress it on others with the force of law. They are not a Judge.

    But does society – consenting to give their power to judges – now openly agree that the elderly, the ill, the disabled, the vulnerable, the poor, the slightly weaker, all of them must stay away from normal social and community situations so that the True Participants – the bullies, the barbarians, the powerful but irresponsible, and violent criminals – can be sure of choosing more capable victims and not be entrapped by weak opponents?

    Is there a list of what now stands as “normal” for all common social situation? Should I expect to be mugged on the bus? Is that normal? Should I expect to be stabbed while having dinner with friends? How about when I go for a run in the park? Should I expect to beaten to death? Is that normal now too? Should a person expect to be sexually assaulted at pubs, clubs or hotels and make plans for avoidance, bearing full responsibility for anything that happens to them? Should I expect all Judgements from our Justice system to be as flawed as the one I saw last night?

    This judge has implied through her words that if you aren’t a totally healthy, white, male middle class or higher and climbing, magazine image of a person, if you are a potential victim, you aren’t wanted and should stay clear of being in public because it’s just too dangerous. I’m stunned. In the very least, it appears that her comprehension level of the English language is extremely low and she has no idea the weight of her words on portions of society that are already fully aware of where they stand. Making things worse by convicting? That Judge did just as much damage herself.

    There was a quote posted on here yesterday, by George Monbiot, a journalist, that went something like, “To be at peace with a troubled world: this is not a reasonable aim. It can be achieved only through a disavowal of what surrounds you. To be at peace with yourself within a troubled world: that, by contrast, is an honourable aspiration… it calls on you not to be ashamed.”. As always, there are degrees of degree to truisms. Today I’m going to have to block out almost everything that I know goes on around me, just to be at peace with myself. The alternative would get anyone into serious trouble.

    • riffer 2.1
      8 August 2014 at 7:49 am

      Crocodill, that was gold. I may find myself quoting you a bit today.

    • kenny 2.2
      8 August 2014 at 8:05 am

      Heartfelt and well said.

      Along those lines I have just read the following quote by Rev. Allen E. Claxton:

      ‘Today the treacherous, unexplored areas of the world are not in continents or the seas; they are in the minds and hearts of men’

    • Ed 2.3
      8 August 2014 at 8:16 am

      “That a judge can say that she can’t rule for the charges because the victim might have died of a heart problem anyway ended not only in a lack of justice, but some seriously flawed thinking.”

      I heard it differently – the attacker did not know of the heart problems, and it cannot be known whether that heart problem was critical in causing the death by one or a combination of taunting and an initial blow – the death was certainly one that may well not have happened with most other children of that age.. The judge did make a decision or ruling on teh charges, and that decision can be appealed, and I would think that an appeal could be helpful if it is thought that the decision was a finely balanced one and that an appeal could refine the interpretation of the law.

      Maturity carries the responsibility of understanding and considering the consequences of actions – there is an issue as to whether the offender in this case was sufficiently mature to understand the possible actions. I too sympathise with the family, and all those with known physical defects that need to be careful in how they act themselves but are powerless to always adequately influence the actions of others. This is not an easy situation, but I suspect your projecti0ns of the reasoning to the elderly, frail and disabled are a step too far in the immediate aftermath of the ruling; some matters are important to address but best considered in the light of many circumstances rather than seeing only in the light of a single instance.

      • Tracey 2.3.1
        8 August 2014 at 8:25 am

        I too understand that for murder not only must there be intent to kill, but your direct actions caused the death. For manslaughter you dont have to have had the intent but your actions must directly cause the death. The Judge was saying there is evidence that due to a congenital heart problem that might have been what killed him, not the blows per se. She has, imo, applied the law in that way and accordingly the charge becomes one of assault.

        I sympathise with the family, nothing can return their dearly loved son to them. However I won’t support a system that condemns children to our particular prison system when they have neither the maturity or the intent such committal demands. We call them children for a number of reasons; physiologically (including brain) they are not yet mature, their thinking is clouded and the consequence part of their brain is still forming. In my opinion IF the Judge had any hint the offender had no remorse and would learn nothing from this incident she would have made a different sentence ruling.

        As hard as it is for the family we have to be careful of being a conscious party to the destruction of a second young life. It won’t bring the first back and our prison system is so fucked it would change the offender in ways we would not want.

        • Lanthanide 2.3.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 8:49 am

          The initial manslaughter charge was withdrawn and replaced with assault to cause harm (or something like that).

          So the fact that he died from it should have no bearing on whether the perpetrator should be convicted with assault.

          There is also a difference between convicting someone, and sentencing them. He could have been convicted but then had very little or no actual sentence to carry out; instead he didn’t even get convicted.

          Bear in mind that he plead guilty – ie he thinks that he did commit the crime that is alleged at him, and for some reason the judge didn’t.

          I really hope this is appealed and he’s convicted.

          • Ad 2.3.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 8:52 am

            Going against the leading High Court judge would be tough to appeal.

            However the family could consider a civil action.

            • Lanthanide 2.3.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 8:58 am

              According to the lawyer on the radio this morning, the family of the victim have no standing because the case is between the Crown and the perpetrator. The crown may take the victim’s family’s view into consideration however.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                8 August 2014 at 10:23 am

                Is this the hot button topic that will get The Conservatives (well Garth McVicar really) over the 5% threshold?

                • Lanthanide …
                  8 August 2014 at 11:17 am

                  No, unless the family of the victim now have their votes worth 50,000 as much as any other citizen.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    8 August 2014 at 12:01 pm

                    Well no they arn’t but with the (justifiable in my opinion) anger of the victims father plus the bewilderment of most people hearing this decision its a tailor-made situation for Garth McVicar to get some publicity

                    • Lanthanide …
                      8 August 2014 at 1:13 pm

                      “some publicity” != 5% threshold in votes.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      8 August 2014 at 3:53 pm

                      Well yes, this could be one the issues that, for whatever reason, people react to…like the showerheads helped kill of Labour or the Orewa speech brought National back into the game, this issue could possibly help get the Conservatives the extra 2-3% percent they need

          • aerobubble 2.3.1.1.2
            8 August 2014 at 10:27 am

            So its a lottery? People walk around with undiagnosed conditions that may cause their deaths.
            They could work for you, they could be your family, you could get into a heated argument and the worst happens. Now I am of the belief arbitrary justice is not justice. Its quite reasonable that school kids believe that a bit of fighting won’t lead to death.

            • Lanthanide 2.3.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2014 at 11:18 am

              Yes, which is why he was charged with assault, not manslaughter.

              Did he assault the victim? He plead guilty, so that would tend to suggest that he did.

              • Tom Jackson …
                8 August 2014 at 2:13 pm

                I thought it was extremely odd that he was not convicted of the assault. I’d heard that they kept hitting the guy after he was unconscious.

                I’m starting to think that the NZ judiciary is completely sclerotic. Something is wrong.

                So its a lottery? People walk around with undiagnosed conditions that may cause their deaths.

                It’s not technically unfair or arbitrary, because people know that someone they hit might have such a condition. Given that hitting people is a crime, the easiest way of not causing the condition to kill someone is to not hit them in the first place. It’s no more unfair or than someone winning the lottery. If you don’t want to win the lottery, don’t buy a ticket, but accept that if you do, you might win.

        • JanM 2.3.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 10:23 am

          I agree with you Tracey – it’s natural for some people who have lost family members to want revenge, but the system for dealing with children who have been convicted is seriously flawed. The boy has already learnt a very hard lesson – going through the court system would have been a terrifying experience.
          Judges make decisions which are often bound to upset someone from whichever perspective. I note that Crocodill criticized the judge for ” either knowingly or not, projected her cultural values onto the case she was offered”. It is one of the biggest fallacies in life that anyone is truly capable of thought or action that does not involve a value judgement based on what they know and understand.
          We don’t live in a perfect world. I hope the boy involved grows to justify the chances in life the judge’s decision has given him and that he has learnt a valuable lesson

    • Rosie 2.4
      8 August 2014 at 9:58 am

      Well written Crocodill.

      Last night I watched the news of the outcome of the case with my mouth wide open. I was just gobsmacked that a young man has walked free after the death of the victim he attacked. Not even a conviction for assault. No restorative justice attempts even, nothing for the Dudley family to anchor their grief upon and bring even some small sense of peace.

      That was one part but another Judge Winkelmann’s sense of dissonance was stunning. “A normal school yard fight”, as if this is something we all accept as ok and normal. I was horrified at her words and the insensitivity she demonstrated to the family.

      And her name kept ringing a bell. Was she the Judge who kept the identity of the “comedian” who indecently assaulted his 4 year old step daughter, secret, because he was a “funny guy” and the country needed his comedic services? No it wasn’t, even though the faulty reasoning is similar.

      She did however play a part in Te Urewera Raid Trials.

      “In March 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the prosecution in saying that the defendants in the case could be tried by a judge alone. The reasons for this decision are suppressed from publication by the courts.[100] Originally, on 9 December 2010, the decision not to hold a jury trial was itself suppressed by Justice Helen Winkelmann, but this was lifted later that month.[101]”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_Zealand_police_raids#cite_note-101

      I don’t know how much other involvement she had in that case, and neither cases have anything to do with each other, but it does cause some concern that this particular judge was involved in a case that was so controversial that it caused human rights supporters to speak out about the injustice of a Judge alone trial.

      Your observations of the Judge seem pretty spot on.

    • aerobubble 2.5
      8 August 2014 at 10:22 am

      I disagree. There is nothing serious flawed about the decision. You just have to be reasonable.

      People have undiagnosed conditions that before they are detected by the medical system cause death.

      Whether in an accident, a crime, or just out of the blue.

      So the first question is why should some be convicted for a condition that may have killed the person anyway.

      Arbitrary justice is not justice, to convict this man for manslaughter is entirely arbitrary.

      My second concern. That the medical system didn’t catch this condition and we are not having the debate about insuring they do. Imagine for a moment had the condition been caught, and the school knew, and the other kids knew, or better, that the school had a proactive anti-bullying policy.
      So its not the courts fault, rather the schools, the medical system and the parents.

      Yes. My third concern. Why is it that two boys decided it was okay to chase down someone and give them a beating though that person did not want to fight. There’s no outcry, its all about the judge. No. That’s wrong. Clearly this is a case of NZ culture, of bullying the weak, or those perceived as weak. And what’s worse is a Judge cannot reply. The whole idea that the dad and the TV1 beating up on a judge together is to my mind more of the same Sensible Sentencing Trust nonsense. Its a distraction from the failure of our medical system to provide adequate care to children (at some cost), a failure to recognize schools have a responsibility around bullying,
      and perpetuation of the same culture of attacking weakness.

      And then finally. An angry dad misinformed, probably not wanting to hear, lashing out at the easiest weakest target with the help of TV1, the judge. Kids with angry dads walk out, leave home all the time. Angry parents with angry kids lash out against other kids. Its all about TV wanting to increase the emotion of the issue for the purpose of selling their brand. Its sickening. And so
      the last tragedy. The Dad said on live TV that his kid was beating senseless while on the ground, and why wasn’t that assault recognized? Well firstly maybe it was but the bias against the judge in his mind has failed to see that there was no evidence for that, witnesses are not always safe observers of fact. So it would have to be shown in the coroners report that sufficient force would have caused him to become unconscious. I would like this matter cleared up, was the father correct, or has he just opened himself up to civil suit?

      Its is not a weakness to walk away, its not a weakness to not be able to reply to criticism, its a weakness of the TV presenters to play up the emotions and clearly spread misinformation of the parent who should think about what he was doing on TV. Did he want to reinforce the idea that if a kid walks away and doesn’t fight back they could die? Or that undermine justice by having people incarcerated for unrecognized conditions in strangers? And what are we doing about the anger of those kids who think its normal to gang up and beat up those who don’t want to fight back?

      • Rosie 2.5.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:59 am

        Hi aerobubble.

        Please know that I’m not coming from a sensible sentencing trust mentality.

        Stephen Dudley had cardiac sarcoidosis. It is possible he was not yet presenting with any symptoms so we can’t blame the medical profession for not picking it up. People do live with heart conditions and can live healthy full lives. I’m not a cardiologist but apparently sarcoidosis has a very low mortality rate, around 5%.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcoidosis

        It is cruel to take the view that Stephen may have died any way so theres no reason someone should be convicted for his death. Such a view suggests that those who are vulnerable for whatever reason (in Stephen’s case a pre existing undiagnosed condition) have less rights to justice. He could have lived a long life for all we know. Is it not quite possible that if Stephen hadn’t been beaten up he would still still be here today.

        I agree we have a culture of bullying and that schools and parents should play a role in education and prevention, but the Judge has just sent a message that this behaviour is fine, is normal, is to be expected – and its ok, there won’t be any consequences.

        • aerobubble 2.5.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 11:19 am

          Okay I’ll try to explain your position as I see it. You believe that the attack brought on the pre-existing undiagnosed condition, and even though his attackers did not know about this condition, and would quite reasonable assume that a bit of a beat up isnt going to cause death.
          Now this is not to say what they did wasn’t wrong. That the culture at that school needs attention. Or the parents anger is no different to the their school kids. All of that aside.

          Firstly, it has to be shown there was a connection between the attack, as you said yourself, he may have live a full healthy life and never been effected, but some are. It maybe he was going to died anyway, attack or not. This is one problem.

          Second. Intent. Yes, he was guilty of assault, and his punishment has already been severe, and in such cases we do not punish further. He has to live with killing someone, he has lost schooling, he has lost standing of his peers and community. Especially when its not known what happened before. Kids do gang up on each other. Kids can be caught alone and then decide to get a mate and teach them a lesson when their alone too. So the guilty verdict may have been unfair because of the death, had Dunley lived would he have pleaded guilty? And so the undiagnosed condition played no part in the assault, because 95% as you say have altercations and don’t die, so it was unfair for it to have been allowed.

          Finally, take a heart condition, do tasers cause death in those heart pacemakers? What I saying is that would people become Police Officers if they knew they would be charged with manslaughter should they taser a person to death, knowing full well that there were people out who would eventually be? You don’t become a Police officer if you know eventually you will get a bad name for yourself.

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 2.5.2
        8 August 2014 at 11:17 am

        There’s some important aspects being overlooked here:

        “He had “misread a situation in a very tragic way”. He had no explanation for his offending and it was the over-reaction of an older boy protecting a younger boy.

        Though the Crown opposed a discharge, Justice Winkelmann said it was “school-yard violence … and we don’t usually haul those boys before the court”.

        The fact the 17-year-old was protecting the younger boy, however misguided that was, showed that he had not “maliciously” involved himself in the events, she said.”

        The way it reads is that the boy saw Dudley fighting with a smaller boy than himself, took that to be a bigger boy picking on a smaller one and hit Dudley to protect the smaller boy.

        From that it clearly seems that he was not part of the original fight and he mis-read the situation which presumably is that the smaller boy actually was picking on Dudley. Dudley was, if that was the case, in fact the defender in that fight.

        At that point I get why the boy has been discharged.

        Where I have some difficulty is the continuing to hit him post-unconscious – that to me steps beyond the use of reasonable force and I would have thought an assault conviction would have been appropriate.

        • aerobubble 2.5.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 11:24 am

          Again. Just as you say he may have misread. Who is the witness saying Dudley was unconscious and being beating while on the ground.

          Now kids can be evil. They can tell a older kid a lie, something that so incense their sensibilities that they lose control. Given kids learn by finding the limits, often by over stepping them, and its quite normal for charges not to be pressed, how is it the fault of a boy to be unlucky enough to meet the one person in the country who then has a undiagnosed pre-existing condition.

          Arbitrary justice is not justice.

        • Tom Jackson 2.5.2.2
          8 August 2014 at 2:41 pm

          Well, yeah.

      • Lanthanide 2.5.3
        8 August 2014 at 11:20 am

        You’re missing the point that he was charged with assault, not manslaughter.

        The question is: Did he assault the victim, yes or no?

        • aerobubble 2.5.3.1
          8 August 2014 at 11:32 am

          Do kids go over board every day? Do kids have clear reasoning? Do kids learn by going to extremes and harming themselves and others? This would not have gone to trial had not Dunley had a pre-existing condition that caused his death. I think the courts have correctly carried out justice. And I would worry more about how the media is using the emotion of the father.

          Kids don’t know that the law is there to protect them until they recognize that getting into fights actually is very dangerous, and so society has a non-violent means of resolving disputes. Kids, like some adults, realize its not so easy to discern whose in the right, that’s why we have courts, and that why we need to protect them. Attacking the judge is attacking the messanger. The correct route is to appeal in the calm of a high court.

          I see no basis, all I see is misinformed media bull…

          • Lanthanide 2.5.3.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 11:47 am

            If it were at a rugby game, where a spectator started punching another, including after they were unconscious on the ground, they would likely be charged with assault.

            The fact that the victim died did of course increase the profile of the incident with the police, but that doesn’t mean that the assault by itself that didn’t lead to death wouldn’t also have resulted in a prosecution.

            • aerobubble 2.5.3.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 11:57 am

              Its was a school and you know that.

              Kids test boundaries. Kids have in law a much greater degree of doubt.

              Sure the attacker was in the wrong, but kids are. That’s how they learn.

              He would not have pledge guilt had not Dudley died.

              Since 95% of people do not die of the condition when in challenging conditions its very unlikely the assault lead to the death. And as we see, likely led to a false declaration of guilt when in most case of school yard bullying leads nowhere near a court.

              The kid has been punished! He lost schooling, he’s a pariah, he has to live with it for the rest of his life.

              I’m fed up with the media having on the family of victims, like they were now saints, irresponsibly in some cases, calling for even more harsh punishment. Courts are not their for retribution, they are for society to impose its will for its collective good.

              The father, if he has a case, he can pursue matters civilly. He could also be liable if his statements about the bashing on the ground did not take place, unconscious, etc.

              • Lanthanide …
                8 August 2014 at 12:52 pm

                “Its was a school and you know that.”

                So crimes committed at schools are suddenly not crimes now? Aren’t we supposed to be doing everything we can to stop bullying?

                “He would not have pledge guilt had not Dudley died.”

                Which is irrelevant, because if he’d plead innocent there would have been a trial, and we would have resulted in a verdict or guilty or not guilty.

                “Kids test boundaries. Kids have in law a much greater degree of doubt.”

                A 17 year-old should know that if they violently assault someone, including after they are on the ground unconscious, they are likely to do serious damage to them, and indeed, could even kill them. You can die just by falling over and hitting your head in the wrong way.

                “The kid has been punished! He lost schooling, he’s a pariah, he has to live with it for the rest of his life.”

                Yes, which is why he could get no sentence. Not why he should not be convicted of a crime.

              • Rosie …
                8 August 2014 at 12:58 pm

                Just read through the thread.

                aerobubble, I’m not actually familiar with the medical aspects of the case of Stephen’s death. Was heart failure the cause of death?

                I do think this is a bit of stretch:

                “and would quite reasonable assume that a bit of a beat up isnt going to cause death.” People do die from a bit of a beat up, such as Tarun Asthana:

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9404388/King-hit-manslaughter-charge

                There are many other examples to numerous to mention, including those victims detained in police cells. This is an aside however.

                Unlike you, I am not doubting the witnesses version of events, of Stephen being beaten as he lay on the ground unconscious.

                As has been pointed out, the un named defendant was not charged with manslaughter he was charged with assault. I’m not calling for “punishment and retribution” – that isn’t a holistic way at viewing crime but there needs to be some acknowledgement some accountability. I had thought there may be some form of restorative justice that may take place between the family and the 18 year defendant and his family. I see puddlegum below has said that it was offered but not taken up.

                • aerobubble …
                  10 August 2014 at 12:40 pm

                  A person can die from being beating up. Sure. But someone dying of cancer who takes a punch and dies, and is found to have died from the cancer surely is something different entirely. Poor guy had a undetected pre-existing medical condition that doctors said likely caused his death. So immediately it becomes a school yard brawl.

                  People all the time have them, its part of the growing up process all kids have, that is they challenge limits, go to far, and its unsavory and if schools were less strict and let kids fully express their physical limits they would by the time they can punch someones lights out would know better about the risks.

                  So do I think this young man who hit someone and that person died should have been punished, was guilt, hell yes. Should he be unpunished more than anyone else caught punching someone in a school brawl, no, the law must be uniformly applied.

                  Do i think I have misconstrue some facts, hell yes, that’s why we have courts for both parties to put the facts before an impartial judge, who said the guy should not get a conviction. I am please with the verdict and am shocked TV1 morning show wants us to be left with the impression that the court is a place where they get retaliation in kind, an eye for an eye. This is not the case, courts are where our collective social mine deliberately bends to served the greatest good. Not the victims family needs for something they could never expect from a just society.

        • Puddleglum 2.5.3.2
          8 August 2014 at 12:10 pm

          I don’t think that’s the question, actually.

          ‘Discharge without conviction’, as I understand it, is a sentencing option even when someone is found guilty as charged.

          When I was younger, many young students involved in drunken brawls received ‘discharge without conviction’ for assaults – on the basis that they were studying to be doctors or lawyers, or whatever, and a conviction would unfairly affect their lives. I think it still happens. The boy charged with assault apparently had plans for a future teaching physical education and a conviction could have jeopardised that career option.

          I don’t think discharge without conviction is fair, personally, (as it ends up getting better off and better educated people let off crimes that the less better off are convicted for) but it is both the law and – sadly – regular practice. (I’m not a lawyer so, if I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected.)

          I also heard on Checkpoint last night in an interview with the victim’s father that the boy (or his family/lawyers) had sought some ‘restorative justice’ process and even suggested he followed what is apparently a Samoan tradition of standing outside the victim’s family home begging for forgiveness. The victim’s family, however, did not think it was the right time for them to be involved in any such process and so rejected the offer. Perhaps understandably.

          • aerobubble 2.5.3.2.1
            10 August 2014 at 12:45 pm

            Money buys better lawyers you say. So three strikes will harm the less well off. But Whyte yesterday on The Nation did want a bar of that when called out on the question of the three strikes law being unfair to the poorest.

            ACT dis-ingeniousness increase the incarceration of the poorest, overwhelmingly Maori.

            ACT is a racist party.

    • McFlock 2.6
      8 August 2014 at 2:19 pm

      I disagree. It all comes down to the pathologist’s report.

      If the heart condition killed him and was not caused or activated by anything the offender did (rather than the confrontation the deceased was having before the offender involved himself), then the offender is simply guilty of assault. The offender most likely would have gotten diversion (if it had gone to the police at all).

      If the assault had activated the heart condition or directly killed him, it would have been manslaughter.

      I feel for the family, and frankly I expect garth mcvictim to exploit their grief for as much PR as possible, but the fact is that the offender is simply guilty of an assault.

      • blue leopard 2.6.1
        8 August 2014 at 3:17 pm

        There are anomalous consequences being created out of this ruling.

        If someone decides to bash another – they need to realise there is always a risk of killing them and be prepared to experience the full consequences of that if it occurs.

        This ruling leads to the absurd consequence that it is safer to bash someone with a health condition – that way, even if the person you attacked dies you won’t be required to be made to face up to the full responsibility of your actions.

        The boy wouldn’t have died that day if he hadn’t have been bashed. What is a judge doing playing god and ruling based on some notion that the boy was supposedly more likely to die than someone else? There are plenty of people with heart/health conditions -granted I don’t have any examples, but I think it is reasonable to assume there are plenty that live a long time with such conditions. Even if it were possible for a judge to have a’ god’s vision’ that allowed them to see that the person was going to die in a day – why the heck should it be considered o.k for someone to shorten that life – even by a day (or hour even)?

        The social expectation should be ‘don’t bash people’ – not: ‘….well… you bashed someone who might have died for other reasons anyway so …meh …she’s right mate’.

        The only extenuating circumstance in a case such as this should be regarding whether the ‘victim’ initiated the fight to establish whether the killing punch thrown was due to defensive reasons.

        Hearfelt expressions of sympathy to Stephen Dudley’s family for what must be a dreadful time for them. I wish them the best. Kia kaha.

        I also wish the best for the people who are caught up on the other side too. It is a terrible tragic scenerio for all involved.

        • McFlock 2.6.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:38 pm

          The boy wouldn’t have died that day if he hadn’t have been bashed.

          The medical evidence didn’t support that claim.
          If it did, he would have been charged with manslaughter.

          This ruling leads to the absurd consequence that it is safer to bash someone with a health condition – that way, even if the person you attacked dies you won’t be required to be made to face up to the full responsibility of your actions.


          Nope.           Your perspective seems to be that one should be made responsible not just for the consequences of one’s actions, but for the bad luck of one’s actions coinciding with something bad happening. Something that might have been caused by the deceased’s exertions immediately prior to the assault for which the offender pled guilty. Or indeed something that might have just happened at the wrong time for the offender, with no causal link to anything that day.

          • weka 2.6.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 3:53 pm

            Not sure about that McFlock – the bit about not being held responsible for other factors rather than the medical evidence of this case. The perpetrator committed the assault with forethought and intent. Here’s the description,

            “You went outside and without warning you head-butted him, gave him three uppercut haymaker punches to the head, then kicked him in the head as he lay on the ground.”

            That’s pretty obviously an assault that has the potential do so serious damage, even if you don’t intend serious damage. The victim was drunk. Like what bl is saying, if he had fallen in the attack and hit his head and then died from concussion later, would the attacker still not be responsible? I think any time you plan to assault someone with that kind of force you have to be prepared for things to go badly wrong.

            Apparently in the US, if you take part in a crime where other people do worse things you are responsible too eg bank robbery where you drive the car, and someone gets killed in the robbery, then the car driver is also charged with murder even if they weren’t there and had no idea it was going to happen. I’m in two minds about the fairness of this, and whether it actually works on the deterrent level, but it also kind of makes sense for preplanned crimes.

            If you want to give someone a hiding, unless you have been trained to do so in ways that limit damage how would you know whether you were going to seriously damage them or kill them accidentaly?

            • McFlock 2.6.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 4:06 pm

              That example was that the the guy committed manslaughter because the heart failure was related to the assault, even though the injuries directly inflicted were not fatal. The dude was pottering along, nicely pissed, and generally relaxed before the assault incident.

              The problem with the most recent case is that if exertion (rather than assault injuries directly) caused the heart failure, was it the exertion of being assaulted by the offender, the result of being in the fight before the offender got involved, or the simple exertion of rugby?

              • weka …
                8 August 2014 at 4:18 pm

                Seems a bit abstract to separate out the exertion of assault from the direct physical injuries. Is that what was done legally?

                I wasn’t commenting on the medical realities so much as the issue of assualting someone with forethought and then something going wrong and whether the assailant should be held more accountable than for what they just intended. This is really where we need a restorative justice system. 2 years seems pretty light to me for just the beating alone. And obviously the family need something more than that.

                • McFlock …
                  8 August 2014 at 4:43 pm

                  In the schoolboy case the pathologist couldn’t draw a link between the heart failure and the fight, either directly or indirectly.
                  result: assault charge for the actual acts done.

                  In the drug case the pathologist did draw a contextual link between the heart failure and the assault, even though there were other contributing factors to the heart failure.
                  result: manslaughter.

                  Every few years in Dunedin there’s a king-hit where the victim falls badly and dies, and usually there’s a manslaughter charge that follows.

                  Not sure about the sentence for the beating alone. A lot of different factors go into sentencing

          • blue leopard 2.6.1.1.2
            8 August 2014 at 11:44 pm

            There is something odd about the stance being taken, though McFlock and you ignore the anomalous consequences of such a ruling.

            If science can’t prove a connection between the trauma of being punched on the neck for someone with a vulnerable condition and dying, it doesn’t mean there is no connection – it is just that they can’t draw the connection. This proves nothing either way and so why is the assumption being drawn that there is no connection? There is no proof either way.

            It is a pretty bizarre that proof cannot be achieved too. If a condition leaves one vulnerable in traumatic situations and if someone has added trauma to that person’s body, then it is hard to see how a connection cannot be drawn.

            I have been looking up the condition the boy had and it is hard to tell how fatal the condition is for people – you know, how many people just happen to drop dead after doing rugby practice; that type of thing. What is clear is that there are many people living their lives with the condition undiagnosed. Had the ruling been otherwise, awareness could be raised that it is just not on to go around punching people (especially in the neck and head, for goodness sake!). It might send a message that it is also not a good idea to keep punching someone when they are unconscious. Perhaps there could have also been consequences for the group inciting the fight too?

            I find it strange that the Judge can say this:

            Unbeknownst to you or to anyone at the time, Stephen had an undiagnosed heart condition which made him vulnerable to problems with his heart’s rhythm in situations of traumatic stress. Because of that condition, it is impossible for anyone to say what actually caused Stephen’s death. However, we can at least say that if the fight had not taken place, Stephen might be alive today.

            …And yet the Judge can follow that with: “when Stephen’s underlying heart condition came to light the Crown came to the conclusion that it could not safely be determined as a matter of fact that your actions caused Stephen’s death.” … So Stephen had a condition that “made him vulnerable: to heart problems in situations of “traumatic stress” – yet a person’s actions of punching him in the back of the neck and continuing to attack him while he was unconscious cannot be proven to have a bearing on the boy ending up in hospital and dying?

            http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Take-a-read-of-Judge-Winkelmanns-decision-in-the-Stephen-Dudley-case/tabid/721/articleID/51700/Default.aspx

            I acknowledge that this would be a terrible shock to the boy who did the punching and that he has apparently shown sincere regret – however this ruling is about what we condone and what we don’t – and this ruling is weak in that regard.

            I still hold that it gives the bizarre consequence that if you have a health condition, or anyone in your family has one, and are attacked fatally, that the attacker is going to get a lighter sentence due to that vulnerability – one could put forward the case that the sentence should be greater – attacking someone more vulnerable than oneself is not an excellent thing for our society to give leniency toward.

            I also agree with Weka’s points

            • McFlock 2.6.1.1.2.1
              9 August 2014 at 12:07 am

              He might be alive today. He might have died after the practise anyway. That’s the funny thing about the word “might”.

              So Stephen had a condition that “made him vulnerable: to heart problems in situations of “traumatic stress” – yet a person’s actions of punching him in the back of the neck and continuing to attack him while he was unconscious cannot be proven to have a bearing on the boy ending up in hospital and dying?

              No. It can’t. It’s not as clear as, say, oesteoperosis making the skull fracture more easily. It could have been just bad timing for the condition to cause failure, the rugby, setting up for the fight, or the attack. The offender was only responsible for one of those.

              I still hold that it gives the bizarre consequence that if you have a health condition, or anyone in your family has one, and are attacked fatally, that the attacker is going to get a lighter sentence due to that vulnerability – one could put forward the case that the sentence should be greater – attacking someone more vulnerable than oneself is not an excellent thing for our society to give leniency toward.

              So the link between the assault and the death cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but we should treat the offender as if it could, because others might commit the same act?

              The word “scapegoat” comes to mind.

              • blue leopard …
                9 August 2014 at 12:12 am

                “The offender was only responsible for one of those.”

                Yet this was not taken into account with the ruling.

                I don’t understand your comment re ‘scapegoat’ someone punched someone – and from behind too and continued to punch even when the person was unconscious. To expect there would be some consequence from such behaviour is ‘scapegoating’? That is a bit of a stretch.

                • McFlock …
                  9 August 2014 at 12:21 am

                  “The offender was only responsible for one of those.”

                  Yet this was not taken into account with the ruling.

                  Because there’s no proof that his act cause the death.
                  To put it another way, if four people could have murdered a person, would you convict all of them just because nobody except the murderer knows which person is actually guilty?

                  I don’t understand your comment re ‘scapegoat’ someone punched someone – and from behind too and continued to punch even when the person was unconscious. To expect there would be some consequence from such behaviour is ‘scapegoating’? That is a bit of a stretch.

                  He had a consequence for his behaviour. For what it could be proved that he did. Went to court, was judged and sentenced according to all the factors as itemised in the ruling.

                  edit: sorry – late. The “scapegoat” thing was because you seem to want him punished for something it cannot be proved he caused simply because to do so might prevent the future sins of others.

                  • blue leopard …
                    9 August 2014 at 12:34 am

                    Perhaps the issue hinges around the word ’cause’. I fail to see how a court couldn’t prove that giving trauma to a body that is vulnerable to trauma did not, at the very least contribute to the death.

                    If four people all punched someone, one after the other, that then died, due to having a body being vulnerable to trauma, and it couldn’t be proven which punch killed a person, then I think all four people should be considered to have contributed to the death. The message being don’t go around punching people.

                    The issue here is an attitude being shown toward punching others. If you don’t want to be done for someone’s death – don’t go around hitting them.

                    I don’t like this ruling because it has condoned the act of punching on what appears to be fallacious logic; because the boy, Stephen, was vulnerable to trauma the attacker got off virtually scot-free.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 August 2014 at 12:48 am

                      If four people all punched someone, one after the other, that then died, due to having a body being vulnerable to trauma, and it couldn’t be proven which punch killed a person, then I think all four people should be considered to have contributed to the death.

                      Yes.
                      But all we know is that each of the four “suspects” might have “punched” the boy’s heart, not that each of them definitely did. There was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that the assault had anything to do with the death. It’s plausible, but “plausible” shouldn’t get convictions.

                      The issue here is an attitude being shown toward punching others. If you don’t want to be done for someone’s death – don’t go around hitting them.

                      So if you punch someone you should be charged with manslaughter even if your punch did not cause a death? Sounds odd. What about swearing at them? The stress of a verbal confrontation might cause a heart attack. Should all crimes just be punished at the level of manslaughter if a bystander dies an unconnected death a week later and fifty miles away, just to make everyone act nice?

                      I don’t like this ruling because it has condoned the act of punching on what appears to be fallacious logic; because the boy, Stephen, was vulnerable to trauma the attacker got off virtually scot-free.

                      No. Because the assault could not be shown to have had anything to do with the death, the offender was punished for the assault, not the death.

                    • blue leopard …
                      9 August 2014 at 1:06 am

                      ‘No. Because the assault could not be shown to have had anything to do with the death, the offender was punished for the assault, not the death.’

                      That is just it – how could it have not had anything to do with the death? That is not what has ‘not been proven’ here – as I said this probably hinges on ’caused’ rather than ‘contributed’. I really do not see that it could be proven that the punches were unrelated to the death – and note how quickly you go into believing that is what has been unable to prove? It appears they had to prove the punches – and the punches alone, caused the death and couldn’t. There is something wrong with this.

                      Your change in the scenario I drew up is incorrect – it would seem that because the rugby practice could have been the cause of death – then they couldn’t prove the punch was – i.e. they know one of them was they just don’t know which one. Your example of the four suspects is therefore incorrect – we know all four punched the guy – we just don’t know which was the fatal blow.

                      Again, I am pointing to the fact that this ruling undermines an issue over whether it is okay to punch people. Leniency has been shown due to the victims’ weakness – this is very bizarre to me. The fact that punches were thrown – and in the neck too (vulnerable part of the body) appears to have gone by the wayside.

                      And yes – I think there could be more clear-cut severity shown toward punching people full-stop. If you don’t want to get in trouble – don’t punch. So much long-winded court-cases to decide whether the punch damaged someone or not. Just don’t punch.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 August 2014 at 1:35 am

                      That is just it – how could it have not had anything to do with the death?

                      I found out a year or two back that a friend from back in the day was watching his kid play and just switched off, stone dead. Undiagnosed heart condition. It happens.

                      That is not what has ‘not been proven’ here – as I said this probably hinges on ’caused’ rather than ‘contributed’. I really do not see that it could be proven that the punches were unrelated to the death – and note how quickly you go into believing that is what has been unable to prove? It appears they had to prove the punches – and the punches alone, caused the death and couldn’t. There is something wrong with this.

                      I just believe the conclusions of two medical reports: “[The Crown] forms a view it no longer has a reasonable prospect of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged assault… was a substantial and operative cause of the death of the deceased,” Mr Perkins said.

                      Your change in the scenario I drew up is incorrect – it would seem that because the rugby practice could have been the cause of death – then they couldn’t prove the punch was – i.e. they know one of them was they just don’t know which one. Your example of the four suspects is therefore incorrect – we know all four punched the guy – we just don’t know which was the fatal blow.

                      That’s not what the medical reports said.

                      Again, I am pointing to the fact that this ruling undermines an issue over whether it is okay to punch people. Leniency has been shown due to the victims’ weakness – this is very bizarre to me. The fact that punches were thrown – and in the neck too (vulnerable part of the body) appears to have gone by the wayside.

                      Nope. But as “assault with intent to injure” goes, it’s not at the extreme end of the scale, and the offender was young and it was a first offence. So what would you do with more serious offender of AWI, who are in their 40s and have a long criminal history? A

                      And yes – I think there could be more clear-cut severity shown toward punching people full-stop. If you don’t want to get in trouble – don’t punch. So much long-winded court-cases to decide whether the punch damaged someone or not. Just don’t punch.

                      Meh. I tend to think that all offending should be less about severe punishment and more about rehabilitation. Penal deterrence [giggle] is largely a myth.

  3. Paul 3
    8 August 2014 at 7:45 am

    Another disgraceful interview by Espiner ..this time of Laila Harre.
    He should work for ZB.

    • Paul 3.1
      8 August 2014 at 7:51 am

      And another pathetic one of Norman.
      He is John Key’s spin merchant.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 8:50 am

        Both interviews seemed perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

        • karol 3.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 9:13 am

          I heard both interviews, and thought Guyon was pretty immature and not very professional. He sounded like he took it personally that Harre questioned his lack of questioning about the timing of the Nat response to the youtube video (“No! I’m asking the questions”).

          But I thought Harre had a good point there. Guyon seemed not to care about Key saying KDC was Harre’s “sugar daddy”. As do a ,lot of the medi. They somehow see “Fuck xxxx” to be unacceptable, while blatant sexism doesn’t seem to bother them much at all.

          Guyon tried to cut off and/or talk over both Norman and Harre when they were giving full answers to his questions – it was very annoying.

          Then Guyon editorialised by telling Norman it was a “level playing field” because Fonterra rents land in China, just the same as the Chinese. But, internationally, that is not a level playing field when Chinese people and companies can buy land here.

          He seemed intent on making accusations, and not giving them enough to to respond to them. Both Harre and Norman did well to stay calm and answer as well as they did.

          But I won’t be listening to Morning Report very much in the future.

          • Tiger Mountain 3.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 9:32 am

            “Ve aks ze Qvestions!”

            I have given up listening live to Morning Report apart from 6am news briefs, just cherry pick later via ipad or computer.

            • Kiwiri 3.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 2:01 pm

              The Progressive Bloc that becomes the Government after 20 Sep will have to address true, meaningful, independent and unbiased public broadcasting.

              Until then, we will stay tuned in and it will indeed be very acceptable for us adult and grey listeners to chant at the radio: F Morning Report.

          • Gosman 3.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2014 at 9:55 am

            Whether or not the Key comment was offensive is a question that should be put to the PM. If Espiner interviews Key and does not raise this then you have a case for bias.

            Espiner was also well within his rights to let Harre know that he was the ones framing the questions not Harre. Harre was trying to make out the whole ‘F#ch John Key” issue was as a result of some sort of dirty tricks campaign by Hooten and others. Espiner pointed out that this was irrelevant as it was on the Inernet Party’s own website and they needed to take ownership of it.

        • North 3.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 6:49 pm

          Was enjoyable listening to the Little Toff clutching his pearls when Laila refused to be aghast/embarrassed/apologetic about FJK. A touch of ‘Scarlett Woman’ as per TheGodKey. Scored no points off Norman either, notwithstanding shrillish endeavours.

          That he’s a shameless wee Tory arselick sticks out like dogs’ balls. Ever heard him semi-hector TheGodKey as he does others ? Deploying that indignant tone…..

          Indeed I think it goes further. In wet-lipped anticipation ‘Spinner attaches to the acronym a construction so ‘unusal’ as to shock right-thinking folk.

      • Gosman 3.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 9:25 am

        Yes they seemed very fair in that he allowed the interviewee a chance to put across their point but at the same time highlighted some of the major problems with their position such as Harre’s hypocrisy over complaining about the PM’s language about her while her party promotes a video attacking the PM and The Green’s proposed policy would not apply to Australian’s and would stop many successful people like James Cameron buying land here.

        • Lanthanide 3.1.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 11:24 am

          Yes, and in each case I sided with Harre and Norman – their response to his questions were good, IMO.

          I’m not going to attack Guyon for asking these questions, which “any man on the street” would probably like to ask themselves.

          • Gosman 3.1.2.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 11:35 am

            Agreed except on their responses. Harre came across as disingenuine over the F#ck John Key video as she tried to imply it was nothing to do with the Internet Party despite KDC helping lead the chant and the party putting the video on their website. Even taking the position that this was a genuine reflection of youth feeling lost inpact considering her attack on Key for his Sugar Daddy comment. Many people see her relationship with KDC as being a paid political representative so it could equally be argued that Key was just reflecting other people’s views. By not stating that the views were unreflective of the Internet party she has effectively owned them and lost the moral highground on the other issue.

            • Lanthanide 3.1.2.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 11:51 am

              Internet Party’s motive is to stand up and give a voice for students. Some students said “fuck John Key”. Sounds like IP are doing their job.

              As for the sugar daddy thing, I think Harre needs to make it clear that sugar daddy implies someone who is being paid in return for sex, and that is what she is complaining about. As usual John Key is slinking away from his intent, just like his “gay red shirt” slur.

              • Gosman …
                8 August 2014 at 11:55 am

                Sugar Daddy has a much wider meaning which I am sure you are aware of.

                • Puddleglum …
                  8 August 2014 at 12:17 pm

                  Perhaps, Gosman, but the derivative meanings rely on the original meaning for their (offensive and pejorative) impact.

                  Key was definitely making use of the original meaning – as all such uses do (e.g., ‘he’s a little Hi**er’).

                  Otherwise he could have used the common accusation (by some) that Harre had been ‘bought’ (which has it’s own derivation, of course, but is not so sexist).

                • Lanthanide …
                  8 August 2014 at 12:56 pm

                  Yes, just like “gay” has a much wider meaning. It doesn’t change what it was that Key said, and as I already said, gives him plausible deniability to say he didn’t mean it that way. But he actually hasn’t said that he didn’t mean it that way.

                • tricledrown …
                  8 August 2014 at 5:34 pm

                  So Gooseman That makes Kim .Com John Banks sugar Daddy and by Association Keys Sugar Daddy as well !

    • bad12 3.2
      8 August 2014 at 8:00 am

      Shock Horror, here was i thinking E’Spinner worked for the National Party, my apologies for being so misinformed,

      Christchurch kids say it best, ”Fuck John Key”, a message from the future…

      • vto 3.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 8:17 am

        Yes those Christchurch kids did say it best “Fuck John Key”

        You know that all went down only a few streets away from Key’s childhood home. Methinks the student chanting will have got to him personally. People like Key like to be liked and like to be respected. This chanting shat all over that and it will have poked him in the ribs big time. He put on a brave face but I reckon it got in under his skin…. watch for it in his future memoir….

        • bad12 3.2.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 8:58 am

          i laughed, and, laughed a lot more, E’spinner is whining like His master John,(also known as Slippery), had been mortally insulted,

          Granny Herald, the online version, is this morning ‘spinning’ a huge Godwin, all the while going tsk tsk tsk, elections are supposed to be effete, polite affairs and decorum must be maintained at all cost,

          Meanwhile back in the Jungle, wee Matty, Blubber boy, and, the evil baby lookalike are busily running what is best described as ‘shitty smear campaigns’, and, as we all know have continually done so,

          Wee Matty is even putting it about that ‘he has been approached by Labour people’ in an effort to divide and rule,

          Don’t buy into it, the right, Brand Slippery, or as they like to call it, teamKey, are looking tarnished and losing traction, InternetMana, love or hate them, have for the moment ripped from the right all the momentum,

          The roadshow continues down South through next week, i would bet, right this very day, that no matter where, in what size hall that the roadshow were to appear, the place would be packed,

          The message is ‘tailored’ for the older crowds its more ‘staid’, for a crowd of young people, its the Party Party, they can read the policy off of the net later, for now,

          ”Fuck John Key” that, those young audiences can fully relate to…

          • Clemgeopin 3.2.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 10:59 am

            There once was a well liked US president, JFK.

            The young party party audience simply interchanged the letters to… FJK!

        • Clemgeopin 3.2.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 12:45 pm

          “People like Key like to be liked”

          Yeah, but he is no JFK! People are liking him less and less, as demonstrated by the young angry crowd happily chanting at the top of their voices, FJK!, FJK!, FJK!, FJK!, FJK!, FJK!, FJK!

          I kind of agree with them in a figurative sense. Hope that transpires for real on Sept 20!

          FJK, FACT, FBANKS, FDUNNE, FCONS, FTNATS !

      • Grumpy 3.2.2
        8 August 2014 at 8:41 am

        Every time voters see or hear that, the left loses support. Maybe not enough to switch votes to National but certainly enough to not bother turning out to vote.
        Good tactics.

        • vto 3.2.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 8:45 am

          I don’t think that is right at all Grumpy. That video will exaggerate pre-existing views. Those views on the right will harden in relation to dotcom, but they already vote so no effect. Those views on the left will harden in relation to dotcom, and they don’t always vote so increased voting effect. See it?

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.2.2
          8 August 2014 at 8:52 am

          Every time voters see or hear that, the left loses support.

          Where would the Left lose support from if its such a popular message amongst the youth?

          • Gosman 3.2.2.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 11:53 am

            Middle class middle aged and elderly voters.

            • Puddleglum 3.2.2.2.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 12:26 pm

              I suppose those middle class, middle aged and elderly voters who were inclining to vote for IMP could always ‘switch’ to the Greens or Labour. The latter, of course, has famously distanced itself from IMP anyway so quite a safe place to move to for such voters.

              Obviously any middle class, middle aged and elderly voters who were inclining towards IMP would be unlikely to switch to National and are also likely to vote – given the demographic.

              • Gosman …
                8 August 2014 at 12:43 pm

                But those same middle class and middle aged/elderly voters from The Greens and Labour might be put off voting for them if they look like they will be forced to go in to a coalition with IMP.

                • Puddleglum …
                  8 August 2014 at 1:10 pm

                  “… will be forced to go in to a coalition with IMP“.

                  I think formal coalition has definitely been taken off the table by Cunliffe.

                  So, do you actually mean that even the possibility that Labour/Greens might need to rely on a confidence and supply agreement with IMP would effectively prevent such middle aged, middle class and elderly people from voting for Labour and the Greens after seeing (or hearing about) this video?

                  Does the same apply for National for everything that either Colin Craig or Jamie Whyte does given that National may well have to rely on a coalition agreement with ACT and, if the Conservatives make it into Parliament, perhaps a confidence and supply arrangement too?

                  Or would such middle class, etc. voters who incline to ACT or the Conservatives – inconsistently vis a vis your argument about their behaviour in relation to IMP and Labour/Greens – simply vote for National if things get too weird in their preferred camps?

                  • Gosman …
                    8 August 2014 at 1:26 pm

                    Of course it also applies to National in relation to ACT and the Conservatives. That is why many lefties here keep trying to link them together.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      8 August 2014 at 3:20 pm

                      Fair enough.

                      Although, attempts by partisan commenters to link all parties on the right or all parties on the left isn’t evidence that middle class, middle aged and elderly New Zealanders necessarily react in that way.

                    • Gosman …
                      8 August 2014 at 3:40 pm

                      Agreed however the tactics of both the left and right to try and link the main center parties with their more extreme support parties is likely to have some impact. The size of the impact would depend I believe on how much influece the voters in the center perceive each smaller party will have on policy formation in any government arrangement.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      8 August 2014 at 8:22 pm

                      Seems reasonable.

                      On that basis, I presume the ‘antics’ of the Conservatives and ACT (and their supporters) are likely to have a greater negative effect on National than would those of the IMP on Labour/Greens.

                      After all, John Key has not ruled either the Conservatives or ACT out of a coalition arrangement.

        • bad12 3.2.2.3
          8 August 2014 at 9:02 am

          Grumpy, only in your little wee mind, Labour voters are not going to not vote Labour because a crowd of kids got to have a ball expressing themselves in the only way kids can,

          ”Fuck John Key”,

          Green voters are probably quietly laughing as the non-voting youth are pulled from the shadows, packing the halls, giving vent to their feelings, and, those feelings?,

          ”Fuck John Key”….

        • North 3.2.2.4
          8 August 2014 at 6:59 pm

          Fantasising up some wishful thinking again Grumpy…….

      • Grumpy 3.2.3
        8 August 2014 at 8:41 am

        Every time voters see or hear that, the left loses support. Maybe not enough to switch votes to National but certainly enough to not bother turning out to vote.
        Good tactics.

        • bad12 3.2.3.1
          8 August 2014 at 9:06 am

          Grumpy, a cracked record, stuck repeating the shills lines handed out by teamSlippery’s media whores,

          “”Fuck John Key”…

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 3.2.3.2
          8 August 2014 at 9:51 am

          Just like the aussie cricket team lost support every time their crowds shouted “Hadlee’s a wanker”

          Every time I see a National billboard it reads in my head “Wanking For New Zealand”.

          What National is doing is looking after themselves.

        • minarch 3.2.3.3
          8 August 2014 at 10:17 am

          hark the “concern troll” cometh….

      • Rosie 3.2.4
        8 August 2014 at 10:12 am

        “Fuck John Key!” Fucking brilliant! Those kids know where it’s at. Laila was right not to apologise for the language of the supporters of the Internet Party. We’re not in Victorian England and the feelings of anger and frustration towards John Key can’t be denied or under estimated. We can’t shut down our expression.

        For those who missed it:

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 3.2.4.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:41 am

          One of the interesting things as a white middle class male is what occasionally (over the years often) happens when the women / Maori / Pacific Islanders / disabled people leave the room.

          It’s then when the room has only white, middle class males left that the sexism and racism and vitriol, the put down jokes, the well we pulled the wool over their eyes said what we needed to to get the win attitudes come out.

          The stunned silence/noise at times when I point out the crap in what they are saying and the realisation that I’m not really one of them I never find amusing but do always find sad.

          I don’t usually get invited back but do occasionally find some gems of men who step in behind me.

          The conversational change when there is only the WMCM left in the room is fascinating though (not dis-similar at times to the change in management conversations when the delegates leave the room) but over the years has left me under no illusions about the number of men in high positions who are extremely sexist and racist.

          The Alasdair Thompson incident is one of those occasions where those WMCM discussions were made public.

          Behind the scenes there’s plenty of these people saying “Fuck you” to the rest of us.

          • vto 3.2.4.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 11:38 am

            Do you think bigotries and prejudices are limited to just those of white ‘race’?

            to just middle classes?

            to just one gender?

            bizarre

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 3.2.4.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 11:49 am

              No not at all.

              That you would take that from that comment is bizarre – I even made reference to a similar situation re union management.

              What I do know is that having been privy to a significant number of those conversations over the years because of my status as a WMCM that there’s a lot of them running businesses and owning rental properties and who act on those prejudices.

              As a rule I think the evidence supports the anecdotal.

              The point of course is that students saying fuck john key does reflect that there’s plenty of people telling the same.

              They know that – I’ve seen the trust young workers have of employers break down enormously in the last thirty years yet somehow employers still expect loyalty back.

              We’re seeing that reflected.

        • Gosman 3.2.4.2
          8 August 2014 at 11:15 am

          Do you think she should have moaned about Key calling KDC her Sugar Daddy?

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 3.2.4.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 11:40 am

            Yep absolutely.

            A sexist slur it is.

            And I think you deliberately saying “moaned” when you know that the sugar daddy connotation is about sexual favours is just you being a jerk.

        • Kiwiri FJK 3.2.4.3
          8 August 2014 at 2:11 pm

          Thanks, Rosie.
          And, as my name change reflects, I acknowledge the youth who have spoken out.

    • Wonderpup 3.3
      8 August 2014 at 8:46 am

      I heard those, and I thought Harre and Norman handled it really well. in fact, I smacked the steering wheel and shouted “Pwned!” Interviews shouldn’t have winners and losers: they should get to the heart of a story – and neither of these did.

      I don’t know why Harre didn’t go for the “do you think saying fuck you is really that bad? Is natrad still living in the 60’s? If you are, bring out Aunt Daisy, and I’ll show her a good time.” but she would have had her reasons. Norman was positively statesman-like in dealing with a patently absurd line of questions.

      Espiner and his team do themselves more harm than good in their use of silly examples: he and his producers should be really embarrassed.

      • Gosman 3.3.1
        8 August 2014 at 11:20 am

        Do you think her complaint about the Sugar Daddy coment was justified?

        • wonderpup 3.3.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 2:03 pm

          I certainly do.

          Now, i think I can see where you are going with this – remember: Harre didn’t say “Fuck John Key”. She said that she could understand the frustrations of those who did.

          The reason the national astroturfers are so haughty about the whole FJK thing is because it is the end of him. It will stick like “Piggy Muldoon”, and become the abiding meme of the entire election. The Nat One Man Band has met its single point of failure. Honestly, if I was him I’d now get the next plane to my place in Hawaii, lock myself in my room with a bottle of gin and cry for a few days, until the calls from my mates offering me wads of cash for being a parasite off the back of the community start rolling in.

    • Bearded Git 3.4
      8 August 2014 at 10:15 am

      Every time Laila is on MR it is more votes for IMP.

  4. The Al1en 4
    8 August 2014 at 7:46 am

    Preferred government post election.
    30% + 15% is the very reachable number one target for sensible, sustainable left wing government.
    Let’s make it happen.

    1. Labour/Green.
    2. Labour/Green/NZ1st.
    3. Labour/Green/NZ1st/Last cab of the rank mip.
    4. Labour/Green/Last cab of the rank mip.
    • Grumpy 4.1
      8 August 2014 at 8:42 am

      Thought about Labour/National?

      • Lanthanide 4.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 8:51 am

        You pretty much only get a grand-coalition when there’s no other plausible combination possible.

        • Grumpy 4.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 6:29 pm

          Pretty much my point. If Labour’s vote is so low that only electorate MPs get back in, and given that quite a few of those are on the Right of Labour, perhaps they may see more in common with Key than KDC, Hone, Greens……???

          • Lanthanide 4.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 6:55 pm

            It would be a very peculiar outcome where National + MP + Seymore + Dunne + NZFirst couldn’t form a majority against the left, and the only option was Labour + National.

            Hell, even the Greens might prefer to go into coalition with National if the alternative was Labour + National.

            • Grumpy 4.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 8:22 pm

              Not impossible then?

              • Lanthanide …
                9 August 2014 at 12:09 pm

                No, it’s not impossible, but like I said, has such a small minuscule chance of happening that it’s not worth spending any serious time or thought to consider the situation.

      • bad12 4.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 9:08 am

        What would that equate to Grumpy, excuse the Godwin people, a National/Socialist government perhaps…

    • Tiger Mountain 4.2
      8 August 2014 at 9:41 am

      Hope this doesn’t disturb breakfast at Alien lodge…

      “By then the crowd was spilling through the rear doors of NMIT’s Kowhai Lounge, with around 50 left to stand outside.

      This was double what Labour’s David Cunliffe and the Conservatives’ Colin Craig got at their Nelson meetings a fortnight ago.

      Last night’s audience included everyone from tattooed young people to silver-haired grandmothers, with strong representation by the middle-aged.

      Internet Party leader Harre and Mana’s representative, Te Tai Tonga candidate Beyer, were welcomed warmly, but it was the arrival of Dotcom, to a pumping rock beat, that got the biggest cheer.”
      –Nelson Mail–
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/10358411/Dotcom-roadshow-wows-the-crowd

      • bad12 4.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:25 am

        i commented on this yesterday, thanks for the link Tiger, half listening to Jim Mora on RadioNZNational yesterday afternoon i just caught the comment,

        ”Even the local bridge club interrupted proceedings to attend and check out the InternetMana roadshow”,

        i am as i said yesterday, In Awe…

      • Chooky 4.2.2
        8 August 2014 at 10:34 am

        @ Tiger Mountain….love that link!…quite inspiring

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    8 August 2014 at 7:57 am

    Lying by numbers

    As of the June quarter the working age population was 3.58 million, which is up 16,100 or 0.5 per cent from March and up 57,000 or 1.6 per cent on a year earlier, the strongest annual growth for seven years.

    Household Labour Survey – Participation rate down 0.3%

    It’s what happens when you use nominal numbers.

    “Taken together, we interpret these results as strong evidence against the ‘sore losers’ hypothesis – the idea that reported hiring difficulties are driven by poor performing firms who cannot pay the market rate for skills. Instead, the results are more consistent with the suggestion … that technical progress may create persistent skills shortages, for a subset of jobs, over long periods of time.”

    That’s actually a survey that Fallow was reporting on and it draws the wrong conclusion. It’s not technical progress that creates skills shortages but lack of training. Lack of training brought about by high tuition fees and students loans. We need to encourage more people int to polytechs and uni but this government has been doing the exact opposite.

    • Tracey 5.1
      8 August 2014 at 8:29 am

      Wayne will be along shortly to advise you that someone is using the statistics for evil

    • karol 5.2
      8 August 2014 at 9:15 am

      That Fallows article read like a lot of trees and little wood.

    • nadis 5.3
      8 August 2014 at 9:24 am

      Actually, I think we need to encourage employers and trade associations to provide more training opportunities. What we don’t need is uni’s and poly’s churning out people with large loans with skills that industry doesnt want.

      Not saying this applies here – I haven’t looked at the household survey data – but as well as the obvious negative reasons for a decrease in participation rate there can also be positive reasons why the rate falls. But yeah, quoting employment rates etc without referencing the participation rate is usually a bit shallow.

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 5.3.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:07 am

        “What we don’t need is uni’s and poly’s churning out people with large loans with skills that industry doesn’t want.”

        Umm and the private sector.

        The problems with tertiary education partly began when funding was opened up to the private sector in a competitive type model.

        The private sector being what it is started churning out lots of cheap nasty courses that minimised costs and maximised profits eg dive courses, computer courses that offered little value but you got a free computer, aromatherapy courses, etc.

        Some polytechs followed (particularly as private sector managers moved into manage the polytechs) and for years chaos in training followed.

        That wasn’t to say there wasn’t some good private sector training because there was but millions were spent on tripe.

        In my view training needs to be split clearly out into community based training – which is where your night school classes, re-entry into education, your recovering furniture, basic photography, etc education sits – and higher level tertiary training that teaches skills and knowledge both for occupational and societal needs.

        Both should be funded but it should be much clearer what providers are providing. Too many people are getting into debt for what are in effect community education courses that mean little
        (as a qualification) once they have finished.

        • nadis 5.3.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:27 am

          you misunderstand me – probably wilfully. What I was suggesting was that training should be more closely aligned with the sorts of skills that industry needs. In my industry we often see graduates with a degree in what we do, but with skills that are so far away from what is needed that it is a year or two before they are capable of meaningful contribution. If there was closer integration between the training providers and industry ie more internships, more up to date curriculum etc then that would be a good thing. We have engaged with some of the academics involved at a couple of unis and typically they have little appreciation for the real world application of their subject, little experience in the industry. Recently we offered an ongoing internship for 1 year 3 student to one prof – $20 an hour, flexible hours and he never sent us a single CV. We chased him twice then gave up and gave the internship to a clients daughter.

          I’m not suggesting private providers churn out more dive instructors, I’m suggesting employers, employer industry bodies, professional and trade associations, unions, polytechs do a better job of co-ordinating on what skills we need to build better and more productive industries.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 5.3.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 10:55 am

            “you misunderstand me – probably wilfully.”

            Nah didn’t misunderstand you. What I was saying in the last twenty or so years with the opening up of training to the private sector training in the tertiary has been dumbed down.

            I was questioning your assertion that it’s the uni’s and polytechs churning these people out.

            It’s the private sector who is just as culpable and at times is simply looking to maxmise profit rather than educate.

            We never needed all those dive instructors.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.3.2
        8 August 2014 at 4:28 pm

        Actually, I think we need to encourage employers and trade associations to provide more training opportunities.

        Yep, could do with more of that too.

        What we don’t need is uni’s and poly’s churning out people with large loans with skills that industry doesnt want.

        Polytechnics and Unis tend to be the centres of research but, more importantly and especially for some of the older generations, they teach people how to learn. That means that when people do go into the industry they’re looking at things and learning from it rather than just accepting it.

        but as well as the obvious negative reasons for a decrease in participation rate there can also be positive reasons why the rate falls.

        Under a stagnating economy where more and more people are slowly becoming worse off? Doubt it.

  6. Chooky 6
    8 August 2014 at 9:50 am

    ‘Auckland University embarrasses itself by insinuating Internet MANA gig a Nazi rally’

    By Martyn Bradbury / August 8, 2014 /

    ‘It’s good for the young to see how blatantly manipulative a media organisation like Radio Live and the NZ Herald are’.

    Auckland University academic Jennifer Lees-Marshment has deeply embarrassed the Auckland University by claiming the Internet Mana gig was like a ‘Nazi chant’, this follows fellow Massey University academic and National Party wannabe Claire Robinson’s criticism yesterday that it was a ‘new low’…..

    My comment: You cant help but like Dotcom and I would like to give him a BIG HUG hug and the students too….but BEWARE the spinners

    ..and after seeing innocent protesters during the Springbok Tour lured forward by police and then beaten i am very wary of the state using demonstrations as a pretext for violence against protesters

    • karol 6.1
      8 August 2014 at 10:04 am

      My comment: You cant help but like Dotcom and I would like to give him a BIG HUG hug and the students too

      Hmmm… his appeal misses me.

      The academics jumping on the Natsi rally parallel is weird. It just looks pretty much like a rock concert style response – a bit of punk – to me.

      • Chooky 6.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:18 am

        yeah it is innocent alright…but the spinners are Not!… and nor is John Key and NACT!

        …i am just saying be careful! ….and students should focus on the issues like education, employment opportunities, youth rates, student loans and interest which are bleeding students dry, housing issues …where NZ youth have been FUCKED OVER over by John Key and his rich NACT mates

        • karol 6.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:25 am

          Yes. But it may backfire in the Nat spinners’ electioneering faces.

          The media attention to the vid will get more young people on board with IMP than against it.

          Myself, I’m maybe getting a bit old. I’m not keen on the whole crowd, call-and-response thing – and group-think kind of behaviour.

          We had a work event where that was used as a warm up exercise, with no explanation as to why it was being used. I was one of the very few who sat un-moved and unresponsive. I found it amazing how easily people joined in without actually knowing what they were joining in with or why. It felt too much like I was being manipulated into uncritical support of the organisation and its leaders.

          • Chooky 6.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 10:35 am

            “Yes. But it may backfire in the Nat spinners’ electioneering faces.”….yes I do hope so!

            • Bearded Git 6.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 10:40 am

              Chooky/Karol-I made a similar comment below before reading your posts. Great minds and all that…

            • Gosman 6.1.1.1.1.2
              8 August 2014 at 11:41 am

              How would this backfire?

              • McFlock …
                8 August 2014 at 2:26 pm

                It can’t. You guys need to make sure to publicise every instance where someone says “fuck john key”, because normal NZers would vote national to help that nice man.

                A few songs lampooning jk have been released online – you should also publicise them as much as possible, to show normal NZers the low character of the opponents of that great man.

                • Gosman …
                  8 August 2014 at 3:55 pm

                  No but highlighting the double standards in complaining about being personally attacked by members of the National party whilst also seemingly encouraging a similar personal attack is perfectly valid in my view and one that won’t have any blowback as far as I can see.

                  • McFlock …
                    8 August 2014 at 4:10 pm

                    I agree. Such a pity you’d have to make shit up to argue that point, though.

                    Who is “complaining about being personally attacked by members of the National party whilst also seemingly encouraging a similar personal attack”?

                    KDC isn’t doing both.
                    Harre isn’t doing either.
                    Nobody in Labour is doing both.

              • weka …
                8 August 2014 at 4:25 pm

                “How would this backfire?”

                Some of the people that the IMP want to vote for them will look at the likes of Key, and the Herald/TVNZ, and a pompous Uni professor all saying how terrible it is to say “fuck John Key”, and will go out and enroll and vote. Seriously, do you really think that disnefranchised voters will not react negatively to the powers in society that have disnefranchised them who are now telling them off for swearing?

                • phillip ure …
                  8 August 2014 at 8:21 pm

                  “.. Seriously, do you really think that disnefranchised voters will not react negatively to the powers in society that have disnefranchised them who are now telling them off for swearing?
                  ..”

                  ..heh..!..well said..!

                  ..and funny with it..

      • The Al1en 6.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 10:26 am

        “Hmmm… his appeal misses me.”

        Same. I put myself in the Bradford category.

        “The academics jumping on the Natsi rally parallel is weird. It just looks pretty much like a rock concert style response – a bit of punk – to me.”

        Agreed, a bit of a to do over nothing, like the sugar daddy thing. Offensive if you’re on the end of it or have a vested interest, but not as much as hungry kids in cold homes with no shoes on.

        • karol 6.1.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:30 am

          The “sugar daddy” thing is way worse, not a one off. We have a PM and government who are generally pretty dismissive of women – single mothers, Tania Billingsley, under-funded women’s refuges…. the offenses are cumulative and very indicative of Key’s attitude.

          • unpcnzcougar 6.1.2.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 12:43 pm

            Personally I don’t have a problem with the comment sugar daddy – it is true. She is accepting money before being in parliament which is not the Laila Harre most of us know. I don’t remember there being such an outcry when Helen Clark said in Parliament that Deborah Coddington was a rich man’s play thing. Or is this different because it was said by a woman. My advice to Laila – have a cup of concrete – this is politics – I think it was faux outrage for publicity and nothing else.

        • tinfoilhat 6.1.2.2
          8 August 2014 at 10:51 am

          Agreed the Al1en… and proven by the look of it.

        • anker 6.1.2.3
          8 August 2014 at 12:25 pm

          re the Kim.Dot.Com thing.

          First up I am a Labour Party member.

          IMHO If this was Labour there would have been every person and their cat on this website and the DB up and arms about Labour and mistakes and comms and DC and The ABC’s!

          IMHO this is a bad look for IMP. Mainly because it is Dot.com who is on the platform encouraging these young people to say this. Having said that I would happily say F John Key myself, but Dot.com was not supposed to have to much to do with the party (correct me if I am wrong). And talking about extraditing JK, only serves to make a connection to his own potential extradition. And again it confirms for me, his motive is revenge. That’s o.k. but its not what I want to vote for.

          Give me Labour’s very clear and clever and Left policies anyday.

          BTW thhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/10350433/Te-Tai-Tokerau-tanglesis article I think sums up what is really happening re Labour and IMP and Harawera/Davis.

      • bad12 6.1.3
        8 August 2014 at 9:21 pm

        Exactly Karol, its a bit of Punk and a bit of Rave, its the rugby team getting on the piss after the game and setting up the team chant even,

        In simple terms it gets everyone bonded round a common theme, i see below you point out where similar is used in a work setting,

        ”Fuck John Key” among the younger crowd is hardly the stuff of the Nuremburg rally as the Herald alludes to,(with a side thought again to your reference of the work setting with a question mark),

        i laugh out loud to a certain extent, because i know, that far from leading these kids into a lifelong quest for radicalism by the time they have reached their late twenties the majority of them will be voting Labour, or god forbid, even National,

        DotCom, and what a great marketer He is, is simply appealing to these kids in ”the now”, that ”now” being just befor they all leave that rebellious stage of their lives, at the age they are now at, the complexity of policy on offer across the spectrum will be of little interest to many of them and it is on a way more basic level that InternetMana and Dotcoms Party Party methodology have been able to reach them…

    • Anne 6.2
      8 August 2014 at 10:15 am

      Pablo at Kiwipolitico poses some interesting questions about the IMP Party. In the final analysis he hopes they will succeed, but I was intrigued by one of his closing statements:

      One thing is certain. If dark rumours are correct, the government has some unpleasant surprises for the IP in the weeks leading to the election. If that happens, it may take more than Glenn Greenwald and his revelations about John Key and the GCSB to redeem the IP in the eyes of the voting public.

      Sounds like Key has been furnished with some serious dirt/slander on Dotcom by the FBI (and goodness knows who else) which he’s planning to toss into the public arena in advance of Dotcom’s 15 September revelations. I hope the IMP are well aware of any such intentions, and are planning their rear-guard responses.

      http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2014/07/eye-candy-window-dressing-and-deep-pockets/

      • Bearded Git 6.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:31 am

        Anne-I think Key needs to be careful here. Anything thrown at KDC/Hone/Laila may have the opposite effect to that which he desires.

        • Chooky 6.2.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:50 am

          hope so !

          • yeshe 6.2.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 12:21 pm

            Well, Key does have the whole GCSB and SIS and Police hiding away in his special ‘saving it for later’ top drawer. But so far, in terms of lies ? It is Key x 1000 vs Kim Dotcom 0.

            Not sure Kiwis will be fooled again … such a percentage were against the new bill passed last year .. that won’t have changed. Any whiff of mis-use of security/metadata etc will sound a clanger and serve to remind the public mind, I hope. I have faith in my fellow Kiwis in this.

            If these dark rumours are true, they must be very worried on the top floors. Let’s get ’em ! Go InternetMana — I’m picking 7% when this is over !

            • Bearded Git 6.2.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 12:30 pm

              +1 yeshe on all of that.

              I picked Lab31+Gre11+IMP7=49=Cunliffe months ago and am sticking to this.

              • phillip ure …
                8 August 2014 at 8:30 pm

                i picked 9% ‘months ago’..

                ..and i’m sticking with that..

                ..and we have not seen this since bob jones/nz party…

                ..and i tip my hat to those who have the skills to dive into the stats of previous elections.. to issue their low predictions for the int/mana election outcome..

                ..but they are wrong..as the electricity present now..was absent in those recent elections..

                ..and the campaigns haven’t even officially started yet..!

                ..and i think labour rightwingers/centrists are as terrified of int/mana as are national/key..

                ..they are smart enough to see what i am talking about..

                ..and this is why they are both in attack mode..

                ..(and int/mana have the best billboards..with the clearest message..

                ..’change the govt…party vote internet/mana.’..

                ..whoever thought that up..deserves a (vegan) chocolate-fish..)

        • Puckish Rogue 6.2.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 4:09 pm

          I think Keys prepared to take some minor damage to himself to deal some major damage to the Left (because thats what its really about)

          • Pablo 6.2.1.2.1
            9 August 2014 at 11:43 am

            That is exactly what I understand the tactic to be, although the damage is not to the Left as a whole but to the IP and Dotcom in particular. Any revelations about NZ spying or when and what Key knew about the Dotcom raid (all set to be revealed when Glenn Greenwald addresses the crowd on Sept 17) will supposedly pale in comparison to what the government allegedly has on Dotcom. The Greewald revelations will not sway the election in any event because the voting public is seen by National to be “over” the spying issues and the revelations come late in the game. But whatever dirt is to be dished out by the government–and I am not sure that Bomber fully knows what I have heard, nor is Slater necessarily going to be the conduit for that news even if he has his own dirt to dish–it will be delivered with the intention of destroying the IP and those associated with it. This is more than dirty tricks because the allegations are said to be able to stand the test of intensive critical scrutiny.

            I sincerely hope that what I have heard is not true and the rumours are nothing more than a bluff.

            • Weepus beard 6.2.1.2.1.1
              9 August 2014 at 12:17 pm

              This is the second time you have brought up this ever deepening mystery information and have refused to elaborate. Do you think John Key has used public funds or public services to gather this information? If that is the case and it can be uncovered (before or after the election), then I’m not so sure the public will just get “over” that, as you put it.

              Dotcom is now a legitimate political opponent no matter whether National and its supporters like it or not and any intelligence gathering using the baubles of the prime minister’s office will remind the populace of Watergate.

              Using Slater to release the info in the style Eagleson and Ede have employed till now won’t be effective because Slater has damaged his own brand and is now the hateful boy who cried wolf.

              So, who will deliver it? A direct attack from the PM’s office using intelligence from the States or from the GCSB/SIS would be very interesting, and risky.

      • Olwyn 6.2.2
        8 August 2014 at 11:10 am

        In a comment on this thread, Bomber seems to think that he knows what the accusations are, and that they will be easily explained. I do hope he is right.

        http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/08/06/cunliffe-on-internet-mana-how-ungrateful-is-kelvin-davis-how-we-know-labours-vote-isnt-collapse/

        • Bearded Git 6.2.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 12:00 pm

          Bomber is spot on here. I keep texting Mora “Bring Back Bomber” to no avail.

          • Chooky 6.2.2.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 3:16 pm

            Mora said not so long ago that he thinks we have an egalitarian society in New Zealand because we dont have as many millionaires as they do in New York!…(implication : what are people complaining about?…something like that)

            …no wonder he doesn’t want Bomber back!…lol….(i would like to see his face when he reads your texts)

      • Puddleglum 6.2.3
        8 August 2014 at 3:36 pm

        Presumably it isn’t anything that might be construed as prejudicing the trial.

        That wouldn’t be a good look for the government.

        Unless it was released as part of the proceedings of the trial – actually, that may be an even worse look given the rumours are apparently current.

        I suppose it could involve communications over the formation of the IP or IMP but the ‘rumours’ seemed to suggest something about Dot Com himself.

        All speculation of course.

      • bad12 6.2.4
        8 August 2014 at 9:31 pm

        Rear guard responses Anne, i laugh, and, i laugh a lot more, my point being that the InternetMana appeal isn’t to people young, middle aged, or old who give the slightest credence to anything uttered by Slippery the Prime Minister, National, or, Nationals tame whore media voice,

        The response from most of us InternetMana supporters will be to have a laugh, laugh again and carry on with the Party Party…

    • Bearded Git 6.3
      8 August 2014 at 10:27 am

      I have certainly said “Fuck John Key” many times. It should have been IMP’s election slogan.

      Plunkett Hooton Farrar Gower Espiner Slater Christie Wood Garner will be the first to run when the revolution starts.

      I love the way that, instead of apologising, Laila has simply said young people have the right to express what they feel and, given the way the economy is working against them at the moment, FJK expresses this perfectly. All power to them. Now get out and vote the wanker out.

      • Olwyn 6.3.1
        8 August 2014 at 11:41 am

        Yes, I was pleased that Laila did not apologise. The right desperately want their worldview to be a universal one – which is exactly what TINA means. If a group of drunk young Nats were filmed chanting “Cun*liffe F*** Off!” their response would be, “See what young people think of the Labour leader.” It’s OK for them to dish it out, so they think, but they can’t take it when someone else does.

        • marty mars 6.3.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 12:49 pm

          I also am pleased that no apology was given – in fact I think Laila has played this very well. Key is only interested in selfies anyway – wonder why that is.

      • The Al1en 6.3.2
        8 August 2014 at 11:44 am

        “Plunkett Hooton Farrar Gower Espiner Slater Christie Wood Garner will be the first to run when the revolution starts.”

        From ‘Hello, I’m uprising’

        “The one’s who take the bribe, you’ll find, are the first to run.
        The one’s who lie for kind will earn it word for word for word.”

      • Chooky 6.3.3
        8 August 2014 at 3:22 pm

        It all calls for some fucking good t-shirts with the words FUCK, FUCK, FUCK , FUCKITY FUCK:

        “FUCK ….you know WHO!”

        “FUCK…what’s his name?”

        “FUCK, FUCK , FUCK!”

        …t-shirt competition anyone?

        …i want a FUCKING t-shirt!

        …where is DOTcom?

        ….Grannys would love these t-shirts!

        • Tiger Mountain 6.3.3.1
          8 August 2014 at 9:31 pm

          like the first one best Chooky…
          “FUCK …you know WHO!

          everyone will know who even if they won’t admit it, and it is a play on “Harry Potter” after the Helensville Lockdown candidates meeting at Kumeu Baptist Church where no one can mention Key’s name.

    • Gosman 6.4
      8 August 2014 at 10:37 am

      Where is the State using demonstrations as a pretext for violence against protesters in this situation?

      • Chooky 6.4.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:45 am

        @ Gosman

        not yet …but ‘law and order’ was a pretext for state instigated violence against Springbok protesters…and then it was made out that the protesters were the violent disorderly immoral ones…i saw middle aged and elderly middle class, well dressed protesters lured forward and then beaten by the police

        …and then the whole moral issue of protesting against apartheid was twisted into a ‘law and order’ issue and used by Muldoon to win the next election!

        …be wary!…. is all i am saying

    • North 6.5
      8 August 2014 at 8:26 pm

      It never ceases to amaze me how that flake Robinson gets any air time anyway.

      University professor – political scientist – what ? One doesn’t need professorial status to yawningly weigh in time-after-time with one’s love of the status quo. Nor to divine a prescient leadership challenge underneath Shearer’s comments in a Gaza discussion on Q + A……what ?

      But speaking of “FUCK” chatter – TRUE STORY ! Two or three years ago I emailed Robinson to complain about her particularly facile and patently personal opinion expressed over something or other ‘political’…….not a molecule of ‘science’ in it.

      Perhaps unkindly but certainly not engaging rough curse nor plummeting to the ‘low’ she employed in response, I offered that she might “go run a dairy”.

      Dear ‘New-Low’ Robinson emailed back quite quickly as I recall – “GO FUCK YOURSELF !”

      I kid you not. “GO FUCK YOURSELF !”

      Oh…….Miss Associate-Professor.

      • karol 6.5.1
        8 August 2014 at 8:33 pm

        Those panels with various establishment people offering their views of politics are a waste of space more often than not these days.

        On The Nation tomorrow, they’d be better to cut back on the time given on the panel (or axe it altogether), and give more time to the party leaders.

      • Anne 6.5.2
        8 August 2014 at 8:36 pm

        Any chance you still have the email North? Worth sending on to a few journos.

  7. The Al1en 7
    8 August 2014 at 10:17 am

    Next unemployment data may show a -1, I Just got myself a job 🙂

    • Chooky 7.1
      8 August 2014 at 10:24 am

      Fantastic!…good on you…you will be great at it ..the employers are lucky people

    • karol 7.2
      8 August 2014 at 10:27 am

      Great. Happy that you are happy with it.

      • The Al1en 7.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:34 am

        The boss lady seems a good sort and she actually said she was lucky to get me (hence the lol above).
        Calling winz to sort out my golden handshake, and ird to get ready to pay wff credits.

        First things I’m buying when I get paid, are shoes without holes in the bottom and a kg of bacon.

        • karol 7.2.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 10:37 am

          Shoes! Damn! That says it all. And still amazing that you need a job to be able to get the WFF credits…. and buy the shoes.

        • karol 7.2.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 10:37 am

          Shoes! Damn! That says it all. And still amazing that you need a job to be able to get the WFF credits…. and buy the shoes.

        • Chooky 7.2.1.3
          8 August 2014 at 10:40 am

          you must be a ladies man!…..and lol …to the kg of bacon….hope you eat it while watching “fruit and vege man” Mike Hosking…but then again it might give you indigestion and spoil the meal

          • The Al1en 7.2.1.3.1
            8 August 2014 at 11:21 am

            Ladies man, yeah, that’ll be it 😆

            “Shoes! Damn! That says it all.”

            High roller, high heels.

            “Nouveau riche”

            New money, I’ll be starting my own party next. 😉

            “Good for you”

            Cheers, I’m stoked about it. Not the best three months I’ve ever ever had.

        • minarch 7.2.1.4
          8 August 2014 at 10:44 am

          ah the Nouveau riche eh …

          😉

        • anker 7.2.1.5
          8 August 2014 at 12:28 pm

          Congrats Allen. Pleased for you.

        • RedBaronCV 7.2.1.6
          8 August 2014 at 7:09 pm

          Ask the IRD for a remission on the WFF credits – hang onto your money and I’m very pleased for you. Top blokes deserve jobs.

    • tinfoilhat 7.3
      8 August 2014 at 10:53 am

      Good for you 🙂

    • ianmac 7.4
      8 August 2014 at 11:27 am

      Great The Allen. Long may your job last and may it be enough to live well.

      • The Al1en 7.4.1
        8 August 2014 at 11:32 am

        Compared to the pittance I’ve been on, which I’m thankful for, it’ll be like a mini lotto win each pay day, even though it really isn’t.
        I’m just sorry I couldn’t last out until Labour were in government so they can take the credit for the -1 unemployment drop.

        • left for dead 7.4.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 1:11 pm

          Good stuff The Al1en.living well,is the best revenge

          • The Al1en 7.4.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 1:24 pm

            An old saying goes that with revenge, you best dig two graves.
            With my back I’m better off eating a bacon sarnie.

            And left4dead, along with Halo, my joint fave game franchise. Go Zoey.

            Ta Anker and Tinfoilhat. :thumbs up:

            • Puckish Rogue 7.4.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 3:14 pm

              Try Skyrim if you really want to while away a few hours

              • The Al1en …
                8 August 2014 at 4:17 pm

                Sci-Fi shooters and Zombies over hack, slash and magic any day, but it’s a decent, immersive game true enough.
                It does have a following (like most things rpg).

            • Anne 7.4.1.1.1.2
              8 August 2014 at 7:19 pm

              The best revenge of all is to be able to pick up on one’s life and start again with success. It means the arsehole (whether a he or she) who tries to destroy a person’s life has lost the game.

              Well done The Allen

    • tricledrown 7.5
      8 August 2014 at 1:45 pm

      no more posts in day time then

      • The Al1en 7.5.1
        8 August 2014 at 1:50 pm

        I made sure I had Tuesdays and Thursdays off, so I’ll still sneak a few in.
        I couldn’t disappoint my public like that, the fan club would be devastated. lol

    • miravox 7.6
      8 August 2014 at 7:39 pm

      Fantastic news Al1en.

    • Grumpy 7.7
      8 August 2014 at 8:24 pm

      Great! Where do I send the National Party application form?

  8. Clemgeopin 8
    8 August 2014 at 11:15 am

    Colin Craig threatens TV3 with legal action:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Colin-Craig-threatens-TV3-with-legal-action/tabid/423/articleID/356017/Default.aspx

    This time I have sympathy with the Conservatives and I support Colin’s reaction here.

    After all in the last two TV3 polls the Conservatives did get 2.8% and 2.7% which is above that of ACT, Dunne and Maori which are somewhere around 0% to 1%!

    • Ant 8.1
      8 August 2014 at 11:37 am

      Yep, even though the conservatives are cack they have enough support to be part of debates.

    • phillip ure 8.2
      8 August 2014 at 11:50 am

      he should be there just for the entertainment-value..

      ..(he’s always such a hoot…)

      ..we might be lucky..and even get some moon-landing-denying/chem-trail action..

      • Ben Adam 8.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 12:00 pm

        Be careful what you wish for though! His wobbly worm may unexpectedly firm up suddenly during those debates tempting everyone into voting for him, like Dunne managed to fool many voters once upon a time long ago!

      • yeshe 8.2.2
        8 August 2014 at 1:11 pm

        TV3 News has an item now explaining the invitation is for parties with current representation in parliament .. thus while IMP is invited, accordingly, no-one from IP is. This is their defence against the injunction request it seems. ( Sorry, no time to link, but on main TV3 news page … )

        • karol 8.2.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 1:18 pm

          I understand Mana was invited, but not IP.

        • Clemgeopin 8.2.2.2
          8 August 2014 at 4:24 pm

          TV3 are stupid plonkers. Going by their completely unfair reasoning, no new party that gets some voter support as shown in the polls can ever have the chance to put forward their views on TV debates to the public. How stupid is that!

          They need to think this through and change their criteria:

          May be include all the minor party’s currently in parliament and ALSO new parties that show at least over 1% support in recent polls…or something like that.

          We are supposed to in a civilised democracy and need to show justice, fairness and a balanced approach to such public issues, irrespective of our own narrow political interests!

          • weka 8.2.2.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 4:29 pm

            Or give the new parties that aren’t in parliament yet their own debate. I think it’s reasonable for parties to put some yards in before they get access to prime time tv. Don’t trust the polls either.

            • Clemgeopin 8.2.2.2.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 4:56 pm

              I am not sure if that would work well and fairly because then a reasonably better supported party like the Conservatives will have to debate with umpteen number of parties that barely have over 0% support, parties like some hardly registering ‘Dope party’, ‘jumping yoga party’ ‘Mculligadi serious party’ ‘mad hatters party’ etc.

              Common sense and fairness tells me that the Conservatives should be included with the minor parties for tomorrow’s debate.

              • yeshe …
                8 August 2014 at 5:49 pm

                The TV3 news pages say they have other debates/events planned that will include all the ‘minor’ party leaders. Be crazy TV to have them all on at once .. completely unworkable, so it does make sense to me how they are doing it.

              • weka …
                8 August 2014 at 9:18 pm

                Craig has won his injunction, forcing TV3 to include him or not run the debate. Nothing about including the IP. Happy now Clem?

                http://www.3news.co.nz/Colin-Craig-granted-interim-injunction-against-TV3/tabid/423/articleID/356017/Default.aspx

                IMO parties like McGillicuddy and the ALCP do deserve air time if other parties outside of parliament do. ALCP has been around a hell of a lot longer than the Conservatives. You seem to think that democracy should kick in a a certain level determined by polls, which level is it exactly? Why should people below that not have a voice?

                • Clemgeopin …
                  8 August 2014 at 11:29 pm

                  That is much fairer. Thanks for the info.

                  Yes, Ok, I concede the point you make in the final paragraph, for all registered parties with 500 members, though it probably is a problem of logistics, necessitating multiple debates broken into groups but then the ratings/cost becomes a problem as we have a ‘commercial’ tv model.

                  I can kind of understand why they excluded IP given that IP and MP have combined for this election as the IMP alliance. Do you know how the ORIGINAL Jim Anderton’s Alliance was treated for these minor party debates?

  9. Clemgeopin 9
    8 August 2014 at 11:44 am

    (From an email to me)

    A NEW POLITICAL CURRENT AFFAIRS SHOW FROM TONIGHT ON PRIME TV

    FROM FRONT PAGE

    SEAN PLUNKET
    9 30 pm Friday on Prime

    It’s one of the BIG election issues and this Friday night on Prime,

    Sean will chair what is certain to be a key election debate.
    Social Development Minister Paula Bennett will confront Green Co-Leader Metiria Turei on inequality and poverty in NZ.

    They will be joined by two experts with very different perspectives, Alan Johnson from the Salvation Army, author of The Growing Divide. A State of the Nation Report from the Salvation Army 2012 . And from the faith based Venn Foundation we have its CEO, Greg Fleming, the former CEO of the Maxim Institute.

    This will be the first of a series of weekly debates running right through the election — and after. Some of the country’s top politicians lined up and election debate broadcasts.

    Also, very shortly they will be going live with a new political news website.

    “PRIME TIME WITH SEAN PLUNKET”
    FRIDAYS 9.30 P.M. PRIME TV.

    • Hami Shearlie 9.1
      8 August 2014 at 12:09 pm

      Wonder why the Labour Party spokesperson won’t be there? Does Sean choose who will be on?

      • sweetd 9.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 12:40 pm

        Its typical in the run up to the election to have debates between the govt and the dominant opposition party. The Greens have been the dominant opposition party for some time now.

        • yeshe 9.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 1:14 pm

          you might be told by some here to ‘zip it, sweetd’ !!

        • Clemgeopin 9.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 4:30 pm

          NON SENSE!

          • weka 9.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 8:59 pm

            The GP are much more prominent on inequality and poverty than Labour, so it makes sense that Turei would be asked debate with Bennett rather than… who is it for Labour?

      • Clemgeopin 9.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 4:29 pm

        Yes, I wondered that too. Seems very odd when the next coalition will most likely be led by Labour as per the polls and also by the fact that Labour holds the leader of the opposition position in parliament!

        It is akin to having for the leaders debate, Key and Hone (or someone else!) Doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem right!

        May be he is trying to forment trouble between Labour and the Greens? Plonker! …FSP!

        • bad12 9.1.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 8:54 pm

          Clem, perhaps its a silent acknowlegement from Labour that in a coalition with the Greens they will be willing to give up the Social Development Ministry to the smaller partner…

          • Clemgeopin 9.1.2.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 10:31 pm

            Rubbish! Who the mischief making RWNJ upstart Sean Plunket gets on his programme has nothing to do with Labour. Sean Plunket can not dictate the cabinet positions! That is an arrogant take from you and the FJK’s boot licker, FSP.

            • bad12 9.1.2.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 10:46 pm

              Pissed again Clem, the rotting liver is starting to be translated through your writing…

    • karol 9.2
      8 August 2014 at 2:06 pm

      Social Development Minister Paula Bennett will confront Green Co-Leader Metiria Turei on inequality and poverty in NZ.

      Eh? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Who should be confronting whom, in the current context. That phrasing kind of exposes the programme’s political position.

      Thanks for the heads up, Clem.

  10. joe90 10
    8 August 2014 at 12:03 pm

    Translation – scary people are mostly not like us so best we continue locking up scary people.
    /

    But as reforms move from proposals to actual bills, the key question is how to persuade the general public that change is needed. A new study suggests that highlighting racism in the criminal justice system is not the answer, and in fact pushes white voters in the opposite direction. Even when whites believe the current laws are too harsh, they’re less likely to support changing the law if they’re reminded that the current prison population is disproportionately black.

    http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5978551/study-racism-criminal-justice-stop-and-frisk-reform-support

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      8 August 2014 at 5:05 pm

      Because you think that people will be grateful that National have made things worse for them?

  13. Weepus beard 13
    8 August 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Judith Collins called Grant Robertson a racist on Larry Williams’ show today. If that is not a new, new low in NZ politics, I don’t know what is.

    • Anne 13.1
      8 August 2014 at 7:37 pm

      She’s trying to ‘out-low’ Steven Joyce.

      • North 13.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 10:06 pm

        Wow, IMP’s certainly NOT exercising strange behaviours out of all sorts of people ?

        “Scam”…..”Thug”…..”Racist”…..”Fat German”……”Scarlett Woman”…….”Purple Whore”…..TheGodKey’s punchy coup de grace “Muppets !”……Crosby Textor’s panicked “FJK = JFK”.

        Gets interestinger and interestinger !

        Any bets on The Little Toff Guyon ‘Spinner manically chanting “FKDC” two days out ?

  14. SPC 14
    8 August 2014 at 6:32 pm

    Why is it that the ABC faction is roused up to moa hunt in Northland when their party campaign is about the positive Labour alternative to National?

    What is it that they are passionate about – seeing off rivals on the left outside their own party or inside their own party – so they can take control of it?

    No doubt they were happy with the attacks on Greens by Jones as well.

    The way this lot are encouraged by the support from the right for this reminds me so much of the Douglas faction within Labour in the 1980’s.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      8 August 2014 at 10:18 pm

      Yeah it’s gotta be sorted out in due course.

    • Olwyn 14.2
      8 August 2014 at 10:33 pm

      That is why it is so important the left does as well as it possibly can in this election. I will be voting Labour because I want Cunliffe to be PM, I want to see the back of this government and I don’t want that lot to get their claws on the party’s future. I just don’t get what their motivation is! The right don’t need them and the left don’t much like them.

  15. Rodel 15
    8 August 2014 at 7:08 pm

    You have to hand it to John Key. When Kimdotcon has a regional rally rarking up youngsters to chant obscenities about John Key, John on TV manages to claim that it;s David Cuncliffe’s fault.
    I suspect some of the wavering voters are sucked in?

    • Weepus beard 15.1
      8 August 2014 at 8:39 pm

      He is freaked out you can tell. He is begging the opposition for information and can’t stop talking about David Cunliffe and Kim Dotcom, and Laila Harre, and Hone Harawera. The media ask him and he promotes the opposition.

  16. Rodel 16
    8 August 2014 at 7:16 pm

    JohnKey uses the word’ muppets’…… Mike Hoskings has an orgasm of fawning delight.
    He’s sooo bad.

  17. North 17
    8 August 2014 at 8:55 pm

    ” Fuck ChAppie ! ”

    He does realise he’s the stooge, right ? In this moment of necessity…….which I understand, but…..

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Dotcom-labelled-a-thug-by-LabourMP/tabid/1607/articleID/356107/Default.aspx

    • weka 17.1
      8 August 2014 at 9:10 pm

      Then there is this from Trotter,

      Almost to a person, the conservative commentariat has condemned Internet-Mana in the most extravagant terms. PR maven and political commentator, Matthew Hooton, tweeted that the clip contained images reminiscent of a Munich beer-hall circa 1920, thereby setting in motion a Kim-Dotcom-as-Adolf-Hitler meme that within hours would infect huge chunks of the mainstream media. Curiously, very few media commentators appeared to consider how gratefully such criticism might be received by a movement whose primary objective is to be seen as the antithesis of everything old and well-behaved and conventional and boring.

      The over-riding goal of Internet-Mana is to be branded as dangerous and transgressive. The Powers-That-Be have co-operated splendidly.

      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/08/08/fing-john-key-how-kim-dotcom-and-internet-mana-transformed-the-right-into-their-best-recruiters/

      Maybe it’s a double ploy from Labour, and they are dog whistling their swing voters while secretly helping IMP 😉

    • marty mars 17.2
      8 August 2014 at 9:56 pm

      Lol – they are all shitting themselves and for good reason – they can’t control the narrative around IMP or Kim or Laila or Hone – key, the gnats and these dickhead labours are finding out that the young, the disinfranchised, the hurt and downtrodden are just not going to play by their rules anymore – fuck the lot of them – it’s time to show them that this country is ours not theirs. What a great election this is!!!

    • bad12 17.3
      8 August 2014 at 10:11 pm

      North, laugh at Him, the only point of chastising wee Hipkins is in His use of English, ‘a thug’, so my book of words tells me is a ”tough and violent man”

      There is no differentiation, no either/and/or so Hipkins description is simply wrong in fact, a misuse of English language,

      To a certain extent DotCom might be tough, in a business sense i should imagine He is, but ‘violent’, PFFT, i see nor hear of any propensity to violence,

      As for the attempted put down, risable, by taking offence we give Hipkins and His ilk oxygen, Fuck them in other words, this is our Party Party and the fun has only just begun,

      If the child of Labour tho really wants to get down and dirty He might just find that He gains a following of InternetMana supporters at every campaign event He holds chanting ”Remember Owen Glenn, what was it He was attempting to buy again”…

    • joe90 17.4
      8 August 2014 at 11:51 pm

      .fuck john key is popular where I live

  18. Weepus beard 18
    8 August 2014 at 9:33 pm

    Just saw this so apologies if posted before but David Cunliffe did very well negotiating Paul Henry’s minefield of petty ambushes.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Lochinver-Station-sale-gone-too-far—David-Cunliffe/tabid/1837/articleID/355953/Default.aspx

    PH still managed to sign off with a personal message to Kelvin Davis, lol. That show needed to be authorised as political advertising for the government.

    In short, Cunliffe completely dominated the hapless Paul Henry, the guy with two first names. I expect the same to happen when he meets John Key in the debates.

    P.S, David Cunliffe didn’t have to look at notes like the shouty, dog-whistling Steven Joyce did.

  19. millsy 19
    8 August 2014 at 9:51 pm

    Garth McVicar as Courts Minister?
    Christine Rankin Associate Minister of Social Development?
    Colin Craig, Associate Education Minister?
    Jamie White, Minister of Regulatory Reform?
    Don Nicholson, Primary Industries
    Stephen Berry, Commerce?

    This is quite possible. We need to vote accordingly. Our future depends on it.

    The above 6 will chop away at the last things that are good and decent in this country.

  20. Clemgeopin 20
    8 August 2014 at 11:58 pm

    8-8-2014

    This has been a memorable day in the history of NZ: FJK day!

    Good night!