Open Mike 10/04/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 10th, 2017 - 59 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

59 comments on “Open Mike 10/04/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Gosman 1
    10 April 2017 at 9:18 am

    Did I miss comments or posts relating to the Labour party’s proposals around the RBNZ? I thought many of you lot would be all over that.

    • Rightly or Wrongly 1.1
      10 April 2017 at 10:06 am

      I suspect most are waiting for the outcome of the court case before being able to focus on political matters.

      Guilty or not guilty – there are political ramifications for either outcome. Not sure about a hung jury though?

      Weekends are cruel breaks on such occasions – everyone just wants the guillotine to fall OR for Little to be released. The uncertainty in waiting over 2 days just breeds stomach ulcers I’m thinking.

      • DoublePlusGood 1.1.1
        10 April 2017 at 10:08 am

        What the hell does that have to do with the Reserve Bank, and why are you pathologically obsessed with that court case?
        I for one haven’t commented on the Labour RBNZ proposals because I’m not sufficiently familiar with the legislation.

    • Ad 1.2
      10 April 2017 at 10:17 am

      Got a link?
      I’d like to have a look.

  2. marty mars 2
    10 April 2017 at 12:20 pm

    What an utter nong bill english is – he’s got nothing to say about so much and when he does start dribbling, its slurred words that are all about the poor businesses and sponsors – such as sonny Bill Williams hiding one of the sponsers logos. Ffs run the fucken country tick from dipton

  4. marty mars 4
    10 April 2017 at 12:59 pm

    Stuart Nash and labour – I agree with the mental health foundation CE that your views are simple minded and unacceptable – they are discrimination.

    People on antidepressants are often better able to deal with stress, they are more honest than the many many police who pretend they are okay or use maladaptive behaviours to hide from their truths.

    Saying a recruit on anti depressives must stand down for 2 years and be fully recovered before they can join the police is ridiculous and is woefully ignorant of the way people and the world works. Hell some of the people defending this stand down are probably depressed right NOW.

  5. greywarshark 5
    10 April 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Reading Wikipedia on Benjamin Franklin USA the summary of what he wanted for the USA is surely what we want for NZ. It might be good to refresh our ideas.

    Franklin was foundational in defining the American ethos as a marriage of the practical values of thrift, hard work, education, community spirit, self-governing institutions, and opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious, with the
    scientific and tolerant values of the Enlightenment.

    He also didn’t press individualism but of joint commitment to society.

    History will also give Occasion to expatiate on the advantage of Civil Orders and Constitutions, how men and their properties are protected by joining in Societies and establishing Government; their Industry encouraged and rewarded, Arts invented, and Life made more comfortable: the Advantages of Liberty, Mischiefs of Licentiousness, Benefits arising from good Laws and a due Execution of Justice &c. Thus may the first Principles of sound Politics be fixed in the minds of youth….

    Mankind naturally and generally love to be flatter’d: Whatever sooths our Pride, and tends to exalt our Species above the rest of the Creation, we are pleas’d with and easily believe, when ungrateful Truths shall be with the utmost Indignation rejected. “What! bring ourselves down to an Equality with the Beasts of the Field! with the meanest part of the Creation! ‘Tis insufferable!”

    But, (to use a Piece of common Sense) our Geese are but Geese tho’ we may think ’em Swans; and Truth will be Truth tho’ it sometimes prove mortifying and distasteful.
    “A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain” (1725).

    If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.
    “Apology for Printers” (1730); later in Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiographical Writings (1945) edited by Carl Van Doren

  6. greywarshark 6
    10 April 2017 at 1:49 pm

    I can’t believe it. Only 68. I am never going out in the fresh open air tramping. Far too bloody dangerous.
    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/renowned-satirist-john-clarke-dead-at-68-20170409-gvhg1r.html

    As John would say:
    Fair words butter no parsnips.
    Words Quotes, by John Clarke , Source: Paroemiologia (p. 21, ed. 1639)
    and
    http://mrjohnclarke.com/
    and
    Who owes who, what in the EC?
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyePCRkq620
    and
    Having a laugh at the IR laws and worker payments.

  7. greywarshark 7
    10 April 2017 at 2:17 pm

    I cancelled a request for you to do that when I read your previous comment as I realised it would be a far, far better thing I could do to put it over there.

  8. McFlock 8
    10 April 2017 at 3:36 pm

    On a different note the jury in the defamation case is disagreeing at the first hurdle.

    If the order of judge’s direction in this article is correct, it looks like only a majority will agree on “the meanings of Little’s words, as ordinary, reasonable person would understand them.”.

    • ropata 8.1
      10 April 2017 at 4:14 pm

      AL has said he will personally foot the bill for any costs and will not ask the LP or the public to chip in. This could bankrupt him. Not exactly a proportional response from the millionaire National donors. There was not even an explicit allegation of corruption. It’s a sad day for NZ democracy when the leader of the Opposition can’t criticise the Nats big money donors and the jury can’t even figure out the rights and wrongs of the case.

      • McFlock 8.1.1
        10 April 2017 at 4:18 pm

        They’re still deliberating – it looks like one or two holdouts if they’re talking 9/12 verdict. Which way that goes is another thing entirely.

        And then they have three more items to consider in order to come down in the Hagamans favour.

        edit: tell a lie, apparently there are several statements that they can’t proceed on from step 1, and a few that they can do majority on step one to proceed to step 2 (so the majority would be for the hagamans position on the first step when considering those statements).

        • ropata 8.1.1.1
          10 April 2017 at 5:07 pm

          From the twitterati …

          Jury unanimous that Little did not defame Mrs Hagaman. Agree he defamed Mr H. at least once. But no agreement on whether he has a defence.— Graeme Edgeler (@GraemeEdgeler) April 10, 2017

          In respect of other causes of action, jury deadlocked. So no order of damages as yet. Could be a new trial.— Graeme Edgeler (@GraemeEdgeler) April 10, 2017

          @AndrewPaulWood Honest opinion not argued. Qualified Privilege argued, leader of opposition has obligation to speak out on public matters.— Graeme Edgeler (@GraemeEdgeler) April 10, 2017

    • Muttonbird 8.2
      10 April 2017 at 4:19 pm

      Mrs Hagaman told the court during her evidence that she wanted to restore her husband’s reputation to allow him to die with dignity.

      FFS. He’s on his fifth wife and this one is 40 odd years younger than himself. He wears an embarrassingly cheap rug on his head out of vanity, and he pretends political donations are philanthropy. What dignity could he possibly have left?

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11835615

      • Anne 8.2.1
        10 April 2017 at 4:29 pm

        From the link:

        Hagaman told them she did not want to see Little bankrupted, but argued her and her husband’s business reputations were worth more than the $2.3 million they had sought.

        This comment alone would have been enough to turn me off them.

        1) If they didn’t want to bankrupt Little then why sue for such a grotesquely large sum of money? $100,000 would have cleared their name just as well.

        2) Their reputations are worth no more than anyone else’s reputations and most people would not dream of suing for such a huge amount.

        Nope, it was more a political exercise than anything else, and I’m picking at least some of the jury is divided along political lines too. Hence the lack of a unanimous decision.

        • ianmac 8.2.1.1
          10 April 2017 at 4:48 pm

          I suppose it is sort of good news in that there wasn’t a unanimous instant guilty on all counts. Could be more than 2 or 3 hold outs. Wishful thinking I guess.

          • McFlock 8.2.1.1.1
            10 April 2017 at 4:59 pm

            Well, if there’s disagreement on whether some of those statements could even be interpreted in a similar way to the complaint, that’s not bad. Three more slips ‘twixt dress and drawers…

      • mary_a 8.2.2
        10 April 2017 at 5:49 pm

        @ Muttonbird (8.2) … 100% agree.

        Surely any decent loving wife would be at home supporting her dying husband, instead of going through this charade in court.

  9. KJT 9
    10 April 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Win or lose, the goal of shutting up anyone who questions links between benefits to the National party, or individual politicians, and commercial gain facilitated by the Government, will be effectively silenced.

    The cronyism gravy train can continue. “Nothing to see here”.

  10. Ad 10
    10 April 2017 at 5:16 pm

    Andrew Little has been found guilty.

    Will be a really interesting one to see appealed on Qualified Privilege.

    • Muttonbird 10.1
      10 April 2017 at 5:27 pm

      That’s not what I’m reading. Where are you getting your spin from?

    • dv 10.2
      10 April 2017 at 5:28 pm

      This is what Stuff are saying.

      Labour leader Andrew Little has been cleared of defaming Lani Hagaman, but could yet face another trial after the jury could not reach a majority decision on most of his comments about Earl Hagaman.

      After more than 13 hours of deliberations across two days, the nine men and three women of the jury found by a majority verdict that Little had not defamed Lani Hagaman in any of the six statements he made.

      However, it could not reach a majority decision for Earl Hagaman in four of Little’s six statements on whether the comments were defamatory.

      For one statement, the jury agreed by majority that it was defamatory, but could not reach a decision of whether qualified privilege applied. In another statement, it ruled the words were not defamatory.

    • Enough is Enough 10.3
      10 April 2017 at 5:28 pm

      Is it guilty?

      He was have found to defamed the complainant but the Jury could not agree as to whether the defence applies of qualified privilege applies.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 10.4
      10 April 2017 at 5:28 pm

      That sounds odd – RNZ’s “breaking news” headline is currently

      “BREAKING – Jury clears Andrew Little of defaming Lani Hagaman, unable to reach decision over Earl Hagaman’s claims”

    • ropata 10.5
      10 April 2017 at 8:22 pm

      “Guilty” is not the appropriate term for a civil matter.

  11. Muttonbird 11
    10 April 2017 at 5:35 pm

    Ah, I see. Ad is having a ‘bad Labour’ day today. Tomorrow will be the opposite. Even Farrar and Soper are saying Little won, for God’s sake.

    That the one point the jury managed a majority decision on (not even unanimous) is clouded by the question of qualified privilege suggests to me the Hagaman case is very weak and they should stop wasting the court’s time and the time of Andrew Little.

    Little has stood up to corruption and has won, gaining a significant amount of profile in the process as a battler for the regular person. The whole thing needs to be thrown out now.

  12. saveNZ 12
    10 April 2017 at 6:06 pm

    I think this case has been good for Little.

    Like the McLibel case McDonald’s Corporation v Steel & Morris that went on for 10 years – it actually generated more publicity against McDonalds and more admiration for the environmental activists. They had McDonald’s begging to settle in the end and then managed to get their eventual defamation over turned by European Court of Human Rights, asserting that their human rights had been breached in that they had not received a fair trial. In that case, the European Court of Human Rights found in their favour and ordered the UK Government pay to them £57,000.

    http://defamationwatch.com.au/?page_id=257

    Like wise more people will trust Little over this one! I think finally Natz crony dirty tricks is starting to back fire. The public are on to it.

    • ianmac 12.1
      10 April 2017 at 6:37 pm

      Wasn’t the “qualified privilege” a part of the Lange case?
      Anyway they are clear that Lani was not defamed.
      The Earl question is more murkey. Hope it ends there as it has already cost Andrew heaps.

  13. Cynical jester 13
    11 April 2017 at 12:40 am

    Regardless, He should step aside and Ardern should be anointed. Thats what the people want noone wants Andrew He’s bloody useless accross the board. Ardern has been in parliament as long as he has and unlike the rest of caucus is actually popular. She should have run in the last leadership round if andrew could anyone

    I see no point in him staying on to lose an election where jacinda would probably win. I hope he resigns on election night.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]