Open mike 11/05/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 11th, 2016 - 143 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 …

143 comments on “Open mike 11/05/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    11 May 2016 at 6:55 am

    ‘One of America’s most wanted fugitives has been able to stay ahead of justice and tax officials by hiding some of his assets in New Zealand, US media say.’

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303541/us-fugitive-hid-assets-in-nz-reports

    • te reo putake 1.1
      11 May 2016 at 7:01 am

      The photo of Ayre and his friends is rather reminiscent of Kim Dotcom’s wild years. After all the fuss about KDC, isn’t it great that we’re still allowing fugitives from American justice to stash their loot here? Our PM’s a big believer in the redemptive power of large amounts of money.

  2. Paul 2
    11 May 2016 at 7:00 am

    Key really has no shame.

    ‘Greenpeace and Amnesty International are calling for Prime Minister John Key to set the record straight over comments he made on their links to foreign trusts.
    Mr Bayldon said it was a known fact that trusts listed charities as beneficiaries, so the real owners could avoid scrutiny by tax authorities, and charities were not aware when their names were used in this way.
    He said Amnesty had no knowledge of any real links with foreign trusts and he was disappointed Mr Key would insinuate otherwise.
    Mr Norman, the head of Greenpace, said he was shocked that Mr Key would implicate his organisation, and the comments were misleading.’

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/303550/charities-reject-foreign-trust-link

    • vto 2.1
      11 May 2016 at 7:05 am

      Is there even one utterance from John Key on this issue that is not total bullshit?

      Can anyone point to one?

    • framu 2.2
      11 May 2016 at 8:10 am

      its a red herring anyway – was JK able to make such a claim without the aid of the leaked docs?

      no

      therefore the case against the way foreign trusts are set up in NZ still stands

      • Anne 2.2.1
        11 May 2016 at 9:19 am

        It transpires the Greenpeace link didn’t come from the Panama Papers, but another set of documents released 2 years ago – something of which Key would have been well aware. Referring to the Panama Papers Whitney link, Key told Little at QT:

        Incrimination by insinuation could be a very dangerous game

        He then went on to incriminate Greenpeace, Amnesty and the Red Cross.

        Yes Mr Key, you falsely incriminated 3 internationally respected organisations. You
        are a clever dick aren’t you Mr Key.

        • s y d 2.2.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 11:36 am

          Harry Frankfurt has the measure of Mr Key..

          “The bullsh*tter is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”

          A great little paper, ‘On Bullshit’. Worth a read.

          http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

  3. te reo putake 3
    11 May 2016 at 7:06 am

    A terrific opinion piece on why domestic violence is a male problem. Defenders of Tony Veitch might want to look away:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11636340

    • Sabine 3.1
      11 May 2016 at 7:24 am

      that was a good article TRP, but the second line of your comment was not needed 🙂

    • vto 3.2
      11 May 2016 at 7:26 am

      Oh you mean like this, the opening line?

      “There’s a sad fact about violence in this country: how safe you are is determined the second you are conceived. Your gender is the single biggest predictor of your lifelong risk”

      Don’t men suffer more violence? A quick google indicates thus ..

      his opening line might be a dud

      • b waghorn 3.2.1
        11 May 2016 at 7:30 am

        Did you read the whole article??

        • vto 3.2.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 7:39 am

          Yes. Point not addressed.

          • b waghorn 3.2.1.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 12:33 pm

            Its basic maths . if you’re 3 times more likely to be beaten because of your gender then ” your gender is the single biggest predicator of your lifelong risk ”

            It s not saying that men don’t get assaulted

    • vto 3.3
      11 May 2016 at 8:02 am

      It is not a male problem, it is a society problem.

      • RedLogix 3.3.1
        11 May 2016 at 10:24 am

        In the same Herald section above is an account from a man which almost precisely mirrors my own.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/family-violence/news/article.cfm?c_id=178&objectid=11636220

        Now crucially, I’ve never pointed to the fact of women being as abusive (albeit nowhere near as physically damaging) as men as any sort of “ Labour did it too” argument. My sole, and I would have hoped obvious point, is that abuse and a failure to understand it’s underlying causes is a human problem.

        And that to my mind is a far more constructive framework.

        • maui 3.3.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 10:47 am

          Good luck with that… you should know by now there are many women here who have been victims, that seems to go over your head every frickn time.

        • jm 3.3.1.2
          11 May 2016 at 6:02 pm

          Hey RedLogix,

          Just a heads up- you’re in the wrong end of the political “scene” if you expect anyone here to tolerate the suggestion that women aren’t inherently predisposed to being “good”- and that men aren’t inherently predisposed to being “bad”.

          Really makes me sick to see you and CV drawn across the coals in that other thread- but that’s what you get.

          • Bill 3.3.1.2.1
            11 May 2016 at 6:07 pm

            You’re making utterly idiotic comments. No-one that I’m aware of has ever written anything even close to the type of lines you’re spewing about. And by the way, your vile attack comment on the other thread has been deleted. Come around here with that kind of shite again and I’ll ban for you for a very long time.

            • jm 3.3.1.2.1.1
              11 May 2016 at 6:18 pm

              “I’ll ban you from The Standard!” he said, in his most menacing voice. Bill growled as he fondled his mouse, “we don’t like your type around here.”

              Read the comment thread in “Broken”- it’s dripping with misandry. I’d love if you’d be willing to have a rational discourse about the comments of mine you deem to be “utterly idiotic”.

              P.S. I’m not entirely sure you can “ban” someone from an unauthenticated site- but it was a wewwy wewwy good try.

              [I couldn’t give a flying monkeys about ‘types’, but your cry for martyrdom has been heard and answered – Six months. Goodbye.] – Bill

        • Chooky 3.3.1.3
          11 May 2016 at 8:33 pm

          @RedLogix…I appreciate your arguments trying to open up the issue…and I dont think you are sexist…imo violence and abuse begets violence and abuse…just as victimhood can breed victimhood

          …to me it is quite clear that women can also be abusive…and men and boys can be abused and victims also

          …animals and the environment can also be abused

          ….agree “abuse and a failure to understand it’s underlying causes is a human problem”….probably one of the most important issues of our time

          (the answer is probably one for social psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, social workers…etc…and those who examine the morals and ethics of societies and religions)

        • Incognito 3.3.1.4
          11 May 2016 at 10:37 pm

          Hi RedLogix,

          I have been unable to follow much on TS over the last little while but your arguments make sense to me; it is indeed a human problem in the first instance.

          When referring to Domestic Violence it is often about (but not limited to!) violence in a relationship between partners. There are many ‘triggers’ for this but I’d like to point out that it is now, sadly, becoming increasingly common to see this happening in same-sex relationships also.

          To understand violence and to try deal with it we need to know the underlying causes but also the potential trigger points. The way I see it, and I will probably be blasted for saying it, is that violence has many similarities with depression and suicide, for example.

          A last point I’d like to make that is that violence comes in many levels (gradations) of severity – it is a continuum; it can escalate but also de-escalate depending on many factors. Will humans ever be completely free of violence? If not, where do we set the line and why?

          • RedLogix 3.3.1.4.1
            12 May 2016 at 5:34 am

            I will probably be blasted for saying it, is that violence has many similarities with depression and suicide, for example.

            Exactly. The more I read over the years the more intriguing insights and hints like this come to the surface.

            For instance there seem to be two emotional responses to the ‘loss of control’ threat in an intimate relationship; one is outwardly directed and projects onto the other person as jealousy; the other is more inwardly directly in the form of humiliation.

            These are not responses we have much conscious control over; for example personally I just cannot do jealousy, but humiliation is easy. Understanding how I am wired in this sense was a critical tool in learning to direct how I responded.

            Then comes the action response and again this can be directed outwardly as overt violence and abuse onto another person, or inwardly as anxiety, depression or suicide. The latter just being covert forms of violence directed onto yourself.

            Of course as always in a blog comment I’m simplifying and leaving out a whole lot more that should be said, but there a plenty of ideas around that strongly support what you are saying.

            • Incognito 3.3.1.4.1.1
              12 May 2016 at 7:47 am

              All these issues that you touched on, including violence, tell us much about ourselves (and others at the same time) and what it is to be human. It is essential for full understanding of the human condition to look at all aspects: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

              A blog might not be the optimal or ideal forum to discuss complex stuff like this, which will induce strong responses, but what medium is? There are not many places where you ‘meet’ such a diverse range of people: the good, the bad, and the ugly – metaphorically speaking, of course.

              As with depression, suicide, but also precarious living & working conditions, for example, it is essential to have these debates to evolve as individuals and thus as a society.

              Much more could and should be said …

              • Chooky …
                12 May 2016 at 9:58 am

                +100 …..wow yes…thanks!….very good discussion !!!….reminds me of John Lennon’s song

    • One Two 3.4
      11 May 2016 at 10:12 am

      “Fixing the Standard also starts with me”

    • Xanthe 3.5
      11 May 2016 at 2:35 pm

      Has it not occured to you that this “week of domestic violence” might be related to the timing of the release of the panama papers?

  4. Tautoko Mangō Mata 4
    11 May 2016 at 7:13 am

    TPP, TTIP- bypassing the World Trade Organisation where every country has an equal vote.
    US Using TPP and TTIP to Challenge ‘Sovereignty of Nations’ – Ex-Diplomat

    While the World Trade Organization has failed to amalgamate the economics and trade of its various member nations, Washington is using the TPP and the TTIP to impose its intellectual property rights as well as its own labor standards.
    …
    He says that the TPP’s curbs on State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and indeed the state itself as an independent and autonomous dispute settlement body, curtail the sovereignty of nations.

    In fact, there is now pressure to introduce these issues to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Program, which includes the ASEAN nations, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. Considering that among the ASEAN nations, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei are also members of the TPP, they want put that kink in the RCEP.

    Saran, a veteran negotiator, thinks that the US and a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ are seeking an approach that is the very anti-thesis of multilateralism. They would eventually like to migrate the mega-trade deals into the WTO.

    http://newseurope.eu/2016/05/10/us-using-tpp-ttip-challenge-sovereignty-nations-ex-diplomat/
    Note” ‘Coalition of the Willing’ We have to tell this government that NZ does NOT belong to this group and that the TPP must NOT be ratified.

  5. b waghorn 5
    11 May 2016 at 7:15 am

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11636936

    This government is just taking the piss now, sending collins to represent us at a corruption meeting.

  7. swordfish 7
    11 May 2016 at 8:20 am

    Mr David Farrar’s take on Slater’s plot to hack The Standard: Yes, hacking is wrong and Cameron was wrong, but … far more concerning … “he (Slater) was taken advantage of by a guy who lied constantly to Cameron and fed him months and months of lies. Poor old Cameron, it seems, was taken “advantage of”.

    • TC 7.1
      11 May 2016 at 8:51 am

      As expected all the DP players rush to cammys defence with slippery hooten getting a long overdue permanent ban for his part in this whole sordid episode.

      • swordfish 7.1.1
        11 May 2016 at 9:42 am

        Yep, but I have to say the defence seems just a little too desperate and laboured from Young Master Farrar. Notice the repetition in just one brief passage: “But while Cameron was wrong, he was taken advantage of by a guy who lied constantly to Cameron and fed him months and months of lies. He took advantage of Camerons …”

        I mean that’s just a hack job (excuse the pun). Normally, you’d expect rather less clumsy rhetorical strategies from a would-be Spin-Meister who has the PM’s ear.

  8. whispering kate 8
    11 May 2016 at 8:34 am

    These stats for the ownership of Auckland housing in the news this morning are seriously skewed in some way or another. Just for the street where I reside there are only 5 Kiwi residents left in a street of some 35 or so houses. All in a matter of 3/4 years. Our suburb also reflects the same numbers of Chinese owning the housing stock. Even if these persons are NZ residents – all this explains about the situation in our suburb is there are too many residencies being granted for the amount of existing housing for this area.

    If Nick Smith is saying that its just zenophobia, then why don’t they attack the situation another way and slow down the inmigration and allowing of residency to allow further housing to be supplied. Why cannot this Government also just apply such a simple law – to only allow new residents to buy or build new houses – this would increase the supply of housing and ease up on existing housing. Too many auctions in this area deny kiwis ownership, we see it all the time – they may be residents who buy but they are outstripping the supply for our own citizens.

    Also are these stats New Zealand wide or just for Auckland – it would be seriously out of kilter if it was for NZ wide.

    Change of topic – our PM needs to apologise to these charities he has insulted. What a knee jerk low blow nasty response in the House yesterday. Typical of him and not surprising for one minute.

  9. Puckish Rogue 9
    11 May 2016 at 9:15 am

    Further to comments yesterday since some may have misinterpreted it, Cameron Slater broke the law, when you break the law you face the consequences (or should, no matter who you are)

    I can understand why he did it as I’m sure anyone that’s been hacked can understand his feeling on that matter could but it doesn’t change that what he did was against the law and morally wrong (the two don’t always go together) and now he has to take his punishment

    Some may feel he has got off lightly and they may be right, some may feel his reputation (such as it is) has been irreparably damaged and they may also be right and the vast majority will feel he brought it all on himself

    Hopefully he’ll learn from this and will come back a better person (I won’t hold my breath though)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      11 May 2016 at 9:24 am

      …and I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to provide a single recent example of a right winger taking personal responsibility for anything. It’s all lip service.

      • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1
        11 May 2016 at 9:37 am

        “when you break the law you face the consequences (or should, no matter who you are)”

        I’m not sure what your point actually is, I’m saying what I think should happen in situations like this.

        However if you really want an example I’ll give you one: I have a DDI, I plead guilty to the charge and I didn’t ask for diversion

        So there you go, some on the right do take personal responsibility for their actions

        I’ll also point out that had Cameron Slater got the information and published it he could have claimed it was in the publics interest to know and that he wouldn’t give up his source

        But he didn’t, he was stupid and sloppy and got caught

        • Molly 9.1.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 11:30 am

          “he could have claimed it was in the publics interest to know”
          He could have claimed it was the names of those involved in the casting of Avatar Two – but that would not necessarily make it so”

          You may need to take some time to read a bit more about “public interest” before posting again. “Public interest” as a legal definition means what is of public importance not what the public is interested in.

          Here is a small article to get you on your way. I’m sure you will ignore the information as you so gleefully practise your willful ignorance.

          BTW, I don’t know if you noticed, – but your moral compass is missing its needle.

          • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 12:00 pm

            Thank you for that, its most informative.

            The public interest includes:

            “Preventing the public from being mislead by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.”

            That statement there gives quite a lot of wriggle to room to journalists and their lawyers

            However please note I’m not saying he could claim the public interest and win and he’d be justified

            I’m merely saying he could claim it in court and try to win

            My moral compass is just fine

            • Molly 9.1.1.1.1.1
              11 May 2016 at 12:49 pm

              “I’m merely saying he could claim it in court and try to win”.

              Definitions that may be of interest to you:
              Pertinent
              Relevant
              Salient

              “My moral compass is just fine”
              I understand you think so – but – could you check? The way your morality is leaping around and changing direction it could take someone’s eye out.

              (Might account for some of the one-eyed commenters when you come to think of it…)

      • Reddelusion 9.1.2
        11 May 2016 at 9:53 am

        Jk took responsibility for defeating labour in 3 elections 😀

        • b waghorn 9.1.2.1
          11 May 2016 at 12:38 pm

          “”Jk took responsibility for defeating labour in 3 elections 😀”
          Jk should take responsibility for defeating labour in three elections by using the most underhanded filthy dishonest methods seen in nz history.

          Fify

          • Reddelusion 9.1.2.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 1:18 pm

            Please elaborate, I thought KDC, dirty politics, in coordination with vote positive was a labour hit

  10. Sorrwerdna 10
    11 May 2016 at 9:44 am

    Has there been any evidence that taxes have not been paid in their homeland or is this just an assumption by Labour and the Greens and anyone else who hates John Keys rich prick mates

    [BLiP: Typical Tory Twit jumping in first on comment thread with distraction from main point of post. Banned for one week.]

    • Macro 10.1
      11 May 2016 at 9:52 am

      FFS! These allegations at Greenpeace, Red Cross, and Amnesty etc by Key are old hat and have been shown to be false. Repeating untruths do not make them true.
      Stop repeating lies uttered under Parliamentary “Privilege” by Key.

      • Nessalt 10.1.1
        11 May 2016 at 12:13 pm

        but the accusations made against key must be true? This is a new level of stupid from the left

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 12:57 pm

          Which ‘accusations’? Does he have a sloppy morally grey highly ethical good mate who misrepresents him or not?

          • Nessalt 10.1.1.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 1:41 pm

            which contradiction would you like me to answer?

            I was more referring the “Tax haven” “illegality” “john key is personally responsible”

            I notice it’s been awfully quiet on this issue and on the niue issue. aren’t you sick of being wrong yet?

            • Gangnam Style 10.1.1.1.1.1
              11 May 2016 at 6:28 pm

              I don;t know about any others but I am still waiting for the Hagamans to sue Andrew Little then I am sure it will be all on again.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.2
              11 May 2016 at 6:55 pm

              New Zealand is being used as a tax haven, that is not in doubt: as your Prime Minister says, “Labour did it too!”

              The proliferation of offshore trusts since 2011 may be a simple coincidence, or it may be the result of legislative changes. People who know more than I about tax law are going hammer & tongs over it, and the list of clauses affected by just one law change of many is a paragraph.

              I’ve been reading commercial legal websites to try and make sense of it to no avail.

              Several species of illegality, including specific cases, have been identified thus far. Key has not been accused of any of them, nor do I expect him to be, and still the whole sloppy ethical lobbying misrepresentation thing makes him look foolish at the very least.

    • Tracey 10.2
      11 May 2016 at 9:53 am

      How would we know if they are hiding their assets? IRD can only assess them on their declared, visible and known earnings? Even if you will not admit it here, be honest with yourself. If this was Helen Clark in Key’s position, the calls for resignations and and end to corruption would be deafening by you and others like you.

    • Et Tu Brute 10.3
      11 May 2016 at 10:34 am

      I actually thought when I heard this it was a good idea for Green Peace to hide assets offshore. All it takes is a protest gone wrong, an over zealous prosecutor and a move to freeze assets and the organization could be crippled, at least momentarily. Who knows how the political situation can change. Same would go for any other major activist group.

      • Anno1701 10.3.1
        11 May 2016 at 1:14 pm

        this is pretty much exactly what has happened to GP in india

        they weren’t even able to pay there staff after they stopped the development of huge coal project ad were labelled “environmental terrorists” by the indian govt

      • Nessalt 10.3.2
        11 May 2016 at 1:41 pm

        So foreign trusts are useful then?

    • McFlock 10.4
      11 May 2016 at 11:49 am

      The evidence is the large number of New Zealand offshore trusts that are structured in such a way that tax evasion is easily enabled.

      It’s a bit like the old days of making P from pseudo: is there any evidence that a large number of gaunt, ill-dressed individuals buying twenty boxes of cough medicine each (many of them asking for the medicine after referring to handwritten notes) and paying by cash are committing a crime? Nope, there was nothing particularly linking the individual purchases with the empty boxes found at busted P labs. But we changed the law on pseudo-based medicines anyway.

  11. Chooky 11
    11 May 2016 at 10:00 am

    ‘Brexit poll: Almost half of Europeans want own vote on leaving EU’

    https://www.rt.com/news/342500-brexit-poll-european-union/

    “An Ipsos poll of some 6,000 Europeans found that half think the UK will leave the EU and half think Brexit could lead to a ‘domino effect’ in their own country.

    The online survey of people aged between 16 and 64 in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Poland and Hungary focused on the upcoming British referendum on whether to leave the European Union…

    …and a reason why many have reservations about the EU is Nato warmongering:

    ‘Chomsky: NATO is a U.S.-run intervention force’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/202967-cold-nuclear-war-nato/

    • swordfish 11.1
      11 May 2016 at 2:55 pm

      Betting in the UK strongly favours a Remain win.
      Current Betfair odds: Remain 68% / Leave 32%.

      There’s a clear and enduring divide between on-line and phone-based Polls on the EU Referendum. The former almost always call it neck-and-neck (usually with Leave a point or two in front), the latter always place Remain in front with a fairly clear lead of 5-10 points.

      Phone-based Polls do tend to have a slightly better record in the UK over recent years.

      Turnout will be interesting: On the one hand, Generational variations in turnout should favour Leave (Older Britons are much more likely to favour Brexit and are also – as in NZ – more likely to get out and vote on the Day). But, more importantly, socio-economic variations in turnout favour Remain. ABC1s strongly favour staying in Europe and are even more likely to vote than the over 50s.

    • Chooky 12.1
      11 May 2016 at 10:09 am

      PR diversion?…cooking sherry anyone?

      • Puckish Rogue 12.1.1
        11 May 2016 at 10:31 am

        I assure you that I had nothing to do with the delightful Emma Watson being named in the Panama leak

        But I think it does show that the attempted demonizing of those using foreign trusts is disingenuous, I’m sure there are bad reasons for using foreign trusts and I’m also sure there are legitimate reasons for using them

        • mac1 12.1.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 10:52 am

          “A specialized industry has developed in attempting to circumvent these provisions. The promoters of offshore schemes often advance technical arguments which purport to show that their scheme is legal. These arguments are used to provide some comfort to their clients, who are then induced to enter into a scheme which usually involves concealing the true ownership and control of assets and income.”

          The American IRS on foreign trusts. The provisions referred to are of course those enabling American citizens to pay tax on their world-wide income.

          https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/Foreign-Trust-Reporting-Requirements

          Under a topic titled “Abusive Offshore Tax Avoidance Schemes”, the following is to be found from the IRS.

          “In recent years, a significant increase in offshore activity has been noted among U.S. taxpayers. Numerous schemes have been devised in which the true ownership of income streams and assets is hidden or disguised so as to improperly shield substantial amounts of financial activity from the U.S. tax system.
          Such offshore transactions generally involve foreign jurisdictions that offer financial secrecy laws in an effort to attract investment from outside their borders. These jurisdictions are commonly referred to as “tax havens” because, in addition to the financial secrecy they provide, they require little or no taxation of income from sources outside their jurisdiction.”

          A commentator on Campbell on Nat Radio postulated that 1% of trusts have a legitimate purpose.

          • Puckish Rogue 12.1.1.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 11:10 am

            From memory I recall some posts a fair while back about the death penalty and how and why it was wrong, one of the arguments someone brought up (as I say from memory so take it with a grain of salt if you like) was that it was better that 10 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be imprisoned

            No laws have been broken yet all those people brought up are being suggested that they’ve done something illegal

            That isn’t right

            • Pasupial 12.1.1.1.1.1
              11 May 2016 at 12:04 pm

              PR

              The point is rather that; unethical business practices should be illegal, but that our Government has shown no interest in ensuring this to be so. All the way from “Dear Leader” Key, to erstwhile revenue minister Peter “legitimate tax avoidance” Dunne.

              “I haven’t been convicted of a crime therefore nothing I’ve done is wrong (nor can it be questioned)”, is the kind of thinking I would expect from an insect that gnaws on decaying wood. Even you are better than that.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                11 May 2016 at 12:46 pm

                Ok so some of the laws are badly worded and need fixing but we shouldn’t go around convicting people in the court of public opinion because they might be doing something some of us don’t like

                • McFlock …
                  11 May 2016 at 1:05 pm

                  “The court of public opinion” is simply people’s opinion of someone.

                  So what you’re pleading in the court of public opinion is that the fact that someone might be doing something reprehensible shouldn’t affect our opinion of that person.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    11 May 2016 at 1:14 pm

                    I’m saying its not good to smear everyone with the same brush, I’d have thought that’s a basically decent thing to do

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2016 at 1:23 pm

                      Who’s smearing everyone with the same brush?

                      I’m just impressed you guys have finally come up with a defensible reason to use a secret offshore trust.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      11 May 2016 at 1:34 pm

                      Well say you sell your business and you pay the tax on that (as you should) I don’t think its unreasonable to keep the money in an off shore trust instead of a bank account where it can be hit with more tax

                      And as Emma Watson was saying (although as a British celebrity I take it with a grain of salt) it was more about the privacy aspects

                      I’m sure there are other good reasons for a foreign trust, something myself and James Shaw have in common

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2016 at 2:37 pm

                      I don’t think its unreasonable to keep the money in an off shore trust instead of a bank account where it can be hit with more tax

                      Why would it be hit with more tax? As you said, you’ve already paid the tax.

                      EW has specific personal safety issues that do not involve money laundering and tax evasion. That’s one reason. You’re sure there are others, and yet it took you long enough to come up with that one, whereas the illegal or immoral reasons are innumerable.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      11 May 2016 at 3:43 pm

                      You’re hit with a tax on the interest accumulated so from the hypothetical person point of view they probably don’t want to be double hit with taxes

                      Maybe you’re in a country where inheritance taxes are punitive and you feel you want to leave something to your kids without the government taking a far too large chunk out of it

                      Maybe you want to leave something in trust so it doesn’t become entangled up with a will especially with wives, ex-wives, kids, step-kids etc etc

                      I dare say there are more but as I’m not an accountant or lawyer specialising in trusts I can’t give you anymore unless I go trawling through goggle and there’s really no need especially as even James Shaw says there are good reasons for a foreign trust

                      If James Shaw is wrong on this let me know why

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2016 at 3:55 pm

                      So two reasons you have are relating to “avoiding” tax that your country thinks you should pay, and another relates to cutting relatives and former partners out of property that the courts might think you should give them.

                      If one doesn’t like the price of living in a country with taxes that pay for benefits like a judicial system, maybe one should leave that country rather than pretending that one’s money has. Otherwise it’s demanding the benefits of living in that country without paying for them.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      11 May 2016 at 4:03 pm

                      So you think James Shaw is wrong on this?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2016 at 4:15 pm

                      nope.

                      I’ve no idea what James Shaw’s reasons are, so have no opinion on whether he is right or wrong.

                      I’m having fun watching you try to come up with an ethical reason to do it though. It’s the moral equivalent of watching Mr Magoo drive a car, but now I’m not seven I know that disabilities and stereotypes aren’t joking matters. A broken moral compass, however, is not a disability: it’s the product of a life poorly led. In that case I reckon it’s okay to get the popcorn.

  13. travellerev 13
    11 May 2016 at 10:08 am

    I thought I’d bring the “Broken Standard” issue back to the fore again here. Why put this on a post that is already in the past for most.

    So here goes:

    In February my blog Aotearoa A Wider Perspective made it to number 15 on the Open Parachute list of over 300 New Zealand bloggers. My blog currently rates around the 24-25th place.

    I warned people in 2008 about John Key and his financial connections and his plans to privatize and sell NZ to the highest bidder. I did so based on solid research into his history. And have continued ever since to educate and inform people of the current economic disaster and John Key’s connections to the international financial world. You would think that would be an area of interest to the people reading the Standard.

    I have reached, to date, more than a 146.800 individual IP addresses in New Zealand alone. On Twitter and Facebook I have the ear of several high profile NZ journalists and politicians.

    I speak regularly on at least three different online radio shows globally about banking, financial terrorism and the illegal wars of aggression waged in the aftermath of 9/11.

    In fact I have even been contacted by a NZ Herald on Sunday journalist once, who when I asked her why she was reading my blog answered with: “We’d like to know what is really going on.” I kid you not.

    I speak regularly in New Zealand for audiences such as NZfirst and ratepayers groups, (and even spoke at Waitangi day 2015 about the TPPA) on the subjects of finance and John Key. I speak regularly at TPPA demonstrations to which I am invited to do so by the organisers.

    All this is quite and achievement for a single person, let alone a WOMAN. A Woman who has only lived here in NZ for the last 10 years!

    I put it too you that If I had been a man, even with my convictions, also based on solid research of not just me but millions of people including more than 2500 + Architects and Engineers, that we need a new and independent investigation into the events of 9/11, I would have been invited for at least a guest post on say the subject of John Key.

    Even if just for the fun of it! (After all Red Logic, Colonial Viper, and several other Standard authors have also clearly spoken about their doubts about the official 9/11 story)

    The Standard has been known to invite other female bloggers with their own blog to post on the Standard. So why not me? Is it because I write about global politics and not my gender and the issues that brings with? (Which is what seems to be what women writers here are confined to) Is it because what I do write about makes people uncomfortable because it challenges the existing paradigm?

    In TRP’s “Broken” post I challenged Iprent to invite me to write a quest post. I have yet to get a response.

    • Chooky 13.1
      11 May 2016 at 10:11 am

      +100 Travellerev….I certainly support your open inquiring , well researched Posts….I would like to have you as a woman official Poster here!

    • weka 13.2
      11 May 2016 at 2:31 pm

      “Is it because I write about global politics and not my gender and the issues that brings with? (Which is what seems to be what women writers here are confined to)”

      I really don’t think it’s that. I’ve had two guest posts published (I wasn’t invited, I submitted them to one of the authors). Neither were from an overtly feminist perspective (one was about the Green Party, the other about AGW). Many of the posts written by women over the years haven’t been about gender.

    • Nic the NZer 13.3
      11 May 2016 at 9:41 pm

      Please write a post (or several). Saw your interview with Bill Black. The general public needs to be more engaged with the matters people like him raise. At present the level of public engagement there is low, too low, and the debate is held behind closed doors and with special interests (as shown by the trust legislation debacle).

  14. Infused 14
    11 May 2016 at 10:33 am

    Its excatly the same as what labour/greens are trying on. Font moan when the shoe is on the other foot

    [BLiP: Typical Infused gibberish – moved to Open Mike]

  15. Jack Ramaka 15
    11 May 2016 at 10:48 am

    Reddelusion and Infused are suffering from a dose of viral conjunctivitis me thinks ?

    [BLiP: Orphan comment left behind after mopping up. Moved to Open Mike]

  16. alwyn 16
    11 May 2016 at 10:57 am

    Yesterday morning various commenters on Open Mike were promising that there would be a momentous news story later in the day.
    What was it? I never saw anything of any particular significance coming up.
    Major world news was one of the more hyperbolic offerings if I remember correctly. I can’t reread the post as every time I try and look at OM for yesterday the screen just remains blank.
    Please, somebody tell me what the great news item was?

    • Mainlander 16.1
      11 May 2016 at 12:31 pm

      Silly Alwyn pay closer attention please, Elvis was found alive and well in NZ living a handsome lifestyle thanks to his offshore trust – oh and some other stuff

    • You_Fool 16.2
      11 May 2016 at 12:36 pm

      Evil Slater and his stupidity

    • alwyn 16.3
      11 May 2016 at 2:01 pm

      Well the one about Elvis is certainly the most significant.
      I was a great fan of the King in much younger days.
      However I expected something of importance from the way the little boys seemed to be giggling to each other on Open Mike.
      I thought it might be something truly earthshaking like Jacinda Ardern’s cat had just had a litter of kittens and was going to be a solo mother.
      Instead Slater and some unknown Green Party supporter having a trust?
      I see yesterday’s people really were far in the past and puerile.

  17. adam 17
    11 May 2016 at 11:14 am

    Isn’t that odd!

  18. Bob 18
    11 May 2016 at 11:19 am

    “reverting to USA Trump Style smear politics”
    Like this: http://thestandard.org.nz/sprung-again-keys-lawyer-has-close-links-to-mossack-fonseca/

    [BLiP: Attempted derail – moved to Open Mike]

    • Jack Ramaka 18.1
      11 May 2016 at 11:22 am

      Yep bang on the button.

      • Draco T Bastard 18.1.1
        11 May 2016 at 11:42 am

        Bob is a RWNJ here to defend FJK. What he’s doing there is trying to prove that The Standard did it too. A typical action of the RWNJs when they or their leaders get caught being corrupt.

        • Bob 18.1.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 12:54 pm

          “A typical action of the RWNJs when they or their leaders get caught being corrupt”
          Key’s Lawyer/Legal Adviser used to be a director in a company, that had a client, that owned two businesses, that had subsidiaries in the British Virgin Islands that used Mossack Fonseca’s services (no mention of what services). So this makes John Key corrupt and me the nut job? You must be mighty tall to draw a bow that long!

          • Draco T Bastard 18.1.1.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 1:23 pm

            The ‘lawyer’ admitted to not being concerned with practising ethically grey actions. Also, tax havens are ethically black with no grey in them at all.

            But, of course, you knew that but are here defending it anyway.

  19. International Rescue 19
    11 May 2016 at 11:39 am

    They weren’t lies. Greenpeace etc were mentioned in the Panama Papers. Mojo Mathers has an offshore Trust, she just doesn’t understand the meaning of the term. Key’s point was obvious to all but the loony left who are in such a lather…if you are prepared to smear by association, be prepared to wear some of the s*(T that falls around you.

    [BLiP: Obvious lie is obvious – Greenpeace was NOT mentioned in the Panama Papers. Plus unwarranted abuse of Mojo Mathers. Banned for one week. Comment moved to Open Mike

    • Richardrawshark 19.1
      11 May 2016 at 11:46 am

      Not this Morning IR.

      Don’t be a prick you know full well the details don’t pretend ignorance of the news.

      Not in the mood for eggs playing games.

    • Psycho Milt 19.2
      11 May 2016 at 1:38 pm

      An educational message for the chronically simple-minded:

      The issue is not whether some particular individual is a settlor or beneficiary of a foreign trust. The issue is that NZ isn’t requiring disclosure to NZ officials of the settlors and beneficiaries of foreign trusts, which invites tax evasion and money-laundering. If your blather isn’t relevant to that issue, don’t crap all over people’s posts with it.

    • International Rescue 19.3
      11 May 2016 at 1:43 pm

      BLiP

      You are lying. Greenpeace IS mentioned … https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/121744.

      I also have to ask what planet you are on if you think my comment on Mathers was abuse. [BLiP: DELETED ABUSE]

      [BLiP: I will let this comment through in order to educate you. Greenpeace was mentioned in the “Offshore Leaks” database which is different from the “Panama Papers” – see here: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/greenpeace-demands-apology-pm-over-besmirching-its-name-panama-papers-link – you are banned for another week for calling me a liar and are banned a further week for wasting my time. Do not comment here until after 02/06/16]

      • BLiP 19.3.1
        11 May 2016 at 1:56 pm

        [BLiP: Comment deleted – banned for another week for ignoring earlier ban, that’s four weeks in total. Do not comment here again until after 08/06/16]

  20. Pasupial 20
    11 May 2016 at 11:53 am

    This is a fascinating RNZ live Q@A by Deborah Russell on Tax Havens and the Panama Papers. MW stands for; “Megan Whelan, RNZ’s community engagement editor” who appears to be moderating. My favourite thus far:

    [Q] “I lived in Europe and was legitimately paid tax free. Why should I not keep these earnings off shore in a safe place? What ethical argument demands I pay tax here on this earning?”

    [A] …New Zealand tax law says that income earned by New Zealand tax residents is subject to taxation in New Zealand, no matter where it is earned. So if you are living in New Zealand, you are almost certainly a New Zealand tax resident, and that means the income is subject to tax here. NB: that doesn’t mean income earned while you were a tax resident overseas. It’s only income earned during the time that you are a New Zealand tax resident.

    The other argument is that taxation is the price of civilisation… if you don’t want to pay taxes in New Zealand, you probably need to think about whether you want to live here at all.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303553/live-chat-the-panama-papers

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      11 May 2016 at 12:17 pm

      In history, “civilisation” was maintained and built through the work of serfs and slaves serving a tiny ruling class.

      Today, taxation is for the wage serfs and wage slaves. Not the aristocracy.

  21. ianmac 21
    11 May 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Is Scoop the first to use “Panamania” as a heading?

  22. Sorrwerdna 22
    11 May 2016 at 1:03 pm

    I’m not sure what JK should be apologising for . Everything he said was true -the charities were mentioned in the papers and Mojo does have a foreign trust

    [BLiP: More repetition of the lie that Greenpeace appeared in the Panama Papers and more smearing of Mojo. Moved to Open Mike. First and last warning.]

    • Gangnam Style 22.1
      11 May 2016 at 1:41 pm

      Nationals/Farrars plan all along, seeing this repeated endlessly on social media (& it is), the more outrageous the lie etc…

  23. Tautoko Mangō Mata 23
    11 May 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Interesting. This is being touted as broad support for TPP.

    The latest MYOB Business Monitor research of more than 1,000 SMEs across New Zealand, conducted for MYOB by Colmar Brunton, showed that more than one third of local businesses (36 per cent) said they favoured staying in the TPP. Just a quarter of business owners said New Zealand should pull out of the deal, while 39 per cent said it would not affect their vote.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1605/S00307/broad-support-for-tpp-from-smes.htm
    My interpretation is less than half of the SMEs are positively in favour of staying in the TPP. Why should the “indifferent 39%” be added to the positives and called “support”?
    This is what I term “propaganda.”

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 23.1
      11 May 2016 at 3:11 pm

      I see that the Labour Party have also spotted this.
      “Govt hasn’t made the TPP case for small business”

      Almost two-thirds of small businesses do not fully support staying in the TPP – showing the Government has struggled to sell New Zealand businesses on the deal, says Labour’s Trade and Export Growth spokesperson David Clark.

      “Todd McClay has desperately spun the latest MYOB figures to try to sell a good news story for the Government. The figures are clear though. The MYOB press release says, ‘36 per cent said they favoured staying in the TPP’. That means two-thirds are either against the deal or haven’t yet formed a strong enough view to affect their vote.

      “Just 39 per cent of exporting small businesses support the TPP. This shows there are growing concerns that the TPP is more than just a trade deal.

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1605/S00199/govt-hasnt-made-the-tpp-case-for-small-business.htm

  24. Puckish Rogue 24
    11 May 2016 at 1:27 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/79836755/unhappy-neighbours-spark-housing-nz-complaints-for-former-streetie-tepi-amohia

    – Well I sympathise with the neighbours but hopefully he gets the support he obviously needs to sort the issues out

  25. Andre 25
    11 May 2016 at 2:15 pm

    If you google [BLiP: Deleted Mojo Mather’s UK family trust details.] there’s hits going back several years, including one from 2013 on Whaleoil (no I didn’t read that one). ISTR it was disclosed in the assets register, but I can’t be bothered chasing down a link.

    [BLiP: Enough with the dragging of an unrelated, innocent party into the issue concerning the Panama Papers. First and last warning. Comment moved to Open Mike.]

    • Andre 25.1
      11 May 2016 at 2:34 pm

      Sorry BLiP. I was trying to point out that that information has been public domain for at least several years. And that Mathers herself had made that information public, as someone with integrity would do. It’s not some kind of revelation that Mathers has been acting in some kind of hypocritical underhanded manner, which is what Key seems to be trying to make it out to be.

      [BLiP: Understood, all good. Warning retracted.]

  26. weka 26
    11 May 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Ace moderation BLiP.

  27. whispering kate 27
    11 May 2016 at 2:36 pm

    Well, the PM has got a reprieve from questions in the House by conveniently getting himself ordered out of the House for his constant yelling etc. Some clever person suggested I think yesterday here on The Standard that he was devious enough that he might deliberately do this – well he guessed correctly – what a tosser that he can’t stand the heat in the kitchen and has got himself out of coventry. Typical.

    • nzsage 27.1
      11 May 2016 at 2:49 pm

      The fact he would tarnish his own reputation to avoid questions speaks volumes to the lack of moral fortitude this despicable man has.

  28. prickles 28
    11 May 2016 at 2:37 pm

    I know lots of people have posted about the use of cannabis oil – this article may be of interest.
    http://survivingmesothelioma.com/mesothelioma-survivor-on-cannabis-oil-following-in-footsteps-of-ancient-herbalists/

  29. Keith Johnson 29
    11 May 2016 at 3:02 pm

    http://kjohnsonnz.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/latest-from-panama-city.html

    MUNDO SEGURIDAD Publicada el 08/05/2016

    “Johnny Bondtrader”, también en los “Panama Papers”

    Por: Gerardo Venegas

    La firma legal Mossack Fonseca incorporó a empresas de nombre Goldfinger, Crusher, SkyFall, GoldenEye, Oravida, Moonraker, Whale Oil y Octopussy, relacionados a las películas del agente secreto

    Panamá.- El despacho legal panameño Mossack Fonseca en el centro de un escándalo de filtración de documentos sobre cuentas en el exterior conocido como “Panama Papers”, habría incorporado una serie de empresas con los nombres de las películas de James Bond.

    El Proyecto de Reporteo sobre Crimen Organizado y Corrupción (OCCR, por sus siglas en inglés) que tuvo acceso a los documentos filtrados, dice que la firma legal Mossack Fonseca incorporó a empresas de nombre Goldfinger, Crusher, SkyFall, Teapot Tape, GoldenEye, Oravida, Moonraker, Whale Oil y Octopussy.

    También hay nombres de empresas como Blofeld, Hager y Spectre, como los villanos de las películas del agente secreto. Al parecer hay un cliente de nombre Austin Powers, que aparentemente es su nombre real.

    En Nueva Zelanda, el Servicio de Administración Tributaria investiga a 33 personas vinculadas a los llamados “Papeles de Panamá”, para determinar si incurrieron en una evasión fiscal o delitos financieros.

    Gobiernos de todo el mundo están indagando filtraciones de más de 11.5 millones de documentos del bufete de abogados panameño Mossack Fonseca, especializado en crear empresas en paraísos fiscales, que mostraron cómo políticos y personajes públicos han evitado el pago de impuestos.

    Con información de: AP

    TRANSLATION

    WORLD SECURITY Published on 05/08/2016

    “Johnny Bondtrader” also in the “Panama Papers”

    By: Gerardo Venegas

    The law firm Mossack Fonseca created shell companies named Goldfinger, Crusher, Skyfall, Teapot Tape, GoldenEye, Oravida, Moonraker, Whale Oil and Octopussy, relating to the films of the Secret Agent.

    The Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca in the center of a scandal of leaked documents on accounts abroad known as “Panama Papers” incorporated a number of companies with the names of James Bond movies.

    Project Reporting on Organized Crime and Corruption (OCCR, for its acronym in English) which had access to the leaked documents, said the law firm Mossack Fonseca created companies named Goldfinger, Crusher, Skyfall, Teapot Tape, GoldenEye, Oravida, Moonraker, Whale Oil and Octopussy.

    There are also names of companies like Blofeld, Hager and Spectre – the villains of the movie secret agent. Apparently there is a client named John Banks, which is apparently his real name.

    In Mexico, the Tax Administration is investigating 33 people linked to the so-called “Panama Papers” to determine whether they are involved in tax evasion and financial crime.

    Governments around the world are investigating leaks of more than 11.5 million documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, which specializes in creating offshore companies. These show how politicians and public figures have avoided paying taxes.

    With information from AP

    [BLiP: Off topic in a thread about Cameron Slater finagling diversion. Moved to Open Mike]

    • emergency mike 29.1
      11 May 2016 at 5:35 pm

      Interesting if true. Ive seen my share of bond films but I cant remember any named oravida, whale oil, crusher, nor teapot tape. But as a new zealander they do have an odd sense of familiarity about them.

      And a bond villian named hager? Nope. But…

      And john banks, isnt he a notoriously dodgy former nz politician who wasnt responsible for a piece of paper he signed because he didnt read it?

  30. joe90 30
    11 May 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Apparently, the IRD relies on investigative journalists to notify them about possible money-laundereing.

    Andrew Little: If New Zealand is not a tax haven, as he has been claiming, why is an online gambling magnate, Calvin Edward Ayre, who is on the run from US authorities for money-laundering and tax evasion, able to use a New Zealand foreign trust to stash his assets?

    Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I do not have those details, and the Inland Revenue Department will not be able to until it gets all of the data, which has not been released yet by the investigative journalist. But if it does, it will be able to look through that, and if that trust is true and the person has been established—and established by someone who is covered under the anti – money-laundering rules in New Zealand—then it will be quite clear, because that person who had established it will have failed in their obligations.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/51HansQ_20160511_00000002/2-prime-minister%E2%80%94statements

  31. Paul 31
    11 May 2016 at 3:56 pm

    438 000 watched the final episode of the Bachelor.
    Maybe New Zealand deserves Key as PM.

  32. alwyn 32
    11 May 2016 at 4:06 pm

    When do you plan to apologise for the lies you tell about me?
    You’ve been offered the chance to do so on a number of occasions.
    Why don’t you put up or shut up?

    [BLiP: Attempted derail/flamewar distraction. First and last warning. Comment moved to Open Mike]

  33. swordfish 33
    11 May 2016 at 4:11 pm

    A few articles and opinion pieces on Clinton’s Aggressively Hawkish Foreign Policy:

    “Hillary Clinton Promises a More Muscular Foreign Policy as President … From Iran to Syria to Ukraine, Clinton wants the US to be more aggressive … While the speech focussed on Iran, Clinton also addressed foreign policy elsewhere, highlighting areas in which she thought Obama was too hesitant to use military might to exert American influence abroad …”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iran-foreign-policy_us_55f05c2ae4b002d5c07786b2

    How many men, women and children are going to die over the next few years so that this uber-Hawk can demonstrate her toughness to US Elites, the US Electorate and future American historians ?

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clintons_foreign_policy_resume_what_the_record_shows_20160505

    Are GOP Neo-Cons getting ready to ally with Clinton ?
    “Neocon elites are probably the likeliest faction to defect to Clinton, and what they want is blood-curdling aggressiveness”

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/05/trump-unifier-are-hillary-clinton-and-neoconservatives-ready-join-forces

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n03/jackson-lears/we-came-we-saw-he-died

    http://www.thenation.com/article/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016/

    http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/

    • Ad 33.1
      12 May 2016 at 5:40 am

      At some point when I have a free afternoon we’re going to have to have an argument about whether intervening is overall right or wrong.

      • RedLogix 33.1.1
        12 May 2016 at 5:49 am

        The American people have a long history of being very conflicted over this. I strongly suspect that left to their own devices, and their politics not so utterly captured by elite interests … then for the most part their military machine would rarely leave home.

  34. jm 34
    11 May 2016 at 5:54 pm

    My point, dear, isn’t quite what you’re alluding to-

    You’re aware that some studies show that men interrupt women more than other men- some of those studies also show that women interrupt other women at a greater rate than men interrupt women. “the male method dominates and drives away dissenters”- mull over that the next time you see any sort of feminist rally.

    Differences in communication styles have nothing to do with a lack of FAIRNESS. You have every right to type shit into this textbox- as do I. Yet you feel disadvantaged, maligned, and “unsafe”?

    Do you feel this because we aren’t muzzled, chained, or broken in like good little boys? That we’re not all waiting in turn to have a say, having a great big group hug and singing “kumbaya” before departing?

    A lot of the men commenting on this thread are merely trying to FIX and/or HELP- because that’s what men do. You can’t see past the massive chip on your shoulder to realize this fact- and instead seem to be slighted by the fact that men are intruding this conversation (girl power!).

    No- you’re quite right- we need safe spaces for women- because they are patently disadvantaged and are unable to speak for themselves. We need to silence those dastardly men (and women!) who dare to interrupt or get in the way of a good ol’ fashioned civil discussion. Heaven forbid anyone have a contrary or controversial opinion (trigger warning!).

    /thread

    [BLiP: Trolling detected. First and last warning. Comment moved to Open Mike.]

  35. alwyn 35
    11 May 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Of course they are innocent victims. However it is Little and Shaw who were pushing the line that all overseas trusts are evil and anyone involved with them is a criminal. Unfortunately the people who set up that database did it without any attempt to vet it.
    Mathers only got involved because she is a beneficiary of an overseas trust. In spite of her seeming to think that it wasn’t one it really is. If the trust is in Britain and you are in New Zealand that is an example of an overseas trust and according to Shaw et al is therefore something used only for tax evasion for tax evasion.

    I fail to see any connection between this and rape or domestic violence. No doubt it makes sense to your fevered little brain.

    [BLiP: Increasingly shrill wall papering of thread with Tory spin lines and smearing of Mojo Mathers. Banned for one week. Comment moved to Open Mike.]

  36. North 36
    11 May 2016 at 7:04 pm

    And you’re trolling for love object that effete thing Key so fuck off !

    [BLiP: Settle down. First and last warning. Comment moved to Open Mike]

  37. North 37
    11 May 2016 at 7:09 pm

    You’re a well known Key idolator Confused Troll so fuck off to where what you mutter means something. I don’t know who should be more embarrassed. You or that effete thing thinks he’s an All Black.

    [BLiP: Frustration understood but if you are going to abuse someone, at least make a point which contributes to the discussion. Moved to Open Mike.]

  38. Colonial Viper 38
    12 May 2016 at 12:45 am

    To the people who are calling for the dropping of pseudonyms and anonymity from commentators and authors on the Standard:

    I mean seriously.

    This issue about anonymity and pseudonyms has come up exactly as Cameron Slater has blatantly reminded all of us again how desperate and underhanded the right is to reveal who the commentators on The Standard actually are.

    So that information can be used against us personally and against the Left in general.

    I really have to shake my head at how this discussion on making Standard commentators and authors out themselves is being entertained for even one millisecond.

    Idiocy to the power of naivete.

Links to post