Open mike 13/07/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 13th, 2012 - 237 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

237 comments on “Open mike 13/07/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ulta-left 1
    13 July 2012 at 7:37 am

    Te Radar’s series about the Pacific goes from bad to worse, as he rewrites the histories of Kiribati and Samoa:
    http://www.readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/te-radar-finds-goldfish-but-misses.html

    • mickysavage 1.1
      13 July 2012 at 8:40 am

      New Zealand’s tenure as protector of Samoa is something of deep shame to me as a Kiwi and I am astounded at the good will shown by Samoans in being able to forgive NZ for the atrocities committed.

      But talking about bloody goldfish.  What was Te Radar thinking? 

      • Enough is Enough 1.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 9:30 am

        The Crown’s tenure as protector of Aotearoa is something of deep shame to me as a White Kiwi and I am astounded at the good will shown by Moari in being able to forgive us for the atrocities committed.

    • Bored 1.2
      13 July 2012 at 10:26 am

      Watching Te Radar is somewhat disturbing for me: under the banner of humour what is really a squalid RWNJ has been allowed lose at our expense. He comes across to me as a rather heartless little bigot, the supposedly humorous result of bringing children up in an ethos that ignores anything other than the immediate that you cannot profit by. Hence his ignoring history in favour of making fun with goldfish as a prop.

  2. rosy 2
    13 July 2012 at 7:47 am

    So the Olympics – missiles on top of residential high rises with residents having no grounds to object, security officers not trained and soldiers coming back from Afganistan to fill the gaps at the same time as facing redundancy.

    Oh and no chips around the place unless they’re sold as traditional ‘fish and chips’ because McDonalds doesn’t like it. And Olympic head Jacques Rogge having to backtrack on obesity comments because coca cola doesn’t like it.

    Not to mention Dow Chemical, BP and Rio Tinto

    Welcome to the corporate games, showcasing the efficiency of the private sector, with the taxpayer picking up the tab for whatever is required. Makes me wonder how much the Athens Olympics had to do with Greece’s runaway debt.

    • Carol 2.1
      13 July 2012 at 8:05 am

      Yes, rosy, I have been remembering how the Athens Olympics was touted as being beneficial to Greece’s economy: Ditto for the UK. Yet the UK is still struggling to get things ready for the games:

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10819279

      London’s aging infrastructure kept offering up unpleasant surprises as the main road near Heathrow Airport remained closed following emergency repairs. The British mobile phone company O2, meanwhile, acknowledged that thousands of customers had been affected by outages on its network a bad omen ahead of the first iPhone games.

      Meanwhile Canadian TV bids to get coverage for the Russian 2014 Winter Olympics and 2016 Brazil summer Olympics has run into a roadblock. It seems the Canadian channels are unwilling to pay as much money as the IOC wants.

      http://m.torontosun.com/2012/06/26/canadian-rights-for-future-games-still-up-in-air

      BTW, the Olympic workers have won a small victory and can now buy chips from non-MacDonalds outlets.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/11/mcdonalds-olympics-chips

    • Carol 2.2
      13 July 2012 at 8:11 am

      And furthermore, there’s a long list of banned stuff that cannot be taken into games’ venues:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172430/Bottled-water-long-lens-cameras-Che-Guevara-t-shirts-banned-stadiums-London-Olympic-Games-crackdown.html

      Security will be tight with airport-style restrictions on liquids greater than 100ml and no more than one soft-sided bag is allowed and must fit under the spectator’s seat.
      […]
      Organisers will be looking out for ‘any objects or clothing bearing political statements or overt commercial identification intended for “ambush marketing”’ to avoid scenarios like the 2010 football World Cup when Bavaria Beer filled a section of seats with a bevy of Dutch girls wearing orange.

      They’ll be no picnics or eating too much food brought from home with ‘excessive amounts of food’ and alcohol on the no-go list.

      Organisers figure that the more than 14 million meals to be served across 40 locations during the Games will suffice.

      Spectators won’t be able to shelter from London’s unpredictable weather with no ‘large golf-style umbrellas’ or ‘oversized hats’
      […]
      They’ll be no chance to make a racquet or cheer too loudly with ‘noisemakers such as hunting horns, air horns, klaxons, drums, vuvuzelas and whistles’ off limits.

      Ticketholders went to Twitter to express their surprise at the long list of restrictions.

      One said: ‘Coming to the 2012Olympics? No frisbees or picnic hampers. It’s gonna rain and Heathrow sucks.’

      Another called it ‘the Dystopian Games’.

    • Rosie 2.3
      13 July 2012 at 8:37 am

      Rio Tinto made the medals didn’t they? Just one of the many corrupt “suppliers” to the games as had been pointed out already.

    • Vicky32 2.4
      13 July 2012 at 6:22 pm

      So the Olympics – missiles on top of residential high rises with residents having no grounds to object

      Which completely blew my mind! I first heard about it on the BBC and was horrified when the residents lost their case.
      It’s going to be horrible…

      • Vicky32 2.4.1
        13 July 2012 at 6:23 pm

        Once again, something I said above triggered the ‘harmful behavior’ screen. WTF???

        • Carol 2.4.1.1
          13 July 2012 at 6:27 pm

          Someone before mentioned it is the embedded link – I assume this time it’s “missiles on top of residential high rises”, which is blue and contains a link to the Guardian article.

          • Vicky32 2.4.1.1.1
            13 July 2012 at 6:46 pm

            Ah, so it appears that when I quote someone I should take out her link? It was QoT who accused me of link-whoring that you’re thinking of, which is still laughable, as I do put links – when I am quoting someone who put a link! 
            No matter what s/he thinks, I almost never out my own links… 😀
            (I quote people because for the life of me I can’t figure out the number system that people refer to – because I can’t even see those numbers!)
             

            • Carol 2.4.1.1.1.1
              13 July 2012 at 6:55 pm

              I quote people by copying and pasting the quoted words and hand-typing the quote/italic codes. It turns out like this without the link in the original link. I don’t think such links are necessary anyway, because the quote refers back to who said it & their link up thread for anyone who wants it. Like so….

              So the Olympics – missiles on top of residential high rises with residents having no grounds to object, security officers not trained and soldiers coming back from Afganistan to fill the gaps at the same time as facing redundancy.

            • QoT 2.4.1.1.1.2
              13 July 2012 at 8:08 pm

              I didn’t “accuse you of link-whoring”, Vicky. I just noted that you have always, to my knowledge, complained about being spam-filtered after embedding links, which are a pretty classic “warning sign” to filters. Another clear pattern is that you’re embedding links within quotes on all those occasions, which might add to the filter’s decision to moderate you.

              Certainly you’re probably just copying-and-pasting in other people’s previous comments which you’re responding to, but the filter has no way of knowing that. And also is totally OUT TO CENSOR YOU!!!!!

              In future, I invite you to actually use links when accusing me of harassment. I’m sure everyone would find it highly illuminating to compare what I’ve actually said with your version of reality. Like this.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1.1.2
            13 July 2012 at 10:26 pm

            Someone before mentioned it is the embedded link

            Not always. I initially noticed that I got caught whenever I put in a link but since then I’ve put in links that didn’t cause to be trapped. I’ve also been caught in the trap without any links.

            It’s something to do with the new system but I couldn’t say what yet.

  3. Pete George 3
    13 July 2012 at 7:49 am

    Michael Woodhouse offered influence on his vote and Andrew White has responded with his opinion and suggestions on the Alcohol Reform Bill:

    I am under 20 years of age and I would like to express my staunch disapproval of any attempt to increase the alcohol purchase age. I also oppose a split of the alcohol purchase age. I disagree with many other parts of the Alcohol Reform Bill too. I urge you to vote “no” to any alcohol purchase age increase.

    The status quo of being 18 years old to purchase alcohol from bars and liquor stores should be retained. I have no disagreement with tackling the issue of alcohol abuse; that is a valid and important aim. However what the Alcohol Reform Bill would do would be a knee jerk reaction and excessive.

    Full response: A 20 year old’s suggestions on the Alcohol Reform Bill

    • mike e 3.1
      13 July 2012 at 8:29 am

      Petey boy,The only Jerk is you .You need Parental Guidance.
      Latest research shows their has been a marked increase in foetal alcohol syndrome since alcohol laws have been laxed.
      Under age drinking and the damage its doing is a direct result of 1999 reforms.
      $ 6 billion a year problem and your at your Pathetic Grovaling best.
      NZ,s second most dangerous drug and you are making excuses for your corrupt coalition
      taking bribes from the booze pushers.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 8:30 am

        DNFTT

      • Pete George 3.1.2
        13 July 2012 at 9:04 am

        I’m not making excuses for anything, if you calmed down enough from troll duty to actually see what was posted you would see that it wasn’t me saying anything.

        Why don’t you try and influence Michael Woodhouse’s vote yourself? He said he’s open to persuasion. I suggest you don’t try the abuse approach though, that rarely succeeds at anything.

    • Jenny 3.2
      13 July 2012 at 9:05 am

      I agree with the sentiment expressed by Andrew White.

      The new laws are punitive, hypocritical, discriminatory, potentially racist and open to abuse and police profiling of young people.

      The youth abuse of alcohol is directly linked to increased availability and cheapness of the sugary coloured mixed spirits drinks, like Codys, KGB and Woodstock.

      When these drinks were heavily taxed in Australia, youth drinking dropped dramatically and Independent liquor which manufactures these products had to close their Australian bottling plant.

      None of that is being addressed here. In fact IL who market campaigns are directed to children are protected and defended. While young people are being targeted with punitive laws when they respond to IL and their competitors marketing campaigns and obscenely cheap products.

      The effect of raising the age, risks seeing a whole generation of young people earning criminal convictions which stays on their record for life. While we protect the real criminals.

      No doubt as usual, it will be the Island and Maori youth of South Auckland and Porrirua who will be picked out by the police to appear in court on such charges. Initiating a relentless downward cycle for many.

    • felix 3.3
      13 July 2012 at 1:12 pm

      Or “What I did in the holidays” by Pete George aged 14.

  4. Rosie 4
    13 July 2012 at 8:29 am

    Wow, crappy pay the Ministry of Justice. I had to re read this as I thought $33.5K WAS the part time rate but in fact it goes on to say this rate will be pro rata for part timers

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/a.aspx?id=493286632

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      13 July 2012 at 2:41 pm

      CSR pay has been dropping a lot. When I was a CSR a few years ago I had an income close $50k. Now you’ll be lucky to find such a job that pays $40k. It’s the decreasing wages that is part and parcel of the capitalist dynamic.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        14 July 2012 at 5:25 pm

        Yep. Real inflation (taking into account actual price rises and wage deflation) has been eye watering.

  5. gareth 5
    13 July 2012 at 8:40 am

    “We also think infrastructure assets with monopoly characteristics are especially important to the functioning of the wider economy.

    Labour published a closed list of assets that we believe ought to be run in the New Zealand interest because they have monopoly characteristics – assets such as electricity line networks, water and airports.

    The list excludes telecommunications and electricity generation” (David Parker)

    Surely electricity generation should be classed as an infrastructure asset with monopoly characteristics. (more so than an airport to my mind.)
    Or is this a roundabout way of saying we won’t buy them back once sold without actually coming out and saying it?

    • ad 5.1
      13 July 2012 at 10:18 am

      And this is the point that Chris Trotter made yesterday:

      All those hundreds of Labour and Green volunteers standing in the cold getting signatures for a petition,and Labour won’t even say electricity generation is a monopoly worth protecting.

      Would be great if Parker grew a pair of nads.

      • Pete George 5.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 10:58 am

        Chris Trotter has made some more points today. He starts:

        Labour seeks middle ground on policies

        ‘We can’t afford the luxury of uncompromising dogma.” The Green Party should write that down. It’s a direct quote from Labour’s deputy leader and environment spokesman, Grant Robertson.

        He was speaking alongside – and keeping an eye on, a cynic might suggest – David Cunliffe at a Labour and the Environment forum at the Titirangi Public Library on Saturday, June 23.

        And closes:

        An alternative government committed to the notion that “business as usual simply cannot continue” would instantly attract the enmity of every entrenched industrial, commercial and financial interest in the land.

        It’s leaders would be pilloried, denounced and demonised, and, honestly, Robertson has never struck me as a politician who would voluntarily risk any of those experiences.

        That’s the message he’s conveying to his rival for the Labour leadership and, more importantly, it’s what he’s saying to the Greens’ co-leaders, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei.

        It’s a simple and brutal warning: there’s a Cabinet seat for you in the next Labour-led Government, but only if you’re willing to leave your radical ideas (“uncompromising dogma”) at the door, only if you accept that it will be business as close to usual as Labour can make it.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/7272187/Labour-seeks-middle-ground-on-policies

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          13 July 2012 at 12:33 pm

          The only uncompromising dogma here is National selling off our childrens’ country.

        • ad 5.1.1.2
          13 July 2012 at 1:34 pm

          If Grant Robertson or anyone else currently in the Labour caucus thinks they can cower those in politics who have an ideological spine, they will have this site, and Bowalley Road, and Dimpost, and Ideologically impure, and Bomber, and indeed most of the activist base to contend with. That’s pretty much most of the progressive activists in New Zealand.

          The activist base owns these sites, and they are the main political commons of New Zealand now. Increasingly Labour’s old political MP guard will buy a head-on fight with the activist base.

          Just in case they learn’t nothing from the 1980s, that will consign them to more party splits, and staying out of power for a few more terms yet.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.2.1
            13 July 2012 at 1:39 pm

            Members are walking to the Greens and they have no reason to make the walk back.

            • David H 5.1.1.2.1.1
              13 July 2012 at 4:30 pm

              Labour’s a dead duck. Just look at the last 3 months, scandal, after incompetent scandal, and where’s shearer or any labour politician?????? No where. Just Missing in Action, AWOL no matter how you put it they arergiving a real good impersonation of a party with no ideas, and no trustworthy members. Just a bunch of bad jokes for Shonky to laugh at.

              • Ad …
                13 July 2012 at 9:27 pm

                Might be overstating it a fraction – the polls are tracking pretty well for Labour, albeit slowly.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 July 2012 at 9:44 pm

                  no no no

                  I’m not talking about the politically clueless centrist middle class who drift from one party to the other like its a flavour of jam answering polls

                  I’m talking about the politically attuned Labour activists and membership.

    • Olwyn 5.2
      13 July 2012 at 10:23 am

      Parker’s speech rang alarm bells for me, on at least two counts: firstly, the exclusion of electricity generation from those things that should be run ‘in the NZ interest.’ Secondly the term “in NZ interests” rather than public ownership. Chris Trotter has written about his speech as well.

      http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/no-joke-why-im-not-laughing-at-labours.html

      • Bored 5.2.1
        13 July 2012 at 10:40 am

        It is tragic comedy of the most putrid taste. The sooner Labour open up leadership to a vote for the party membership the better. Shearer and Parker might as well join National. Clowns.

        • ad 5.2.1.1
          13 July 2012 at 10:52 am

          If you want to have your say about how Labour chooses its next leader, you should write or call the members of Labour’s New Zealand Council in the next 24 hours, because on Sunday they will make the call on exactly how much say your voice will have.

          Otherwise it’s back to Trevor Mallard and whomever he wants, which is what we have now.

        • Socialist Paddy 5.2.1.2
          13 July 2012 at 12:05 pm

          Aye.  I read Parker’s speech and I could not figure out if it was coming from a Labour politician or a National politician.
           
          Give me Cunliffe any day.  At least the guy is willing to talk about a Tobin tax to start decreasing inequalities and he realises that the world’s carrying capacity is limited.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.3
          13 July 2012 at 12:39 pm

          Spot on Bored. Someone needs to bury Labour so that Labour can represent the interests of the ordinary people once more.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.3
      13 July 2012 at 3:04 pm

      Is the service needed by everybody? Then it’s a monopoly.

      Labour are working on the failed idea that having two or more suppliers is competition but having so few suppliers is an oligopoly which is just as bad as a private monopoly as the LIBOR scandal has just proved.

  6. Sam Hall 6
    13 July 2012 at 8:44 am

    Re AUTHORITY
    regretably, imo, everything i have learned about the human animal suggests the inevitability of authoritarian structures to comfort the majority.

    Dominance is an essential human motive (that is, motives reduce discomforting arousal) just like the overarching motive of Security.

    Interestingly, blogging has the potential for expression of other essential human motives too,
    for example,
    Curiosity Achievement Affiliation Autonomy Nurturance Exhibition Order Play

    So remember, the three treasures COMPASSION MODERATION HUMILITY.

    I drop these all the time but i remember where they are and i pick them up again.

    ARE THERE MANY TINORANGITIRATANGA OR influential representative GREENS that visit this site?

    How many individual user addresses visit a month?

    Thankyou IPrent

    I dont yet know how to pick up an emoticon so

    • Jenny 6.1
      13 July 2012 at 11:20 am

      Re AUTHORITY
      regretably, imo, everything i have learned about the human animal suggests the inevitability of authoritarian structures to comfort the majority.

      Sam Hall

      Not always Sam

      Ordinary men and women will sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to defy “AUTHORITY” sacrificing their comfort and security at risk to their very lives.

      “This is our moment”

      • John Connor 6.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 1:07 pm

        yes. been doin it all me friggin life. No use having a rock if you are not able to use it.

        People be serving the machine
        high-frequency algorithmic market trades and facebook
        Be Master and Slave

  7. john72 7
    13 July 2012 at 9:01 am

    The people may be made to follow a course of action, BUT they can not be made to understand it.

    (Confucius : 550 BC )

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      13 July 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Confucious was talking about leaders who were serving the comple needs of the country. At a time that 90% of the Chinese population were peasants with no formal education.

  8. Jenny 8
    13 July 2012 at 9:13 am

    Stuff.co.nz Lead story Friday July 13 2012. Black Friday.

    ‘Swift, dramatic’ threat to Antarctic environment

    “The quick pace of change in much of the region is under-appreciated. There’s warming in the Western Antarctic, changing species distributions, and a quickening in the rate of ice-loss, among other clear signs,”

    Professor Steven Chown Monash University Antarctic Science team leader.

    Will the Green Party take action against the ETS which is preventing parliament from being forced to take action on GHGs? Or will the Greens hold their tongues hoping to get more bums on seats in parliament by not being seen to be “to radical”?

    • ScottGN 9.1
      13 July 2012 at 10:44 am

      And as usual neither the Transport Minister or his Associate Minister were prepared to go on Morning Report about this issue this morning.

      • Bored 9.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 11:49 am

        There is an interesting dichotomy of thinking going on here….given that the financial justification argument is used by those for and against new road construction there must be a tacit acceptance that new road construction is to be debated on the parameter of cost justification.

        Very few of those involved in the debate seem to be convinced that new road construction is entirely unnecessary and that cost does not come into it. Listening to most Labour speeches we constantly hear the refrains of “progress”, “development”, “expansion” and “growth”. From the Right these are all that their event horizon has in view. So we all back blindly at full speed toward the abyss we all know is really there.

        To retain some positive sanity I have decided to take the a viewpoint that the roading projects are actually necessary infrastructural development for massed bicycle transit, using today’s resources to provision capital works today for tomorrows fuel starved future. Long live the Key Memorial Cycleway, delivered in another guise by the Law of Paradox.

  10. smokeskreen 10
    13 July 2012 at 10:15 am

    In this morning’s NZ Herald…..”Prime Minister John Key has confirmed the Government is considering listing Mighty River Power on the Australian Stock Exchange, but denies it will result in more overseas shareholders. Mr Key said no decision had yet been made on whether to list Mighty River Power on the Australian Stock Exchange as well as the New Zealand Stock Exchange when the Government puts up to 49 per cent of the company up for sale this year……”

    Haven’t we been told that Kiwi Mums and Dads will be given priority on the sale of these shares? Yeah right! Could this be just the start of the hidden agenda on this issue?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/newsarticle.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10819268

    • ad 10.1
      13 July 2012 at 11:28 am

      Maybe Key is just making sure all those Kiwis he has helped reside over in Australia to get their share?

      • Treetop 10.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 4:10 pm

        ad, Kiwi mums and dads who live in Aussie are the only ones who have any spare cash.

    • Urban Rascal 10.2
      13 July 2012 at 11:59 am

      Does this blow out the NZX bailout theory where they clip the ticket on all the sales and prop up that failing exchange?

      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1
        13 July 2012 at 12:36 pm

        Look out for the upcomoing ASX-NZX ‘merger’.

        (in actual fact it’ll be a total takeover of the NZX for chump change).

        • ad 10.2.1.1
          13 July 2012 at 12:49 pm

          With so many New Zealanders living there now, and so much of our business there, as well as our business ownership, it’s not really surprising to find New Zealand acting more and more like a state of Australia than its own sovereign state anymore.

          Auckland is well on track to have 40% of the population and 40% of the economy (beyond its current third), dominating New Zealand’s commercial and social life (and increasingly its political life) just like Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth do to their respective states.

          So the Stock Exchange takeover will be felt more with a whimper, in fact more just a part of our becoming another Australian state in all but constitution.

      • marsman 10.2.2
        13 July 2012 at 3:10 pm

        The CEO of the NZX is begging Bill English not to float the shares in Australia, guess he feels it’s his entitlement to have a major snout in the plunder trough.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.3
      13 July 2012 at 3:32 pm

      Well, one thing it is is that this government holds no more trust in the NZX than most other NZers.

    • QoT 10.4
      13 July 2012 at 8:10 pm

      Hey now, smokeskreen, thanks to NACT’s complete failure to close the gap with Aussie and stop driving Kiwis there in search of decent jobs and pay, there could be plenty of Kiwi Mums and Dads to buy Mighty River Power shares over the ditch.

  11. John Connor 11
    13 July 2012 at 11:14 am

    “Only machines and dicks do not change their minds”
    John James Elijah.

  12. Jackal 12
    13 July 2012 at 11:26 am

    Budget cuts cause failures

    Having tens of thousands of people, many of them business owners not being provided an essential service is completely unacceptable!

  13. John Connor 13
    13 July 2012 at 11:27 am

    “Only machines do not change their minds” John Elijah

  14. G8 14
    13 July 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Has anyone picked up the conflict Whale Oil has re the V8’s. He keeps going on about them and Len’s support for Pukekohe and that Hampton Downs is the track it should have gone to. Hampton Downs had advertising banners on WO site. Obvious he’s on someone’s payroll. Not into V8’s but if my rates money is being spent on it, better it is in our region and not Waikato.

    • John Connor 14.1
      13 July 2012 at 1:02 pm

      Man! I visited Mr Slater for the first proper time today and he seems quite touchy, maybe parochial in his views. I thought what a waste. Mans gotta learn to harness his emotions better.
      And heaps of anger on that site.

  15. Dave Kennedy 15
    13 July 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Sticking together because of the children is not necessarily the best way of managing an abusive relationship and the children will probably still suffer:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/maori-party-in-abusive-relationship.html

  16. captain hook 16
    13 July 2012 at 2:01 pm

    I think whalegrease has a couple of v8’s going round and round in his head and they wont stop!

  17. Pete George 17
    13 July 2012 at 3:11 pm

    If you want to see what a real conservative right wing comment looks like:

    If we want to deal with the problems of youth binge drinking, out of wedlock teen pregnancy, STD’s and so forth then a few simple solutions could work wonders.

    1. Dismantle the welfare state.
    2. End all forms of state education, or state subsidy for education.
    3. Ban the Family Planning organization from New Zealand.
    4. Criminalize abortion.
    5. Ban contraception for unmarried persons.
    6. Raise the legal drinking age to 21
    7. Restore compulsory national service for all able bodied 18-21 year olds.

    What will probably come up in follow up comments:

    8. Compulsory fundamental Christian indoctrination.
    9. A ban on the words ‘Darwin’ and ‘evolution’.
    10. A ban on all climate science.

    • felix 17.1
      13 July 2012 at 3:47 pm

      And what?

      These people are fundamentalists who’s ideal society is a fasc1st theocracy. And that’s not an exaggeration, that’s an accurate sober interpretation of their own statements.

      Such views are so offensive that any reasonable person with any understanding of history ought to reject them out of hand as the insane ramblings of violent lunatics.

      And yet here’s you, quoting them as if they were on the spectrum of views that deserved consideration as any part of a serious discussion about civil society because doing so might make your own views appear more reasonable by comparison.

      That’s a disgrace, Pete George, and a pathetically transparent disgrace at that. Go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.

      • Pete George 17.1.2
        13 July 2012 at 3:58 pm

        That’s a disgrace felix, you’ve conclusion jumped again, this time right into the mud. Hard to believe that’s not deliberately way way over the top (like Lee), so I guess you’re trying to joke.

        I responded to that post:
        There’s about 0% chance of any of those things happening. Which is just as well. The logistics of doing it would be just about impossible and the outcomes would be not what you would like to see.

        I didn’t respond any stronger because there’s no point. I’ve had a number of futile ‘debates’ with Lee, he’s as bad as the worst here, zero chance of him changing his views. He is regarded as an extreme nutter on Kiwiblog by 99%. Even you would be more accepted there.

        • felix 17.1.2.1
          13 July 2012 at 4:27 pm

          “He is regarded as an extreme nutter on Kiwiblog by 99%.”

          And yet you consider his views worth bringing up here. Disgraceful.

        • QoT 17.1.2.2
          13 July 2012 at 8:14 pm

          There’s about 0% chance of any of those things happening. Which is just as well.

          I think we all need to stop and appreciate the glory of this comment. Hey now, PG is totes anti all these things … but still had to get in his Superior Political Knowledge 2c about their likelihood first.

          • Pascal's bookie 17.1.2.2.1
            13 July 2012 at 8:41 pm

            Oh Pete has so much cute.

            I like that part how even felix would be more accepted, there, by the 99% who are all quite reasonable chaps and are not right wing conservatives. Why, they’d find barking radical felix more acceptable than right wing conservatism.

            The kiwi blog right, or 99% of it at least, isn’t really right at all.

            It’s the sensible centre ackshully..

            • Pete George 17.1.2.2.1.1
              13 July 2012 at 9:43 pm

              You can’t help making things up, can you. Do you really have to have things explained? No, you don’t, but I’ll explain for others who might think something of your nonsense.

              Lee is a very conservative fundamental Christian rightie and few if any at KB agree with his usual views, like those I’ve given as an example here.

              The only one as extreme as Lee is the now rare appearences of Redbaiter. Felix is correct on one thing (not much else) – their ideal society is a fasc1st theocracy

              The rest on KB range across the spectrum. There’s a few vocal ones to the right of Act, quite a few centre to rightish, and a few around centre and to the left, and a few regular lefties, who, if they stand firm usually get given a reasonable hearing most of the time. The only leftie who continually gets a hard time is Philu, but KB is one of the few blogs he’s not banned from (at the moment).

              If felix – or you – commented there and played it straight and strong without trying to be clever and dishonest like you are here at times you would get a reasonable go from most at KB.

              I know from experience, when I started at KB I was labeled a leftie and attacked a lot, but that subsided after a few months. It’s not as bad there now as it was then, in part due to a few centre/lefties standing their ground and playing it straight.

              There’s still shit flying at times, but it’s easier to have reasonable discussions than here. I still have some ding dongs, but can then agree with the same person in the next argument. Here it seems to be once an ‘enemy’, always an enemy, no matter what you say.

              • McFlock …
                13 July 2012 at 10:00 pm

                Okay okay, KB is so much nicer than TS.
                And yet you still return.
                 

              • marty mars …
                13 July 2012 at 10:27 pm

                pete – how about the truth? Why are you going on about that other blog and linking all the time – have you had a vision that you will bring the two opposed sides together in shared middleness. I hope it isn’t some sort of continuation of OccupyPete – you know how that worked out. I sense some plan in there somewhere – you know you might get more supporters for that plan if you were upfront rather than sneaky.

                • Pete George …
                  13 July 2012 at 10:49 pm

                  It’s not just about two blogs. I also comment on some other blogs and forums, I use Facebook and Twitter, I have my own two blogs, I use email a lot, I use the phone and I talk to people face to face. I’ve been learning stuff. learning about integrated multimedia. Learning about parties, learning how activists operate, developing a thick skin. Every different option has it’s strengths and things to learn.

                  I’ve been working on a strategy for three years now, I’m always looking for opportunities to try and fast track things. It will take another 3 years probably to know really if I’m going to achieve what I wanted to. I’ve got a couple of important meetings coming up that will give me a good idea of progress.

                  I think I’m more upfront about who I am and what I do than most people on blogs – I do politics differently and I’m not put off by the same old crap, repeated and repeated. I know that frustrates those trying to score some sort of victories but I don’t care about that, it’s their problem, not mine. The abusers reflect far more on themselves than their targets anyway, most people can see through their bullshit.

                  I think this blog’s got a lot of potential, but it wastes a lot of that by too much negativity. If 80% attack (most of it futile) was converted into 80% doing something positive and useful it would be a lot more successful. In my opinion.

                  • marty mars …
                    13 July 2012 at 11:05 pm

                    I appreciate your reply.

                    Obviously all the experience you are gaining and planning is for something and I would assume it involves people – do you consider the comments that you get and how you could maybe improve your chances of getting people behind whatever you are up to, by taking on board the often positive and honestly given feedback? or do you feel that you already do that – and i hope you don’t think that because I haven’t seen any evidence of that and I remember when you first turned up. I remember you saying you were here to listen and learn – when did that change pete or is it still your goal.

                    When people get frustrated they insult – do you ever really consider why they are getting frustrated? – the thing is pete you could actually use the expertise and knowledge of commenters on this site to achieve your goals but you may have to shed some ego or something. Who knows – we all have our stuff.

                    • Pete George …
                      13 July 2012 at 11:41 pm

                      I think quite a few here are frustated by a lot more than me, I’m just an available target to take it out on. If it wasn’t me it would be someone else. They’re useful to me but aren’t my target, I pick up my support quietly – not many are going to risk getting openly clobbered alongside me here, are they.

                      I do learn from and use the expertise and knowledge of commenters here, there is some good amongst the negative nonces. But activists here are not interested in learning from some naive inexperienced person like me who hasn’t done all the hard yards they’ve done.

                      Until one day they wake up to what’s going on in the wider population – who are sick of the old politicking, they want to be listened to and taken notice of. Things are happening outside the bubble, I’m just a small part of what’s going on. It’s a matter of tying it together and harnessing it. Just by being observant (this time in the local newspaper) I’ve made what could be a major breakthrough just today, nowhere near the blogs.

                      I’m targeting three main things (on one level, more on another level) – I’ve been active on one, others have independently been active on the other two. It’s happening and the time is right, it just needs these things to come together.

                      A number of times I’ve said here I’m happy to share what I’m doing with anyone who’s interested, the more that get on board the better.

                      I acknowledge I simply get dragged into the fray here a bit, it’s not strictly part of the plan but it’s a good learning experience in some ways – learning off my own mistakes and off others. I’m fallible – that’s one thing we have to learn to accept without major dramas, even the best politicians are fallible, but if there was a resignation for every mistake there would be only one left.

                      And hey, despite what some try to paint me as, I can and do work with people from any party. Part of the plan is to be able to express your own views and have your own affiliations while working with others with different connections – and often different ways they want to do things. The main aim is a neutral structure we can all work within, together more than at each other’s throats. And we all need to understand and accept that none of us can have it all our own way. Compromise and cooperation are essential parts of doing democracy better.

                      Remember – 80% positive. Too many do 20%.

                    • marty mars …
                      14 July 2012 at 12:09 am

                      LOL QoT Classic

                      If it wasn’t me it would be someone else.

                      No pete that just isn’t true.

                      For me I’d much rather debate the issues than spend time correcting what you assert and i’d say most are the same – certainly that is what i’ve seen since you started posting.

                      And you must admit you deliberately stir it up and make pretty wild statements sometimes – that makes me think you are not really serious and don’t really care or believe what you write and then i wonder if it just a laugh for you. I can assure you it is not a joke to me. I, like many, make sacrifices to get online and participate in debate and I do it, like most, because i am passionate and care about the issues – it’s not a game, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun 🙂

                      I acknowledge I simply get dragged into the fray here a bit, it’s not strictly part of the plan

                      Pete, your plan is based on negativity – it’s not a winner.

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 12:25 am

                      I acknowledge I’m sometimes negative and sometimes stir. But I’m nowhere near as negative as much of what goes on here, apart from being the target of negative frustration.

                      I’ve quite often tried positive approaches here. Most often it’s not me that turns them negative. But I will stand up for myself against it – and then get the blame for being disruptive. Nine times out of ten I don’t start it.

                      For fucks sake, even if people disagree with something I post, if it was that easy to argue against why don’t they do that instead of launch into attacks? Sometimes I am argued against and sometimes I’m wrong. But most of the time it’s just shit being thrown. Repeatedly and deliberately. And it pisses them off when I don’t hissy fit or bugger off like others do.

                      Often far more is attributed to me than what I say or what I intend. Look at felix’s and PB’s responses to this thread. Intelligent people being clever? Stupid? I still don’t know what they expect to achieve, but you’d think they’d have woken up to the fact that repeating the same games is not getting them anywhere. I play here (and look for opportinities, which come up from time to time) and keep doing most of what I want to do elsewhere. While they achieve what? Do they really keep getting thrills from fomenting the PG diss club?

                      Does anyone else here actually have any goals? Or is everyone just kicking shit out of anything that passes through until, they hope between despairs, the next election falls into their laps by default?

                    • QoT …
                      14 July 2012 at 12:32 am

                      I still don’t know what they expect to achieve, but you’d think they’d have woken up to the fact that repeating the same games is not getting them anywhere.

                      Oh Jesus, there goes my irony meter! And it was just out of warranty!

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2012 at 12:37 am
                       
                       

                      I have goals, pete:
                         
                      learn about issues and events from people who are clear, specific and provide links for their sources;
                      challenge those statements that should not remain unchallenged and thereby acceptable, e.g. rape minimisation;
                      where I can add some knowledge to a debate, add it; and
                      have fun and keep awake while waiting for other things not internet-connected to complete.
                          
                      And the negative responses you get are possibly due to the fact that discussing anything with you is curiously similar to punching a bowl of jelly – it all displaces around one’s fist and the next thing you know it’s splashed and left a mess everywhere.

                       
                    • marty mars …
                      14 July 2012 at 12:48 am

                      Pete it may surprise you to know, as QoT has wittily (prob not a real word) pointed out, that your complaints against others are what others complain about you. The difference is we are many, with widely different views and persuasions – surely that must sink in a little. You are complaining about that which you actively seek.

                      and that’s okay i’m not judging anyone, just, as I say, I would rather spend my time debating than correcting your deliberate provocations.

                    • rosy …
                      14 July 2012 at 1:11 am

                      “the fact that discussing anything with you is curiously similar to punching a bowl of jelly – it all displaces around one’s fist and the next thing you know it’s splashed and left a mess everywhere.”

                      The best description. To add to that – when it’s all conclusively splashed out and left a mess everywhere, it then mysteriously disappears.

                • ropata …
                  13 July 2012 at 11:51 pm

                  PG you’re a useful idiot like Obama. People like John Key do not operate in good faith and they will screw you every time. That’s why politics has to be rough and tumble, and expose the sordid nature of the current government.

                  • Pete George …
                    14 July 2012 at 12:09 am

                    I’ve seen good faith work much better than shitting on everything. Sure, politics can have some rough and tumble, but that’s no excuse for being perpetually destructive arseholes.

                    This is the 21st century. Politics can work better, but only if we look at how to do it better. Last party standing is a pretty stupid aim. Far too much resource goes into futile negatives. Many in the fray don’t see it and make excuses for more stupidity. But people on the outside have had a gutsful of it.

                    I stood in the last election for a purpose. I get dissed for the small number of votes I got but I don’t care about that, those who criticise me got no votes at all. I tried a few experiments (as well as built contacts). By far the best responses I got were when I talked about less crap in politics, and listening to the people more and better.

                    The anti asset sales campaign, Save TVNZ 7, all that stuff is part of a bigger mood. Labour think they are winning with their campaigns, but they aren’t achieving anything tangible. And are unlikely to. Unless they step back and recognise the bigger picture. The old ways are history.

                    We are moving into an age of people power democracy – as long as we have the will and make sure build a sound neutral system. We don’t need to change much – except recognise we can do it if we want to, we can make sure politicians know what we want rather than sit back and expect them to do it all but also expect them to do it poorly.

                    It’s up to us.

                    • QoT …
                      14 July 2012 at 12:12 am

                      It’s up to us.

                      Height of comedy: when a person whose commenting history on this blog consists of:

                      – weasel words in abundance
                      – never clearly stating his own opinion
                      – consistently finding excuses for his Glorious Leader and why we shouldn’t take Peter Dunne’s words at face value
                      – trying to draw attention to his own blog without being upfront about his purpose

                      … includes himself in the group of people who are going to Save Politics From This Horrible Meanness And Spite.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                13 July 2012 at 11:25 pm

                Pete, if you’re going to accuse me of making things up, please quote and say what you think I’ve got wrong.

                You said “even felix”. That puts felix as some sort of extremist on a par with what goes on at kb. Or maybe not. But what else could you mean?

                You constantly complain about how nasty people here are, and yet you have little digs in nearly every comment you make. You don’t make those digs over at kb. Your commenting style here is oppositional in ways that it is not at kb. You come here looking for fights, and go to kb and report the fights you have here. No wonder you don’t get as much shit.

                And the rest of what I said also stands. kb is right wing conservative. Read that thread on saudi. Or the one from a while back on Breivik. There were a few people saying flat out that that mass killing in Norway was justifiable, and might happen here. It’s not just lee and RB. There’s Thor for one, and there are others just as extreme, and many more not far off. There are a number who would happily sign up to many of the points on that list.

                What is the general position on feminism over there?
                Or religious freedom?

                And i’m not saying they all believ the same thing, or that their aren’t debates. But look at what you can comforatbly say there and know you will get support.

                The reason those extremists comment there is because they are accepted there. They are comfortable there. Why? because people are nice to them. They can say things that identify them as proto-fasc1sts, and after a few testy words, turn around and have nice chats with people about something they agree on, like the Treaty, or welfare bludgers, or cultural marxism, or how everyone at the standard is a big old poopy pants and mean and we don’t even look at the standard anymore because blah blah they’re so extreme.

                I’m glad proto-fasc1sts don’t feel comfortable here.

                This started when you said that extremist’s comment (which you now call fasc1sm) was real right wing conservatism.

                That makes the 99% of kb what? center right? That would be why Key is considered a ‘quisling’?

                the average kb commenter, or thereabouts, is a real right wing conservative.

                Take your blinkers off and have a close read of the place. Look who is comfortable there. Look at the racism people feel comfortable spouting for goodness sake.

                You say that people here have you labelled as an enemy, and that we never change our minds.

                Have a look at how you actually respond to questions. You do not come across as someone playing with a straight bat here.

                If you never meant to say that the 99% of kb commenters aren’t right wing conservatives, then it’s not the reader’s fault for interpreting your words that way.

                This sort of thing happens with your comments a lot. You say something that seems to imply something, and then call people dishonest when they take the implication. And then you gte on your high horse about poeple making things up, but never get around to explaiing what it is you initially meant.

                • Pete George …
                  13 July 2012 at 11:53 pm

                  You don’t make those digs over at kb.

                  Youn obviously have no idea of most of what I have done at KB over the years. I’ve scaled back what I say there, the topics you mention have been done that many times there – with the same old players, that there’s no point in being involved. So I mostly only dabble there now.

                  Have a look in General Debate tomorrow. There is likely to be a debate on climate change in the morning. And later, soon after the topic of marriage equality comes up, (unless it has already started prior to that) give it an hour based on averages, there will be several people who will repeat the same things with the same sort of quotes and links that they always do. Some will argue against them, most won’t bother, again. I could name now the most likely participants in both those debates. Same as three years ago when I first started there. I had major debates on both then, now I just keep out of it most of the time. I steer clear of some debates here too, futile exercise.

                  I do sometimes speak up against the crap there – I did that last weekend and some expressed their displeasure at me, they like it to be a free for all and don’t like me being a do-gooder. But it does make a difference. If someone doesn’t speak up against it then it just deteriorates over time. But I’m not a full time baby sitter.

                  I’m finished for the day, I’ll have a go at your other queries tomorrow, depending on time.

                • Pete George …
                  14 July 2012 at 7:25 am

                  PB:

                  if you’re going to accuse me of making things up, please quote and say what you think I’ve got wrong.

                  From your first response:

                  the 99% who are all quite reasonable chaps and are not right wing conservatives.

                  I didn’t claim that, and I haven’t seen anyone else claim that. Did you make it up?

                  Why, they’d find barking radical felix more acceptable than right wing conservatism.

                  Did you make up the description of felix? I said to felix “Even you would be more accepted there”, meaning a leftie who can at times argue and even sometimes concede points would be more accepted than an extreme Christian conservative would be more accepted there. For example RRM, mikenmild, alex (a Green who also comments here) are accepted more than Lee is.

                  The kiwi blog right, or 99% of it at least, isn’t really right at all.

                  Did you make that up? The only people I can think of who claim that are Lee01 and Redbaiter.

                  It’s the sensible centre ackshully.

                  Did you make that up? I haven’t seen anyone claim that.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    14 July 2012 at 8:08 am

                    Pete those statements are things reasonably that follow from your statement that lee is a RWC.

                    If your statement was true, and if lee is far to the right and far more conservative thann others at kb, then it follows that others at kb are not right wing conservatives.

                    This is exactly what i mean when I said that you say something loaded with implications, and then call us dishonesty for stating the implications of what you said.

                    I didn’t make them up, they are the implications of what you said.

                    If you don’t want to be misconstrued, be more careful about what you write.

                    To be clear, do you think Lee is what a right wing conservative looks like, or do you think he is quite a bit more extreme than that?

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 8:33 am

                      I didn’t make them up, they are the implications of what you said.

                      Take a look at that statement. They are not “the implications”, they your claimed implications, which are so obviously off the mark as to be ridiculous. Presumably you’re not totally ignorant of what KB is actually like, so it’s hard to see it as anything other than making things up.

                      Maybe you could prove me wrong by substantiating your ‘implications’.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      14 July 2012 at 8:44 am

                      As a proven liar yourself, Pete, you are in no position to be questioning the bona fides of others. PB is right; he’s accurately deconstructed your rant and your response is more pathetic whining. The only reason you won’t restrict yourself to posting over at KB is that you are seen as a joke there too.

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:11 am

                      You’re the liar, you’ve proven nothing except your own obsession with dishonest stalking. What have you achieved in a year? Nothing but self discrediting. As you have amply shown here. Te Reo Puthetic. Why don’t you put your time and efforts towards something useful? Like openly supporting your leader? No, you’ll probably carry on discrediting Labour. Like here.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:12 am

                      Pete. I’ll trya nd explain.

                      Consider these statements:

                      1) lee is a right wing conservative
                      2) lee is not accepted by 99% of kb commenters on account of his radicalism.

                      Let’s accept those statements as being true

                      now heI’ll just introduce another premiss, that I don’t think is controversial. ie I think it is true, therfore we can’t exclude the truth right?

                      3) Right wing conservatism is within the bounds of reasonable politics in nz. We have mps that would self describe as RW and Conservative. The governing national party is regularly described as having a right wing conservtive faction

                      Those are the premises. 1, and 2, are what you have said, and 3 is a description of how RWC is used as a term in NZ.

                      From those 3 premises, we can legitimatly draw some conclusions.These are called implications. Drawing implications from premisses what logic is.

                      So here we go, conclusions, and the premisses that imply them:

                      4) Right wing conservatism is considered extreme and not acceptable by 99% of the kb commentariat. (1,2)

                      5) the kb commentariat is centrist in terms of NZ politics because they find right wing conservatism to be extremist (3,4)

                      All that flows quite naturally from your defining of Lee as what RW Conservatism looks like. Conservatism isn’t an extremist philisophy pete. Lee is an extremist, he is radical. What is the opposite of radical? That’s right, conservative.

                      Your positioning of Lee as a RWC defines him as having a place on the spectrum. You put him at a point, that means we can work out where other poeple are on the spectrum, incuding the kb crowd who disagree with him, (but not so much that they won’t joke around with him about lefties and the like).

                      The point is that I disagree with you that Lee is a RWC, because if he was, then it it would make kb a centrists sort of place, which it clearly is not.

                    • marty mars …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:25 am

                      “Te Reo Puthetic”

                      That is unacceptable pete – I am angry that you have mangled and insulted the language. Please apologise immediately – you don’t need to abuse Māori to make your points or rather if you, you confirm vile, racist, scum attitudes and the consequences of that will not be pleasant for you i promise.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:26 am

                      The truth hurts, eh Pete? Have you considered a career in mining? I hear Gina Rinehart loves a whining bore.

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:40 am

                      ‘marty mars’ is mangling English.

                      TRP , using a Māori name as he does, repeatedly discredits Māori. Why don’t you try addressing that? Or is continual abuse ok from one side?

                      I suggest you sort your own shit out before you accuse and threaten others.

                    • lprent []
                      14 July 2012 at 11:25 am

                      PB used to comment there a lot when I started looking around the local blogs, as did many others here. But from the last few times I have looked over there, it looks like the most of the regulars from 2007/8 have disappeared (which was when I read there every day). I am unsurprised as it got very tedious after the 2008 election campaign..

                  • marty mars …
                    14 July 2012 at 9:54 am

                    Oh really. Got to the nub now haven’t we.

                    “I’m fallible – that’s one thing we have to learn to accept without major dramas, even the best politicians are fallible, but if there was a resignation for every mistake there would be only one left.” http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13072012/comment-page-1/#comment-493066

                    You can’t even withdraw and apologise when your racism is pointed out. You are twisted and a racist with no integrity or honesty and don’t worry i won’t forget your whinging, pathetic, intoxicated bleatings from last night.

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:03 am

                      You’re the one being racist.

                      I wasn’t intoxicated last night, I don’t get intoxicated. That’s a dirty accusation to make.

                      You get TRP to apologise for his continual attacks and portrayal of the worst of Māori, then I’ll apologise.

                    • felix …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:11 am

                      In that case Pete perhaps it’s time to be the bigger person, rise above these petty squabbles, and return to the relatively civil discussion you were having with P’s b.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13072012/comment-page-1/#comment-493139

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:18 am

                      felix, if you review your reaction to my original comment on this thread, do you still stand by that as stated?

                      PB’s reply reminds me of some of my responses – a bit waffly when trying to justify himself.

                      He had made things up by reading all sorts of things from my comment that simply weren’t there and are nonsense. I really don’t think there’s much more that can be debated on it.

                    • felix …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:23 am

                      Absolutely I do, and I see that Pascal’s bookie has done an excellent job of explaining why my interpretation was accurate using logic.

                      If you can see a flaw in the logic, point it out.

                      If you can’t, then you accept the logic as it stands. That’s how it works.

                      Off you go.

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:30 am

                      I’ve already pointed out the flaws, I think you both overreacted somewhat, and we obviously still disagree. I don’t see what else there is to say. I thought it was a trivial post in the first place so I’m bemused it has created so much attention.

                      Time to move on – I have other things to do this morning anyway, in the real world.

                    • felix …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:36 am

                      I don’t see anywhere that you’ve addressed Pascal’s logic at all.

                      If you really have and I’ve missed it, please point it out.

                      Specifically.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:37 am

                      Pete, I’ve explained it a number of times, and each time you claim not to understand. That’s why in the latest attempt I waffled. And I apologise for the typos.

                      So I won’t waffle, but ask a simple question.

                      If Lee is what a conservative right winger looks like, what does that make the others? If Lee is what a CRW is, and the others are not as extreme as him, then what are they?

                      I was not arguing that the 99% are centrists. I agree with you that that is nonsense.

                      But it is a nonsense that follows directly from the claim that Lee is what a RWC looks like. That’s a claim that I think is nonsense. And lo and behold, nonsense directly implies other nonsense.

                      I’ve explained that at least three times, and you’ve not responded to that point in any way. You just accuse me of being dishonest.

                      This is a classic example of why people get pissed off at you. you demand explanations, and when given them multiple times, you refuse to respond. It’s frustrating as fuck, and is what leads people to think you are just trolling. If you are not trolling, why refuse to engage with people’s explanations?

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 11:20 am

                      PB, I think Lee is an extreme example, even for KB.

                      PB and felix, I’ll probably be out for the rest of the day, but a question: how much have either of you commented at Kiwiblog?

                    • felix …
                      14 July 2012 at 11:36 am

                      ffs Pete just answer the question. You’ve had about 20 hours to think about it.

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 5:49 pm

                      ffs felix, pull your head in. I’ve had other priorities today. And I notice that while you’re demanding an answer you haven’t bothered to answer a simple question yourself. What gives?

                      If Lee is what a conservative right winger looks like, what does that make the others?

                      Lee is one type of radical conservative Christian. A handful of others tend that way.

                      If Lee is what a CRW is, and the others are not as extreme as him, then what are they?

                      What do you want me to do, give you a description of everyone? There’s a wide range of regulars and occcasional visitors, from right to left. And they have many and variable views. Like here.

                      There’s a core of regular conservative Christians who are like bees to honey on topics like homosexuality, marriage equality, sex outside marriage etc.

                      There are moderate Christians who don’t discuss religion much.

                      There are a few regular lefties. I’m sometimes included in that group – I was labeled as left from the start and had some major battles (and some debates) but now they realise I address individual issues as I see them.

                      There’s a few regular lawyers who provide excellent input on legal and criminal matters.

                      There are some Act (or ex-Act) supporters.

                      And there are many in between all of those. Some very reasonable, some can be abusive and obnoxious, and more in somewhere in between.

                      DPF himself is not staunchly right, he is quite liberal on some social issues – he strongly supports marraige equality and non draconian alcohol legilislation, he states support and compliments for Labour and Greens parties and people at times. He is pro-republic (so am I) but there’s probably more pro-monarchy on KB.

                      I have quite similar views to DPF on many things, but disagree on some, and have had a few strong disagreements.

                      And like here, I’ve always been a bit of an outsider at KB. Many don’t like their views challenged, especialy when those views are longstanding and fixed.

                      Kiwiblog is probably more active than here, and is tolerant of more variety. It has far less of the activist agendas and targeted harassment that goes on here.

                      It’s far more complex than you seem to understand. Or than you want to acknowledge because it doesn’t suit what you are trying to do.

                      Right versus left only remains in the minds of a few who cling to the past and get ever more frustrated that things keep moving on.

                    • felix …
                      14 July 2012 at 6:17 pm

                      You’re not getting away with that, Pete. You said Lee was a “real” right wing conservative.

                      The question was, what does that make the others (who are generally referred to as right wing conservatives, but who you’ve excluded from being “real” ones by reserving that description for nutters like Lee)?

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 6:30 pm

                      You said Lee was a “real” right wing conservative.

                      You’re not getting away with that, felix. You seem to jump to too many incorrect conclusions, unless you are deliberately playing games.Where did I say that?

                    • felix …
                      14 July 2012 at 6:38 pm

                      Just playing games now are we Pete?

                      Ok I’ll play. My mistake, what you actually said was that that was an example of a “real” right wing conservative comment.

                      Close enough? Can we carry on as if you were a fucking adult now?

                    • Pete George …
                      14 July 2012 at 7:35 pm

                      That makes a pretty big difference. If you hadn’t jumped to conclusions based on not understanding what I said then this futility would never have wasted so much time.

                    • felix …
                      14 July 2012 at 7:50 pm

                      Bullshit. The essence of the questions remain.

                      If that is a “real” right wing conservative view, then what does that make the vast majority of what we commonly understand to be “right wing conservative” views?

                      The only serious interpretation I can see is that if Lee’s comment represents “real” right wing conservative thought, then all the stuff we usually consider to be right wing conservative thought must be more like “middle-or-the-road” thought.

                      And that’s exactly what I think you were trying to say all along, without actually saying it of course.

                      If you weren’t trying to say that, you need to provide an alternate interpretation what you said. So far you haven’t done that at all.

                    • felix …
                      15 July 2012 at 10:35 am

                      So is that it, Pete? All down the memory hole?

                      And next time you’re confronted about the statements you’ve made here you’ll accuse others of making things up?

                      Despite never once challenging the logic of the interpretations of what you’ve said.

                      And despite never once offering an alternate interpretation that squares with the language you used.

                      All gone. Never happened.

          • deuto 17.1.2.2.2
            14 July 2012 at 10:05 am

            He is regarded as an extreme nutter on Kiwiblog by 99%.

            And, as PG is so fond of asking of others here, where is PG’s EVIDENCE for this statement and percentage?

            A survey of commentors and/or readers of KB? A Curia poll perhaps? …….

            Or is this just PG’s opinion ….?

      • RedLogix 17.1.3
        13 July 2012 at 4:04 pm

        Actually just for once I agree with PG … well at least in his intent.

        I really don’t see that he was quoting them as if they were on the spectrum of views that deserved consideration .

        Maybe PG should have made this clearer.

        • Pascal's bookie 17.1.3.1
          13 July 2012 at 4:25 pm

          He described it as “real conservative right wing comment.”

          The conservative right wing would generally be thought of as people like Bill English, or Judith Collins.

          So either Pete is saying that they are middle of the road conservative right wingers, or that they are fake conservatives, or something else. Who knows.

          • weka 17.1.3.1.1
            13 July 2012 at 5:30 pm

            I thought he was saying it was a Real RWNJ as a way of proving he himself isn’t so bad.

            • Pascal's bookie 17.1.3.1.1.1
              13 July 2012 at 5:49 pm

              He’s on that thread with what he thinks is an equivalent list from someone here, shocking stuff; some price regualtion. Oh the humanity.

              interestingly, there is some debate about the real conservtives views, but pretty much from the local lefties.

              The righties are in full flight on this post though:

              http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/07/a_small_step_forward.html#comments

              defending the concept of gender equity, nah, wanking about Islam. Again, the only dissent from the 99% is from the lefties. But honest, that real conservaitive guy is the only nut on KB.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 July 2012 at 7:13 pm

                Rural NZ is full of old school conservative Tories. And in general, they are great people. Often more dependable and helpful in a scrape than flaky impractical over-intellectual liberal lefties.

                Unfortunately, most of these ‘wet’ Tories aren’t really aware that National has long been run behind the scenes by sociopathic neoliberal banksters.

                • john72 …
                  13 July 2012 at 8:56 pm

                  Very good C.V. I agree.
                  Most of the items listed in Post #17 (1-7) have been a way of life at some time in the past. History repeats itself.
                  60 years ago all male youths had to do 3 months “National Service” (CMT) and it is remarkable how much they matured in 3 months (even me?). Three months away from Mum, learning to get up at 06.30 hrs every morning, washing their own clothes, making their bed every day, setting out to do something and achieving it. Accepting discipline. Learninig to live as a group, NOT “what is in it for me”. The same standard of bed, meals, entertainment etc. as everyone else you were working with. No one pandering to you. The surprise is that the individual liked himself more afterwards.
                  It was not a holiday camp, desperate to attract more supporters. It was to prepare you for a different way of life. Something where “Life is Difficult”.
                  The most vocal critics of CMT are afaid of it. They are young or have not experienced it so they are not qualified to pass judgement.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 July 2012 at 9:05 pm

                    There used to be a tonne of forestry, rail and telco jobs for our young NZers to build up their practical skills and work ethic too. All long gone sadly.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 July 2012 at 1:16 pm

                      CMT is not what young people need now. They need the discipline of having a 7am to 3:30pm job to turn up to, Mon to Fri. One which lets them learn practical skills and interact with workmates and customers. As well as learning the basics of business and management over time, if they are inclined.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    13 July 2012 at 10:35 pm

                    Accepting discipline.

                    Having discipline forced upon you is not the same as being taught self-discipline. The former leads to authoritarian states (see any military coup over the last century) and the latter leads to democratic freedom.

                    • john72 …
                      14 July 2012 at 8:58 am

                      “….The most vocal critics of CMT are afaid of it. They are young or have not experienced it so they are not qualified to pass judgement.”

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      14 July 2012 at 6:18 pm

                      And that tells me nothing nor does it address what I said.

          • deuto 17.1.3.1.2
            13 July 2012 at 9:16 pm

            Bill English? This is what Pete George thinks of English – quote below a comment from PG on Kiwiblog General Debate on 1 July 2012:

            July 1st, 2012 at 9:24 am
            Bill English is an excellent deputy PM. Steady, dependable, straight talker, consistent aims, careful management of a difficult economy. A good balance to Key’s leadership.

          • QoT 17.1.3.1.3
            14 July 2012 at 6:13 pm

            Hang on, PB, I’ve just eureka’d another interpretation: Petey had a brainfart and used an adjective instead of an adverb, and thus meant a “really conservative right wing comment.”

            He’s just so gosh-darned embarrassed at such an elementary grammatical slip-up he can’t admit it.

    • John Connor 17.2
      13 July 2012 at 5:28 pm

      hmmmm, might take my peripatetic self off to your whare from time to time. may i?
      Cameron did not fancy my anarchic ways.

  18. Pete George 18
    13 July 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Didn’t take long:

    never say never. Liberalism is on it’s death throes.

    The outcomes would be the restoration of a strong and healthy Traditional national community, family centered, Church based, patriotic.

    • prism 18.1
      13 July 2012 at 6:22 pm

      Sounds like the basis of a novel about a community such as the Hobbits’. Tolkien has already done it PG you’re wasting your time. Even Harry potter and his friends and supporters would be a good role model for your basic attributes.

    • ropata 18.2
      13 July 2012 at 11:26 pm

      Unfortunately PG your KB pal isn’t actually propounding the values of Christ, he’s got some kind of old testament hodgepodge with a large serving of bigotry.

  19. Gable 19
    13 July 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Are you a Labour Party Member? Do you support the membership having a genuine and effective role in when and how we select the Leader? Are you concerned that ” senior sources” wants the Caucus to have a block vote? And that they can over-ride the process if their preferred candidate is not selected? Do you want to influence those on the NZ Council shaping the decision? They want to hear from you. Here is the contact info that you require.

    David Shearer    david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz
    Grant    Robertson, grant.robertson@parliament.govt.nz,
    Moira Coatsworth
    Chris      Flatt,  gensec@labour.org.nz
    Maori Senior VP, Parekura Horomia parekura.horomia@parliament.govt.nz
    Women’s VP, Kate Sutton
    Senior VP, Robert Gallagher
    Affiliates VP, Angus McConnell,
    Policy Council, Jordan Carter,
    Young Labour VP, Glenn Riddell,
    Te Kaunihere, Rudy Taylor,
    Te Kaunihere, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle,
    Pacific Island Vice President,
    Area 1,  Tanja Bristow,
    Area 1, Paul Chalmers,
    Area 2, Sonya Church,
    Area 3, Shane Stieller,
    Area 4,  Paul Tolich,
    Area 5, Tony Milne,
    Area 6, Glenda Alexander,
    Rainbow Sector, Simon Randall,
     

    • Pete George 19.1
      13 July 2012 at 4:22 pm

      Moderators – is this a privacy breach? Seems iffy to display these here publicly.

      [At first glance most, if not all, of these look like they would already be in the public domain…RL]

      [Thanks – agree with RL on most, but I’m going to err on the side of caution and delete all non parliamentary addresses. THese people are easy to find if you want them… r0b]

    • prism 19.2
      13 July 2012 at 5:50 pm

      I’m not now a Labour party member. But I like thinking NZs have an interest in Labour aspiring to have a leader and policies that stand tall. Something to turn to away from NACTs craven crap.

      NZs who are for good economics that are fair to all, and have positive effects on our trading figures, and policies that first pilot new approaches to chronic social problems and then incorporate them in the most effective way into long-term action. These should seek to be respect-building so people are self-supporting with true alternatives to welfare. Then we won’t have a lot of weakened and addicted people relying on an alcohol buzz to gloss over their pathetic lives.

  20. mickysavage 20
    13 July 2012 at 4:41 pm

    Latest Roy Morgan is out.
     
    National is down 2 to 45%.  Labour up to 32.5% and Greens up to 13%.
     
    LabGrn now ahead.
     
    Key must be getting that sinking feeling …

    • gobsmacked 20.1
      13 July 2012 at 5:00 pm

      Presumably he first got the sinking feeling around Sunday night, from National’s internal polling. Explains everything.

      He’ll now get a temporary rebound in the next one, but that’s just a (brown) sugar-high.

    • mickysavage 20.2
      13 July 2012 at 5:07 pm

      Oops Nats 45.5% so dead heat.

    • bad12 20.3
      13 July 2012 at 5:34 pm

      Roy Morgan,(as usual),is being nice to the National Party, even Slippery knows this as National’s own polling has, (so the Wellington rumor has it),it hovering round the 41-42%,

      It’s why the vacant smile has been wiped off of Slippery’s dial for the last couple of months,Morgan, (again as usual) has NZFirst below the 5% which is a joke,

      The education war which for a few weeks has been mainly waged off the radar broke out again yesterday with Education Minister Hekia Parata telling School Principles not to get ‘political’ in newsletters sent home to parents,

      The reply from the school principles didn’t exactly say ”Hekia go f**k yourself”, but, the intent was there…

  21. McFlock 21
    13 July 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Labour are beginning to look consistent.
    Greens still good, but bouncy – you’d expect that, though, at those levels. National are beginning to hit the area of “no longer able to delude oneself”.

  22. John Connor 22
    13 July 2012 at 5:53 pm

    I have been imagining a Perfect Storm brewing for the LAW AND ORDER MOB.

    Police Budget Restraints
    Low Police Morale
    Low Defense Force Morale
    Diminished Border Security
    A Property Crime “Gaze”
    Bandidos
    Organised Crime
    Income Reductions and Losses
    Bath Salts etc
    Increased Theft
    Increased Domestic Violence
    Increased Child Abuse and Neglect
    Immigration
    Migration
    Ethnic Tension
    Government at a Distance
    Asset Sales
    Treaty Settlements
    Mental Health
    Drug Use on the Road
    Rise of the Far Right
    Rise of the Revolutionary Left
    Anti-Capitalism
    Anti-Corporate Sentiment

    better go,

  23. prism 23
    13 July 2012 at 6:03 pm

    If we could have a pragmatic look at Laura Norder one thing we would introduce is permanent containment in prison for serial rapists etc. Murray Wilson is being let out with extraordinarily expensive security checking regimes. And the women and children of NZ are the guinea pigs to test if his attitudes have unexpectedly turned to the decent. Then we will know if he can manage to be good, or perhaps just seems to be by nefarious means. He can go out and sweet talk or bribe or stupeify or threaten some female or child into serving him and debasing themselves and ruining their ability to trust, have self-respect and cope with sexuality.

    Now if a man was bent on attacking lawyers and judges, the story would be different. He would be too dangerous to be released.

  24. prism 24
    13 July 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Foetal alcohol syndrome. I am disgusted. Why should women be responsible for controlling their alcohol intake? It’s a woman’s right to have what she wants and the fact that the female body reacts faster to alcohol is so unfair! Women can be drunk after drinking less than men, and no way should anybody have to control their binge drinking if that is what they enjoy.

    Drinking is one of the advantages of being grown up. To show we are adult and Free, to go out, load up and spew all over. It’s so much fun, that’s why we do it as often as we can. And it makes a lot of money for wealth creators. So it’s good for the economy. What can be wrong with that. (Sarcasm for people who can’t filter anything in their brain cells.)

    • ropata 24.1
      13 July 2012 at 11:41 pm

      Works out great if you’re a beer baron. Keep the population boozed and ignorant, preferably from the age of 13 onwards. Minimal tax, maximum profit, and more addicts on the turps. Sweet!

  25. bad12 25
    13 July 2012 at 6:20 pm

    NZ Maori Council 1,

    Slippery led National Government 0, zip,zero, zilch, nada, nothing,

    Counsel for the Crown at the Waitangi Tribunal hearing today admitted that the Crown believes that Maori have ‘rights’ to water,

    Another slap in the face for Slippery the Prime Minister who is outta touch, soon to be outta office,and, hopefully outta the Country…

    • Carol 25.1
      13 July 2012 at 6:30 pm

      I’m not sure what this bit about not being affected by asset sales means:

      http://www.3news.co.nz/Crown-lawyers-at-Waitangi-Tribunal-say-Maori-have-water-rights/tabid/1607/articleID/261261/Default.aspx

      The Crown says Maori water rights need to be defined but that those rights will not be affected by selling energy assets. This is because energy companies have limited rights and a limited time to use water, and because shareholding isn’t a right of governance or management within a company.

      Ultimately it will come down to the tribunal ruling at the end of the month and whether the prime minister chooses to listen.

      If he does not – expect the fight to get louder.

      • bad12 25.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 7:15 pm

        I tend to agree that in the end the Maori rights over the likes of the Waikato river are hardly likely to be affected by having parts of ,in this case, Mighty River Power sold off,

        The reverse though is that Mighty River Power has no guarantee into the future that Maori will allow them the continued use of their river, both via the water and the small fact that Mighty river have for a considerable amount of time had dams sitting in the middle of said river while not having paid the ‘owners’ the rent,

        I would well imagine that as the Crown via its Counsel at the Tribunal hearings today all but conceded Maori ‘rights’ in the matter the Maori Council who have taken the lead so far in instigating the urgent hearing will now be in discussion with it’s Counsel with regards to a High Court injunction which would halt the sales process until such time as the Crown,Maori Council, and, the Tribes can reach agreement upon the full ramifications of Maori ‘water rights’…

  26. Vicky32 26
    13 July 2012 at 6:36 pm

    3 News has a guy who thinks he’s Steven Seagal banging on about the 50% chance of “terrorists” getting into the games. What gives? Faux News would love this story, and heaven knows where 3 News gets its non-American stories from, but this one is quite mad.

    • Pete George 26.1
      13 July 2012 at 7:07 pm

      I commented to Firstline about it this morning, seems very irresponsible publicising a security breach opportunity like that regardless of whether it’s credible or not.

  27. Morrissey 27
    13 July 2012 at 10:07 pm

    How Julian Assange’s private life helped conceal the real triumph of WikiLeaks
    by PATRICK COCKBURN, The Independent, July 1, 2012

    As Julian Assange evades arrest by taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge to escape extradition to Sweden, and possibly the US, British commentators have targeted him with shrill abuse. They almost froth with rage as they cite petty examples of his supposed gaucheness, egotism and appearance, as if these were criminal faults.

    These criticisms tell one more about the conventionality and herd instinct of British opinion-makers than they do about Assange. Ignored, in all this, is his achievement as founder of WikiLeaks in publishing US government cables giving people across the world insight into how their governments really behave. Such public knowledge is the core of democracy because voters must be accurately informed if they are to be able to chose representatives to carry out their wishes.

    Thanks to WikiLeaks, more information has become available about what the US and allied states are doing and thinking than ever before. The only competing revelations that come to mind were the publication by the victorious Bolsheviks in 1917 of secret treaties, including plans to carve up the Middle East by Britain and France. A more obvious parallel was the publication of the Pentagon Papers thanks to Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, revealing systematic lying by the Johnson administration about Vietnam. In similar fashion to Assange, Ellsberg was reviled by the US government and threatened with the severest punishment.

    An extraordinary aspect of the campaign against Assange is that op-ed writers feel free to pump out thousands of words about his alleged faults, with never a mention of far more serious state crimes revealed by WikiLeaks. All these critics, and readers who agree them, should first switch on YouTube and watch a 17-minute video film taken by the crew of an Apache helicopter over east Baghdad on 12 July 2007. It shows the helicopter crew machine-gunning to death people on the ground in the belief that they are all armed insurgents. In fact, I cannot see any arms and what in one case was identified as a gun turned out to be the camera of a young Reuters’ photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, who was killed along with his driver, Saeed Chmagh. The video shows the helicopter coming in for a second attack on a van that had stopped to pick up the dead and wounded. The driver was killed and two children wounded. “Ha! Ha! I hit ’em,” shouts one of the US crewmen triumphantly. “Look at those dead bastards.”

    I was in Baghdad when the shooting took place and I remember at the time disbelieving, along with other journalists, the Pentagon’s claim that the dead were all armed insurgents, but we could not prove it. Rebel gunmen did not amble about the streets in plain view when a US helicopter was nearby. The existence of a video of the killings became known, but the US Defense Department adamantly refused to release it under the Freedom of Information Act. The official story of what had happened would not have been effectively challenged if a US soldier, Bradley Manning, had not turned over the video to WikiLeaks, which released it in 2010.

    The cables obtained by Wiki–Leaks were…

    Read more….
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-how-julian-assanges-private-life-helped-conceal-the-real-triumph-of-wikileaks-7901737.html

    • McFlock 27.1
      13 July 2012 at 10:14 pm

      Yes indeed, he did a good thing.
       
      He still evades rape charges, though. Those “faults” really might be criminal behaviour rather than embarrassing social peccadillos – and we’ll never even have a shot at knowing unless he faces trial.

      • QoT 27.1.1
        13 July 2012 at 10:16 pm

        Fuck yes / +1 / upvoted / IAWTC on that. Seriously people, how hard is it to recognise that “defences” of Assange like this are the absolute epitome of “hush your little women problems, The Cause Is More Important than holding people accountable!” apologism?

        Bonus points for specifying that it’s “shrill” abuse, by the way. Haven’t seen that card played since Hilary had a shot at the US Presidency.

        • Morrissey 27.1.1.1
          13 July 2012 at 10:20 pm

          Something called “QoT” tried, unwisely, to be clever…

          Bonus points for specifying that it’s “shrill” abuse, by the way.

          You obviously haven’t read much about Assange.

          • QoT 27.1.1.1.1
            13 July 2012 at 10:21 pm

            … what the fuck?

            • Morrissey 27.1.1.1.1.1
              13 July 2012 at 10:25 pm

              I pointed out the obvious, i.e., that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

              Your baffled response confirms that.

              • QoT …
                13 July 2012 at 10:28 pm

                My baffled response was because your comment made no fucking sense. I’d link to the multiple well-referenced posts I’ve made about the Assange case, but no doubt they’re just “shrill”.

                It’s some fantastic circular logic you’re operating on. If critical of Assange => has not “read enough” about Assange case. If pro-Assange => obviously well-informed. Have fun with that, I’ll just be over here watching you continuously show your misogynist ass.

                • rosy …
                  13 July 2012 at 11:11 pm

                  “It’s some fantastic circular logic you’re operating on. If critical of Assange => has not “read enough” about Assange case. If pro-Assange => obviously well-informed.”

                  Yep. This fits the devil or angel concept rather than the flawed human being concept where someone can do really good things like expose governments who are complicit in war, torture, murder and the like and at the same time be involved in some really dubious events that requires examination of personal morals and behaviours. In this case the person is not brave enough, when his own personal safety is on the line, to front up to it.

                  It’s not an either/or situation to be supportive of wikileaks AND expect Assange to front up to the consequences of his personal behaviour.

                • Morrissey …
                  14 July 2012 at 9:14 am

                  My baffled response was because your comment made no fucking sense.

                  No, your baffled response was because you could offer no coherent response.

                  I’d link to the multiple well-referenced posts I’ve made about the Assange case, but no doubt they’re just “shrill”.

                  Going by what you’ve written in your last couple of attempts I suspect that your “multiple” posts on this subject are neither well referenced nor well intentioned.

          • Vicky32 27.1.1.1.2
            13 July 2012 at 10:44 pm

            Something called “QoT” tried, unwisely, to be clever…

            As s/he usually does!
            Assange didn’t rape anyone.

            • McFlock 27.1.1.1.2.1
              13 July 2012 at 10:58 pm

              And he’s eager to have that demonstrate in court, obviously
               

              • Morrissey …
                14 July 2012 at 9:22 am

                And he’s eager to have that demonstrate [sic] in court, obviously

                There is no case to answer. The allegations are fraudulent.

                What Assange does fear, and what anyone who cares for democracy fears, is that the notoriously weak-kneed and complaisant Swedish regime will be bullied into rendering him to face state vengeance in the U.S.

                You know that as well, of course, but you haven’t got the integrity to admit it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                14 July 2012 at 9:42 am

                Demonstrated in court McFlock? WTF? Has Sweden suddenly decided to man up and lay actual criminal charges against Assange? Please let me know.

                As far as I am concerned, Sweden’s co-operation with US authorities in an extraordinary rendition in 2001 which led to two Egyptian men being tortured and interrogated is enough of a reason for Assange NOT to allow himself to enter the control of Swedish authorities. Since his next stop would be to the US to face capital espionage charges.

                • McFlock …
                  14 July 2012 at 4:25 pm

                  Because the UK has been adamantly opposed to rendition itself? Don’t make me laugh.

      • Morrissey 27.1.2
        13 July 2012 at 10:23 pm

        He still evades rape charges, though.

        No he doesn’t. No charges for rape have been laid against him. He is wanted for questioning, which is something else entirely.

        Perhaps some further reading wouldn’t go amiss, my friend. Serious reading, that is.

        • McFlock 27.1.2.1
          13 July 2012 at 10:38 pm

          Sorry, yes, you are correct.
            
          He still evades a warrant for his arrest with probable cause on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and illegal coercion.
                  
          Goodness knows I would hate to misrepresent the case, like spreading  rumours about “sex by surprise” and other ways to minimise the concept of sex without consent..
           
           

          • Vicky32 27.1.2.1.1
            13 July 2012 at 10:48 pm

            like spreading  rumours about “sex by surprise” and other ways to minimise the concept of sex without consent..

            ‘Sex by surprise’ was the original charge, I am surprised that you don’t know that.
            Sex without consent? Both women consented, and seemed perfectly happy until they found out about each other. The time to withdraw consent is before getting your kit off and having at it, and the way to withdraw consent is to get up and leave, not whine about it days later!
            Really, women like these 2 run the risk of making all women look like nutmegs, and minimising the problems of those genuinely raped. Not, it seems, that they’d be the type to care!

            • McFlock 27.1.2.1.1.1
              13 July 2012 at 10:56 pm

              Source for that first statement, v?
                
              Actually, that entire comment is the sort of shit “team assange” has done – lying like a bunch of tobacco reps all the way.

            • QoT 27.1.2.1.1.2
              13 July 2012 at 11:17 pm

              Vicky, I have previously provided you with plenty of evidence that the “sex by surprise” claims are bullshit, and that Assange, by his own lawyer’s statements, is someone who has sex with people without prior consent. That’s called “rape” in most places.

              Here’s some more. Maybe you’ll read it this time, if you’re not too busy laughing at how clever it is to misgender me.

              • Vicky32 …
                13 July 2012 at 11:34 pm

                Okay, I am reading the blog you linked to, and I am rather unimpressed so far, as he starts by stating how much he doesn’t like Assange.
                He also (weirdly) defends the IDF..
                “alleging that IDF soldiers harvested the organs of Palestinian teenagers” against an allegation that afaik has never actually been made!
                For the rest, the link doesn’t say what you wish it did. Fail!

                • QoT …
                  13 July 2012 at 11:36 pm

                  Yes, well I can easily understand why a person being upfront and honest about their biases might be confusing to you.

                  • Vicky32 …
                    13 July 2012 at 11:45 pm

                    Yes, well I can easily understand why a person being upfront and honest about their biases might be confusing to you.

                    Wow, not just losing your grip on reality, but you’ve lost it already! Are you trying to say I am not open about my biases? Dear child, this guy you link to is a paranoid who is bound to be deeply hostile and suspicious to anyone similar to Assange. After all, if the existence of Israel/USA is threatened we’re all in trouble, right?

                  • McFlock …
                    13 July 2012 at 11:45 pm

                    I’m personally quite impressed that if Vicky hasn’t heard of it before, it doesn’t exist even when the author provides links to their basis for claiming it.
                         
                    But more seriously, your wee link also nicely said why the “can’t we do a phone interview” thing is such tripe: the warrant was issued because he skipped on an arranged interview. Fool me once, and all that.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:54 am

                      So he’s being charged with skipping an interview? And subsequently breaking bail conditions? I thought he was charged with sexual offences.

                      What gives McFlock?

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2012 at 4:23 pm

                      It’s the difference between cooperative and non-cooperative. The warrant is for the allegations. The warrant is necessary because he skipped the interview (and the country).
                       
                      To claim that now ‘he’s willing to be interviewed why won’t they listen’ neglects the fact that he claimed he was willing to be interviewed right up until he skipped the country.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 July 2012 at 4:49 pm

                      So the warrant is for the allegations. Is that because no sexual assault charges have been laid, after all these many months?

                      Its nice to know that in the EU you can be forceably extradited because of allegations.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2012 at 5:09 pm

                      see this comment. 
                              
                      Actually, QoT’s link was also pretty evenhanded in dealing with that issue, too.
                       

                  • Morrissey …
                    14 July 2012 at 9:31 am

                    Yes, well I can easily understand why a person being upfront and honest about their [sic] biases might be confusing to you.

                    “Upfront and honest”? You’ve been caught out quoting a lunatic, extremist, dishonest website and that is your only response?

                    I was a little surprised that anyone on this forum, which is known for its informed and intelligent discussions, could have written such nonsense as you did in your original response to my initial post.

                    It’s hard to know whether to despise you for your nastiness or pity you for your abject ignorance.

                    • just saying …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:50 am

                      Morrissey, your responses are way over the top. The following is a description from the site, of Garrlous Law; the blog you describe as “lunatic, dishonest and extemist”. Did you actually follow the link before you (over)reacted?

                      This blog is written by a pupil barrister and seeks to explore in detail developments in English law. It does this with a view to making the law more accessible to people outside the legal profession. Matters of public interest and legal developments are dissected and assessed, with a view to understanding what is going on in the legal world.

                      This blog is written for both a professional and a lay audience. It aims to be accessible to people outside the legal profession. If at any time you feel it isn’t, please say so.

                      Informed discussions require actual information.

            • just saying 27.1.2.1.1.3
              13 July 2012 at 11:22 pm

              The time to withdraw Vicky, is anytime anyone wants to. It is disgusting for you to suggest otherwise. Are you seriously suggesting that it is legal or moral to force a partner after they ask for it to stop? Do you really see all men as being monsters once aroused?

              And you are again wilfully spreading misinformation about this case. You have had the evidence presented to you in numerous previous discussions. And yet you continue. What’s your problem Vicky?

              • Vicky32 …
                13 July 2012 at 11:28 pm

                Are you seriously suggesting that it is legal or moral to force a partner after they ask for it to stop? Do you really see all men as being monsters once aroused?

                As far as I know, the woman who claims she was raped, claims that on the basis of deciding during the second bout, that she wasn’t happy about it after all. That is not the time to suddenly withdraw consent!
                Ah, fuggediboudit. The right wing have got some eager converts here! Amazing what they can use…

                • McFlock …
                  13 July 2012 at 11:31 pm

                  So, yes then?

                • just saying …
                  13 July 2012 at 11:32 pm

                  The time to withdraw consent is anytime a person wants to. End Of.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    14 July 2012 at 5:15 pm

                    Yes fully agree. Just wondering about the technicalities because they worry me.

                    Is there a grace period after a woman changes her mind mid-intercourse where a man has time to pull out so that he can avoid committing rape? Even a few seconds grace would be helpful. Or is he considered to be instantaneously raping her from the moment she changes her mind if penetration is still occurring?

                    And if a woman does change her mind during intercourse and withdraws consent, is she even obligated to tell or signal the male her decision in a timely manner?

                    For instance, she could save herself the risk of an unpleasant or embarrassing confrontation there and then, and charges could still be laid against the man at some later date.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2012 at 5:24 pm

                      I’m glad you show such interest in how to not commit rape, CV.
                      A beginner’s tip is to make sure your partner is awake.
                       
                       

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 July 2012 at 5:28 pm

                      So is there a grace period, or is the rape instantaneous from the withdrawal of consent?

                      Your “awake” comment is cute but irrelevant, since its clear cut that someone who is unconscious by definition cannot have given consent.

                      Oh I see.

                      Best not to arouse the missus in that way huh? And no early wake up calls for you McFlock!

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2012 at 5:34 pm

                      aAs far as I’m aware, assangegroupies aren’t alleging avaliant effort to pull out at light speed following the woman ‘changing her mind’.
                            
                      But one of the complaints does involve him allegedly penetrating a sleeping woman.
                       
                       

                    • weka …
                      14 July 2012 at 7:03 pm

                      CV, if you are really this confused about what rape is, and what consent is, then you should probably not have sex with women (or anyone actually). Your comments are bizarre, and show you as probably not a safe person to be around.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 July 2012 at 8:14 pm

                      Give me a break Weka, don’t try and make this about me by using BS character assassination – this is about Assange’s treatment by authorities and the potential that these allegations (but still no charges) will simply be used to have him end up in US hands.

                      Don’t get all up tight on me just because a sexual partner has never amorously woken you up from a deep sleep before. Which is just as well, since you couldn’t have possibly given consent for them to do so since you were like, asleep.

                    • weka …
                      14 July 2012 at 8:30 pm

                      What you wrote had nothing to do with the Assange case though. You seemed to be expressing some dodgy ideas about consent and rape. If that’s not what you were doing, then simply clarify.
                       

                      Don’t get all up tight on me just because a sexual partner has never amorously woken you up from a deep sleep before. Which is just as well, since you couldn’t have possibly given consent for them to do so since you were like, asleep.
                       

                      How is my calling you out about your comments on rape ‘getting uptight’? That you then try and make this personal to my experiences of sex just reinforces the queries I raised about your posts.
                      I’ve never really been able to understand why some left wing, otherwise intelligent men have such trouble with understanding consent and rape. Your last statement either reinforces that you’re one of those men, or suggests that you are willing to use distortions of rape issues to make other political points. Either way, it’s not a good look.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 July 2012 at 8:38 pm

                      Dodgy ideas? WTF. It is similar sometimes stomach churning detail and interpretation of evidence which lawyers in certain rape cases argue about in extremely graphic mind numbing hair-splitting nuance. Sorry its not to your tastes.

                      My example was not merely personal, it makes a point. Would you care to answer it, in the hypothetical. If you were amorously woken up in the morning by your sexual partner of the previous night, and by definition you were not awake to give consent for this to happen, were you raped?

                      And don’t complain about me getting personal, you bloody started it.

                    • weka …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:15 pm

                      My example was not merely personal, it makes a point.
                       

                      Would you mind explaining what the point is, specifically?

                       
                      Would you care to answer it, in the hypothetical. If you were amorously woken up in the morning by your sexual partner of the previous night, and by definition you were not awake to give consent for this to happen, were you raped?
                       

                      What do you mean by ‘amorously woken up’? Your questions doesn’t really make sense. Is the woman awake or not? And are you asking this in the context of the Assange case? If so please give me a link, or an explanation, so I can understand the context.
                       

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 July 2012 at 9:36 pm

                      I asked you for your answer to the hypothetical. I think the question is relatively clear and can be answered.

                      Your sexual partner of the previous night (could be a long term partner or spouse even, but doesn’t need to be) wakes you from a deep sleep amorously the next morning. You can define “amorously” how you wish but certainly it involves intimate sexual contact.

                      You of course, being deeply asleep – at least at the start, can by definition give no consent to your partner’s course of action. Is it therefore rape.

                      Or put another way. To avoid a potential allegation of rape, should your partner of the previous night firstly and innocuously wake you up fully from your sleep (or wait until you are fully awake), wait until you are judged to be completely lucid, gain consent from you, and only then touch you in any sexual way.

                      The parallel to the Assange case is that one of the allegations centres on a woman being interfered with by Assange while asleep.

                    • weka …
                      14 July 2012 at 10:07 pm

                      Here’s the thing CV. If you, or any man, doesn’t know if he has consent to have sex with a woman, then DON’T. Simply wait until you do know. The scenario you give is going to vary from couple to couple (and yes, how long they’ve known each other IS going to be a factor), and situation to situation, so there is no answer that will cover all sex. That means you (the man wanting to have sex with a woman) have to take responsibility for finding out if you don’t already know.
                       
                      (not even going to get into why the concept of consent is lowest common denominator).
                       
                      You still haven’t given any useful detail, so I’m still not sure what exactly you have running in your head. But I do know a man who had sex with his partner while she was asleep. If they didn’t have a relationship where that was agreed to be ok, then yes it is rape. It’s really not that hard to understand.
                       
                      If you are talking about a man initiating sex with a woman who is asleep but waking up, then obviously at some point consent is going to be given or not. Why is that such a difficult thing to understand?
                       
                      As for Assange, it’s been ages since I read any detail about that case, but looking that up now I don’t still don’t know what your point is.

              • Vicky32 …
                13 July 2012 at 11:48 pm

                Just saying, why do I get the feeling that you think I am some kind of mini Pete George? Someone you, McFlick and Queer Old Tart love to hate! 😀

              • Morrissey …
                14 July 2012 at 4:49 pm

                …the blog you describe as “lunatic, dishonest and extremist”.

                I had a good look at it, and there are indeed many well thought out pieces in it. So I’ll take your admonition on the chin and dispense with the claim that it’s a “lunatic” blog. So he’s several rungs higher on the intellectual food chain than the likes of Whaleoil, FrontPageMagazine and Leighton Smith.

                And let’s throw away the “extremist” accusation, too. As you quite properly point out, that was way over the top on my part.

                However, I stand by my statement that this fellow “Ben” is dishonest. He mimics a dispassionate and scholarly approach, but the whole of his article is nothing more than a partial and biased outlining of the prosecution’s absurd attempt to winkle him away from the protection of British justice. He slings off at any evidence that the U.S. regime is desperate to get its hooks on Assange as “conspiracy theory”.

                Informed discussions require actual information.

                They also require a commitment to honest and rigorous debate. This fellow “Ben” claims to support whistleblowing, but then wheels out a whole list of irrelevant and vague claims about Assange’s “style” and “political agenda”, which apparently invalidate Assange’s whistleblowing.

                There are many places where you can find serious, informed and rigorous writing and speaking about this stupendously important case—unfortunately, the “Garrulous Law” blog is not one of those places.

        • Draco T Bastard 27.1.2.2
          13 July 2012 at 10:42 pm

          Well, if it’s just questioning, perhaps they should just phone him.

  28. Morrissey 28
    13 July 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Swiss politician: “Maybe we need another Kristallnacht.”

    Imagine our alarm if nearly half the UK population said they believed that ‘there are too many Jews’.

    Read more here….
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-islamophobia–for-muslims-read-jews-and-be-shocked-7939392.html

  29. prism 29
    13 July 2012 at 10:36 pm

    The Whangarei police area controller retires and criticises aspects of his job. He thinks that police aren’t able to assist the public as they should, there are too few of them and often have to work on their own which is dangerous and all are overworked. Also paperwork, form filling is becoming more important than real police work. Then his managers group speaks up and dumps on him, and spiels the government line of being strapped for cash. That should be left for NACT apologists. What a tight inward looking, self-protecting bunch the police can be.

    And I was struck by the judge’s criticism of the co pilot in the Queenstown flight being examined for dangerous manoeuvres. It seemed to me the co-pilot was very honest. He didn’t like the airport, flying there was a lot of stress, he didn’t feel he was trained for it and asked not to be rostered for it. The judge criticised him for being unprofessional or something. Apparently it’s not done to display dissatisfaction with one’s boss, or the company practices.

  30. Chris 30
    13 July 2012 at 11:00 pm

    How come there has been nothing reported on the resignation of Area Commander Northland?

  31. QoT 31
    13 July 2012 at 11:19 pm

    OMG, like, I’ve tried publishing comments a few times (with embedded links, funnily enough!) now and it totally, like, made me fill out a captcha! Why do you hate me, lprent? Why are you trying to silence me? You can’t handle the truth!!!!!

    /Fridaynightfun

  32. Vicky32 32
    14 July 2012 at 1:34 am

    I am listening to Torchwood: Children of Earth, (having seen it twice before now) and hearing again, a group of highly privileged people decide to sacrifice 10% of the children of all countries.
    They decide to cover it all up, by selecting children from ‘failing schools’ to be taken by bus to be ‘vaccinated’… The discussion was chilling. “We want to keep children from the better schools, the ones that will staff our hospitals” etc.. but the children from the failing schools will end up in prison or on benefits.
    “If we can’t choose which children to sacrifice” says one woman “what else are (school) league tables for?”
    Which is why I mention this. I don’t want to give any spoilers, in case anyone hasn’t seen Children of Earth and wants to. Suffice it so say – this is Torchwood, it’s grim! 🙂