Open mike 14/04/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:44 am, April 14th, 2016 - 151 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

151 comments on “Open mike 14/04/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    14 April 2016 at 7:01 am

    The war on drugs doesn’t work

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/301362/wars-on-drugs-don't-work

    yet New Zealand hasn’t grasped this yet and its prison population continues to rise.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/301436/nz's-prison-population-booming

    Good money for parasites like Serco.

  2. Tautoko Mangō Mata 2
    14 April 2016 at 7:32 am

    Good news from Japan re TPP
    Abe ready to set aside TPP ratification for now to preserve standing in polls
    BY REIJI YOSHIDA AND TOMOHIRO OSAKI
    STAFF WRITERS
    APR 13, 2016

    The ruling coalition may give up trying to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified during the current Diet session if resistance from opposition parties means it is delayed beyond the end of April, a senior ruling lawmaker said Wednesday.

    In that case, deliberation on the agreement and related bills would be carried over to a Diet session in the fall. The current ordinary Diet session runs until June 1.

    Meanwhile, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has instructed the coalition not to “forcibly” proceed with the TPP deliberations, Kyodo News reported. He is thought to fear a voter backlash in the Upper House election this summer.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/13/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-ready-set-aside-tpp-ratification-now-preserve-standing-polls/#.Vw6d8vl97Dd

  3. Bearded Git 3
    14 April 2016 at 8:08 am

    Guyon in fine form here-Louise Upston all over the place on dog control.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201797004/options-to-tighten-laws-on-dangerous-dogs

    I’m with Professor Stafford in the Herald today who says “If a dog attacks someone, the owner should automatically be charged with assault as such a dog is essentially a loaded weapon …”

    • integralenz 3.1
      14 April 2016 at 8:38 am

      What a dog’s dinner Upston made of that interview. Perfectly demonstrated her mediocrity. How many more children and pregnant women need to be savagely attacked before she does anything effective?

    • maui 3.2
      14 April 2016 at 8:40 am

      Ban the fighting breeds. They’re the ones that can cause serious injury. You’re not allowed to walk round with a concealed weapon, so you shouldn’t be able to walk round with a dangerous dog either.

      • Roflcopter 3.2.1
        14 April 2016 at 8:55 am

        All dogs can cause serious injury, and in “most” cases the root cause of what makes them behave the way they do can be rightly aimed straight back at the owner.

        • integralenz 3.2.1.1
          14 April 2016 at 8:58 am

          Oh that well-worn, feeble argument again. “Dogs/ guns don’t kill and injure people….” Renewed your NRA membership yet?

        • Rodel 3.2.1.2
          14 April 2016 at 9:56 am

          There are two elements to the dog issue that proponents on both sides like to ignore. A dog’s upbringing (owner’s behaviour) is of course significant as is the hereditary fact that any dog from chihuahua to bull mastiff is genetically related to the instinctual savagery of wolves.

        • Bearded Git 3.2.1.3
          14 April 2016 at 10:50 am

          Yes but waffle about educating dog owners has proved to be spectacularly unsuccessful. Time for real action.

          • framu 3.2.1.3.1
            14 April 2016 at 12:57 pm

            you mean like, training everyone how dogs think and how to behave around them dont you?

            its a double edged issue , one that we all have to try and solve from both the owner and general public direction

            just blaming breeds, or owners, without also looking at how we as humans do the utterly wrong thing around dogs wont fix squat and will only drive the issue underground

            have you ever watched a kid go up to, or reach out and pat a dog? – If you have your witnessing the first and most common error we do as humans around dogs. Ive lost track of the number of kids ive had to hold back while their parents do nothing.

            • Trey 3.2.1.3.1.1
              14 April 2016 at 3:26 pm

              Thank You framu for your sanity I thought I had accidentally logged on to whaleoil for a moment or talk back radio with the amount of right wing vitriol that was being spewed. Ban dangerous dogs, dogs are weapons ra ra ra ra ra. I have owned a Rottweiler, a doberman, a spaniel and 2 staffordshire terriers in the past and I currently have a pitbull cross, staffy cross and hunterway cross all of which are rescue dogs and I have never had one problem with any of them. They ignore the sheep, goats, cats and swans (all rescue animals) on my property and although the hunterway is clumsy and has knocked the odd friends child over they are fine with kids. This has not happened by accident however. I have had to put in lots of work and love training them including paying for professional training. The pitbull cross had a shocking start to life (beaten, chained and starved) and needed a lot of work but you could not find a more loving, gentle and loyal dog now. Our Rotty was 64kgs and when the sheep were lambs would lick and clean them while they were being bottle fed yet a lot of people would concider her a dangerous breed.
              As one of the commenters quite rightly said all dogs are descended from wolves so all dogs need to be handled with respect and children and adults need to learn about the correct way to approach a dog. Dog owners also need to learn that not everybody feels the same way they do about their pets and keep them on a leash unless they are 100% certain they can control them by voice alone. One dog attack is one too many and unfortunately they are way to common but sometimes it pays to take a deep breath rather than rant and rave as a massive percentage of attacks could be avoided if we treated dogs with a lot more respect than we currently do. Than maybe we wouldn’t have to ban them.

              • Bearded Git …
                14 April 2016 at 3:32 pm

                It’s not right wing to not want toddlers maimed for life by savage animals.

                • Trey …
                  14 April 2016 at 4:55 pm

                  No it is not, but comments such as “time for real action”, “”savage animals” “ban the fighting breeds” and “dogs are lethal weapons”are the type of emotive bollicks you would expect on a right wing blog. The left have always tended to be a lot less reactive and a lot more reasoned and sensible. Until people realise it is not the dogs that are the problem but the fuckwits who have dogs but don’t train them or don’t have the space for them or treat them like children not dogs or worse train them to be agressive then as a society we will continue to have dog attacks. Comments about banning certain breeds (and who decides what breeds) only distract from the real problem which is bad owners.

                  • McFlock …
                    14 April 2016 at 5:05 pm

                    Isn’t that the NRA argument against gun control, that it’s the owners not the thing that is the problem?

                    • Trey …
                      14 April 2016 at 6:02 pm

                      So???

                    • Puddleglum …
                      14 April 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      “So???”

                      I think the inference is that it is your comment that is most likely to be found on a right wing blog.

                      Right wingers constantly berate the left for wanting to ‘ban’ things. And right wingers always prefer explanations and solutions in terms of individual (dog owner) responsibility.

                      The structural reality is that modern (urban) society is full of individuals who have no experience with dogs and no experience of how to train dogs (and live in arrangements which allow little opportunity for dogs to socialise with strangers or, sometimes, even have exercise).

                      Yet, given our relatively individualistic society, all individuals (just about) have the right to own a dog and there is little pre-emptive requirement placed upon them or monitoring of how they raise it.

                      It’s a recipe for a steady stream of tragedies – for both vulnerable people and dogs.

                    • Trey …
                      15 April 2016 at 6:38 am

                      Puddlegum, the right may berate the left for wanting to ‘ban’ things but that is another example of their hypocricy as when it comes to ‘banning’ they really are in a league of their own. If the right had their way they would ban unions (especially teacher unions), ban the hijab, ban Maaaaaaaaaori privelege, ban muslim immigrants, ban beneficiaries from purchasing ‘non essential’ items the list goes on and on.
                      You are correct however in saying that modern urban society that give little oppurtunity for dogs to socialise and exercise but that has been the case in large cities worldwide for years. The answer to that is designated dog parks like they have in New York and other major cities. As for poor owners I don’t have a definitive answer but once again IMHO banning dogs is not the answer.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 April 2016 at 10:33 pm

                      Banning dogs is the option that we know will come closest to completely eliminating dog-related injuries.

                      There might be other solutionns that will reduce the number of injuries while preserving the balance between your right to do what you want and my right to walk down the street without being attacked.

                      But how much should we spend on dog parks etc before we start placing pressure and requirements on dog owners, rather than pandering to them? It’s pretty simple: if something you own attacks me while I’m going about my normal and legal daily routine, the responsibility is yours.

                    • Trey …
                      16 April 2016 at 8:15 am

                      Yes if something I own attacks you the responsibility is mine and there are laws in place for that already. My dogs wouldn’t attack you however as I would never put them in that fight or flight situation and I agree that pressure should go on dog owners to ensure the same. Banning dogs would stop dog attacks yes and banning cars would stop stop people being killed in car accidents but neither are possible (try being a government that tried to) so we put in place laws that minimise the risks. The laws around dog ownership need to be tougher but unfortunately there will always be people that break those laws. As for ‘pandering’ to dog owners goodness what a talk back radio word that is (pandering to Maori, pandering to muslims, pandering to teachers…….), providing dog parks is not ‘pandering’. I don’t have kids but I don’t see playgrounds or schools as pandering to people who do. I do not ride a bike but cycle lanes are not pandering to cyclists. Living in the country I would never use a city dog park so thereis no benefit to me but just like schools, playgrounds, skate parks, cycle lanes…… I am happy for my rates and taxes to help fund them because that makes our society a fairer, better place or has the neo liberal agenda completely destroyed our souls and turned us into me, me, me what’s in it for me. Yes I have dogs and that is my right but with that right there comes responsibility to ensure my dogs do not harm or annoy others. That is the real issue here. That is why IMHO banning dogs is not the answer

                    • McFlock …
                      16 April 2016 at 4:07 pm

                      My dogs wouldn’t attack you however as I would never put them in that fight or flight situation

                      Fuck off, that’s exactly the sort of attitude that concerns me. I’m sure that the owner of those dunedin dogs thought the same thing.

                      Cycle lanes stop people dying, although anyone who’s seen me comment here about cyclists would know my feelings are definitely mixed.

                      A dog park is damned close to skateboard parks, where thousands of dollars are spent on amenities that only a very narrow sector of the population use. If you’re just creating them in order to avoid irritation or injury to every other group in the city then that’s just extortion – unsuccessful at that, given that people will walk their dogs to the park anyway. It doesn’t keep dogs off the streets, any more than skateboard parks keep skateboarders off the streets.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 April 2016 at 4:21 pm

                      And, as an afterthought, even if you are in complete control of your pooch who is exceptionally placid and arthritically slow anyway, how am I supposed to know that?

                      You’re just some random person walking down the street with your dog – I’ve no idea whether you’re a competent dog owner, or just blithely assuming that rex wouldn’t hurt a fly. So I’m going to be a little bit tense, anyway.

                    • Trey …
                      16 April 2016 at 6:02 pm

                      I thought it might just be a difference of opinion but I now see it was a difference of intelligence but then my parents were not brother and sister so why don’t you just Fuck off. The person in Dunedin had his dogs off leash which I don’t do on the road or anywhere else that there are people present so yes I know my dogs couldn’t attack you. My dogs have also been through extensive dog training programmes which I seriously doubt the person in Dunedin had done. Even if you broke into my house my dogs would not attack you unless I told them to they are that well trained. As for your insecurities that is your fucking problem not mine. If I am walking down the road with my dogs on a leash and you are that concerned cross the fucking road. Fuckwits like you piss me off. You say you are left wing yet eveything about your attitude screams neo liberal, right wing and me me me hate dogs, skaters, cyclists and everything different to you. You are just bitter middle class and white and care only about yourself. I don’t skate either but if a skatepark will keep some kids active and out of trouble then I am happy for my taxes to pay for it. Cycle lanes all good, playgrounds fine by me, public pools all good, libraries with free internet fine even though none of these things benefit me, that is what being a good citizen is about. You sound like the sort of arsehole who would want to ban gang patches as they make you tense walking down the road and that is obviously how you feel about skateboarders as well. So go fuck yourself as dog owners, skateboarders, cyclists and everyone else you hate in the world has just as many rights as you.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 April 2016 at 10:26 pm

                      Why should I trust that you are competent to manage your dog when you’re not competent enough to manage paragraphs?

                      You write as if you’re immune from the possibility of accident or trouble. That attitude is an invitation for failure with dogs as much as it is with firearms or cars.

                      As for your claims that the dogs were not on a leash, this link says you’re outright wrong.

                      But even if you’re the perfect dog controller, how am I supposed to know that, rather than believing that you’re one of the many dog owners who can’t control their animal? <a href="http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/365611/dog-attack-victim-having-nightmares"71 dog attacks in Dunedin in one year. Who’s being “me, me, me”?

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    14 April 2016 at 6:07 pm

                    So what’s your answer for the Dunedin lady who was almost eaten by Irish wolfhounds – ACC won’t pay her.

                    • Trey …
                      14 April 2016 at 7:11 pm

                      Why do I need to have an answer for her. What happened to her was dreadful and she should get ACC (why isn’t she?)? It happened however because a fuckwit owner couldn’t control his dogs so he should be charged because of that. If she can’t get ACC the owner should have to pay her costs.
                      In the 70’s we blamed dobermans, in the 80’s we blamed German Shepherds, in the 90’s we blamed Rottweilers and now we blame Pitbulls. When will we blame humans? (Cesar Milan, The dog whisperer)

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      14 April 2016 at 7:17 pm

                      You need an answer because you want us to follow your advice.

                      The owner is a longtime responsible owner, the dogs had never misbehaved before, and the breed has an unusually good reputation. Nevertheless a woman was severely hurt and nearly killed.

                      ACC are saving money for the incompetent Bill English of course.

                    • Trey …
                      14 April 2016 at 7:47 pm

                      Don’t think I have advised anyone I have merely stated my opinion and I stand by that opinion that banning certain breeds of dogs is not practical and is not the answer. It is far more complex than that as people are the biggest part of the problem. As you said irish wolfhounds have a good reputation and according to you the owner was responsible. My question would be if he was so responsible why were they off the leash when he could not control them by voice commands.

                  • maui …
                    14 April 2016 at 6:18 pm

                    Ok reasoned and sensible… let’s say NZ introduced one of Aussie’s poisonous snakes into the country, the snake was responsible for multiple hospitalisations each year, sometimes death. Wouldn’t it be sensible to try and eradicate that snake from the country?

                    The snake loving people say no if you understand the snakes you’ll be fine and they won’t attack you, its an educational thing.

                    I would rather not have to worry about an animal that has a reputation for doing significant damage and is known for attacks on people.

                    • left for dead …
                      14 April 2016 at 6:52 pm

                      Are you serious, they have been with us since day dot, we have let the dogs down, and it’s we whom need to be more pro-active with the dogs and their charges. maui please consider dogs have been a great help and still are today, I’m heading to Invercargill tomorrow to have a look first hand on the City councils response, ie going door to door of every dog owner and taking notice of the dogs not on their register.

                    • Trey …
                      14 April 2016 at 6:56 pm

                      No that is not reasoned or sensible it is fucking stupid. Dogs can be trained. Dogs are also here already so it is about how they are managed that is the issue as banning them is not an option.

                    • maui …
                      14 April 2016 at 7:50 pm

                      Why is banning them not an option? Health and dog professionals are saying they are a problem and an option is banning dangerous dogs. Pitbulls have only been in NZ for 20 years, not 200 or 2000 years. Sounds perfectly rational to me as a possible option.

                  • left for dead …
                    14 April 2016 at 6:41 pm

                    Here here Trey.

                  • RedLogix …
                    14 April 2016 at 8:21 pm

                    @Trey,

                    Well I can understand how you feel. Like you we love the dogs in our lives and have seen a thing or two. I have huge respect for them.

                    And I understand that in your experience your dogs are not a problem. I get that. I’ve no doubt you know how to look after them and you avoid putting them in situations where anything is likely to ever go wrong.

                    But it is also true that ALL dogs retain their wolf instincts; and they will come out when circumstance triggers them. It only takes a moment of inattention, misunderstanding or plain bad luck.

                    Now it’s not the dog’s fault, it cannot help having instincts. It’s not even really the owner’s fault; not everyone is going to have the skills of Cesar Milan. The breed that allegedly bites most often is the Labrador, and the worst one I ever had was from a bloody Corgi. But the fact remains that the big fighting dog breeds like the Pitbull are designed to have deep instincts and lethally powerful jaws. When they latch on it’s game over. I’ve seen it up close and it’s terrifying.

                    Yet in one of the latest attacks the moment it was over, the owner said it immediately crawled away knowing full well it had made an awful mistake. But there’d be no second chance for that poor animal.

                    In the early 1990’s the National govt of the day was loudly warned not to allow the American pitbull breed into the country. Informed people tried very hard to stop them. Now the gate cannot be shut and they’ve interbred, spreading the problem throughout the dog population. Now it’s too late to do much about it, short of exterminating all dogs that even have a suspicion of pitbull genes in them.

                    Which is a bloody tragic situation, absolutely 100% the fault of Tory know nothing fuckwits. Making excuses for this rogue genetic trait we let into the country isn’t damn good enough anymore.

                    • Trey …
                      14 April 2016 at 9:14 pm

                      Agree, but they are so cross bred now how do you decide what a Pitbull is anymore. As I said we have a pitbull cross not because I wanted a stauch vicous dog but because this dog had been shit on from a great height by humans and needed someone to care. The spca also think she has staffy and whippet in her which may be correct ( a lot of pig dogs do) but who knows for sure. The dog trainer that helped us work with her thought she may also have heading dog in her. She might not even have pitbull in her for all I know which is why the issue is so complex. A dog I suspected was a pitbull cross attacked my hunterway so I also know how terrifying it is but it would not of happened if the owner had had it on a leash. So how do we determine which dogs are pitbulls as they are so mixed now that it is hard to be certain and DNA testing of every dog suspected of having pitbull in them is not practical. Even if it were at what % do we decide that it should be banned? As I have said it is complex, I don’t have an answer as there will always be irresponsible owners and some good owners who make mistakes but if we go down the banning road where do we stop, Irish wolfhounds, Rottweilers, labradors, 100% Pitbulls, 12.5% pitbulls.

                    • RedLogix …
                      14 April 2016 at 10:42 pm

                      Sometimes there are no easy solutions.

                      But stopping the 100% Pitbulls from further breeding into our dog population would have to be the first and most obvious measure.

                      After that it comes down to a tough choice; either we do the hard yards to eliminate this rogue genetics, or face up to the fact that eventually the non-dog owning population will ban ALL our dogs.

                      The blame for this shitter lies with National.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                14 April 2016 at 5:01 pm

                +1

                • In Vino …
                  14 April 2016 at 5:49 pm

                  False analogy. A gun has no brain, and no behaviour pattern of its own. Dogs, on the other hand, have behaviour patterns dependent upon the people who own and (too often fail to) teach them how to behave. They can be an asset – man’s most loyal friend, or a dangerous time-bomb. A gun is only an instrument.

                  I was privileged to grow up with good-natured dogs (Labradors, Boxers, Bulldogs, Doberman) none of which ever attacked a human.

                  The real problem is that too many idiots are now unfit to own such dogs, and I see it as tragic that the only solution may be to eradicate the dogs. They are potentially the best pets/companions imaginable.

                  Yet I do not see how we can prevent idiot owners from owning dogs – whatever we do to punish them will always be too late,.

                  So I guess I was lucky to grow up in a healthier era, and a healthier society. I no longer own a dog, but would hate to think of a generation growing up without any dogs at all as some now seem to be advocating.

                  By the way, was there not also a recent call to sterilise all cats?

              • miravox …
                14 April 2016 at 7:01 pm

                “Dog owners also need to learn that not everybody feels the same way they do about their pets and keep them on a leash “

                ^^ this. But not the “unless” there is no unless. Part of the reason for having dogs leashed and muzzled in public is so people who don’t have a lot to do with dogs feel safe using public space. I’m not sure dog owners fully appreciate how vulnerable quite a few people feel around big dogs and I don’t see any reason how people would know whether the one they are approaching is under voice control before the fear sets in.

                Obviously I’m not talking about private homes. That has a different set of issues and does involve ensuring people who enter that space are educated in how to approach the animal as well as the behaviour of the dog.

                Oddly, where I am, dogs are allowed access to just about any place their owners are, as long as they are well-behaved, leashed and muzzled. This includes public transport and restaurants. It’s pretty weird seeing a few people having a beer and a steak and then getting up to leave and calling their huge dogs from under the table to come along. I’ve felt safer here around dogs (they’re are everywhere) than I ever have in NZ.

                Although there are a fair few big dogs along with the toys, there don’t seem to be a lot of dangerous breeds. Maybe it’s just not in the psyche. People don’t pick up the shit enough though – so there’s that in common

                • Trey …
                  14 April 2016 at 7:28 pm

                  Miravox I should qualify my unless. 90% of the time my dogs exercise off leash on my property as I have a few acres. When I walk them on the roads I have them on a leash. When at the beach they are on the leash unless there are no people around. If we are walking off leash and I see someone approaching I call them back and put them on the leash long before they get close. I do this not because I am worried about my dogs attacking anyone but because I know some people are afraid of dogs or just don’t like them.

                  • miravox …
                    15 April 2016 at 7:45 am

                    I appreciate your consideration for non-dog people while you have your dogs in public spaces.

                    People in my neighbourhood grew up with far too many dogs on the loose. For me, a fear from being barked at, bailed up and chased by dogs remains.

                    • Trey …
                      15 April 2016 at 11:18 am

                      Yes it comes down to consideration and respect. The Neo liberal agenda has created a me me me society where people think it is ok to get a dog and let it run riot or let their kids get away with blue bloody murder but it is not ok. If everyone was considerate of others and respected others the world would be a far better place. Unfortunately they don’t but when we have a PM who thinks it is ok to go to someones place of work and bully them by pulling their hair what do we expect.

        • maui 3.2.1.4
          14 April 2016 at 11:07 am

          The dogs of fighting breeds make up much of the statistics for serious injuries though. If you could eliminate say half serious dog attacks by outlawing those breeds that would be good for society. Although not so nice for those dog owners I admit.

          • Puckish Rogue 3.2.1.4.1
            14 April 2016 at 11:16 am

            The problem is, of course, difficult and not unlike firearms. The scum that train dogs to be vicious, that want aggressive, fighting dogs don’t register dogs and don’t care if they’re banned or not because they follow the current laws at the moment so why bother following new ones

            However, unlike firearms, you can have a mixed breed dog and you only need to have a little bit of banned breed to have the qualities you want in the dog while still claiming its a x and x cross breed

          • framu 3.2.1.4.2
            14 April 2016 at 12:58 pm

            considering that what were actually talking about isnt pure bred dogs with papers, and is in fact a staggering array of cross breeds – how exactly do you propose to define these dogs by breed?

            • maui 3.2.1.4.2.1
              14 April 2016 at 3:30 pm

              Well a lot of the media reports referring to attacks say pitbull, pitbull cross, etc. So the reporters are getting that information somehow, from the owner or the dog control officer I assume, they don’t have to do a DNA test to identify the breed of dog so it seems pretty clear cut. There may be some dogs that are hard to categorise, and those dogs could slip through the cracks for sure.

              • framu …
                14 April 2016 at 4:17 pm

                the media are 100% hopeless at getting breed right – ive even seen them name an english staffie as a mastif, so no point using that is there.

                the point your missing is that to ban a breed you first have to identify it – and just going “oh well – lets just say all dogs that are thick set with squarish faces and wide shoulders are pit bulls” is not only dumb – its so wide that your calling a huge number of breeds and cross breeds dangerous dogs based on their looks.

                and if you do have such a dog its all to easy to go “no no, its not a pit bull, its an am staff cross”

                thats why breed based bans are pointless – you cant actually identify a pit bull via appearance because in general they dont have papers, arent pure bred and are cross bred with all manner of other breeds

                “they don’t have to do a DNA test to identify the breed” – yes you do, cross breeds mate, cross breeds

                eg: my dog has brussels griffen in it – but you would never in a million years think that going by his appearance

                • maui …
                  14 April 2016 at 6:30 pm

                  Ok so if you’re right and the media can’t get the breed correct, are you also saying the dog control officers with decades of experience can’t get it right?

                  Animal control veteran John Payne has compiled statistics on attacks in the central North Island since 2007. His breakdown found the American pitbull terrier accounted for 18.7% of 510 attacks in the region in that period

                  And the medical professionals that see the damage and name the same breed, the list goes on.

                  I don’t think this is just a media beatup.

        • Stuart Munro 3.2.1.5
          14 April 2016 at 1:10 pm

          Haven’t seen many people mauled by a Maltese. Size is relevant.

          • Trey 3.2.1.5.1
            14 April 2016 at 5:51 pm

            I have seen a child mauled by a jack russel so I call bollicks on your size argument

            • Stuart Munro 3.2.1.5.1.1
              14 April 2016 at 6:08 pm

              Well bollocks back – most serious dog bites are not caused by smaller breeds.

              • locus …
                16 April 2016 at 7:21 pm

                the point here that Trey made far more clearly and eloquently than I can, is that size and breed of dog are irrelevant when it comes to finding sensible and reasonable ways to reduce the risk of dog attacks

                • Stuart Munro …
                  16 April 2016 at 8:01 pm

                  No – the risk of serious injury from dog attacks is not unrelated to size. It is not that smaller dogs cannot cause serious injury – but it is much more difficult for them to do so.

                  A sensible dog control regulation could easily impose controls based on weight limits – under 5 kilo animals seldom cause serious harm, and to conflate them with larger and more dangerous breeds is not necessarily appropriate.

                  An uncontrolled and poorly socialised chihuahua may be a public nuisance, but an uncontrolled and poorly socialised pitbull or rottweiller represents a very different level of threat.

                  Data is gathered on dog bites in NZ – the worst offenders on frequency are labradors – which probably reflects their popularity. If severity data are also gathered you have a relevant body of knowledge for evidence based regulation.

                  I appreciate that you might want owner licensing or training – but the need for this is greater with the larger breeds. Both guns and motorcycles are regulated in size classes, it is not absurd to consider this for dogs.

                  • locus …
                    17 April 2016 at 5:02 am

                    Of course the bigger the dog doing the biting the higher the likelihood of more serious harm….. but legislating dogs based on dog size would be absurdly difficult to enforce, as would regulations applying to specific breeds.

                    Why not look to other places in the world for ideas on dog control, where they are further along this track than NZ, and are making good progress?

                    For example:

                    89 percent of Vienna’s citizens voted in favour of mandatory dog-handling licences for registered dogs in a referendum in 2010, and the City of Vienna immediately introduced this measure. Based on an external evaluation by Vienna’s University of Veterinary Medicine, this measure has helped to reduce e the number of biting incidents by registered dogs by 63 percent.

                    Also,

                    All dogs, big or small, must be muzzled or kept on a lead in public places in Vienna, and dog owners have a legal obligation to muzzle their dogs in all heavily-frequented places, e.g. on public transport, in restaurants or at events.

                    https://www.wien.gv.at/english/environment-leisure/watch-out-dog-owners.html

      • Anne 3.2.2
        14 April 2016 at 9:16 am

        The pure bred staffordshire is a fantastic little dog. Intelligent, loving and full of fun. They are wonderful family dogs so it infuriates me every time I hear ignorant journos/reporters calling these dangerous dogs ” Staffordshire crosses”

        The irresponsible owners of these dangerous dogs like to breed their pit-bulls/mastiffs etc. with the staffordshire because of their strong teeth which can grip on to almost anything. But it’s not the staffie in them that makes them dangerous fighters.

        It’s time these useless reporters got their facts right and stopped persecuting these lovely little canine friends.

        • Puckish Rogue 3.2.2.1
          14 April 2016 at 9:48 am

          Hey look at that Anne we agree on something

          • Anne 3.2.2.1.1
            14 April 2016 at 10:04 am

            Aren’t they great little dogs. I have a relative with two staffies and she swears that without them she would not have made it through a very nasty relationship break-up in one piece.

            • Puckish Rogue 3.2.2.1.1.1
              14 April 2016 at 10:24 am

              One of my dogs is a staffy cross from dogwatch and he’d just run himself into exhaustion (if I let him) chasing his tennis ball

              Will pretty much ignore everyone and everything at the dog park to get the ball but if another dog takes his ball he’ll just trail the other dog until it drops the ball then he’ll take it back no barking or nothing

              • RedLogix …
                14 April 2016 at 8:41 pm

                Yes … the old critter we still mourn was a staffy/kelpie cross we had for almost 19 years. Head and shoulders the most remarkable dog I’ve ever known. Still miss her heaps.

                But you know what, she loved the stick throwing game and one day, much to our mutual surprise there was this moment when she lunged at me. It was only there for a second and I knew immediately we’d gone too far. So did she. Fortunately no harm was done.

                All dogs are potentially dangerous; no matter how well trained, how wonderfully socialised, you cannot eradicate the instinct. Then it’s just a question of how bad the consequences are going to be. And with pitbulls is just a matter of how very bad.

              • Trey …
                15 April 2016 at 7:16 am

                I like this human side of you PR. Perhaps there is hope for the world afterall as it shows everyone has good in them 🙂

        • mary_a 3.2.2.2
          14 April 2016 at 2:05 pm

          Absolutely agree Anne re staffies (3.2.2) – they are great little dogs. I regret I have never had one in my life.

          The staffies I have had the pleasure to have known over my life time have been friendly little critters, always ready to play and couldn’t be more non threatening if they tried. They seem to be good family pets as well, getting on well with children, while also being very accepting of and sociable with other pets in the same household.

          Having shared my life with a variety of wonderful dogs over the years, I have come to the conclusion in most instances, it’s not the dog which is the problem, but the owner. A quick assessment of the owner I have found, usually indicates the temperament of the dog, as some are intentionally used as weapons, which is quite sad really, because dogs should be loved companions.

          • Puckish Rogue 3.2.2.2.1
            14 April 2016 at 2:20 pm

            They are good dogs and I agree ref: dogs as weapons. I would never let kids have unsupervised access to my dogs because you just don’t know what kids are going to do to a dog.

            • framu 3.2.2.2.1.1
              14 April 2016 at 4:20 pm

              shit – my dogs a wee little thing – and i wont even leave him outside a shop unattended for exactly this reason.

              if youve got kids dont leave them alone with a dog, if youve got a dog dont leave it alone anywhere where a kid can approach it unsupervised

      • weka 3.2.3
        14 April 2016 at 10:19 am

        Problem is, how do you determine which are the dangerous dogs? In one of the recent stories, the judge said that the attack was unforseeable. The child was unattended, went onto private property, there were dogs that weren’t known to be dangerous (eg fighting dogs etc), and no-one knows why they attacked. I still think there should be more reparation from those owners (restorative justice), because the child will spend its childhood in and out of surgery and will never be the same, but it also sounds like an accident.

        On the other hand, there are people who teach their dogs risky shit, and there are people who can’t control their dogs.

        I’d rather see all dog owners having to either take dog control classes and/or pass tests that show they can control them.

        • sabine 3.2.3.1
          14 April 2016 at 12:05 pm

          the first one to be taken to task should be the parents of the child

          “The child was unattended, went onto private property,” Full stop here. A nice charge of child endangerment and neglect should do the trick.

          The thing is that parents need to supervise their children if they are with dogs tht are not their own.
          I don’t get people that let their small / ish children play with dogs unsupervised by either parent or dog owner. It’s the she’ll be right attitude, and the only one paying the bill is the pooch.

          there is no such thing as a fighting breed, there are breeds that are abused into becoming fighting dogs usually to the gratification of their fuckwit owners and the fuckwits that come and bet on them.

          • weka 3.2.3.1.1
            14 April 2016 at 12:55 pm

            Parents can’t keep their children I sight every minute of every day, especially not in a society that supports parenting and child raising so badly. From what I remember of the story the child wandered onto the property, the parents might not even have know there were dogs there. Pretty sure there is no more punishment needed than them having to live with what has happened to their child. Prosecuting them won’t act as a deterrent so what’s tha point?

            Accidents happen including tragic ones.

            • sabine 3.2.3.1.1.1
              14 April 2016 at 8:28 pm

              that is true, but in this case the dogs will get put down, a breed will be villified an a dog owner is props never gone be whole again not only because of lost dog but also due to injured / dead child.

              I don’t care, but if we hold the dog owners accountable we also have to hold the parents accountable. It seems that many times parents don’t know what their small children are up too and then accidents happen.

              If we prosecute the dog owner, or want to prosecute the dog owner, then we also must put the onus on those that venture onto properties that they have no reason to be on.

              Ever watched one of these youtube videos with dogs that are being ‘played’ with by little kids, ears back, eyes flikering, nervous licks, kid pulling on the ears, poking around in the dogs face etc etc. These are all just ‘accidents’ waiting to happen while an adult films and goes awwww how cute.

              Dogs are animals, not furbabies or fur children.

              • weka …
                14 April 2016 at 10:35 pm

                I can’t find the news article about this case, but it wasn’t the parents being neglectful letting the child play with dogs, esp dogs it didn’t know. We don’t know if the parents were neglectful in letting the child wander.

                It seems to me to be a fairly basic principle of justice that people have the right to safety. Where a parent lets a child taunt a dog, sure, there is an issue. But a child wandering onto an unsecured property has the right of reasonable safety. This is why we fence swimming pools. It could just as easily have been a kid delivering a paper that got mauled.

                I agree we don’t teach kids very well about how to be around dogs. Or adults 😉

        • Visubversa 3.2.3.2
          14 April 2016 at 2:49 pm

          Absolutely – the owners need proper education and some of them more than others. Unfortunately, many of the owners of the dogs who become problems should not have any sort of dog. They have them as some sort of extension of their masculinity and train them to be aggresive. I bet these dogs are not named “Fluffy” or “Bunnykins” – they will have macho names and will be treated accordingly. Dogs are pack animals and when we have them in our homes, we are their pack. Many people just do not understand that. In packs, dogs fight for their places in the pecking order and our dogs wil do that unless they are apropriately trained and supervised. No-one should be able to own a dog unless they have passed a responsible dog owner test, an dthey should be legally responsible for their animals.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.2.3.2.1
            14 April 2016 at 5:09 pm

            They have them as some sort of extension of their masculinity and train them to be aggresive.

            More of a masculinity replacement because they sure as hell don’t have any themselves.

      • framu 3.2.4
        14 April 2016 at 10:22 am

        define “pit bull”

      • Dialey 3.2.5
        14 April 2016 at 5:53 pm

        My newfoundland was viciously attacked by a Jack Russel and my standard schnauzer was mauled by 2 greyhounds. Neither of those are fighting breeds, but what they did was horrid.

    • mac1 3.3
      14 April 2016 at 9:40 am

      An extension of that argument would have it that parents of convicted criminals should be prosecuted, and then similarly treat parents of disruptive children. The argument for destruction of genetically selected and damaged destructive breeds could be extended to include humans……………………

      That aside, I believe that ownership of a ‘fighting breed’ is a sign of immaturity in the owner, trying to say as it does that by extension that the owner too is ‘tough’.

      Personally, anything but a ‘working dog’ should be banned. As I walk up my back section driveway, I am barked at. As I walk past people’s gates, I am barked at. As I walk down the street, I have to trust that owners will control and pull their beloved pets away. As I walk out onto the street, for god’s sake, the dog on the other side of the street barks at me. Dogs bark at each other all night.

      I once owned a dog. I was a poor master. It died having been run over. I don’t own a cat. Now, cats from five neighbours colonise my property and use my garden for their toilet, chase ducklings and threaten the birdlife.

      Pets are pests. Go Gareth!

      • Puckish Rogue 3.3.1
        14 April 2016 at 9:52 am

        Maybe you should own a goose because that’s what you sound like

        • left for dead 3.3.1.1
          14 April 2016 at 10:46 am

          no, he may well kill that as well. 👿

        • mac1 3.3.1.2
          14 April 2016 at 12:10 pm

          Nah, I’m a bit like Wal Footrot about geese.

          I like trout. They don’t bark, eat flies, and like commentators here, rise well to the bait. 😉

      • left for dead 3.3.2
        14 April 2016 at 10:44 am

        And I’m going too bark at you, humans have domesticated these creatures, we have responsibility to care, and we must, so get over yourself, can you look after yourself yet.

        may I plea to your stonily heart and ask you to think of all the wonderful things dogs have and do for society .

        • mac1 3.3.2.1
          14 April 2016 at 12:03 pm

          You’re all absolutely right.

          It’s the owners who are pests.

          Should be registered, kept in kennels, exercised irregularly, wear collars, left to scratch their own parasites, be fed scraps and deprived of water or company.

          Woof! There. I’ve got the mutt vote.

      • left for dead 3.3.3
        14 April 2016 at 10:48 am

        Mac, I defend your right to spout such nonsense. 🙂

      • framu 3.3.4
        14 April 2016 at 12:21 pm

        “That aside, I believe that ownership of a ‘fighting breed’ is a sign of immaturity in the owner, trying to say as it does that by extension that the owner too is ‘tough’. ”

        thats your choice – no matter how incorrect it is

      • Sacha 3.3.5
        14 April 2016 at 8:58 pm

        “The argument for destruction of genetically selected and damaged destructive breeds could be extended to include humans…”

        Our time will come. Just wait for sentient machines.

    • framu 3.4
      14 April 2016 at 10:20 am

      ““If a dog attacks someone, the owner should automatically be charged with assault”

      So the kids i saw down the road barking and rushing at a mastiff are blameless?

      I agree that owners are responsible for their dogs – but why are they responsible for the idiocy of others?

      You need to prove the dog launched an unprovoked attack first, after all they are operating according to their language not ours, and all to often people behave, to the dogs view, as an aggressor

      Maybe the answer lies in a bit of change at both ends instead of just blaming the dog at every turn? After all, we teach kids how to cross the road safely, yet seem to not do the same when it comes to dogs

      • McFlock 3.4.1
        14 April 2016 at 1:14 pm

        If I caused facial injuries to someone, I’d be charged with assault. I could then use self-defense as a defense against that charge.

        Why should dogs be any different?
        In your example, if the dog was restrained on its property and the kids aggressively intruded, that would be self-defense from the dog’s point of view. But if it was wandering and unsupervised, the owner is at significant fault.

        • Mark Stevens 3.4.1.1
          14 April 2016 at 2:37 pm

          An interesting story concerning human-dog interactions from sometime in the 70’s when I lived in Sydney and dogs roamed freely. I played briefly in a band with a drummer (forgot his name) who was a rather large lad and a very heavy hitter. We drove to a friend’s place to pick up some equipment, and when we parked opposite the house there were three dogs loitering on the side of the road. The drummer said he wasn’t getting out of the car because dogs didn’t like him. So when I got out and crossed the road the dogs completely ignored me, but they all went over to the car and started barking loudly at the drummer who I could see was quite scared. I don’t know if that adds much to the debate, but it showed me that dogs seem to know instinctively what you think of them and react accordingly.

          • left for dead 3.4.1.1.1
            14 April 2016 at 5:06 pm

            Thats right Mark, their remains the problem of training the people, tongue firmly in cheek, or was that cheeky Mac

        • framu 3.4.1.2
          14 April 2016 at 3:13 pm

          nothing wrong with what your saying – dont get me wrong, im a dog owner and i fully support owners being held responsible, if its proven the dog is at fault

          but thats not the climate we are currently experiencing is it – its a bit more flaming torches and mob justice on this issue

          in the example i gave the dog was well back on its property and the gate was open – but that doesnt excuse the childrens behaviour. Both the kids, the dog and the dogs owner are damn lucky the dog is placid

          As mark notes you usually attract a dogs interest by failing to get how they think and see things

          another example – theres a very large and very defensive dog down the road from me.
          Twice i have encountered it on the street and had to cope with it approaching me showing all the signs of an attack – once i turned and walked the other way, the other time i was closer and simply turned my back and froze. Its because i didnt get excited or run that i didnt get attacked

          but the funny thing is – if your walking past and listen to its bark you can hear the point where the guarding bark turns to a frustration bark because its realised your not stopping -its not vicious, its bored

          and just for the record i have had to save my wifes life with my bare hands from a rottie that was working its way up to her throat – i know both sides of the coin on this issue

          • McFlock 3.4.1.2.1
            14 April 2016 at 3:28 pm

            I don’t have any particular problem with dogs. Known a few good ones in my time.

            It’s the owners I don’t trust.

            The comparison of a dog with firearms isn’t too far off the bat – kids are going to do stupid things with them, and many adults either don’t know how to work them or grow complacent with them. And a few of the people in possession of them are attracted to them by the power, or have the intent of doing bad things with them.

            But frankly the obligation is on the owner to keep the public, even the stupid members thereof, safe. I shouldn’t have to know the intricacies of dog behaviour simply to walk down my street.

            • framu 3.4.1.2.1.1
              14 April 2016 at 4:39 pm

              “I shouldn’t have to know the intricacies of dog behaviour simply to walk down my street.”

              yes you do and you should bother to learn, its not hard

              Its the single biggest thing you can do to keep yourself and your family from becoming a statistic

              Dogs are in all of our communities – we ALL have a responsibility to know how to minimise and prevent issues as an owner AND as a member of the general public.

              pretty sure we were all taught how to not get run over werent we – so why the reluctance to learn how to stay safe on other issues?

              • McFlock …
                14 April 2016 at 4:48 pm

                Actually, all we need to know to avoid being run over is to keep off the road. If we go into traffic territory, only then do we need to know how to minimise that harm.

                If I look at a car in the wrong way, it won’t attack me. The driver might, but they are my only problem. Not the car.

                And car drivers are expected to have demonstrated competence in controlling their vehicle and knowing the road code before they get behind the wheel. I would support such rules for dog ownership. Then I wouldn’t have to worry about whether that person approaching me is in genuine control of their pet, as the risk would be greatly diminished.

    • TC 3.5
      14 April 2016 at 10:24 am

      Yup with no backers funding an issue dullards like upston get assigned.

  4. Puckish Rogue 4
    14 April 2016 at 9:58 am

    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/budget-2016-sme-friendly-tax-package

    – This is a good idea from the government that will help small business and gain votes, this is the sort of idea Labour need to come up with if they ever hope to challenge National

    • Graeme 4.1
      14 April 2016 at 10:26 am

      I’ve got a feeling this idea goes back about 10 years, and gets rolled out every time the government of the time needs to curry favour with small business.

      A good idea but really just a subsidy for the cloud accounting providers.

      Bottom line, it’s very hard to do without cloud or other accounting software, means every small business has to have the expense of cloud accounting, and IRD will have real time access to businesses accounts. Can see that going down well in Libertarian circles.

      • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1
        14 April 2016 at 10:32 am

        I’m not a small business owner but I’m guessing anything that removes the provisional tax requirement will be greeted with thanks but as you say the devils in the detail (as it always is)

        • Graeme 4.1.1.1
          14 April 2016 at 11:08 am

          To make it a reality I think it would require a huge simplification of the tax system. Make Income tax for individuals and business as simple as GST and the idea would work. That is getting a bit bold, but you never know, Labour has been the one that has nearly always led major reforms in New Zealand. Unfortunately, sometimes to it’s cost.

          The full package on Robbo’s UBI will be interesting. Most models along that line involve very drastic tax and welfare simplification. Again devils, hordes of them, in the detail.

        • adam 4.1.1.2
          14 April 2016 at 12:54 pm

          yes dear

  5. saveNZ 5
    14 April 2016 at 11:07 am

    Here are the candidates essays pitching themselves for the next UN Secretary-General role, including Helen Clark. (this is the first time this level of transparency has been used in the selection as the appointment has historically been held behind closed doors).

    http://www.un.org/pga/70/sg/

    There will also be live speeches
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/apr/13/united-nations-public-debate-secretary-general-live-blog

    Good Luck, Helen.

  6. Puckish Rogue 6
    14 April 2016 at 11:10 am

    Littles feeling the pressure, I guess trying to become PM of NZ is a bit harder then shouting slogans into a loud hailer on the shop floor

    https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/31341845/shewan-rejects-littles-claims/

    In parliament on Wednesday, Mr Little asked Mr Key: “Does he not see that there is a fundamental problem with appointing a person to review our foreign trust laws who has advised a government on how to protect its tax haven status?”

    Mr Little said Mr Shewan, and former Reserve Bank governor Don Brash, were asked to go to the Bahamas by Mr Key.

    Mr Shewan said that was correct, and the reason was that the prime minister of the Bahamas had asked Mr Key for assistance because his government was having problems introducing VAT (value-added tax, the same thing as GST).

    “The allegation by Mr Little I take very seriously, because the assertion is that we made recommendations to protect the Bahamas’ status of a tax haven and that is 100 per cent incorrect, totally wrong,” Mr Shewan told RNZ’s Checkpoint programme.

    “For that statement to be made, without any consultation, is to me quite alarming.

    “It’s a complete red herring, and very disappointing.”

    • BM 6.1
      14 April 2016 at 11:23 am

      Little seems to be really doubling down on the fuckwitery.

      I think the pressure might be getting to him and he’s starting to lose it.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1
        14 April 2016 at 11:28 am

        Well they say that when under pressure you resort to what you know, sort of like how sportspeople keep training the simple things, so I think now we’re seeing why Mr Little lost two elections in a here

        When under pressure he resorts back to his time in the unions, just say whatever he likes and say it loud enough to force action in your favour

        Unfortunately for him what works on the shop floor doesn’t work in politics

        • swordfish 6.1.1.1
          14 April 2016 at 11:50 am

          ” … so I think now we’re seeing why Mr Little lost two elections in a here”

          One of the more meaningless things I’ve ever read. Maybe you’re the one who’s
          feeling the pressure, Puckers ?

          Result: Pointless Gibberish.

          • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1.1
            14 April 2016 at 12:01 pm

            Yeah I was in a rush, I mean to say we’re seeing why he lost New Plymouth twice in a row

            I think when we’re picking over why National won the 2017 election this incident here will be one of the reasons cited

            After a bad week what does he do? Lie and smear under parliamentary privilege in the hopes that’ll somehow wear off on John Key

            Its the volunteers and workers of Labour I feel bad for

            • swordfish 6.1.1.1.1.1
              14 April 2016 at 12:34 pm

              Nah, Little lost because he was on a hiding to nothing. Unselfish enough to stand in an increasingly Blue, socially conservative seat at a time when the Nation as a whole was swinging in the direction of mood indigo.

              Key, meanwhile, made damn sure he got selected for one of the Safest and Bluest seats in the Country back in 02.

              Oh, and just to remind you of Little’s impressive ability in New Plymouth to attract far greater support from the voters of rival parties (than the average Labour candidate / MP) … http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-24092015/#comment-1074070

            • te reo putake 6.1.1.1.1.2
              14 April 2016 at 12:40 pm

              Wow. Labour candidate fails to win Tory seat shock.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                14 April 2016 at 12:44 pm

                Apart from the 15 years Harry Duynhoven managed to hold onto it but Little has managed to drop the party vote in the electorate as well so that’s nice

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Plymouth_(New_Zealand_electorate)

                • adam …
                  14 April 2016 at 12:56 pm

                  yes dear

                • te reo putake …
                  14 April 2016 at 12:56 pm

                  Exactly my point. Harry won it despite being Labour. Clayton Cosgrove won Waimak, despite being Labour. Mallard in Hutt South too. Sometimes the candidate can cross the divide in a particular electorate, sometimes the demographics win out.

                  The guts of it is Andrew Is going to be the next PM in 18 months (or less) whether or not he has an electorate seat. Make fear your friend, PR 😉

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    14 April 2016 at 1:16 pm

                    Lol, ok so do me this one favour te reo uptake…

                    Save this comment and after the next election, no matter the result, post it and I promise to comment on it

                  • McFlock …
                    14 April 2016 at 1:22 pm

                    hmmm – dunno about Duynhoven, but mallard, cosgrove… aren’t those two folks regarded as being a bit on the right-hand side of the Labour Party? Oh, apparently Duynhoven was first elected in 1987. Probably not exactly Red Harry then.

                    Maybe lab6 will get something done after all…

                • swordfish …
                  14 April 2016 at 1:48 pm

                  “Apart from the 15 years Harry Duynhoven managed to hang on to it”

                  Duynhoven was, of course, a political freak.

                  He was able to hold on to New Plymouth, despite it turning Blue in
                  the Party Vote because he was winning support from National and other voters massively out of proportion to other Labour candidates, including locally popular leadership old-timers like Clark, Goff, King and Mallard.

                  eg 2005 General Election Split Vote

                  CV = Candidate Vote
                  GE = General Electorates as a whole
                  NP = New Plymouth

                  Party Vote…….CV for Lab Candidates (GE)….CV for Duynhoven (NP)
                  National…………………………4%…………………………………….20%
                  Labour………………………….79%…………………………………….92%
                  NZF……………………………….19%…………………………………….50%
                  Green……………………………58%…………………………………….67%
                  Progressive……………………49%…………………………………….80%
                  ACT………………………………..8%………………………………………22%
                  UF………………………………….15%…………………………………….42%
                  Christian Heritage………….16%…………………………………….69%

                  So, for example, nationwide = just 4% of people who Party Voted National went on to cast their Candidate Vote for the Labour candidate. In New Plymouth, by contrast, 20% of Nats went for Duynhoven.

                  The fact that a newbie candidate like Little was able to emulate Duynhoven’s pulling power (albeit to a lesser degree) remains impressive.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    14 April 2016 at 2:14 pm

                    Well ok then what lessons can be learned from Duynhoven? How did a Labour MP hold the seat for so long? Can what he did be emulated?

      • swordfish 6.1.2
        14 April 2016 at 12:10 pm

        You won’t believe this … but by an absolutely EXTRAORDINARY coincidence almost EXACTLY the same “Under Pressure” meme is being trotted out over at Farrar’s Kiwiblog.. Most of it about an hour or so before your comments appeared here. Extraordinary.
        eg “Under pressure we see the real Little. He’s a desperate man resorting to the only tactics he knows.”
        or equally
        “Little is a Trade Union leader and his leadership of Labour and the tactics he uses to vilify the Government … emulate the tactics Union Leaders employ …”

        Remarkable serendipity.

        If I didn’t know you two better, I’d almost have to assume you were mindlessly regurgitating hackneyed, ill thought-out, second-hand attack lines.

        • Jenny Kirk 6.1.2.1
          14 April 2016 at 12:15 pm

          remarkable coincidence, swordfish or more correctly “conspiracy” !

        • pat 6.1.2.2
          14 April 2016 at 12:15 pm

          I don’t believe it!….what are the odds?

        • Puckish Rogue 6.1.2.3
          14 April 2016 at 12:31 pm

          You don’t have to thank me, I know a lot of people on here don’t like differing opinions so, as a public service of course, I like post things I agree with

          That way people on here can see others opinions and it won’t be such a surprise when the left receive another towelling at the next election

          • te reo putake 6.1.2.3.1
            14 April 2016 at 12:48 pm

            Pretty sure TS is all about original thought, PR. Sharpen up or there might have to be a discussion about whether you’re just a troll.

            From the policy:

            “Similarly if you act like a machine (ie a troll) you will be treated as one – a form of spambot. A troll is generally defined on this site as someone who clearly isn’t bothering to engage their brain when commenting. The standard is that the troll could be replaced with a dictionary of lines and phrases, and no-one would know the difference. “

          • adam 6.1.2.3.2
            14 April 2016 at 12:55 pm

            yes dear

      • Stuart Munro 6.1.3
        14 April 2016 at 2:50 pm

        Evidence?

    • adam 6.2
      14 April 2016 at 12:25 pm

      Why are you re-witting for whale oil Puckish Rouge, almost verbatim?

      And then why the concern trolling at the end?

  7. joe90 7
    14 April 2016 at 11:14 am

    Surprise surprise!, women, poc, and muslims are targeted with extra special levels of abuse and if I had the stomach for it I reckon I could wander over to the sewer right now and find with examples. But I don’t, and I think we should be particularly grateful that, despite the heat, snark and occasional over egging of the KDS/KDDS, TS is place where civility rules.

    As part of a series on the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black.

    […]

    New research into our own comment threads provides the first quantitative evidence for what female journalists have long suspected: that articles written by women attract more abuse and dismissive trolling than those written by men, regardless of what the article is about.

    Although the majority of our regular opinion writers are white men, we found that those who experienced the highest levels of abuse and dismissive trolling were not. The 10 regular writers who got the most abuse were eight women (four white and four non-white) and two black men. Two of the women and one of the men were gay. And of the eight women in the “top 10”, one was Muslim and one Jewish.

    And the 10 regular writers who got the least abuse? All men.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments?

  9. saveNZ 9
    14 April 2016 at 1:48 pm

    You have to wonder about Auckland City planning officers…. some poor guy found out that his neighbour was demolishing their side of a duplex leaving his side exposed….Apparently he was not notified because council staff deemed the impact on Mr Alwahb and his house to be less than minor while the development “cannot be described as out of the ordinary [or] giving rise to special circumstances”.

    Bought to you by Auckland City Planning officers that also though stealing our harbour did not require a resource consent by the Ports of Auckland…..

    • Penny Bright 9.1
      14 April 2016 at 4:52 pm

      Yes – unbelievable.

      Yet another example of how ‘super’ has been this (forced) Auckland amalgamation for those who are arguably not part of the ‘1%’?

      Penny Bright
      2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

  10. ianmac 10
    14 April 2016 at 1:54 pm

    That’s interesting given ACT’s involvement.
    Mr Shewan: “…and the deputy chairman of the Partnership Schools’ Authorisation Board.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/78905596/john-shewan-who-is-he-and-whats-all-the-fuss-about

  12. Reddelusion 12
    14 April 2016 at 3:51 pm

    Excellent article in daily blog by trotter with new affliction affecting the left on top of JDS RLS, Reflex left syndrome ie labour and lefts propensity to jump to an immediate position without first viewing the facts, TPPA, Panama papers are good examples, but now more so opposing the kermedec sanctuary, how labour twist out of this one will be fun to watch as two previous lefty ideals clash been indigenous rights and environmentalism. Again labour highlights it’s only reason to exist is to object to anything national does and to demonise John Key, that’s about it

    • Jilly Bee 12.1
      14 April 2016 at 4:25 pm

      ‘Again labour highlights it’s only reason to exist is to object to anything national does and to demonise John Key, that’s about it’ – and prior to 2008 I seem to recall all you righties demonising Helen Clark and loudly objecting to anything Labour did.

      • Reddelusion 12.1.1
        14 April 2016 at 4:47 pm

        We looked after Helen and Michael to be fair Jilly Bee after removing them, all good mates now

  13. Jilly Bee 13
    14 April 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Just had another WTF moment re the transporting of logs to the port of Tauranga by trucks. I moved to Matamata last year and have been totally gobsmacked by the amount of big rigs rumbling through Broadway to and from Tauranga to Hamilton and Auckland via Highway 27. There are the occasional very long logging trains from the south to the port, but to me the transporting of logs by rail appears to be grossly underutilised. Broadway (the main road through Matamata) is part of Highway 24 so is supposed to be maintained by NZTA (I presume this is the agency who looks after highways). Part of it has been resealed this summer, but the rest has not for some bureaucratic reason. I was going to opine about the railway line through the Kaimai ranges not being double tracked, but as it is so underused there’s probably no urgent need for it. The fire siren sounded a couple of hours ago and the usual consensus is another pileup on the Kaimai road, and sure enough http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/78925355/trucks-collide-on-kaimai-ranges-causing-traffic-chaos
    I have driven to Tauranga a few times over the past couple of months and find it rather intimidating being wedged between a couple of big rigs in a Mazda Demio!! End of rant.
    Our MP has his office in Broadway, but I have never seen it open for business.

  14. Ed 14
    14 April 2016 at 4:39 pm

    The RW trolls are getting excited and active – they must be getting concerned. But there is plenty to think about regarding real problems without worrying about essentially content-less opinions from the rabid.

    The following article caught my eye recently:
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/wilson-parkings-tax-numbers-appear-to-defy-economic-reality-20160408-go1w4u.html

    so I looked for anything else about Wilsons, particularly in New Zealand. Either our journalists don’t dig as deep, or we have fewer problems than Australia:
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/watchful-eye-helps-wilson-double-profits/news-story/2de4cca6490147214f22713333d6ced7

    and for an earlier Australian article confirming the high costs of parking in Sydney:
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/is-this-our-most-expensive-carpark-in-sydney/story-fnagkbpv-1226246058430

    Labour appear to have it right in calling for a wider investigation into our tax system than the narrow and short investigation over National’s creation of a zero tax haven for foreign trusts.

  15. Penny Bright 15
    14 April 2016 at 4:56 pm

    The Panama Papers revelations are ‘good advertising’ for whom (apart from those promoting NZ as a ‘tax haven’?

    Ordinary New Zealanders?

    If New Zealand is purportedly now the fourth ‘least corrupt country in the world’ – shouldn’t we be arguably the fourth most ‘transparent’?

    How does, in my opinion, effectively ‘selling secrecy’ regarding foreign trusts / NZ as a ‘tax haven’ fit in with ‘transparency’?

    How meaningful is Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – if it does not cover financial secrecy / tax havens?

    Where do the corrupt hide their bribes and ill-gotten gains?

    Why would any measure of ‘corruption perception’ (or corruption REALITY) not cover a country’s ‘financial secrecy’ status?

    Anyone else asking these questions?

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    • anom 100 15.1
      14 April 2016 at 7:19 pm

      Who is the minister of tax? Shouldn’t the IRD be demanding a copy of these leaked documents? And that goes for every country’s tax department. Are the media, and the people holding this information breaking some sort of laws? Aiding and abetting? There must be some back tax owed somewhere.

  16. ScottGN 16
    14 April 2016 at 5:30 pm

    Bill English spinning faster than the Hadron Collider on Checkpoint right now.

    • whateva next? 16.1
      14 April 2016 at 6:15 pm

      I wonder if he considers his party’s governance of education as responsible for the “cohort” he was discussing, after all, he can hardly blame Labour for the education the youth of today have had over the last 7-8 years? Product of his party I say.

    • Stuart Munro 16.2
      14 April 2016 at 6:18 pm

      Trying to put air back in the balloon faster than it leaks out.

  17. Robert Atack 17
    14 April 2016 at 7:10 pm

    Is my TV screen getting smaller or has Gerry’s head got bigger?
    TV1 news tonight his face took up half my 32 inch.

  18. Magisterium 18
    15 April 2016 at 1:52 am

    Labour backtracks on Kermadec Marine Sanctuary

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11621260

    Because Labour

    • Stuart Munro 18.1
      16 April 2016 at 8:10 pm

      It’s a weird attack line – Kermadecs are a sanctuary already – no need to quash a treaty right – so what’s the real story here? Gnats looting another commons?