Open mike 14/07/2013

55 comments on “Open mike 14/07/2013 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Morrissey 1

   14 July 2013 at 6:14 am

   Malalai Joya interview with CNN: US Get OUT of Afghanistan

   Malalai Joya speaks against US occupation of Afghanistan in her interview with CNN International on October 28, 2009.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JYhMg6_Q5k&list=PLC48C56131A2082B5
2. Tim 2

   14 July 2013 at 8:06 am

   RNZ News 0800 Sunday:
   TT says there’s a significant issue of TRUST with Hone (re suggestions the MP and Mana should merge)
   Pot calls kettle black!
3. North 3

   14 July 2013 at 8:16 am

   This “trust” business is but an advised bullshit narrative to abuse Hone Harawira and ensure that Maori are not militated sufficiently to disturb a bunch of scabs.
   • Tim 3.1

     14 July 2013 at 8:54 am

     Aye! It also shows a degree of arrogance and where exactly they see the people they purport to represent on the ‘pleb scale’.
     It matters not the huge sense of betrayal those plebs are feeling just as long as the ‘entitled’ can remain in the tent pissing out. … Not limited to the MP either!
     • North 3.1.1

       14 July 2013 at 9:51 am

       Not limited to the MPs, no. Why ? Because wherever there are scabs there are baby scabs.

       Scab 101: all scabs must bash the non-scab by use of the narrative “Oooh……untrustworthy !”
4. Saarbo 4

   14 July 2013 at 8:17 am

   Simon Bridges on the Nation discussing NZ Oil and Gas:

   Rachel Smally: we (NZ) collect taxes and royalties of 42 %, the OECD AVERAGE is 65%

   Simon Bridges: “I think we are around the middle of the pack…”

   What does average mean?????????????

   And the in the next sentence he states that we earn $4b in Revenue from Oil and Gas and the Govt gets $800m in Tax and Royalties, I think that is actually 20%…???

   Something really screwey about his figures.
   • weka 4.1

     14 July 2013 at 8:28 am

     “What does average mean?”

     Maybe he’s talking about the median (which is the mid point or middle of the pack).
     • Saarbo 4.1.1

       14 July 2013 at 8:33 am

       Yes he probably is Weka, its weasling out of the the more meaningful measure which is “average”, he is a classical National weasel.
     • Jackal 4.1.2

       14 July 2013 at 10:25 am

       New Zealand has one of the lowest royalty schemes in the world. Bridges is simply being dishonest when he claims “we are around the middle of the pack.”
   • tc 4.2

     14 July 2013 at 8:29 am

     Bridges is not good at this lying caper yet smalley is paid to give him his soapbox and not make him look like the shonkey clone he is. These so called polotical in depth shows are a joke hosted by muppetts for sheeple to be feed their staple diet of BS.
     • Saarbo 4.2.1

       14 July 2013 at 8:52 am

       Yes, I wonder if any other interviewer would have picked up the 20% gaff? Kim Hill probably would have, Scarey Mary might have, maybe John Campbell…an opportunity wasted.
       • David H 4.2.1.1

         14 July 2013 at 9:15 am

         Or as usual an opportunity ignored. It was TV3 you know, and Smalley is just another ass kissing NAT loving Journo, in a long line of ass kissing TV3 Journo’s.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 4.3

     14 July 2013 at 9:28 am

     That is strange…I read in one of our local newspapers that NZ only got something like 2% royalties – well below the global average which “attracts” the buggers. So they can screw our nation. Wonder where the reporter got their figures and if they were wrong?

     As if all this fracking business wasn’t bad enough.
5. JK 5

   14 July 2013 at 8:58 am

   It would be good if Simon Bridges was asked where he gets his figures/numbers from . The actual references. Because its very difficult to find the actual figures on Ministry websites. And often, when you do find some details, they’re either mixed up with other industries (eg agriculture) or they’re estimates.
   I found the following on MBIE’s website – a paper called Economic Contribution and Potential of NZ”s
   oil and gas industry – but in fact there appears to be very little about the actual economic contribution, and most of the paper is based on assumptions and estimates and hedged around with “ifs and buts”.

   If anyone can provide other more factual info please put the links. Thanks.

   eg
   “As a result of the success of the petroleum and agricultural industries in Taranaki, the region has the highest average labour productivity (Figure 2) and the highest level of output per capita (Figure 3) in New Zealand. 5

   5 This statement is based on regional estimates provided by BERL. Note that these estimates are less reliable for small regions such as Taranaki ”
   • Descendant Of Sssmith 5.1

     14 July 2013 at 9:54 am

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3502112/6-5m-royalties-from-mining-the-cherry-on-the-top

     The royalties for oil are much higher than for minerals.

     The royalty rate for the oil sector is 5 per cent of net revenues from petroleum sales or 20 per cent of the accounting profit.

     Mining companies pay a royalty of 2 per cent of revenues or 5 per cent of profit, whichever is the greater, as well as corporate tax.
     • JK 5.1.1

       14 July 2013 at 10:08 am

       Thanks Draco. And what Bridges doesn’t mention is the cost of remediating closed down mines because they’re dangerous – Tui cost $22.5 million, another one in the Coromandel was about $27m, and there have been some others as well. So by the time these costs are deducted, what is the real net profit from mining ? And is it worth it, because of the environmental damage ?
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1

         14 July 2013 at 11:25 am

         That wasn’t me but Descendant Of Sssmith.
     • Bearded Git 5.1.2

       14 July 2013 at 11:23 am

       Assuming they pay much/any corporate tax-unlikely.
6. Tiresias 6

   14 July 2013 at 9:25 am

   “The prime minister of Luxembourg announced his intent to resign on Thursday, after a parliamentary investigation revealed scores of illegal operations conducted by the country’s intelligence service. ”

   http://intelnews.org/2013/07/11/01-1297/

   While the Prime Minister of New Zealand…..
7. AsleepWhileWalking 7

   14 July 2013 at 9:30 am

   Workers allegedly exploited:

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8916261/Dark-side-of-cheap-takeaways
8. AsleepWhileWalking 8

   14 July 2013 at 9:55 am

   OHMYGOD – someone should take away this doctor’s practice certificate.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10897927

   A young woman was refused the birth control pill because she had not yet done her “reproductive job”.

   Melissa Pont, 23, said her family practitioner, Dr Joseph Lee, would not renew her pill prescription, instead lecturing her on a baby’s right to live and on using the rhythm method, an unreliable family planning technique that involves having sex only at certain times of the month.

   The Women’s Health Action Trust said it has a “simmering issue” with GPs who will not prescribe contraceptives.

   “Contraception is a basic health right for women,” said senior policy analyst George Parker. “That should take precedence over a doctor’s personal beliefs.”

   The NZ Medical Association said doctors can refuse treatment in non-emergency situations if their beliefs prohibit it – but they are required to refer the patient to another doctor.

   Lee was initially reluctant to do that, Pont said, and she was concerned other women in her situation might not have had the confidence to argue back.

   “I felt like my decision to not have children yet was being judged. That’s a decision me and my fiance made,” she said.

   “We’re young and we just bought a house and who is he to say whether we should have children or not?”

   Lee, a doctor at Wairau Community Clinic in Blenheim, stood by his views and actions. “I don’t want to interfere with the process of producing life,” the Catholic father-of-two told the Herald on Sunday.

   Lee also does not prescribe condoms, and encourages patients as young as 16 to use the rhythm method.

   Teen pregnancy might be a girl’s “destiny”, he said, and it was certainly not as bad as same- sex marriage.

   The only circumstances in which he would prescribe the contraceptive pill would be if a woman wanted space between pregnancies, or had at least four children.

   “I think they’ve already done their reproductive job”.

   He acknowledged natural birth control was “not very reliable”.

   “That’s the best thing about it. You can’t choose it, you just have to be committed to it.”

   Family Planning national nursing adviser Rose Stewart said doctors should remember they were gatekeepers for a service, she said, and a woman’s conscience was as important as theirs.

   Medical Council guidelines say personal beliefs should not affect the advice or treatment offered, and should not be expressed in a way that exploits a patient’s vulnerability or is likely to cause them distress.

   Wairau Community Clinic lead GP Scott Cameron said a pamphlet at reception warned that some doctors did not prescribe birth control, and staff tried to screen patients. He would consider installing a sign.

   The clinic is run by the Marlborough Public Health Organisation. Chief executive Beth Pester said Lee’s choice not to prescribe was “his ethical choice”, but she was concerned he discussed natural birth control with patients as young as 16, and would talk to him about that.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 8.1

     14 July 2013 at 10:01 am

     I wonder what Paula Bennett or Lindsay Mitchell et al have to say about the economic and social effects of having doctors with the ability to hold this type of power over reproductive needs of a patient?

     Why the hell is our government prepared to continue to fund this type of “treatment”??

     Is our country sooooo desperate for rural GP’s that anyone will do?

     Given this GP’s attitude to what must be a sizeable chunk of the population (ie women who have NOT done their reproductive “duty”…and gays/bisexuals..and anyone like me who doesn’t fall into the previous groups but wouldn’t want to be alone in the room with him holding a speculum) is it appropriate that he continues in this role?
     • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1

       14 July 2013 at 11:29 am

       …is it appropriate that he continues in this role?

       No, it’s not.
       • marty mars 8.1.1.1

         14 July 2013 at 1:15 pm

         +1 He should be told in no uncertain terms to fuck off.
   • Molly 8.2

     14 July 2013 at 10:32 am

     Yes, the response from the GP’s employers – Wairau Community Clinic and the Malborough Public Health Organisation was pathetic to the point of obscenity.

     The reality is – this doctor has assumed for himself a paternalistic, authoritative role that is not part of his clinical service. Of course, the place he chooses to do so is a community clinic where it is more unlikely that his patients are going to respond assertively. (Can you imagine the howls from moneyed areas of Auckland where a GP refused contraception along these lines?)

     Employment contracts need to spell out clearly that this type of value judgement and coercion is unacceptable practice. Then he should be dealt with accordingly.

     (Also interesting that he is not against contraception per se: as he will prescribe it to someone that has performed her reproductive duty. So any references to belief systems is failing in consistency too)

     Women’s reproductive choices: going backwards while wearing seven-league boots.
     • Treetop 8.2.1

       14 July 2013 at 4:11 pm

       The Medical Council or the Health and Disability Commissioner need to look into the service this doctor provided and the service he needed to provide. Having a baby is life changing and expensive.

       Is the GP prepared to fund the raising of the child and look after it when the childcare centre is closed?
   • Murray Olsen 8.3

     14 July 2013 at 9:52 pm

     The good doctor is entitled to whatever personal beliefs he feels like having. He is not entitled to inflict these beliefs on his patients. He should get another job until he can understand the distinction. Maybe he could work as a vet so as to not entirely waste his medical training?

     I know physicists who believe the universe is 6000 years old. Somehow they still manage to do research within their own areas of specialisation. Their beliefs, while weird, are essentially harmless until they try to teach them in an astrophysics or cosmology lecture. I would hope that they would rapidly be shown the error of their ways. I hope the same happens with this Catholic doctor.

     People like this don’t matter so much in a large city because their effects are diluted by the numbers of other practitioners. Choice is usually possible. In a small town like Blenheim, the situation is different. A young woman who wanted the pill might have to travel to Nelson, for example. If she were single and did decide to use the rhythm method, no doubt this good doctor would also be one of those who think benefits for single parents just encourage sin and a breakdown of morality. I wonder what his views are on the contraceptive methods commonly used before marriage as Catholic virgins in the 3rd world? These would be oral and anal sex, which also don’t contribute to the fulfilment of the reproductive job.

     Dr. Lee, you make me sick. Wairau Community Clinic, get rid of this embarrassment.
9. JK 9

   14 July 2013 at 10:01 am

   Shades of yesteryear ! This used to happen regularly in the 1970s …. when the pill first came in, and Broadsheet (now defunct, feminist mag) had a good dr, bad dr column (forgotten what it was called) so women knew which doctors NOT to go to. Maybe such a column (nowadays a blogsite, I suppose) could be started up again !
   • Descendant Of Sssmith 9.1

     14 July 2013 at 10:39 am

     Maybe those Catholic doctors need their own version of Green prescriptions – here have an abstinence prescription, don’t take twice daily until you are married.

     Maybe behind the scenes this is one of the reasons behind the scenes the contraception for beneficiaries was done via welfare rather than health.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804206

     There’s some obvious known links between this government and religous groups.
10. Penny Bright 10

    14 July 2013 at 10:07 am

    This is a VERY big deal people!

    Here is someone who now for the FOURTH time is going to be jailed, although he has NEVER ‘broken any law’.

    When ‘judicial discretion’, is not itself based upon the RULE OF LAW – then what sort of ‘democracy’ are we living in here in New Zealand?

    In case you missed it?

    MEDIA ALERT! Vince Siemer will present himself for 6 weeks imprisonment TODAY Sunday 14 July 2013. 12 noon, at the home of Justice Helen Winkelmann:

    14 July 2013

    PROTEST!: Sunday 14 July 2013, from 12 noon – 1pm, outside the home of Judge Helen Winkelmann, 20 Audrey Street, Takapuna, where Vince Siemer will ‘surrender’ himself for 6 weeks imprisonment at Mt Eden.

    https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=Map+20+Audrey+St+Takapuna&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x6d0d375fc7190a51:0x1be04919b4257c68,20+Audrey+Rd,+Takapuna,+Auckland+0620&gl=nz&ei=xyrhUaeANoboiAedx4CQCA&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA
    This is a DISGRACE – when NZ Judges do not follow the RULE OF LAW – but just ‘make it up’?

    Vince Siemer is believed to be the first person in the free world to be sentenced to prison for reporting a criminal court judgment.
    In New Zealand – ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt country in the world’?

    What a sick joke.

    This ongoing persecution of Vince Siemer, in my opinion, NZ’s foremost ‘whistleblower’ against judicial corruption, makes me ashamed to be a New Zealander.

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Don’t jail Siemer, says dissenting Chief Justice

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/dont-jail-siemer-says-chief-justice-gb-p-142808

    (Includes links to Supreme Court Judgment)

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    STATEMENT BY VINCE SIEMER:
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

    13 July 2013

    First they came for the trade unionists…

    I, Vince Siemer, am going to prison tomorrow after the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal ruling which in turn upheld two judges of the High Court decreeing I am in contempt of the Courts. I consider I can show no better respect for the rule of law than contempt for judges who pervert it. My “crime” is publishing the secret December 2010 judgment of Justice Helen Winkelmann which denied the Urewera 18 defendants their statutory right to trial by jury on the basis a jury “would likely use improper reasoning processes”. The Chief Justice strongly dissented, recognising I disobeyed an unlawful order yet was denied the lawful right to challenge it in order to preserve my liberty.

    I am believed to be the first person in the free world to be sentenced to prison for reporting a criminal court judgment. (Who says New Zealand does not lead the world?!) One reason I am the first is secret criminal court judgments are unlawful. In my case, the Courts roundly protected the unlawfulness of Winkelmann?s order by asserting they need not determine the lawfulness on the ground even unlawful orders need to be obeyed until overturned – the Crown claiming a message needed to be sent to the larger community of this. Interestingly, I invited the Attorney General to make submissions in the public interest regarding the lawfulness of Winkelmann’s orders and he responded that, if he made submissions at all, he would seek an increased order of costs against me.

    Where Winkelmann’s order gave no reasons for the secrecy, the High Court Judges tripped over each other to retrofit the reason that justice required the secrecy. The Crown conceded at my trial no prejudice or harm was alleged as a result of my publication, but they still wanted me imprisoned. In a page out of a George Orwell novel, the Court of Appeal censored Winkelmann’s reason for negating the statutory right of appeal when upholding my conviction out of fear the public would not take kindly to being called stupid in a secret judgment.

    First they steal the words; stealing the meanings only when required.

    New Zealand judges are out of control. We no longer have the instilling discipline of the Privy Council in England. The NZ Court of Appeal judges trounced by the Privy Council as law-breakers in Taito v R now comprise the Supreme Court which replaced the Privy Council.

    Do you see any mainstream media reporting any of this?

    We get what we deserve with our judges. The incestuous nature of judicial appointments being what it is, every judge in New Zealand signed on to submissions to Parliament opposing the passage of the pecuniary interest of judges bill currently before Parliament. Really? Not one judge in the whole of New Zealand not actively opposed to this bill which requires them to register their financial and business interests? While it seems impossible at times to get more than two Members of Parliament to completely agree, our 205 judges are in lock step with their independent view. It is evident “independent judge” is an oxymoron in New Zealand.

    We have forfeited much with the loss of the independent Privy Council. This should come as no surprise. Former Attorney General Margaret Wilson was undeterred when 82 percent of Auckland law practitioners voted against her new Supreme Court. When everyone’s back was turned it still happened. We built a $100 million palace for five elevated judges, most of whom were known to engage in breaches of due process. And, like sheep, this 82% fell into the fold even as this new court made mince out of established principles on judicial bias and essential legal rights, rolling over established legislation with all the finesse of a blitzkrieg. It is the law today that the “New Zealand independent and informed observer” is an endangered species and, where it does exist, does not consider a judge has a conflict of interest where he/she is business adversary or sibling to those who appear before him/her. You now have to be rich to get to a hearing in the courts – the Supreme Court ruling the requirement that plaintiffs pay the defendants’ anticipated legal costs into the Court as a condition to obtaining a hearing is “well-settled law” in New Zealand. Two years ago, in Atty General v Chapman, the Supreme Court ruled judges are exempt from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the ground this statute that expressly bound them threatens their “independence” we all know so well.

    Maybe the diminishing numbers allowed to be heard in the courtrooms no longer care. But we could possibly survive without the legal necessity of independent judges if these judges had any respect for the rule of law and the courts they serve. But they have no respect for laws where their mates and critics are concerned, and the most powerful sheep lawyers in New Zealand, while silent about it publicly, make no secret about it privately. As retired Judge Sir Edward Thomas said in a 2007 email to the president of the New Zealand Bar, “I am not a keeper of the court’s conscience and am of the view that my primary obligation is to Alan, not just as a matter of professional obligation but by virtue of my deep friendship for him. There is a limit to how far I will go to uphold the integrity of the court if the judges themselves won’t.”

    Where is the “independent bar” on this? Flocking behind the independent judges, either cowering in fear or cloaked in protective partisanship. This silent flock is hoping the perverse court judgments in my cases do not generally denigrate the rule of law in New Zealand. History finds this the safest place for lawyers to be. Look at Fiji.

    Those who see little comparison with Fiji fail to realise that Fijians do not feel oppressed. That is the insidious thing with erosion of the rule of law. It is frighteningly uneventful until the tipping point. In the Earthquake Commission contempt the Solicitor General filed against Marc Krieger this week, it was not the Bill of Rights or due process legislation which even featured in the SG’s application. The SG largely relies upon three of my court decisions to eventually bankrupt this poor citizen who had the audacity to expose the EQC’s attempt to write off $100 million which evaporated from the public coffers.

    Anyone who doesn’t believe a “deep friendship for Alan” is a more valuable commodity in a New Zealand Court than truth and law chooses to ignore the reality. For whistleblowers, one obvious problem is they do not have deep friendships with the perpetrators whose power and influence is the currency of the New Zealand courts. Partisanship and secrecy is endemic, and it is laying ruin to the rule of law in black robe and white collar New Zealand. It would be better if it was blood in the streets, if only to wake people up to the huge corruption occuring behind closed court doors. No one should need to go to prison to protect the rule of law but the sad reality is sitting in prison is often the best way to stand up for legal rights. While it is unfortunate this price must be paid, I consider my imprisonment a demonstration of my highest respect for the law.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Vince Siemer
    Editor
    Spartan News Limited
    on-line NZ news: http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz
    • UglyTruth 10.1

      14 July 2013 at 10:27 am

      “would likely use improper reasoning processes”

      Translation: would apply reason in accord with common law rather than apply the usual political prejudice.

      The NZ judiciary can not observe the rule of law because of the nature of their employment under a civil body politic. In order to get around this problem the body politic attempts to redefine the meaning of the term “rule of law”, just as it attempts to redefine the meaning of the term “common law”. These terms are closely related, and the redefinition supports atheism despite the theistic nature of the judicial and political oath.
11. Te Reo Putake 11

    14 July 2013 at 10:40 am

    Bad day for Crosby Textor as PM is told to cut his links with the firm following exposure of their spruiking for the tobacco industry. Ok, not our PM, sadly.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/13/david-cameron-lynton-crosby-tobacco
12. Te Reo Putake 12

    14 July 2013 at 10:47 am

    The founder of the Pissed Pakeha Party on worker’s rights:

    http://runningreds.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/pakeha-party-tosser-abuses-mana-member.html
    • felix 12.1

      14 July 2013 at 11:04 am

      Awww, poor little tory doesn’t like the spotlight anymore.

      And none of his thoughts, when they were just rattling unconnected around his mostly empty head, seemed so… fasc1st! But boy, when you link a few of them together in public, eh?

      Diddums.
      • Te Reo Putake 12.1.1

        14 July 2013 at 11:29 am

        Yep, nice to see the weasel exposed for the fool he is. Classy ride, too!
13. Tim 13

    14 July 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Just watched the latest Panorama – Alex Salmond versus Donald Trump (you know that was always going to go bad ffs!)
    This morning, some poor bastard on Stuff (that seems to have now disappeared from easy access) who has been ripped a second time – now at retirement age – investment gone … kaput!
    Bruce Tichbon (who I once worked with, and interacted with DAILY) – lost a million, and who I can only feel an emotionally driven sympathy for: Second time round; join up to this “once in a lifetime investment; word of mouth only clientele – the exclusive. JESUS H CHRIST Bruce – what were you thinking. It’s not as though you hadn’t been thru’ it ALL before ffs!

    Lay down with dogs – get up with fleas.

    PUSH RESET! (There Is No Alternative)

    If it’s too hard, there’ll be a power failure coming along shortly to force that cold reboot
    • Tim 13.1

      14 July 2013 at 1:20 pm

      ….. must learn to cite …… must learn to cite ……. must learn to cite:

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8916301/Couples-2-8m-double-disaster
      • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.1.1

        14 July 2013 at 3:52 pm

        It’s difficult to have sympathy with those who chase the high return high risk investments that don’t work out.

        Most people I know will take 30+ years to earn a million dollars let alone save it.

        A million dollars at 4% will earn $40,000 per annum which is as much as / more than the income of many New Zealanders.

        I remember at the height of Blue Chip’s fame in 2006 my father in law asking me to see what I could find out about the people running it.

        Took only 15 minutes of research to find out about the dodgy stuff some of the owners did in the 1987 crash and a brokerage firm in Aussie warning investors not to touch them and explains that some of their investments were a house of cards.

        I’ve never quite got why people who had worked hard all their lives and paid their mortgages off decided to mortgage their homes again and chase the big dollars.

        I assumes it’s all the fear mongering done by the industry about the govt won’t pay your super in the future.

        People would get a much more likely positive result from paying more tax towards super costs – trouble is that’s not in the interest of all those making the commissions and ripping people off.

        It’s that type of fear environment that allows the financial predators out. At least a door to door salesman doesn’t pretend to be anything but – these people hide behind their suits and a veneer of respectability.
        • RedLogix 13.1.1.1

          14 July 2013 at 5:31 pm

          One of the interesting side comments Steven Keen made when he lectured here recently was that he did not believe that ordinary people should be investing in stocks and financials for their retirement.

          “That’s a game for professional brokers and entrepreneurs.”

          The fact is that NZ Super is a pittance. The gap between it and an normal middle class income is huge. The fact is that most two-income, middle class families have in income somewhere in the $70-120k range … and you don’t work hard at that for 40yrs and then happily choose to retire at 65 and potentially face another 2 or 3 decades of life living off $20k pa.

          In that scenario of course you are looking for ways to generate a secure income after you retire. But crucially once you retire you have no way to recover from an investment that loses your capital. That is the fatal flaw.

          Ordinary people should not ever be put in a position where they are induced to gamble their life savings.
          • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.1.1.1.1

            14 July 2013 at 6:14 pm

            It’s similar advice in Rich Dad Poor Dad that most people seem to miss.

            No risk was taken until his safe investment income equalled his salary.

            You can easily apply the same principle to investing for retirement. Take no risk until your investment income equals the rate of NZS.

            What is above that is what you can then can in theory afford to lose.

            Meanwhile I’ll carry on paying off my mortgage and won’t ever be upsizing my house.
14. joe90 14

    14 July 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Imani ABL ‏@AngryBlackLady 17m

    Not guilty. Now we know where we stand, Black America. #WELP

    https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/356231709441802240
15. Poission 15

    14 July 2013 at 8:50 pm

    Zimmerman lights up the US

    http://rt.com/usa/zimmerman-acquittal-nationwide-protests-071/
16. Brett Dale 16

    14 July 2013 at 11:00 pm

    Well done to the protestors for protesting peacefully, and well done for
    people being allowed to protest wrong decisions, and fuck you to the
    jury. Can you imagine if this had of been reversed, if Zimmerman had
    of been black and the kid had of been white.

    The Miami Herald got it right. When they wrote.

    1. The man thought the teen looked suspicious.

    2. The man called the police to report his suspicions about the teen.

    3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.

    4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.

    5 . The man was carrying a loaded gun.

    6. The teen was not carrying a gun.

    7. The teen was not carrying any weapon.

    8. The teen was carrying candy.

    9. The teen was not committing any crime.

    10. The teen was not trespassing, as he was walking toward his father’s condo.

    11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.

    12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches were exchanged.

    13. The man shot the teen with his gun.

    14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.

    15. The shot from the man’s gun killed the teen.

    16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime.

    17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.

    18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.

    19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.

    20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.
    • felix 16.1

      15 July 2013 at 2:59 am

      Just like when that douche Bruce Emery murde… oops sorry, not allowed to say murdered… slaughtered 15 year old Pihema Cameron.

      All the circumstances you describe fit exactly, except that Emery didn’t bother calling the police, and instead of a gun Emery used a foot-long knife to assassinate his victim.

      Oh but that’s right, Cameron might or might not have been about to tag Emery’s fence, so I guess it’s totes different.

      Right Brett?
      • Morrissey 16.1.1

        15 July 2013 at 7:59 am

        felix, don’t waste your energy. Have you checked who you are trying to reason with?
        • felix 16.1.1.1

          15 July 2013 at 10:42 am

          True. But you never know what’s going to be the straw that finally breaks the camel’s brain 😀
      • Brett Dale 16.1.2

        15 July 2013 at 10:25 am

        Felix:

        Bruce Emery was found guilty.
        • felix 16.1.2.1

          15 July 2013 at 10:47 am

          Nope, he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

          ‘cos apparently he chased the kid 300 metres and gutted him with a foot-long knife by accident

          He served two years I think. But you know, taggers eh?
          • Brett Dale 16.1.2.1.1

            15 July 2013 at 10:57 am

            Yes felix, he went to jail.
            • felix 16.1.2.1.1.1

              15 July 2013 at 11:49 pm

              How long do you think killers should spend in jail, Bretty?

              Proper killers I mean, ones who kill real people not just taggers.
          • Brett Dale 16.1.2.1.2

            15 July 2013 at 12:33 pm

            Felix:

            what do you mean nope? I just said he was found guilty.
            • felix 16.1.2.1.2.1

              15 July 2013 at 11:46 pm

              He was charged with murder and found not guilty. Oddly, in my opinion, as he definitely killed the kid, and repeatedly stabbing someone with a foot-long knife doesn’t seem like an accidental killing, especially when they were running away and you had to chase them for 300 metres to do it.

              But then I wasn’t in the courtroom so I don’t have access to crucial information like the class and ethnicity of the killer and the victim.
    • Rosetinted 16.2

      15 July 2013 at 11:24 am

      Brett D
      A very clear provision of the salient points. I presume you vouch that each point is correct?
      It seems to match with what I have heard in short media reports.

      But the numbers appear to disordered. I have rearranged the statements so they read in a better progression of the facts. Do you agree?

      After 10. The teen was not trespassing, as he was walking toward his father’s condo.

      then –
      16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime.
      11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.
      17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.
      18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.

      12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches were exchanged.
      13. The man shot the teen with his gun.
      14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.
      19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.
      15. The shot from the man’s gun killed the teen.

      20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.
17. Brett Dale 17

    15 July 2013 at 12:32 pm

    The audio tape they released today is chilling, hearing Trayvon yell out “help me” is awful.
    • Rosetinted 17.1

      15 July 2013 at 1:19 pm

      Brett D
      I haven’t heard that. It would be chilling, and I don’t think that I need to hear that to be aware of the disgraceful series of events and malfunction of justice that has resulted in this exoneration.

      There was an announced survey result comparing NZ’s happiness with those of Europeans. Seems we are reasonably happy but isolated from community somewhat. And depression got mentioned. A spokesperson on managing depression talked about concentrating on the ‘now’, not getting caught up in the past or the future. So perhaps I should do that. Then I don’t have to be worried, or feel upset about anything.

      It apparently would be bad for me to hear Trayvon. According to current self-management proposals, Timothy Leary’s “Turn on, tune in, drop out” has shrunk to merely ‘drop out’, all that the human psyche can stand!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS