Open mike 16/12/2013

Written By: - Date published: 5:56 am, December 16th, 2013 - 194 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 right up to the mike …

194 comments on “Open mike 16/12/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    16 December 2013 at 6:00 am

    The feed on the Transport Blog won’t have as much history as usual. It started feeding comments through into their post RSS feed.

    Seems ok after I purged what we have stored and reloaded

  2. Tracey 2
    16 December 2013 at 6:05 am

    I’ve been in Christchurch since lastTtuesday night. It is certainly a shadow of its former self but you can see as you drive around the progress that is being made and the city it will become.

    Two areas, traditionally (and still) working class have seen an influx of new (relocated businesses), Woolston and Hornby.

    As an Aucklander the road works and associated traffic hold ups are nothing new but I know from my previous trips over the years and a period living there that CHCHCH residents will find it tough.

    I tip my hat to the people of Christchurch for their perserverance and optimistic outlook. Most have no choice but to stay and persevere but no one said you had to do it with a smile on your face, so kudos to you all.

    You certainly deserve better than this

    ” Affordable housing is being pushed out of reach for most of Christchurch’s most vulnerable residents as the number of pricey rentals across the city soars.

    Fairfax Media has compared the number of rentals in different price ranges using Census data from 2006 and 2013.

    It showed the high end of the Christchurch rental market has expanded dramatically, while the bottom end of the market collapsed.

    Across the city, the percentage of rentals in the $200 to $299 price range fell from 40 per cent of all homes in 2006 to 26 per cent in 2013.

    The percentage of homes in the $300 to $399 range rose from 12 per cent to 32 per cent, and from 3 per cent to 11 per cent in the $400 to $499.

    The number of rentals costing more than $500 a week skyrocketed city-wide, especially in the more affluent suburbs.

    In Linwood, the number of rentals in the $100 to $199 price range decreased from 729 to 258 between 2006 and 2013.

    The number in the $300 to $399 bracket increased from 69 to 225.

    Aranui’s rentals in the $300 to $399 price range rose from nine to 114 – a 1167 per cent increase. ”

    and this

    ” The earthquake recovery minister’s Christmas card said the challenges of life in Christchurch continued this year but the “light at the end of the tunnel” was a little more evident.

    It read: “2014 I’m sure will be brighter. I hope you enjoy the festive season and wish you well for 2014 which will be a big year for National.” G Brownlee former head of Ministry responsible for Pike River

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      16 December 2013 at 8:41 am

      Did you enjoy the little shake yesterday?

      That one had the feeling like it was going to get bigger. All my family that felt it (in different areas of the city) thought the same.

      • vto 2.1.1
        16 December 2013 at 1:39 pm

        Yep felt it too – short and sharp equals nearby. Then there was another a few minutes later. Reminded me of times when we use to get three in a row with the third being the wallop. Luckily it didn’t come…

  3. Paul 3
    16 December 2013 at 6:39 am

    Can’t believe the nanny state term is still used by Tory politicians …after Pike River, forestry deaths and the CTV building collapse.
    That’s right Tony you and your obscene government’s refusal to care for people’s safety at work costs lives.
    And you have the nerve to gibber on about nanny state.
    Revolting.

    “New Zealand is getting fatter – with three in every 10 adults now regarded as obese.

    A leading diabetes researcher has called the new figures alarming and has accused the Government of failing to take the problem seriously.
    However, Health Minister Tony Ryall has rejected “nanny state” measures, instead arguing that providing information and support to people is enough.
    “In the end, the Government can pass all the laws it likes but unless people eat less and exercise more, things won’t change,” Mr Ryall said yesterday in response to the new figures.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11173055

    • Rosie 3.1
      16 December 2013 at 8:46 am

      Well, ya know Paul, we don’t want to regulate now, that might interfere with corporate foods’ right to a profit.

      There are so many facets to our deteriorating health stats but the free run that corporates have in the market has to be a contributor towards poor health – IMO.
      .
      One example might be the abundance of jumbo packs of junk food constantly on special. 3 X 150 gm bags of fat and msg laden chippies for $5. Chocolate as an everyday cheap commodity.(ethical issue here too with child labour being used in the production of some brands) Booze easily available 24/7 in some areas. Soft drinks, litres of the stuff that take up half an aisle.

      We had a New World open up in our neighbourhood recently. It’s more like a glorified dairy selling convenience food rather than a place to go and get healthy ingredients.

      Think back 35+ years to what supermarket shelves looked like, ok maybe less variety, all rather meat and 3 vege stylez but there wasn’t the abundance of junk food. I remember as a kid in the 70’s chippies and ‘fizzy’ were a treat for birthdays and Xmas. All biscuits and cakes were home made and treat only. Did we worry about type 2 diabetes then?

      Our govt exists to serve the corporates, not society.

      • Rosie 3.1.1
        16 December 2013 at 8:51 am

        and lets not forget people are working longer hours than ever and are too tired to cook decent healthy meals, and can’t afford good ingredients anyway – convenience food manufacturers benefit from a poorly regulated labour force?

        Ultimately Governments have a hand in the health of the population. Tony Ryall is wrong.

      • Paul 3.1.2
        16 December 2013 at 9:16 am

        For the past 30 years.

      • weka 3.1.3
        16 December 2013 at 9:26 am

        “Our govt exists to serve the corporates, not society.”

        Quite, and we might want to consider that obesity is being defined by a fairly useless indicator (the BMI) and who benefits from that? Big pharma is making shit loads of money from poor health. The MoH can wax lyrical about diet and exercise all it wants, but until structural changes are made, money will go straight from the tax payer to corporate via health.

        I was a child of the 70s and ate plenty of sweet things 😉 There is an issue with type 2 diabetes increasing, and the reason it is showing up now is because the generation that ate all those lollies in the 1970 and 80s is now reaching the age where type two kicks in. Worse, the age at which type 2 kicks in will get lower with each generation now.

        Diet and exercise are big factors in this, but the mainstream health advice is probably causing more problems than its fixing: dietary fat doesn’t cause diabetes, refined carbs do (or rather insulin resistance does, so you have to figure out why the individual is on a track to that, and its usually related to blood sugar). When you tell people to eat a low fat diet, you achieve two things: one is that you create a diet deficient in fat-soluble vitamins that are critical to health (especially hormonal and brain), and two, you force people to eat more carbs (got to get energy for metabolism from somewhere). High carb diets create the blood sugar conditions to create insulin resistance, which eventually causes type 2 diabetes and other diseases.

        The other issue here is that the other illnesses associated with insulin resistance eg heart disease are being targeted by big pharma. Statins is the classic, where the ‘normal’ range for cholesterols has been shifted so that now younger and younger people are being put on statins ‘preventatively’ despite the research showing this has dubious health outcomes across the population. Statins also come with significant side effects and guess how those are treated and who makes money from them?

        • Bill 3.1.3.1
          16 December 2013 at 9:54 am

          Sometimes when I hit health professionals and their food advice, I find myself thinking of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ and the mindlessly repeated slogan ‘Two legs bad, four legs good’ and the later ‘Two legs good, four legs bad’.

        • Rosie 3.1.3.2
          16 December 2013 at 10:07 am

          Hi weka. The low fat approach gets a lot of air time but like you I’d look to refined carbs and sugars as one of the main contributors to type 2 diabetes and it’s precursor, insulin resistance. (No I’m not a nutritionist but I know folks who are).

          And yes, cutting out all fats or minimising then severely mean you lose out on valuable nutrition from seeds and nuts, and dare I say dairy products with their fat soluble vitamins, a + d. Vitamin d is important for calcium uptake. (with apologies to the vegans, I know I know, unhulled tahini……) Trim milk is a con.

          Big Pharma: Went to a fascinating lecture many years ago entitled “The cholesterol juggernaut”. The premise was that cholesterol, even the “bad” ldl type isn’t the problem, and to a certain degree is important for immune health but scarring within the arteries is the problem. The cholesterol “catches” on the scars and builds up in the artery, leading to the old clogged arteries scenario. The lecturer proposed that homocysteine, an amino acid found in red meat was the cause of the scarring and spent ages railing against trans fatty acids too. It’s now commonly known that trans fats are bad for our health. Trans fats, found in those cheap as chips chippies!

          At the same time I respect there is a need, and time and place for cholesterol lowering drugs and I’m no expert on the topic. Coming from a family with high rates of heart disease on both sides, and my Father dying when he was only 54 I tend to be hyper alert to heart issues and learn what I can and have been known to ignore the cardiologist’s advice to go on statins – there was nothing wrong with my cholesterol levels 6 years ago and there isn’t today either, so I’ll take my chances.

          Final word, because I’ve got to dash, I always remember what John Campbell said in regard to an article they had about child poverty, in particular children going hungry for hours and eating only highly refined cheap foods because that’s all they had access to. He said (approximately) “that is a type 2 diabetes epidemic waiting in the wings!” and suggested it was the governments role to intervene to help these children immediately but also to prevent a costly public health burden later. I agree.

          The classic tory hands off approach to public health is a lose lose.

          • Bill 3.1.3.2.1
            16 December 2013 at 10:20 am

            How do sumo wrestlers put on all the weight their sport demands? They eat copious amounts of rice. How do they shed the excess weight when their career is over? They stop eating copious amounts of rice.

            How do you go about sustaining energy for long periods of physical exertion or extended periods of time? Eat or drink carbohydrates. What do you think happens if you don’t burn them off or continually ‘top up’?

            Spread marg, munch pasta and pop dietary pills…don’t eat meat, drink milk or spread butter. Smash your eggs… and remember there is no difference between 10 teaspoons of cane sugar and 10 teaspoons of fruit sugars (that orange is just as unhealthy as that coke – honest)

            • weka 3.1.3.2.1.1
              16 December 2013 at 10:45 am

              lolz.

              And, one size fits all! All people metabolise food in the same way, so you should all eat what we say. We know best! Even if you have no money you can still exercise. Even if you don’t know how to cook, you can still eat raw veges. Even if you don’t have enough money to buy food, you can still not eat fat. There is no excuse, if you are unwell it’s all your own fault 🙂 But wait, it’s ok, because we have these magic pills for you…

              • Rogue Trooper …
                16 December 2013 at 11:07 am

                “growing your own veges and flowers (and cups of tea) is like printing your own money”. 😀

                • KJT …
                  16 December 2013 at 2:26 pm

                  🙂

                  As someone who does grow their own veges, or to be more exact, my wife does, it is not a cheaper option on the whole, and not viable for those without much money up front.

                  When you have a tiny plot, where the developer has left an inch of topsoil, and you don’t have the money up front for fertilizer, soil, seeds and tools, a vege garden is not an easy, or even cheaper, option.

                  The advantages are they are much nicer and healthier, but it is still cheaper just buying them.

                  It is very noticeable how much trying to buy only healthy foods, adds to your grocery bill. Especially fruit.

                  The fact is, it costs the poor much more to live because they do not have access to the bulk buying, finance and spreading your cost, options, you have on a higher income.

                  Unhealthy foods are usually the cheapest option.

                  • Rosie …
                    16 December 2013 at 4:27 pm

                    “When you have a tiny plot, where the developer has left an inch of topsoil, and you don’t have the money up front for fertilizer, soil, seeds and tools, a vege garden is not an easy, or even cheaper, option”

                    Exactly. And don’t you get sick of talk back types complaining about the poor and working poor not eating enough fruit and vege saying glib and predictable things like “they can always grow their own free food”. Sigh.

                    Some neighbourhoods have set up communal gardens where folks have access to a plot but even so, potting mix may need to purchased for raised gardens, or compost to mix into topsoil if it’s a standard plot and then theres the cost of seedlings unless some clever person with time on their side has been able to raise seed. And then their patch gets raided! Hungry people are everywhere.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      16 December 2013 at 4:51 pm

                      it is interesting you mention the hunger that is so prevalent in our society Rosie; certainly another country.

                    • Rosie …
                      16 December 2013 at 5:55 pm

                      Hi Roguey! Up here, above you! No reply button. (I also grow my own cups of tea, in pots, we live on rock)

                      Hunger on many levels. Hungry for change. But in terms of hungry for food, I have heard of the local community garden getting plundered, and they had to do a fundraiser to put up lockable fencing. Kinda sad. Other folks I know who run similar gardens in other parts of the city have experienced the same.

                      They don’t mind sharing with non gardeners if those people requiring their food can’t afford to buy, they just want them to ask and they will provide it. The whole idea is community connectedness and resilience in a world facing pending food shortages. (And tasty fresh food. Om nom nom!)

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      16 December 2013 at 6:03 pm

                      yes, to conversations that I have been privy to just this past week; somebody I know sharing they take cabbages / caulis from the community garden I work in (I not mind, they are really poor) and another chappie sharing about the gathering of kaimoana, and live-stock.

                    • Tracey …
                      17 December 2013 at 5:25 pm

                      I wonder if the allotment idea of the uk could work here…

                      I know many community gardens which willingly teach people the tricks of the trade in return for labour and a share of the spoils…

                    • Tracey …
                      17 December 2013 at 5:34 pm

                      you can try pallet gardens, some companies will give away a couple of heat treated pallets if you say you are making a garden… BUT you are correct that even a pallet for small spaces requires painti, cloth, wire for baskets, soil, seeds or plants.

                      Thats why the initiative in ashburton is so very call. The hand over a Hundy. I dont believe in knighthoods but the woman who started this deserves one… as opposed to bob jones, richard hadlee, Susan devoy, owen glenn and so on.

                      http://handoverahundy.org.nz/

                    • greywarbler …
                      17 December 2013 at 6:20 pm

                      Rosie
                      I think that what should be tried is bucket gardens in places with half inch top soil. Nurture your bucket, keep away from public areas and urinating dogs, cats looking for dirt boxes etc. The gardeners life may be complicated.

                      Tub buckets with holes in the bottom can grow a lettuce and small ones coming on, silver beet, spinach, boky choy grow tallish, and perhaps a courgette which is a very good veg that can be eaten at any size and taste like anything you want it to. It’s a start. You can handpick off the green veg bugs, and spray with baking soda and water to keep down powdery mildew. It takes a while to get a system that suits you but more green leafy vegs seem to be the thing that is often most needed, and they are easy to keep growing, just cutting a few leaves off.

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    16 December 2013 at 11:11 pm

                    Have you ever thought of taking up dancing, KJT? When I come back, I want to try it.

              • weka …
                16 December 2013 at 11:49 am

                Interesting link, thanks Tracey. I’m just trying to look up if sumo wrestlers have poorer health outcomes. It looks like they don’t at the time they are wrestling, but can’t tell what happens later in life. ie the obesity isn’t the problem. Some fat people get Syndrome X (heart disease, type 2 diabetes etc from insulin resistance) and some don’t. Some thin people get insulin resistant. We’re looking in the wrong place when we focus on obesity.

                • Tracey …
                  17 December 2013 at 5:41 pm

                  The negative health effects of the sumo lifestyle can become apparent later in life. Sumo wrestlers have a life expectancy of between 60 and 65, more than 10 years shorter than the average Japanese male. Many develop diabetes, high blood pressure, and are prone to heart attacks. The excessive intake of alcohol can lead to liver problems and the stress on their joints can cause arthritis. Recently, the standards of weight gain are becoming less strict, in an effort to improve the overall health of the wrestlers.

                  wikipedia

                  http://reedyoung.com/retired-sumo-wrestlers/reed-young-sumo-konishiki-yasokichi/

                  ihon Eiseigaku Zasshi. 1995 Aug;50(3):730-6.
                  [Risk factors for mortality and mortality rate of sumo wrestlers].
                  [Article in Japanese]
                  Hoshi A, Inaba Y.
                  Author information
                  Abstract

                  We compared the mortality rate of sumo wrestlers with that of the contemporaneous Japanese male population, and inferred the usefulness of an index for predicting longevity in sumo wrestlers. The standardized mortality ratios (SMR) for sumo wrestlers were very high in each period, and also high for ages from 35 to 74. Cox’s proportional hazards model analysis revealed that the variables in “nyuumaku” entry year and BMI were statistically significant (p < 0.05) factors in mortality. In the survival curves, the lower BMI group had good life expectancy compared with the higher BMI group. In conclusion, the higher rate of mortality in sumo wrestlers seems to be due to the markedly higher rate of mortality from 35 to 74 years old. In sumo wrestlers, also, this study provides evidence that the higher overweight groups have substantially higher risks for mortality.

          • weka 3.1.3.2.2
            16 December 2013 at 11:26 am

            Hi Rosie, thanks, that’s interesting. The way I understand it is that higher cholesterol is a sign of chronic inflammation in the body ie it’s a symptom not a cause.

            Re statins, it’s always such a personal thing. AFAIK the statin research doesn’t show an overal descrease in mortality, just a decrease in death by heart attack (ie people die of other things instead). There are definitely people who need statins, but not whole swathes of the population, and the use prophylactically is especially dubious given the side effects.

            Transfats… I think we need to differentiate between transfats in whole, traditional foods (meat), and transfats in highly processed foods like margarine or fast food oils.

            I agree re child poverty. It’s pretty hard to improve public health when you don’t fix poverty first. We are so criminally negligent in this respect (and Labour is better but not that much).

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.2.2.1
              16 December 2013 at 3:13 pm

              AFAIK the statin research doesn’t show an overal descrease in mortality, just a decrease in death by heart attack (ie people die of other things instead)

              Next to no improvement if you are under 60 and high cholesterol is the only thing you have going on.

            • Rogue Trooper 3.1.3.2.2.2
              16 December 2013 at 4:58 pm

              mmm, butter spread on split weet-bix, not ‘Praise” the margarine .

      • Flip 3.1.4
        16 December 2013 at 9:31 am

        Obesity results from malnutrition. When you are unable to get the right kind of food.

        • NickS 3.1.4.1
          16 December 2013 at 2:14 pm

          🙄

          Elder things save me from the utterly ignorant.

          It’s mainly caused by eating more calories than you expend in a day of work/exercise, with other primary causes being medication, mental health (comfort eating) and medical conditions. With ethnicity coming into play when the ethnic group involved wasn’t heavily into agriculture, and thus subject to feast and famine conditions. And having lots of cheap, easy to digest calories doesn’t help either.

          However, obesity by itself isn’t that statistically good an indicator of health risks, as you need to take into account exercise levels and general fitness, as sufficient exercise leads to only small statistical differences in risk to otherwise healthy populations. While ironically, for the elderly, low body fat is associated with higher morbidity.

  4. bad12 4
    16 December 2013 at 6:54 am

    Slippery-ism’s, the re-definition of the English language by a Prime Minister displaying all the intellectual depth of a puddle, making the ravings of the average village idiot seem akin to divine enlightenment,

    On RadioNZ National, a discussion of ‘the Referendum’ with sound-bites from the PM one of which claims National won the 2011 election in a ‘Landslide’, give the bloke His due as a sometimes quite amusing comic in the sense that He is a clown doing a stand-up routine in ‘serious’,

    Think the word He was looking for was a ‘back-slide’…

    • Bearded Git 4.1
      16 December 2013 at 8:22 am

      Cunliffe was excellent today on Morning Report on the asset sales referendum-just before 8 o’clock.

      • swordfish 4.1.1
        16 December 2013 at 2:27 pm

        Hooton and various Tory trolls have, of course, tried to argue over recent days that “National voters simply didn’t turnout as much as Labour voters” in the referendum.

        Their strategy includes the claim that turnout was either:
        (1) greater in Labour-held seats OR
        (2) “fairly even throughout the country” (Hooton).

        But, according to a quick bit of number-crunching on my part, they appear to be rather tragically mistaken.

        I’ve used the Party-Vote (specifically, which Bloc – Left or Right – won) as the basis for determining the political complexion for each seat. (A few days ago, CV linked to a very impressive series of referendum result tables – Here http://imgur.com/a/qn7Pg#0 – but unfortunately they used the Candidate-Vote as the basis for colour-coding each seat).

        (see next comment)

        • swordfish 4.1.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 2:32 pm

          So, the upshot…

          If we look at the 20 seats with the HIGHEST turnout – we find that no less than 17 were won by the RIGHT in 2011 (And, what’s more, I’d classify only 1 of those 17 as MARGINAL RIGHT, the rest were either STRONG or FAIRLY STRONG RIGHT).

          Of the 20 seats with the LOWEST turnout, 14 were won by the LEFT in 2011, 6 by the RIGHT. (And every single one of the 10 LOWEST-turnout seats were LEFT-leaning).

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            16 December 2013 at 3:09 pm

            So, NZ is basically a socialist leaning country, from top to bottom. Which are our socialist leaning political parties, please.

            • TightyRighty 4.1.1.1.1.1
              16 December 2013 at 3:29 pm

              Huh? writing that as you sit by the pool in your father in laws gated house quaffing champagne? nice “socialism”

              new zealand is capitalist through and through, despite the best efforts of all the “progressive” hurdles to success

              • swordfish …
                16 December 2013 at 3:43 pm

                My first comment appears to be in moderation. Presumably, people can’t read it – thus rendering my second comment (2:32 pm) completely devoid of any context. (the “upshot” of what ?).

                Meanwhile, dear old TightyRighty (sent off to board at an exclusive Prep-School at the age of 3) projecting his own vacuous lifestyle onto CV.

              • Colonial Viper …
                16 December 2013 at 3:52 pm

                Socialism for the Rich! (And especially for the banking and investment classes)

                Capitalism for the Poor!

              • KJT …
                16 December 2013 at 4:17 pm

                That’s only if you think that stealing assets from your fellow citizens equals “success”.

              • Murray Olsen …
                16 December 2013 at 11:19 pm

                And while TightyRighty’s father in law won’t even let him on the property. Life can be so hard, but try to be a better person. Or maybe just a person.

            • aerobubble 4.1.1.1.1.2
              16 December 2013 at 5:21 pm

              NZ governments go along with socialist policies though try to remove them whenever they have a chance, despite this harming the economy.

          • Rosie 4.1.1.1.2
            16 December 2013 at 4:33 pm

            Very telling and interesting analysis thank you swordfish.

  5. Fair Observer 5
    16 December 2013 at 6:58 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11173003
    Why would this very, very honest man refuse to pay?

    • bad12 5.1
      16 December 2013 at 7:06 am

      Why would anyone really give a big fat one???

    • Paul 5.2
      16 December 2013 at 7:29 am

      Why do you care so much? You seem obsessed.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 5.3
      16 December 2013 at 7:38 am

      Why should he pay?

    • infused 5.4
      16 December 2013 at 7:42 am

      Why? Because he’s a douche of the highest order.

      • Colonial Viper 5.4.1
        16 December 2013 at 8:49 am

        So how much does Banksy owe for all the court and judge time he’s used so far?

        • Lanthanide 5.4.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 9:25 am

          He’s likely to miss out on a few months of salary once his seat is vacated, which will save the taxpayers a bit of coin.

          • Fair Observer 5.4.1.1.1
            16 December 2013 at 11:47 am

            [deleted]

            [lprent: Already banned. Another IP for autospam. ]

            • Lanthanide 5.4.1.1.1.1
              16 December 2013 at 1:05 pm

              Er, actually CV was explicitly talking about John Banks, and so I specifically replied about John Banks.

              You do understand how threading works in an online forum, yes? And that the purpose of it is to allow people to take conversations in different directions without derailing the entire discussion?

            • Draco T Bastard 5.4.1.1.1.2
              16 December 2013 at 3:32 pm

              Nothing I’ve seen indicates that Brown is corrupt although there’s serious questions to be asked about him accepting free rooms from SkyCity.

    • Tracey 5.5
      16 December 2013 at 7:45 am

      why would this very, very honest man keep racing up the lies?

      http://thestandard.org.nz/an-honest-man/

      Most recently telling the public the books were a “mess” when he came to power and he has turned them around.

    • Lanthanide 5.6
      16 December 2013 at 8:44 am

      I don’t think he should pay.

      The purpose of the inquiry was to investigate any potential misuse of resources re: Bevan Chuang. He said there had been no such misuses, and that’s exactly what the inquiry showed.

  6. RedBaronCV 6
    16 December 2013 at 7:05 am

    In the referendum discussions I see everyone still calling it the “anti smacking” bill which I think came from the right wing religious spin.
    How about, at least on TS we call it what it is “anti child assault” and leave the old spin behind. Kids got the same legal protection against assault that adults already had. I just don’t get people who want to hit someone smaller than themselves.
    Any party advocating repeal of S59 should be portrayed accurately as “large people get the right to hit small people” and “politicians for increasing child abuse and domestic violence statistics.”

    The MSM should also think over their somewhat two faced position on both these issues.

    • Tracey 6.1
      16 December 2013 at 7:20 am

      +1

      The misinformation around this change to the Crimes Act was staggering and harmful.

      A person disciplining a child can no longer invoke the subjective test of believing it to be justified for disciplinary purposes. Such as the father who beat his child with a steel pipe but a jury found him not guilty because the father genuinely believe it was justified for discipline.

      ” justified in using force by way
      of correction towards a child if that force
      is reasonable in the circumstances”

      Parents ought never see placing their hands on their child as their primary method of discipline. The port of first call if you will. To do so is lazy and speaks volumes about the parent in question. If parents cannot be bothered learning different ways to discipline their children, of correcting their behaviour, perhaps they ought not be parents?

      Interesting article here

      http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/670/1/12602518_Section%2059%20crimes%20act%201961.pdf

      • Rogue Trooper 6.1.1
        16 December 2013 at 11:19 am

        You are quite correct Tracey; what physical violence delivered onto their children says about parents is very concerning if not for the purposes permitted by the current law.

    • Tim 6.2
      16 December 2013 at 8:24 am

      +1
      Challenge the lingo and spin at EVERY opportunity (going forward)!

    • KJT 6.3
      16 December 2013 at 10:49 am

      The first person I heard call it “the anti-smacking bill” was Sue Bradford.

      There were already laws against assaulting children.

      You could equally call it the “bill to give police more power to harass poor people bill, because that has been its main noticeable effect.

      Mind you, it has been a good distraction from addressing the really pervasive violence against children and their parents. Poverty.

      Helping desperate people without hope to a better life, and a real “brighter future” will do more to prevent child abuse than any number of “tinkering with the symptoms” laws.

      Most of the people I have seen lashing out at those around them, apart from the family fist type nutters, are more in need of help, than comfortable middle class condemnation.

      • Tracey 6.3.1
        16 December 2013 at 11:13 am

        Link required to a credible source for

        “You could equally call it the “bill to give police more power to harass poor people bill, because that has been its main noticeable effect.”

        • KJT 6.3.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 11:23 am

          Personal observation.

          The same as I have noted a distinct change in police attitude to me, when I go into bat for the local teenagers they are harassing, since I moved from the “big white house on the hill” to an ordinary house in the suburbs.

          Police putting people in cells for the night, or giving someone a hard time, without charges, does not come up in the statistics.

          Has the rate of child abuse gone down, since the bill, Tracey?

          Gone up with the increase in impoverished children and parents, however.

          • Tracey 6.3.1.1.1
            16 December 2013 at 11:45 am

            sending a message that children are not property, that children can be difficult but parents need to learn about parenting/discipline s a good first step to valuing children.

            I believe ANy law change has to be accompanied by community-wide education. No one is borne knowing how to be a parent, we, as a society, need to help. But we dont.

            People still murder, even though we have a law against it, but the message the law sends is an important one.

            • KJT 6.3.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2013 at 9:29 am

              Most of us already had that message.

              But, I suppose the law change made people feel like they were doing something.

    • Rogue Trooper 6.4
      16 December 2013 at 11:16 am

      this is thought-provoking RedBaron

    • Draco T Bastard 6.5
      16 December 2013 at 12:00 pm

      Any party advocating repeal of S59 should be portrayed accurately as “large people get the right to hit small people” and “politicians for increasing child abuse and domestic violence statistics.”

      Sue Bradford’s bill was the repeal of s59 and thus removing the legal protections that allowed child abusers to get off serious assault charges. But you’re right, people advocating to keep or reinstate s59 should be portrayed as people who want to increase child abuse.

      • RedBaronCV 6.5.1
        16 December 2013 at 8:04 pm

        Quite right DTB, ended up with the opposite of what I meant.Rushing to work. Thanks for the fix.
        Oh and BTW it isn’t only poor people that hit their kids. Just better lawyered up at the rich end of town.

  7. RedBaronCV 7
    16 December 2013 at 7:07 am

    And while I’m feeling riled about this. Why do these people personally get satisfaction from wanting to hit others?

    • Tracey 7.1
      16 December 2013 at 7:38 am

      “There is a significant gap between the
      prevailing message from research, which
      suggests harsh physical punishment has
      a negative outcome for children, and
      public opinion, which argues that physical
      punishment, when reasonable, is an
      acceptable means of disciplining children. “

    • Tracey 7.2
      16 December 2013 at 7:47 am

      because for a brief moment they feel a sense of power in a world they otherwise feel powerless. many were hit themsleves. Monkey see, monkey do.

      • KJT 7.2.1
        16 December 2013 at 11:32 am

        That doesn’t explain the many parents who have no desire at all to even smack their kids, but know that a smack is better than a child who is burnt, electrocuted or run over.

        • Tracey 7.2.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 11:42 am

          and out of all the parents who have slapped or grabbed a child for that purpose, how many have been convicted of it as a crime under s59a/

          • KJT 7.2.1.1.1
            16 December 2013 at 5:37 pm

            The bill was changed to say that was permissible,. After the referendum. Which means of course no one has been convicted for trying to prevent a child from harming them selves.

            By the way, if a hysterical adult was trying to run into the ” burning building”, I would use force if necessary to prevent them hurting themselves also. Including a slap in the face, if that is what it took. No different.

        • logie97 7.2.1.2
          16 December 2013 at 4:17 pm

          KJT – can you explain the relationship between hitting the child and preventing accidents.
          The beating comes after the accident in these cases – a bit pointless.
          A child can be shown that a hot element, dangerous road, or electrical fitting is dangerous through explanation. You should try it … it works. On the other hand if individuals have children who want to act dangerously out of spite or devilment – then I would suggest that their relationship with their toddlers may have partially broken down already and needs addressing.

          • KJT 7.2.1.2.1
            16 December 2013 at 4:42 pm

            Don’t you think we didn’t try all the other available options first.

            More than a few.

            A smack on the butt is not a beating, for starters.

            And better than the other option, letting them continue to try and get at the fire.

            A toddler does not know it is dangerous or hurts, unless you can show or tell them FFS.

            Waiting until after they have learn’t the lesson the really hard way, is cruel!

            • logie97 7.2.1.2.1.1
              16 December 2013 at 5:46 pm

              “…A child can be shown that a hot element, dangerous road, or electrical fitting is dangerous through explanation.”
              You do not appear to have addressed this point at all KJT.
              (Just for starters, depending on the age of the toddler as to how deeply you can reason, a hot element or fire place, can be easily demonstrated as being dangerous – the slap on the hand indicates that the child is being defiant and there is very little communication happening.

              • KJT …
                16 December 2013 at 5:53 pm

                You are showing a lack of understanding of the circumstances, my child and our continuous efforts to keep an impulsive, curious and very intelligent child, safe.

    • vto 7.3
      16 December 2013 at 8:05 am

      Maybe it has something to do with the fact that physical sanction has been used in human society since forever pretty much, so unless we think that today we are the most advanced and civilised of all civilisations then it is we who are out of synch with history and human conduct. Our systems are the anomaly. Maybe we have it wrong in banishing physical sanction to the bin.

      It also has less long term damaging effect than psychological sanction.

      • Tracey 7.3.1
        16 December 2013 at 8:08 am

        have a read of the article I posted a link to above vto. It makes interesting reading about the impacts (or not) of physical punishment.

        • vto 7.3.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 8:18 am

          Will do, but it is all coming out in French…… he he

          I also note re the use of physical sanction in our society that the sole permitted use of such is by the State, and we allow that, so where is the consistency. And let’s not even get started on war and what people think about it then…. most people are quite happy to go about killing other people then. How do people justify killing people then but not using the physical in other situations?

          • Tracey 7.3.1.1.1
            16 December 2013 at 8:24 am

            😉 @ french

            Like the SAS guy convicted of theft… yet imagine what he may have done sanctioned by the state. It’s a crazy world.

      • weka 7.3.2
        16 December 2013 at 9:03 am

        “It also has less long term damaging effect than psychological sanction.”

        Maybe, but those aren’t the only two skill sets available, now or in the past.

        I thought section 59 was about removing the defense of discipline in the case of beating children. There is evidence that many cultures historically have disapproved of child beating and had other strategies for raising children.

        btw, we don’t apply to the ‘we’ve always done this’ rationale to lots of things.

        • KJT 7.3.2.1
          16 December 2013 at 11:04 am

          The research actually said, and one was the NZ longitudinal study, is that “mild” physical sanctions, like a smack on the backside, which were fair and appropriate, made for slightly better outcomes than parents who only used verbal sanctions.

          I have seen it several times recently, that parents who pride themselves in not smacking their kids, have often substituted much crueler mental manipulation. I like to suggest a “positive parenting course” for some more ideas.

          I was happy about the defense of “discipline” as an excuse” for beating children was removed.

          I was not so happy with the idea that I may go to police cells, for physically restraining my behaviorally and mentally challenged child from hurting someone.
          Or smacking my daughter on the hand, when all else failed, to stop her fascination with fire and power points. And before we get some smart arse retort. We tried all the obvious and less obvious ways of stopping them first. Many times. In the end we had to go with what worked, to keep them safe.

          Most of the majority, who voted against section 59a were not voting to “beat their children”.

          • Rogue Trooper 7.3.2.1.1
            16 December 2013 at 11:12 am

            smacked my daughter’s bottom, maybe half a dozen times until she reached the age of about four; yes meant yes (and they were by far the majority), no meant no. I had already studied human development by then though, and education is a great help if it is applied.

            Ad: “ Praising Alone ” 😀

          • Tracey 7.3.2.1.2
            16 December 2013 at 11:15 am

            and were you arrested?

            • KJT 7.3.2.1.2.1
              16 December 2013 at 11:17 am

              It was before section 59a.

              And, as I said, the ACT as eventually passed allows a degree of physical force to prevent harm.

              • Tracey …
                16 December 2013 at 11:22 am

                exactly, I am confused about what you object to about it in its current form.

                • KJT …
                  16 December 2013 at 11:36 am

                  You need to read what I am saying. Instead of writing me off, along with the majority who were dubious about the original bill, as one of those “child bashers”.

                  It was much improved after the referendum, from the original bill.

                  But some of the wording is still rather ambiguous, and it still, like much of our legislation leaves too much to police discretion. Discretion which police too often abuse.

                  • KJT …
                    16 December 2013 at 11:38 am

                    I was happy about the defense of “discipline” as an excuse” for beating children was removed.

                  • Tracey …
                    16 December 2013 at 11:48 am

                    I am reading. I am not writing you off. I am trying to understand your objections. I know the difference between the bill as first proposed and the Act.

                    I just havent been able to find the abuse of discretion that you have encountered. I am NOT saying it hasnt happened, I wont deny your personal experience. I just havent seen evidence despite looking hard for it.

                    For example a few people get wrongly accused of rape, but we dont remove the rape laws, we dont remove the message that women are not property to be own and used at will by adults.

                    • KJT …
                      16 December 2013 at 12:11 pm

                      What I am saying is that the referendum wasn’t ignored.

                      The law as finally written took account of the objections.

                      Because of the referendum we got as much better law than the one originally written. which would have made physically restraining my child from attacking others. illegal.

                      And there was already a law against assaulting children.

                      Section 59a in the end did remove some ambiguous interpretation. Where some people got acquitted from what was, clearly, assault.

                      As I said, I am largely happy with how it ended up.
                      Due in part to public concern about the original draft.

                      Too much of our law, is however, ambiguous, hurriedly and poorly written and open to too much police interpretation.
                      Something which happens far less often in Switzerland, where referenda are, binding.

                    • KJT …
                      16 December 2013 at 5:31 pm

                      Didn’t we have a discussion a few days ago about the police abuse of discretion, with legally protesting demonstrators.

                      Why do you think that some of them, far too many, are any better on other occasions.

                      Though, to be fair, you get some, it may even be the majority who are there for the right reasons and do an excellent job in trying circumstances..

                    • Tracey …
                      17 December 2013 at 9:39 am

                      @ KJT …
                      16 December 2013 at 12:11 pm

                      Thanks for the clarification because I did NOT get that was where you were coming from. Thank you.

          • Tracey 7.3.2.1.3
            16 December 2013 at 11:21 am

            “A more recent study (Gravitas Research
            and Strategy, 2005) found that 51% of all
            parents and 21% of caregivers used physical
            punishment, albeit relatively infrequently
            and mostly when other forms of discipline
            had been tried: “Physical discipline is
            commonly used because parents and
            caregivers consider it to be a required and/or
            justified response to the child’s behaviour”
            (p. 4). This approach was also acknowledged
            by children who, while they highlighted the
            negative consequences of being smacked,
            also accepted “it as a parental right or fact of
            life” (Dobbs cited in Smith, Gollop, Taylor &
            Marshall, 2004, p. 28)”

            “If we take the stance that minor smacking
            on a child’s bottom is acceptable, then
            Larzelere’s 1996 review of research on
            nonabusive spanking shows that there
            should still be some concern about how
            effective even this form of discipline is. In
            his review of 35 studies that examined the
            effects of nonabusive spanking on children
            by parents, “Thirty-four per cent of the
            studies found negative effects on children,
            26% found positive effects, and 40%
            showed no net positive or negative effect.
            Nonabusive spanking appears to be more
            effective or have neutral effect on children
            younger than 13 compared to teenagers.
            Grounding appears to be more effective than
            spanking in older children. Spanking appears
            to be most effective when done sparingly,
            non-violently, and within the context of a
            healthy parent child relationship.”

            • KJT 7.3.2.1.3.1
              16 December 2013 at 11:49 am

              26% showed positive effects.

              Did for my kids. They are still alive!

              • QoT …
                16 December 2013 at 7:08 pm

                Believing the only reason your children are “still alive” is because you used physical violence against them definitely makes me take you seriously as an objective commenter.

                • KJT …
                  16 December 2013 at 7:14 pm

                  I sort of knew that the holier than though would come to the fore.
                  Now we just need some words from the nuts on the other extreme. Family fist!

                  Both extremes just want the debate to shut down.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    16 December 2013 at 7:27 pm

                    Frakking Lefties. 250,000 kids live in poverty day to day and all the Lefties have to moan about are bullshit legal and moral niceties. Which at the end of the day still haven’t been shown to do sweet FA in actually reducing the incidence of child physical abuse in society since they have been enacted.

                    In contrast I’m pretty fucking sure that if child poverty (and with it family poverty) were eliminated, it would measurably reduce the incidence of child physical abuse quickly and substantially.

                    • weka …
                      16 December 2013 at 7:36 pm

                      Yeah, ‘cos none of us care about child poverty or try and do anything about it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 December 2013 at 7:47 pm

                      That’s almost totally irrelevant, weka.

                      Because what people see is a Left distracted by multitudes of bullshit academic, abstract, unpopular issues that not only garner no widespread support, but which everyone realises will make no practical difference to the lives that the Left says it is focussed on. And which people will never support en masse.

                    • RedBaronCV …
                      16 December 2013 at 8:14 pm

                      Again plenty of well off people hit their kids too. Well off can equate with self centred behaviour and an overwhelming sense of entitlement , and justifies “anything goes” in getting comliance from others. FFS DV doesn’t just happen at the poor end of town.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2013 at 9:13 pm

                      Because what people see is a Left distracted by multitudes of bullshit academic, abstract, unpopular issues that not only garner no widespread support, but which everyone realises will make no practical difference to the lives that the Left says it is focussed on. And which people will never support en masse.

                      riiiiiiiight, you just keep blaming other issues for “the Left’s” inability to argue economics persuasively.

                      If we could argue and campaign for a living wage and workers’ rights half as effectivey as we can campaign against domestic violence and discrimination, key would be sulking in hawaii after a dismal failure in 2008 and electoral ostracism.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 December 2013 at 9:18 pm

                      RedbaronCV: agree with you entirely re: DV. Veitch wasn’t a pauper was he.

                      But I don’t care about a total solution, I care about solutions which will make a difference to a lot of people even if it’s not everyone, and s59 cost a lot politically to achieve fuck all of next to nothing on the ground.

                      McFlock

                      riiiiiiiight, you just keep blaming other issues for “the Left’s” inability to argue economics persuasively.

                      Nope I’m blaming the Left’s focus on abstract academic intellectually pretty bullshit which costs shit loads of rare political capital and makes negligible difference to the bottom 50% of society.

                      BTW I’m all for abstract academic intellectually pretty bullshit which makes a big difference to the bottom 50% of society.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      Nope I’m blaming the Left’s focus on abstract academic bullshit which costs shit loads of rare political capital and makes no difference to anyone on the ground.

                      but but but even if people could only concentrate on one single issue over thirty years, surely YOU haven’t been distracted by “abstract academic bullshit”?

                      By the way, failing to convict parents who beat a child with a rubber hose or riding crop is neither “abstract” nor “academic”.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 December 2013 at 9:39 pm

                      Oh? So how many prosecutions have got put through so far because of the new law which wouldn’t have otherwise? How much has the rate of physical child abuse been reduced since the new law?

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2013 at 9:50 pm

                      well, if we’re being pointlessly vacuous, you tell me.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      16 December 2013 at 10:09 pm

                      Love him, or hate him, you gotta love McFlock.
                      as an aside, caught an article on RNZ today just before Midday (from the Tech Review chap) suggesting that the continuim of digitalizing life, from selfies through google glass, through to time-lapsed ongoing filming (yep, occurring, very trendy) is deteriorating the development of memory. What say you old boy? Eh? 😀

                    • rhinocrates …
                      16 December 2013 at 10:14 pm

                      Love him, or hate him, you gotta love McFlock.

                      Both, but glad he’s here.

                    • RedLogix …
                      16 December 2013 at 10:38 pm

                      We keep falling into this weird and unhelpful binary trap in our thinking – for my money I think CV is right; and at the same time I think the S59 reform was a necessary step along the way.

                      A lot of people here would be surprised at some of the places I’ve lived – my partner and I are quite well-off, but we’ve lived in places where the reality of poverty was just over the fence.

                      We’ve seen all the things that go wrong in their lives; we’ve despaired at our sense of impotence around ‘fixing it’. We’re vividly aware that our middle-class pretensions and sensibilities have little place in their lives.

                      Just throwing money at them usually makes things worse.

                      Yet it is their inability to access money and security on their own terms which is the defining factor in their poverty. Crucially it is the inability of so many young men to find stable work that enables them to form stable families which perpetuates the cycle.

                      CV is right – this is a plain, real-life challenge. The solutions will not come out of a University department. The actions that will change things are not complex or terribly abstract; most of what is needed is already well known.

                      But the only people who will make any difference are the natural leaders who have come out of this world themselves, who understand the culture and who get listened to when they speak. All they need is a network and real support.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2013 at 10:43 pm

                      the continuim of digitalizing life, from selfies through google glass, through to time-lapsed ongoing filming (yep, occurring, very trendy) is deteriorating the development of memory. What say you old boy?

                      To a degree. But a blank-slate google search is qualitatively different, imo, from using it as a memory aid or locator for source documents (or even just getting a quick handle on adjacent fields of expertise – the crossover between AI, philosophy of mind, and experimental psychology, for example).

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      16 December 2013 at 11:00 pm

                      yes, the interviewer, K.Ryan I believe, headed down the “where is it all heading…” path 😉 yet neither her or the techie guy were aware of , or raised, the singularity thesis, which was discussed on TS earlier this year, from memory 😉 ; More important than memories Flockie, where do the actual years go as we get older? So in the flow , ideally, they just whizz by.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2013 at 11:08 pm

                      @RedLogix:

                      with respect, to me that smacks of the trite tryptic variation “A: …; B: get leader, networks and popular support; C: victory!”

                      Yes we can see the problems, and even largely agree on the solutions/desired-outcomes, but the problem we have is communicating it and gaining the support of the 47% of voters who supported national, and even the 30-odd% of Labour voters and 12-odd% of green voters. Without them, chances of getting anywhere are pretty much non-existent.

                      Alternatively, saturate the bureaucracy over 30 years despite it and nact’s best efforts, and hope for bureaucratic capture like lab4. If we have decades to spare (we don’t, and it would be of doubtful success probability).

                      If we look at the work of one person who has done a lot to address the problem of child poverty, Bryan Bruce has made two documentaries that used academia to prove there is a problem, people on the ground to show the reality, and a mixture of both to show what he sees as real solutions. I firmly believe that we need this sort of broad front to achieve change. We’re getting there – I keep the Child poverty Monitor in my hip pocket (cellphone 🙂 ) for arguments, and it was valuable if dry. Now the commissioner has put out infographics that are much more clear than the academic works some people are so hostile towards, but the information is backed up by the solid research. “Defense in depth”, if you will.

                      I think that the real divison on the left is in economics (the extent of safe inflationary financing that then likely affects the viability of UBI, for example), which is why we’re shit at arguing it – and therefore shit at getting support for it. If we can’t broadly persuade ourselves, what can we expect to achieve in the electorate?

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2013 at 11:10 pm

                      @rogue

                      The years don’t rush by, we just become more adept at ignoring them 🙂

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 December 2013 at 10:39 am

                      I’m with RL in thinking that s59 was a necessary step “along the way” i.e. one tiny step on a journey of a thousand miles, so let’s keep it in that perspective.

                      Love your stats McFlock, looks like a National Govt has been quite able to reduce harm to children.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 December 2013 at 1:16 pm

                      Love your stats McFlock, looks like a National Govt has been quite able to reduce harm to children.

                      credit where credit’s due.

                      Must be their massive efforts in reducing inequality, doubling of the numbers of social workers and parenting classes, and general overwhelming improvement in conditions for poorer families. /sarc

          • weka 7.3.2.1.4
            16 December 2013 at 11:37 am

            “The research actually said, and one was the NZ longitudinal study, is that “mild” physical sanctions, like a smack on the backside, which were fair and appropriate, made for slightly better outcomes than parents who only used verbal sanctions.”

            What are the verbal sanctions being studied though? As with physical force, there are different kinds and degrees of ‘verbal sanctions’, so how can we compare? And why compare physical with mental manipulation? There are plenty of non-physical discipline styles that don’t require being mean to a child. And are we talking about teaching a child about boundaries, or are we talking about punishment?

            I don’t have an problem with physically restraining a child that is out of control and hurting itself, someone else, or doing something damage that is beyond acceptable. But then I’m of the generation where my peers raised their kids excessively liberally and so have spent too much time around unmannered brats 😉 They have to learn boundaries sooner or later, better to learn them young than as a teenager I reckon. There is of course a big difference between physically restraining a child (or picking it up and carrying it against its will to another room) and hitting it.

            “Most of the majority, who voted against section 59a were not voting to “beat their children”.”

            I’d say most had never read the act and were voting according to how the MSM misrepresented the legislation.

            • KJT 7.3.2.1.4.1
              16 December 2013 at 11:39 am

              I suggest, like National, you have a contempt for the intelligence of the majority.

              • weka …
                16 December 2013 at 12:03 pm

                Are you suggesting that most people who voted in the referendum had read the Act?

                What did most of them make of the wording of the referendum and how it related to the Act? (from memory I spoiled my voting paper, because how could you answer properly?).

                • KJT …
                  16 December 2013 at 1:53 pm

                  I think most people were aware that the bill, as originally written, removed options which most of us are aware are sometimes required.

                  The amendments, a consequence of the discussion around the referendum, which I was fine with, allowed physical force to prevent harm and or to prevent law breaking.

                  Including a smack, as an alternative to, say, putting a child’s hand in the fire to get the message across that you don’t play with fire.

                  I don’t believe that a majority of the population wanted to “bring back the cane”.

                  I also don’t think they were stupid enough to believe the extremes, on both sides of the argument.

                  • KJT …
                    16 December 2013 at 2:02 pm

                    I would rather concentrate my efforts on the real causes of child abuse.

                    Including the ongoing abuse of over 200 000 children by our Government.

                    And helping all of us become better parents.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.3.3
        16 December 2013 at 12:48 pm

        That would be wrong vto, there are many societies through history that have never used violence against children. The present Western Civilisation that covers the world seems to be one of the more violent ones.

  8. Philj 8
    16 December 2013 at 7:28 am

    Xox
    Suggestions (links) for current independent, quality news site(s) for New Zealanders? Have given up on Herald and Dom Post. TVNZ is a frivolous joke, not to mention Jim Mora ‘ s lala chuckle session on RNZ’s  ‘Afternoons’.

  9. phillip ure 9
    16 December 2013 at 7:28 am

    the lip-balm emergency-crew @ tvone just had to be called in..

    ..after rawdon ‘ron burgandy’ christies final arse-kissing/reaming-out of john key for the year..

    ..christie resurfaced looking severely chapped..

    ..key was glowing/purring in/with delight..

    ..phillip ure..

    • Tim 9.1
      16 December 2013 at 8:30 am

      I take it you watch “Breakfast” for the same reasons I sometimes watch Fox News @ phill?
      (It’s the only way I can find do drum up feelings of pity for the deluded, and its some of the best comedy there is on TV these days)

      • phillip ure 9.1.1
        16 December 2013 at 9:17 am

        shit..a long/considered reply to above..push publish..just vanished..

        ..left with header and blank white page..

        ..w.t.f..!

        ..this is not the first time this has happened..

        (should we copy/save before hitting publish @ the standard..?..)

        phillip ure..

        • Tim 9.1.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 3:21 pm

          ALWAYS save Phill as you go about your electronic bizznus.
          I was discussing the benefits of this just this morning. Do so as frequently as possible.
          The disk cleaners providing a level of comfort by overwriting, the algoritms in play allocating ‘space’ on disk, the way in which a delete doesn’t actually delete but makes space available for subsequent storage – yea – save and overwrite.
          But THEN ‘clean’

          But – long story short, I’ll spend the next week watching a Rawdon and his prop-up blonde what’s-her-thing (both doing their best to convince us they’re hard-hitting, ‘incisive’ journalists) for a laugh. (After all, Rawdon used to work for the BBC dontcha know!)

      • Paul 9.1.2
        16 December 2013 at 9:19 am

        NZ’s media was bought a long time ago.
        The owners of New Zealand need people like Christie to repeat their message.

  10. Ad 10
    16 December 2013 at 8:38 am

    Isn’t Labour barbeque season fantastic fun with all the leadership stuff done and full of political success?

    • Not a PS Staffer 10.1
      16 December 2013 at 9:20 am

      Do you think Mallard has learned anything form the vote of the membership?
      Is Annette King knitting woolen socks for DC’s christmas gift?

      If ANYONE thinks they can revive any aspect of the Goff/Shearer era they should be put on top of the BBQ!

    • Fisiani 10.2
      16 December 2013 at 12:39 pm

      Stop being sarcastic. A leader without the support of caucus and a failed referendum does not constitute success.

      • Ad 10.2.1
        16 December 2013 at 12:46 pm

        Clearly we have to invite you to the right barbeques.

      • mickysavage 10.2.2
        16 December 2013 at 12:59 pm

        Gee Fisi do you mean that Key does not have the support of his caucus?

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 10.2.3
        16 December 2013 at 1:01 pm

        @ Fisiani,

        Yes there must be a lot of discontent in National over the details you provide about Key and the policy failure indicated by the referendum

        [snap Mickey Savage]

  12. Morrissey 12
    16 December 2013 at 9:41 am

    Tossers in, Xhosas out
    Local mourners have to make way for the likes of Richard Branson

    If you have any kind of a conscience, you will be well and truly glutted with the obscene parade of arm-waving impostors [1], insincere sentimental posturing [2], murderously hypocritical “tributes” [3] and mindless “celebrities” [4] that has hijacked the mourning for Nelson Mandela.

    Many people who were disgusted with that farce in Johannesburg believed, or hoped against hope, that some sense of decency would be restored when the great leader was finally laid to rest in his home town in the Eastern Cape.

    On this morning’s news on Al Jazeera, however, it was immediately apparent that, while the impostors, war criminals and democracy-suppressors at least were not there for the final send-off, there was still an infestation of irritating “celebrities” present. Prominent in the front row at the church were former Blair cheerleader “Sir” Richard Branson, the Obama-cult high priestess Oprah Winfrey and The Rev. Jesse Jackson. The last-named at least has some credentials to justify his presence there—but Branson and Winfrey?

    What really was heartbreaking, though, was the forlorn sight of the local people of Qunu, herded behind fences, excluded from the funeral service because of “security” concerns.

    Still, on the bright side, at least the main speakers were South Africans this time and, in contrast to those that “led the mourners” in last week’s horror show, were not the sort of people that would have persecuted and defamed Mandela thirty years ago .

    [1] http://cdn1.independent.ie/world-news/article29829821.ece/ALTERNATES/h342/PANews_bfce2d94-f4ec-4d75-b069-6d5218eab9d2_I1.jpg

    [2] http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-mandela/?p=302690#post302690

    [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJwU_Uz8YT8#t=0

    [4] http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qFLMAoRCtZ43k7k137JUGw–/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/74c9e12e6485715eb9ed284a478d28b25d1584a0.jpg

  13. Paul 13
    16 December 2013 at 10:23 am

    Excellent article on Polity about Asset Sales
    http://polity.co.nz/content/turnout-referendum

  14. Rogue Trooper 14
    16 December 2013 at 10:35 am

    Chorus shortfall : services could deline, further
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11173023

    Departing FMA watchdog concerned about NZ investment patterns
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11173019

    • Paul 15.1
      16 December 2013 at 12:05 pm

      All hail the Great Leader John Key.
      Is that what you want people to say?

    • Will@Welly 15.2
      16 December 2013 at 12:54 pm

      John Key, Steven Joyce, et al. Picking winners. I wish I was that f**king rich. Pity the poor, the infirm, the poverty stricken, the children, the low paid, and other marginalized folks in New Zealand who don’t qualify for John Key’s “hand up, not hand out”. Yeah right.
      So once again the rank and file tax payer gets to subsidize the rich, our deficit has rocketed from $10 billion in 2008 to over $70 billion now. Welcome to Planet Key/National/Act.

    • Draco T Bastard 15.3
      16 December 2013 at 1:15 pm

      John Key kowtows to movie execs and gives them lots of other peoples, specifically NZ taxpayers, money – again.

  16. Rogue Trooper 16
    16 December 2013 at 12:10 pm

    Midday Report:
    Government will increase the baseline tax rebate for film production brought to NZ to 20% and up to 25% for the next three ‘Avatar’ films which are likely to be made here.

    ooh, a ‘Paul’ sandwich.

  17. Crunchtime 17
    16 December 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Great article from Gordon Campbell on Scoop today.

    http://werewolf.co.nz/2013/12/the-blank-slate-boy/

    “Almost singlehandedly, Colin Craig has neutralised one of the Key government’s most potent tactical weapons in the next election. Without Craig, National might have been able to run a credible scare campaign next year around the prospect of the Greens – those scary socialist enviro-extremist boogey men – being part of any government led by Labour’s David Cunliffe. Yet anytime next year that John Key, Steven Joyce or the captains of industry do try to raise the Greens spectre, they’ll need to explain their own reliance on Craig, the far more visible loose wheel on their own wagon.”

    Nicely put, and important to remember – anytime some right-winger tries to spook the horses about the Greens, ask them why Key is trying to buddy up with Crazy Craig.

  18. Tim 18
    16 December 2013 at 3:48 pm

    On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love said to me ….
    3 Avatars pending ….
    etc,

    Christ they’re getting desperate!

  19. Tracey 19
    16 December 2013 at 3:56 pm

    John key says Hone Harawira took a “jolly” to south africa and here is a quote from him

    “”He has to stand up to his own constituents, but I for one don’t support what he’s done.””

    I have tried to find where he has stated he doesnt support what Mr Banks has done (not read a form before signing etc)… interesting

    • Zorr 19.1
      16 December 2013 at 4:04 pm

      After reading it, I think he’s a little irritated that Hone got treated with more respect than he did (getting to go and perform a haka at the private ceremony) and he didn’t manage to get in on the selfie with his best buds Obama.

      2 snubs in one trip – it’s more than the egotistical narcissist can handle!

      • Ianmac 19.1.1
        16 December 2013 at 6:40 pm

        The reporter didn’t say just what Hone did on his Speaker approved “junket”.
        Was it “getting to go and perform a haka at the private ceremony” as you say Zorr?
        What was that? Could have been a sincere real moment for Hone who actually fronted the 81 protest, as opposed to the hypocritical performance by some undeserving MP bludgers with very dodgy memories.

        • Ianmac 19.1.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 6:45 pm

          And I heard Mr Key commenting on Hone’s absence in the House. I thought it was unlawful for MPs to refer to a MPs absence in the House.

        • Zorr 19.1.1.2
          17 December 2013 at 8:39 am

          “He performed a haka at the side of Mandela’s casket with the blessing of Mandela’s grandson. His wife performed a karanga mate or lament”

  20. Zorr 20
    16 December 2013 at 3:57 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9523270/PM-slams-Harawira-trip

    I hate to say it – but has Key truly devalued the office of PM to the point that every time I hear that he has said something, my immediate response is can he shut up and stop embarrassing us as a nation. We need to stop reporting on him like he is somehow still connected to reality.

    • Tigger 20.1
      16 December 2013 at 4:05 pm

      Key’s breathless slamming is bizarre, especially given that it’s bumped Avatar from top news spot.

    • Bill 20.2
      16 December 2013 at 4:08 pm

      Just heard him comment on RadioNZ. Fucking fucked is what it is. Hone went ‘on a jolly’!!!? JK had picked a representative cross section to attend!!!!?

      All that came to my mind was that image of John Key and David Cameron laughing at some fuck knows what and my strong suspicion that JK couldn’t have given a flying monkey’s fuck about the guy who’s memorial he was attending .

      • weka 20.2.1
        16 December 2013 at 7:34 pm

        Just like he doesn’t give a flying monkey’s fuck about reality. All that matters is spin and power and control. And probably wringing every last cent out of NZ while he’s still got the chance (his paymasters probably have a bonus system in place).

        • KJT 20.2.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 7:37 pm

          Should have to wear sponsors jerseys, like some suggested for the US Congress.

          At least we would know who is paying them.

    • North 20.3
      16 December 2013 at 11:07 pm

      Spot on Zorr. Gauche arsehole. Devalues the brand of Kiwi akshully.

      Farcical. In 1981 Bolger a minister in Muldoon’s cabinet and McKinnon the Junior Government Whip. Active supporters at the highest level of the apartheid regime. Then there’s the Prime Mournister. Who believes he wasn’t reflexively with them ? The people who DIDN’T bring a ray of sunshine into the cells of Robbin Island.

      They all get their costs paid. Hone gets his costs paid and we have the Prime Mournister shrieking offensively about a “jolly”.

      My God the vulgar, barefaced hypocrisy. Pathological. Borderline.

  21. Fair Observer 21
    16 December 2013 at 4:15 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Already banned. Another IP for autospam. ]

    • karol 21.1
      16 December 2013 at 4:26 pm

      Really?

      How would you feel if a right-wing politician secretly took $39,000* from a casino company to cheat on his wife while he was lobbying to have the law changed to benefit that casino company and then lied about it to the public?

      Fact checking needed.

      Repeating stuff from WO and DPF does not amount to critical analysis.

      • weka 21.1.1
        16 December 2013 at 7:52 pm

        +1 karol.

        Reading Lynn’s comment, does anyone know if Labour or the GP intend to fix the mess that is the Local Govt Act ammendment?

        • KJT 21.1.1.1
          16 December 2013 at 7:55 pm

          I don’t know, but it is bit ironic when the ACTiod types get in a tizz about the effects of the Auckland Dictatorship, they deliberately created, so that Banks could steal Aucklander’s assets.

        • lprent 21.1.1.2
          16 December 2013 at 11:30 pm

          It was part of Labour policy before the last election for Auckland.. I have no idea what it is now.

    • Paul 21.2
      16 December 2013 at 5:59 pm

      Is this one of your usual drop and run comments or are you actually here to debate?
      By the way, you seem obsessed with the Brown story. You seem to have the same news priorities as Slater.

  22. ScottGN 22
    16 December 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Another centre-left Presidente in South America. Michelle Bachelet is back and she has caned it 62% versus 38% to the centre-right candidate in the run-off vote for Chile’s president.

    • Colonial Viper 22.1
      16 December 2013 at 9:47 pm

      Very nice. South Americans learnt the hard way from many decades (centuries) of western colonialism and control.

    • Rogue Trooper 23.1
      16 December 2013 at 10:20 pm

      Oh Dear, and 1 in 4 under 25 still unemployed; EU banks are rubbing their hands though (stupid paddies they’ll be thinking).

  24. Colonial Viper 24
    16 December 2013 at 9:53 pm

    Great interview with socialist Brian Roper from Otago Uni on RNZ. Time to disband Treasury he says, and farm out the functions to different Departments.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2580119

    • Rogue Trooper 24.1
      16 December 2013 at 10:21 pm

      I have benefited from hearing and reading Brian Roper. (actually one of my fb ‘friends’; good feeds).