Open mike 17/05/2012

101 comments on “Open mike 17/05/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   17 May 2012 at 7:15 am

   Gay marriage, class sizes, teacher performance pay, welfare reform rebshocker styles and many other well timed diversions push the asset sales into the dim background.

   has anyone in our MSM picked up on the sell off of majority voting rights in the power companies effectively selling the control but still having 51% ownership…..that’s some whacky mixed model people.

   Oh and where’s that blatant and opportunistic privacy breach our social welfare minister is guilty of up to in the process also.

   Banks will implode, he’s promised one too many favours to the wrong person who expects a return on investment along with a media that’s been taken for a ride by their own unprofessional laziness in not pursuing many of shonkey and his mob sooner on basic governance and credibility issues.
2. vto 2

   17 May 2012 at 7:42 am

   Gay marriage should not become reality. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, not same sex. It is something born of religion and in most substantial ways it remains a creation of religion. It should be up to religion, in many ways.

   There are other ways for dealing with recognition of partnerships and ensuring that equal rights prevail, such as obviously civil unions. But referencing it as marriage – leave it alone. It is a cultural and heritage matter as well and I would guess most peple in NZ would want it left a man-woman matter.

   Grant Robertson on backbenchers last night said that there were two ways marriage differed from civil union – one, the name, and two, adoption rules. Well, change the adoption rules if that is want people want, but leave the name out of it.

   Marriage is a separate cultural institution and wants to be left as it has been since before any immigrants arrived in these lands. In fact, I would compare it to the first immigrants here and their desire to be separate and not mixed up with the rest of NZ. Maori have argued for a “special place” for a whole bunch of reasons. I would suggest that marriage similarly deserves a “special place”. Leave it alone, Get your own partnership.
   • Pete George 2.1

     17 May 2012 at 7:52 am

     Equality should include mariage equality. Simple as that. No one culture owns marriage as a form of commitment.
     • vto 2.1.1

       17 May 2012 at 7:56 am

       Got any reasons to support that? I outlined some reasons why marriage as an ancient cultural institution which is part of our historical fabric and heritage should remain such. What are your reasons?

       Why can’t marriage between a man and a woman be held as a special place in the country in the same way that maori argue and get a special place in the country?
       • aerobubble 2.1.1.1

         17 May 2012 at 1:17 pm

         because your wrong about the history, or ancient religious practices, think Spartans.

         Look the case for those against same sex marriage would be a whole lot stronger if they supported civil unions from the outset. Unfortunately they come across as against others which is always a turn off point when it comes to debating the social fabric.

         The problem I have when supporting man and women only marriage is the consequences.
         That inevitable either a lot of people all go back to it, except same sex couples who are barred.
         Or worse for people like you, that the word marriage becomes synonymous with bigotry exclusive sectarianism.

         Ethical and moral what’s it matter what the official government refers to, marriage or civil unions, you know what it means to you, you’re just to up yourself to believe two individuals could love one another similarly like you and yours.
       • Carol 2.1.1.2

         17 May 2012 at 6:45 pm

         Yes, but you don’t show a lot of knowledge of the actual forms marriage took in ancient and modern times, vto. I’m not particularly interested in getting married myself, and think society gives it way too much importance – in my view coupledom should be an arrangement largely between consenting adults. In past times it was more like that, for instance in per-Christian European societies.

         vto, I am a bit of a student of history (pre-, ancient and modern) and think you are being a bit cavalier with the facts. In western societies, marriages have evolved from merely making a statement to each other of commitment and not involving the state, bto, with the increasing role of Chritianity, becoming more something that has involved public rituals, the state, and formal recording of the partnerships.

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Europe

         With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[54][55] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[56] This promise was known as the “verbum.” If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., “I marry you”), it was unquestionably binding;[54] if made in the future tense (“I will marry you”), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory.

         ie not even as formal as a civil union…. ditto for ancient Greece in per-Chrsitian times

         also see here:

         http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

         There also have been various forms of same-sex marriage in various cultures in different time periods.

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

         Ancient

         Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[51] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[52]

         In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[53] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[54]

         This article cites evidence of same-sex marriages in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, as well as through Asia and the Americas:

         http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

         European conquest and colonization provides some of the best insight to marital and sexual practices of indigenous peoples across the globe. Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America.
         [..]
         Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

         Similar berdaches and same-sex-style marriages were found among cultures

         Historically, marriages have taken many forms and have constantly evolved. But I’m sure the facts are not going to get in the way you you advocating maintaining the status quo.
     • vto 2.1.2

       17 May 2012 at 7:58 am

       “No one culture owns marriage as a form of commitment.” Well, in fact it does. There are myraid forms of marriage in myriad cultures – surely you know that. So, leave this one alone too. Create a new one alongside it. Pretty bloody simple. Stop playing the victim I say.
       • Uturn 2.1.2.1

         17 May 2012 at 9:14 am

         Seems to be an unexamined element in your argument:

         You say marriage exists over various cultures as a “separate cultural institution”, born of religion. You later imply marriage here is owned by “our” culture, especially before any further immigrants turned up.

         Who is “our”?

         So an Indian, Somali, perhaps Jewish, couple married here aren’t really married? Or if they then turn up to a colonial style christian picnic, for example, their status changes and they are no longer married – until they leave the picnic, then they are married again?

         Or are you saying that gays and immigrants cannot be married using the phrasing, gods, symbols and rituals of “your/our” culture. Why not? What would happen? You’ll have to spell it out, because not everyone here is from your culture.

         To have marriage owned by one (dominant) culture, and withheld from another, at face value, appears to be a divisive device. If all the legal benefits of marriage can be attained under civil union law, what is the name of final step you are trying to describe and protect, but not articulating?

         It would be wrong of me not to acknowledge, and by doing so excuse, the racism in your post; or what is generally refered to as homophobia in modern terminology. It’s so obvious that I can only think it is motivated by fear of something you think is worse. So can we cut to the chase, because I’d be really interested to hear what religion (or culture) you identify with and why you think gays and immigrants are a threat to it.
         • vto 2.1.2.1.1

           17 May 2012 at 9:22 am

           “why you think gays and immigrants are a threat to it.”

           I know uturn – it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to discuss anything about certain subjects in New Zealand with being labelled racist or homphobic or whatever else. Proof again. What on earth is that about? How do you get racism and homophobia out of that? Please do explain because it is total bullshit. And I am sick to death of being labelled such for daring to raise issues relevant to those certain topics. I knew it would happen with this post, and it has. I would suggest that it is those who so label who are the bigots.

           (I have to race out and will try to pop back later).
           • Uturn 2.1.2.1.1.1

             17 May 2012 at 10:01 am

             Primarily, it is because your words – what your phrasing implies in the english language – describe racism and homophobia, in it’s general description. However, I’m not so dumb to think you fall so easiliy into either of those states, since there is no evidence of hate; even if I disregard your history of animated opposition to greenies, maori being maori, and sharks. I’m willing to accept the large hole in your description of opposition is evidence of you trying to articulate something before it has formed.

             I don’t enjoy long drawn out arguments disguised as “debate”. It’s just a bore. You see what you see, I see what I see. If I told you what your words meant, you wouldn’t accept it. Your learning curve exists elsewhere. So if you please, answer the most important question:

             (I’ll even re-phrase.)

             Which religion (or culture) do you identify with and why is the prospect of gays and immigrants marrying within it’s cultural rituals a threat to it and society as a whole.

             In fact, I’ll open that question up to anyone reading here. You can discard the immigrants bit, if it doesn’t apply to your view. If it is not a threat, you can explain that too.

             Though I can’t speak for everyone reading, I promise not to call anyone else racist, or whatever else their words will show them to be on this matter; neither will I respond to any further posts on this topic.
             • Vicky32 …

               17 May 2012 at 6:03 pm

               Which religion (or culture) do you identify with and why is the prospect of gays and immigrants marrying within it’s cultural rituals a threat to it and society as a whole.
               In fact, I’ll open that question up to anyone reading here.

               As you’ve opened it to anyone else, I’ll say I am a Christian, Anglo-Catholic brand, and your bringing immigrants into the discussion is tawdry, irrelevant and an attempt to lend legitimacy to your special pleading by trying to tar vto as racist.
               Marriage has existed in all known cultures. It still does. It’s not the same thing as living together (or common-law marriage as it was known when I was a child) or civil unions, etc. Marriage has a special character. I just don’t get why homosexual people even want to be married! Civil unions give people in them all the same rights, so what’s the issue?

                
               • Te Reo Putake …

                 17 May 2012 at 6:09 pm

                 Equality? Freedom of choice? Respect?
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 17 May 2012 at 7:37 pm

                 Civil unions give people in them all the same rights, so what’s the issue?

                 Really? Except that Gays can’t adopt or call themselves married.

                 Nope, not all the same rights.
           • insider 2.1.2.1.1.2

             17 May 2012 at 10:28 am

             “(I have to race out and will try to pop back later).”

             Aha, so you are a racist! 🙂
   • ianmac 2.2

     17 May 2012 at 9:06 am

     The Mormons and the Muslims would have a problem with your dogmatic position vto.
     I wonder in what way would we ordinary married folk be damaged or disadvantaged should Gay marriage become legal? Did the World stop when homosexuality became legal?
   • Bored 2.3

     17 May 2012 at 9:17 am

     Bloody hell VTO, if you really want to have every faux leftist rainbow factional type on your case go for gold, be my guest.

     Which brings me to another point: Damian OConnor last year had a go at the factional nature of the Labour Party and got hammered. I think he was right to say what he did. I believe it is about time the” nice to have” liberal bits such as gay marriage, rainbow rights, minority rights, save the whale etc became independent of Left or Right, and not the preserve of Labour.

     (For the record VTO I dont have a problem with gay marriage, I think it should be a frontline NACT policy).
     • vto 2.3.1

       17 May 2012 at 9:25 am

       My point is clear and well founded – by reference to similar issues and reference to history.

       If all the bigots want to label some redneck for daring to comment on “their” issues then that is “their” problem. They all need to simply grow up and get some decent thinking in train
       • Pascal's bookie 2.3.1.1

         17 May 2012 at 10:00 am

         What a load of bollocks v.

         You’re married when you sign the piece of paper. And that’s been the case for a hell of a long time. Any and all religious mumbo jumbo is beside the point as far as the law goes.

         If the crown decided that one sect or another couldn’t marry people, ie that it wouldn’t recognise their mumbo jumbo ceremony, then those folks wouldn’t be married in the eyes of the law.

         So why should the state choose one type over another? Why should they allow non-christian weddings but not allow homosexual ones?

         The question is: Should the state say that the religuious aspect is more important than the legal aspect? It’s a no brainer. the state has no business with the religious side of it, so it shuld offer marriage as a purely legal contract. Like it, you know, does. So why should it deny it to homosexuals?

         And don’t give me any of that malarky about kids either. Marriage has traditionally been about making sure that kids from the wrong side of the sheets don’t interfere with the orderly handing out of property.
         • Vicky32 2.3.1.1.1

           17 May 2012 at 6:08 pm

           Marriage has traditionally been about making sure that kids from the wrong side of the sheets don’t interfere with the orderly handing out of property.

           Cynical nonsense! If that’s so, tell me why my dirt-poor grandparents bothered to get married, hey?
           • Pascal's bookie 2.3.1.1.1.1

             17 May 2012 at 6:15 pm

             How on earth would I know?

             If I had to guess, I’d say most likely social expectation.

             But the point is, why was the state involved?
       • aerobubble 2.3.1.2

         17 May 2012 at 1:20 pm

         I would be for the same sex marriage only case, but too many bigots seem to believe in it as a cause.
   • John72 2.4

     17 May 2012 at 10:01 am

     vto you have my full support. Bringing up children is a learning experience for the parents and the children. The few gays/ solo mums I know have very deep personal problems and never learn. They never progress. They should not be allowed children. (I hope that I am still learning.) Do not worry about your critics, they can only change the subject or stoop to personal abuse.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1

       17 May 2012 at 10:29 am

       (I hope that I am still learning.)

       You’re not. As evidenced by your moronic ramblings here you’re a close minded nut job.
       • John72 2.4.1.1

         17 May 2012 at 5:19 pm

         Let us take it one sentence at a time. “Bringing up children is a learning experience for both the parents and the children.”
         Who thinks that they are fully mature adults and there is nothing left to learn?
         Who thinks that they just about know it all. There might be a bit more but they can not imagine what?
         Who thinks that they are an adventurer on the journey if life. It will be booring if there is nothing left?
         Who is not prepared to face this question?
         Are you reading this web site to ask questions or confirm what you believe?
         • Chris 2.4.1.1.1

           17 May 2012 at 6:15 pm

           I don’t particularly want to engage with you to be honest but that annoys me. No you are correct that it is a learning experience for both parent and children.

           That’s not the part of your post that shows you are a close minded nut job.  That would be the part where you admit you know only a few gays and solo mums and because you have decided the ones you do know have problems and don’t learn no gays should be allowed children (I assume you also extend this to solo mums as well?).
           • John72 2.4.1.1.1.1

             17 May 2012 at 7:29 pm

             1. What % of the total gay population do you know deeply?
             2. How many solo children know their father? We do not know why they are solo but could it be a symptom of something physiological? Were the men just there to prvide stud services?
             Obviously there will always be exemptions but this does seem to be a trend, a symptom of something even more wide spread.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               17 May 2012 at 7:43 pm

               Obviously there will always be exemptions but this does seem to be a trend, a symptom of something even more wide spread.

               See, if you were willing to learn you wouldn’t be spouting this shit that has been proven wrong and you’ve been here long enough to know that. Ergo, you’re a close minded fuckwit who thinks your prejudices are fact.
               • John72 …

                 17 May 2012 at 8:58 pm

                 Acts 26, v24
                 Acts 26, 25 – 31 ( At least King Agrippa did not need to stoop to foul language.)
                 • Te Reo Putake …

                   17 May 2012 at 9:30 pm

                   Agrippa? If I remember my Winston Peters quotes correctly, and I think I do, a gripper is a wanker who won’t let go. Apt, huh?
                   • John72 …

                     17 May 2012 at 10:02 pm

                     (Quote Cecil) The first step to knowledge is to know that we are ignorant.
             • Vicky32 …

               18 May 2012 at 4:20 pm

               . How many solo children know their father? We do not know why they are solo but could it be a symptom of something physiological? Were the men just there to prvide stud services?

               Lolwut? I was a solo mother, and I most certainly knew the fathers of my sons. (One ex husband, one ex – er… ) In the case of the latter, my son never knew his father, I knew him, but was very thankful that he chose not to blight his son’s life by his presence.
     • freedom 2.4.2

       17 May 2012 at 10:32 am

       “Do not worry about your critics, they can only change the subject or stoop to personal abuse.”

       you really are one messed up wackadoodle john72, i was thinking of going to town on your belligerent ass but reason and consideration prevailed. Reason being I accept some people are just vile pig-ignorant bigots and consideration that it is far more constructive to let you know that, then ignore you.

       happy?, does that make you feel all satisfied and righteous?
       I would hate to have disappointed your finely tuned understanding of human behaviour.

       don’t worry about replying i won’t be commenting on anything you say, ever again.
   • weka 2.5

     17 May 2012 at 10:29 am

     Interesting vto. If we put marriage in NZ in a cultural context and look at our dominant culture’s anglosaxon roots, we see that state sanctioned marriage is primarily driven by the need to control women’s reproductive capacity and other freedoms, paternity, and land/asset rights. So I guess yes you could argue that that doesn’t apply to gay marriage.
      
      
   • weka 2.6

     17 May 2012 at 10:32 am

     btw, Maori aren’t arguing for a ‘special place’. They fighting to preserve something they already have.
      
     And if you don’t want people to confuse your arguments with racism, I’d suggest not making statements like calling Maori ‘first immigrants’.
     • vto 2.6.1

       17 May 2012 at 2:10 pm

       To everyone above, appreciate the feedback and apologise for not being able to respond to each in some detail as points have been raised which scratch. Today’s day has turned to muck and I must away for some daze…

       But two quick things. One, I have clearly not expressed myself accurately – a result of banging it out too quickly this a.m. Two, it is more like this nutshell, I am not arguing AGAINST a place for gay marriage, I am arguing FOR a place for heterosexual marriage all to itself. There are plenty of precedents for such in our world (example alreday provided) and I suggest that there should be made room for another – this one. . It . is . as . simple . as . that .

       (and Weka, please do explain how it is racist to describe Maori as the first immigrants)
       • Tiger Mountain 2.6.1.1

         17 May 2012 at 2:17 pm

         not implying that this applies to VTO, but, you need to examine your motivations for denying rights to others

         http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-angry-straight-male
       • weka 2.6.1.2

         17 May 2012 at 9:29 pm

         “(and Weka, please do explain how it is racist to describe Maori as the first immigrants)”
          
         I’m not sure you were being racist vto. But how Maori came here, who got here first, etc has no relevance to your points, so why describe them as such? Is IS a term used by racists to undermine concepts of tangata whenua and treaty rights. Irrespective of how you intended it, its odd placement in your argument, without context, left it hanging out there alongside the views of racists.
          
     • Vicky32 2.6.2

       17 May 2012 at 6:10 pm

       like calling Maori ‘first immigrants’.

       Even though they are? 😀
       • Adele 2.6.2.1

         17 May 2012 at 9:30 pm

         Vicky,

         Have you met John72, I think you two have a lot in common…
         • Vicky32 2.6.2.1.1

           18 May 2012 at 4:22 pm

           Have you met John72, I think you two have a lot in common

           Don’t be such an insulting ignorant person, please.
           • McFlock 2.6.2.1.1.1

             18 May 2012 at 4:58 pm

             And smiley faces supposedly make ignorant comments okay?
   • Vicky32 2.7

     17 May 2012 at 5:55 pm

     Gay marriage should not become reality…
     There are other ways for dealing with recognition of partnerships and ensuring that equal rights prevail, such as obviously civil unions. But referencing it as marriage – leave it alone. It is a cultural and heritage matter as well and I would guess most peple in NZ would want it left a man-woman matter.
     …………..
     … I would suggest that marriage similarly deserves a “special place”. Leave it alone, Get your own partnership.

     Agreed, vto! Let the sh*t storm begin…
3. BillODrees 3

   17 May 2012 at 8:42 am

   NIMBY. Not in my back yard, says John Key, MP for the Hobsonville/Helensville area. The capping at 17 of the number of low wage entry level houses in this quality development in Hobsonville, on State Owned Land by A State Agency is a scandal. John Key knows how to stop affordable housing in his electorate. And he never heard of a 7ft German Squillionaire living in the most expensive house in his electorate: a Tui moment.

   It was great to hear Anette King on National Radio fronting-up on the issue. Phil Heatley had not the balls to accept an invitation. We need all of our senior team fronting up as much as possible. Good work Annette.
   • Bored 3.1

     17 May 2012 at 9:20 am

     It is a real pity that Labour can get up in arms about this foul NACT larceny BUT they still want to shut down economic policy debate and muzzle Cunliffe.

     http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/cunliffe-muzzled-courtiers-fight-back.html
   • deuto 3.2

     17 May 2012 at 9:24 am

     King was excellent in that interview – had all the background, facts etc. If I recall correctly, the interviewer made a strong point at least twice about Heatley refusing to front.
   • prism 3.3

     17 May 2012 at 9:56 am

     Annette King spoke well and made a good explanation. Phil Heatley as Minister of Housing is low on the pecking order as his low interest in state assistance with housing reflects the disinterest NACTs have in government involvement for supporting the mass of the people. The housing market is a great way of making money for business people who don’t want to roll their sleeves up and make something and possibly export it. It’s just rolling money around with so many clipping the ticket on its way past.

     It’s ongoing since they brought state rents to market rates and forced people from their houses and towns to settle as strangers where the state had smaller units. In John Luxton’s time he was pictured amused at a housing protest – I think there might have been a haka performed.
4. Jackal 4

   17 May 2012 at 9:48 am

   Police protect one of their own

   Criminal A stole $6000 dollars worth of clothing, had his name and face all over the news and was sentenced to two years imprisonment.

   Criminal B stole an undisclosed amount, had his name suppressed, wasn’t put before a judiciary to see if evidence was admissible or not and got off scott free.

   Criminal A is Maori and comes from the general public while criminal B was a police officer and likely to be Pakeha. The Police’s “ethical standards” in this matter are a complete joke!
   • prism 4.1

     17 May 2012 at 10:03 am

     This reminds me of a recent film clip I watched about the lack of police standards, ethics and morality in the Stark County Ohio film clip from SHTF I think. The police there will say nothing against their own there. An organisation has kept a list of complaints some about serious crimes by the police and I think about 10% were investigated from I think 189 with few/none dealt with. They even harrassed and I think arrested someone who was asking for a complaint form.

     We haven’t got there yet but these examples are bad signs.
   • freedom 4.2

     17 May 2012 at 10:46 am

     on a side note:
     The fingerprints statement is a little bit interesting.
     ” Officers’ fingerprints are recorded for elimination purposes, but it is not lawful for these to be used for any other purpose. ”

     worst-case scenario: if a Police officer’s fingerprints are the only evidence found at a murder scene are they automatically excluded as a suspect due to elimination protocols?
     • Chris 4.2.1

       17 May 2012 at 1:41 pm

       The way I understand it is they’re not excluded as a suspect they just can’t be used in a court.

       i.e. they would need to find other evidence and probably couldn’t use them as a reason to get a warrant even
     • insider 4.2.2

       17 May 2012 at 2:01 pm

       Perhaps a court might have the ability to accept them as per the Urewera trials if the charge is serious enough.

       I’m assuming this is something along the lines of fingerprints only being allowed to be collected and retained for evidence under certain rules/circumstances. Collection as part of police job may not fit those rules.
   • TheContrarian 4.3

     17 May 2012 at 2:37 pm

     Nearly right:

     Criminal A stole $36000  worth of items

     Criminal B allegedly stole 3 pairs of sunglasses 

     Criminal A received 2 years in prison and was paraded on TV. Criminal B could not be charged as legal advice showed not enough evidence to prosecute. You generally don’t parade around people who haven’t been found guilty, there is nothing to suggest what his race was and lost his job due to serious misconduct.

     Implying racism where there is no evidence of racism is almost as bad as racism itself
     • TheContrarian 4.3.1

       17 May 2012 at 2:58 pm

       “lost his job due to serious misconduct.”

       meant to say he quit before the serious misconduct case was brought to bear. 
     • David H 4.3.2

       17 May 2012 at 3:52 pm

       Yeah and what do you reckon 3 pairs of trendy designer shades are worth?? judging by the footage i saw it weren’t no 2 dollar shop.
       • TheContrarian 4.3.2.1

         17 May 2012 at 3:55 pm

         Not $36000. 
          
         • Jackal 4.3.2.1.1

           17 May 2012 at 7:19 pm

           You cannot know the value of the sunglasses Contrarian, it hasn’t been reported.

           The police reported the officer allegedly stole three sets of sunglasses. Just incase you’re not aware, a set of sunglasses is made up of two or more pairs. So if the police are to be believed, at least six pairs of sunglasses were taken… value unknown. It appears these items were not recovered.

           It’s my opinion that the police officer is more likely to be Pakeha than any other ethnicity. Do you know the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact Contrarian? Your claims that I’m being worse than racist because of an opinion based on statistical evidence makes you look like a prat!

           Even the police recognize that there’s racism within the police force towards Maori and I’ve not seen a good rebuttal of Pita Sharples’ contention that:

           “Maori are more likely to be questioned in the street by police than non-Maori… these are figures from reports that have come through [to me], numerous reports,” Sharples told the Sunday Star-Times.

           “They are more likely to be taken to the [police] station, they are more likely to be charged … up to six or seven times more likely. The justice, police, courts and corrections processes are systematically discriminatory against Maori.”

           Let’s put it like this then:

           Criminal A stole $23,000 worth of clothing, $17,468 worth of the goods were recovered but $6000 is outstanding. The Maori male was sentenced to two years imprisonment.

           Criminal B mislead investors to the tune of $127 million. The white male escaped a prison sentence, might do a few hundred hours community service and was ordered to make reparation approximate to 0.08% of the funds lost.

           I’m wondering when Slater will call for the ex-officer to be gut shot!
           • TheContrarian 4.3.2.1.1.1

             17 May 2012 at 8:13 pm

             Don’t worry Jackal,
             I believe you….

             And what “statistical evidence” do you have?
             • Jackal …

               17 May 2012 at 8:28 pm

               You’re wanting me to provide statistical evidence that there are more Pakeha in the Police force than any other ethnicity? Lol!
               • TheContrarian …

                 17 May 2012 at 8:35 pm

                 No I asked “what ‘statistical evidence’ do you have?”
                 i.e. to what are you referring. But those stats are meaningless on their own. There are Chinese, Samoan, Tongan, Maori, British policeman. So what?
                  
                 • felix …

                   17 May 2012 at 9:44 pm

                   Serious (ish) question: Have you actually started a website just to complain about this website?

                   Have you met burt? You two should hang out.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     17 May 2012 at 9:59 pm

                     Yeah that whole one post about the standard I wrote weeks ago certainly would suggest so
                   • Te Reo Putake …

                     17 May 2012 at 10:17 pm

                     Hmmm, 2 posts directly related to the Standard and a dishonourable mention in a third. 3 out of 8 posts so far.
                      
                     TC is a big fan of Burt, Felix. But he’s not a rightie, no way.
                   • felix …

                     17 May 2012 at 11:33 pm

                     Did you ever see burt’s weird ‘obsession-with-the-standard’ blog?

                     Truly odd behaviour, participating quite heavily in the culture of a blog while you’re there, and then going elsewhere and pretending you’re an external uninvolved observer.
                 • Jackal …

                   17 May 2012 at 11:48 pm

                   It’s not my job to provide you with Police reports Contrarian. Google it.

                   The Contrarian vs The Jackal

                   The Contrarian claims that it “sounds fairly standard,” that the fingerprints recorded for elimination purposes are inadmissible in a court of law. However this observation is based on sheer ignorance and misinformation…
   • Treetop 4.4

     17 May 2012 at 5:27 pm

     Remember Arie and how he was treated by the police over the light fittings.
5. John72 5

   17 May 2012 at 9:53 am

   See VTO.
   • Ed 5.1

     17 May 2012 at 10:09 am

     There are many married couples that have deep personal problems and never learn. If such a couple is unable to have children, they may well find it difficult to adopt. A gay couple with ‘deep personal problems’ is also unlikely to be able to adopt, but why should the law otherwise discriminate? I know a couple in a civil union who would be excellent parents – why should they not at least have the option of applying? We hear stories of children passed from foster parent to foster parent and ending up severely disturbed and committing crimes – why not use the best resources we can to bring up child who have had to be removed from those couples and solo parents who have “deep personal problems”?
6. ianmac 6

   17 May 2012 at 10:09 am

   This is interesting. Mr Key said he had never heard of Mr Dotcom until the day before his arrest. And yet this from the Herald:

   Speculation about the FBI’s interest in Kim Dotcom was passed across government departments and wound up in a report for ministers long before he was arrested, documents show.

   Information described as “vague” was passed from one government department to another before being included in a report to Justice Minister Simon Power and Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson.

   How can this be that a PM had no knowledge of this? Beggars belief!
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806441
   • Bill 6.1

     17 May 2012 at 10:35 am

     There is no way ministers didn’t know of him. This drive by the US to extradite citizens of other countries to face legal proceedings in the US because they broke copyright law within US jurisdiction (ie by using .com addresses which are ‘owned’ by the US) requires a lot of backroom ‘understandings’.
   • insider 6.2

     17 May 2012 at 10:37 am

     Are you saying the PM should know about every single report in every single govt dept or ones that go to ministers?
     • ianmac 6.2.1

       17 May 2012 at 10:41 am

       Can’t believe that moves from a foreign country over months and known in four Ministerial Departments but not the PM’s? Yeah right!
       Simon Power didn’t ever have a word in his PM’s ear giving him a heads up???? Potential for National concern???
       • insider 6.2.1.1

         17 May 2012 at 11:34 am

         It said branches of govt – not necessarily ministries. And the story says the interest was vague and they had to speculate what it might be about. I don’t believe this would have got anywhere near the PM’s office until there was a bit more flesh on it.
         • North 6.2.1.1.1

           17 May 2012 at 7:22 pm

           Insider……are you saying the whole business had no flesh on it until the day before
           SirKiwiKimDotCom was arrested ???? Get off the grass man !
     • freedom 6.2.2

       17 May 2012 at 10:50 am

       when the reports are dealing with a person whose business is worth a billion dollars and is one of a handful of people who had ventured into the munti-million dollar bonds for citizenship deal, yeah i think that would be in the peripheral vision of a banker turned media whore
7. prism 7

   17 May 2012 at 10:12 am

   The sad Langley case drags on. Why wasn’t he charged with manslaughter – much easier to get a conviction in a difficult case when the witnesses are all in one family. Like the Christchurch sex/AIDS debate when it’s family the truth might never be told.

   Warning – don’t pop into bed with others until you know whether they are sterling types. When they start on the jealousy thing and getting physical, it shows they don’t love you, not that they do.
   Loving doesn’t involve such behaviour. Sexual perversion does – the other partner should get out of there quickly and if possible without wounding the self-esteem of the perpetrator who can’t stand being denied anything, being found wanting. The aggressive “You looking at me” type.
   • just saying 7.1

     17 May 2012 at 11:00 am

     So you think Langley bears some responsibility and this should be reflected in a lesser charge?
     Like when gay men were partly responsible for being murdered by homophobes and charges reduced accordingly. Women, girls and gays eh? We just aren’t policing ourselves strictly enough.
     Tell me, should people in minority ethnicities keep a low profile too? for their own protection like. There are a lot of racists out there.
   • just saying 7.2

     17 May 2012 at 11:02 am

     So you think Langley bears some responsibility and this should be reflected in a lesser charge?
     Like when gay men were considered partly responsible for being murdered by homophobes and charges were reduced accordingly. Women, girls and gays eh? We just aren’t policing ourselves strictly enough.
     Tell me, should people in minority ethnicities keep a low profile too? For their own protection like. There are a lot of racists out there.
     • just saying 7.2.1

       17 May 2012 at 11:07 am

       Damn. The ghost in the machine told me the comment had been lost, both times.
8. ianmac 8

   17 May 2012 at 10:20 am

   And Adam Bennet reports, “Justice Minister Judith Collins has initiated High Court defamation action against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little………but not against Radio NZ.”
   Funny girl?
   • Pascal's bookie 8.1

     17 May 2012 at 10:34 am

     More details here:

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6938461/Little-tells-Collins-to-send-in-the-thugs

     ”The letter is somewhat threatening. It says having to serve you can be inconvenient because these guys tend to be pretty thuggish kind of characters.”

     What? that’s crazy talk.
     • Uturn 8.1.1

       17 May 2012 at 10:43 am

       “…these guys tend to be pretty thuggish kind of characters.”

       lol

       I guess it depends where you grew up, huh.
       • Te Reo Putake 8.1.1.1

         17 May 2012 at 11:33 am

         Thuggish, huh? Doesn’t Cameron Slater supplement his dubious income by being a part time stand over merchant?
         • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1.1

           17 May 2012 at 11:42 am

           Heh.

           But seriously, what an odd thing to have in a lawyers letter. There was a lot of talk about how crsah hot her QC is, but that’s just weird.

           Little could be lying of course, but to what end? The only plausible reason would be to get her to give them permission to release the letter, in which case what it says must be even more damaging than amature hour godfather bullshit.

           It’s a farce.
           • insider 8.1.1.1.1.1

             17 May 2012 at 11:56 am

             Frankly I though Little’s tough talk made him sound like a complete wonker.

             Arranging service is not unusual amongst mature adults.

             They don’t need permission to release the letter. It wouldn;t have said the thuggish characters bit – that is Little saying his view of process servers and the reporter not punctuating it to show the middle phrase is disconnected from the main idea ie ”The letter is somewhat threatening – it says having to serve you can be inconvenient – because these guys tend to be pretty thuggish kind of characters.” People don’t always speak in logical sequence, which looks to me to be more like ”It says having to serve you can be inconvenient. The letter is somewhat threatening. because these guys tend to be pretty thuggish kind of characters.”
             • Pascal's bookie …

               17 May 2012 at 12:13 pm

               Yep, looks like you’re right:

               http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806430

               game on.
             • Fortran …

               17 May 2012 at 1:09 pm

               Sadly Andrew Little belittles himself and the party with his comments.
               He would be better to say nothing at this time and save it up for the Court case.
     • ianmac 8.1.2

       17 May 2012 at 10:48 am

       Surely Little and Mallard would by their nature roll over like cute little puppies waiting for Cuddly Collins to tickle their fat little tummies?
       They do want to please Cuddly Collins don’t they?
9. travellerev 9

   17 May 2012 at 11:21 am

   Here is a 12 year old girl explaining our banking system in real simple language in five minutes. This appeared on the well respected financial top blog Zero hedge and I suggest you watch it so you understand what John Key an Bill English have done to this country when they borrowed $112 billion to invest in derivatives without any congressional oversight.
   • aerobubble 9.1

     17 May 2012 at 1:33 pm

     Never be a debtor be.
   • grumpy 9.2

     17 May 2012 at 3:13 pm

     “congressional oversight”??????
   • grumpy 9.3

     17 May 2012 at 3:14 pm

     “congressional oversight” ?????? WTF????
     • travellerev 9.3.1

       17 May 2012 at 3:28 pm

       Grumpy my bad. That would be Parliamentary oversight of course. Must be the reading of about a 100 online publications and news papers about every fucking government in the known universe and the banking collapse which made me confuse the US and NZ’s different name for the same fucking thing.
10. Draco T Bastard 10

    17 May 2012 at 12:46 pm

    I/S reports on more accommodation rorting by a National MP.

    Why are we paying for Murray McCully to stay in hotels in Auckland?

    According to his latest Ministerial credit card receipts [PDF, p. 12], we paid for McCully to spend two nights at the Heritage Hotel in Auckland. The expense is justified as “accommodation during RWC”. This would be entirely uncontentious, except for one thing: McCully represents an Auckland electorate, and I am informed he is on the electoral roll there. Which means he has a home of his own to go to in Auckland. So again, why the hotel?

    As rorts go, its a small one; its not as if he’s being paid tens of thousands of dollars a year to live in his own home in Wellington. But its still unacceptable. Ministers are given credit cards to cover actual, reasonable and necessary expenses – not because they feel like spending a night of luxury on the taxpayer, or just can’t be arsed driving home.

    Meh, it was small enough to just quote the whole thing.
    • Chris 10.1

      17 May 2012 at 1:48 pm

      To be fair if I lived on the north shore I wouldn’t want to stay there either
      • higherstandard 10.1.1

        17 May 2012 at 3:28 pm

        To be fair if you lived on the north shore no one would want to stay there.
        • grumpy 10.1.1.1

          17 May 2012 at 4:33 pm

          ….bit harsh…..
        • Chris 10.1.1.2

          17 May 2012 at 6:21 pm

          oh that cuts deep
11. BLiP 11

    17 May 2012 at 4:57 pm

    .

    RIP Carlos.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18081034
12. prism 12

    17 May 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Key says that a tightening budget and shrinking staff for our overseas ministry will not affect our relations with other countries. But probably the people who could assess that will not be employed any more so he’ll never know. But then he didn’t want to know. Factual information is anathema to NACT.

    Why take notice – be like the British over Iraq – ignore your experts. Some of them take feel responsibility and take their job seriously like David Kelly, more fool them.
    (A moment’s silence for someone for this man who advised against war from wikipedia on google.)

    David Christopher Kelly, CMG (14 May 1944 – 17 July 2003) was a British scientist and expert on biological warfare, employed by the British Ministry of Defence, …
13. Te Reo Putake 13

    17 May 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Banksie is gone like a rat down a drainpipe. Sadly its not yet the end of the MP for Epsom, just a plumber with no appreciation of street art!
14. Campbell Larsen 14

    17 May 2012 at 9:21 pm

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/525074_10151696032995696_585815695_24107043_2065650214_n.jpg

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS