Open mike 17/09/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 17th, 2015 - 168 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

168 comments on “Open mike 17/09/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Gangnam Style 1
    17 September 2015 at 6:30 am

    I could not believe this story when I saw it on the news last night, the young man welding the container, turns out he wasn’t even a trained welder & wasn’t in a safety harness or anything. Also the contractor was not a specialised for large scale industrial work. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11514181 This is why regulations exist. I hope the company gets their arse handed to them on a plate for this appalling bollocks up.

    Also this story about some scammy WINZ scheme which turns ou to be a useless waste of money, but Tolley says shes happy to waste money on unfounded programmes, gotta keep those sick bennies on their toes! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11514141

  2. Paul 2
    17 September 2015 at 7:00 am

    The All Blacks getting weary of the hakarena.
    I’m getting weary of dull stories about the All Blacks when the media could be writing about important stuff.
    305 000 children In poverty
    The loss of democracy in Christchurch
    Failed work and safety rules
    Zero hour contracts
    The sale of productive land to overseas interests
    Letting off the fines of Serco for corporate misdemeanours

    • Tracey 2.1
      17 September 2015 at 7:06 am

      As a former sportsperson, fan and someone who has earned a living in the sports industry I have been surprised (pleasantly I might add, to be reassured that not everyone loves sport or rugby as our media and politicians like to suggest) at how less widely favoured the silver fern on black was in the flag debate.

      I think John Key genuinely (no trickery, slippery or or other ipperyness) thought that “everyone loves the All Blacks”.

      Now, for my part, I know that everyone doesn’t.

      I know that not all sportspeople “love the All Blacks” and another decent sized group don’t love sport. But observing this flag stuff I have come to think that Key REALLY thinks/thought everyone did, or enough to make his flag with a silver fern a romp in the park. now it hasn’t I suspect he and his advisors are genuinely bewildered, and hence the rabbit in the headlights initial responses followed by trickery and slipperyness.

      * And no, am not a killjoy, I will be watching the World Cup and hoping for an AB win.

      • Paul 2.1.1
        17 September 2015 at 7:16 am

        The media uses the All Blacks to distract people.
        Bread and circuses.
        Same as it ever was during the decline of Empires.

        • Chooky 2.1.1.1
          17 September 2015 at 8:18 am

          yes boring, boring…boring All Blacks…they have not done themselves any favours by ingratiating themselves with jonkey and his ego , multi million dollar flag project

          …there are plenty of other sports deserving of NZers attention…skiing, running, swimming,cycling,tramping, mountaineering,ice hockey, hockey, dancing, horse riding, sky diving, parachuting, canoeing….

      • Ch-ch Chiquita 2.1.2
        17 September 2015 at 7:28 am

        Even if you do love sports and the All Blacks doesn’t mean you will want the silver fern as your country’s flag. I think that after all the talk about how this is a one in a lifetime opportunity to define our identity, the four chosen options were an anti climax and even Key’s supporters can see through it.

        • Tracey 2.1.2.1
          17 September 2015 at 7:34 am

          The sportspeople I know and mix with see the fern on black of representative of NZ That is what they identify with, much more than the flag. I get that doesn’t mean ALL, but remember those who have represented NZ in sport are actually a BIG minority of NZers, and I think perhaps Key has spent too much time with this small group to have understood that.

      • Psycho Milt 2.1.3
        17 September 2015 at 7:37 am

        I think John Key genuinely (no trickery, slippery or or other ipperyness) thought that “everyone loves the All Blacks”.

        The assumption that you and your mates are a comprehensive cross-section of society seems to be a common one among Blokes. I remember a guy I was doing some work for in 1981 asking “Who even are these anti-tour people? I don’t even know one person who’s against it.” I didn’t volunteer to change that situation, on the basis of wanting to get paid and not wanting to get punched, thus helping confirm his view that anti-tour protesters were a tiny minority over-publicised by gullible reporters.

        As an aside: kind of funny that the rugby boot’s now on the other foot and Key doesn’t dare admit to his own views on that tour. That in itself should have given him a hint that maybe not everyone loves rugby.

        • vto 2.1.3.1
          17 September 2015 at 7:41 am

          Given Key’s recent cuddling and cosying up to the All Blacks, it is entirely appropriate to raise the question of his then views on the Springbok Tour again. His clear passion for rugby and the Al Blacks means he would most definitely have had a view at the time. And if says he still can’t remember then the person asking needs to suggest to him that “everyone thinks your just bullshitting John”

          • BM 2.1.3.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 7:46 am

            At the time he probably was pro tour, most people were.

            Seriously though, who really cares, it was 35 years ago, stop living in the past.

            • Tracey 2.1.3.1.1.1
              17 September 2015 at 7:51 am

              “most people were” really?

              stop living in the past is good advice, except of course for your government which still blames a government of 7 years ago for stuff, and you lap it up BM.

              • BM …
                17 September 2015 at 7:59 am

                Yep, fairly simple times, beer, rugby and racing, that was the important stuff.

                Times change though and so do peoples attitudes and perceptions.

                NZ has changed completely in 30 years, comparing NZ in 1981 to NZ in 2015 is like comparing Sweden to Botswana.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 September 2015 at 9:45 am

                  If you don’t look back at where you have come from, how are you to understand the direction that you have been heading in?

                  • BM …
                    17 September 2015 at 10:20 am

                    You learn from the past, but you don’t dwell on the past.

                    Key was a young man at the time, like most at that age you knew fuck all and only saw the world in black and white, no doubt the views he had back then have changed significantly through experience and learning.

                    The facts are the only reason the left had any interest in Keys view on the 81 springbok tour was because Mandela had died and were trying to score a couple of cheap political points.

                    Which in my view was rather scummy and showed a distinct lack of class.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2015 at 1:13 pm

                      what a lowlife you are – giving out the free passes to your mate monKey – oh he probably this or maybe that – you are a sycophantic loser just like key – YOU are scummy and have zero class just like key – the posterboy you have on your bedroom wall.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      17 September 2015 at 8:48 pm

                      Key has been questioned on his position on the Springbok tour ever since he became leader of the National Party. And he has been criticised about his convenient lack of memory ever since.

                      This video was uploaded in April, 2008 – Long before Mandela died.

                      And then there’s this from one of the articles in the New Zealand Herald’s unauthorised biography of Key series:

                      “Key himself credits those early debates as sparking his interest in politics. He remembers being attracted by the fiery political arguments of the 1970s and 1980s. “They were quite intense debates – Kawerau and Kinleith and people striking over the Cook Strait ferries – all of those kind of things,” he says. “It was certainly a period of time where politics were prominent and I was fascinated by it.”

                      This fascination with the political debate of the time does not square with answers Key gave in his early political career about his stand on one of the most divisive issues of the early-1980s – the Springbok Tour. During a television interview before his rise to the leadership of the party, Key was asked: “In 1981, were you for or against the Springbok Tour?” He answered: “Oh, I can’t even remember … 1981, I was 20 … ah … I don’t really know. I didn’t really have a strong feeling on it at the time. Look, it’s such a long time ago.”

                      His answer is puzzling for someone who was surrounded by, and fascinated with, political debate. Whether he was pro-Tour or anti-Tour is almost irrelevant 27 years down the track. But saying that he can’t remember how he felt leaves him open to criticism that he did not want to get off-side with people by stating his position. (In subsequent broadcast interviews, he sounds strangely confused. He has said that he didn’t go to the games, but that he might have if he could have afforded it; and that he wasn’t happy that the Springboks were here, but that he didn’t feel strongly enough to go out on the street.)“

                • Stuart Munro …
                  17 September 2015 at 10:08 am

                  Yes – we were Sweden then – now thanks to Key we are Botswana.

            • vto 2.1.3.1.1.2
              17 September 2015 at 8:07 am

              BM you Neanderthal “Seriously though, who really cares, it was 35 years ago, stop living in the past”

              Do you not see the importance of establishing if our Prime Minister lies to us and paints pictures of deception?

              Further, the about-face shown by most all pro-tour people, who were generally full-faced tory right wing types, proves again that the left are correct on all political issues. It just takes time for the conservative, Neanderthal right wing types time to wake up to reality and change their mind.

              The examples of this are everywhere BM.

              Perhaps you could point to an issue where the right wing led on it and were subsequently proved to be correct? You wont be able to BM, you wont be able to …

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.3.1.1.3
              17 September 2015 at 9:06 am

              Seriously though, who really cares, it was 35 years ago, stop living in the past.

              History informs us who we are. Remember that.

              Or maybe you just prefer to drift directionlessly with no anchor in time, past present or future.

              • BM …
                17 September 2015 at 10:29 am

                You can’t start the next chapter of your life if you keep re-reading the last one.

                Labour could really learn from that one.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 September 2015 at 11:18 am

                  Not that I disagree with your main point there.

                  But how do you write the next chapter when you have no idea what came before?

                • Tracey …
                  17 September 2015 at 11:53 am

                  Wonder why National dwells on the past by constantly blaming Labour despite it being in charge for nearly 7 years now.

            • Psycho Milt 2.1.3.1.1.4
              17 September 2015 at 9:23 am

              …he probably was pro tour, most people were

              Thanks for so promptly leaping in to illustrate my point.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.3.1.1.5
              17 September 2015 at 10:31 am

              At the time he probably was pro tour, most people were.

              He probably was but most people weren’t. That’s why we had so many protests.

          • AmaKiwi 2.1.3.1.2
            18 September 2015 at 1:05 am

            vto, well said.

      • Muttonbird 2.1.4
        17 September 2015 at 8:16 am

        * And no, am not a killjoy, I will be watching the World Cup and hoping for an AB win.

        – Tracey

        Well, by that definition I am a killjoy and proud of it.

        I’m unable to divorce John Key’s recent whoring of the All Blacks for his own political gain from my support of the team for 40 years. It’s naive to think the high-jacking will not get even worse should NZ win this RWC.

        He’s taken my team from me and so I hope they go down in a ball of flames…

        …even if at the hands of Australia.

        • Ffloyd 2.1.4.1
          17 September 2015 at 9:50 am

          @Muttonbird. I have been an AB follower most of my adult life (loooong time) but am totally disillusioned by them now. They are just advertising billboards with pretty hairdo’s. So tired of them pushing deodorants, strutting around in their undies, Richie and the keyclone running around selling I don’t know what. Have forgotten already. Conkey on the cover of Rugby magazine gurning like an idiot looking for a village was just plain stupid and his stalking of Richie is sooo embarrassing. I am predicting that they will not retain the WC . In the past nothing good has come of anyone who hitches their star to conkey’s clapped out old wagon. He is a jinx.

        • Olwyn 2.1.4.2
          17 September 2015 at 9:52 am

          As Anthony Robins astutely said a few days ago, “If he can get 50.1% and his own way that is good enough. He is about his own agenda, not unifying the country.”

          He is doing to the All Blacks what he has done to Peter Jackson – appropriating them as emblems of his gang. It does not matter to him if a few killjoys end up despising them because of it, so long as that 50+% holds up. It probably even pleases him that something that people universally felt they had a stake in is narrowed down to just the ones who identify with him. So long as he can hang on to his 50+% this gives him cultural leverage – the only “real New Zealander” becomes the “Key-friendly New Zealander.”

          Key would do well to remember Mrs Shipley, the plane painted in All Black drag and the semifinal loss to France that year.

      • Ed 2.1.5
        17 September 2015 at 10:44 am

        I recall a recent story where a National Campaign Manager said that all three of John Key’s changing “opinions” were informed by polls / focus groups . . .Who needs a mind of their own when they pay Farrar to find out what it should be?

      • infused 2.1.6
        17 September 2015 at 2:41 pm

        Dont like sports much lesst of all rugby. Since the nz rwc though thats changed. Good to watch with friends.

    • Rosie 2.2
      17 September 2015 at 8:22 am

      Yes, when is the thugby world cup over? I’m looking forward to that part.

  3. Ad 3
    17 September 2015 at 7:21 am

    Very frustrating to see Ministers Bennett and Rich decline the sale of the Lochinver Station to a Chinese firm, but on the other hand when English or key are questioned about the sale of half of Silver Ferm Farms, they just blithely say it’s “up to the shareholders”, meaning, the farmer owners.

    It would be great if this government had an actual economic development strategy, rather than just hollowing us out to nothing, bar a few paddocks.

  4. save NZ 4
    17 September 2015 at 7:43 am

    No grounds to extradite Kim Dotcom, says Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11514142

    This is a very important Internet and Monopoly case, because if someone can be hounded throughout the world based on a civil unproven claim of a file sharing website which has already been proven to be legal when Viacom sued file sharing website Youtube and lost in the US, using armed defenders and public prosecutors in a corporate welfare entitlement for 4 large media companies such as Warner Bros (who we already have changed tax and employment law in this country for) then freedom of the Internet is close to death.

    Is the next Internet entrepreneur going to keep their business going when big business comes a calling, if they know that the US and governments will be after them rather than the normal legal civil avenues?

    • Tracey 4.1
      17 September 2015 at 7:51 am

      How our Courts view it will be most interesting. And no delay granted.

      • save NZ 4.1.1
        17 September 2015 at 8:04 am

        But can he get a fair trial? Look at John Banks – convicted and then a guy from the US pops up and John Banks is acquitted and doesn’t even have to go to trial?

        Not only that but they have seized assets so that Dotcom can’t easily pay to defend himself.

        He’s been illegally spied on using tax payers resources.

        TV3 ran a beat up of him.

        Judges don’t even understand IT, let alone file sharing.

        In the court documents cloud sharing was described as cow sharing.

        I’m not sure he is going to get a fair trial. The last guy committed suicide apparently.

        When the US goes after you it is no laughing matter and it is calling the NZ justice system into disrepute internationally if they are allowed to get away with it by extradition to a country he does not live in, and never had an office there.

        • Tracey 4.1.1.1
          17 September 2015 at 11:55 am

          Can’t disagree Olwyn

          He is a user. I still believe most of our Judiciary do a good job, base don our laws.

        • Gangnam Style 4.1.1.2
          17 September 2015 at 1:53 pm

          “I’m not sure he is going to get a fair trial. The last guy committed suicide apparently. ”

          Are you thinking about this guy? The Internets Own Boy : The Story of Aaron Swartz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58 sad stuff, just hounded him to death, for SFA.

          • Molly 4.1.1.2.1
            17 September 2015 at 3:17 pm

            Watched it a while ago. Very worthwhile, and very sad to see such a forward thinking and progressive intellect hounded by the state.

            Thanks for posting the link.

            • save NZ 4.1.1.2.1.1
              17 September 2015 at 5:32 pm

              And David Kelly hounded to suicide after disclosing that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

              Although totally different cases it sets the scene of what happens when governments start to unfairly hound someone without legal cause and making evidence fit and bullying citizens for political reasons.

              That is not democracy. That is a police state.

              In the Dotcom case, corporate welfare for the movie industry which have already been given a lot of corporate welfare in this country by the PM.

      • Naki man 4.1.2
        17 September 2015 at 4:10 pm

        Yes it will be interesting, I hope Dotcom will be with his mate Andrus Nomm soon but cant see that happening.

    • infused 4.2
      17 September 2015 at 2:47 pm

      Sooner he is gone the better.

    • keepLeft 4.3
      17 September 2015 at 3:17 pm

      Kim Dotcom should not be extradicted! Kim Dotcom is a hero! [deleted]. Information yearns to be free!

      [lprent: defamatory and unsubstantiated. One week ban. Your comments don’t repeatably do this but I can’t be bothered warning people when I see a series of ‘facts’ being stated with no backing. Read the policy. ]

    • Chooky 4.4
      17 September 2015 at 3:25 pm

      +100 save NZ…and this from the Martyn Bradbury is interesting and comprehensive

      ‘2 reasons why you as a New Zealander should care about the Kim Dotcom case’

      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/09/17/2-reasons-why-you-as-a-new-zealander-should-care-about-the-kim-dotcom-case/

      To summarise:

      1.)The first reason is the injustice of the case:

      “…this case has been an abomination of legal process, jurisdiction and injustice. You might not like Kim Dotcom, but the manner in which his rights have been breached and 70 odd armed paramilitary cops broke into his home and terrorised him and his family is as unacceptable as the abuses of power used in court against him.
      This is not what our justice system should be used for, we are not a puppet for US interests, we should be a sovereign state with our own laws and judicial system that is beyond influence by America and their corporate overlords.”

      2.) The second reason is what it could cost New Zealand in damages:

      …”the injustice of this case may not move you. You may have bought into the media hype of Dotcom as a Bond Villain and enjoyed his failure at the ballot box. You may have decided that despite Assange, Snowden and Greenwald proving at the Moment of Truth that John Key lied to us about mass surveillance, that Kim fell short of what he promised and he got his just desserts.
      Okay. Fine. Then here’s the second reason you should care about the Kim Dotcom case.

      $2 Billion dollars…

      …”Sony decided not to sign up to the case against Dotcom because they believed there was a chance he would get off these trumped up charges and in turn sue everyone involved in taking him down to the tune of $2billion???

      And we had to sign up to this?

      So how much exactly are we on the hook for here? If you don’t care that he has been unjustly dealt with and his rights breached, you may be in for one hell of a shock if he wins and we are left paying for this politically motivated prosecution….

    • AlanBStard 4.5
      17 September 2015 at 3:27 pm

      I financed a movie once. It was just about to be released and then “nek minit”, as you colonials from kiwi land say, [deleted] web site and before the day was up it had been downloaded over 100,000 times. Lost quite a few thousand pounds over that I can tell you!

      [lprent: defamatory and unsubstantiated. ]

      • Chooky 4.5.1
        17 September 2015 at 4:01 pm

        you are disingenuous….there are many many far bigger American cloud storage sites which people would/could/do access for movies…this is common knowledge…your movie ( that is if you genuinely did fund a movie?!) was probably pirated from one of these commonly known American monster cloud sites

        …nor is Dotcom responsible for what others store …unless he is notified by authorities..inwhich case he has said , as you probably well know, that he is swift in taking the offending item out of his cloud storage

        …an analogy…if a foreign company owning ocean- going container ships has drugs smuggled on board one ship without the owner/company’s knowledge ….do the Americans take down the whole foreign shipping company and ground and steal all their ships…( especially when their own American ships also have even more drugs smuggled on board)

        • AlanBStard 4.5.1.1
          17 September 2015 at 4:08 pm

          I do believe that at the time of the raid megaupload was the biggest illegal file sharing site in the world. You might like to check it out if you don’t believe me.

          And considering [deleted].

          Maybe you should read about the case a bit more. Silly woman.

          [lprent: That is

          1. defamatory.
          2. not substantiated with a link to something credible.

          Looking at your comments, you do not rate a warning. Which means you have a 2 week ban. Read the policy and stop exhibiting your small dick. Noone really want to see little pricks like you. ]

          • mickysavage 4.5.1.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 4:10 pm

            Citation please.

            [lprent: BStard – I read your citation.

            Point 21 is an allegation by the US prosecutor. It has not been proved nor substantiated, beyond establishing a prima facie case, and is still in front of NZ courts. An accusation is not proof that something happened, and isn’t substantiation.

            Added a further 4 weeks. Two weeks for each of us for directing us to an useless substantiation that didn’t do what you claimed, and potentially putting us in legal danger because you are incompetent at distinguishing between accusations and conviction. ]

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.5.2
        17 September 2015 at 4:02 pm

        Says someone who plagiarised their handle.

        • Anno1701 4.5.2.1
          18 September 2015 at 10:49 am

          “Says someone who plagiarised their handle.”

          hah…cease and desist letter heading his way 🙂

      • save NZ 4.5.3
        17 September 2015 at 5:35 pm

        Well why don’t you sue You Tube then. Viacom did, and lost especially when it was found that the movie industry themselves were posting their videos to drum up business. A bit like the cigarette industry at the centre of boot legged smokes to keep the punters addicted.

  5. Sanctuary 5
    17 September 2015 at 8:21 am

    I wonder if Andrew Little will adopt Jeremy Corbyn’s cut through idea of allowing the public to select his questions for question time? It is a brilliant idea to do an end run around our hostile media.

  6. Mike the Savage One 6
    17 September 2015 at 8:59 am

    Do some readers still remember some “presentations” that were shared via various blogs and other forums over recent years, and some quotes that were made to the MSM, where MSD’s and Work and Income’s Principal Health Advisor was making very bold claims about the dangers to health due to “worklessness”? Do readers remember the assertions that paid, open work is supposed to have “health benefits”, and that it is “therapeutic”? Here is a sample of those presentations:

    ‘Ready, Steady, Crook – Are we killing our patients with kindness?’
    http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf

    There are claims in it saying that 30 % of GP’s “had experienced a sense of threat and intimidation” (see page 32) by persons seeking certificates for WINZ.

    Dr Bratt also repeated this: “the ‘benefit’ – an addictive debilitating drug with significant adverse effects to both the patient and their family (whānau)”. He said:
    “As a drug, it would be an addictive, debilitating substance, he told the RNZCGP education convention” (Dr Bratt, Principal Health Advisor for MSD).

    He also claimed that according to both Australian and New Zealand studies there is a chance of it being only 70 percent likely that a person would “ever” return to work after 20 days off work, that it is only 50 percent likely for a person to “ever” return to work after 45 days off work and that it is only 35 percent likely for a person to “ever” return to work after 70 days off work.

    And according to a so-called “GP survey”, randomly conducted by Dr Bratt, GPs supposedly found about sick or disabled beneficiaries seeking medical certification for WINZ, that: “71 felt it was a mechanism to provide income to the patient”, “55 % felt W + I staff created an expectation”, “40 % – because they believed there was no work available” and “31 % – felt W + I weren’t doing anything for the patient”.

    He even commented to NZ Doctor magazine: “A UK study found of the main obstacles for going to work, medical problems made up just 3 % of the list” (01 August 2012, in timely manner to “support” the then prepared new, draconian welfare reforms, following the UK examples).

    The “experts” from the UK, on whose “findings” all this is supposed to be based, even convinced the AFOEM medical professional faculty to follow this rather ideologically driven policy approach in health and welfare:
    http://members.racp.edu.au/page/racp-faculties/australasian-faculty-of-occupational-and-environmental-medicine/realising-the-health-benefits-of-work/may-2010-video-presentation-professor-sir-mansel-aylward/

    Now after someone did some study and research, and sought answers from our dear MSD, to back these and many other claims up, it appears most the “EVIDENCE” that has been endlessly referred to, does show rather damned little true evidence to back up any of the above, and to justify the “relentless focus on work”, the tough “medicine” also recommended to sick and disabled.

    Under this government misinformation, or selective informing, and blatant misrepresentation of data seems to have become the norm. Here is what a comprehensive post on all this reveals:

    https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/msd-and-dr-david-bratt-present-misleading-evidence-claiming-worklessness-causes-poor-health/

    https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/msd-dr-bratt-present-misleading-evidence-on-worklessness-and-health-post-09-08-15.pdf

    Why are the useless MSM not bothered to dig into such very important matters, why does hardly any “media” report on beneficiaries having been short payed for 18 years, why do we only get so much attention on flag designs, on which All Black players look like “promising” stars to perform in the upcoming Rugby World Cup, why is crime, weather, sports and trivial pursuit the daily news digest, I ask? We are taken for a ride, day in and day out, and the average Joe Blogs has no clue about what really goes on in his country. What a disgrace, I dare say.

    • Mike the Savage One 6.1
      17 September 2015 at 9:31 am

      Parts C, D, E and F of this comprehensive publication contain the actual OIA data with questions, responses and analysis, showing how selectively chosen, how misleading and actually baseless most of Bratt’s quotes of “evidence”, his “sources” and at times bizarre claims are:
      https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/msd-and-dr-david-bratt-present-misleading-evidence-claiming-worklessness-causes-poor-health/

      No wonder he deleted all emails of certain correspondence with a leading UK advisor, but that is yet another matter raising endless questions about what we get presented with.

    • Mike the Savage One 6.2
      17 September 2015 at 9:37 pm

      Carmel Sepuloni is finally onto it:

      http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/39670

      A must watch, see the Associate Minister of Social Development squirm when she gets hard pressed for an honest answer to deliver the truth about the failed trials for Sole Parent Employment Services and Mental Health Employment Services.

      We are having to wait for the end of the year, I suppose for Xmas Eve, to finally get the EVALUATION report from MSD!!!??

      Welfare reforms, hailed so much two years ago, are being proved to largely have failed, yet again. Remember the talk also about drug testing, about beneficiary going to have their benefits stopped when a warrant for their arrest was out?

  7. adam 7
    17 September 2015 at 10:08 am

    “The Way This Pastor Uses the Game Monopoly to Explain Racism and Slavery to His Congregation Is Brilliant”

    http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/09/16/the-way-this-pastor-uses-the-game-monopoly-to-explain-racism-and-slavery-to-his-congregation-is-down-right-brilliant/

    This is wonderful video, well worth the 5 minutes to watch it.

    Maori did not start with nothing, they got to keep about 5%. I’ll let you do the maths.

  8. marty mars 8
    17 September 2015 at 10:42 am

    I don’t know too much about smalley – but this report is good imo

    Some of those images though, the staunch men in heavy hessian uniforms, the police dogs moving through fields, packed trains, people pleading for safe passage, people in a rush trying to get on buses, four-metre high wire fences, razor wire. We’ve seen this all before in Europe, haven’t we.

    Thousands of refugees have fled a conflict, but as they approach Europe, they’re about to enter another one.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11514453

    yes we have a frying pan/fire/volcano/supernova issue – there are no safe places and fear is driving desperation on all sides.

  9. Morrissey 9
    17 September 2015 at 10:49 am

    Incredibly, this morning Paul Henry was
    more depraved than he’s ever been before
    PAUL HENRY, TV3, Thursday 17 September 2015, 6:55 a.m.
    Part 1 of 2

    “I’m more intelligent than most people, as you would know.”—Paul Henry [1]

    There are any number of credible, not to mention humane and decent, journalists and commentators who actually know something about international politics and the United Nations. And then there are the bloody-minded, partisan, hateful ideologues. Naturally, Paul “Kill them ALL” Henry [2] sought out one of the most brutal of the latter type for his show this morning. Claudia Rosett is a notorious Murdoch hackette, the holder of a neocon think-tank sinecure, and a tireless advocate for the neocon version of reality, which means she’s a fanatic, a shill and a propagandist of the very worst kind. Not a problem for Paul Henry of course.….

    CLAUDIA ROSETT: …. I call it the parade of the dictators. Obama will speak first, followed by China, Russia, Iran and Raoul Castro from Cuba.

    PAUL HENRY: God ALMIGHTY! Bloody Putin out the back orchestrating the whole thing. …And at the Security Council we sit there next to Russia, which continues to be responsible for the mess in Syria. ….

    Claudia Rosett continued for several minutes to unload her contempt for the United Nations. Henry sat rapt throughout her unhinged ranting, grunting his approval, then had to reluctantly cut to the news….

    PAUL HENRY: Claudia Rosett from Demand Democracy. She is a very good commentator on the United Nations, although she despises them, to a degree.

    In fact, Claudia Rosett is the exact opposite of a “very good commentator” whether she is commentating on the U.N. or on anything else. She is an ideologue of the extreme right, a doctrinal warrior whose cynicism seems to have no limit. As a sample of her cruelty and irresponsibility, have a look at the following obscenity, where she expresses indignation bordering on apoplexy at a U.N. report that dared to criticize Israel….

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/claudia-rosett-a-new-low-un-report-suggests-israel-caused-gazas-rising-infant-death-rate-d/

    [1] He made that statement, only half in jest, to careers expert Laurel McLay at 8:45 this morning. She noticeably flinched, then came up with a wince-smile.
    [2] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27052015/#comment-1021090

    End of Part 1

  10. marty mars 10
    17 September 2015 at 10:53 am

    pita – yes the inglish are insulting the haka – I don’t blame them but rather those that have given this cultural item to the all blacks for their purposes.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/72133395/sir-pita-sharples-labels-english-hakarena-shameful-and-insulting

    • Morrissey 10.1
      17 September 2015 at 11:10 am

      The All Blacks insulted the sport of rugby football with their flagrant strategy of cheating in the 2011 RWC final. Matt Dawson’s silly little parody, insulting as it might be, is nothing in comparison to that.

      • marty mars 10.1.1
        17 September 2015 at 12:11 pm

        a bit like arguing which gladiator will win – go the trident and net guy – no I prefer the sword dude or maybe the spear thrower – in other words yawn yawn yawn

        • Morrissey 10.1.1.1
          17 September 2015 at 3:27 pm

          Actually it’s not like that at all. Your analogy would have merit if one of them was unfairly handicapped and every infraction of the rules by the other was ignored.

    • Kevin 10.2
      17 September 2015 at 12:40 pm

      The day the haka went from being a personal challenge by the All Blacks to whatever team was playing them, to a heavily microphoned and filmed, hostile and aggressive act with the crowd joining in, was the day it lost any respect from me.

      I do not have a problem with the English have a bit of a piss-take with it. If we can’t handle it then maybe we are just a bit too bloody precious.

      • marty mars 10.2.1
        17 September 2015 at 12:49 pm

        The various types of haka include whakatu waewae, tutu ngarahu and peruperu. The peruperu is characterised by leaps during which the legs are pressed under the lower body. In former times, the peruperu was performed before a battle in order to invoke the god of war and to discourage and frighten the enemy. It involved fierce facial expressions and grimaces, poking out of the tongue, eye bulging, grunts and cries, and the waving of weapons. If the haka was not performed in total unison, this was regarded as a bad omen for the battle. Often, warriors went naked into battle, apart from a plaited flax belt around the waist.

        The tutu ngarahu also involves jumping, but from side to side, while in the whakatu waewae no jumping occurs. Another kind of haka performed without weapons is the ngeri, the purpose of which was to motivate the warriors psychologically. The movements are very free, and each performer is expected to be expressive of their feelings. Manawa wera haka were generally associated with funerals or other occasions involving death. Like the ngeri they were performed without weapons, and there was little or no choreographed movement.

        The most well-known haka is “Ka Mate”, attributed to Te Rauparaha, war leader of the Ngāti Toa tribe. The “Ka Mate” haka is classified as a haka taparahi – a ceremonial haka. “Ka Mate” is about the cunning ruse Te Rauparaha used to outwit his enemies, and may be interpreted as “a celebration of the triumph of life over death” (Pōmare 2006).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haka

        And that is just from wiki – anyone who believes there is a lot more to haka than what they may consider or see would be very correct indeed.

      • Naki man 10.2.2
        17 September 2015 at 4:39 pm

        “I do not have a problem with the English have a bit of a piss-take with it. If we can’t handle it then maybe we are just a bit too bloody precious.”

        I couldn’t agree more, the Poms are just making dicks of themselves.
        They have already claimed that we cheated in 2011.
        They are very fucking desperate and should be laughed at.

        • Gangnam Style 10.2.2.1
          17 September 2015 at 5:08 pm

          NZ are quite capable of making dicks of themselves regarding the haka, here you can get a headset to enjoy it in 360 degrees! It promises to “Take your place on the field with the All Blacks and experience the electrifying Haka up close in a unique 360° experience. The AIG Haka 360° headset allows you to experience the Haka as if you were really there with the All Blacks – a new and awesome experience! ” jeebus!

        • Morrissey 10.2.2.2
          18 September 2015 at 10:08 am

          They have already claimed that we cheated in 2011.

          “We” (the All Blacks) did cheat in 2011. Luckily for “us” we had a “referee” who let us get away with it. You know that as well as anyone.

  11. Morrissey 11
    17 September 2015 at 11:31 am

    The clownish Willie Jackson needs to read more, talk less.
    And Lizzie Marvelly needs to think before she nods her head.
    PAUL HENRY, TV3, Thursday 17 September 2015
    Part 2 of 2

    About 8:25 a.m. ……
    Following the appearance of extreme right wing U.N.-hater Claudia Rosett an hour earlier, Paul Henry and his “Daily Panel” discussed the efficacy or otherwise of the United Nations. Unfortunately, this morning’s iteration of the Daily Panel consisted of a well meaning but poorly informed pop singer and an equally well meaning but even more poorly informed radio jock. I have rendered Jackson’s most ignorant utterance in italicized bold type….

    LIZZIE MARVELLY: There’s nothing wrong with the actual institution of the United Nations.
    PAUL HENRY: Well, actually I think there IS.
    WILLIE JACKSON: The veto allows them to sort out a maniac, like George W. Bush a few years ago.
    PAUL HENRY: If they were serious about sorting out a maniac, they would have gone into Syria and sorted out THAT maniac YEARS AGO.
    WILLIE JACKSON: Remember a few years back, when Chávez of Venezuela went to the United Nations and tod the U.S. what he thought of them.
    PAUL HENRY: Yes, and what did that achieve?
    LIZZIE MARVELLY: It made people think!
    WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, and Paul, he was doing something he wouldn’t have been able to do in his own country, but he was able to in the United Nations.
    LIZZIE MARVELLY: [fervently] Yes.

    ….ad nauseam…..

    More Willie Jackson foolishness….
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-08062015/#comment-1026943
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-08062013/#comment-645516

  13. The Chairman 13
    17 September 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Here is something for the Labour Party to ponder.

    The Corbyn victory and shift to the left in the UK has shone the spotlight on our local Labour lot. And haven’t we seen them scurry to distance themselves revealing their true colours.

    Seeing as they aren’t prepared to embrace and adopt the Corbyn example and are struggling at around 30% (while also seemingly unable to align with their much needed potential coalition partners) they have little to lose.

    At this rate, they aren’t going to win the next election.

    Therefore, if Labour genuinely believe the centre is where the votes are to be found, here is something the Party should seriously consider.

    Drop the Labour Party name and re-brand the Party as the Centrist Party.

    This will free them from being labelled left (which they seem to fear) fully allowing the newly branded Party to continue to push their centrist position and seek the centre vote.

    They have two years to build and grow the new brand before putting it to the test in the next general election.

    Of course, this will put an end to their genuine left wing support and no doubt rob them of a number of foot soldiers on the ground.

    But hey, once again, they’re the ones that seem to believe the centre is where it is at.

    Therefore, it’s time the Party fully cement this position and put their money where their mouth is.

    This would put an end to commentators like me critiquing them for not living up to their Labour Party namesake, thus largely ending the division the Party still currently face.

    This will catch the establishment off guard, thus generate much media hype, which they can build off.

    Moreover, it will help rebuild voter trust, because seriously, who can trust a party that can’t even live up to its current namesake?

    If the newly branded Party can’t get over the line or their support severely drops (resembling the last election) then it will be clear the center is not where the votes are at for them – and perhaps then, and only then, will they be more willing to adopt the Corbyn stance and go back to being a genuine Labour Party.

    The danger is, as the left move on, Labour may not regain a good chunk of the left wing voting block. Or worse, the left may regroup (by either forming a new party or further bolstering a current one like NZ First or the Greens) and thrash them. Then again, they may just end up bolstering the non-voting block.

    Thoughts?

    • The lost sheep 13.1
      17 September 2015 at 2:33 pm

      There is no doubt the Center and Far Left can no longer live together under the pressure of continued electoral failure and are on the road to divorce throughout the Western world.

      In the U.K. the Far Left have made a majority claim to the house, taken possession, and rearranged the furniture to suit themselves, so if it was the U.K. you were talking about, I’d agree it’s the Center that should be looking for new lodgings.

      But here in NZ, the Center Left has been very well settled and comfortable in the family home for many years, and the wider whanau seem to be happy with the arrangement just the way it is. So why should they be the ones to shift out?

      Don’t you think it would be far more sensible for the Far Left to be the one to cut loose and set out on it’s own, leaving behind all the Centrist baggage of the old relationship?

      You Just slip out the back, Jack
      Make a new plan, Stan
      You don’t need to be coy, Roy
      Just get yourself free
      Hop on the bus, Gus
      You don’t need to discuss much
      Just drop off the key, Lee
      And get yourself free

      • The Chairman 13.1.1
        17 September 2015 at 2:57 pm

        I’m not advocating that the center move out. I’m highlighting if the centre feel that confident, then they should cement their position and start being honest with voters.

        The centre are falsely parading under the Labour Party name.

        If there are any genuine left Labour MPs with principle, they’d be the ones to leave when the Party changes it’s name and cement its position.

        Apart from the name change, the party structure would remain.

        • weka 13.1.1.1
          17 September 2015 at 6:08 pm

          I reckon Labour should split into two parties, centrist and left. Two problems with that though. One is that the power mongers in Labour aren’t going to want to give up ‘Labour’, but you couldn’t really split and have the centrists take the name and all the policy etc. And two, the powermongers that end up in both parties still won’t want to work with the GP.

          Plus, Labour doesn’t have a Corbyn.

          The more I look at this and follow what is happening in the UK, the more I think any solutions are going to have to come from a political movement from outside parliament.

          • The Chairman 13.1.1.1.1
            18 September 2015 at 6:08 pm

            Weka

            According to the Lost sheep, there isn’t anyone in Labour’s left camp, thus it would be difficult for them to split into two factions.

            Its time for Labour to be honest with voters, stop paying lip service to the left and re-brand. Or start living up to their name.

            Clearly, changing leadership isn’t working. No matter how left the mere window dressing looks, there is no substance within. Thus, a good number of voters can sense their phoniness, hence their poor election results of late and rankings in the polls.

            A new movement coming from outside of Parliament is more challenging for a political party. And generally requires a lot of funding. Unless there is a groundswell of support.

            • weka 13.1.1.1.1.1
              18 September 2015 at 6:16 pm

              Lost sheep is spinning. It’s blindingly obvious to anyone paying attention that there are left and right factions within Labour (relatively speaking).

              I’m not suggesting that a movement outside of parliament is organised by Labour. It should be organised by the people irrespective of what Labour do.

              • The Chairman …
                18 September 2015 at 6:33 pm

                I’d be hard pushed to name a genuine left MP within Labour. Could you?

                “I’m not suggesting that a movement outside of parliament is organised by Labour”

                Yes, I realized that, hence my reply above reflected that.

      • weka 13.1.2
        17 September 2015 at 3:07 pm

        Lost sheep, who are the far left MPs currently in the Labour party?

        • The lost sheep 13.1.2.1
          17 September 2015 at 3:32 pm

          None that I know of Weka. Labour is a Center Left Party through and through, has been for a long time, and is totally comfortable with that identify.
          Which is why I’m saying that it wouldn’t be sensible for the Party to change it’s name to make it clear what it represents. That’s perfectly clear to everyone already? It’s Center Left.

          In Britain, there obviously is a much stronger Far Left thread within the Labour Party. Always has been. Strong enough to take it over as it happens.
          But that is inconceivable in NZ. The NZ Labour Far Left is simply not a big enough bloc to do that.
          The more I listen to the voices calling for Labour to move Left, the more I’m coming to think that’s just plain wrong.
          What the Far Left really needs is an authentic voice of it’s own.
          If there really are a large number of people wanting that voice, it shouldn’t be difficult to get such a party up and running?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 3:44 pm

            The last time I checked, self-serving right wing “thinkers” don’t get to define “far” or “left”. You want to know what extreme looks like: the National Party undermining the rule of law.

            Go on, tell some lies.

          • weka 13.1.2.1.2
            17 September 2015 at 4:31 pm

            “None that I know of Weka. Labour is a Center Left Party through and through, has been for a long time, and is totally comfortable with that identify.”

            But The Chairman wasn’t talking about the far left. You are the one that is bringing that up. Why? And if there are no far left MPs in Labour what is the point of talking about the far left in this conversation?

            • The lost sheep 13.1.2.1.2.1
              17 September 2015 at 5:33 pm

              I don’t know if you’ve noticed Weka, but much of the discussion on this blog over the last month or so has been about the Corbynism of the UK Labour Party, and many here have expressed the opinion that the NZ Labour Party should be shifting Left in a similar manner….

              The Chairmans post clearly introduces a linkage between Corbynism and how it has ‘shone the spotlight on the local Labour lots….fear of being labelled Left’, and that is a variation on a common theme here lately.

              As someone who quit a lifetime of active support for the NZ Left out of disgust at how ineffectual it has become, I’d just like to see someone / anyone on the Left make a move that was brave, decisive, revolutionary, compelling etc…

              But that is not going to be Labour, and those of you that support a Corbyn type change are not going to be able to take over Labour, and so if any of you actually want something to happen you are going to have to make it happen.
              But I’m betting it won’t. I think the NZ Left has lost the ability to act in a bold manner that captures the public imagination. 20 years of PC has squeezed the life out brave and creative free thinking in the political structures of the NZ Left.

              • weka …
                17 September 2015 at 6:05 pm

                That’s all very well, but Corbyn isn’t far left, he’s just traditional left wing. In NZ there are no far left people in parliament, so your whole comment earlier didn’t make any sense on either of those points.

                The Chairman, as far as I can tell, is suggesting that if Labour wants to be centrist that it just does so more honestly and then if being honestly centrist fails, lets the left try for a Corbyn-esque process. None of that is to do with the far left (a conversation about which would include say Mana, or people like Sue Bradford, or the far left people that have never been in parliament).

          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.2.1.3
            17 September 2015 at 8:37 pm

            None that I know of Weka. Labour is a Center Left Party through and through, has been for a long time, and is totally comfortable with that identify.

            Nope, it’s a centre right party and has been since the 1980s. That’s why it’s losing support and votes.

          • The Chairman 13.1.2.1.4
            18 September 2015 at 2:11 pm

            Lost sheep

            In one post you say: “Labour is a Center Left Party through and through, has been for a long time, and is totally comfortable with that identify.”

            Then, in the next post you acknowledge many here have expressed the opinion that the NZ Labour Party should be shifting Left.

            Which is exactly correct. However, though you acknowledge this you overlook an important fact. Which is, why it would be totally sensible the Party re-brands. Voter trust.

            Labour expects voters to trust them, moreover they require voters to trust them. Voters won’t vote for a Party they simply don’t trust.

            A centrist Party falsely parading under the Labour Party name looks completely phony. Eroding any chance of acquiring substantial (and much needed) voter support.

            Additionally, you overlook another major point. The ailing economy (which is also a vital point in elections) requires a hands on left wing fix.

            For numerous reasons, the local private sector aren’t up to the task of turning our economy around.

            The right and centre left largely plan to fill this market void with offshore investment.

            However, when one looks at our current account, one quickly discovers this approach is not only failing, in many respects it’s exacerbating our economic wows.

            Like any investment, offshore investors seek a return. Returns heading offshore, sets our economy back.

            A good number of our most lucrative sectors are dominated by offshore investors. Thus, the more we grow our GDP, the larger the returns heading offshore.

            Therefore, the solution is for Government to help fill our market voids. And of course, this is the left wing approach our nation desperately requires. And that will win over voters from across the political spectrum.

            • The lost sheep 13.1.2.1.4.1
              18 September 2015 at 3:17 pm

              “you acknowledge many here have expressed the opinion that the NZ Labour Party should be shifting Left.
              Which is exactly correct. However, though you acknowledge this…”

              Er, Just one small point there Chairman.
              I do not consider that commenters on this blog are representative of the wider NZ voting public.
              The majority of NZ Voters consider themselves Centrist, and that includes a majority of people who vote for Labour.
              So outside of unrepresentative niche social media forums such as this, I see no evidence there is a widespread groundswell of support for a shift to the Left in order to impose ‘a left wing fix’.
              Or that a Party proposing such a shift would win voters from across the political spectrum.

              So to restate my point. Labour has already displayed a complete lack of interest in shifting Left.
              If you or anyone else believes there is ‘desperate’ need and demand for such a platform, then create a new Party to cater for it?

              I’m picking no one will. And the reason is that there is inadequate demand and support for such a Party.

              • The Chairman …
                18 September 2015 at 3:58 pm

                I wasn’t implying they are, Lost sheep.

                Commentators here are generally a representation of the left of the political spectrum.

                While the majority of voters may see themselves being in the centre, they are open to a party with a credible economic plan. Moreover, one they can trust.

                Labours hands on kiwi build policy was an example of a hands on left wing stance that was widely welcomed from across the speptrum.

                Thus, credibly expanding on that left wing hands on approach (which Labour has largely failed to do) into other areas of market voids will also be widely supported.

                Labours election results and polling of late, clearly show that Labour (and their centre left stance) is largely failing to resonate with voters.

                Therefore, it’s time Labour started to look at what works and resonates, opposed to continuously pushing what doesn’t.

                They can start with being honest and living up to the Party’s name.

  14. Stuart Munro 14
    17 September 2015 at 1:30 pm

    Certainly Corbyn’s crowd sourced parliamentary questions offer relief from the pitiful Carter sanctioned dog and pony show.

  15. Gangnam Style 15
    17 September 2015 at 1:58 pm

    Here’s a petition to ask the BBC to in fairness refer to David Cameron as the right wing prime minister, as they always label Corbyn ‘the left wing leader of Labour’.

    https://www.change.org/p/bbc-request-for-the-bbc-to-refer-to-david-cameron-as-the-right-wing-prime-minister?recruiter=25500749&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-reason_msg&fb_ref=Default

  16. marty mars 16
    17 September 2015 at 2:01 pm

    The findings were hoped to be able to help forensic scientists understand and interpret backspatter from gunshot fatalities.

    Researchers used synthetic models of pig heads as well as the heads of 14 slaughtered pigs for the research, a mixture of wild animals, supermarket butchery animals and domestic farm animals.

    An additional five live pigs were supplied by a local Otago piggery, all mature females.

    Prior to shooting, the live pigs were sedated, anaesthetised and then strapped to a surgical table.

    The skin above and between the eyes was shaved using electric clippers and then hair removal cream used to remove the remaining hair, causing rashes.

    In two instances, the live pigs began to spasm after they were shot, which nullified a large portion of the data they provided.

    warning – image of disgusting torture of innocent animal in the article below

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/72142018/kiwi-researchers-shot-live-pigs-in-the-head-for-blood-spatter-analysis-study

    put aside for a moment the cruelty of shooting those pigs after shaving their eyebrows, pretend to forget the indignity and callousness – why didn’t these researchers shoot themselves in the head??? because their research is M E A N I N G L E S S – a pig head is not a human head.

    • McFlock 16.1
      17 September 2015 at 2:23 pm

      Actually, pigs are a pretty good model of human structures and organs in a variety of situations, which is why they are often used.

      I suspect that live (albeit unconscious) pigs were required because of blood pressure affecting the spatter patterns, which might be important in a murder trial if someone argues that they only shot the corpse of the person after the others had committed the murder, and they only did that because they were afraid that otherwise they’d be next.

      • marty mars 16.1.1
        17 September 2015 at 3:04 pm

        but for heads? I don’t think so – sure expanded nasal cavities and a mandible that hinges directly to the skull offer some connection but it is all bogus especially when they say, “the idea of the research was to get further down the path of analysis and would help international justice systems around the world.” – oh dear that sounds ominous…

        plus

        “Hans Kriek, executive director of New Zealand animal welfare group SAFE, said the research was completely unjustified and “wrongfully approved.”

        He said the cornerstone of research approval was in the findings benefiting society, a benchmark this experiment failed to reach.

        “Pigs have a different skull structure to humans … I would question whether there is scientific validity in this specific experience be able to compare anything of use.”

        “The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society also expressed outrage, with campaign manager Tara Jackson saying it highlighted faults in the system. Pigs are fundamentally different to humans, especially in regards to their skull – it’s purely bad science to use pigs in such studies when non-animal methods would give much more accurate results” she said.

        Institute of Environmental Science and Research spokesman Stephen Corbett said the idea of the research was to get further down the path of analysis and would help international justice systems around the world.

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1
          17 September 2015 at 3:35 pm

          More like bone, muscle and skin density, similar structures, and similar blood pressure.

          Campaign managers and CEOs are unlikely to know better than researchers and the members evaluating the ethical approval process.

          Hell, screw the “cruelty”, maybe enlighten the funders whom you reckon paid for “meaningless” research.

          • marty mars 16.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 3:48 pm

            is it that you always want to defend the science or that your opinion always aligns with those that want to defend the science – I can never work it out

            • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2015 at 4:10 pm

              Oh, I have an inherent bias towards people who work in a field every day over those people who do not now and probably have never ever had any experience or study in that area whatsoever. No matter how much my personal impulses might match the agenda of the latter group.

              And there’s only so much that can be done with ballistic gel.

              • Ergo Robertina …
                19 September 2015 at 7:37 pm

                Your bias is very narrow indeed when you dismiss with a handwave the ”campaign managers and CEOs” who do know their field, and work it in every day, and have superior knowledge and understanding about the animals than the guys who wanted to shoot them or the ethics people who approved it.
                And if the likes of Safe had known about this bizarre and cruel experiment 6 years ago, it would never have happened, which should tell you something.

                • McFlock …
                  19 September 2015 at 10:00 pm

                  it sure does.

                  • Ergo Robertina …
                    19 September 2015 at 10:57 pm

                    Even if you don’t care about animal cruelty or see a need for Safe to exist, NZ gaining a reputation as a soft touch for dodgy human and animal research is not a good thing.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 September 2015 at 11:31 pm

                      lol
                      that’s a heck of a slide for one paragraph – animals being shot while anaesthetised all the way to dodgy research on humans.

                      The fact is that the pigs were unconscious and the use of live (as opposed to already-dead) animals produced information that could be relevant in a homocide investigation.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      19 September 2015 at 11:43 pm

                      It’s no slide – our light touch ethics regulation extends to human research: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11254381

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2015 at 12:22 am

                      Interesting – I hadn’t seen that one.
                      Not sure I’d go so far as “dodgy”, but worthy of being watched closely depending on how the particulars define “best interests”.

                      What was the outcome of the complaint to the health and disability commissioner?

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      20 September 2015 at 8:39 pm

                      A trial involving unconscious patients where consent is gained retrospectively is inherently dodgy.
                      The commissioner’s pretty conservative though and I’m guessing the office is less than enthusiastic in investigating this.
                      As far as I know there hasn’t been an outcome yet.
                      It may be similar to what should have been an open and shut case of off label ketamine and MH patients in Dunedin a couple of years ago. Hill deemed it not experimental and no breaches, but it was both ”borderline” and a ”grey area”, he said.
                      Translation: you got away with it but don’t do it again.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2015 at 9:24 pm

                      Well, it’s about as dodgy as giving CPR to someone who’s unconscious and you don’t know whether it’s against their beliefs.

                      It’s a bit more specialised than any of my ethics training, but in general I reckon if the worst case is care no worse than normal (including complication rates), and the best case is improved care, it’s not in the grounds of “dodgy”. I.e. it’s an honest attempt to improve survival odds.

                      But corporations will try to push the boundaries into unnecessary treatment with experimental products. It’s what they do – money before ethics.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      20 September 2015 at 9:40 pm

                      CPR is not a novel treatment.
                      One of the trials was merely to find out if the new meds were as good as the standard antibiotic the patient would receive in a normal treatment course.
                      No benefit, only potential risk, to these patients.
                      Why are you comparing it with saving lives?

                      ”In a global trial, sponsored by United States-based Cubist Pharmaceuticals, intensive care specialists want to see if the new medicine is as good as the standard antibiotic.”

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2015 at 10:27 pm

                      Funny, every time I do a first aid course the procedure alters slightly.

                      One of the trials was merely to find out if the new meds were as good as the standard antibiotic the patient would receive in a normal treatment course.

                      A non-inferiority test, yes. As a researcher for another application was minuted:
                      “The researcher explained in order to show superiority you need a lot more cases. […] adding that if the trial showed the treatment to be inferior you would not want to test it on a larger population”

                      Offsetting the risk from the new antibiotic not being as effective was increased medical attention of some sort. How would you test whether a new treatment works on pneumonia that one only acquires when already unable to respond and on a respirator?

                      The current treatment effectiveness against the specific organism is 60%. To prove it does better (as well as widening the number of antibiotics for when bugs become resistant) you need to prove it does at least as well. I’m comparing it with saving lives because antibiotics are not given to fight pneumonia just for fun.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      20 September 2015 at 11:08 pm

                      This has more info from the women’s health council perspective: http://www.womenshealthcouncil.org.nz/Features/Hot+Topics/Ethics+Committees.html
                      Your bias means you side with research bods and utilitarian arguments each and every time so it becomes a moot point in any discussion.
                      But it seems the notion of informed consent has been re-negotiated with no scrutiny, and a lax and disinterested (not lack of interest, but more like observers than advocates) attitude from the supposed patient watchdog.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2015 at 11:47 pm

                      Well, that was a sudden change in tack.

                      I acknowledge my bias. What’s yours?

                      And how would you discover new treatments for conditions that only become evident after the patient is not able to respond?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      21 September 2015 at 6:41 am

                      Your bias means you side with research bods and utilitarian arguments each and every time….

                      A preference for the scientific method over logical fallacies and appeals to emotion as the basis for knowledge, and a preference for rationalism over irrationalism as the basis for argument, is a “bias” now? I just hope I can be as biased as possible in that direction then.

  17. Puckish Rogue 17
    17 September 2015 at 2:02 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11494364

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/72074036/prices-rise-165-per-cent-at-fonterra-globaldairytrade-auction

    Could someone please ask Andrew Little or someone in the Labour party to please declare a crisis in the All Blacks, they’ll need all the help they can get to win the world cup

    Thanks

    • Grant 17.1
      17 September 2015 at 2:48 pm

      You didn’t read your second link very closely did you?
      You do realise the best forecast price in the article (from ASB) is $5 per kg?
      You do know that the break even point for farmers is $5.80?
      You do know that volumes are falling (down 43% on this time last year) and much of this seasons production has already been forward sold at the previous low prices?
      The best the article seems to be hoping / predicting is that the dairy industry finishes the season in a hole less deep than the one they thought they might be in.

      In other words your shallow smartarse potshot at Little is completely misplaced, because any serious person would realise that we’re a long way from being out of the shit yet.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1
        17 September 2015 at 3:00 pm

        What I know is that since Andrew Little made the comment diary prices have risen in the next three auctions 🙂

        A long way to go yes but going in the right direction, something the left haven’t been used to in a very long time 🙂

        • Grant 17.1.1.1
          17 September 2015 at 3:04 pm

          So yes, you are a shallow smartarse who grins and dribbles but doesn’t understand what he’s saying.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 3:14 pm

            As opposed to someone that doesn’t seem to understand the power of media messages, good luck with that 🙂

            • adam 17.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2015 at 4:16 pm

              So for Puckish Rogue there is no point in what is a real world consequence, as long as propaganda makes him feel all right.

              And he gets his fix of cheap got ya moments.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                17 September 2015 at 4:24 pm

                The real world consequence is that people will see this article and, maybe, recall Andrew Little talking about crisis and will just think hes being negative again

            • Grant 17.1.1.1.1.2
              17 September 2015 at 4:44 pm

              A) No farmer will be thinking like that.
              B) Little made his comments nearly six weeks ago, so anyone stupid enough to leap to the wrong conclusion will also be too stupid to remember back that far.
              C) God you’re a tool.

    • Naki man 17.2
      17 September 2015 at 5:22 pm

      Puckish Rogue

      Don’t let Draco know that Whole milk powder prices have recovered 50% since the low in early August.

      I know most farmers will still be making a loss this year but they are very happy about the 50% increase in whole milk powder price in just six weeks.

      Draco T Bastard 9.1

      7 September 2015 at 12:03 pm

      “Sooner or later Treasury may get round to joining the rest of us in the real world.

      Chances are that dairy prices won’t recover at all.”

    • Puddleglum 17.3
      17 September 2015 at 9:45 pm

      Hi Puckish Rogue,

      Try clicking on the ‘5 years’ tab of the graph in this link.

      You’ll see that the whole milk powder price – at $2,500/MT – has been trending down since the beginning of 2014 when it was at $5,000 and is still substantially down on the $3,500 price in late 2010.

      At that scale, the years 2013 and 2014 look like an aberration (on the upside).

  19. Vaughan Little 19
    17 September 2015 at 7:08 pm

    I can’t join the thread cos I’m using my phone but I’d like to +1 the above comments on Kim Dotcom. he and his family went through shit, he’s still going thru the ringer, it’s horrific. nobody should go thru that.

    there’s got to be something wrong with the police at an institutional level for a raid to go ahead like that. I was beaten by cops when.I was a kid. I’m prepared to cut the force some slack for shit like that, but when you raid a private home like it was a gang headquarters, that’s clearly something a lot worse than a couple of hotheaded recruits. same with the tuhoi raids under labour. this ain’t a party political thing, this is a police thing.

    Kim and his familiar had a shitter and.I feel real.sorry about that.

  20. Draco T Bastard 20
    17 September 2015 at 8:28 pm

    Caught red handed

    What we found on board this tuna boat is shocking. But one boat is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Please will you donate today and help us continue this urgent work to protect our beautiful Pacific Ocean from an out of control tuna industry?

  21. Hami Shearlie 21
    17 September 2015 at 11:01 pm

    Has anyone been watching Parliament in the last couple of days – David Cunliffe has been asking Stephen Joyce some questions about a group of tertiary bodies which are under investigation, one of which David Cunliffe has found out, has had a current National Party MP on the board. Mr Joyce has been looking suprisingly cowed and has developed a sudden penchant for answering questions with as few words as possible. Usually he rambles on and on and on with great gusto and enjoyment, until the Speaker tells him to shorten his replies. Very interesting. The Speaker has been trying to curtail David Cunliffe’s questions by saying they are too long. But Stephen Joyce has looked less than comfortable when the questions have been asked. It makes me think more and more that had David Cunliffe stayed as Leader, the Labour Party might be in a much better position right now – David Cunliffe would have made Bill English squirm if he was finance spokesman, Grant Robertson is very very unimpressive, so beltway, so blairite, so bland. National fear David Cunliffe, yet the ABC crowd were so filled with their own petty gripes against him, that they failed to see National’s fear of Cunliffe as a plus for the Labour Party.

  22. cogito 22
    18 September 2015 at 12:19 am

    For an interesting and entertaining read, see this:

    Prime minister Jeremy Corbyn: the first 100 days
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/14/prime-minister-jeremy-corbyn-the-first-100-days

    🙂 🙂