Open mike 22/03/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 22nd, 2024 - 92 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open 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 …

92 comments on “Open mike 22/03/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • observer 1.1
      22 March 2024 at 6:29 am

      Ha, posted while I was typing! But still, it needs repeating …

      Quotes:

      “He is gutted at what National has done. On the one hand they will be requiring him to stop and make gang members remove their patches, a stupid idea in my opinion, but on the other hand he is now considering finding secondary employment to make ends meet.”.

      “Luxon couldn’t care less. He is the most out-of-touch PM I have seen. He doesn’t even try to care.”

      • bwaghorn 1.1.1
        22 March 2024 at 6:40 am

        Jinx

      • Mikey 1.1.2
        22 March 2024 at 10:19 am

        His not giving a siht is what makes him appealing to his backers.

      • newsense 1.1.3
        22 March 2024 at 6:28 pm

        The worst government of the last 4 decades combining the casualness of the Lange years and with the narrow view of the Muldoon years.

        Here from Bernard Hickey explaining the parts of the difference between Richardson’s real crisis and Willis and Luxon’s Liz Truss lite:

        Also, the level of New Zealand’s net debt is not only lower at 20% of GDP than the 52% reached in 1991, but is less than half Australia’s currentl level of 40% of GDP and less than a fifth of the United States’ level now of 102%.

        The difference is Richardson’s swathes of cuts to the social safety were forged in the midst of a true fiscal and financial crisis for the Government, whereas Budget 2024’s cuts to disability services, school building programmes, public transport subsidies and potentially thousands of jobs is being done to mostly pay for tax reductions worth millions each year for rental property multi-millionaires.

        It’s vandalism. It’s bought and paid for legislated corruption. It’s negligence of duty at a time of many great needs.

    • Tiger Mountain 1.2
      22 March 2024 at 7:47 am

      I am no fan of the NZ Police for a number of reasons, including the enduring macho culture, grudge holding (e.g. Crewe murder case), persistent lying in Court and inbuilt support for the ruling class–but they are certainly not overpaid. Their wages are pathetic. In a better world much of their work could be done by Civil Defence, tow truck drivers, Paramedics and an effective emergency Mental Health force.

      However this latest effort is all on the PM. Politicians have long needed to know the basics–what does a 2 litre of Milk cost…Mr Luxury Luxon quite likely does not know and does not care.

    • Graeme 1.3
      22 March 2024 at 9:22 pm

      Anti gets worse as the day goes on….

      https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/kick-guts-rural-cops-face-losing-allowances

      Allowances at Hard to Fill and rural stations are under review.

      The changes include a new two-year time limit on the heavily discounted rentals police get in remote areas.

      Under the changes, police would not be able to get a subsidised rental home and the allowance at the same time.

      "Part of our package is hard-to-fill allowances for going to stations that are hard to fill."

      The allowance for rural police would only be paid for a set period depending on the agreement, and only to newly-appointed staff.

      So there's going to be a two yearly turnover of rural cops, which is about the time it takes for them to get know their patch and get the co-operation of the community, without which their job is really hard

      Presumably Fed Farmers, and their ex Pres. will be all over this….

  2. observer 2
    22 March 2024 at 6:28 am

    This is even more damaging to Luxon than all the Seymour/Peters undermining. He's undermining himself.

    ‘Laughing stock of the whole police station’ – cop slams PM | Stuff

    The most revealing part is that when he got the numbers wrong, there were no alarm bells ringing in his head ("wait, that doesn't sound right"). He can't relate to these salaries, so he has no idea how wrong he is. Until he's told.

    • newsense 2.1
      22 March 2024 at 6:51 pm

      It was all there when in the election campaign when they had Luxon, Goldsmith and Mitchell on a standup and though they were making a prisoner based announcement none of the knew the cost of incarcerating a prisoner for a year. But for some reason they got a pass.

      The shadow minister didn’t know his portfolio. The PM didn’t either. No one in their campaign had thought to arm them with that kind of information given the policy they were announcing.

      I remember watching Helen Clark being grilled about her government and she was across every piece of information they dug up to ask her about. She cared about the job, about the people and about getting it right.

      To not be across the basic information from an active wildfire of an incident of which the public’s, media’s and opposition’s attention is very much on shows his rather regal approach to the PM role.

  4. Tiger Mountain 4
    22 March 2024 at 7:55 am

    Well, well, well…GCSB caught out again…Helen Clark has nailed it. Secret ops from if not the official NZ “pie and Penthouse” brigade–NZSIS–then next cab off the rank in the bungler department.
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/512348/gcsb-staff-who-failed-to-flag-foreign-intelligence-system-should-face-disciplinary-action-former-pm

    With the refusal to talk by any former GCSB luminaries, Fletcher etc. or the the current Minister Mrs Collins, Andrew Little fronted on RNZ this morning. Sadly Andrew seemed still in thrall to the wood panelled offices and the old boys network rather than spill the beans on which Five Eyes partner was involved.
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018931198/former-minister-andrew-little-on-gcsb-spy-operation

    Lets not forget how these super sleuths somehow missed the Christchurch mass murderer, but managed to enable “someone” to possibly take actions against NZ foreign policy.

    • Belladonna 4.1
      22 March 2024 at 9:40 am

      He seems to be unaware of the disconnect between his confidence in the 'transparency' of the GCSB in communication to Ministers, following the legislative update in 2017, and the now-revealed fact that they were actively lying to him (by omission) up until 2020.

      • SPC 4.1.1
        22 March 2024 at 9:48 am

        It would appear operating within the orbit of 2010-2012 rules in 2013, without informing those in charge 2013-2020 under their rules. Those transition periods.

        I wonder how the 2017-2023 Ministers managed to time the release of the story for the incoming government … given the fiasco was on their past government watch.

        • Belladonna 4.1.1.1
          22 March 2024 at 10:12 am

          It was the 'transparency' that Little claimed was operating, that I was commenting on.

          Not so transparent, after all.

          Really, it's a pretty silly stoush for him to get involved in.

          Much better to leave the stinking mess in the lap of the current government.

          • SPC 4.1.1.1.1
            22 March 2024 at 10:32 am

            It was difficult to be transparent about things the GCSB leadership post 2013 did not know, thus Ministers post 2017 did not.

            • Belladonna 4.1.1.1.1.1
              22 March 2024 at 11:03 am

              The point is that Little was claiming that the GCSB was transparent while he was Minister. The truth, as is now apparent, they were certainly not transparent.

              "The level of disclosure to me was very high … I was assured during my time as minister that I was being kept well informed… I was listened to very carefully."

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/512379/gcsb-has-a-much-different-attitude-now-andrew-little-says-after-foreign-op-revealed

              It's a silly claim to make. Given that he: A. Has no evidence over matters which were not disclosed to him (you don't know what you don't know); and B. Has evidence that at least one serious matter was *not* disclosed to him.

              • SPC …
                22 March 2024 at 11:20 am

                You miss the point, the leadership at GCSB did not know of something set up and running auto since 2013.

                • Belladonna …
                  22 March 2024 at 12:08 pm

                  Accepting this is true. It still means that the GCSB was not open and transparent to the Ministers concerned. If the leadership themselves didn't know what was going on – then the claim that by Little that he was "being kept well informed" — is on even shakier ground.

                  As I said earlier – politically he should have left the whole thing alone – as the responsibility of the current government to respond. At most, express his disappointment that he was not kept as fully briefed as he had believed at the time.

                  Notably Judith Collins has kept her mouth shut – it's difficult to see any potential wins for any Minister responsible in this situation.

                  • SPC …
                    22 March 2024 at 12:14 pm

                    There is nothing to contradict the claim of the GCSB that they had been transparent with their 2017-2023 Ministers.

                    The explanation of something running on auto since 2013 and which ended because of technical failure in 2020 is the known.

                    The culture of GCSB in the pre 2013 period is also a known, silo, and not everything going on was well known to others.

                    • Belladonna …
                      22 March 2024 at 1:14 pm

                      There is nothing to support this, either.
                      And, given that the evidence we now have, that the GCSB was conducting covert activities, about which the Ministers were not informed- quite a lot to disprove this statement.

                      The point that this was going on up until 2020 – rather takes away from your argument that it was only pre-2013 that the GCSB contained information silos.

                      You seem to be arguing that the GCSB was transparent because their directors weren't informed either. And separating out the 'transparency' of the directors, from that of the organization as a whole. I think that makes them less transparent, rather than more.

                    • SPC …
                      22 March 2024 at 1:42 pm

                      It has been explained that once set up, the system operated on auto till equipment failure in 2020.

              • lprent …
                22 March 2024 at 12:38 pm

                You really are a bit of conspiracy nutbar who tends to be completely ignorant of the limits of ministerial control. You also apparently cannot read links or prefer not to in case it destroys your half-arsed and completely incorrect insinuations.

                He couldn’t know about it until 2020, because apparently the GCSB senior staff who do those briefings didn’t know about it either. Little didn’t say that he didn’t know about it after it was discovered in 2020. What he said was

                When Little found out about it he was concerned whether the operation was consistent with the legislation which had taken effect in 2017 and provided much tighter constraints and greater oversight of the spy agencies.

                He supported it being referred to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security for investigation.

                So when being told of the systems re-discovery, presumably in 2020, he did exactly what he was meant to – referred it. Little was minister for the SIS/GCSB from 2017 to 2023. That doesn’t mean that he has or should have oversight of operational details or to directly investigate oversteps of legal bounds. That is the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS).

                This is the same kind of hands-off role that the ministers for Police, Defence, Customs, and a number of other ‘Crown’ organisations have. They do funding and a general legal oversight by investigative bodies, but have very little operational control outside of the gross budget bounds.

                The IGIS is an independent oversight body, with a broad function of assisting the Minister responsible for NZSIS and GCSB to ensure the activities of each agency comply with the law; ensure that complaints relating to these agencies are independently investigated;[7] and review those bodies’ compliance procedures and systems.[8] Neither the National Assessments Bureau nor the Directorate of Defence Intelligence and Security are under the oversight of the role.[9]

                Traditionally the office had been very small, but was expanded from 2014 onwards in response to controversies over unlawful activities to include a Deputy Inspector-General, two external advisors, and a number of investigation staff.[2] That expansion was accompanied by some greater resourcing and a more intensive role, in particular with the addition of an own motion power of inquiry, and quickly resulted in a significantly larger number and depth of inquiries, including into systemic issues and matters of public controversy such as an incident involving adverse allegations arising from briefings claimed to have been given by the Security Intelligence Service to the Leader of the Opposition [3] and the conduct of the agencies in parts of the conflict in Afghanistan. [4] Senior political figures have at times criticised the extent of the broadened independent oversight that followed the 2014 reforms. [5]

                They are the office who issued the report yesterday.

                It was clearly an automatic system agreed upon in 2012 by the GCSB management (date of the MOU) and and deployed in 2013, presumably some kind of computer system, which failed in 2020. It had appeared to have been forgotten about by the GCSB senior staff according to the IGIS because it was agreed on 13-14 years ago, probably installed at a tech level 10 years ago, and then run automatically for 7 years. The summary details from RNZ

                The system operated from 2013 until 2020, when it was stopped by an equipment failure.

                But government ministers were not told despite the agency knowing how sensitive it was.

                The current GCSB senior leadership and legal team “apparently knew nothing of the system”.

                “It was ‘rediscovered’ at a senior level following concerns being raised in 2020 about another partner system hosted by GCSB.”.

                The system was of no benefit to the GCSB, which did not know what the outcome of the spying was, the inquiry said.

                “I was concerned that the Bureau had apparently decided to host in New Zealand a signals intelligence system controlled by a foreign partner agency without seeking ministerial approval and without subsequently informing its minister of the system’s existence or purpose,” the inspector general said.

                The report added: “It seems clear the decision to sign the MOU [memorandum of understanding ] and host the capability was not put to the Minister responsible for the GCSB, or any other Minister.

                “This inquiry found no record of any Ministerial briefing or decision, nor any reference to any having occurred. It found no record of the Minister having been informed of the matter at all.”

                But strictly speaking, it acted within the rules.

                “Though the authorisation process for intelligence sharing at the time seems manifestly inadequate, a Ministerial authorisation in place in 2012 for the GCSB to share intelligence and cooperate with the foreign partner was broad enough to cover the capability and so the decision to host the system without further Ministerial approval was lawful,” he found.

                “It was improper, however, for the GCSB to decide on hosting the capability without bringing it to the Minister’s attention. By doing so it failed to respect and enable Ministerial control of the agency.”

                The head of the bureau, Simon Murdoch, in 2011 had questions as he worked on the MOU, noting in an email that the legal team would need to be closely involved and that it would potentially require the awareness or consent of the minister, as well as consultation with the IGIS.

                “This inquiry found no record that the legal analysis, consultation and engagement with the Minister or IGIS contemplated … occurred.”

                Murdoch was replaced by Ian Fletcher in February 2012, and the inquiry found no evidence Fletcher was told about the capability, and Fletcher could not recall having been briefed on it.

                Now I have helped out by pointing to the timeline and quoting the relevant parts for your laziness, perhaps you have a better idea about what Little could have known and when.

                • Belladonna …
                  22 March 2024 at 1:22 pm

                  I fail to see how I am a "conspiracy nutbar"

                  The only conspiracy here is that the GCSB was very clearly not transparent and open (either with Little or with any previous Minister). Whether that is because its directors were also not informed of what was going on in their organization is, irrelevant – the buck stops with them. The fact is that the Ministers were not informed of significant espionage activities going on within the organization.

                  None of this has anything to do about what Little was informed or when – nor did I make any claims about his date or level of information – though I'm sure you had fun compiling your diatribe.

                  Again, Little would have been much better politically advised, to say nothing. Or to express his disappointment that the information was not supplied.

                  • Patricia Bremner …
                    22 March 2024 at 5:39 pm

                    Belladonna, you do beat the dead horse, and appear to feel your offerings are superior. Why no mention of Key? Oh I know, he did not stick his head above the parapet for your bullet. Little did.

                    • Belladonna …
                      22 March 2024 at 6:20 pm

                      Well, yes. That's the point. There was no need for him to do so. There is no win for Labour in this.

                  • lprent …
                    23 March 2024 at 1:26 am

                    The only conspiracy here is that the GCSB was very clearly not transparent and open (either with Little or with any previous Minister).

                    Yeah right. Clearly you have been too lazy to read the IGIS report or the RNZ reporting of it.

                    The IGIS report clearly states that the last mention of telling the ministers was back in 2012. But it wasn't done then.

                    Sounds like the knowledge was also not past down through the successive directors at the GCSB. Quite simply the hardware was just left running in the racks

                    I associate lazy dimwits like you who clearly haven't read the material and who then pronounce a bullshit theory that has clearly been covered in the material – as a CONSPIRACY NUTBARS.

                    It is pattern of behaviour.

                    Just like the security organisations (all of them) have strong behavioural tendency to be so compartmental that they lose institutional knowledge whenever just a handful of people move on.

                    Just like your silly over the top jumping to conclusions. Spook organisations often wind up with segmented compartments of spooks who often don't know what is happening in the next office and who lose the plot frequently because of institutional secrecy issues.

                    It doesn't mean that they always are incomptent. It just means that they need something like IGIS to dig into what has been going on. Jjust as sometimes even a conspiracy nutbar ideas may not be a loose-headed and outright wrong.

                    Or that eventually a million immortal monkeys on typewriters…..

    • Anne 4.2
      22 March 2024 at 10:13 am

      I beg to differ over Andrew Little TM. It appeared to me he was steering clear of revealing any personal views, and sticking to the matter as it played out during his time as GCSB minister.

      I was interested to hear that former GCSB director, Sir Bruce Ferguson was approached two weeks ago and asked to sign a document preventing him from revealing anything he may have known/or not known as the case may be. While he was not prepared to be interviewed (at this point maybe?) he refused to sign the document. That's a plus in my view. I assume the other former directors were also approached but we don't know their responses.

      It would be interesting to know who was attempting to gag these former directors and what they are trying to hide. 🙂

  5. SPC 5
    22 March 2024 at 8:09 am

    A case where downsizing from past form does work to realise better performance.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350222093/my-boobs-were-hindrance-how-breast-reduction-saved-rosie-galligans-rugby-career

    And in the nothing should be on ones record, unless it it true, category.

    The resurfaced rumours have gained so much traction that Hanbury, via her lawyers, told Business Insider on Monday the “rumours are completely false”.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/culture/350217667/who-rose-hanbury-lady-who-had-put-prince-william-affair-rumours-bed

    • Belladonna 5.1
      22 March 2024 at 9:48 am

      Is there any political aspect to either story?

      If you do intend to use either or both to illustrate a political or social or economic point – about either the stories or the press coverage – then perhaps you could do so, up front.

      If not – then this might be better on your personal social media account.

      Because, right now, this looks like gossipy innuendo targeting women.

      • Rose 5.1.1
        22 March 2024 at 9:57 am

        100%

        • SPC 5.1.1.1
          22 March 2024 at 10:01 am

          Are you going to ask for comments, not by you, to be removed from the search engine here?

          • Belladonna 5.1.1.1.1
            22 March 2024 at 10:06 am

            Oh, put a sock in it SPC.

            Weka has asked you, repeatedly, to leave it alone.

            Even if you don't feel like apologizing for getting the wrong end of the stick; continuing on with the same issue is rapidly becoming harassment.

            • Rose 5.1.1.1.1.1
              22 March 2024 at 11:40 am

              continuing on with the same issue is rapidly becoming harassment

              yes, you’d think wouldn’t you.

            • Robert Guyton 5.1.1.1.1.2
              22 March 2024 at 12:12 pm

              In my experience, SPC's radar is accurate.

              • Rose …
                22 March 2024 at 12:17 pm

                In my experience (and based on a sample of 1), their radar is 100% wrong. And frankly, I’m the only one in a position to categorically say the accusations levelled against me are totally false. None the less SPC appears to continue to persue them without apparent consequence

              • Belladonna …
                22 March 2024 at 1:28 pm

                Your confidence rating, however, must be taking a downwards tick. Since he's been proved comprehensively wrong on this occasion.

          • Rose 5.1.1.1.2
            22 March 2024 at 10:13 am

            To SPC at 5.1.1.1, no. I’m not going to make any such demands of the mods. I suspect they have quite enough to do without perusing you further down your rabbit hole.

          • lprent 5.1.1.1.3
            22 March 2024 at 12:48 pm

            Are you going to ask for comments, not by you, to be removed from the search engine here?

            Well that isn’t going to happen. The only comments and posts that aren’t part of the sphinx search engine are private posts and comments on those private posts. Essentially the ones that the authors, moderators, and admins use to coordinate on. You have to have a login at author or above to see those.

            I also don’t allow comments to be easily deleted. They can be sent to trash or spam, but I get notified with a copy, and there is a archive of all comments.

            • SPC 5.1.1.1.3.1
              22 March 2024 at 12:56 pm

              Why was there no catch on the use of a name that had already been used?

              • Rose …
                22 March 2024 at 1:08 pm

                Rather than go off some some great conspiracy theory the reality, as is often the case, so much more simple.

                Rose / Rosemary is a very common name for someone of my generation. As I explained to you yesterday, I have been aware of this site for about 18 months. In that time I noticed some one already commented under the handle Rosemary. As a common courtesy to that person, I went by my shorten name, Rose. Didn’t occur to me to go back nearly two decades as you’ve done to see if someone somewhere in the distant past has already used a very common name.

                see, reality is so much more boring than conspiracy.

                • SPC …
                  22 March 2024 at 1:36 pm

                  You can type in a name in the search box – top right, to see if it has been used in the past. Also one can click on the name under comments to see the past comments in date order.

                  • Rose …
                    22 March 2024 at 1:42 pm

                    Suggest you pause, engage the brain and don’t jump off the deep end with wild accusations about affairs (would link to Wekas comment on this point yesterday, but since been deleted ) and such like next time, unless you know how to swim.

                  • Jimmy …
                    22 March 2024 at 1:50 pm

                    Thanks. I didn't know you could do that. Now that I have, there appears to be another Jimmy!

                    I've been cloned!

                    • Rose …
                      22 March 2024 at 2:36 pm

                      You and me the same it would appear 😊

                      Not sure if that makes me cloner or clonee.

                      if I were to have my time again, think one thing I’d ask for is a more exotic name. Been too much confusion with a common over the years 😊

                • gsays …
                  23 March 2024 at 7:43 am

                  Fwiw, my SO has the same name and to all she is known as Rose. I haven't come across many of them.

                  Her Mum was fond of singing Love Grows (Where My Rosemary Goes).

                  • Incognito …
                    23 March 2024 at 11:41 am

                    Far out, this is like a runaway train.

                    FYI, I counted only 74 comments by commenters [plural] using the user name “Rose” [case-insensitive].

                    These were associated with 6 different e-mail addresses, which suggests up to 6 different individuals using the same user name “Rose” [case-insensitive] over the history of TS.

                    Before the most recent “Rose” appeared here on TS, the last occurrence of the same user name was 2 comments on the same day in 2022 by an apparently different commenter.

                    Before that, there were 40 comments by an apparently different “Rose” from 2012-2014.

                    Before that, in 2010-2011, there were 5 comments made by 3 commenters that were apparently different but who all used the same user name “Rose”.

                    The first time the user name “Rose” appeared here on TS was in 2008 with 9 comments that year.

                    HTH

                    • gsays …
                      23 March 2024 at 7:04 pm

                      Good work Incog.

                      I can assure you none of them were my Rose.

                    • weka …
                      23 March 2024 at 7:23 pm

                      cheers.

                      I'd been meaning to look that up, and ask current Rose to alter her name a bit in case the other most recent Rose returns (to avoid further confusion).

              • weka …
                22 March 2024 at 2:04 pm

                Why was there no catch on the use of a name that had already been used?

                it's been on my mental list of things to check, but as there is no other Rose currently commenting it wasn't the highest priority (like say, writing a post about the latest climate report). Then some numpty used up my spare time yesterday on a wild goose chase.

                Every person who moderates at TS does so on their own unpaid time. We don't have a pool of volunteers, atm we have me and Incognito and sometimes Lynn.

                All you had to do was link to the other Rose and ask current Rose if that was her. And/or pointed out do the mods that the name was already in use. Instead of going off on one and dragging this out over two days.

                • SPC …
                  22 March 2024 at 2:20 pm

                  Sure, now I know the name and back comment system is not 100% reliable.

                  • Incognito …
                    22 March 2024 at 5:54 pm

                    Indeed, it’s not 100% reliable, especially with more common names. However, if a name crops up and it hasn’t been used in a long time we sometimes let it go through anyway even if it’s a different person (i.e. a reset by which the name goes back into the general pool of available user names). And we don’t always have time to search the whole archive for a single name, in which case I tend to rely on my memory (which is definitely not 100% reliable).

                    You can always tell commenters apart by their avatars, which are linked to the e-mail addresses.

                    If you suspect foul play such as astroturfing, ID-theft, or simply bad faith behaviour then there are ways to raise the alert; some ways are more effective than others, as you have experienced.

                    Be clear, be specific, present evidence, especially when asked and drop it when the evidence is weak or absent, particularly when asked.

                    FYI, trolls and the likes have an uncanny habit of outing themselves here, sooner or later.

                    HTH

                    • lprent …
                      23 March 2024 at 2:07 am

                      FYI, trolls and the likes have an uncanny habit of outing themselves here, sooner or later.

                      Yeah, a compulsive inability to think for themselves is what I attribute it to. They always wind up sounding a like parrot of something someone else said.

                      Not so much an individual, more like a junior pack member repeating the mantras alpha dog/bitch to look like they know what they're talking about – but clearly having never having understood the underlying logic or reasoning (if there was any)

                      The clearest example at present is in the 'MAGA base' if you ever listen to or read them – the ones who prattle on using the same words as their heros – and get really defensive when pushed past the slogan level to what does that slogan mean.

                      It is clear because their alpha hero is a blithering idiot who isn't interested in actual history, logic or workable policy. Trump is mostly interested in looking great in how he says THINGS in a way that has MAGA base supporters blinded*.

                      • by the sensation of having their malicious noses firmly pressed in his obese buttock cheeks where the true pure source of mythical history, envy and malice originates.
                    • SPC …
                      23 March 2024 at 7:35 am

                      Yeah, I forgot about the avatars (emails as lprent explained).

                • Jimmy …
                  22 March 2024 at 2:36 pm

                  If the other Jimmy gets banned, do I get banned too?

              • lprent …
                23 March 2024 at 1:53 am

                Why was there no catch on the use of a name that had already been used?

                There is a 'catch'. But there isn't a foolproof check on that because people do change 'e-mails' occasionally, and they jump around IPs often. That is human checked by moderators.

                The system auto moderates the combination of 'handle' and 'e-mail'. If a comment comes in that has a never before seen combination, it is automatically put into the moderation queue as a first time comment.

                A moderator or admin picks it up, scans to see if it looks like a case of identity theft and lets it through, moderates it by changing it to something else saying why, or dumps it.

                The first comment check has to be allowed manually before subsequent comments get posted to public view automatically. Occasionally a comment looks human to the automatic filters – which are there to deal with bots and spammers. So a human gets to decide who is human and who is a fraudster.

                Sometimes the comment looks ok and gets past. The handle may be the same, but the automatic avatar against each commenter handle reflects the shared secret – the 'e-mail' – so readers know that it is likely to be the same or different to a previous user of that handle. Mostly moderators will only check who it is if the comment appears 'off' for the usual current user of that handle (never under-estimate the ability of humans at pattern picking), then if it looks like someone trying to do and identity theft…

                The effect of this is that the workload impact on moderators is quite diminished to occasional auto-moderation for 'new' commenters. And we don't get into doing a whole load of admin whenever someone switches email providers. Which is why people with logins are restricted to authors and those people who got a actual login before I closed them off in 2008, and who left at least one comment using the login before 2010.

                With the current system, we don't even insist on real e-mail addresses. That is effectively just a shared secret. So long as it looks like it might be a email, then it is ok.

      • SPC 5.1.2
        22 March 2024 at 9:58 am

        Thanks for asking.

        A case where downsizing from past form does work to realise better performance.

        1. David Seymour and his deputy pleased with their downsizing work – others not sure that it will deliver nothing but poorer outcomes

        And in the nothing should be on ones record, unless it it true, category.

        2. Winston Peters global reputation for comparing indigenous rights (honouring the Treaty) to the 1930's German regime.

        • Belladonna 5.1.2.1
          22 March 2024 at 10:04 am

          Well, neither would have been a connection I (or I think many others) would have made up front.

          And, certainly the first one is of very questionable merit (surely you can find a better illustration of the outcomes of downsizing than breast reduction).

          I fail to see any connection between the last one and Winston Peters. Or the link is so vague that it could apply to any current news story.

          Save it for Facebook.

  6. Macro 6
    22 March 2024 at 9:44 am

    About bloody time!

    US calls for immediate Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal in draft UN resolution

    Source says wording suggests significant movement in US position as pressure mounts on Israel to halt campaign

  7. mpledger 7
    22 March 2024 at 10:52 am

    The golden rule is that you don't cut govt spending during a recession. It just makes everything worse.

    Cutting spending to give tax cuts to the rich is insane – as a time of instability the rich will just put the money in the bank where it doesn't help the economy, whereas lesser mortals have to spend the money to live and so keep the economy alive.

  8. Ad 8
    22 March 2024 at 11:29 am

    It was so hilarious to hear Shamubeel Eeaqub yesterday talk about this economic recession we're now in being nothing to do with government.

    The Reserve Bank has deliberately targeted and succeeded in achieving a recession through raising interest rates in order to choke consumer demand, choke discretionary family spending through higher mortgage payments, and demand higher unemployment.

    It's the most destructive thing I've seen from a single state entity in a decade. As for their statutory independence from government, we all know how closely Treasury staff work with them already. And how tight the banking economist network is in Wellington.

    • Descendant Of Smith 8.1
      22 March 2024 at 1:03 pm

      It also one of the reasons the banks will make increased profits. Reserve bank pushing interest rates up. Profit out of nothing given to them freely.

  9. SPC 9
    22 March 2024 at 12:01 pm

    David Seymour responds to the IMF mentioning CGT, we should be more like Switzerland which has no CGT.

    “I see the IMF again saying, ‘oh, you need a capital gains tax. Every country has one. The only countries that don’t have one are New Zealand and Switzerland’. But, I say, let’s be more like Switzerland.”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/david-seymour-talks-tax-relief-public-service-savings-free-school-lunches-and-media-cuts-the-front-page/XC6CVPWEQ5DBXLRL3VA5VO2FUM/

    I suspect that Seymour knows little about their tax system.

    https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/switzerland/individual/other-taxes

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 9.1
      22 March 2024 at 4:53 pm

      Seymour may well know about the Swiss tax system, I think he is more malicious than stupid.

      He made his technically correct (but in reality dishonest and misleading) talking point successfully ("no CGT in Switzerland!"). As you mention (and he didn't), they have direct capital taxes and all sorts of other taxes on wealth that we don't have. Many of his listeners won't bother to find out.

  10. Robert Guyton 10
    22 March 2024 at 1:05 pm

    "My heart goes out to anyone who is faced with the prospect of losing their job," Willis said. "

    Sick.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350205276/nz-politics-live-chris-hipkins-slams-distasteful-coalition-government-public

  11. Res Publica 11
    22 March 2024 at 2:16 pm

    Interesting to see that the parties of "one man, one vote" deciding that being able to vote multiple times is actually OK – as long as you're a landlord.

    Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill — First Reading – New Zealand Parliament (www.parliament.nz)

    This government is so overwhelmingly shit, so incomparably intellectually and morally bankrupt, it can't even act consistently with it's own (lazy and awful) rhetoric.

    • Traveller 11.1
      22 March 2024 at 4:27 pm

      In local government elections, property owners get a vote in an area in which they own a property. They don't get multiple votes in any single area.

      The reason for that system in local government elections is both simple and logical – property owners pay rates in each and all of those areas, and therefore have a democratic right to have a say in how those rates are spent.

      • Res Publica 11.1.1
        23 March 2024 at 7:27 am

        But we abandoned property ownership as the basis for the franchise over a century ago, because for all the the rhetoric around it, it was really an attempt to keep the dirty poors from having a vote.

        I'd also argue that if you simply open a property in a district and don't like the rates or what council does, you're welcome to sell up and buy a property somewhere else.

        If you buy a business in another country, should you expect to get a vote there?

        Moreover, why should someone's rights as a landlord be greater than than the people that actually live and work in the community?

        • Traveller 11.1.1.1
          23 March 2024 at 3:58 pm

          "But we abandoned property ownership as the basis for the franchise over a century ago, "

          That related to one person having multiple votes in the same election. The current situation is totally different. If you have a residence in Wellington and a holiday home in the Wairarapa, why shouldn't you have a right to a say about how your rates in both places are spent?

          "Moreover, why should someone's rights as a landlord be greater than than the people that actually live and work in the community?"

          They aren't. All property owners in any one area have one vote per person.

      • gsays 11.1.2
        23 March 2024 at 7:53 am

        "The reason for that system in local government elections is both simple and logical – property owners pay rates in each and all of those areas.."

        I would be surprised if the landlord paid, I think you will find the tenents pay the rates.

    • Belladonna 12.1
      22 March 2024 at 4:10 pm

      Literally sickening. Those poor kids. I can't imagine how anyone could let this happen – let alone participate in it.

      Our current legal system does nothing to punish the perpetrators (if they all remain silent then there will be no prosecution).

      But much better to prevent it happening in the first place. Secure housing for Mum and kids with no sleepovers from other adults allowed – seems like a good place to start.

      • gsays 12.1.1
        23 March 2024 at 8:01 am

        Yep and follow that up with wages reform so that a family can be raised on one income.

        End the offensive regime that requires some working people to have welfare and the landlording handout Accommodation Supplement. Both of which are concessions that government is failing it's people.