Open mike 23/03/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 23rd, 2011 - 206 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

Comment on whatever takes your fancy.

The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

206 comments on “Open mike 23/03/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Bored 1.1
      23 March 2011 at 7:17 am

      Oh dear indeed, lets see ho decisive Gough is this time.

    • SHG 1.2
      23 March 2011 at 8:10 am

      “Labour Party [deleted unless source of quote can be provided]” – it’s the feel-good movie of the summer!

      • Marty G 1.2.1
        23 March 2011 at 8:15 am

        SHG. can you provide a links for that quote? If you can, you can repost it. Otherwise, it’s potentially defamatory and we can’t have that until further facts are in the open.

    • Marty G 1.3
      23 March 2011 at 8:23 am

      oh dear indeed. I have to say I don’t yet know the details of the allegation or the MP in question. Although, it’s pretty easy to trace the nature of the allegation from the articles. Whether it’s true or not, who knows. It wouldn’t be the first time false allegations have been made (remember Jevan Goulter)

        • Robert Atack 1.3.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 5:13 pm

          Darren is an ok sort of guy, if you ignore the fact he is a politician, so I hope this turns out to be nothing.
          He is one of the most informed politicians, regarding peak oil, and I hope when the shit hits the fan he is able to put all the information I’ve given him to good use. …. they have (had?) a ‘Robert’ file in his elaborate office.

      • Vicky32 1.3.2
        23 March 2011 at 6:04 pm

        Just right now hearing about it all on 3 News… Duncan Garner is making a meal of it of course, despite a lack of available detail…
        Apparently, Hughes has been stood down, and Garner’s salivating at the idea that he won’t be allowed back.
        Deb

        • Carol 1.3.2.1
          23 March 2011 at 6:10 pm

          Yes, a pretty sleazy effort on Garner’s part. He managed to imply that it was a sexual incident by beating up in the promo that they asked Goff if sex was involved. Only to get Goff’s reply that he couldn’t comment on the nature of the incident. Then, without in evidence of what happened, Garner is pronouncing the end of Hughes political carreer.

          Garner certainly seems to like maliciously pursuing gay leftwing pollies.

    • apples are yum 1.4
      23 March 2011 at 9:00 am

      Goff has finally made a comment: http://tinyurl.com/4es46mu

      • Tigger 1.4.1
        23 March 2011 at 9:46 am

        Yes Carol, well done Darren. Anyone remember Worth or Wong fronting so decisively? I would beware of speculation around this, righties. It will bite you all in the proverbial.

        • felix 1.4.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 10:07 am

          Yes, compare and contrast to Worth and Wong.

          And by implication, compare Key’s handling to Goff’s. Interesting and encouraging.

          Also that’s an interesting choice of photo by Stuff. Why is Helen Clark in it?

  2. Pascal's bookie 2
    23 March 2011 at 7:36 am

    Shorter Daily Torygraph

    Sarah Palin is an idiot. Her handlers are idiots. She says and does very stupid things, for transparently stupid reasons, and fails to pull even this off.

    • PeteG 2.1
      23 March 2011 at 8:43 am

      (initialled to clarify name)

      And yet she is still discussed widely as a possible presidential idiot.

      • lprent 2.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 9:01 am

        I wish she was. But her anti polling numbers (those who can’t abide her) are precluding her from contention, especially since so many of them are republicans. I will dig up a link.

        BTW: You could always make a gravator to get more distinctive. The details are in the FAQ in the header.

        • PeteG 2.1.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 9:11 am

          I’ve seen polls on her, strong minority positives and strong negatives. I can’t see her winning the Republican nomination but she will likely continue to influence quite a few other selections, for better or worse.

          Her popularity (in some demographics) is a good example of how many people choose someone to like and then tint (taint) all their views to justify that approval.

      • Pascal's bookie 2.1.2
        23 March 2011 at 9:15 am

        Yeah, the GOP primary should be a hoot. They have a motivated and insane base big enough to veto moderates. The whole party has become a PT Barnum/H. L. Mencken mashup. A bunch of rubes being grifted for donations via a reality programme posing as a newscaster. This is the way the empire ends: Not with a bang but a poorly drafted tweet dribbling across the Chryon crawl. Lulz.

      • freedom 2.1.3
        23 March 2011 at 9:33 am

        I would wager she is smarter than GW so there is plenty of precedent :]

      • Lanthanide 2.1.4
        23 March 2011 at 10:54 am

        I think she’d like to run for President, if she could swing it. It’s clearly not going to happen in 2012 against Obama, though, and she might have outworn her welcome by 2016.

        Palin is in it for the money. It’s pretty clear – why else would she have quit her governorship position if she was actually politically savvy or serious?

    • Draco T Bastard 2.2
      23 March 2011 at 12:22 pm

      Israeli military officials declined to comment on why Mrs Palin may have turned back, but the country’s defence ministry confirmed that she had made no formal request to visit the occupied West Bank – standard protocol for any foreign dignitary.

      I didn’t think she held any public offices ATM.

  3. big bruv 3
    23 March 2011 at 8:29 am

    Ha ha…today might well be a lot of fun.

    I wonder who it might be ?

    Is there any truth in the rumour that Judith Tizard is on her way to Wellington?

  4. John Bon 4
    23 March 2011 at 8:54 am

    Much of the speculation of some sort of scandel was centred around ipredict stock for Tizard to re enter parliament.

    All I will say is this: Have a look at other ipredict stocks which made big moves last night and this morning, and it becomes pretty obvious which MP it is.

  5. Nadis 5
    23 March 2011 at 9:00 am

    A question about the standard on the iphone, if anyone can answer.

    Relative To other blogs it is quite hard work to use the standard. 2 things. 1. On the main page a story often shows in it’s entirety ie today the Auckland transport piece. Lots of scrolling required.

    2. When viewing a strory the only navigation and menu buttons appear at the top, again a ton of scrolling up and down required.

    3. When commenting, apparently no ability to scroll within the comment space.

    Is there something I can do to fix these or is it a problem with the site? Other blogs I look at font have the same navigation issues.

    • lprent 5.1
      23 March 2011 at 9:07 am

      1. Agreed, I will fix that. Just a option at the server. I’ll do it at work this morning.

      2. It is an issue with the theme provided with the plugin. I may get around to it since it annoys me on the iPad and write it myself. I logged that with the developers over a year ago. The problem is that I have to spend a weekend day on it to write my own theme – those are like hens teeth these days.

      3. That is more of an issue with how the iPad / iPhone choose to present the TextBox. Probably the best I can do is to increase the size of the entry area. I’ll have a look at doing that in CSS

  6. freedom 6
    23 March 2011 at 9:03 am

    before the blogs get wrapped up in the sensationalist distractions ahead…..

    Here is an undeniably prescient example of how data in the public domain can be combined with modern technology to produce an accurate and fact based resource for understanding the scale and magnitude of the forces that are working against democracy
    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

    The sheer volume of data in this interactive tool is staggering in itself, when that data is honestly assimilated the bare motive is not one supporting freedom or democracy

    – remember we are already tied to many of these Agencies with more contracts just around the corner according to many statements made surrounding the recent TPP negotiations

  7. Alpha Sud 7
    23 March 2011 at 9:04 am

    What? Where are the accusations of malice and corruption and incompetence and evil levelled towards the entire Labour Party? A single allegation towards somebody in the Nats would provoke the same.

    In other news I saw Dazza in the street last week. He was looking tired and emotional.

    • Marty G 7.1
      23 March 2011 at 9:20 am

      Don’t see how we can make any allegations without knowing what is alleged about whom

      • SHG 7.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 10:46 am

        Prediction based on nothing other than an overwhelming sense of cynicism: the specific address in the Wellington “inner city suburb” at which it is alleged an offense occurred “in the early hours of Wednesday, March 2” will be even more of a clusterf*ck.

        • SHG 7.1.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 12:48 pm

          Update: confirmed as Annette King’s house.

          • felix 7.1.1.1.1
            23 March 2011 at 1:08 pm

            zOMG really? FUCK ME!!!

            Hang on, what? How is that important?

          • grumpy 7.1.1.1.2
            23 March 2011 at 1:09 pm

            So something is allegaed to have happened in the Deputy Leader’s house that the police are investigating, yet nobody in Labour knew anything about it????????

            • felix 7.1.1.1.2.1
              23 March 2011 at 1:18 pm

              Yeah that is weird, what with the entire Labour Party meeting in Annette King’s living room at the time and all.

      • Marty G 7.1.2
        23 March 2011 at 1:49 pm

        Shg, if you’re quoting when you write things in quotes you need to add the link or we’ll assume you’re trying to out new potentially defamatory accusations out via our blog and we’ll ban you

        • SHG 7.1.2.1
          23 March 2011 at 2:03 pm

          The quoted bits are from the NZ Police, and are part of just about every news item on this subject today.

          E.g: http://bit.ly/eg7P6c

        • SHG 7.1.2.2
          23 March 2011 at 2:09 pm

          The details of the location which I put in quotes were from the Police, and they feature in just about every news item on this subject.

          [lprent: The point that Marty was making was that you didn’t provide a link for what was clearly a quote. We don’t allow that without a link or at least a clear reference as to where it comes from. It becomes too easy to make shit up and try to pass it off as being factual.

          For instance; “Lynn says that SHG is starting to be more work than he is worth for moderators”. When I haven’t said that at all (at least not yet)

          BTW: Just for your personal information in case that state does happen, my current personal policy is that people who do cause me too much moderating work get banned until after the election. Just a unfriendly warning. ]

          • Carol 7.1.2.2.1
            23 March 2011 at 2:24 pm

            The location is mentioned, but not confirmed by King as her house, as on Stuff:
            http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4798214/Police-investigate-Labour-MP-Darren-Hughes

            Hughes was a speaker in the comedy debate, which was an event held as part of the university’s Orientation Week.

            It is understood that Hughes and the 18-year-old complainant, along with dozens of others who were at the debate, carried on to Wellington’s Matterhorn bar.

            The group then moved on to The Establishment bar where they carried on drinking. It is understood police are looking in to CCTV footage from the bar.

            It is understood the complaint springs from an incident at Hughes’ home which ended in the complainant leaving the house and walking in to a passing police car.

            The complainant is understood to have no established political allegiances, although he has moved in political circles.
            …
            Labour deputy leader Annette King had little to say on the matter when contacted today.

            Hughes stayed with King when in Wellington. She refused to say whether the alleged incident occurred at her house.

            She also refused to say whether police had executed a search warrant there.

            “Darren’s made a statement, the police have made a statement, Phil’s made a statement, I’ve got nothing to say.

            I have seen no reports of “items of interest” being removed. It would help if you produced links for your quotes.

            • SHG 7.1.2.2.1.1
              23 March 2011 at 4:02 pm

              3 News: “3 News understands some items of interest have been removed from the home.”

          • SHG 7.1.2.2.2
            23 March 2011 at 2:30 pm

            FYI the past three times I’ve attempted to post reference links the post has been blocked as spam.

            [lprent: Read the FAQ for how to use anchor points or put more of your content in. One liner type messages with a link are frequently blocked by akismet as it is a common profile for spam. Since akismet has so far this month in the nearly 20k comments correctly identified more than 900 spam comments and incorrectly identified 45 comments as spam, I’m not planning on changing it anytime soon. You’ll just have to work around it. ]

  8. SHG 8
    23 March 2011 at 9:21 am

    Let’s be honest, this isn’t the first time [deleted] has been at the centre of a story like this. His was the very first name that came to mind.

    [lprent: As far as I’m aware this name is not in the public domain (otherwise Vernon would have said it). You have already been warned. Two week ban. ]

    • SHG 8.1
      23 March 2011 at 9:36 am

      Please keep up with the play, anonymous moderator, [deleted] outed himself as the MP under investigation by police to the media about 45 mins ago.

      [lprent: Public link please dated before now and I will remove the 4 week ban. And it has to be a msm or press statement. ]

      “Hughes outs himself as Labour MP under police investigation”

      http://nbr.co.nz/article/labour-avoids-questions-mp-allegations-nn-88874

      [lprent: Thank you. It isn’t my responsibility to keep up with the news. You have to substantiate what you want to use. It is your responsibility if you want to use something that is potentially defamatory to provide a backing link if it is new and hasn’t been a substantiated topic here.

      I have to work and don’t really have time for people being lazy about their commenting.

      BTW: The earlier anonymous moderator was probably Marty G since he wrote the comment in reply. I suspect that is because it is a pain doing moderation on cellphones. The one you were replying to had lprent prominently displayed. ]

  9. William Joyce 9
    23 March 2011 at 9:26 am

    Yesterday Shrek from Epsom raised a point of order wanting to know if the Hansard would include a translation of something Hone said in the house. True to form, the speaker denied the point of order. Does anyone know what Shrek was talking about?
    Obviously he thinks he’s got Hone by the short and curlies on this.

    • Bright Red 9.1
      23 March 2011 at 9:35 am

      going from that exchange yesterday, and what Highes added later, I think it was over the wording Hone used to vote no to the f&s bill.

      Hide just a bit desperate, I would suggest.

  10. big bruv 10
    23 March 2011 at 10:17 am

    Has Goff demanded the resignation of Hughes yet?

    Remember how quick he was to ask Wong and Worth to resign?

    Or is this another example of Labour’s shocking hypocrisy.

    • lprent 10.1
      23 March 2011 at 10:23 am

      You mean after the months and months of investigations where both Worth and Wong denied w(r)ong-doing? That kind of quick? Authors here were saying that there was something fishy and they should resign long before Goff was.

      Perhaps you should let the police do their job.

      • big bruv 10.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 10:59 am

        “denied w(r)ong-doing? ”

        Is there really any need for the racist comment Iprent?

        • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 12:16 pm

          Doesn’t seem racist to me, just making fun of her last name.

          She happens to be Asian and have an Asian surname, so what?

          Surely if you want to be fair, you should be calling us racist for making fun of Blinglish, because he has a stereotypical anglo-saxon name. Except you don’t. Which actually makes *you* racist for specifically pointing out that Wong is Asian when it really has nothing to do with making fun of her name.

          What you’ve done is really no different from someone saying “I know this Maori woman on the DPB” – by specifically mentioning her race as if it is pertinent to her beneficiary status, you’re being racist.

          Incidentally I remember a puff piece leading up to the 2005 election when they were looking at candidates billboards. Someone (from Labour?) had a surname “White”, and so their billboard said “Vote the White way”. While finishing up their piece in which they commented on several different billboards, they finished with something like “If voting for XXX is is ‘the White way’, what does that make voting for Pansy?” with the unspoken punch line being “the Wong way”. Funnily enough, there was no media uproar after that piece aired.

          • grumpy 10.1.1.1.1
            23 March 2011 at 1:10 pm

            “Doesn’t seem racist to me, just making fun of her last name.

            She happens to be Asian and have an Asian surname, so what?”

            You mean like Dikshit?

            • felix 10.1.1.1.1.1
              23 March 2011 at 1:14 pm

              Ah, you mean the bit where lprent said “Wong! Wong! That’s so hilarious because it sounds like DICK SHIT and that’s so appropriate BECAUSE SHE’S ASIAN!”

              Yeah, same same. I get you grumpy.

              • grumpy …
                23 March 2011 at 1:22 pm

                I have no problem with lprent’s comment, but then I didn’t with Paul Henry’s either…….

                • felix …
                  23 March 2011 at 1:24 pm

                  Probably ‘cos you’re a bit racist an’ that…

                  But hardly the point. Why are you comparing the two statements? Are they just “two things I don’t find racist” or is there some other, more significant linkage?

                  • grumpy …
                    23 March 2011 at 1:36 pm

                    Nah, just Lanth\’s comment above

                    “….She happens to be Asian and have an Asian surname, so what?….”

                    Just couldn\’t help myself…….

          • felix 10.1.1.1.2
            23 March 2011 at 1:10 pm

            Wee Man is using the Tau Henare definition of racism. (Racism = talking disparagingly about the National Party)

        • lprent 10.1.1.2
          23 March 2011 at 1:43 pm

          It was actually a typo originally. But it amused me so when I edited it, I put the replacement in in brackets.

          I notice that you didn’t address the substance of my comment though – no answers…

    • gobsmacked 10.2
      23 March 2011 at 10:29 am

      Big Bruv

      Memory problems again?

      Actually, Key called for Worth to resign. But in the hours/days after the Worth story broke, nobody did. Because nobody knew what had happned.

      Feel free to contradict, with evidence on Goff (there was plenty of media coverage, so it shouldn’t be hard for you). But you can’t.

      Please stop telling lies.

  11. travellerev 11
    23 March 2011 at 10:44 am

    I respectfully acknowledge the ongoing thread and only want to post this link as an update to a previous discussion about the attack on Libya.

    My premise is that it is an ongoing pre-planned strategy in order to get a monopoly on the middle east and Mediterranean oil reserves. My opponents accused me of paranoia and defended their premise that the attacks on Libya were solely for the benefit of the oppressed people of Libya.

    I decided to dig up a video from November 2007. The video is a recorded speech of General Wesley Clark.

    In it he recounts two conversations with a man who obviously had a very high intelligence clearance. According to the general the first conversation took place before the invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 911 and the second conversation took place after the invasion Afghanistan.

    In the second conversation the man confides in him which targets are set for the next five years (Which was clearly not successful as it is now 10 years since those conversations but you get the idea) amongst them is Libya.

    He also states that the foreign policy of the US has been hijacked and is no longer under the control of the American people and their elected representatives.

    • Roflcopter 11.1
      23 March 2011 at 10:54 am

      It’s those damned Illuminati again!

      • travellerev 11.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 11:46 am

        Just general Wesley Clark stating what he had been told, s’all. If you draw that conclusion that is your business.

        • McFlock 11.1.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 5:05 pm

          Erm – Libya was part of the “Axis of Evil”. That secret hitlist thrown all over Fox news during the oughties – big revelation there, TR.

          Another revelation was the ambitious scale for World Domination(tm) by the neocons, and how it got bogged down at the first two hurdles because they counted their chickens while watching the kettle of successful occupation in the hand. Again, not a major surprise.

          • felix 11.1.1.1.1
            23 March 2011 at 9:07 pm

            In the video Gen. Clark talks about plans relating to Libya being discussed as early as 1991.

            • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1.1
              23 March 2011 at 11:17 pm

              1991?

              You guys should watch “The Power of Nightmares”. It goes back to the 50s, and if that speech worried you, this BBC documentary will blow your mind. Anything which involves Kissinger and G.H.W. Bush holding back the more malevolent elements of US foreign policy is not going to be light viewing.

              • felix …
                24 March 2011 at 10:50 am

                Yeah that’s a great one. I recommend all the Adam Curtis films, both for the subject matter and the presentation style.

    • Vicky32 11.2
      23 March 2011 at 7:11 pm

      I wish I could see videos, travellerev…. For what it’s worth, (which seems to be very little here – I am about as popular as Blinglish! 🙂 ), I believe you.
      Deb

  12. Sookie 12
    23 March 2011 at 11:07 am

    Oh great, another conveniently timed, homophobic beat up of teh ghey Labour Party. A certain journalist at TV3 will be jumping for joy. Lets deflect attention from an upcoming Budget straight from the Dark Side of the Force with a good ole fashioned scandal. God this country disgusts me.

    • Carol 12.1
      23 March 2011 at 11:12 am

      Yes, it seems the accusation has been around for the last couple of weeks, and was possibly leaked to the press by the government last night….timing?

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4798214/Police-investigate-Labour-MP-Darren-Hughes

      Labour leader Phil Goff said it was in the hands of the police and there would be no comment to avoid any suggestion of political interference.

      Hughes advised him of the incident a couple of weeks ago.

      He believed the information was leaked by “the Beehive”.

    • SHG 12.2
      23 March 2011 at 11:45 am

      Goff knew of the allegations two weeks ago. If he sat on this and did nothing to defuse it, it’s his own damn fault.

    • chris 12.3
      23 March 2011 at 12:54 pm

      “God this country disgusts me.” Yeah – its all a beat up.

      Forgetting of course that a young man (involved in labour) felt so strongly about this that he layed a complain with the police.

      Forgetting that the police thought enough of it to follow up on the complaint, got a search warrent and are continuing investigations.

      Forgetting that the labour leadership (despite earlier denials) have known about this for a couple of weeks and chose not to mention it.

      Yeah – its all Nationals doing.

      Of course DH could have just been a good boy and not have done anything that would have caused this whole issue in the first place.

      The left is pretty lousy when it comes to personal responsibility or ownership of their own actions.

      Im wondering if this is going to be another field type case.

  13. gobsmacked 13
    23 March 2011 at 11:10 am

    Upping the ante … Stuff reports:

    “Labour leader Phil Goff has blamed the ”Beehive” for leaking details about a police investigation into an incident involving high-ranking MP Darren Hughes.

    However Prime Minister John Key quickly rejected Goff’s claim, saying he’d heard rumours a few days ago but ”there are always rumours around Parliament”.

    Given Key’s track record of proven fibs, this one needs a closer look.

    • William Joyce 13.1
      23 March 2011 at 12:22 pm

      So Key hears rumours around parliament but when asked a direct question on policy or intentions he says that he has “had no advice” or otherwises does not know.
      What is the Key Doctrine – “Plausible Denial”

      “I know nuzink! I see nuzink!”

      What are his instructions to staff – “Don’t tell me anything so I can deny it”
      ie. “I’d rather be ignorant than have to explain anything”
      End result? He’s just an empty headed puppet.
      – what a deceptive &%$

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/19473099@N05

    • mickysavage 13.2
      23 March 2011 at 12:26 pm

      Slater pretty well released it with a post yesterday at 3 pm. I am not sure there was any other broadcase and I was surprised at the discrete way Slater raised it. If I post a link I will (rightfully) go into moderation.

      Of course he has nothing to do with the National Party.

    • Jim Nald 13.3
      23 March 2011 at 1:27 pm

      He’s been giving a lesson on how to trade on rumours:
      one side of the mouth says ‘no leak’, the other side leaks.

      captcha: aside
      hmm

  14. freedom 14
    23 March 2011 at 11:26 am

    One day a politician will have the guts and the smarts to pre-empt all the bs hysteria and front up as soon as an investigation starts, not waiting till an inevitable leak

    antispam- floating
    like turds of distraction in the longdrop of bigger priorities

  15. big bruv 15
    23 March 2011 at 11:57 am

    So….

    Now we have Goff caught in a lie.

    Initially saying he had no knowledge of the incident and then claiming he has know about it for two weeks.

    Goff needs to join Hughes in resigning.

    • gobsmacked 15.1
      23 March 2011 at 12:07 pm

      Big Bruv

      Why have you failed to back up your Goff smear above, as I asked at 10.29?

      Because you’ve got nothing. You lied, and you’re sorry.

      Apology accepted.

      [lprent: That is a pwned argument and it is NOT allowed. Don’t use it or you’ll find you have a wee holiday. ]

      • grumpy 15.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 12:35 pm

        Hi lprent, I thought you had earlier banned the use of “pwned”. I might be wrong…………..

        • lprent 15.1.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 1:53 pm

          Nope. But I have had a long standing policy of banning people for using that style of argument including its various variants like assuming silence is agreement because it leads inevitably to flame wars.

    • Green Tea 15.2
      23 March 2011 at 12:08 pm

      Queue the Labour Party spin machine…

      • joe90 15.2.1
        23 March 2011 at 12:12 pm

        I wonder if this is actionable?.

        • Green Tea 15.2.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 12:28 pm

          Another career politician bites the dust (or heres hoping)

        • grumpy 15.2.1.2
          23 March 2011 at 12:31 pm

          Thanks for drawing this to our attention.

          My opinion is yes, if it were untrue it would be actionable.

        • Bored 15.2.1.3
          23 March 2011 at 4:19 pm

          Jeez Joe, I just went over to Kiwiblog for the first time and read the trail, more RWNJs there than I could have a week of nightmares about. Between the whole lot of them they are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Then theres DPF…got to go and shower now as I am left feeling unclean.

          • lprent 15.2.1.3.1
            23 March 2011 at 4:46 pm

            Yeah, for some reason they don’t want to come and do that stuff here. I call the comments section there the sewer for a reason.

            How far have they got on building their current mythic history this time?

            • Bored 15.2.1.3.1.1
              23 March 2011 at 4:54 pm

              Saw some of DPFs moderation…says it all.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                23 March 2011 at 5:09 pm

                and this:

                “UPDATE2: NewstalkZB reports:

                Our political editor Barry Soper understands the police searched Deputy Leader Annette King’s house.

                The young man at the centre of the allegation was a Youth MP at Parliament for a Labour list MP last year. The alleged incident on March 2, NewstalkZB’s been told, took place at Mrs King’s Haitaitai home where Mr Hughes lives.

                A reminder that in certain circumstances it is illegal to identify the complainant, so no speculating on names.

                And people wonder why he gets called a dogwhistler; it’s coz he chose to highlight that when he knows he has some real nasty little shitbags reading his blog, that’s why.

    • grumpy 15.3
      23 March 2011 at 12:13 pm

      Also caught Andrew Little who claimed this morning that he “knew nothing”.
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10714335
      Either he is lying or Goff didn’t tell him as Goff first claimed to “know nothing” and then admitted he has known for 2 weeks.
      Either way, not good for the temporary leader or the President.

      • The Voice of Reason 15.3.1
        23 March 2011 at 12:25 pm

        “Also caught Andrew Little who claimed this morning that he “knew nothing”.”

        The reporter asked him yesterday, grumpy, presumably before the story broke. Check the filing time (5.30 am). So at the time he was asked, it’s entirely plausible that Little did not know. What that says about Goff’s failure to inform him, however, is another matter.

        • grumpy 15.3.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 12:32 pm

          True TVOR, what do you think of the probability of Goff not informing him?

          • The Voice of Reason 15.3.1.1.1
            23 March 2011 at 12:55 pm

            I think it’s piss poor, grumpy. I can only assume that Hughes told Goff there had been an allegation a couple of weeks ago and Goff told him to say nothing until the Police confirmed they intended investigating. No problem with that. But I assume in the last couple of days the Police confirmed to Hughes that they were formally investigating the matter and Goff was told, but chose not to inform Little. That seems pretty odd to me.

            However, if Goff was not aware that the formal investigation was underway until last night, then I suppose he may not have have been able to inform Little prior to the reporter ringing him.

            Who knows, really? My hope is that there actually is no criminal behaviour and the matter is dropped. I’d hope that for most MP’s, regardless of party, because I believe they (and sports ant TV stars) are open to all sorts of allegations of impropriety, merely because of their public standing.

            Certainly, whatever the Police decide, this is a significant moment for Darren Hughes. I wish him well.

      • gobsmacked 15.3.2
        23 March 2011 at 12:33 pm

        Don’t worry, Grumpy.

        Even if Andrew Little or Phil Goff sat in their offices and signed a document, giving full details …. that still means they “knew nothing” (according to the new rules, aka the BMW Principle, established by John Key).

        • grumpy 15.3.2.1
          23 March 2011 at 12:37 pm

          But, accepting this at face value, what does it say about the inner workings of Labour that Goff apparently did not keep Little informed.

          Just shows, if you are going to lie, you should “lie in unison”.

          • marty mars 15.3.2.1.1
            23 March 2011 at 1:41 pm

            I think it shows that goff is isolated from his team, what with his outburst of naievity about working with a Hone led party and now Little not knowing. The Goff will have to handle this carefully because as you say any story nowdays becomes all about the responses and if that is poorly handled it all turns rather horrible.

      • SHG 15.3.3
        23 March 2011 at 1:00 pm

        To be fair to Goff, it was a Goff staffer who responded that Goff knew nothing. It turns out Goff did know about it, he just hadn’t told the staffer in order to maintain plausible deniability.

        • lprent 15.3.3.1
          23 March 2011 at 1:44 pm

          Or because it wasn’t in their need to know?

          Explain to me why the staffer did need to know?

          • SHG 15.3.3.1.1
            23 March 2011 at 1:55 pm

            To avoid a situation in which – having been asked to comment – his office made a statement to the media that was untrue. Which is exactly what happened.

            • lprent 15.3.3.1.1.1
              23 March 2011 at 1:57 pm

              That is an argument about why the staffer did not need to know.

              What I asked is why you think that the staffer should have known. That is where your silly argument falls down.

              • SHG …
                23 March 2011 at 2:13 pm

                You asked me to explain why the staffer needed to know. I explained that the staffer needed to know in order to avoid the situation that now exists – Goff’s office denying something embarrassing that was later revealed to be true. Such a situation is Not A Good Look.

                • lprent …
                  23 March 2011 at 2:29 pm

                  So what you’re saying is that Phil Goff should relay every private conversation that he has with his MP’s to staffers? In the case of John Key for instance who is in s similar situation, there should be a number of people in his office who know what Richard Worth was dismissed for?

                  It is an interesting theory. Realistic I don’t think so. In fact from my memory John Key has said that he knows why Richard Worth was dismissed, but no-one else does. So obviously you’re saying that John Key is wrong?

                  Quite simply staffers are told what they need to know. When they are asked about stuff that they don’t know by journos, they say they don’t know, and if questioned further refer them to the person they are acting for…

                  • PeteG …
                    23 March 2011 at 2:40 pm

                    “However when Newstalk ZB approached the Labour Party about allegations on Monday, Mr Goff’s staff denied a Labour MP was involved and claimed Mr Goff knew nothing about it.”

                    This seems like nonsense. How could the staffer claim Goff knew nothing about it? No one can credibly claim to know what someone else doesn’t know.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      23 March 2011 at 3:16 pm

                      Yes.

                      So at worst, the staffer is incompetent. I guess that’s justification enough for Goff to step down, as some people have ludicrously being saying? If that were the case, Key should’ve gone long ago, as he’s put incompetent people into actual positions of power, not just staffers.

                  • Alpha Sud …
                    23 March 2011 at 6:31 pm

                    No, staffers are not told what they “need to know”. Competent political management would have been telling the staff if they are asked about Darren, they defer the question to somebody who does know. Not deny it.

    • RobC 15.4
      23 March 2011 at 12:47 pm

      @ BigBruv (11.57) Wrong again.

      From Newstalk ZB …

      Mr Goff confirms he’s known about the matter for two weeks. However when Newstalk ZB approached the Labour Party about allegations on Monday, Mr Goff’s staff denied a Labour MP was involved and claimed Mr Goff knew nothing about it.

      Phil Goff says his staff hadn’t checked with him.

      “I think the person that told you that told you it in good faith, she was not aware of it,” he told Newstalk ZB today. “It was a matter that the police were dealing with, it didn’t need any comment from me or any speculation from me.”

      Phil Goff says he had been keeping the information to himself and hadn’t shared it with his caucus.

      • PeteG 15.4.1
        23 March 2011 at 12:56 pm

        I don’t expect his caucus (some anyway) will appreciate his lack of sharing. Good grief. He didn’t even think to drop the news under cover of the Japan earthquake.

        Are the timings of these are coincidence?
        http://thestandard.org.nz/a-hell-of-a-speech/
        http://thestandard.org.nz/a-hell-of-a-speech-2/

        [lprent: Are you trying to suggest that we had prior knowledge or should have had prior knowledge of something that broke this morning? I think that you are.

        Retract or explain yourself, and I’d point out that I take a very very dim view of people insinuating that this blog is run by politicians. In fact I’m sure I put that in the policy. ]

        • grumpy 15.4.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 1:01 pm

          I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Either way Goff’s handling of this is now the major issue, probably surpassing what Hughes is alleged to have, or not done.

          You would have thought, with Labour’s success in attacking Hide and Key, he would have learnt something?

        • Marty G 15.4.1.2
          23 March 2011 at 1:12 pm

          Huh? Yes, coincidence. And I’m not sure what you’re driving at.

          • grumpy 15.4.1.2.1
            23 March 2011 at 1:26 pm

            OK then Marty G, when has Goff ever made a speech as good as Cunliffe’s (or Winston’s).

            And, we now have Mahuta breaking ranks – barbeque’s anyone, seems like there may have been one at Cunliffe’s over the weekend (or a few weeks ago at Annette Kings).

            • felix 15.4.1.2.1.1
              23 March 2011 at 1:30 pm

              Well I hope you’re right, grumpy. Goff should’ve been gone a long time ago.

              Not that this is how I’d like to see him off, but if he won’t jump…

              • grumpy …
                23 March 2011 at 1:38 pm

                Maybe Goff and Key could start their own party. Not sure what it would stand for though….. colour would be grey.

            • freedom 15.4.1.2.1.2
              23 March 2011 at 1:42 pm

              so do you reckon Goff is going Grousing?

              thrashing the undergrowth to draw out out the pigeons and the odd weka pre-election then a quickfire resignation, a public clean up of the carcass in April, ready to pounce on the Budget and the new Labour pack sprint to the Polls

              radical, but stranger things have happened, look at who we have on the 9th floor

        • PeteG 15.4.1.3
          23 March 2011 at 2:22 pm

          Not suggesting prior knowledge of this morning’s news. If most of caucus didn’t know I wouldn’t expect many others to be in the know, inside or outside the party.

          There seems to be a coincidental accumulation of signs of disgruntlement with Goff, it’s his lack of management and support unravelling. It may well be uncoordinated, but alternatives (policy and personnel) seem to be being suggested more from different directions.

  16. freedom 16
    23 March 2011 at 12:51 pm

    perhaps i missed something
    but none of the articles pertaining to this matter, or any statements made on this matter have mentioned anything about acts of a sexual nature yet that seems to be the singular topic of comments and suspicions on various blogs.

    me-thinks that people need to just get a grip and wait for a few facts
    there are many other reasons that police could be involved but the public are so conditioned and hungry for sexsationalism it bores me to tears

    there are real problems out there folks, don’t fall for this bullshit again

    • Lanthanide 16.1
      23 March 2011 at 1:01 pm

      Agreed.

      But at the same time, one has to wonder why they left it at “young male complainant”. If it was physical violence/scuffle or a heated argument or something, don’t you think they would have alluded to or mentioned that? The fact that they haven’t lends credence to the idea that it is ‘something’ dodgy, just how much remains to be seen though.

      • freedom 16.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 1:26 pm

        or it simply sets perfectly into the jellymoulds that sit atop most people’s shoulders these days

  17. interesting 17
    23 March 2011 at 12:57 pm

    I found this today which says:

    MAHUTA WAITING FOR WIND TO BLOW ON GOFF

    Another of Labour’s Maori MPs has broken ranks with leader Phil Goff over working with former Maori Party MP Hone harawira.

    Mr Goff ruled out including the Tai Tokerau MP in his post-election planning because he says he was extreme and unreliable.

    But Waikato-Hauraki MP Nanaia Mahuta says Mr Harawira has taken similar positions to Labour on issues such as the 90-day bill, raising the minimum wage, and greater protection for employee rights.

    “But the real proof is what happens after election 2011 and I’ve been in politics long enough to know that the wind blows both ways and you can’t rule anyone in and out before that day. That’s the day that matters,” she says.

    Ms Mahuta has confirmed she will stand again this year, despite stepping back in Labour’s rankings for health and family reasons.

    it is from: http://waatea.blogspot.com/2011/03/turbines-seen-as-threat-to-snapper.html

    Is there any substance to this? or is it propaganda again to try and derail Goff?

  18. PeteG 18
    23 March 2011 at 1:29 pm

    It’s starting to look like Goff’s political future is shakier than a Ken Ring earthquake prediction.

    The best option out of this mess might be to clear the decks, start fresh and put in a decent practice run in November. It can’t be worse than stuttering on with increasing dissent.

  19. lprent 19
    23 March 2011 at 1:39 pm

    One of the more stupid posts I have seen anywhere.

    Some twerp in Otago uses the Tumeke blog rankings from 2009 as if they are current, and then castigates this site for not putting up a post about the Darren Hughes complaint that went public mid-morning. Of course he doesn’t exactly use his brain.

    We don’t put up ‘news’ because we work for a living and are not indirectly subsided to blog like some of the leading lights in the right blogging sphere (or like this dipstick – are a student).

    Most of the posts here are written in the evening or morning outside of work hours and are scheduled to post during the day. You’ll usually find any breaking news that we post gets hurriedly written during lunch.

    Furthermore, we usually don’t write opinion on matters that are before the police or courts because we obey the law – which is why we don’t get hauled on front of the courts.

    So Eddie put something up during lunch about it. It has comments off because like the Worth and Wong police and other inquiries (including for that matter much of the Peters stuff), we don’t allow speculation until the process of law has happened.

    So this idiot James Meagar gets upset because we’re not like him – wanting to jump to conclusions before the police have investigated. Yeah like that is shameful?

    • RobC 19.1
      23 March 2011 at 2:20 pm

      What do you expect from a (until recently) Finance Officer of a University Student Association? Intelligence???

    • Lanthanide 19.2
      23 March 2011 at 2:22 pm

      “we don’t allow speculation until the process of law has happened.”

      Except there’s heaps of speculation going on in this open mike post anyway, and it’s being allowed (although keenly moderated).

      I think it’d be easier if all of these discussions actually had a post of their own, and open mike could be left for other issues (such as the very one you raised) like it was intended for.

  20. gobsmacked 20
    23 March 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Goff could be Prime Ministerial here.

    First, he could announce that this is just a “private matter”.

    Then, if Hughes resigns, Goff could claim that he is “not at liberty” to say why.

    Then, Goff could push Hughes out of Parliament, by saying he has “washed his hands” of him.

    Finally, if and when the police announce that no charges will be laid, Goff could shrug and say that’s history, he is not interested any more.

    Neither Darren Hughes nor the public would be treated fairly.

    Would that be showing “leadership”?

  21. randal 21
    23 March 2011 at 1:55 pm

    he was always a pleasant chap when I knew him at uni.
    anyway its a free country and it will all blow over by tomorrow luchtime.
    and Goff will be the next prime minister no matter what the hangers on get up to.
    dig?

  22. grumpy 22
    23 March 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Lots of comment here about the Hughes v Worth thing, interesting to look at things a bit further.

    I think we all know that Worth was fired for trying it on with a Labour activist – perfectly legal but appalling political judgement. Exactly the same thing is alleged to have happened with Hughes back in 2009 but this time no decisive action from Labour.

    Fast forward to 2011 and Hughes has come back to bite Goff at the worst possible time. Just show’s Key’s decisive action on Worth was the correct and pragmatic one.

    • gobsmacked 22.1
      23 March 2011 at 2:20 pm

      I think we all know that Worth was fired for trying it on with a Labour activist

      No we don’t. The (alleged) incident in the hotel room was investigated by police. That did NOT involve a Labour activist, but an entirely different woman. Key may have succeded in confusing people like you, but that’s not “decisive action” in my book.

      If Key had ever told us why Worth was fired, we would know. But he never has.

      • grumpy 22.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 3:27 pm

        We all know Worth was a serial shagger of Asian women, that in itself is unremarkable – but to try it on with a Labout activist in an obvious “honeytrap” – that showed super bad political judgement, almost as bad as a Labour MP having a go at an ACT person.

        • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 3:54 pm

          Jesus Grumpy. Enough with victim blaming eh?

          A honey trap is when you get someone to do something and then you blackmail them about it.

          Goff went to Key privately to ask him to investigate the matter, Key said he had sorted it out and the complainant was willing to let it lie. If it was a honey trap they would have gone public at that point.

          What Key didn’t tell Labour was that his ‘sorting’ was simply asking Worth if it had happened. Worth denied it and promised an affidavit (and defamation suits) if anything became public. When similar accusations arose that’s when Labour asked what exactly Key had done to sort the previous matter. So how you and the more stupid parts of the media get ‘honeytrap’ out of that is simply a mystery. To be a honeytrap they would have had to have known not only that Key didn’t get the truth from Worth, but also that Worth would go on to find himself under a police investigation at which point they could spring the trap. It’s laughable mate.

          After it became public there was an orgy of slut shaming and smearing of the victim from the right, while Key ran a long drawn out process of trying to not see the evidence that he hadn’t originally bothered to ask for. And there was absolutely no sign of the affidavit or law suits from Worth.

          Worth then got driven out of parliament and Key denied that his leaving was about that harassment. I take him at his word on that. I think that it was about Worth lying to the PM about it never happening, and that he was sacked in the way he was to coverup Key’s useless investigation.

          Good political management, but appalling behaviour.

        • mickysavage 22.1.1.2
          23 March 2011 at 3:55 pm

          Jeez Grumpy. Not the old honeytrap line again.

          The “honeytrap” is one of those freakin lies that various trolls have trotted out time and time again. Most of them are that stupid that they probably have convinced themselves that it is true even though if both of their brain cells were operating in a semi normal manner they would realise that what they were saying was a load of crap.

          And they do not care about the truth. They have to win no matter what. Truth is something awkward they have to occasionally have to deal with.

          The “honeytrap” allegation is something that particularly pisses me off because the people hurt by it have done nothing, absolutely nothing wrong.

          • grumpy 22.1.1.2.1
            23 March 2011 at 4:16 pm

            The blame for that can (once again) be directed at Goff. Initially claiming the “strikingly attractive” woman had no political affiliations, when it came out she was a Labour activist, the “honeytrap” was born.

            • Tigger 22.1.1.2.1.1
              23 March 2011 at 4:24 pm

              “We all know Worth was a serial shagger of Asian women”. Facts please g, otherwise this shouldn’t be published.

            • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1.2.1.2
              23 March 2011 at 4:40 pm

              The blame for that can (once again) be directed at Goff. Initially claiming the “strikingly attractive” woman had no political affiliations, when it came out she was a Labour activist, the “honeytrap” was born.

              So Goff said something and that meant the right automatically went on an orgy of slut shaming and deflection. I always figured you were some sort of mindless pack of troglodyctic automata, so thanks for the confirm.

              But what’s with all the ‘personal responsibility’ talk? Oh yeah *applies to others*

              or, shorter,

              The ‘honeytrap’ was born when it rolled out of lying right wing mouths and off of their keyboards.

              • Jim Nald …
                23 March 2011 at 4:46 pm

                This Hughes thing prolly rolled out of a leaKey bag to make up for the shambles of the week from Bill Key and John English .. oh throw in Gerry Panic Pants as well.

            • mickysavage 22.1.1.2.1.3
              23 March 2011 at 4:45 pm

              Initially claiming the “strikingly attractive” woman had no political affiliations

              BS. Citation needed.

  23. Jim Nald 23
    23 March 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Newsflash:
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/we-can-deliver-better-auckland-key-4080787

    Key: “We can deliver a better Auckland.” For our mates and cronies.

  24. chris 24
    23 March 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Dont know why you guys are going about Worth – Im picking that this is going to be waaaaaaay worse (for labour).

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Link or reference needed. “(according to the papers)” doesn’t cut it ]

  25. Alpha Sud 25
    23 March 2011 at 6:33 pm

    So none of the allegations about Worth needed referencing in 2009. It was a free-for-all smear on here by anybody who wanted to put their oar in. Anything about Darren now needs to be documented. Hmmmm.

    • Colonial Viper 25.1
      23 March 2011 at 7:00 pm

      Live with it.

    • Pascal's bookie 25.2
      23 March 2011 at 7:30 pm

      What sort of free for all smearing are talking about? Examples of what was being said without documentation and let slide. It went on for quite a while so 5 ex’s should be enough.

      Most of the discussion as I remember it was driven by rightwingers claiming the complainant hadn’t acted victimy enough in their eyes, so therefore it was all just lies.

  26. interesting 26
    23 March 2011 at 7:01 pm

    I do find it a tad bit of a double standard that people are not able to comment on the Darren Hughes post today.The post on Hughes says: “Comments off on this post and strict moderation elsewhere for legal reasons.”

    So tell me, why, when Richard worth was accused of something, people were allowed to comment. Despite the post saying:

    “Police confirm that a complaint was made in Auckland two weeks ago and related to a recent alleged incident. Preliminary inquiries were made and the complaint transferred to Wellington Police for further investigation.” http://thestandard.org.nz/update-on-worth/

    Why were legal reasons not an issue then?

    Why were comments allowed on one of the Standards posts about Richard worth that said:

    “An allegation has been made against a sitting member of Parliament. Wellington police are conducting a preliminary investigation into this matter.” http://thestandard.org.nz/more-on-worth/

    My point is, that despite the different (but similar if you believe the media…which can be questionable) situations you have allowed comments on the Worth incident when it came to light, DESPITE it only being in investigation stage as the current Hughes one is, BEFORE anything is proven – similar again to the Hughes situation of being unproven at this stage?

    It seems to be a clear case of either double standards, protecting your “side” (left wing) or denying debate on something that is embarrasing for the left, while having no issues about people debating, what was at the time also unproven – similar to this current case, issues that affect right wing politicians.

    As i say, when your posts that i mention above were posted the Worth case was in an almost identical stage with the police, yet you allowed debate/comments on that, and yet dont allow the same this time round citing “legal reasons”.

    as far as I am aware the law hasnt changed around this issue since Worth case was in the media.

    It seems, at a glance, that there are two standards applied, one for right wing scandals and another for left wing scandals.

    [lprent: The only difference is that these days we restrict people to OpenMike during police investigations. From memory we didn’t have OpenMike at the time. ]

    • Colonial Viper 26.1
      23 March 2011 at 7:04 pm

      It seems, at a glance, that there are two standards applied, one for right wing scandals and another for left wing scandals.

      Like I said, live with it.

      • interesting 26.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 7:10 pm

        Just remember that when you complain about righties using two standards then CV.

        It actually shows, from your response, that you realise it is a double standard, an obvious one at that, when you answer with such a lame reply.

    • The Voice of Reason 26.2
      23 March 2011 at 7:09 pm

      Perhaps you should take it up over at Kiwiblog, except you can’t because the comments are off there, too. Too many homophobes jumping to conclusions based on no facts whatsoever for even DPF to stomach apparently.

      • interesting 26.2.1
        23 March 2011 at 7:12 pm

        I am not talking about him, i am talking about this site.

        This is a site i visit, so that is why i am commenting about this site.

        This site, via its many posters, often rages over the double standards of righties, yet here it appears there is a double standard.

        [lprent: We are not. We are adhering to the standing policy on the site. The one that was in place for Peters, Worth, and Wong. For that matter also during Fields trial. ]

        • felix 26.2.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 7:15 pm

          And here you are, raging about it.

          Also, you might want to be careful how you phrase remarks about “the site”. Just sayin.

        • The Voice of Reason 26.2.1.2
          23 March 2011 at 7:41 pm

          C’mon! You surely get my point that both the leading left and leading right blogs are responsible enough not to offer a forum for the fuckwits of this world when there are no established facts, but tons of malevolent, prurient bile on offer. This allegation involves a teenager, and that alone should be enough reason to lay off. Another difference with Worth is that he was a bullshitter, defended to this very day by an even bigger bullshitter.

          Have a think about it. Two very different political blogs, both coming to the same conclusion. There must be a good reason.

          • Lanthanide 26.2.1.2.1
            24 March 2011 at 12:07 am

            Except everyone is talking about it on open mike anyway. Given that we’re up to 199 comments as of writing this (mine will be the 200th), when open mikes tend to be 30-50 on most days, I’d say that the policy of not allowing comments on the actual post about Darren Hughes hasn’t achieved anything at all. People are still talking about it, the blog is still going to be liable in court for any inappropriate comments posted.

            • lprent 26.2.1.2.1.1
              24 March 2011 at 12:18 am

              We don’t mind people talking about it. It is news, but only what has been reported. We don’t mind people looking at the political implications.

              Speculation on what happened gets squelched and if persisted gets bans. SHG just got one for probably making shit up.

              • Lanthanide …
                24 March 2011 at 12:31 am

                Sure, I understand that. I just don’t see any rationale from shifting it to the Open Mike thread:

                1. Seems like it just makes it harder to keep track of everything (since it gets mixed up with anything else raised on open mike)
                2. Open mike is specifically for topics that don’t have posts about them. There is a post about Darren Hughes, it just had the comments turned off.
                3. It seems to stifle what open mike is actually for – as I pointed out above, there are over 200 posts in this thread now, when the usual open mike gets 30-50 (sometimes up to 70). I’ve just done a quick count, and 33 comments here were not specifically about Darren Hughes. This isn’t terribly different # from other open mikes, but it looks like the number of distinct threads is a bit lower, and more limited number of people talking about these non-DH issues.

                Just seems silly to lump them all together, and if your justification for turning off comments on the DH post is “so we can’t get in trouble with the law”, I don’t see that shifting the comments to Open Mike is going to offer you any protection at all. It might even slightly aggravate any legal issues because there’s a direct line from an author saying that you won’t accept comments, but then on another part of the site you allow them full-steam-ahead.

                Of course I have no say in how the site runs, but just throwing out my opinion.

                • lprent …
                  24 March 2011 at 12:45 am

                  It is irritating, but it is actually easier for us to control it. By putting a post up we acknowledge it is news. By not allowing comments in it we force comments into OpenMike (sidetracking is quite dangerous in other posts) where we’ll be getting comment in anyway since it is open to topic raising.

                  We will be getting comments in OpenMikes over the next few days. The alternative would be to put up a daily Hughes post and restrict OpenMike which is total overkill because there will be few facts until the police finish their investigation, and ‘breaks’ OpenMike. We will put up news type posts Only if something of substance happens.

                  The downside is that it makes OpenMike bitty. But that is the norm there anyway as the conversation veers all over the place.

                  This is a result of looking at what happened in the last couple of investigations with their long dead times. It was discussed vaguely during the Wong ‘investigation’ but since that wasn’t police, wasn’t used

                  But you have to remember that managing comments is a big issue with the site right now. It is election year on a political blog. I am expecting the number of comments this month to be double the number of the largest month last year. We weren’t too far off it last month.

  27. interesting 27
    23 March 2011 at 7:14 pm

    it is clear that when the essence of someones reply is either “live with it” or the reply states i should tell others the same thing, that those who reply have no real argument for the clear double standard.

    anti-spam word = clearly.

    • r0b 27.1
      23 March 2011 at 7:18 pm

      In haste, in brief. Worth wasn’t the subject of a police investigation when comments / discussion started (as far as I recall). Hughes is.

      Note that Kiwiblog also has comments off for the post on Hughes. Is Kiwiblog part of the left wing double standard too?

      • Pete 27.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 7:24 pm

        You’d have to see what happened with Worth topics there to compare.

        Some posts on Hughes have been deleted from KB GD today – that rarely happens.

      • interesting 27.1.2
        23 March 2011 at 7:29 pm

        hey rob

        if you read my original post, i quote two statements from posts made on the standard and they refer to police investigations in the orignal posts.

        for your ease here they are again:

        “Police confirm that a complaint was made in Auckland two weeks ago and related to a recent alleged incident. Preliminary inquiries were made and the complaint transferred to Wellington Police for further investigation.” http://thestandard.org.nz/update-on-worth/

        “An allegation has been made against a sitting member of Parliament. Wellington police are conducting a preliminary investigation into this matter.” http://thestandard.org.nz/more-on-worth/

        [lprent: Both are ‘news’ posts and would have been heavily moderated as to speculation about what was done and who. Yep. Just looked in there.

        Comment was been restricted to previous known incidents. What is reported in the MSM. And looking speculating about political implications. Nothing that related to the investigation would be in the comments (unless it got missed in moderation).

        Perhaps you should read the detail rather than merely looking at the index?

        Because we run OpenMike these days we restrict the comment to there and comment block the news posts when police investigations are running – it reduces the moderation load because people tend to heed the warnings. ]

  28. interesting 28
    23 March 2011 at 7:24 pm

    I was just pointing out something obvious, which appears to hit raw nerves with some.

    If that gets me banned or people accuse me of being this in that, then oh well, that is up to those that run this ?page? It is their choice and i would accept it. If that is what i get for pointing out something that I notice, then so be it.

    I enjoy reading this site (most of the time) because it gets me to think about how i view things and also to see how others view things.

    If it is a crime, according to whoever moderates, that i posted an observation, then i will take it.

    • Pascal's bookie 28.1
      23 March 2011 at 7:51 pm

      I don’t think your hitting raw nerves interesting, you’re just boring. This thread is quite long, and has a lot of discussion on it about the matter you claim is not able to be discussed. You can make a big deal about it if that’s what you find insightful I guess, but it does seem like a pretty petty complaint. Hence it being treated as a petty issue, would be my guess.

      • interesting 28.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 7:55 pm

        thanks for your comment pascal, but it is not a complaint, it is an observation.

        My point being, that we cant comment on a dedicated post that has being created about the Hughes issue. Where as the worth issue had several dedicated posts created that had free flow commenting allowed. It wasnt left to being discussed in “open mike”.

        but, as i say, i am only pointing out something that i have observed, not complaing.

        If you find it boring, that is your choice, why waste time commenting on it then if it is so boring. I usually dont waste my effort commenting on other posts or comments that i find bogin as it just further wastes my time on something that i consider boring.

        • Pascal's bookie 28.1.1.1
          23 March 2011 at 8:28 pm

          Oh right. Sorry.

          When someone ‘observes’ something negative and goes on at tedious length about it and asks ‘why is this thing I have observed the way it is, and are you not hypocrites?’ that can often be seen as a complaint

          A complaint is a form of observation if you like, with added implications that an explanation is called for.

          An observation that states that something is not the way it should be, in the sort of world you like to inhabit, is similarly, a complaint.

          These too, are observations.

          It is also boring, but many things that are worthwhile are tedious. I thought that I could help you with your apparent confusion, which was arising from your boring observations. I figured that while tedious, this might be worthwhile my doing, in that I might be able to assist you. But you have to want to be helped, as they say. So no need for thanks, virtue is it’s own reward.

        • lprent 28.1.1.2
          23 March 2011 at 8:50 pm

          If you look at the dates on the Worth posts, you should find something really weird. The posts you are looking at were mostly after the investigations when we weren’t speculating without a report from the investigations. We’d have done posts as the ‘news’ when it went to be investigated and moderated it like hell. Same with Wong.

          I haven’t even looked because that is the policy we always follow. Doesn’t matter who it is.

          But of course explaining the proprietaries of not interfering with an investigation by pointless speculation would be lost on most right wingers around the blogs.

          But that is why we are acting in this manner

  29. chris73 29
    23 March 2011 at 7:26 pm

    I wonder if Spud will post a sad face or smiley face?

    But seriously are Labour MPs trying to sabotage Labour?

    It seems that every time Labour might actually gain some traction in the polls someone comes along and sticks their foot in their mouth

    • interesting 29.1
      23 March 2011 at 7:31 pm

      I agree that it seems that everytime Labour finally get some traction something comes along that takes the heat of the Nats, whether they be natural occurances or political occurances.

      Labour have had some luck with getting Nats on backfoot only to have it sidelined. Must be friggin frustrating for them.

      • chris73 29.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 7:46 pm

        Thats why I’m thinking it must be deliberate, I mean:

        Chris Carters meltdown

        The Labour MP (her name escapes me) who asked if showing John Key around the quake has slowed things down, forgetting tours done by local labour MPs, Phil Goff and Helen Clark

        Phil Goff running down John Key for ruling out WP before the election and then ruling out Hone (eventually)

        Nanaia Mahuta defying Phil Goff

        I’m sure theres more but you get my point

    • Anne 29.2
      23 March 2011 at 7:55 pm

      Oh chris 73 do tell. Who has stuck their foot in their mouth? I’ve watched the items on both TV1 and TV3, and I’ve listened to RadioNZ plus ZB plus Radio Live during the day and nowhere has anyone claimed Foot in Mouth disease. Indeed Micheal Laws showed remarkable prescience this morning, and was complimentary about Darren Hughes.

    • Puddleglum 29.3
      23 March 2011 at 8:06 pm

      Hi chris73,

      Could you please amplify on your reasons for believing that “Labour might actually get some traction in the polls”? I’m interested why someone who often expresses critical views of Labour might currently perceive a potential trend towards Labour.

      • chris73 29.3.1
        24 March 2011 at 6:46 am

        Well sure theres been a number of times (issues) that National have started to look weak on:

        SCF (I agree with paying back investors capital but not their interest) hasn’t been handled well at all
        Pike River while handled well (John Key did this country proud with his speeches) there were some contradictory lines spoken
        Christchurch earthquake recovery, especially not letting business owners into their business’s is the issue could have/should have latched onto

        No party is always going to have it its own way but its up to Labour to make the most of any opportunities given but it seems like whenever they have a chance to reconnect with the voters someone messes up and its happening so often I can’t help but wonder if its not deliberate

  30. Alpha Sud 30
    23 March 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Let’s look at some of the standard comments around Richard Worth in 2009:

    From Pascal’s Bookie: “Not if he was a fuckwit she needn’t have thrown him any bones at all. Creeps are like that.

    “But are you saying that if she doesn’t “release all the correspondence” then baseless insinuations about her character are just what she has to put up with? And how pray tell is she supposed to prove she isn’t holding any back? If you want to be a sleazy little shit no one can stop you, but don’t blame her for your feces.

    “Worth can sue if he’s been maligned.”

    From Gobsmacked: “I just hope she doesn’t get dragged through the mud, all because of that sleazeball.”

    Then: “I think he’s a sleazeball.

    “Alleged” is for discussion about crime. Not character.”

    From Craig: “If a man is texting and phoning a women and she tells him to stop and he doesn’t, he’s scum. Men shouldn’t be allowed to hassle women. But you can’t blame them for it if they don’t know they’re doing it. Men aren’t mind readers! You need to say leave me alone if you want to be left alone!”

    Or from Jasper: “It seems like Worth is being investigated for alleged assault.
    Apparently he’s a mean drunk.”

    Or from Irishbill: “As I understand it this is a particularly nasty situation. I don’t think he’ll be coming back from it.”

    Yeah the people at the standard were really careful not to make allegations while there was a police investigation going on back then.

    [lprent: Rereading this, searching out some of the comments and finding out how out of context your selective quoting is, and reading your recent comments I cannot see that you’re worth having around. You are costing too much moderation effort. You are banned until the 28th of November. ]

    • Pascal's bookie 30.1
      23 March 2011 at 8:12 pm

      Those are all quite clearly opinions, and shorn of context to boot. Some of them quite clearly responses to what right wingers were saying, as I charactersied things earlier:

      “Most of the discussion as I remember it was driven by rightwingers claiming the complainant hadn’t acted victimy enough in their eyes, so therefore it was all just lies.”

    • Pascal's bookie 30.2
      23 March 2011 at 8:38 pm

      …and I’m pretty sure a lot of those quotes are about a matter that the police weren’t involved with. Most of the conversation was about that other, non-police-related matter.

      • gobsmacked 30.2.1
        23 March 2011 at 10:03 pm

        Pascal’s Bookie is right.

        @Alpha Sud

        You seem to be unaware of the simple – but essential – fact that there were two different women, two different cases, and the issue of the sleazy texting to one of the women was NOT the subject of a police investigation, at any time.

        Then again, your use of deliberately vague language like “comments around Richard Worth” suggests you do know this, but are deliberately muddying the waters.

    • lprent 30.3
      23 March 2011 at 9:04 pm

      Umm. From context, weren’t most of those from a previous issue with Worth. You know the one that the police didn’t get asked to investigate. And some from the unexplained end one. And I am sure one is from the air school one. But because you didn’t bother to substantiate, it is hard to see the context.

      The next time I see you not providing links or lookup references when quoting people you will be banned for the duration. You appear to be too silly to survive here. You don’t know how to argue effectively. It involves not making crap up.

  31. interesting 31
    23 March 2011 at 8:00 pm

    On another note…

    I am currently a rightie (waving though) and would love to have a discussion with someone of the left persuasion about politics without all the smack that usually comes with it.

    I am looking to have a proper, reasoned, non abusive discussion with someone of differing views to me without it getting in to a point scoring match, a petty argument, or name calling etc.

    I am genuinley interested in what people of a different view think of things compared to my own views. That is why i read this page/site/blog because the views mentioned here are often contrary to my own and i believe that it is good to have veiws challenged/compared/discussed.

    anyone know a forum where this takes place or interested in somehow having this discussion?

    Thanks

    • Pascal's bookie 31.1
      23 March 2011 at 8:34 pm

      Generally around here you get what you put into it. ‘Be the change you want to see’ type of thing. It’s an open forum though so you’ll get all sorts.

      A lot of people here have been on the net for a long time though, so trolls get recognised pretty quick, and passive aggression doesn’t go down well, I’ve observed.

      Generally speaking, as with all online communities ‘Lurk Moar’ is good advice.

    • r0b 31.2
      23 March 2011 at 9:25 pm

      anyone know a forum where this takes place or interested in somehow having this discussion?

      On a good day we can be that forum. As PB says – lead by example, and often others will follow. If you have stuff to discuss why not try sending us a guest post?

      If not, Kiwipolitico and Pundit are both good blogs – they deserve more traffic than they get.

  32. Chris 32
    23 March 2011 at 8:43 pm

    Goff has not displayed good risk management skills. He knew about this several weeks ago. Goff should have been pro-active in fronting this issue and managing it. Goff must have know this would become a scandal at some stage if it was non managed well. Instead this event has and will be manipulated by the media where it cannot be controlled. This is risk management 101 and Goff has failed. Blaming the Nats. is lame and will just compound the mismanagement perception. This with an election coming up. The winds of change need to blow a bit harder.

    • Jim Nald 32.1
      23 March 2011 at 9:59 pm

      As someone who had been involved with good risk management, I thought Goff’s approach and how he set out the steps ahead, which can be viewed in the video clip on one of the websites, would be regarded by practitioners as reasonable and makes very good sense. Will take me a while to write out the analysis, indexed against the running time – maybe someone else would like to do it. I’ve gotta call it an evening. No new John Key Bushisms in the news to jerk off furiously tonight.

      Reading between the lines, the leak was from Nats to press gallery.

  33. Chris 33
    23 March 2011 at 10:10 pm

    ‘Reading between the lines, the leak was from Nats to press gallery’.

    If Hughs had been ‘behaving’ this would not have happened in the first place. So it really does not matter where the ‘leak’ comes from. The fact remains Goff should have managed if from the start – he did not. If you hand the enemy ammunition – well you only have yourself to blame what the do with it. The perception by most main stream commentators are also saying this was badly handled by Goff. Whatever way you wrap it up Goff does not come out smelling of roses.

    • Rosy 33.1
      23 March 2011 at 11:16 pm

      “Behaving?”
      We don’t know if he was or wasn’t. If you mean going to a bar and having a few drinks after a meeting – there would be a lot of empty bars if we all ‘behaved’. If the drinking got out of hand – and we don’t know that – then maybe his boss should have a word with him, but that’s it. If you mean picking someone up from a bar (if that’s what happened) single politicians aren’t meant to be monks, I don’t think. It’s not anyone elses business unless something nasty happened – and that’s really something that is to be determined. Then we can talk about behaving or not.

      • Jim Nald 33.1.1
        23 March 2011 at 11:38 pm

        Oh I decided to look in before bedtime and what do I see.

        Chris – stop projecting John Key’s and your brand of cosmetic politics and smear onto others.

        Goff did the right thing – he is observing due process. Good on him.

      • SHG 33.1.2
        23 March 2011 at 11:56 pm

        If you mean picking someone up from a bar (if that’s what happened) single politicians aren’t meant to be monks

        [Deleted]

        [lprent: There are two assertions of fact in your statement that I have not seen anywhere in the public reports of the case. There is no link to substantiate either. Patience exhausted. Go away for a week. By that time there may be some more facts rather than what I strongly suspect is simply your speculations. ]

        • Armchair Critic 33.1.2.1
          24 March 2011 at 12:03 am

          There’s so much speculation going on here that the post may as well be renamed from open mike to “The Brokerage”

          • lprent 33.1.2.1.1
            24 March 2011 at 12:24 am

            We limit the speculation on material related to the facts of the case and things that have a good probability of being defamatory or that are stated as assertions without backing.

            Of course that does rather limit the expression of some of our contributors

  34. gobsmacked 34
    23 March 2011 at 10:24 pm

    So it really does not matter where the ‘leak’ comes from.

    That’s an extraordinary statement.

    If (for example) it came from the Minister of Police, that would be disgraceful political interference into operational policing (note – I’m not suggesting this happened, having no evidence that it did).

    So, according to you Chris, a debatable mismanagement of “perception” is a greater concern than serious abuse of power.

    Do you base your moral compass on “commentators”? That’s sad.

  35. M 35
    23 March 2011 at 11:49 pm

    About time – saw Bernard Hickey on Breakfast talking about this stuff:

    ‘Finance Minister Bill English and Revenue Minister Peter Dunne re-announced the upcoming tax changes today, which take effect on 1 April, or for the 2011/12 income year, including:

    •Abolishing loss attributing qualifying companies (LAQCs) and replacing them with a new structure that ensures owners cannot claim a tax deduction on losses at a higher rate than they pay on profits.
    •Tightening the definition of income for Working for Families and the Community Services Card so income from sources like family trusts are counted and rental and other investment losses are excluded….’

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/52772/april-1-tax-changes-will-mean-govts-2010-tax-package-will-be-fiscally-negative-2-more-yea

    • Jim Nald 35.1
      23 March 2011 at 11:57 pm

      Mmm .. lots to discuss there

      But this one for a really really light-hearted moment:

      “We’re all in this together,” Prime Minister John Key.
      Yup, say that from one side of your mouth.
      And from the other side of your mouth, say “Hawaii, here I cum”.

  36. gingercrush 36
    23 March 2011 at 11:54 pm

    When the fuck will both John Key and Phil Goff realise this drip, drip, drip of information just makes both look fucking stupid and is terrible. Key needs to just reveal the horrible facts straight away instead of the drip,drip, drip that Christchurch would not hold Rugby World Cup matches. Whereas Goff should have released all the information once news emerged instead of having the story just grow and grow like it did today.

    Its terrible political management and both clearly have useless bastards working behind the scenes.