Open mike 23/05/2013

310 comments on “Open mike 23/05/2013 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   23 May 2013 at 6:30 am

   Uniquely for a news story about the Oklahoma tornadoes. This news report mentions the question; Is it an effect of “global warming?”.

   Tornado bigger than atom bomb

   Is this questioning of the cause of extreme weather events, the beginning of a sea change by the MSM towards climate change?
2. Morrissey 2

   23 May 2013 at 6:57 am

   Dismaying hypocrisy
   A not so smart Ted talks
   Wednesday, 22 March 2013

   http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/ted-s-outburst-water-off-duck-back-crusaders-5445277

   Following silly old Graham Henry’s astoundingly hypocritical spray 
against the referee of last Saturday night’s Crusaders-Blues game, 
Crusaders prop Wyatt Crockett has shown a remarkable level of contempt 
for his former coach.

   More than anyone in the history of not just rugby but of all sports, 
Henry has been the beneficiary of incompetent/corrupt refereeing—- 
or, more precisely, non-refereeing. Spectators of the farcical 2011 
Rugby World Cup final watched in mounting disbelief as South African 
Craig Joubert defiantly refused to penalize the home team (New 
Zealand) as it flagrantly, repeatedly, systematically fouled a 
superior French team, controversially delivering a tainted victory to 
the All Blacks. But the memory of all that has not stopped Henry from 
indulging himself in a bad-tempered, spittle-flecked rant at the 
referee for (so Henry claims) failing to stop Crockett scrummaging 
illegally on Saturday evening.

   Wyatt Crockett was having none of it. He doesn’t have much respect for 
Henry’s expertise, and dismissed the old codger in no uncertain terms: 
”I’ve got a couple of people who I trust and really listen to and 
they’re good people and got a good understanding of scrummaging. Ted’s 
actually not one of those so I’m not too worried about what he says.”

   For some reason, the old fool has yet to comment publicly on the 
following…. 

   
   • logie97 2.1

     23 May 2013 at 7:32 am

     Morrissey. I think there is also a wider issue here. We will shortly be having several International match series and there will be Northern Hemisphere referees officiating in these SANZA matches. One of the criticisms of past NZ rugby commentators has been that they are one eyed and never critique their own referees. So let’s get the complaints in about our own in unimportant Super 15 games out of the way. Then we can put the microscope on the real villains and the ones we really love to hate in the near future.
     • Morrissey 2.1.1

       23 May 2013 at 8:59 am

       The “referees” who ruined the 1999 and 2011 Rugby World Cup finals were both from the Southern Hemisphere, and both of them were South Africans.

       The victim on both farcical occasions was France.
   • Descendant Of Sssmith 2.2

     23 May 2013 at 9:15 pm

     Whatever. The French backs were constantly offside and it was quite clear that the ref was letting the game flow rather than penalising the shit out of a final.

     Rightly or wrongly that was the call he made on the day.

     Personally I have no problem with it and enjoyed the game and would have enjoyed it regardless of who won.

     All Blacks were clearly the best team throughout the tournament and winning it was well done and well deserved. Good on em and if you don’t like the result tough shit, swings and roundabouts, c’est la vie, chin up and whatever other little homilies you might care to think of.

     Feel free to convert to soccer or hockey or chess…. if you hate rugby so much. It would be miles better than hearing you bleat about this every time rugby comes up in discussion.
     • Morrissey 2.2.1

       23 May 2013 at 9:37 pm

       Whatever.

       That is a VERY bad way to begin an argument. It’s dismissive and trivializing. It shows you’re not serious, and not really prepared to argue your corner in good faith.

       The French backs were constantly offside and it was quite clear that the ref was letting the game flow rather than penalising the shit out of a final.

       The French backs were NOT constantly offside. The “referee” —-more accurately, the non-referee—did not let the game flow at all. What he did do was let the home side cheat repeatedly and flagrantly, and right in front of him for the whole of that farcical second half.

       Rightly or wrongly that was the call he made on the day.

       He made no call at all. That is the problem; he turned a blind eye to the systematic cheating of the home team.

       Personally I have no problem with it and enjoyed the game and would have enjoyed it regardless of who won.

       You enjoyed seeing one team cheat repeatedly and not get penalized for it? You enjoyed the outrageous spectacle of a referee delivering the game to the home team, and tainting that victory irretrievably?

       All Blacks were clearly the best team throughout the tournament….

       Yes they were, and for all their games except the first 40 minutes of their amazing quarter-final demolition of England, the Tricolors were clearly one of the worst. On that at least we can agree.

       ….and winning it was well done and well deserved.

       No, that’s not correct. The French team almost certainly would have won it, if they had been allowed to play football. The systematic cheating of the home team, aided and abetted by the “referee”, guaranteed that they would be prevented from doing so.

       Good on em and if you don’t like the result tough shit, swings and roundabouts, c’est la vie, chin up and whatever other little homilies you might care to think of.

       You can regurgitate every dull cliché in the book if you want; the fact is that the All Blacks would have probably lost the Rugby World Cup final if the game had been refereed fairly and impartially.

       Feel free to convert to soccer or hockey or chess…. if you hate rugby so much. It would be miles better than hearing you bleat about this every time rugby comes up in discussion.

       I love all those other games, in case you’re interested. And I love rugby. Which is why I hate seeing it abused like it was on the night of October 23, 2011.
       • Descendant Of Sssmith 2.2.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 11:14 pm

         If you can’t spot the French backs offside throughout the game then little point in arguing about it really or the times the French forwards had hands in rucks or jumping through our lineout.

         In short it was a a typical rugby game where not everything that could be penalised was. That’s more a Southern Hemisphere style of reffing and I much prefer it to a more pedantic northern style where everything under the sun gets a blow on the whistle.

         What you reflect in my view is that our “unpenalised infringements” stick in the mind more because they were at the end of the game while the French had more possession and were tied up in more drama.

         The ref said he let things go on both sides to help it flow and I think that sums it up.

         Both sides got away with plenty and the All Black defense at the end was great – infringements or no.

         As a cricket player I’m quite accepting of decisions not always being spot on as being part of the game and as passionate as I am about both rugby and cricket it’s only sport at the end of the day.
         • logie97 2.2.1.1.1

           24 May 2013 at 6:30 am

           DOS. It took you a little while to get there, but as I predicted, the anti-Northern Hemisphere bullshit would manifest itself – in your second paragraph. Wonder if you have a similar attitude in your approach to law and order. (The IRB and its rules makers are drawn from both hemispheres.) If the rules are at fault then lobby to change the rules. The games you prefer to see are clearly not Rugby Union if any amount of transgressions are allowed to pass for the sake of entertainment.
           • Morrissey 2.2.1.1.1.1

             24 May 2013 at 6:54 am

             The games you prefer to see are clearly not Rugby Union if any amount of transgressions are allowed to pass for the sake of entertainment.

             He doesn’t want to be entertained—if he did, he’d have wanted the best team in the world to be allowed to play football and not be systematically strangled by a home team in collusion with an incompetent/corrupt non-referee.
         • Morrissey 2.2.1.1.2

           24 May 2013 at 6:57 am

           In short it was a a typical rugby game where not everything that could be penalised was.

           Rubbish. You’re as willfully blind as those dopes who are insisting that yesterday’s horror in Woolwich just came from the blue.

           You know as well as I do that you are talking nonsense.
           • Descendant Of Sssmith 2.2.1.1.2.1

             24 May 2013 at 7:38 am

             Rot. A whole group of us watched the game, nearly all current and ex players, and there was constant pointing out of missed infringements on both sides as the game progressed.

             In real time, at the time these things were noticed and pointed out.

             This is true of any rugby game and this was no different.

             I’m happy with he refs having discretion to ref and not penalise every infringement and accept the fact that like players they will make mistakes. They will also interpret things differently from armchair, zoomed in view, slow motion, post match critics.

             It’s only a game and the approach you guys take of over-analysis and over criticism doesn’t to me reflect people who are passionate about the game. It’s more like you hate it.

             That you continue to moan about it this far out just reinforces that.

             One day we might meet in a rest home and I’ll no doubt still hear about it then.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               24 May 2013 at 7:43 am

               Pretty much.

               Adapting to the referee is a crucial part of the game. His word is final on what is legal, afterall.

               the claim that if the ref had done it different, the all blacks would have lost, is just more nonsense. If there is one thing the AB captain knows how to do, it’s read a referee and adapt to what they are doing.
             • Professor Longhair …

               24 May 2013 at 3:43 pm

               “A whole group of us watched the game, nearly all current and ex players…”

               One does not wish to be disrespectful, but …. was one of you sober?
               • marty mars …

                 24 May 2013 at 4:20 pm

                 I’ve played the game but didn’t watch the match and don’t care about the result BUT I do wonder what experience you have had playing there mozz because although you seem to have a lot to say on it (and good on you for that) your comments seem to be from someone who actually hasn’t played much and doesn’t really know what it like on the field. Oh and I’ve been a ref too, not anymore though.
                 • marty mars …

                   24 May 2013 at 4:39 pm

                   Actually that’s a fib – i did watch the game, even dressed up and went to the local theatre and sat there for most of it with my head in my hands praying to the gods lol. I don’t really care if you’ve played too much or not and you’ve probably been asked that a million times so disregard if it bugs you my friend. Everyone can have an opinion, everyone.
                   • logie97 …

                     24 May 2013 at 4:59 pm

                     The referee currently blows his whistle for 4 reasons.
                     Start play.
                     End play.
                     Lack of skill (knock on/fumble).
                     Infringement.

                     In schools, (partly as a demand from the public), values are being taught and no doubt a few commenters here bemoan the fact that values are not taught enough.

                     Take honesty – yet today’s coaches in most team sports, particularly at the top, advocate “working the ref” – “push the limits of the law.” i.e infringe. They actually encourage infringement (cheating).

                     So don’t cheat and you’ll have a virtually whistle free game.

                     Cannot imagine what a round of golf with DOS and his mates would be like with their cavalier attitude to rules.
                   • Clockie …

                     24 May 2013 at 5:09 pm

                     “Cannot imagine what a round of golf with DOS and his mates would be like with their cavalier attitude to rules.”

                     Caddyshack anyone? 🙂
                 • Morrissey …

                   24 May 2013 at 5:16 pm

                   I’ve played the game but didn’t watch the match and don’t care about the result BUT I do wonder what experience you have had playing there mozz because although you seem to have a lot to say on it (and good on you for that) your comments seem to be from someone who actually hasn’t played much and doesn’t really know what it like on the field. Oh and I’ve been a ref too, not anymore though.

                   Yes, marty, I have played many games of rugby, but sadly not any more. I like playing sports—especially tennis, indoor soccer, and (occasionally) golf.

                   But it doesn’t really matter how much I or any other spectator of that farcical World Cup final have played the game, or even if we have never played at all; it was obvious to anyone honest and fair-minded that the Tricolors were stitched up in the most scandalous way. The fact is: ANY referee would have penalised the flagrant, repeated cheating by the All Blacks in the second half of that match; unfortunately, for reasons which have not yet been ascertained, the “referee” on the night doggedly refused to penalise them and simply let them get away with murder (metaphorically speaking).

                   That old fraud Henry got a knighthood out of that disgrace, and now he’s bitching and moaning about an HONEST referee making a couple of marginal calls. The old fool even used the word “shit” on television the other night, which underlines not only his arrogance and lack of class, but also his cast-iron sense of impunity.
                   • Private Baldrick …

                     24 May 2013 at 5:49 pm

                     I’m all overcome Morrissey, three of your disguises all in one thread – I need a lie down !

                     [lprent: You may shortly receive a holiday as well. Read my previous note. ]
                   • Morrissey …

                     24 May 2013 at 6:12 pm

                     I’m all overcome Morrissey, three of your disguises all in one thread – I need a lie down !

                     I am not those people you think I am, and they are not me. Just ask Mr or Ms Prent.

                     [lprent: Definitely Mister Prentice, although no-one ever calls me that. I already pointed that out to him earlier today. Hell I was sufficiently paranoid enough to look up the IP’s to see if they were known portals. I drew the line at asking you if you if you had a space devouring tardis. ]
                   • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                     24 May 2013 at 7:48 pm

                     Far from having a cavalier attitude to the rules and having captained both cricket and rugby teams I always encouraged playing to the rules, not fighting and was respected in cricket for ensuring that if people were given out in opposing teams and we knew they were not out that they were put back in.

                     I’m also well aware that not all captains and teams encouraged that.

                     You cannot draw any conclusion about how I played the game and encouraged others to do so from what I said.

                     In relation to the game in question it seems to be quite clear that I’m saying both sides infringed unpenalised throughout the game and each could have been penalised more than they were. The ref chose not to penalise all and everything and that’s OK as far as I am concerned. Many refs do that in many games.

                     What you are saying is that there was bias in favour of the All Blacks and what you are implying is that the bias was deliberate in order to ensure that the All Blacks won.

                     The difference I guess is that I learned as a sportsman to accept a defeat and move on to the next game. To control what I could, which was my own behaviour and discipline and to not blame others for a loss and especially the referee or umpire.

                     You appear to have learned to dwell on the past, to blame others and to not let go.

                     One approach builds better character in my opinion than the other.

                     You write in superlatives that far outweigh the situation and throw accusations at me like I’m a cheat and me and my friends are drunkards so easily that I would seriously dislike to be one of your mates if your real life persona is reflected in your online persona. For the record I rarely drink and didn’t have any that night.

                     Both sides got away with infringements. No ifs no buts.
3. phillip ure 3

   23 May 2013 at 7:27 am

   (this is an 850 word review of the pot-debate on tv3 last nite..)

   http://whoar.co.nz/2013/comment-for-fuck-sake-the-drug-debate-on-tv3/

   “….first lie from sabin:..that marijuana is now 30 times more strong than it was 30 yrs ago..

   ..now..this is a pile of stinking/lying bullshit..(and is designed to panic parents of today who may have puffed back then..)..and what is the proof of that lie..?

   ..court records…that’s right..f*cken court records..’cos y’see..each drug trial has tests of the potency of the evidence..and both here and in america..those court records show minimal changes in potency from then to now..

   ..(and anecdotaly i will back that up..the good pot now is no stronger than the good pot then..)..”

   phillip ure..
   • Tiger Mountain 3.1

     23 May 2013 at 8:02 am

     Sabin was a well known bent copper in the Far North, got quietly transferred to Kaitaia as the last outpost after domestic incidents (with own partner) and mistreatment of arrested prisoners in Whangarei. Had to have several goes at being accepted into Police with his background and acted like a bully in the community, using his position on board of trustees at Taipa area school to discredit certain parents and pump kids for info.

     He ran a consulting company called Methcon that he sold prior to standing for parliament. Methcon was supplied with its model and spiel from the US and used to charge poor communities desperate to do something about the P scourge $1000 per seminar.

     Some of this is on public record and some any decent journalist could find out. In other words he is the last person to go to for sane advice on substances legal or otherwise.
     • ghostrider888 3.1.1

       23 May 2013 at 12:37 pm

       as freedom identifies below, Sabin is a shocker, the epitome of a small-minded authoritarian fasci$t imo;
       -“cherry-picked data”
       -“does support low-level synthetics”.
       -“80% of New Zealanders (probably) have been thieves”.
     • Murray Olsen 3.1.2

       23 May 2013 at 7:54 pm

       No surprises there then.
       I did hear that Paula Bennett’s husband is involved with importing drug testing kits. Any idea of the truth or otherwise of that?
       Most of the drug testing seems to be undertaken by Perfed out coppers. With friendly legislators and private prisons, it’s all becoming very profitable.
       As far as I’m concerned, legalise all recreational drugs anyway. Most of the problems come about because of prohibition and what doesn’t can be handled as a health issue, unless other laws are broken.
4. David H 4

   23 May 2013 at 7:40 am

   .(and anecdotaly i will back that up..the good pot now is no stronger than the good pot then..)

   Yep true, but it is still good to settle the stomach because of taking bloody legal drugs that screw up your system.
   • Te Reo Putake 4.1

     23 May 2013 at 8:08 am

     Not quite right, David. Cloning and hydro growing have lead to strains that are stronger than previously available dope. But not 30 times stronger, obviously.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1

       23 May 2013 at 10:31 am

       Cloning can’t possibly produce stronger marijuana. It is, after all, just reproducing the exact same plant.
       • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 10:43 am

         Cloning the strongest plants out of the batch leads to stronger plants next batch. Darwin and all that.
         • TheContrarian 4.1.1.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 10:45 am

           Only if there is modification.

           Evolution is descent with modification. Cloning, by definition, has no modification
           • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.1.1.1

             23 May 2013 at 10:59 am

             Nope, the strongest plants get cloned, the weakest get eliminated. Much like what happens to your comments, TC.
             • weka …

               23 May 2013 at 11:13 am

               Presumably the environment is the factor that affects strength in each generation (rather than diversity from sexual reproduction)?
             • TheContrarian …

               23 May 2013 at 11:16 am

               A cloned plant cannot get any stronger than its predecessor.

               Without modification, there is no evolution
               • felix …

                 23 May 2013 at 11:20 am

                 That must be why no-one does it 😉

                 I realise you’re enjoying this obtuse position, but obviously the point is that by selectively cloning only the strongest plants the average strength goes up over time.
                 • TheContrarian …

                   23 May 2013 at 11:23 am

                   Until you hit a ceiling where all you possess are clones of equal strength.
                   • ghostrider888 …

                     23 May 2013 at 12:40 pm

                     hydroponically grown, cloned skunk, is Very strong.
                   • freedom …

                     23 May 2013 at 12:41 pm

                     has everyone forgotten the basis of evolutionary progression is mutation ? 😎
                   • felix …

                     23 May 2013 at 1:14 pm

                     “Until you hit a ceiling where all you possess are clones of equal strength.”

                     Err, yes, that would be when all are as strong as the strongest you had. You do know what average means, don’t you?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     23 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

                     And then you can go no further in the cloning process as far as strenght.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     24 May 2013 at 6:10 pm

                     your 10th generation cloned skunk may be “strong” in THC but in the real environment would be a poor fit and likely wiped out by some passing breeze
               • Murray Olsen …

                 23 May 2013 at 8:04 pm

                 A cloned plant could conceivably have higher THC content, because the cloning process is not perfect. This was supposedly the reason that the first cow cloned in Brazil came out as a bull, although I suspected corruption and dishonesty were more likely explanations.
         • Populuxe1 4.1.1.1.2

           23 May 2013 at 5:53 pm

           Mendel, but yeah
     • phillip ure 4.1.2

       23 May 2013 at 11:11 am

       i would agree that in general locally grown dope is usually better than it used to be..(but killer-local was still grown back then..)

       ..but back then we had thai sticks/indonesian pot/afghani hash..

       ..most of which could proudly stand next to the best local from today..

       ..but anyway..i was challenging that bullshit on accuracy grounds..but that was really a strawman argument i was challenging..

       ..as in..so what if pot is strong/potent..?

       ..you just need to smoke less..eh..?

       ..and aside from anecdotal-tales of people dying from bales of weed falling on their head…

       ..there has never ever been a death from cannabis..

       phillip ure..
       • Matt 4.1.2.1

         23 May 2013 at 11:22 am

         Phillip, I was wondering if we could take out a life insurance policy on your . key, naming me as the beneficiary. Thanks.
         • phillip ure 4.1.2.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 12:37 pm

           heh..!…sure matt..and while yr there..cd u unfix my superglued caps-lock..?

           ..ta..!

           ..but seriously..!..back on the pot-question..i had a medical examination this morn..

           ..the doctor listened to my lungs..and i asked how they were..doctor said ‘fine!’..

           ..and was somewhat taken aback when i informed her that i had smoked shed-loads of pot/hash over the previous decades..

           ..she said:..’no..don’t tell me that!’..

           ..i was also told i have the blood-pressure ‘of a young man’..and of course..like all of us..i cd be felled at any minute..but as far as no negative outcomes from those decades of consumption of sometimes legendary amounts of pot..

           ..the evidence/jury is in..

           ..(of course..being vegan..and eschewing alcohol also have their parts to play in that all-round health-tick..)

           ..but in general..i was told that all was tickety-boo..

           ..so..(purely anecdotal) evidence in this case would seem to dicate a regime of no dead animals..no booze…and smoke pot when you feel like it..

           ..also of interest is the news i carried @ whoar the other day..reporting exciting (and especially relevant to nz in 2013) new on research showing that regular-smoking of pot (not occaisonal) helps prevent the onset of diabetes..

           ..(something to do with pot helping in the regulation of insulin levels..so they said..)

           ..so..y’know..!

           ..when the fuck are we going to legalise/regulate/tax..this least harmful of all intoxicants..?

           ..as the legal-high guy pointed out last night in that debate…those states in america that have sensible/legal pot-regimes..

           ..they ‘have no problems with people using ‘legal-highs’..’

           ..the doctor i saw also mused on how beneficial cannabis is for people with many different medical conditions..

           ..make this current state of madness end..eh..?

           phillip ure..
   • weka 4.2

     23 May 2013 at 11:20 am

     I also think that cannabis in NZ is much stronger than in the past eg in the 80s). It’s hard to quantify subjectively because people’s tolerances change over time. Is there any research showing increases in THC levels?
     • phillip ure 4.2.1

       23 May 2013 at 12:45 pm

       weka..the strongest proof of no increase in potency is held in court records..

       ..as in all busted drugs are tested for potency levels..

       ..and both here and in america..that irrefutable evidence shows little/no changes from then ’till now..

       ..and i wasn’t here in the 80’s..but i understand it wasn’t a good decade for pot..(mainly’cos of clapped-out strains from 70’s imports..and a fall off in those imports..

       (..and of course the 80’s was when northland trashed their dope-rep..those afor-mentioned clapped out strains doing that for them..it looked/smelt ok..but was weak..so history has it..a rep still not recovered..)

       ..hope that helps clarify/answer that potency-question for you..

       ..(and..my condolances on yr 80’s..eh..?..the dope was fine where i was..)

       phillip ure..
       • weka 4.2.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 12:54 pm

         The dak I was smoking in the 80s was fine. You are assuming that stronger = better stone. I disagree.

         Your points are interesting, but anecdotal nevertheless 🙂
       • weka 4.2.1.2

         23 May 2013 at 12:56 pm

         “..as in all busted drugs are tested for potency levels..”

         I find that impossible to believe.
         • phillip ure 4.2.1.2.1

           23 May 2013 at 1:44 pm

           um..!..weka..i don’t mean every joint/tinny busted…but any serious charges/amounts going before the courts..have always been tested..hence the records..hence the esr..formerly dsir..being such experts/able to grow such wicked-weed..

           ..i am looking forward to trying the strains they have developed..ready to go when the laws change..

           ..(and..i don’t just make shit up..eh..?..what i say is all easily provable..would you like the links on/@ whoar..?…)

           ..phillip ure..
           • Morrissey 4.2.1.2.1.1

             23 May 2013 at 6:17 pm

             What kind of dak does Phil Wallington smoke, do you know?
             • phillip ure …

               23 May 2013 at 7:30 pm

               all i know of wallington is that over the years he has made some excellent television/docos..

               phillip ure..
               • Morrissey …

                 23 May 2013 at 8:06 pm

                 He did. I was one of his greatest fans.

                 But he’s definitely on something now. Blue Mountain Hydroponic, perhaps?
                 • phillip ure …

                   23 May 2013 at 8:24 pm

                   ah well….he’s earned his time in the blue mountains..(and outdoor..preferably..)

                   phillip ure..
                   • Morrissey …

                     24 May 2013 at 6:59 am

                     ah well….he’s earned his time in the blue mountains..(and outdoor..preferably..)

                     Agree wholeheartedly with you, Phillip. If only Wallington would stick to smoking dak, and stopped spruiking crap TV shows, we’d all be better off.
       • Populuxe1 4.2.1.3

         23 May 2013 at 5:58 pm

         Actually, the strongest proof is probably the University of Mississippi’s Marijuana Potency study

         http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/pot_potency_07.html
     • ghostrider888 4.2.2

       23 May 2013 at 12:47 pm

       have carried out a lot of ‘research’ in the field. 😀
     • weka 4.2.3

       23 May 2013 at 12:58 pm

       A project involving the police and Environmental Science and Research (ESR) found THC levels (the primary intoxicant in cannabis) was now more than four times stronger than it was when ESR last tested in 1996.

       Whangarei police Detective Sergeant John Miller, who has 18 years experience dealing with cannabis-related crime in Northland, said samples sent from the region had continually strengthened and was some of the strongest in the country.

       Police and ESR used sophisticated hydroponic equipment to complete three cannabis growing cycles, nursing six plants at a time, 18 in total, to maturity. The study revealed the drug was more than four times stronger than it was last tested in 1996.

       THC levels varied between 4.35 per cent and 25.3 per cent during the study completed under Ministry of Health licence between 2004 and 2006. When ESR last tested the Class C drug, it found an average THC level of 6 per cent.

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779518

       1:18 PM Wednesday Jan 18, 2012
       • weka 4.2.3.1

         23 May 2013 at 1:02 pm

         Plus, it looks like THC content has risen from around 1% in the early 80s, to up to 33% now (that’s record highs).
         • phillip ure 4.2.3.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 1:30 pm

           weka..let me put you straight on that..(pun intentional..)

           ..the esr scientists..created ideal conditions/food/environment to grow cannabis….no doubt using seed from the strongest strains they had..

           ..and surprise..!..surprise..!..they grew some wickedly strong dope..

           ..(and the best dope i have ever smoked was grown in the blue mountains in australia..by an ex-pat kiwi…who had been growing up there for yrs and yrs..it was a high like no other..almost like high quality cocaine…you could feel yrslf whooshing upwards..)

           ..to say that that pot is the norm for pot grown in bush in northland..under prohibition conditions…

           ..is a bit of a groin-stretch too far..eh..?

           ..but anyway..i only argue that potency lie..because it is factually innacurate..

           ..i am all for more potent strains of pot…’cos you just have to smoke less..

           ..and in that 60 mins piece on legal pot in colorado..and how that is working out for them..(‘good!’..in a word)..they took the camera inside a dispensary..

           .where there were glass-jars of all different strains of different strengths etc..

           ..(there was one that had been bred to be a businessmans’-special..in that a suit could spark up before going to work..and get a nice/light/easily-manageable high ticking along..that no observor would notice..

           ..and that did not interfere in abilities to perform suit-duties..

           ..then there was the strain recommended for insomniacs..(goodnight irene!..)

           ..so..strong is as strong is..and a legal/regulated/taxed pot-regime..would take all that uncettainty away for the consumer..and they could specify what they want/need..

           ..and i agree with you that pot dosen’t have to make you legless to be good/enjoyable..

           ..this is all why i see the whole potency-debate as not only factually incorrect..but also a distraction/red-herring..

           ..lets focus on legalise/regulate/tax..

           (and then see those moribund economies of northland and east cape experience a green-rush..eh..?

           ..and i wonder if any of those candidates will have the testicular-fortutude to campaign on that in the upcoming bye-election..

           ..east cape as the premier pot growing region in nz..what’s not to love about that..a vote winner for a minnow-party..i reckon..)

           phillip ure..
           • McFlock 4.2.3.1.1.1

             23 May 2013 at 2:28 pm

             The range of levels suggest they were using blind samples.

             Even if the ESR scientists were growing the strongest dope they could find under the best conditions, that’s still what they would have done last time. So the “best”, grown in the best conditions, has increased in potency over time.
             • freedom …

               23 May 2013 at 2:51 pm

               There are still plenty of good old fashioned NZ bush weed admirers who do not want, need, or even encourage the ‘skunk monsters’. If you want a twenty minute high and a two hour headache, sure smoke skunk. And if you are a medicinal user, please don’t use skunk as its very potency works against the plant’s medicinal properties.

               If cannabis was decriminalised there is anecdotal evidence that suggests the greater percentage of home grown plants would actually be mild strains. When you look at alcohol, and yes you should, you notice the majority of people seem to handle a few drinks regularly, then once in a while do a big night. They might have a beer most nights, or a wine with dinner, and a few more on the weekends. Maybe a nice strong spirit is their choice instead but most drinkers do not chugalug a litre of gold tequila just because it is on the shelf. We are told this repeatedly by those who support alcohol, so why would people who choose to smoke rather than drink suddenly lose that ability to manage their intake?

               NZ still grows some of the safest, healthiest unmodified cannabis varieties anywhere in the world and no matter what happens in the legal fights ahead, it will continue to do so.

               p.s. weka gets a special award for [arguably] the most ridiculous cannabis statement I have ever seen, even if you exclude the script of Reefer Madness and pretty much anything said on Fox. (the latter is just a smart thing to do anyway)
               “Plus, it looks like THC content has risen from around 1% in the early 80s, to up to 33% now ” I would love to see a citation for those figures, please, anything, a journo’s bus ticket found in a cafe with half the info smeared behind congealed mustard and bacon fat would be fine . . .
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 23 May 2013 at 4:46 pm

                 “Plus, it looks like THC content has risen from around 1% in the early 80s, to up to 33% now ” I would love to see a citation for those figures, please, anything, a journo’s bus ticket found in a cafe with half the info smeared behind congealed mustard and bacon fat would be fine . . .

                 Yeah, was looking at that and was wondering if a plant could survive if 33% of it was THC.
                 • TheContrarian …

                   23 May 2013 at 4:51 pm

                   It is pretty well known that THC content has been rising significantly over the years. Though I don’t know by how much
               • weka …

                 23 May 2013 at 6:46 pm

                 p.s. weka gets a special award for [arguably] the most ridiculous cannabis statement I have ever seen, even if you exclude the script of Reefer Madness and pretty much anything said on Fox. (the latter is just a smart thing to do anyway)
                 “Plus, it looks like THC content has risen from around 1% in the early 80s, to up to 33% now ” I would love to see a citation for those figures, please, anything, a journo’s bus ticket found in a cafe with half the info smeared behind congealed mustard and bacon fat would be fine . . .

                 Huh, didn’t realise this was such a controversial subject (THC content). Here you go freedom –

                 Editor’s Note: The University of Mississippi’s Potency Monitoring Project (UMPMC) tested seized marijuana from all 50 states to determine the percentage of THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
                 The average potency of all marijuana in the US, according to the UMPMC’s Dec. 2008 – Mar. 2009 quarterly report, was 8.52% (5.62% domestic and 9.57% nondomestic).
                 The highest tested sample had 22.04% THC (domestic) and 27.30% THC (nondomestic). The highest tested sample ever tested between 1975 and 2009 had 33.12% THC (domestic) and 37.20% THC (nondomestic).
                 For comparison, the national average of marijuana’s THC content in 1978 was 1.37%, in 1988 it was 3.59%, in 1998 4.43%, and in 2008 8.49%.
                 Although average potencies have increased, the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reported in the June 4, 2002 Washington Post article “The Real Dope: Tried the ‘Today’s Pot Is Stronger’ Claim With Your Kids? Your Cover Is Blown” that “joint sizes have dropped over the years from half a gram to about a quarter of a gram.” In addition, pipes, water pipes, and vaporizers typically require less marijuana per use than joints and these items have become increasingly popular over the last 30 years. Some medical marijuana advocates contend that more potent marijuana means less marijuana is needed to achieve the desired medical benefit.

                 ProCon.org compiled a table of marijuana potency from 1975-2003. The data was tabulated from the Annual Reports of Mahmoud A. ElSohly, PhD, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Marijuana Project at the National Center for Natural Products Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi. See NIDA’s chart in PDF format.]

                 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000336

                 There is also a pro/con list in that link.

                 Someone upthread linked to the UMPMC I think.

                 Follow the links and see if it’s real. I’m happy to be proven wrong. But it’s pretty obvious that THC content would vary alot depending on many things including the strain of the plant, which part of the plant was being tested/smoked, how it had been processed, where it was grown, how it was grown etc. It’s not a secret that the constituents of plants change depending on those and other factors. What’s the big deal?
                 • freedom …

                   23 May 2013 at 7:30 pm

                   some very selective numbers used by you there weka,
                   real cherry picking time.

                   You are suggesting that in a mere forty years, cannabis has increased in potency by a factor of 3300. Does that make any sense to you at all? Potency increases when strains are mixed and mutations occur. Cannabis has not gotten stronger, it has evolved and it has been doing so for a really long time. What really changed is that starting back in the late forties, increasing numbers of servicemen, all over the world, began taking home seeds from their various conquests. As these seeds were introduced to other strains, for the very first time in many cases, new mutations developed and produced new levels of THC.

                   The testing you referenced above was done on seized cannabis plants, not a controlled study on one strain over time. All the testing is of various strains. Those various strains came from various plots grown for various reasons. In no way can that be said to be a controlled environment. I am unaware of any study on one isolated strain over any serious length of time. So you have to agree the statement that potency has increased by a factor of over 3000 is, at the very least, inaccurate.

                   You obviously see now how my ‘show me the bacon fat’ wind up was about semantics, because that is the bud of this issue. Yes there are some ridiculously potent strains out there. There are other strains that are still the same low % strains they always were. Marijuana and Hemp offer world saving solutions where they can contribute to every aspect of our world and just as importantly to our economy. The potential goldmines for agriculture, medicine, technology, fuel, food, textiles, construction and so much more show the topic deserves to be discussed in an honest and rational manner.

                   ? why am i in moderation ?
                   • weka …

                     23 May 2013 at 9:41 pm

                     I’m really confused now. I’m talking about plants being bred for certain traits. We do this all the time with plants – think the ancestors of pretty much any fruit or vegetable we eat. I don’t know enough about plant biology to say if large THC increase is plausible, but think about the increase in fructose content between and modern apple and its ancestors.

                     I don’t mean to be rude, but I have no idea what you are talking about if it’s not that.

                     “So you have to agree the statement that potency has increased by a factor of over 3000 is, at the very least, inaccurate.”

                     Not following that either. Do you accept that there are some cannabis plants that have THC percentage in the 30s?
           • Populuxe1 4.2.3.1.1.2

             23 May 2013 at 6:00 pm

             “..the esr scientists..created ideal conditions/food/environment to grow cannabis….no doubt using seed from the strongest strains they had..”

             And silly me, here was I thinking that’s exactly what growers do too
           • weka 4.2.3.1.1.3

             23 May 2013 at 6:52 pm

             “..to say that that pot is the norm for pot grown in bush in northland..under prohibition conditions…

             ..is a bit of a groin-stretch too far..eh..?”

             I didn’t say anything of the sort. All I said was that cannabis is stronger/has more THC in it now than it used to. I’m still waiting for some evidence from you to prove me wrong.
             • phillip ure …

               23 May 2013 at 7:56 pm

               here you are weka..

               http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-media-doesnt-get-that-hyping-potent-pot-makes-more-people-want-to-smoke-it/

               phillip ure..
               • weka …

                 23 May 2013 at 8:19 pm

                 I think you are confusing science and how science gets used. Just because the Feds and the media hype THC content doesn’t mean it hasn’t changed. Be careful you don’t do what your opposition is doing.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   23 May 2013 at 9:07 pm

                   What’s the THC % got to do with it? Just regulate it so has to be 10% or less and the only legal variants are those which comply with this limit.
                   • weka …

                     23 May 2013 at 9:42 pm

                     Why regulate it?
             • freedom …

               23 May 2013 at 11:06 pm

               reply to weka: http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-23052013/#comment-637197

               yup we were basically walking in circles following each other,
               but it’s been a lovely day for a stroll 🙂

               I do contest that a strain tested in the 80s at 1% became a strain testing at 30% in only a few decades. Those were obviously very different strains, most likely originating from very different regions of the planet and had undoubtedly met many other strains along the way. It is that level of distinction I believe is missing from the debate on how ‘THC is so much stronger now’. I have met idiots (including relatives) who actually believe that all cannabis has approached Tepuke Thunder level, which is patently not true accurate real or desirable. Thankfully plenty of sensible people out there still doing the bush weed and keeping it simple.

               I know I got my wires crossed earlier but I think I can safely conclude we are both coming at this from very similar places. One thing I would like to see is synthetics getting properly dealt to so thousands of kiwis can get their lives back on track. The other welcome sight would be booze getting a small taste of what cannabis suffers.

               p.s TO MODERATOR: Can I please get an explanation as to why I am going into moderation? Perhaps I can then avoid doing whatever is putting me there?

               [r0b: Hi freedom – Is it happening every time, or only occasionally? Your IP address looks okay so it can only be keywords in the comment triggering moderation, sorry I can’t tell which one.]

               [lprent: I’ve looked at it before without an explanation (seems to have happened on and off for over a year). It isn’t anything obvious in either the words nor in the IP from our side. Some IP ranges just appear to get that behaviour from the wordpress anti-spam akismet – usually old dialup ranges. And unfortunately there isn’t anything much we can do about it (no whitelist – maybe I should look for one) apart from releasing comments from you. That slowly changes the behaviour at akismet.

               Interesting. There appear to be no current plugins that do that task. There are some old ones however. ]
               • freedom …

                 24 May 2013 at 7:53 am

                 thank you for taking the time to check, and to respond.
                 It happened twice
                 1:http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-23052013/#comment-637244
                 2:http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-23052013/#comment-637107

                 just one of those things I guess,
                 I do have a lifelong knack of finding cracks to fall down, which at least has helped identify various situations that various organisations can repair or improve. Not bothered by it but it is a head scratcher sometimes. thanks again. 🙂
               • weka …

                 24 May 2013 at 8:19 am

                 I do contest that a strain tested in the 80s at 1% became a strain testing at 30% in only a few decades. Those were obviously very different strains, most likely originating from very different regions of the planet and had undoubtedly met many other strains along the way. It is that level of distinction I believe is missing from the debate on how ‘THC is so much stronger now’. I have met idiots (including relatives) who actually believe that all cannabis has approached Tepuke Thunder level, which is patently not true accurate real or desirable. Thankfully plenty of sensible people out there still doing the bush weed and keeping it simple.

                 🙂

                 Yep, talking about somewhat different things. I was talking about THC levels in cannabis overall, as it is available to the smoker. I have no idea whether it is possible take a 1% plant to 30% in 30 years, but accept your critique of that.

                 Most of my posting in this thread has been just responding to the comments, rather than the wider debate. If people are using THC content as a rationale for opposing legalisation, then that puts a different slant on things. Nevertheless, I don’t think denying that THC content varies and is controllable to an extent through breeding is a useful response to that problem.

                 Glad we got our wires uncrossed 🙂

                 Edit: ha ha, I’m in moderation now. Your knack for falling down cracks is catching.
                 • freedom …

                   24 May 2013 at 9:38 am

                   ” If people are using THC content as a rationale for opposing legalisation, then that puts a different slant on things.”

                   along with the organised crime argument ( which would be eradicated overnight if they did the smart thing) it is the most commonly referred to reason for continued resistance to rational debate on decriminalisation of cannabis.

                   re cracks: if only my wishes for peace and prosperity were as contagious
5. freedom 5

   23 May 2013 at 8:22 am

   The strongest message that came from The Vote last night, from either side, was simple and clear; the synthetics are the problem. ( Although the statement from Mike Sabin that 80% of New Zealanders are probably thieves was enlightening) The debate was obviously flawed by including the synthetics in the same debate as cannabis, but it certainly presented startling evidence from both sides. The new laws should deal with every issue on synthetics that was discussed. The overwhelming evidence from the affirmative team decimated every argument put forward from the negative team, whose entire playbook was about the harm of synthetics. The negative team also had no credible defence when challenged with the fact that 40+ years of prohibition and law courts has failed to deal with the issue.

   The eloquent words from Wayne Poutoa were destroyed when he went so far as to suggest it was preferable to have youth receive criminal convictions rather than education and support when dealing with the issue of decriminalisation of soft drugs.

   Grant Hall even stated that he was in favour of not selling synthetics if it meant they were removed in favour of natural cannabis. Let us be clear, the synthetics earn millions for the synthetic high industry. Not many business people would willingly sacrifice that sort of income for the sake of people’s health and well being.

   The medical data and counselling information presented by Ross Bell and Dr Jeremy McMinn was clear and for many would have been very educational. Mike Sabin was not the best representative for the negative team. His data was incorrect and full of hyperbole. Janie Annear was at first calm and able to communicate clearly but as with Sabin, she quickly collapsed into ranting misrepresentations and finally had to admit she fabricated her main argument. All in all, despite the theatrics of Garner, it was an incredibly rational and balanced debate that has been long overdue on network television.

   What was undeniable was the vote, and this is what the show is all about. Public opinion. The Text service, the Facebook page, the Twitter tag and the TV3 site all had the same numbers returned (within a 4% range). It was a clear and incontrovertible vote of three to one in favour of decriminalisation.

   The most telling vote came from the studio audience. At the beginning of the show the vote was a fifty fifty split. By the end of the show, a studio vote was returned of 72% to 28% for the Yes team.

   Once again, like we have seen on so many policies, the opinion of the people show it is at odds with the dogma of the Government. Perhaps it is time the Government starts listening.
   • King Kong 5.1

     23 May 2013 at 8:48 am

     John Key will be jizzing in his pants. It will be his wildest dreams come true if the Left starts ramping up the legalise drugs rhetoric.

     Nonce nuptials and the right to get blazed. Labour and the Greens focusing on the things that really matter.
     • freedom 5.1.1

       23 May 2013 at 9:04 am

       yeah, imagine the horror of 300,000 hours of Police time suddenly being made available to rape , homicide and other criminal investigations. Or the hundred and fifty million saved from the courts . . . and the list goes on . . .

       Recommend you actually watch it, KK, something tells me you may be a little stunned at how the majority of people feel on this topic. Perhaps this was most starkly illustrated by the regular spontaneous applause for the Yes team contrasting with polite claps from a couple of people supporting the No team.
       http://www.3news.co.nz/TVShows/TheVote/Home.aspx
       • King Kong 5.1.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 9:13 am

         You could be on to something there. Maybe we could decide the next election with a clapometer.

         Doesn’t matter the rights and wrongs of the subject, politically this would be the dumbest thing the left could do. The same, of course, could be said about having the loony activist fringe of your party publicly eviscerate their own leader, so you never know.
         • freedom 5.1.1.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 9:48 am

           Topics such as decriminalisation are certainly over-shadowed by the politics of the situation but increasingly, they simply expose the untenable situation of the politics.
         • framu 5.1.1.1.2

           23 May 2013 at 10:13 am

           “Maybe we could decide the next election with a clapometer.” – dont we do that now?
         • Morrissey 5.1.1.1.3

           23 May 2013 at 10:17 am

           Maybe we could decide the next election with a clapometer.

           Surely you mean a crapometer.
       • David H 5.1.1.2

         23 May 2013 at 11:55 am

         And still the fool Dunne says no to decriminalisation but his Alcohol backers must be getting nervous to have him open his mouth to try to kill the debate. OPPSS got that wrong didn’t they?
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2.1

           23 May 2013 at 12:20 pm

           We need more than decriminalisation – we need legalisation. There’s so many other benefits to growing cannabis. I’ve heard, in a video that was linked here some time back, that it can produce better cloth than cotton. It can be used to produce ropes and glues as well.

           It is a very versatile plant and the recreational use of it is just a small part of what it can be used for.
           • Arfamo 5.1.1.2.1.1

             23 May 2013 at 1:04 pm

             Seems to be a difference between the marijuana plant and the industrial hemp variety of cannabis sativa though:

             http://hempethics.weebly.com/industrial-hemp-vs-cannabis.html.
           • weka 5.1.1.2.1.2

             23 May 2013 at 1:10 pm

             We already grow hemp in NZ. Legalising cannabis is not necessary to do that.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               23 May 2013 at 5:12 pm

               Yep, all four people.

               Other benefits such as medical requires legalising marijuana sativa and that one still has all the other benefits as well.
               • TheContrarian …

                 23 May 2013 at 6:09 pm

                 “Yep, all four people.”

                 Why don’t you make it five, Draco?
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   23 May 2013 at 9:07 pm

                   Because I’m not a farmer and have no desire to be one?
               • Populuxe1 …

                 23 May 2013 at 6:11 pm

                 Which can be synthesised as it is in the US and elsewhere. However there isn’t much evidence that THC is any better at pain relief, nausea supression, and lowering intra-ocular pressure than existing medicines.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   23 May 2013 at 9:10 pm

                   Yeah, it can be synthesised – which is better. Growing marijuana with all the benefits or synthesizing THC and having only one of the benefits?

                   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Recent_studies
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     23 May 2013 at 9:30 pm

                     Except that commercial hemp doesn’t have much THC in it – they are completely different varieties. Cannabis Sativa is the industrial hemp with the strong fibres, Cannabis Indica is the one you smoke.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     23 May 2013 at 11:53 pm

                     In a conversation all about legalising marijuana, the stuff you smoke, you bring up the fact that commercial hemp, which is already legal, isn’t the one that you smoke.
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     24 May 2013 at 2:40 pm

                     So why grow it if you can synthesise THC and it doesn’t have any useful fibres?
               • weka …

                 23 May 2013 at 6:57 pm

                 Let me rephrase. We already grow hemp in NZ. Legalising cannabis is technically not necessary to do that.

                 Hemp promoters have definitely had a hard time getting the industry established here because of the association with cannabis. But most new crops get trialled by small numbers of people first too. I expect it will get easier in time, esp as some of the people growing have no vested interested in legalisation of cannabis.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   23 May 2013 at 9:17 pm

                   As I understand it it’s a PITA to grow hemp due to the laws surrounding it and cannabis. Both need to be looked at and there really is no reason not legalise cannabis. Even if it is stronger than it was it’s still safer than alcohol.
           • freedom 5.1.1.2.1.3

             23 May 2013 at 2:13 pm

             Hemp is a whole other issue all on its own, though it is why cannabis was made illegal. That story is all tied up with greed, 20th Century industrial chemists and a bit more greed.

             Hearst and Dupont are good starting points
             especially regarding the paper and textile industries
             and did i mention greed?
         • phillip ure 5.1.1.2.2

           23 May 2013 at 12:55 pm

           dunnes’ final-lie was a whopper..

           ..he airily waved his hand:..and said that 72% support for legalising pot ‘has always been there’..

           ..(he must think us peasants are all as dumb as fucken sack of doorknobs..eh..?..that dunne..

           .the shite he tries to get us to believe..)

           phillip ure..
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.3

         23 May 2013 at 12:05 pm

         freedom – depriving organised crime and gangs of hundreds of millions of dollars a year is indeed one benefit.

         If the Govt was smart it would heavily regulate and tax the sale of marijuana, as is done in some other jurisdictions in the western world.
         • freedom 5.1.1.3.1

           23 May 2013 at 1:08 pm

           I found it interesting how rarely that aspect was referenced last night. ( Grant Hall, c.32mins touches on it) I considered it to be a smart move, as it is so often the point of the spear. It was refreshing, as a medicinal user, to see the discussion very much focused on health and education.

           Even garner, during one of the huddles, is heard to say ‘ a thousand deaths from alcohol, none on this stuff, we need to – [mimes getting over something] 26:25 on the video

           (29:30 for the 80 % of kiwis are thieves moment btw 🙂 it’s just funny is all)
         • weka 5.1.1.3.2

           23 May 2013 at 1:12 pm

           “depriving organised crime and gangs of hundreds of millions of dollars a year is indeed one benefit.”

           and what do you think the gangs will do then?
           • freedom 5.1.1.3.2.1

             23 May 2013 at 1:56 pm

             “and what do you think the gangs will do then?”

             Why not state what is on your mind instead of limping around in such a circumspect manner?
             • weka …

               23 May 2013 at 6:22 pm

               I think that the solution to drug crime isn’t so straight forward.

               I want cannabis legalised and put in the hands of people who use it ie whatever commercial/regulatory framework happens, people should be free to grow their own for the use of themselves, their friends. family and community. I would also like to see small businesses prioritised over big businesses. There are many people in this country with good skills in growing, processing and selling cannabis, they should be encouraged to make a living from this legally, not turned into wage slaves for the corporations.

               How’s that freedom?
               • freedom …

                 23 May 2013 at 7:44 pm

                 sounds great weka, I wildly misread the tone of your comment,
                 you have my apologies

                 so if the gang question was on your mind, why did you not just write about that instead of prompting for responses like you did?

                 I think it does highlight an issue in blogging, especially around politics. This whole political debate thing would probably move forward much easier if people shared more about what they are concerned about/interested in/ wanting to see change rather Than hint at openings of dialogues that may or may not be picked up by others. As I have just proven, that can be misconstrued. How many good dialogues as we missing out on because of people’s hesitancy to share?
                 • weka …

                   23 May 2013 at 8:24 pm

                   I asked the question because I was curious how CV saw his suggestion playing out.

                   I understand what you mean about debate. However I know the opposite is true. I’m hardly hesitant in expressing my opinion 😉 and sometimes a question yields more interesting responses than my comments. Although I concede not in this case. I often find myself in this situation in drug debates, because while I support legalisation to an extent, I also don’t think it’s the great panacea that it is often made out to be. It’s not unusual for people to misinterpret where I am coming from, in a debate where there are supposed to be clear sides.
                   • Clockie …

                     23 May 2013 at 8:30 pm

                     “and sometimes a question yields more interesting responses than my comments.”

                     Socratic method 🙂
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.3.2.2

             23 May 2013 at 2:54 pm

             and what do you think the gangs will do then?

             I would encourage the gangs to start up legitimate business enterprises and to continue to move away from dealing with drugs which in the end only end up harming their own communities and families.
             • weka …

               23 May 2013 at 6:18 pm

               I wasn’t asking what you would do cv, I was asking what you thought the gangs would do once their income stream from cannabis was gone.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 23 May 2013 at 7:39 pm

                 Look for other income streams.

                 But don’t think that they aren’t doing that every day anyway.
                 • weka …

                   23 May 2013 at 8:26 pm

                   True. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that a big shift in cannabis law, one that regulates tightly and specifically excludes gangs, would be met with an increase in other kinds of crime. This isn’t to say that cannabis shouldn’t be legalised, nor regulated (although my preference, hopeless as it is, would be that it was regulated in favour of individuals and small growers).
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     23 May 2013 at 9:17 pm

                     The fight against organised crime is an evolution weka. Taking tens (or hundreds?) of millions out of the books of gangs per annum is a pretty good thing. Will there be a push into other areas of crime? Probably.

                     But the Government would also have a lot more money on hand to dissuade and prevent that.
   • Morrissey 5.2

     23 May 2013 at 9:02 am

     Perhaps it is time the Government starts listening.

     That’s not going to happen. Perhaps it’s time that people start organizing and get rid of these people.
     • freedom 5.2.1

       23 May 2013 at 9:06 am

       We can only hope that the next Election will be one where NZ properly considers not just who, but actually what they vote for.
       • kiwicommie 5.2.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 9:12 am

         I think it will be close as many NZ’ers don’t care about other people, only their personal position; and some still just vote one party blindly because their family has a history of voting for that party.
     • weka 5.2.2

       23 May 2013 at 8:27 pm

       “Perhaps it is time the Government starts listening.”

       “That’s not going to happen. Perhaps it’s time that people start organizing and get rid of these people.”

       A government without any people in it, interesting concept.
       • Morrissey 5.2.2.1

         24 May 2013 at 7:02 am

         A government without any people in it, interesting concept.

         That’s not what I said. I said we need to get rid of THOSE people—you know, like Messrs Banks, and Joyce, and Key, and Smith, and Bridges….
   • ghostrider888 5.3

     23 May 2013 at 12:45 pm

     Excellent summary freedom.
     Ross Bell, NZDF- “present situation is not working”
     -30 countries have decriminalised.
     -Kiwis, one of the highest consumers of cannabis in the world.

     Even from the pusher man, “100% cannabis products safer than those being peddled; synthetic more dangerous than cannabis”.

     Dunne’s conclusion- “government has no intention of changing the status of cannabis”.
6. just saying 6

   23 May 2013 at 9:12 am

   I’m curious.

   It’s now May and I’ve ben a member of the Labour Party since last year.
   So far, being a member of the party has been a bit like being on the Bunnings Warehouse mailing list – I get various kinds of PR-constructed marketing sent to me, but I’ve seen no invitation to join the democratic process, from the local or the central party. There have been no meetings set, or documents for discussion circulated, no internet forum (outside of red alert (nuff said)) etc..

   I had thought that Labour had made consitituational changes to enable members to democratically decide policy, for example, And I know a lot of work is being done within the party right now, formulating that policy. But outside of the next Party meeting in ChCh which few will be able to attend for a raft of financial, family or work reasons, – zip.

   Disclaimer: I may have missed something important. apologies if I have. Most of that material is so boring I don’t read to the end. But I usually I try to scan it in case there is, within, something important.
   • King Kong 6.1

     23 May 2013 at 9:16 am

     It’s obviously David Shearer stealing your mail. What a low life, duplicitous arsehole. I bet you never recieved the naked snaps of David Cunliffe that you ordered either.
   • kiwicommie 6.2

     23 May 2013 at 9:18 am

     I don’t join political parties, as I just can’t keep to the party line. Have no problems donating, signing petitions and supporting a party publicly, but I don’t like the idea of being part of a group that has its set views on things you have to follow, and having to attend special meetings. Being part of a political party isn’t for everyone, and as far as I know you don’t have to be a member of a political party to volunteer for events. Have you tried calling the office of your local Labour MP, he/she or one of the staff there might be able to help?
     • just saying 6.2.1

       23 May 2013 at 9:37 am

       The whole point of joining was the consitiutional changes that we were given to believe mean that the “Party Line”(s) were to be decided democratically by members.
       Obviously there can never be unanimity in all matters in any group with two or more members, I’m not sure what keeping “the party line” actually means.
       Anyhow, my communications with my local representative have been less than satisfactory, from my point of view.
       And yes I have noticed that there are many means of political participation. I was asking as a member of the Labour Party about that party’s particpatory processes.
       • Bill 6.2.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 9:55 am

         I’m thinking ‘participatory’ is too big a word for them thar head honcho monkeys up that there tree.
       • Populuxe1 6.2.1.2

         23 May 2013 at 6:13 pm

         Which is why MMP and a diversity of choice in parties is so important
   • Anne 6.3

     23 May 2013 at 10:35 am

     @just saying:

     Have you not received a phone call – as a new member – from your local electorate or branch chairperson or someone designated to welcome new members?

     Have you never received an invitation to attend a local branch or electorate meeting since you joined?

     If the answer to the above two questions is NO (and it seems to be) then you have reason to be annoyed. I suggest you contact your Ch.Ch. Regional Office (there must be one) or even Labour Party HQ in Wellington because that is unacceptable. One would hope the electorate or branch committee in question would get a bit of a bollocking…

     Oh dear they call them Hubs now. I don’t know who came up with such a stupid name or maybe I’m just old-fashioned and like to call a spade what it is – a spade.
     • just saying 6.3.1

       23 May 2013 at 10:49 am

       You’re right Anne,
       The answers are no and no.
       • Anne 6.3.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 10:57 am

         That is very poor indeed just saying. In the interest of good practice, you should contact the local Regional Office. I’m aware Head Office is tied up with the up-coming byelection so there’s no point in contacting them at this time.
         • just saying 6.3.1.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 11:01 am

           Thanks Anne,
           Btw, I don’t think my branch actually has any branch meetings. We may be just be an electronic entity on auto-pilot.
         • weka 6.3.1.1.2

           23 May 2013 at 11:26 am

           It’s possible that the Chch branch isn’t functioning optimally. Many people in Chch are still very stressed, in ways that the rest of the country seems to have forgotten about. (doesn’t excuse Labour nationally from anything though).
   • weka 6.4

     23 May 2013 at 11:28 am

     It’s now May and I’ve ben a member of the Labour Party since last year.
     So far, being a member of the party has been a bit like being on the Bunnings Warehouse mailing list – I get various kinds of PR-constructed marketing sent to me, but I’ve seen no invitation to join the democratic process, from the local or the central party.

     Now there’s a surprise.

     /sarc

     You joined the wrong party, js. The Greens actively engage their membership all the time. It’s not perfect by any means (and their recent attempts to engage wider than their membership are disappointingly shallow), but it is pretty easy to get involved.
     • Anne 6.4.1

       23 May 2013 at 12:23 pm

       To be fair weka most Labour electorates actively engage their membership too. But electorate organisations are expected to do the personal contacting of new members. As you would know, new members sometimes need a bit of encouragement to get involved.

       It sounds to me like ‘just saying’ doesn’t live in a safe Labour seat. They often have a Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) only, and that is invariably when lack of contact occurs. Not all non Labour seats I hasten to add… don’t want to upset the diligent ones. 🙂

       I’d be interested to know if you have a Labour MP or buddy MP just saying.
       • just saying 6.4.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 12:32 pm

         One of the safest seats in the country, Anne, with a sitting electorate MP.
         Maybe complacent?
         I wouldn’t expect a personal greeting btw, just clear lines for participation.
         • Colonial Viper 6.4.1.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 12:37 pm

           Phone the MP’s local office secretary. Ask for the contact details of your branch officers. Phone them and ask them where and when their next meeting is.

           If your branch doesn’t meet regularly, find one which does and go to that instead.
           • just saying 6.4.1.1.1.1

             23 May 2013 at 12:44 pm

             Will do CV. I’d like to know if meetings actually occur.
             I wonder how many electorates still have meetings?
             • Colonial Viper …

               23 May 2013 at 2:56 pm

               For a branch to stay constitutional it has to formally meet…occasionally.
         • alwyn 6.4.1.1.2

           23 May 2013 at 2:02 pm

           You are getting clear lines for participation.
           They are as follows.
           1. Pay your money to the party.
           2. Shut up about anything else.
           There. Now you can see why you haven’t been invited to the inner sanctums.
           What was so hard about that?
       • Jilly Bee 6.4.1.2

         23 May 2013 at 12:39 pm

         Hi Anne – I live in a tory seat and have a Labour Buddy MP WHO I WISH WAS THE LEADER of the party. I would be far more motivated than I am at present.
         • Rob 6.4.1.2.1

           23 May 2013 at 2:11 pm

           Ah ha you have given it away , you live in Herne Bay.
         • Anne 6.4.1.2.2

           23 May 2013 at 2:23 pm

           Waitakere by any chance. 🙂
           • Jilly Bee 6.4.1.2.2.1

             23 May 2013 at 3:06 pm

             Yes.
       • weka 6.4.1.3

         23 May 2013 at 1:14 pm

         Hi Anne, I wasn’t talking about electorate branches. The GP is very well organised nationally re its membership. And it’s structure, from what I remember, encourages membership participation.
7. DH 7

   23 May 2013 at 9:39 am

   Just how much of this kind of rort is going on in ChCh?

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8700825/Homeowner-charged-1150-for-brief-check

   It’s no surprise that sharks are exploiting the situation down there but it is a bit surprising that anyone thinks it’s ok. The fees are quite outrageous. Demolition yards charging $100 an hour to quote for buying scrap, you’ve gotta be kidding.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     23 May 2013 at 11:15 am

     Seems reasonable to me. They do have to cover their down time as well.

     The problem isn’t that they’re charging too much but that most people don’t charge enough and can’t get work when they do. Quite simply, NZers are cheap and really don’t like having to pay the full price of things.
     • weka 7.1.1

       23 May 2013 at 11:30 am

       lol.

       And the value of you handful of sentences Draco? 🙂
       • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 12:22 pm

         Do you actually have any criticism of what I said?
         • Rob 7.1.1.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 4:46 pm

           Yes, there is a lot of truth in what you have just written Draco. The constant effort by NZ consumers into finding a cheaper price or a better discount effects many things such as manufacturing sustainability in NZ, wages, profits and in fact the whole market.
           • Populuxe1 7.1.1.1.1.1

             23 May 2013 at 8:39 pm

             I seem to remember that being called “capitalism” or “supply and demand” or some such thing. Of course, if you’d like to pay even higher mobile network and internet rates than we already do – mind-buggeringly higher than elsewhere – and groceries etc because of the duopolies that dominate our markets, be my guest. Just don’t expect anyone else to blythely trip along behind you.
         • weka 7.1.1.1.2

           23 May 2013 at 6:29 pm

           Hi Draco, I thought you were being sarcastic, sorry. I know of definite rorts that have happened in the Chch recovery. The case mentioned above does seem excessive to me. I would guess that where insurance companies are involved the value of work changes quite alot. I would also guess that were that company operating elsewhere and dealing directly with the home owner, the price might be different. That’s me guessing based on reading the article, knowing some of the shit going on in Chch re insurance and recovery of property, and understanding a little bit about salvage.
     • DH 7.1.2

       23 May 2013 at 1:53 pm

       It’s way over the top and frankly some of the charges are outrageous. When you’re paying someone $100hr you can reasonably expect that they have the requisite professional knowledge and expertise for the job they’re doing.

       For them to charge further fees to research values which they should already know as a matter of the professional expertise they’re already charging for, and pour salt into the wounds by charging a further fee for “professional knowledge” is really just ridiculous.

       If the hourly rate doesn’t include ‘professional knowledge’ then what the hell is it for?
       • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.1

         23 May 2013 at 5:21 pm

         For them to charge further fees to research values which they should already know as a matter of the professional expertise they’re already charging for…

         This may come as a surprise but price change.

         If the hourly rate doesn’t include ‘professional knowledge’ then what the hell is it for?

         Covering the basics while the extra charge is to cover the student loan and ongoing tuition and licensing fees?
         • McFlock 7.1.2.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 5:27 pm

           Nah.
           Supply and demand.

           edit – not a good thing. Just that price is irrelevant to the costs incurred by the supplier
           • Populuxe1 7.1.2.1.1.1

             23 May 2013 at 10:59 pm

             Good for the consumer
             • Draco T Bastard …

               24 May 2013 at 10:55 am

               Not once they lose the available skills from not paying enough which is happening in NZ quite a lot. We’ve just lost the rail engineering in Dunedin and the skills and capabilities that represents because the government decided it was cheaper to buy from China. Such loss has been happening more and more over the last few decades of the neo-liberal revolution which started under the 4th Labour government.

               —————————-

               There’s two related problems 1) Overcharging and 2) Undercharging. IMO, the bigger problem is that most people don’t charge enough and just take what they’re given. This will inevitably result in increasing poverty while we see a few people (the owners and the administrators, the people in positions of power) getting richer. It’ll also result in more people being unemployed because it quite literally costs people to go to work and so there’s no point in doing so.

               I have family in the building industry and know that they’ve not got contracts because of cost and yet there was no way they could cut the price any further. They’ve later heard that a) the person who did get it was half their price and b) that the work was substandard, not up to code and needs fixing.

               Nothing can be supplied for less than it costs no matter how much people like to think that the proper price is how much they want to pay.
         • DH 7.1.2.1.2

           23 May 2013 at 6:35 pm

           I suggest you guys take a read of the Consumer Guarantees Act sometime. If that lady took it to the disputes tribunal she’d get more than half the charges back. I hope she does.

           You don’t hire a lawyer, builder or anyone else at $x per hour and then get charged extra for their professional expertise as a lawyer, builder or whatever. That’s what the rates are for – their professional knowledge.

           And as for taking 4 1/2 hours to research the value of unremarkable household salvage that took only 15-20 minutes to inspect & itemise. Fuck off, they’re second hand dealers they buy & sell that shit every day. Even if they didn’t buy it much they could search expired listings on Trademe in 10-15 minutes to get the market values. It’s a complete rort.
8. Bill 8

   23 May 2013 at 9:53 am

   Well… http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2013/may/22/woolwich-suspect-attack-video
   • muzza 8.1

     23 May 2013 at 10:22 am

     Use of the *T* word by David Cameron is a flat out deceptive lie!
9. Morrissey 9

   23 May 2013 at 10:10 am

   Phil Wallington told us this programme would be worth watching. He lied.
   The Vote, TV3, Wednesday 22 May 2013, 8:30 p.m.

   Team Espiner: Ross Bell (Executive Director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation); Grant Hall, Dr. Jeremy McMinn. (All well qualified experts)
   Team Garner: Janie Annear, Mike Sabin, Wayne Poutoa (Not one of them qualified or expert.)

   Earlier this year, the curmudgeonly media commentator Phil Wallington told Jim Mora that he had been privileged to witness an exciting new development in local current affairs broadcasting. He had been at a trial run of TV3’s new show, which would combine cutting-edge commentary and real democratic audience input. The name of the show was The Vote, he said, and this time it really did justify all the hype.

   Well, we’ve already seen a couple of episodes of this exciting new show, one on Taxing Unhealthy Food, one on Racism—and they were both disastrously bad. There are always various interested parties and a few experts involved in the production of these farces, but let’s face it: this ridiculous show is essentially Duncan Garner versus Guyon Espiner, gigglingly refereed by Linda Clark.

   Last night we got the third instalment of Garner v Espiner, and from what I could see during the brief times I tuned in, it was just as cringe-inducing, vacuous and puerile as the first two. Here are a few impressions garnered from an intermittent viewing….

   DUNCAN GARNER: Would you let your eighteen-year-old daughter smoke synthetic cannabis?

   ROSS BELL: I would want her to be informed enough to—

   GARNER: Would you let your eighteen-year-old daughter smoke synthetic cannabis?

   ROSS BELL: I would—-

   GARNER: I think we all can see that you WOULD let your eighteen-year-old daughter SMOKE SYNTHETIC CANNABIS.

   LINDA CLARK: [giggling] All right, I think we can draw our own conclusions without you haranguing the guests, Garner! He he he he he!

   …….

   We come in just after Guyon Espiner has finished his 30-second summary of his team’s argument….

   LINDA CLARK: Over to you, Mr Garner!

   DUNCAN GARNER: We’re saying now is not the time to send some woolly-woofter message to the kids….

   Appalled, I switched to another channel for a while and came back, just after a vote had been taken. A huge majority supported decriminalisation, forcefully rejecting Garner’s arguments. Guyon Espiner took a childish glee in this….

   GUYON ESPINER: Mate, I have to say it’s not looking terribly good for you! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

   Party drugs activist Matt Bowden takes the opportunity to point out the dismal hypocrisy of Garner’s dismal team….

   MATT BOWDEN: We are selling non-addictive drugs that will not fry your brain like ALCOHOL and other hard drugs.

   LINDA CLARK: Next up, we will talk to Minister Peter Dunne.

   The screen is filled with Khandallah’s bouffanted, alcohol lobby-backed fop, wearing another of his absurdly dandyish bow-ties, looking like a vision from a bad smack dream.

   Which raises the question: what was Phil Wallington smoking when he recommended this programme?
   • freedom 9.1

     23 May 2013 at 10:51 am

     Morrissey,
     you have completely misrepresented a show that you admit to not even watching in its entirety.
     http://www.3news.co.nz/TVShows/TheVote/Home.aspx
     Maybe if you actually watch the show you will see it was far better than the other episodes to date and your two examples are nothing but cherry picked blips. They in no way represent the clear and constructive discussion that was presented.
     • Morrissey 9.1.1

       23 May 2013 at 6:15 pm

       you have completely misrepresented a show that you admit to not even watching in its entirety.

       Like hell I misrepresented it. I made nothing up; Garner was actually far more boorish than I showed him to be.

       Maybe if you actually watch the show you will see it was far better than the other episodes to date and your two examples are nothing but cherry picked blips.

       I saw some very intelligent people—especially Ross Bell, Grant Hall and Matt Bowden—trying to make serious points in the face of brutal, stupid, constant interruptions by Duncan Garner. And I saw the smiling, giggling Linda Clark treating him as a mischievous ten-year-old, instead of handling him firmly and ensuring the guests, and the audience, were treated with at least some respect.

       They in no way represent the clear and constructive discussion that was presented.

       You have misrepresented what went on in that programme. There certainly were people trying to be constructive, but they don’t have a hope of that happening with this format, and these hosts.
       • freedom 9.1.1.1

         23 May 2013 at 8:44 pm

         personal perception is an amazing and precious commodity
         so regarding Garner,
         I interpreted Clark’s behaviour as allowing allowing him the rope he needed to hang himself.

         I feel what I wrote earlier about the show is a fair representation of what was broadcast
         http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-23052013/#comment-636658
         • Morrissey 9.1.1.1.1

           23 May 2013 at 9:23 pm

           Fair enough, my friend. I share your desire for good, thoughtful, stimulating television. I am just not prepared to indulge underperformers like Linda Clark and thugs like Garner.
   • mikesh 9.2

     23 May 2013 at 1:01 pm

     Dunne was, at least, weaing some form of neckware, unlike most politicians (and not only polticians) who remove their ties befor appearing on TV, and put them back on when the interview is over.
     • Morrissey 9.2.1

       23 May 2013 at 8:09 pm

       Dunne was, at least, wearing some form of neckware….

       Fair enough. That’s a mitigating factor.
   • Murray Olsen 9.3

     24 May 2013 at 1:41 am

     Sabin held up a headline saying that 159 drugs had been made illegal in Portugal. I checked. At best, he was being misleading. The law has been changed to stop “Smartshops” selling 160 new artificial drugs that have been shown to cause health problems. There are no criminal sanctions and the open situation with other drugs still holds.
     These are the sort of drugs that Dunne allows to be sold. Ha.

     http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/governo-aprova-lei-que-proibe-venda-de-159-drogas-nas-smartshops-1586943
   • Clockie 9.4

     24 May 2013 at 3:39 pm

     “The screen is filled with Khandallah’s bouffanted, alcohol lobby-backed fop, wearing another of his absurdly dandyish bow-ties, looking like a vision from a bad smack dream”.

     Whenever I accidentally see Dunne on TV I immediately think of “uncle Andrew” from The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe. Appearance and personality seem to have an uncanny similarity.

     http://narnia.wikia.com/wiki/Andrew_Ketterley
10. Morrissey 10

    23 May 2013 at 10:42 am

    Matthew Paris on the stabbings in London
    How much do they pay this fellow for these witterings?
    Nine to Noon, Radio NZ National, Thursday 23 May 2013, 9:50 a.m.

    In their wisdom, the producers have made sure that they use only the best journalistic minds available in their weekly ten-minute “UK Correspndent” slot.

    Those esteemed broadcasters are… (wait for it)…. Kate Adie, Dame Ann Leslie and Matthew Paris.

    This morning Matthew Paris was rostered on. Here’s what he said about the Woolwich stabbings….

    “A completely random, wicked act of insanity.”

    So that’s it then. No context, no reason, no nothing. We Antipodeans are truly blessed to have such serious and informed commentary being piped in from England.
    • Te Reo Putake 10.1

      23 May 2013 at 10:55 am

      “A completely random, wicked act of insanity.”

      Seems like a fair summary to me, Moz. And how brave were the women who confronted the nutters? What an amazing show of solidarity with the victim despite the risk to themselves. That’s real heroism in the face of a cowardly, brutal attack.
      • Private Baldrick 10.1.1

        23 May 2013 at 11:07 am

        News of what the ladies did brought a tear to my eye.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10074881/Mum-talked-down-Woolwich-terrorists-who-told-her-We-want-to-start-a-war-in-London-tonight.html
        • Te Reo Putake 10.1.1.1

          23 May 2013 at 11:26 am

          Yep, London 1, terrorists nil.

          btw, Moz, it’s Matthew Parris, not Paris. He used to be a Tory MP, but didn’t like the lifestyle so went back to journalism. Quite well respected by all sides, as far as I know.
          • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.1

            23 May 2013 at 2:47 pm

            Buying into the T word for every minor incident is very dangerous.

            Remember, the moment that is used in official circles, you can forget due process, habeus corpus, having access to legal counsel, treatment as a civilian etc.
          • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.2

            23 May 2013 at 2:51 pm

            “I asked him if he did it and he said yes and I said why? And he said because he has killed Muslim people in Muslim countries, he said he was a British soldier and I said really and he said ‘I killed him because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan they have nothing to do there.”

            From the Telegraph report.
            • ratesarerevolting 10.1.1.1.2.1

              23 May 2013 at 3:44 pm

              Yes ?
              • Draco T Bastard …

                23 May 2013 at 5:32 pm

                Context. The act wasn’t random.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  23 May 2013 at 7:44 pm

                  Indeed. This wasn’t “terrorism”. It was the targetted killing of a British soldier. Happens all the time in Afghanistan as part of the “war against terrorism”.

                  This was the war against terror being fought on British soil.
                  • Populuxe1 …

                    23 May 2013 at 9:33 pm

                    Generally speaking if it happens to be one of your own citizens it’s not war, it’s terrorism.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      23 May 2013 at 10:06 pm

                      I assume you are tired, because that makes no sense at all.

                      Terrorism is a tactic. Very often it is intra-national, (but there are many striking counter-examples to that), but that’s not what makes it terrorism.

                      It’s terrorism if the act is primarily designed to create effects in the target’s population. Blowing up a building because it contains a research program you want halted? Not terrorism. Blowing up a building because you want to create a sense that people are in danger because other buildings may be blown up? Terrorism.
          • Morrissey 10.1.1.1.3

            23 May 2013 at 5:51 pm

            Yep, London 1, terrorists nil.

            Now you’re channeling Boris Johnson. That’s not good. And it’s certainly not smart.

            btw, Moz, it’s Matthew Parris, not Paris.

            Goldarn it! I knew that! I was in such a hurry to get out this morning, I didn’t double-check. Thank you, my sharp and knowledgeable friend.

            He used to be a Tory MP, but didn’t like the lifestyle so went back to journalism. Quite well respected by all sides, as far as I know.

            Here’s a good intro. to Parris by someone a little more thoughtful than those politicians and corporate stenographers whose “respect” you seem to prize so highly….
            http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1366153822.html
      • Morrissey 10.1.2

        23 May 2013 at 6:01 pm

        Seems like a fair summary to me, Moz.

        It’s wicked, I’ll grant you that. Only Garth McVicar and his S.S. folk would condone a brutal killing like that. But it was not random: you know that perfectly well. And it was anything but insane.

        And how brave were the women who confronted the nutters?

        There you go with the Parrisian gobbledegook again. They were brutal, vicious POLITICAL killers; they were not “nutters”. Several people in the street simply walked past the blood-drenched killer; one woman carrying a shopping-bag actually bumped into him. They knew that he was NOT a “nutter”, and so do you. The killing was a selective targeting of a SOLDIER.

        ….real heroism in the face of a cowardly, brutal attack.

        They knew they were in no danger. You are quite correct to call the killings brutal; I share your sense of horror and outrage. But you are more intelligent than to simply accept the spin already being placed on this by the British government. I hope, by the way, that you condemn the British soldiers who deal out far greater carnage overseas as cowardly and brutal. Otherwise you might as well just sign up with an outfit like the S.S. Trust—or those brave skinheaded fellows that rioted against the “darkies” following this brutal murder.
        • Populuxe1 10.1.2.1

          23 May 2013 at 6:34 pm

          Brutal, vicious killers of any description are nutters – sane people don’t really do brutal and vicious murder. And unless the women had telepathic powers, they had no idea whether they were in danger or not – they were fucking brave and heroic.
          • Morrissey 10.1.2.1.1

            23 May 2013 at 8:35 pm

            Brutal, vicious killers of any description are nutters – sane people don’t really do brutal and vicious murder.

            New Zealand and Australian soldiers rounded up more than one hundred boys and men in the Palestinian village of Surafend in late 1918, then methodically clubbed them to death. None of those ANZAC heroes was a “nutter”. The soldiers who committed brutal, vicious murders at My Lai and hundreds of other villages all over South Vietnam were not “nutters”. Neither are the American soldiers who are committing similar atrocities these days….
            http://morallowground.com/2012/04/18/us-82nd-airborne-soldiers-posed-for-photos-with-body-parts-of-dead-afghan-resistance-fighters/

            There are “nutters” involved of course: they are the wicked ideologues who send young men to commit these crimes.

            And unless the women had telepathic powers, they had no idea whether they were in danger or not – they were fucking brave and heroic.

            Wow! That was a whole street full of “fucking brave and heroic” civilians choosing to not run away. But let’s be perfectly serious here: I think that you know, just like those Londoners knew, that those two men were neither insane nor dangerous to anyone except British soldiers.

            I have no doubt that you will be pushing the British government’s outlandish take on this over the next week or so. That is what Matthew Parris was up to this morning. You need to be aware that you will be forcefully refuted every time you attempt to do so.
            • Populuxe1 10.1.2.1.1.1

              23 May 2013 at 8:43 pm

              Oh. My. God. You are actually completely derranged. You make the chemtrail conspiracy theorists look vaguely lucid.
              • Morrissey …

                23 May 2013 at 8:56 pm

                Oh. My. God. You are actually completely derranged. You make the chemtrail conspiracy theorists look vaguely lucid.

                Feigning hysterical outrage is not any kind of response.

                Well, it is for you, I guess.

                (Believe it or not, folks, that hilariously inadequate spray represents an improvement in quality by our friend.)
                • Murray Olsen …

                  24 May 2013 at 1:46 am

                  I believe it.
                • Professor Longhair …

                  24 May 2013 at 10:51 am

                  “Feigning hysterical outrage is not any kind of response.”

                  Sadly, that seems to be all this “Populuxe1” specimen is capable of.
          • Te Reo Putake 10.1.2.1.2

            23 May 2013 at 8:41 pm

            Spot on, Pop. These cowards were no more political than Charles Manson (and mysogynist to boot, all that chauvinist crap about ‘our women’).
            • Populuxe1 10.1.2.1.2.1

              23 May 2013 at 8:45 pm

              You would think the fact that most normal Muslims find this sort of thing horrific might actually register with Morrissey along the line. Perhaps he doesn’t realise how patronising and Islamophobic it is to imply that within Islam these kinds of behaviours can find justification.
              • Morrissey …

                23 May 2013 at 8:59 pm

                You would think the fact that most normal Muslims find this sort of thing horrific might actually register with Morrissey along the line. Perhaps he doesn’t realise how patronising and Islamophobic it is to imply that within Islam these kinds of behaviours can find justification.

                I have never suggested these kinds of behaviours can find justification. You’re making it up. Again.

                You are ethically null and void. You have no standards. You are a flagrant and repetitive liar.

                Are you Steve Hoadley?
                • Populuxe1 …

                  23 May 2013 at 9:06 pm

                  By claiming that these kinds of behaviours are not “insane”, ergo “sane” you are doing exactly that – your justification is normalising extreme behaviour, that they are somehow naturalised, indeed moral, and therefore you are a slimy, repellent reptile, and quite possibly a sociopath as you seem to lack any human empathy.
                  • Morrissey …

                    23 May 2013 at 9:17 pm

                    By claiming that these kinds of behaviours are not “insane”, ergo “sane” you are doing exactly that – your justification is normalising extreme behaviour, that they are somehow naturalised, indeed moral,

                    I reject your simplistic and politically motivated mis-labelling; that does not mean I endorse this political killing or any political killing. If you want to see someone normalising extreme behaviour, I suggest you scroll down to our good friend Te Reo Putake’s comments exonerating the heroic royal killer Prince Harry.

                    and therefore you are a slimy, repellent reptile, and quite possibly a sociopath as you seem to lack any human empathy.

                    Nope. Lamely hurling epithets won’t bolster a non-existent case, my man. It will only make you seem desperate.

                    You got nuthin’.

                    Once again: ARE YOU STEVE HOADLEY?
                  • Professor Longhair …

                    24 May 2013 at 10:58 am

                    One “Populuxe1” dished out some more substandard abuse, when he called a fellow Standardista, sans evidence, “a slimy, repellent reptile, and quite possibly a sociopath”.

                    For someone who likes to dish out the ad homs, it has to be noted that Populuxe1 is not very good at it. He is no Joe Pesci.
                    • Private Baldric …

                      24 May 2013 at 11:05 am

                      Good one Corporal Morrissey.
            • Morrissey 10.1.2.1.2.2

              23 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

              These cowards were no more political than Charles Manson…

              Errr, yes they were.
          • Pascal's bookie 10.1.2.1.3

            23 May 2013 at 8:57 pm

            ” And unless the women had telepathic powers, they had no idea whether they were in danger or not – they were fucking brave and heroic.”

            No argument there, it was incredible behaviour.

            “Brutal, vicious killers of any description are nutters – sane people don’t really do brutal and vicious murder.”

            But this is just tautology. It just defines brutal murder as insanity, which means insanity isn’t a useful explanation for it.

            Political violence has a long history though, it is always awful, please don’t think I’m justifying it, but just because it is awful doesn’t mean it is irrational given certain presuppositions. There are loads of things that happen in wars that are brutal and horrific and done for chillingly rational reasons.

            It seems to me that if these people see themselves as being at war, then that accounts for their behaviour.

            Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to me (because you haven’t explained what you mean) that your description of it as insane simply cuts the discussion off. It denies the possibility of understanding what it is that is happening because it’s beyond comprehension, it’s just some irrationality. Is that what you are saying?
            • Populuxe1 10.1.2.1.3.1

              23 May 2013 at 9:11 pm

              Well I’m not meaning “insane” in a strictly pathological sense, no – I mean withing the realms of the consensual ethical and relational behaviours of communities and their subsets. By that definition any extreme act totally contrary to that consensus cannot be deemed totally sane – which is not the same thing as rational because as Morrissey demonstrates on a regular basis, human beings can rationalise the most horrific acts.
              • Colonial Viper …

                23 May 2013 at 9:13 pm

                These perps (enemy combatants) decided to take out a soldier of a nation whose military they oppose.

                Yes, their actions are extreme, but war is action in the extreme.
                • Populuxe1 …

                  23 May 2013 at 9:44 pm

                  You keep saying war. To quote Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
                  One unorganised British citizen acting alone, attacking an unsuspecting member of Her Majesty’s armed forces doesn’t constitute a war.
                  • Pascal's bookie …

                    23 May 2013 at 10:09 pm

                    You should do some reading on 4th generation warfare. Loads of military analysts disagree with you.
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:10 pm

                      No, if he’d stabbed or shot the soldier then possibly I might let you away with that reasoning, but what he did was chopped the guy’s fucking head off in public and then loudly announced his reason for doing so in a speech that could serve no possible purpose than to inspire terror among the civilian population. He wasn’t efficiently assassinating a politician and making a clean getaway, he wasn’t part of a foreign military attacking a strategic target, and it wasn’t even an act of personal revenge. It. Was. Terrorism.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:21 pm

                      P1. Atrocities occur in war. Look at Libya, look at Syria, look at Iraq. In Afghanistan, Allied munitions have killed babies, children, entire wedding parties.

                      The British and the Americans frequently describe the war on terror as global, with no limits on where and when action can occur. Today that war took the life of a British soldier on UK soil.
                    • Clockie …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:22 pm

                      So now it IS terrorism and therefore can be acknowledged to have a political motivation and therefore could also be conceivably sane and brutal at the same time?
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 May 2013 at 7:20 am

                      “It. Was. Terrorism.”

                      Quite. You seem to think that terrorism isn’t a military tactic. That’s where we disagree. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘let me get away with’ things, but ‘4th generation warfare’ is a term used to describe a style of warfare that has shifted its strategic targetting to include such things as the headspace of civilian populations.

                      Creating terror in a civilian population is a strategic goal, designed to trigger ceratin reactions from various people. Those people are the real targets, the shaock and horror of the attacks are the weapons. A ‘clean’ assasination would be a different type of attack, with a different strategic purpose. The brutality does not stem from ‘insanity’ but from the desire to create an effect. That desire to get the effect is why they waited around and fairly calmly asked people to photograph them, and talk to them, and share their images on social media. And look at the front pages. Direct hit I’d say.
              • Pascal's bookie …

                23 May 2013 at 9:21 pm

                Why don’t you just use the word radical, or something similar. It would seem to fit better with what you are saying, and avoid the both stigma against people with mental health issues and confusion.

                But saying that sanity is acting within the realms of consensus does mean that acting outside that realm, whatever it is, would be insane. But there are assumptions there about the nature of communities and subsets there that go against how things actually work. there are in fact, radical communities within Islam. Just as there have been within the western leaft at times and within pretty much all groups at various times.

                I’m not sure what’s gained in terms of understanding by using ‘insanity’ as a descriptor. Are we left to call it irrational and just, what exactly?
            • ghostrider888 10.1.2.1.3.2

              24 May 2013 at 4:39 pm

              This Pb.
        • Private Baldric 10.1.2.2

          23 May 2013 at 6:43 pm

          Oh Morrisey you are such an example to the rest of us
          • Morrissey 10.1.2.2.1

            23 May 2013 at 9:01 pm

            Oh Morrisey you are such an example to the rest of us.

            Thank you Baldric! Diiiiiis-missed!
            • Private Baldric 10.1.2.2.1.1

              24 May 2013 at 11:02 am

              My pleasure.

              Captain Adder said there hasn’t been a better example of a know-it-all self-important unctuous cunt since good old general Haig.

              Captain Adder asked which of your disguises will you be using today , prof longhair, jac a napes, joe orton or empedocoles so he can make sure to direct the mortars in the right direction.

              Turnip also sends her regards.

              [lprent: Speculation about the identity is not allowed. Read the privacy section of our policy because we are literally the only ones who . To show why, the prof hasn’t been using any other handles from his IP. He also isn’t Morrissey, unless he has an instantaneous transportation device or is really paranoid about using residental portals.

              Which means that you appear to be a bit of a turnip – after a rectal insertion. ]
              • Professor Longhair …

                24 May 2013 at 11:10 am

                “Captain Adder said there hasn’t been a better example of a know-it-all self-important unctuous cunt since good old general Haig.”

                It’s a difficult one to call, but I think most observers would agree with these rankings for self-important unctuous cuntishness….

                1.) Populuxe1

                2.) Te Reo Putake

                3.) General Haig*

                * At least he had a sense of humour.
                • Te Reo Putake …

                  24 May 2013 at 3:13 pm

                  I demand a recunt!
                  • Clockie …

                    24 May 2013 at 3:16 pm

                    That was good 🙂
                  • Professor Longhair …

                    24 May 2013 at 3:40 pm

                    “I demand a recunt!”

                    Sorry to burst your bubble, old fellow, but in spite of your rather offbeam rhetoric over the last day or so, you are a model of classical restraint and good taste when compared to that vat of scum that calls itself “Populuxe1”.
              • Clockie …

                24 May 2013 at 11:24 am

                Did Captain Blackadder have any suitably sardonic words to say about company clerk populuxicle?
              • Populuxe1 …

                24 May 2013 at 2:45 pm

                And yet the repeated utterences of “ARE YOU STEVE HOADLEY?” apparently doesn’t qualify.

                [lprent: I deal with such things when I see them. I saw that last night as I remember it. I also fixed the search last night so it should be easy to find…

                http://thestandard.org.nz/?s=HOADLEY&isopen=block&search_posts=true&search_comments=true&search_sortby=date

                3rd down at 9:10pm last night. I didn’t pick up on the most of the earlier ones because they weren’t direct accusations. Looks like I warned on the second one as I work backwards in the comments. M must have done later one while I was moderating. ]
                • Clockie …

                  24 May 2013 at 3:02 pm

                  Wrong yet again. Look below 10.3.3.2.2
                  • ghostrider888 …

                    24 May 2013 at 3:06 pm

                    btw, some background reading;
                    The New Imperialist Order : Indigenous Responses to Globalization. Makere Stewart- Harawira.
                    http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-4658-9781842775295.aspx
    • David H 10.2

      23 May 2013 at 2:13 pm

      And as soon as they mentioned the T word, all the TV news readers were all a quiver when saying it.
    • karol 10.3

      23 May 2013 at 2:33 pm

      I don’t like the judgement of the actions as “random wicked insanity”. however, Parris also was critical of the rush to label the attacks as ones of “terrorisim”.
      • ratesarerevolting 10.3.1

        23 May 2013 at 3:43 pm

        What would you like this act of murder called then ?
        • karol 10.3.1.1

          23 May 2013 at 6:47 pm

          How about “murder”?
      • Morrissey 10.3.2

        23 May 2013 at 6:07 pm

        I don’t like the judgement of the actions as “random wicked insanity”. however, Parris also was critical of the rush to label the attacks as ones of “terrorisim”.

        Of course he was: to admit that this murder was a terrorist act means that it was a political act.
        • karol 10.3.2.1

          23 May 2013 at 6:48 pm

          Agreed. Though calling something a “political act” has different connotations from calling something a “terrorist act”.
        • Te Reo Putake 10.3.2.2

          23 May 2013 at 8:37 pm

          Bullshit, nothing political about it all. They weren’t chanting ‘who’s got the power?’.
          • Colonial Viper 10.3.2.2.1

            23 May 2013 at 9:03 pm

            Its an extension of the war on terror carried out by the UK in Afghanistan brought back to British soil. The men captured today are ‘enemy combatants’ who today targetted and killed an enemy soldier today.

            BTW all war is political.
          • Morrissey 10.3.2.2.2

            23 May 2013 at 9:05 pm

            Bullshit, nothing political about it all.

            That’s right. It just came out of the blue. The words of the killers weren’t political. They made no sense. What has Britain ever done that would cause anyone to take such violent actions in its capital city?

            Nothing political. Nothing to report. Move along now, or we’ll pin a false rape charge on you.
          • Colonial Viper 10.3.2.2.3

            23 May 2013 at 9:08 pm

            The language attributed to one of the men filmed at the scene, and brandishing a bloodied knife, was stark: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We must fight them.

            “I apologise that women had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.”

            Nothing political about this eh TRP?

            (from The Guardian online)
            • Te Reo Putake 10.3.2.2.3.1

              23 May 2013 at 9:41 pm

              Nope. Chopping someones head off in the main street is madness, whatever the nutters claim as justification. Be it Islam, or politics, this was not a sane or moral act.
              • Clockie …

                23 May 2013 at 10:08 pm

                Think you need to go away and do some calm reflection there TRP. You’re on a hiding to nothing with that logic.
                • Te Reo Putake …

                  23 May 2013 at 10:11 pm

                  Yeah, feel free to show me where the sanity and morality of this act of brutality is.
                  • Clockie …

                    23 May 2013 at 10:28 pm

                    You’re thinking with your gut not your head. You’re usually better than that.

                    And I don’t believe anyone has gone in to bat for this as being a moral act so please don’t head for the high horse. All anyone has said is it’s no more insane than many other brutal acts carried out in the name of ….whatever…
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    23 May 2013 at 10:44 pm

                    Nope. Chopping someones head off in the main street is madness, whatever the nutters claim as justification. Be it Islam, or politics, this was not a sane or moral act.

                    If you read the eyewitness accounts the perps were quite lucid and intelligible. They weren’t high, they weren’t drunk, they didn’t run away, they waited for the authorities. They attacked the British soldier and left all the nearby civilians alone. They clearly stated a political motive for their actions.

                    Just because you do not approve of their methods or understand their motives doesn’t make them “nutters”.
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:05 pm

                      “Just because you do not approve of their methods or understand their motives doesn’t make them “nutters”.”
                      It does if it defies the ability of a sane person to understand it.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:14 pm

                      I reckon several tens of millions of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan have no problems understanding what happened in South East London today.
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:36 pm

                      “I reckon several tens of millions of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan have no problems understanding what happened in South East London today.”

                      Take your hand off it CV. By that token there are tens of millions of people in the US, Europe, the UK, Australia and elsewhere who have no problems understanding why the west is hunting down and exterminating Al-Qaeda and the people who protect them. You actually make me nauseous you sick nasty fuck.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:39 pm

                      By that token there are tens of millions of people in the US, Europe, the UK, Australia and elsewhere who have no problems understanding why the west is hunting down and exterminating Al-Qaeda and the people who protect them.

                      The fact that you made that statement (which I cannot disagree with) yet choose to deny that the “other side” can also have a similar rationale and perspective, is what is both fucking sick and closed minded of you.

                      And please feel free to puke, I don’t give a damn how you feel on this issue.

                      BTW no intelligence service can define what Al Qaeda is, so how the fuck they are going to exterminate them I have no idea. I guess that’s why the CIA head (?) admitted to Congress this week that the war on terror could last the next 20 years.
                    • Te Reo Putake …

                      24 May 2013 at 8:23 am

                      The hacking off of the head of their victim is what makes them nutters, CV. It’s an act of lunacy.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 May 2013 at 8:56 am

                      “It’s an act of lunacy.”

                      Deliberate lunacy even; all the better to scare you with my dear.

                      Do you think it was unintended that the image of the guy with blood soaked hands still holding his blades is on so many front pages today? Visceral, innit?

                      That is the image people will have when they think about yesterday’s events. OMG they cray cray, can’t be reasoned with, implacable muthafuckas.
                    • muzza …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:54 pm

                      P’s B – Upstairs for thinking!
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      24 May 2013 at 3:19 pm

                      Whereas making innocent people experience “simulated drowning” for hours during water boarding in friendly countries known for torture and summary executions is not “lunacy” but merely “enhanced interrogation”? You see, IMO the UK and the USA deliberately decided to give up the Geneva Convention and the moral high ground in this war quite some time ago.
              • Clockie …

                23 May 2013 at 11:10 pm

                “Chopping someones head off in the main street is madness, whatever the nutters claim as justification.”

                Tell it to the Saudis..

                Or the revolutionary tribunal of 1793-94..
                • Colonial Viper …

                  23 May 2013 at 11:44 pm

                  Or the German Generals that the Allies hanged after the Nuremberg Trials, whom they let choke to death for 20 long minutes on a rope instead of hanging them properly.
                  • Populuxe1 …

                    23 May 2013 at 11:56 pm

                    Riiiiight – there’s obviously some sort of comparison between beheading someone you don’t know on the street and hanging a bunch of monsters responsible for the systematic extermination of six million people after a full trial. Very good CV.
                    You know the Nazis actually reintroduced beheading specifically for German citizens who wouldn’t knuckle under – they called it Fallbiel – that gives you an idea of th ewort of people who chop heads off and why they choose that particular method. Here’s a little video for you
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:59 pm

                      Tip for the wise: you don’t get to pick and choose the weapons and the methods that your enemy uses against you.
                    • Professor Longhair …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:32 pm

                      “You know the Nazis actually reintroduced beheading specifically for German citizens who wouldn’t knuckle under – they called it Fallbiel.”

                      No danger of that happening to an obedient peddler of state lies like yourself then. Sleep easy, amigo.
                • Populuxe1 …

                  23 May 2013 at 11:45 pm

                  Oh dear. You really aren’t the brightest crayon in the box. The Saudis? An absolutist Wahabi monarchy so oppressive of women that even the Iranians think they’re nuts? You betcha they cray cray. Have you ever met a Saudi away from home? First thing they do is drop the traditional clobber and head to the nearest bar to get drunk and pick up members of their preferred gender with a cathartic enthusiasm that borders on the suicidal.
                  As for the revolutionary tribunal of 1793-94, let’s just call it by it’s popular name of The Terror. A reign of sadists and psycopaths that murdered half a million people. Are you actually insane?
                  • Clockie …

                    24 May 2013 at 12:00 am

                    Yes well, as you get pushed further into the corner you carefully built for yourself, your definition of insanity becomes broader and deeper. Can you see that? Can you see where this debate is going to finish? Because I think I can see you rapidly heading in the direction where you define insanity as all those people who use extreme violence and brutality to further their political and / or religious ends and that is exactly how I defined it at 10.3.3.3 below. It is also a mighty large sampling of the human race over a long swathe of human history.

                    Oh and try to keep your waspish little lemon flavoured asides to yourself. They simply put me in mind of John Key doing his gay impersonation.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:02 am

                      But war should be like pressing buttons on a video game screen…
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:11 am

                      Not even close. Despite the awful and regrettable casualties of the war in Afgahnistan, the west isn’t actually strategically going out of their way to kill civilians – it doesn’t need the martyrs. Unfortunately these terrorists do love to hide in civilian communities. It’s a paradox of two evils. Like most people I hate it, but I cannot resolve it. Terrorists, on the other hand, go out of their way to target civilians for maximum impact. That’s why they’re terrorists.
                      By the way, I am gay you nasty little homophobe. If you have a problem with the way I express myself, you can suck it.
                    • Clockie …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:21 am

                      I don’t have a problem with gays at all you Twat. What I have a problem with is abusive little acid tongued idiots who can dish it out but don’t like it when it comes flying back at them. By the way you’ll notice that I said your feeble taunts put me in mind of a STRAIGHT but WANKERISH guy doing a poor imitation of the stereotypical gay. If that particular cap fits you then feel free to wear it. Boy are you off form tonight. Pack it in while you’re behind..
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:32 am

                      OK, the Allies don’t mean to kill Afghan civilians…which they have by the multiple thousands…and which is unavoidable given the tactics and munitions which are chosen by the Allies; those people are simply unintentional and unfortunate collateral damage in this global war.
      • Populuxe1 10.3.3

        23 May 2013 at 6:36 pm

        How do you justify any act of murder, let alone something as savage and brutal as this, as SANE?
        • Pascal's bookie 10.3.3.1

          23 May 2013 at 7:27 pm

          Courts manage to do it often enough.

          Perhaps you could explain what you mean by ‘sane’?

          If you just saying that things you don’t understand aren’t sane, or that all political violence is insane, then fair enough, but it does render the whole thing kind of useless in terms of what we should do, or how we might understand it.

          Often, when things are explained through the ‘insanity’ gambit, we are left with that as the explanation, it is simply inexplicable insanity. It’s about as much use as saying ‘It is evil what caused it’.

          Like I say, fair enough, but not very useful.
          • Morrissey 10.3.3.1.1

            23 May 2013 at 8:47 pm

            Like I say, fair enough, but not very useful.

            Actually, to write off this political murder as “insane” is not fair at all, but it is certainly very useful—to the British government.

            That killer was sane, and coherent, and reasonable. Every person who watches that horrific video can understand his political point, and the British government is in a very difficult position because of it. I have no doubt that Cameron and his ministers will studiously continue to call this an insane act, and the media will obediently amplify that message.

            Welcome to the Soviet Union, circa 1936.
        • Morrissey 10.3.3.2

          23 May 2013 at 8:41 pm

          How do you justify any act of murder, let alone something as savage and brutal as this, as SANE?

          I condemn that brutal killing. But to label it as “insane” is a strategy that the British government wants you to follow.

          That horrific Woolwich murder was as sane, and as moral, as THIS….
          
          • Te Reo Putake 10.3.3.2.1

            23 May 2013 at 8:46 pm

            You appear to be saying that this killing was moral. Pretty sure that makes you a grade one arsehole.
            • Morrissey 10.3.3.2.1.1

              23 May 2013 at 8:51 pm

              You appear to be saying that this killing was moral.

              No, I don’t appear to be saying that, because I am not saying that. You seem to be slow catching on, so I’ll state unequivocally: I condemn the brutal political killing of an off-duty soldier in London.

              Pretty sure that makes you a grade one arsehole.

              It certainly would, if that was what I said.

              By the way, have you condemned the far more numerous, far bloodier acts perpetrated by British and American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? And if not, why not?
              • Te Reo Putake …

                23 May 2013 at 8:59 pm

                Bollocks. You equate this killing with Prince Harry’s day job. You see it as if it has a comparitive moral dimension, therefore you think, at some neanderthal level, that it’s moral.
                • Morrissey …

                  23 May 2013 at 9:07 pm

                  Bollocks. You equate this killing with Prince Harry’s day job.

                  I certainly do. And so does anyone who is honest.

                  You see it as if it has a comparitive moral dimension, therefore you think, at some neanderthal level, that it’s moral.

                  No, I don’t think killing people is moral. Unlike you.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    23 May 2013 at 10:55 pm

                    It’s just a “day job” for Prince Harry, he’s just following orders and doing what he is paid to do. Quite acceptable. Unlike these nutters.
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:15 pm

                      If Prince Harry ever runs up to a British citizen of Argentinian descent, on a London street, in public, and chops his head off while ranting about it being revenge for the Falklands War, I’ll let you know.
                    • Clockie …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:27 pm

                      What do you say about a British cop rushing up to an innocent Brazilian and blowing his head off in a crowded commuter train?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:31 pm

                      That’s quite acceptable collateral damage clockie, as the officer was on “our side” and his actions were perfectly understandable (and sane).

                      If Prince Harry ever runs up to a British citizen of Argentinian descent, on a London street, in public

                      Yes, pressing a button to fire a cruise missile into the middle of a village is so much cleaner, humane, and acceptable.
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:47 pm

                      Let’s see how you respond when people are blowing up busses and trains in your city and no one knows what’s going on, dick.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:46 am

                      Are you saying that is what the war in Afghanistan is somehow preventing?
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      24 May 2013 at 8:51 am

                      Pop, terrorism produces repsonses from the target population you say? Gosh! Who would have thought? (Hint: Every terrorist ever. It’s why they do it.)
              • Professor Longhair …

                24 May 2013 at 11:03 am

                “By the way, have you condemned the far more numerous, far bloodier acts perpetrated by British and American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? And if not, why not?”

                It might be of interest to others that this “Te Reo Putake” tick has studiously avoided answering that question.

                His silence speaks louder than his confused and contradictory words, in this case.
          • Populuxe1 10.3.3.2.2

            23 May 2013 at 8:58 pm

            Why? Are you suggesting that Muslims are normally out to commit bloodthirsty atrocities in the name of revenge? Most British Muslims would label it as “insane” as well. Muslims for all of their diverse sects and nationalities are, by and large, normal, dignified, compassionate people who do not go around stabbing, or as in another recent case, beheading strangers. Can you not see how patronising that actually is?
            • Morrissey 10.3.3.2.2.1

              23 May 2013 at 9:10 pm

              Why? Are you suggesting that Muslims are normally out to commit bloodthirsty atrocities in the name of revenge? Most British Muslims would label it as “insane” as well. Muslims for all of their diverse sects and nationalities are, by and large, normal, dignified, compassionate people who do not go around stabbing, or as in another recent case, beheading strangers. Can you not see how patronising that actually is?

              I have said none of those things. You are making everything up. Yet again.

              I repeat: ARE YOU STEVE HOADLEY?

              [lprent: Guessing people’s real life identities or even speculating on them is something that you cannot do. If they offer it willingly that is one thing. But for everything else along that line there is only me and I’m a bit of a bastard about protecting identities (read our privacy policy or even try to find out where our databases are located). Desist. ]
              • Populuxe1 …

                23 May 2013 at 9:20 pm

                You are actually. You are justifying acts by an extremist, a jihadist, whatever you want to call him, when most Muslims and Islam as a whole, would not. You are doing this by the Chomsky-patented causistral method of not totally condemning an action because the other side does things you consider equally bad. Your grasp of where the loyalties of most British Mulims lie is also quite bizarre if you think they would regard this barbaric act as in any way, shape or form reflecting their position. If it had been anyone else, we would probably have to assume he was on meth.
                • Morrissey …

                  23 May 2013 at 9:48 pm

                  You are actually. You are justifying acts by an extremist, a jihadist, whatever you want to call him, when most Muslims and Islam as a whole, would not. You are doing this by the Chomsky-patented causistral method of not totally condemning an action because the other side does things you consider equally bad. Your grasp of where the loyalties of most British Mulims lie is also quite bizarre if you think they would regard this barbaric act as in any way, shape or form reflecting their position. If it had been anyone else, we would probably have to assume he was on meth.

                  You’re still making things up. I have not justified any of these acts. Perhaps in your (drink-fuelled?) delirium, you have mistaken me for Te Reo Putake, who DOES justify such acts, as long as they’re done by OUR guys, and as long as they’re in SMARTLY PRESSED UNIFORMS.

                  By the way, before you start trying to dump on Chomsky, it might help if you read him first.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    23 May 2013 at 10:48 pm

                    No doubt if you accidentally blow apart 20 innocent Afghan villagers into wet smithereens using a million dollar cruise missile, that is “sane” and “justifiable”.

                    In comparison decapitating a soldier with an actual knife by hand in person is so, gross, dirty and barbaric, so they must be “nutters”. You know, because no one used bayonets against British soldiers, or sharpened spades and entrenching tools against German soldiers in WWII.
                    • Clockie …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:07 pm

                      Preeecisely. I wondered if I should make a list of all the barbaric acts carried out by soldiers in time of warfare, which would normally be described as brutal but SANE because, hey, that’s just the way war is. Then I realised I didn’t have enough time left in this life to complete the task.
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:23 pm

                      Fuck, how many times. If this nutjob decided to go to Afghanistan and fight along side the Taliban, fine. Instead he, a British citizen, in public, on a London street surrounded by Londoners about their business, went up to a British soldier who he certainly didn’t know for sure had killed any Muslims, and of his own choosing and volition chopped his fucking head off – one of the most graphic ways of killing someone – and then concluded with “You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.” That is terrorism, open and shut: “the use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion”.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:36 pm

                      Fuck, how many times. If this nutjob decided to go to Afghanistan and fight along side the Taliban, fine. Instead he, a British citizen, in public, on a London street surrounded by Londoners about their business

                      I see, it’s OK if the global war on terror happens on the doorsteps of backward villagers far far away, but please don’t do it in front of London doorsteps?

                      PS what does the word “global” in “global war on terror” mean to you? Do you think it means “in dirty raghead countries only, not in civilised countries we like and visit?”
                    • Clockie …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:42 pm

                      Fuck, how many times? It doesn’t (in terms of this debate) MATTER that it was brutal. We are arguing about whether, by the thought processes of those who are engaged in a war, conventional or unconventional, symmetric or asymmetric, it is SANE to carry out brutal acts if furtherance of your aims. You have already agreed that they are terrorists, therefore they are political, therefore they have motive and if they consider themselves to be part of a jihad of some sort, I think we can find plenty of examples throughout history of exactly this kind of activity. Not many on London streets in the modern age I grant you, but if you engage in asymmetric warfare with fundamentalist radical Islamists (given their history and religious motivation) who are scattered through migrant populations in every major city in the western world, this is what you’ll get. Actually totally predictable.

                      NB. A soldier was targeted. That is a brutal, clinical, political message being sent as loudly and clearly as possible. A bit like dropping an A bomb on Nagasaki.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 May 2013 at 11:52 pm

                      The active-duty soldier who was the victim today had also served in Afghanistan. Who wasn’t just some UK based desk jockey.

                      P1 is also highly mistaken when he thinks it is “fine” as long as these “nut jobs” do their thing in Afghanistan or Syria and not in the UK. From the Guardian online:

                      Hundreds of Britons are known to have gone to Syria over the last two years to support the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian conflict is now the “jihadist destination of choice”, according to Whitehall officials. Britons are also known to have been involved with the al-Nusra front, which is heavily infused with al-Qaida elements from Iraq and has been designated a terrorist group by the US.

                      Some of those people going abroad from the UK were already known to MI5 and MI6; some have now returned home. Many others will have come and gone without investigators knowing.

                      The same thing has happened in Somalia, where a smaller number of Britons have been in recent years, to support the al-Qaida affiliate al-Shabaab.

                      “What they do when they come back here is more worrying to us than what they do when they are out there,” is how one official put it.
                    • Populuxe1 …

                      24 May 2013 at 2:51 pm

                      Hey. CV. he was a drummer. Did he drum too loud or something?
              • Morrissey …

                24 May 2013 at 7:08 am

                Sorry Lyn. As they say in parliament, I withdraw and apologize.
        • Clockie 10.3.3.3

          23 May 2013 at 10:24 pm

          “How do you justify any act of murder, let alone something as savage and brutal as this, as SANE?”

          How do you justify any of the brutal acts carried out in warfare as sane? It doesn’t matter whether it is organised (armies of nation states) in conventional warfare or the more disorganised formats eg terror cells (red brigade) or irregular rebel armies (shining path) conducting asymmetric warfare. Yes, there is a sense in which all violence is insane, because it rarely solves problems in the way the perpetrators believe it will. But the human animal has been using extreme violence to deal with all sorts of issues throughout our time on the planet. Shrieking “INSANITY” at the top of your voice does not solve the problem or involve any greater degree of higher thought processes than those used by the people you are calling insane.
          • Populuxe1 10.3.3.3.1

            23 May 2013 at 11:25 pm

            Flying planes into buildings and blowing up busses and nightclubs isn’t sane either – you may have forgotten what started this in the first place.
            • Clockie 10.3.3.3.1.1

              23 May 2013 at 11:50 pm

              I haven’t at all; forgotten what “started this in the first place”. I can tell you that in the minds of bin Laden and his merry men it started well before they decided to have a go at the twin towers.

              I think you’re starting to struggle a bit on the logic front here. Go and have a breather why not?
              • Colonial Viper …

                23 May 2013 at 11:57 pm

                I always thought it a bit funny that 9/11 caused the Allies to invade…Iraq.

                Which was a secular country which suppressed Islamist fundamentalism, Saddam himself did not have the time of day for Al Qaeda, and the Baathists had nothing at all to do with the hijacking plot.

                While the countries that the 9/11 hijackers were most closely related to (Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) were totally ignored.

                Funny eh.
                • Populuxe1 …

                  24 May 2013 at 12:01 am

                  Actuall I agree with you there, but George W Bush had a vendetta to pursue and he lied and manipulated to do so, and there are few people who do not now know this and are not disgusted – so not really an excuse any more and a bit beside the point.
              • Populuxe1 …

                23 May 2013 at 11:58 pm

                And I think you are symapthising with terrorists and justify horrendous attacks on civilians. Go fuck yourself.
                • Clockie …

                  24 May 2013 at 12:08 am

                  Someone’s lost it. 🙂 When abuse is all you’ve got left in your quiver you really are firing blanks.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  24 May 2013 at 12:11 am

                  The victim today was a serving British soldier with the Royal Artillery, and had performed 2 tours in Afghanistan.
                  • Populuxe1 …

                    24 May 2013 at 12:13 am

                    That’s nice. I’m sure his family will understand.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      24 May 2013 at 12:18 am

                      He’s a victim of war. The situation is a disaster for both his family, and for the friends and family of the perps today.
                  • Populuxe1 …

                    24 May 2013 at 2:53 pm

                    As a drummer.
                    • Murray Olsen …

                      24 May 2013 at 3:21 pm

                      And a machine gunner. Do you miss stuff out deliberately?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      24 May 2013 at 3:24 pm

                      Those automatic grenade launchers can sound awfully like drums.
                    • prism …

                      24 May 2013 at 4:46 pm

                      In memory of a child of our society who must lose innocence to grow up into an adult – designated a drummer but serving as a machine gunner, and later, recruiter for war service.

                      Shall I play for you
                      Pa rum pum pum pum
                      On my drum
                      Mary nodded
                      Pa rum pum pum pum
                      The ox and lamb kept time
                      Pa rum pum pum pum
                      I played my drum for Him
                      Pa rum pum pum pum
                      I played my best for Him
                      Pa rum pum pum pum,

                      Then He smiled at me
                      Pa rum pum pum pum
                      Me and my drum
            • Professor Longhair 10.3.3.3.1.2

              24 May 2013 at 3:34 pm

              “…you may have forgotten what started this in the first place.”

              Only a damned fool would believe that this started with the reprisal attacks of September 11, 2001.

              Oh! I’ve just seen who wrote it.

              Problem solved, carry on.
              • Colonial Viper …

                24 May 2013 at 4:35 pm

                My good Professor 🙂
              • Clockie …

                24 May 2013 at 4:42 pm

                Captain, my captain!
11. Skinny 11

    23 May 2013 at 11:06 am

    More National spin on ‘using assets sales money’ to fund rail http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10885554

    Just paper shuffling when you compare the billions poured into roading, like the holiday highway to Omaha, which only really benefits the wealthy by cutting the travel time to their beach homes. Good to hear both Labour & the Greens will axe some of Nationals pet projects.
12. ianmac 12

    23 May 2013 at 11:21 am

    In the Herald:
    “Candy Atkinson and her three children huddle together in a friend’s bedroom at night and struggle to sleep a week after a group of kids burgled and trashed their home……”
    Think about those kids in Ruatoki who were terrorised by armed masked gunmen.
13. ghostrider888 13

    23 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

    New Zealand Human Rights
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10885614

    Budget Hides Bleak Economic Outlook
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10885461

    People cut back on heating homes.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10885542
    from RNZ; Labour- (Shearer)- “increased numbers if people had power cut off in 2012; 41000 disconnections due to non-payment, 10000 more than previously.
14. freedom 14

    23 May 2013 at 1:29 pm

    TPPA: points to ponder
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/135826/fonterra-looks-to-japanese-market

    Fonterra

    the TPP framework is about opening up opportunities for trade as well as supporting closer economic integration

    Hang on a minute
    – When did ‘message’ turn from economic expansion to economic integration ?
    What exactly does that [one world?] term definitively mean in relation to the TPPA ?

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/61981/nzs-us-ambassador-moore-reckons-us-economy-take-energy-prices-collapse-says-nz-demanding-

    Mike Moore

    As long as in [the] American Congress, people can say, ‘Listen, we’ve got something on intellectual property here. We’ve got something on investment. That means we have to do something in ag or some areas,’

    We are now six months after publication, I wonder if a question from the media will ever be forthcoming on just what intellectual property and investment protections we have given up ?
    Do we have to wait until after the signatures have dried?
    • freedom 14.1

      23 May 2013 at 2:24 pm

      UPDATE: just in
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/135790/groser-says-tpp-deal-could-take-longer-to-resolve

      looks like no October surprises this year
15. NickS 15

    23 May 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Once again, teh science says BMI is a crude and oft poor measure of health outcomes:
    http://www.nature.com/news/the-big-fat-truth-1.13039

    Anyhow, read the whole damn thing before it disappears behind Nature’s paywall,
16. gobsmacked 16

    23 May 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Quick head’s up: Labour leader interviewed by Duncan Garner on Radio Live, 4.10 pm.
    • karol 16.1

      23 May 2013 at 6:49 pm

      And?
      • Anne 16.1.1

        23 May 2013 at 7:30 pm

        Me too. Been waiting 3 hrs now.
        • gobsmacked 16.1.1.1

          23 May 2013 at 10:41 pm

          For my commentary, or the interview? 😉

          The Radio Live website has it, but it was disappointingly short. Only 2 topics: NZ power (which was fine, Shearer hit his lines) and Garner’s current hobby horse – legal highs versus illegal drugs. Shearer was anti-decriminalisation (of cannabis), but sort of anti-criminalising too. Waffly.

          At the end of an eventful week, it was a rather strange interview, all the elephants in the room left alone.
17. Clockie 17

    23 May 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Does anyone know why the search function isn’t working ?

    [lprent: Just moved the site. Fixed the backup databases. Sphinx search appears to have a problem gaining access to the db. Yep. Fixed – needed IP access on its login. ]
    • freedom 17.1

      23 May 2013 at 10:43 pm

      last few days there has been a lot of work done by lprent, I think he was shifting the site
      • Clockie 17.1.1

        23 May 2013 at 10:52 pm

        Cool. I knew there’d been a move but as no one else was mentioning the search function I thought maybe it was only kaput in the parallel universe I inhabit. 🙂

        [lprent: Nope. Waiting on time to correct it. There is something odd with a internal firewall?

        Ideally I’d like to look at my old hack at the antique plugin code and figure out a more elegant way to apply the same functionality to the upgraded version. But time is at a premium at present (yet again).]
      • lprent 17.1.2

        24 May 2013 at 12:58 am

        Damn good thing that I did. The old primary server has now been off for 5 hours. It is a pain as there is still some data I want to take off it.

        This evening I was optimizing the connection between the web servers and the database servers to make sure there was always a warm backup available. Don’t want to get caught out by the same kind of issue again.
    • Clockie 17.2

      24 May 2013 at 1:51 am

      Cheers. Thanks for the reply.
18. lprent 18

    24 May 2013 at 12:22 am

    Test message. Has the trial shift of the database to the other instance worked.

    Apparently yes – the comment saved.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS