Open mike 24/10/2019

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, October 24th, 2019 - 125 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

125 comments on “Open mike 24/10/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Incognito 1.1
      24 October 2019 at 7:48 am

      Because that is not true but you feel it is. That’s the problem with fallacies, fake facts/factoids, urban myths, et cetera, they intuitively feel right and true but they aren’t.

      • Dukeofurl 1.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 8:09 am

        In this case the innocent person driving to work was killed by another car speeding through a red light who was chased ( unnecessarily) by the Police.

        Not a factoid at all.

        • Incognito 1.1.1.1
          24 October 2019 at 10:00 am

          Jimmy’s comment is worded in a sloppy way that shows sloppy thinking, IMO. It is factually incorrect and uses meaningless adjectives that show it is a largely emotive comment. Lastly, Jimmy’s comment extrapolated from one specific event to generalize.

          • marty mars 1.1.1.1.1
            24 October 2019 at 10:08 am

            where does diversity sit with you – in comments that is – as in people writing in a variety of styles and ways which may, or may not, get the message that they are trying to get across, across?

            • Sabine 1.1.1.1.1.1
              24 October 2019 at 10:44 am

              no dyslexics or other wise writing challenged people need to apply. Its one of these things that happen every now and then where comments get laughed out a room on grounds of grammar and comas or the lack there of, and i guess it is easier to do that then to comment on the merit of the post itself.

              never mind that if the coppers would not have chased these dumbarse youngsters but rather try to apprehend them later the guys going to work at early morning hours would still be alive and / or healthy.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.2
              24 October 2019 at 3:05 pm

              Except that whatever was the message jimmy was trying to get across, the message he actually delivered was a stepping stone to the senseless-sentencing crowd.

              If it's always the "innocent law abiding" who get killed, then that gets tweaked into a callous disregard for others.

              If everyone including the driver are in danger, it becomes a much more complex problem to determine why these situations happen. We start to consider brain development and the effects of panic and adrenaline, and then we start to wonder if there's a better way to intercept folk for traffic offences, or even whether interception is the safest option compared to other enforcement measures.

              • marty mars …
                24 October 2019 at 3:32 pm

                to me it seemed more of a plaintive cliched sigh from jimmy – no question mark and not really a big call to debate

                Your points are valid.

              • David Mac …
                24 October 2019 at 8:19 pm

                Yep, we need to get creative with a solution. Chasing inexperienced unlicensed drivers in often stolen cars is turning out crap too often.

                If someone pinches my iphone I can log onto an app that will show me exactly where my iphone is. A flashing light on a Google map. Maybe it's time we put similar tech into cars and when warranted, allow the Police to watch a winking light on an in car Google map and pursue at 50 kph.

            • Incognito 1.1.1.1.1.3
              24 October 2019 at 9:55 pm

              When people sing in the shower or having one-on-one conversation with themselves, they can express themselves any way they like. When they comment on this site, they should articulate their thoughts in a way that can be reasonably followed and understood by others IMO. I would like to think that this is the point of commenting here unless they’re a troll. As long as a few basic rules are followed, we can avoid Babylonian confusion of languages [plural, although it may all seem English]. In addition, say what you mean and mean what you say, i.e. be clear, be honest, and be genuine. The less we spend here parsing sentences, the more we can focus on the exchange and contest of ideas that may even lead to tangible actionable outcomes. How To Get There is an example of an attempt to transform clear well-understood comments into practice for the greater good. Otherwise, it would be just another ‘talk fest’, which still has its function but much less potential or real/direct impact.

              I hope that answered your question in a roundabout way.

          • Jimmy 1.1.1.1.2
            25 October 2019 at 10:01 am

            To be more factual then, an innocent person on their way to work is now dead due to actions from a young driver who decided to break the law.

            • Incognito 1.1.1.1.2.1
              25 October 2019 at 10:21 am

              Yes, I think we can all agree with that and the sad fact that sometimes innocent bystanders are hurt or killed even.

            • greywarshark 1.1.1.1.2.2
              25 October 2019 at 10:47 am

              But drivers old and young break the law every day and people aren't dead afterwards Jimmy. There must be some other reason for this death. It is a puzzle isn't it.

              • Jimmy …
                25 October 2019 at 11:41 am

                Breaking the law by parking on yellow lines – bad.

                Breaking the law by speeding away from police and going through a red light – very bad.

        • Ngungukai 1.1.1.2
          24 October 2019 at 2:20 pm

          Got to love these Police Chases ?

          • David Mac 1.1.1.2.1
            24 October 2019 at 8:43 pm

            Yep we soak them up, guilt-free rubbernecking.

            Nothing generates utube hits like a "Police chase ends with petrol tanker exploding." headline.

            There is rare fame to be found in running, martyrdom. We all love Vanishing Point, he died. To be realistic, the Hollywood runners need to die. Running from the Police is a plan that always ends in a worse situation.

            Much better to pull over and declare "Hi, I'm Davo, the illegitimate son of the Sultan of Brunei."

            • David Mac 1.1.1.2.1.1
              24 October 2019 at 9:10 pm

              If I could get the officer engaged in my folly, me, the pseudo offspring of the Sultan, it could generate enough utube hits to pay the fine…. and rent.

              Utube would kick the concept to the kerb but a Patreon channel could find traction. What would happen if a crew of petty criminal burglars put cameras on their balaclavas and before going to air pixelled out incriminating footage? They could donate all proceeds, viewer hits and TV's pawned, to charity. Electronic Robin Hoods.

              I think audiences would suck it up, a ride-a-long with burglars. I think it's an international money spinning winner. Unfortunately, I've got something else on the go at the moment….something legal.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.2.1.2
              24 October 2019 at 9:18 pm

              Best plan is get to the US consulate and they extend diplomatic immunity for your hit and run.

              I see the Children's Commissioner is calling for police chases to be stopped if youths are identified in the car. If they're wanted for something more serious, ok, but the initial choice should be to leave it for further enquiries.

              It reminds me of a chap with whom I had a work-related tussle back in the day. When he failed to turn up for sentencing, the judge issued a warrant and the police didn't bother searching for him beyond minimal effort. Being a dropkick, he got arrested on something else stupid (fraud for riding something with a forged ticket, I think) a few months later, no other resources expended.

              • David Mac …
                24 October 2019 at 9:38 pm

                Hounding a kid until they crash is up there with Gladiator thrills. Some aspects of civilisation are proving very slow to evolve.

              • dv …
                24 October 2019 at 9:42 pm

                Re chases.

                Could the fleeing car get tagged with a GPS chip. (May be like a taser device)

                Tracked and get cops in front to stop the car?

                • David Mac …
                  24 October 2019 at 10:01 pm

                  I think our authorities should be able to put an authorised access VIN into a computer and get a flashing light on a map.

                  • McFlock …
                    24 October 2019 at 10:40 pm

                    might as well just hack the car computer and throttle it down while keeping the steering and brakes. That sort of "minority report" stuff in 20 years.

                    Firing GPS tags or lojacks into vehicles is more problematic. Even if the electrics survive launch and impact, there are too many variables – getting it to fix an old heavy metal car vs not going through the bodywork of a plastic or coke-can car, accuracy requirements in a vehicular pursuit, if you hit an occupant (or it ricochets and hits a pedestrian) will if kill them, that sort of thing. And if they hear the thunk and you pull back, what's stopping them from knocking it off their car?

                    Besides, we're probasbly not too far off high-altitude, wide area ubiquitous surveillance anyway – "pursuit" gets managed from a control room monitoring maps and the feed from the Eye in the Sky.

    • mauī 1.2
      24 October 2019 at 8:29 am

      To help the innocent people you will be right in behind banning police pursuits then eh Jimmy..?

      Queensland has about 44,000 more people than New Zealand – yet it had 3197 fewer police pursuits in 2016.

      New Zealand had 3323 pursuits that year, resulting in seven deaths, while Queensland had only 126 pursuits and no deaths.

      Since 2009, no deaths have been officially attributed to pursuits in Queensland, whereas 22 deaths have been attributed to pursuits in New Zealand since 2014. Why is the difference so stark?

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/102180147/police-pursuits-how-new-zealand-compares-with-australia

      • Ngungukai 1.2.1
        24 October 2019 at 2:21 pm

        Poorly trained Police perhaps ?

        • Dukeofurl 1.2.1.1
          24 October 2019 at 5:26 pm

          Completely different approach….here some old car with young people attracts attention so the cops put the lights on ..teeenage brains trigger the fight or flight response and away they go.

          In QLD they have to be an existing danger to the public for there to be a full chase, otherwise they dont even do it

          It just has to happen here , it must . Hopefully the chance will come when the Police chief retires , even if they have to bring someone in from Qld !

      • Jimmy 1.2.2
        25 October 2019 at 9:53 am

        I don't know what the answer is Maui. I do not like the thought of police being unable to apprehend a person who has failed to stop when signaled if they are driving recklessly and likely to cause an accident anyway. I do think this has encouraged more (particularly young people) to run from police. Perhaps harsher penalties are needed for people that fail to stop for police, eg. jail time (simply banning them from driving has no effect as a lot of them already have no licence).

  2. Jimmy 2
    24 October 2019 at 7:37 am

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Don’t astroturf our site. You already said that with the same link and slightly different words. ]

    • Jimmy 2.1
      24 October 2019 at 8:43 am

      system crashed when I was posting comment then said I had already said that

      • lprent 2.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 8:51 am

        Ok – fair enough. I get instinctively twitchy when I see duplicate links. It always brings back bad memories of the worst days of trolling here.

  3. adam 3
    24 October 2019 at 8:54 am

    Jill Stein responds to another bat shit crazy conspiracy theory from the neo-libs in the democrats.

    22 min long – worth playing in background whilst you do some house work.



  4. Herodotus 4
    24 October 2019 at 9:07 am

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12279106

    So after becoming some of the MOST informed within NZ on the Euthanasia Bill, hearing many representations on the matter, our MP's cannot make the decision. Leave it to a referendum by those who were not so privy to public and professional feedback.

    Do they not realise that with the likes of health/housing decisions made in parliament do result in life and death situations.

    Ok to be seen in a smile and wave photo opportunity or display concern – But to do something tangible ???

    • Dukeofurl 4.1
      24 October 2019 at 12:09 pm

      Parliament may make laws but the public at large has to support them or they can get repealed. Not so much a problem here , but the future slippery slope of increasing access to euthanasia as has occurred elsewhere can be prevented by the 'public only voted for terminally ill within 6 months'

      • The Chairman 4.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 12:50 pm

        The terminally ill within 6 months falls far short IMO.

        If it's going to go to referendum, lets give the public more choices than that.

        • Incognito 4.1.1.1
          24 October 2019 at 1:08 pm

          Such as and why?

          • The Chairman 4.1.1.1.1
            24 October 2019 at 3:29 pm

            Such as, should people have the right to choose when they want to end it?

            And why, because I believe it's an individual's choice, not the States.

            • Dukeofurl 4.1.1.1.1.1
              24 October 2019 at 4:14 pm

              Didnt Sylvia Plath make that very choice and NZ has a very high rate of people choosing to end their lives at the time of their own choosing.

              • The Chairman …
                24 October 2019 at 5:04 pm

                NZ has a very high rate of people choosing to end their lives at the time of their own choosing.

                They don't have the legal right to access the humane means to do so. Furthermore, there is no legal right (for those that require it) to be assisted.

            • Incognito 4.1.1.1.1.2
              24 October 2019 at 9:28 pm

              With all due respect, that’s not much of an answer. You proposed giving the “public more choices” in the referendum but when prompted for detail, zilch, nada.

              The 6-month floor for terminally ill makes sense to me. FWIW, I think it is an unhelpful restriction of the bill and influenced by scaremongering about ‘slippery slope’ and coercion.

              You do realise this bill/referendum is about euthanasia, not suicide, don’t you?

              • The Chairman …
                24 October 2019 at 9:40 pm

                That’s not much of an answer.

                That is merely your opinion. Nevertheless, it was an answer, thus it wasn't "zilch, nada".

                You do realise zilch, nada means nothing, zero, none?

                People don't have to be terminally ill within 6 months of death to be in pain and want to end it.

                • Incognito …
                  24 October 2019 at 10:15 pm

                  Your last sentence I fully agree with.

                  The rest of your comment is a cop out and a fob off. Although you pretended @ 4.1.1 to have a considered opinion on giving the “people more choices” in the referendum, you articulated no meaningful alternative choices when asked. In a proper well-designed referendum the question or option(s) should not be leading (as in an opinion) but neutral and ideally allow everyone to provide a meaningful (as in clear and decisive) answer.

                  It is not compulsory to oblige to other commenters but I cannot stand pretentiousness, FYI.

                  • The Chairman …
                    24 October 2019 at 10:37 pm

                    Are you implying the question should people have the right to choose when they want to end it is a leading question? And if so, can you explain why you see it this way?

                    • McFlock …
                      24 October 2019 at 11:02 pm

                      You remind me of the opening patsies in platonic dialogues, the ones who open with some "common sense" statement that is incredibly broad and Socrates proceeds to deconstruct.

                      Like the guy who said we should return people's property to them, and Socrates led him down a path where he ended up giving a homicidal maniac their sword back in the midst of an episode.

                      1: framing it as "right to choose" is leading, because we have a positive bias towards individual choice

                      2: surely if someone is temporarily depressed or drunk or in pain, we shouldn't kill them if they ask for it? We can't be sure their perspective or judgement hasn't been clouded by the alcohol, depression, or pain. And yet if they really want to die in that moment, your proposed question enables that

                      3: how many alternatives do you want? How would you interpret the results of the referendum if there are multiple different options for the same subject?

                    • The Chairman …
                      24 October 2019 at 11:57 pm

                      1: framing it as "right to choose" is leading, because we have a positive bias towards individual choice

                      But is it not a right to choose? Furthermore, people would have a right to choose to say no. So it could be seen either way, nullifiying your suggested bias.

                      2: surely if someone is temporarily depressed or drunk or in pain, we shouldn't kill them if they ask for it? We can't be sure their perspective or judgement hasn't been clouded by the alcohol, depression, or pain. And yet if they really want to die in that moment, your proposed question enables that

                      Of course there would have to be following questions to ascertain age and state of mind.

                      3: how many alternatives do you want? How would you interpret the results of the referendum if there are multiple different options for the same subject?

                      As for alternatives. I believe we should be given more than one. At least three. And they could be drafted such as this current one, allowing voters to choose (with a yes or no answer) which they preferred. Making it easy to interpret the result. With the draft with the most support becoming law.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 October 2019 at 1:36 am

                      From one perspective it is. From another perspective it's significantly more complicated than that. Hell, you even just threw in additional questions and factors in response to some pretty elementary what-ifs.

                      As for your preferred voting system, that just means that with five options almost evenly spread, the one that only a quarter of the country actually support gets selected. An ill-considered system to support a naive interpretation of the issue.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 October 2019 at 2:13 am

                      An equally correct-yet-inadequate question would be "do you think healthcare professionals should be allowed to kill their patients without fear of prosecution?"

                    • Incognito …
                      25 October 2019 at 7:56 am

                      Sigh.

                      You were talking about giving people more choices and all you could do is to repeatedely repeat is your opinion, which is singular. A referendum is or should be about the opinion of the people and asked (framed) in a neutral way.

                      As with Brexit, complex issues should not be reduced to simple binary questions, they should be debated, at length, and viewed from many possible angles. A simple flow chart might do for one person, e.g. you, but when dealing with a diverse pluralistic society it is not the way to make decisions, particularly not on ethical issues. That said, ethically complex issues should not be set in stone, e.g. by Law, because that leads to very dark places and lowers people’s ‘vigilance’ levels IMHO.

                      McFlock has already done a very good job on other problems with your thinking on this issue.

    • Dukeofurl 5.1
      24 October 2019 at 12:04 pm

      Dont think there is any good choices there , but locking that corrupt prick Netanyahu up would be a good start.

      Gantz may have to get support from the Arab list . The last time a PM needed that was some time back with Peres in 95-96

  6. The Chairman 6
    24 October 2019 at 9:26 am

    CTV Families Group Open Letter to the Government

    http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1910/CTV_Families_Group_Open_Letter_to_the_Government__22_Oct_2019.pdf

    Apparently, there is a construction overhaul in the works, but will that address the flaws (see link below) in the large number of defective buildings that have already been built?

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/400919/widespread-defective-or-missing-concrete-or-reinforcing-steel-revealed?fbclid=IwAR2tlUcjNl5VV9nGvaND6mfZfzRzeRxnVPLhUvuqfob7_rs1gwGq9RaKRKA

    • greywarshark 6.1
      24 October 2019 at 1:26 pm

      Do DukeofUrl and The Chairman travel in tandem dispensing crumbs of wisdom to the peasants? Happened twice just above. When I see their offerings I tend to leave and have some lunch; better strengthening medicine for the brain.

      And do I detect on the part of DoU a target to respond and squash every comment put up? Or it might be those that DoU find cheeky enough to think they might have an idea of their own to put forward for consideration.

      • The Chairman 6.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 3:36 pm

        Nothing to say on the open letter, the large number of defective buildings nationwide and the potential threat to life they pose, greywarshark?

      • Dukeofurl 6.1.2
        24 October 2019 at 4:20 pm

        Oh dear …its very own 'designer socialist' sashsaying down the catwalk again… its all on trend politics…never wants to be accountable …its for show cant you see…for the masses to adore and praise every flourish as if it was of great wisdom.

        Instead we get cheap and tacky version of fast fashion politics and opinion

  7. cleangreen 7
    24 October 2019 at 10:00 am

    Test

  8. cleangreen 8
    24 October 2019 at 10:05 am

    If anyone is interested in making changes – submissions to the RMA; – you have only until 7th November to do so.

    Good luck to those who want to make RMA protect our ‘built and natural’ environment.

    • veutoviper 8.1
      24 October 2019 at 10:55 am

      Before you get your hand smacked for not providing a link, cleangreen (tut, tut, tut), here is the link to the Parliament website page on the RMA Amendment Bill which includes the link for making submissions:

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_91358/resource-management-amendment-bill

      • cleangreen 8.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 11:32 am

        smileyThanks Veutoviper for that.

        Here is our first submission sent yesterday.
        23rd October 2019.

        start

        Submission to the Resource Management Amendment Bill
        Select committee.

        Dear Madam’s/Sirs’ on the Select Committee considering the ‘Resource Management Amendment Bill’.

        CEAC wish to make verbal submissions and written submissions.

        This is to support the restoration of the RMA to the original higher standards we had enjoyed and found for the protection of our ‘Built and Natural’ Environment from 1991when the RMA was first produced for our community environmental protection.

        Resource Management Amendment Bill must be reinforced and enshrined in the strong focus of the ‘health and wellbeing’ of all citizens.

        CEAC history with use of RMA;

        We have been working with PCE and Governments since 2001, on all environmental community concerns using the RMA and have seen a destruction of the environmental protection of the RMA after several corrosive repeals were made to weaken the protection given us since 1991 when the Resource Management Act 1991 was produced.

        So we are very active in restoring all the strong processes in the RMA to protect our environment for the wellbeing and health of the public.

        For example; Under part two of the RMA ‘The Honourable Nick Smith’ as Environment Minister removed most of section 31 Quote; “(Repeal section 31(1)(b)(ii))”

        We need to restore all parts of section 31 section 31(1)(b)(ii)) and Part two of 7 – (other matters) (see below 1991.) territorial functions under the RMA.

        We strongly request reinstatement of these amendments to the Act in this Parliament term.

        I wish to verbally discuss this issue using a report we assisted the PCE to produce when working alongside the staff of the PCE in 2005 in HB.

        The matter was regarding heavy transport road traffic noise and air pollution in our urban communities, in which the PCE used the RMA, to relay the importance of using the RMA to protect the urban community “Amenity values and well- being” using both RMA sections 7c and 31.

        At that time and gradually since then in 2015 MP Nick Smith culled and gutted those two important sections of the RMA that protected the health and well-being of our communities, leaving us very badly exposed to environmental harm.

        I give you the PCE website location of that PCE report we referred to below.

        Please note page eight was the reference where the PCE used the RMA specifically.

        https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/pdfs/Hawkes-Bay-Expressway-Noise-and-air-quality-issues-June-2005.pdf

        Page 8 PCE report 3 The New Zealand context 3.1 Noise and urban amenity values

        “Section 7c of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) states that the relevant agencies shall have particular regard to “the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values”. Section 31 states that one of the functions of territorial authorities is “the control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise”. Amenity values are defined as “those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes”.

        Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the Select Committee on this important amendment process to the RMA.

        We are happy to provide any supplemental documentation when/if required.

        End.

      • Incognito 8.1.2
        24 October 2019 at 12:06 pm

        yes

  9. marty mars 9
    24 October 2019 at 10:05 am

    another big win for the greens…

    Land Information Minister and Green MP Eugenie Sage has given a foreign-owned forestry company a free pass to buy thousands of hectares of New Zealand land without applying to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO).

    Japanese-owned Pan Pac Forest Products was given the special approval to bypass the OIO to purchase land for forestry for the next three years as the government sought foreign forestry money to help meet its tree planting targets.

    The pre-approval was given to Pan Pac despite the Green Party having strongly protested land sales to foreigners and Forestry Minister Shane Jones saying he was sympathetic to rural concerns that converting productive farm land to forestry could cost jobs.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/401655/govt-gives-japanese-owned-forestry-company-pan-pac-forest-products-free-pass-to-buy-nz-land

    • cleangreen 9.1
      24 October 2019 at 10:12 am

      Sadly it looks bad for our future.

      Now they are still selling our forestry to foreign investors.

      Chinese were handed our largest public forest back in 2011.

    • The Chairman 9.2
      24 October 2019 at 10:22 am

      Another big win for the greens

      How so? Or were you being sarcastic?

      • McFlock 9.2.1
        24 October 2019 at 3:10 pm

        billion trees ring a bell?

        • The Chairman 9.2.1.1
          24 October 2019 at 3:26 pm

          We don't need to sell to offshore investors to achieve that.

          • McFlock 9.2.1.1.1
            24 October 2019 at 4:36 pm

            Maybe we do.

            • The Chairman 9.2.1.1.1.1
              24 October 2019 at 5:11 pm

              If the Government wanted to, they could make it so. And in doing so, would give them far more control on adding value, wages and safety.

              • McFlock …
                24 October 2019 at 6:08 pm

                The Government giveth, and the Government taketh away.

                Blessed be the name of the Government.

                🙄

                  • McFlock …
                    24 October 2019 at 11:03 pm

                    You probably think that the government could make that cool again, if it only wanted to.

                    • The Chairman …
                      25 October 2019 at 12:13 am

                      It comes down to the Government's preferred choice. Clearly, this Government prefers offshore investors over hands on Government.

                      How will Green Party supporters view this choice? Another nail in the coffin or will their supporters be blinded by the trees? As you were above.

                      In this matter, they have opted to drop their stance on offshore ownership rather than push for the Government to be more hands on.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 October 2019 at 1:03 am

                      You asked why it might be considered a good idea by the Greens.

                      A billion trees is Green policy. You're worried that Greens will be upset at their policy being implemented… thanks for your concern.

                      This isn't the sale of logging rights or the export of raw logs or woodchips. This is a foreign investment to add value to the property. Where exactly is the policy problem – feel free to link to actual policies you think are applicable.

                    • The Chairman …
                      25 October 2019 at 7:17 pm

                      The billion trees policy was/is being implemented long before this announcement.

                      And while this is one way (but far from the only way) to help achieve it, it goes against their stance on foreign ownership of land. Hence, it is highly likely to disappoint a number of supporters.

                      As it seems you are unsure of their stance, here (below) is what it says on their site.

                      Ownership of land in Aotearoa/ New Zealand is a privilege that should be for citizens and permanent residents only.

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/page/trade-and-foreign-investment-policy

                      The trees will be harvested at some stage. And while value may be added, as with most investments, the offshore owners will be seeking a return on their investment. Eventually, those returns (if all goes well) will most likely be far larger than the sum invested. As tends to be one of the objectives of investing.

                      Moreover, it is also highly likely they will receive funding from taxpayers/Government's Provincial Growth Fund.

                      If we want to continue to ensure we become tenant's and workers (not owners) in our own country this is the way to go in helping to achieve that.

                      So while you (and others) may only seem to see the trees and are comfortable with that, there is far more to it for us that see that larger picture.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 October 2019 at 7:23 pm

                      It does, however, meet the sustainability criteria in the same policy.

                      So a number of Green supporters will see it assisting in the achievement of a key policy, conforming to part of another key policy, but sadly being against another part of that policy (albeit not an ergregious violation, like a billionaire bunker mansion fencing off public walkways).

                      But then "a number" of supporters of every party are constantly disappointed by everything. Any idea whay this particular number might be? Thanks for your concern.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 October 2019 at 10:38 pm

                      Interesting – the massively rising values hiding a lowering of proportion was intriguing.

                      For me, capital value is less important than land area or propoertion of dwellings. Value is ethereal, things are what we actually eat or use.

                      But I’m not sure a measurable number of Green supporters are losing sleep over this particular deal.
                      Maybe fonterra should diversify into forestry? lol

  11. anker 11
    24 October 2019 at 10:35 am

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12279056

    I am afraid that I think the word tragedy is called for when there has been loss of life, not property. But I guess I have different values than John Key.

    And my sympathy to I think it is three fire fighters injured fighting this blaze and my thoughts go out to them for a speedy recovery.

    • tc 11.1
      24 October 2019 at 11:03 am

      Another JK vanity project that unlike the flag he slammed through, he probably has a room being named after him. The 'almost a meeting room'.

      • anker 11.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 12:11 pm

        I tend to think of the Sky convention Centre as one of the few things John Key achieved. His legacy if you like

        • tc 11.1.1.1
          24 October 2019 at 2:25 pm

          Yup pretty typical JK legacy: Here's a bucket of taxpayer money and some concessions to expand your gaming empire beyond it's current level of social harm.

      • Wensleydale 11.1.2
        24 October 2019 at 2:18 pm

        I thought it was the "Ekshully, I think you'll find that most Nu Zillanders don't care about (insert something New Zealanders care about deeply here)…" room.

        Or was it the "Look, I don't recall the exact details…" room?

        Or perhaps the "I WILL get your husbands and sons out of Pike River Mine… except not really." room?

        Or the "Mmmm… ponytails." room?

        So many options.

  12. Sabine 12
    24 October 2019 at 10:53 am

    euthanasia – the right to a humane death at the time of ones choosing free of interference by others.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/paralympic-champion-marieke-vervoort-ends-life-by-euthanasia/

    Belgian Paralympic champion Marieke Vervoort ended her life through euthanasia at the age of 40 on Tuesday, Belgian media reported.

    ….Vervoort suffered a degenerative muscle disease that caused constant pain, paralysis in her legs and left her barely able to sleep, and gradually her life became torture.

    By then her eyesight had deteriorated and she suffered from epileptic attacks, and she said that Rio would be her last competition.

    “After the Paralympic Games, when I quit, I’m going to enjoy every little moment in my life and I’m going to put more energy in my family and friends, which I couldn’t do with top sports because I had to train every day,” she said in 2016………………….

    Vervoort signed the paperwork to be euthanised back in 2008.

    She said in Rio that access to legal assisted dying had given her the courage to continue living for as long as she had, and insisted the practice should not be characterised as “murder”.

    “It gives a feeling of rest to people,” she said then.

    “If I hadn’t gotten those (euthanasia) papers I think I would already have committed suicide because it’s very hard to live with so much pain and suffering and this unsureness.

    “I know when it’s enough for me, I have those papers.”

    • joe90 12.1
      24 October 2019 at 11:08 am

      Lats night I listened to Marieke talking about her future. Deeply sad and brought a tear to my eye but oh what a woman.

      Rest easy, Marieke.

      Fight to the finish – Marieke Vervoort

      The story of Belgium's para-athlete Marieke Vervoort who made headlines at the Rio games after revealing she had signed papers to end her life via euthanasia.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04ll7r9

    • McFlock 12.2
      24 October 2019 at 3:12 pm

      The ones that make me oppose it are the ones we won't hear about.

      • Rosemary McDonald 12.2.1
        24 October 2019 at 4:18 pm

        "….the ones we won't hear about."

        Indeed, and when a person with an obvious physical disability is stood over in A and E by a doctor with a Do Not Resuscitate form (after an admittedly alarming but upon investigation a simple episode of syncope) one is forced to realize (yet again) that while there are those in the medical professions holding such prejudices disabled people will be at extreme risk should this legislation be passed.

  13. marty mars 13
    24 October 2019 at 11:21 am

    History says that this is a very real concern and for those in the know there are strong fears about this. I agree with them.

    There are fears a six month trial of police patrol vehicles carrying armed officers will see Maori being targeted more than any other group. Police Commissioner Mike Bush announced last week armed response teams will start patrolling Counties Manukau, Waikato and Canterbury at the end of the month. But many Maori, including the whanau of a man fatally wounded by police in 2000, aren't convinced it will make their lives any safer.

    Listen here

  14. The Chairman 14
    24 October 2019 at 11:29 am

    Let off without even a slap on the wrist?

    The Union is furious.

    Firm wouldn't let its drivers take breaks. Drivers were working up to 12 hours without one.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018719120/union-furious-nzta-won-t-prosecute-truck-logbook-breaches

    • OnceWasTim 15.1
      24 October 2019 at 11:57 am

      Yep, the guy does some good work. Shame about his employer – it's a hard row to hoe earning a crust in NZ these days as someone genuinely committed to the principles of the 4th Estate

      • Dukeofurl 15.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 12:14 pm

        yeah …like some mayor decades back , who bought the council owned land in front of his clifftop property. It was done in 2 transactions, the first piece was the access way which left the 2nd piece without access making it almost worthless for the council, but made the Mayors land bigger which allowed a larger building etc

        • OnceWasTim 15.1.1.1
          24 October 2019 at 12:38 pm

          Yep @ Dook. There are endless examples dating back from the days when the Town Clerk was in fashion and Mayor Robbie had a dream.

          Leave 'em to it all I reckon. Once they stumble over each other's stupidity, something might come of it.

          But what I'm sure of is that the mathematics of a 90+% versus the rest doesn't really bode all that well (going forward, in the fullness of time, in this ecosystem)

        • tc 15.1.1.2
          24 October 2019 at 2:39 pm

          Rortneys and Keys supershity at it's finest, it's rumoured a certain car dealer ex mayor has done similar in a city not too far from akl.

          They say it's why their turnout was higher than expected as the locals wanted rid of him. His personal billboard campaign to not give to beggars was a lowpoint for many.

    • David Mac 15.2
      24 October 2019 at 1:02 pm

      Towers and towers of highly paid chair polishers and the Auckland Council orchestrate movements like this bribe stinking fiasco. I wasn't aware there were 2 factions of equal size within the Aux council. Sounds like a recipe for most of their energy to get burnt up in friction heat.

      How hard can it be to approach every proposal with a primary overview 'What's best for the people of Auckland?' Changing the Westpark Marina name, flogging it off for a lousy 2 million (land cost for the developer of $8000 per dwelling) and building towers of apartments to block the hillside home owners' views…it would've been in the waste paper bin by smoko.

      • Dukeofurl 15.2.1
        24 October 2019 at 4:12 pm

        Its the Council CCO which has its own board and executives doing this , not the elected side.

  16. marty mars 16
    24 October 2019 at 1:18 pm

    I agree – shocker.

    “The Government has buckled to lobbying pressure from the dairy industry and big agri-business,” says Greenpeace campaigner, Gen Toop.

    “Agriculture is our biggest climate polluter. An emissions trading scheme without the sector in it is a joke and won’t be able to combat the climate emergency – the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.”

    “The Government is protecting the short term profits of a few in the dairy and agricultural sector at the expense of the rest of us and the future of our entire planet.”

    The Labour party policy was to bring agriculture into the ETS in this electoral term. This was reiterated in their coalition agreement with New Zealand First, where they committed to only pricing 5% of agriculture’s emissions, effectively giving the sector a 95% subsidy.

    Toop says, “It is unjust that this Government is allowing the dairy and agriculture industry to carry on with business as usual. The climate science is clear, this is not business as usual.”

    https://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/press-release/greenpeace-brands-government-sellouts-over-ets-backdown/

    • David Mac 16.1
      24 October 2019 at 1:38 pm

      Yes, the broad church verandahs had to be extended out to accommodate Winston's mob. A coalition of views so broad was always going to make pushing change through difficult. The surprise choice was to extend the verandahs, introduce the Winston factor in amongst the policy promises or spend another 3 years out in the cold.

      • Dukeofurl 16.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 4:11 pm

        hello …MMP was designed to make any political changes having a broad support rather than just a bare majority of a main party. Thats how the Rogernomics were pushed through…..

        You wouldnt want to the equivalent of rogernomes but 30 yrs later with policies based on 'we must do this or else'

  17. Kevin 17
    24 October 2019 at 1:33 pm

    As if you need any further evidence that Mark Richardson is a complete and utter fuckstick and should not be allowed out in public, then here it is…

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/116861095/this-is-as-bad-as-ive-ever-felt-mark-richardson-accidentally-outs-ryan-bridge-on-air

    • David Mac 17.1
      24 October 2019 at 1:51 pm

      I've stuck my foot in my mouth up to the knee on a couple of occasions. Some of us have to learn not to ask a woman if she is pregnant the hard way. Richardson's apology appears heart felt. I think he is a cheeky rightie, not the devil….I'd rather sale a 10m yacht to Fiji with him over Bomber.

      I think that we can be proud that we live in a time when the vast majority of us will judge Ryan purely on his ability to host a breakfast TV show and I think he is making a fine job of it…Take another week Dunc.

      Shame Mediaworks is looking so wobbly, the short-term big picture ain't grand for any of them.

    • cleangreen 17.2
      24 October 2019 at 2:14 pm

      Agreed Kevin, Mark Richardson is a proper plonker alright.

      He thinks he is a ‘gift to humanity’ when he goes on the other hand to rubbish everyone he wants without a care.

      He is a shallow man for sure.

      Ryan Bridge is a kind caring good ‘anchor’ for channel three’s ‘AM show’ and Mark Richardson is a conceited idiot, and I hope and pray that he is not the son of a good ZB radio NZ man we had with the same Richardson sirname?.

      I used to know ‘Keith Richardson’ when he was on 2Zb in Napier.

    • tc 17.3
      24 October 2019 at 2:44 pm

      aww come on it's just 'banter' isn't it and whatever gets clicks/chats etc is good for Brand Richo and his sports jock/priviledged white male shtick routine.

    • Red Blooded One 17.4
      24 October 2019 at 3:21 pm

      While I don't disagree with your assessment of Mark Richardson, but seeing that clip I think it was an easy mistake and his apology seemed genuine. My question is for Ryan Bridge, in this day and age, while (in your own words) all your friends and family know, why make it an issue on air, why not just carry on and laugh about the ex-boyfriends and move on. Surely no media personality needs a "Yep I'm Gay" outing these days. I suspect his closet must be deeper than he says or he's trying to make himself relevant on an irrelevant program and channel.

  18. Naki man 18
    24 October 2019 at 2:00 pm

    It was an honest mistake, those two poke a lot of shit at each other and there was no bad feelings. The link says it all.

  19. Poission 19
    24 October 2019 at 2:19 pm

    Auckland turning both brass into muck, and the emergent environmental disaster.

    Millions of litres of water used to extinguish the fire has resulted in several basement layers being flooded to the point where cars are completely covered in the lowest level.

    Twomey wasn’t sure how many cars were affected but they would be “write offs” he assumed.Fire appliances on site do not have the pumps required to pump the water, so Fletchers is organising to get some from the Ports of Auckland.Auckland Council will decide where will be a safe place to dump the water, Twomey said.

    Fire fighting has environmental consequences.

    It has been stated that “Every fire represents some threat to the environment” (CFPA,1990). International studies suggest that chemical contamination of the environment from fire-fighting activities presents a serious hazard to aquatic ecosystems in certain situations. Locally, this is also of concern to the New Zealand Fire Service as well as Regional and District Councils, who have a responsibility to protect the environment from adverse effects. However, uncertainty lies in that little is known about the nature or magnitude of ecological risks from fires and fire-water runoff generally, apart from a number of case reports from internationally occurring ecological catastrophes.

    https://fireandemergency.nz/assets/Documents/Research-and-reports/Report-17-The-Ecotoxicity-of-Fire-Water-Runoff-Part-I-Review-of-the-Literature.PDF

    • cleangreen 19.1
      24 October 2019 at 2:38 pm

      John Key = firebrand policies.

      Sadly; while JK was our PM he refused to recognise the hazards of fire.

      I am not suggesting JK starts fires but he begun the MBIE and firefighting agency overseeing.

      So where was “Worksafe” policy at during this fire?

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009663/

      His legacy will be a poisonous unsustainable future using his policies..

      • tc 19.1.1
        24 October 2019 at 2:46 pm

        Putting the shonky one aside Firefighters have an incredibly dangerous job that they must be super fit for.

        I know a few ex coppers who went over, then went back as the Police was a safer gig.

        recall the days when there was no hazchem labelling on industrial sites. I take my hat off to all of them, volunteer rural folk are unsung heroes.

        • McFlock 19.1.1.1
          24 October 2019 at 4:40 pm

          yeah. Know a retired firefighter who has all sorts of shite going on due to breathing in so much varied muck over the years.

      • karol121 19.1.2
        24 October 2019 at 4:53 pm

        Accidents never happen – in a perfect world.

        Not sure whether JK was mindful of sawdust in the top areas and Grenfell type clad, or perhaps clad sequins.

        But Hey. Nothing's really built to last forever in any case.

        At least this may necessitate an overall review of the complex in relation to fire, fire egress and earthquake standards.

        And with the right oversight (overseeing that is), some reassurance may come out of the mishap.

  20. karol121 20
    24 October 2019 at 4:46 pm

    "Kind Sky City Casino & Hotel operator, and Fletcher's Construction donate overwhelming amount of food and drink to firefighters"

  21. greywarshark 21
    24 October 2019 at 5:28 pm

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12279227&ref=clavis

    Paralympian Marieke Vervoort fulfills wish to take own life

    ..Vervoort, who was 40, won gold and silver medals in wheelchair racing at the 2012 London Paralympics, and two more medals three years ago in Rio de Janeiro….

    "It's too hard for my body," Vervoort said in the 2016 interview. "Each training I'm suffering because of pain. Every race I train hard. Training and riding and doing competition are medicine for me. I push so hard — to push literally all my fear and everything away."

    Vervoort spent her last evening with close friends and family, even sharing a glass of sparkling wine, which she referred to as a painkiller….

    • karol121 21.1
      25 October 2019 at 4:42 pm

      Many would genuinely hope that her pain and suffering had not been further exasperated by any external psychological torment associated with fire and brimstone or hell damnation words that so many have had to suffer. Such words so often associated with an individual's assertion that the decision to end their mortal life is made on reasoned, rational grounds, but where, due to the stated beliefs of others, they are accused of serious sinning, or worse that they are under the influence of some unholy being.

      Axiomatic that many (perhaps most) who make such a decision are not making it on the basis of being unappreciative of life opportunity itself, nor ungrateful to others who may have provided them care or support throughout their lives.

      These are core pain management (physical and psychological), self value and life purpose deliberations, and many would assert that they are not meant to relate to various religious edicts.

      • greywarshark 21.1.1
        25 October 2019 at 11:14 pm

        Our bodies are under the control of the religions which in turn say that they are speaking for God, which is idolatrous of them. And if a person desires to be with God, then the appropriate thing would be to talk it over seriously with them, posing possible improvements in their life and asking if they were done, would they then wish to remain and enjoy their life.

        There would be some time to consider, a day or week depending on the painfulness of the illness or the lack of bodily control, and if the person still wishes to continue then a religious person can take the position that they wish to be with their Creator, their God, or in a state of peace, and accept and dignify the process as wished by both parties.

        As I suggest above there is no reason for officious religious persons to come between a living body's will.

        • Karol121 21.1.1.1
          1 November 2019 at 4:49 pm

          Amen to that, Greywarshark.

          And those counsellors attached to religions working in any palliative role talking it through this way with the dying should be commended.

          But it is the mind control freaks from religious organisations expressing and insisting on the eternal damnation dogma angle that cause so much anguish and emotional distress for those in such a seriously compromised and already weakened condition that people need to identify, and avoid if they can.

          • greywarshark 21.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2019 at 5:18 pm

            Karol121 I have noticed people against euthanasia quoting how seriously ill people have expressed to them that they would like to die, but they always change their minds after being talked with for a while. Of course they do. It's too hard to go against the determined antis especially if they may have their feelings hurt or become angry, and then perhaps make the care they give a little less comforting. To some carers or family, it would be like a slap in the face. They have a plan for looking after you and you are ungrateful or irreligious, ie it is all about them, or they know what God wants and expects.

            • Karol121 21.1.1.1.1.1
              11 November 2019 at 4:16 pm

              Thanks.

              I understand the context greywarshark. Complicated and ambiguous for many to follow, I guess.

              But in any case, this subject is very much a touchy subject.