Open mike 24/11/2013

Written By: - Date published: 7:57 am, November 24th, 2013 - 229 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step right up to the mike …

229 comments on “Open mike 24/11/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    24 November 2013 at 8:11 am

    The HOS editorial this morning is a stunner. It gets stuck into Colin Craig big time.

    Try this:

    God has a mischievous sense of humour. That has to be why He (or She) awarded the Christian Coalition 4.4 per cent in the first MMP election, ensuring they narrowly missed the 5 per cent threshold and were denied any seats in Parliament.

    And now, how else to explain the divine intervention that saved our Prime Minister from himself this week? There was Key, dead-set on forging a governing coalition with the Christian-Lite Conservative Party and its troublingly dim leader, Colin Craig.

    Craig is a man who doesn't believe in evolution, doesn't accept anthro-pogenic climate change, and blames New Zealand's woes on its "promiscuous young women".

    This is a man who wants a seat in Parliament and the accompanying $147,800 salary but refuses to do an MP's job and make informed, principled decisions. Instead, he would refer every major decision back to voters for them to decide in a referendum.

    Smacking? It's up to the public to decide. Asset sales? Up to the public. Tax or spend? Too hard – leave it to the voters.

    It is this man, this limp, anaemic excuse for a leader, whom John Key is grooming as his new coalition partner. Key is desperate to find anyone to take the place of the foundering Act, United Future and Maori parties – but really?

    Colin Craig has many things going for him. He is a nice fellow. He has a boyish enthusiasm. A loving family. A lot of money. What he lacks is street smarts. He would be eaten alive in Parliament. Ruthless MPs on either side of the House would chew him up and spit him out, leaving the bloggers and tweeters to bicker over the soggy, half-masticated scraps.

    If Colin Craig is the answer to John Key's problem, then National is in trouble. Whenever Craig speaks, he makes a gaffe – and that's even before he is properly tested in the heat of an election campaign or in Parliament.

    The editorial makes one mistake. It says that the new upper harbour seat has much of the former seat of Waitakere in it. It actually only takes in a thin sliver, about 600 votes from her former seat.

    But the general tone and content of the editorial is wonderful. Even the Herald can see that Colin Craig could be a huge embarrassment to National.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      24 November 2013 at 8:19 am

      Likely reflects massive internal tensions within National vis a vis Colin Craig.

      • karol 1.1.1
        24 November 2013 at 8:22 am

        The interesting thing is that most pundits/jonolists/columnists are saying Key had earmarked Upper Harbour for Craig until Bennett jumped in and staked her claim.

        • Tiger Mountain 1.1.1.1
          24 November 2013 at 8:45 am

          Craig and his Conservatives have major loose cannon potential already. If his loot does buy a parliamentary presence of 1 or more seats prepare for some outright craziness.

          The Natz do appear to be floundering internally on this one so far as Bennett’s spring loaded bid for the new seat shows.

    • karol 1.2
      24 November 2013 at 8:20 am

      But Andrea Vance is more accommodating to Colon. Well, she gives him the opportunity to say how much the elderly like him – really?

      Colon Craig is an NZ-style tea partier. Sex is all done by women, and he wants everyone to own a gun (is he getting direct instructions form the US reactionaries?). He waters down his anti-climate change lines for NZ consumption.

      2. If it wasn’t immediately obvious, more guns: Craig would consider introducing national service in return for free tertiary education. And let everyone else have a gun too: the right to bear arms, and the “Castle Doctrine” (basically, the right to shoot burglars).
      […]
      4. Keep on burnin’: Climate change isn’t our fault. Instead, says Craig, volcanoes and sun flares are to blame. “Globally, our influence on temperature is very, very small. New Zealand’s influence is infinitesimally small.” Therefore, as night follows day, they would scrap the emissions trading scheme.
      […]
      8. Close yer legs. It’s cheaper: Craig, in April 2012: “We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.” This may go hand in hand with dumping the “frankly terrible” Working for Families.

      And Craig sniffs there are votes in jumping onto the anti-fluoride bandwagon.

      • chris73 1.2.1
        24 November 2013 at 8:27 am

        If it wasn’t immediately obvious, more guns: Craig would consider introducing national service in return for free tertiary education. And let everyone else have a gun too: the right to bear arms, and the “Castle Doctrine” (basically, the right to shoot burglars).

        – Thats a vote winner for the group hes targeting, I also happen to agree with it as well although I’d extend it to working for DOC etc etc not just the military

        • idlegus 1.2.1.1
          24 November 2013 at 8:35 am

          hes targeting macho paranoid idiots? yeah thats the answer, more guns…sheesh.

          • chris73 1.2.1.1.1
            24 November 2013 at 8:42 am

            It sounds more like spin from the article: “right to bear arms” thats a emotive phrase designed to raise hackles and completely inappropriate for NZ but as to regards to the “castle doctrine” why shouldn’t someone be able to defend themselves and their family from intruders?

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.1
              24 November 2013 at 8:47 am

              The actual question you are asking is –

              “why shouldn’t someone use guns in the family home”

              For starters, there’s nothing like having guns in a house to have family members shot. And then the police would have to ante up with automatic weapons.

              • chris73 …
                24 November 2013 at 8:52 am

                Now you’re just being melodramatic, theres (from 2006 so the numbers are probably higher) about 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand’s estimated 1.1 million firearms

                So I’ll ask again someone breaks into my home why I shouldn’t I be able to defend myself (legally) and my family

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  24 November 2013 at 9:05 am

                  No-one as dull-witted as you should be allowed anything sharper than a sponge.

                • felix …
                  24 November 2013 at 9:07 am

                  The other day we were discussing a case of two men (illegally) breaking into a woman’s home and forcing their way into her bedroom where they assaulted her before (illegally) abducting her.

                  I imagine you would support her right to defend herself (legally) from these assailants.

                  • chris73 …
                    24 November 2013 at 9:13 am

                    I would have no problems with this women defending herself legally, with a firearm if necessary, against anyone that does that

                    and yes that includes against the police if they act in such a matter (I’m assuming thats what you were referring to?)

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 November 2013 at 9:39 am

                      best way to get shot is with your own weapon.

                      Your pushing for broad handgun/pistol ownership is insane.

                    • felix …
                      24 November 2013 at 9:59 am

                      Seems to me this course can only lead to escalation.

                      If the cops expect to routinely encounter armed citizens they’ll respond by routinely entering situations with their guns drawn. And many more people will die.

                      Some of those people will be cops. Some will be crooks. Some will be stuck in a bad situation. Some will have opened the wrong door at the wrong time. Some will have moved funny. Some will be bystanders. Some will be kids.

                      And the blood of these dead – be they innocent or otherwise, killed in defense or mistakenly – all of this blood will be on the hands of those who have fostered this culture of fear and vengeance.

                      There’s no safety in it for you either. There’s no security for your family in knowing that the next home invader, be they a desperate meth fiend or a poorly trained cop, will be pointing an automatic weapon at daddy’s face and ready to duel to the death.

                      It’s just fear and death and violence and reprisal and escalation and revenge and hate and blood in an ever descending spiral.

                      All so little men can feel more powerful than they really are. Doesn’t seem worth it.

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 10:05 am

                      CV stop lying and stop listening to Piers Morgan

                      Show me where I mentioned anything about handgun/pistol ownership

                      For home defence purposes (if it was legal) I’d go for a rifle because they’re accurate but its entirely up to anyone else to decide what they need

                      Of course you cannot get a firearms licence in the first place if your primary purpose is self-defence

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 November 2013 at 10:13 am

                      Of course you’re pushing for increased handgun/pistol ownership. A woman can’t defend herself in bed with a .223 rifle or shotgun, can she.

                      For home defence purposes (if it was legal) I’d go for a rifle because they’re accurate but its entirely up to anyone else to decide what they need

                      LOL with a statement like that you can’t possibly have a serious interest in firearms for home defence.

                    • Foreign Waka …
                      24 November 2013 at 4:32 pm

                      http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
                      More guns are not the solution. If this is the case Texas would be paradise. Having a weapon in the house also facilitates easy access in cases of suicides.
                      The problem is the uneven distribution of wealth and as long as this is not addressed it will get worse. There are plenty of examples around the world and to propose we should emanate the poorest cities/countries just does not wash.

                    • karol …
                      24 November 2013 at 6:23 pm

                      felix: The other day we were discussing a case of two men (illegally) breaking into a woman’s home and forcing their way into her bedroom where they assaulted her before (illegally) abducting her.

                      chris73: I would have no problems with this women defending herself legally, with a firearm if necessary, against anyone that does that

                      So, is this woman meant to be wearing her gun on her hip all the time when at home? Or will she always have time to run and get it when outnumbered by 2 male intruders?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 November 2013 at 9:28 pm

                      Apparently she’s going to have time to take the rifle from the gun safe, load it, aim it and fire at the baddie(s).

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      25 November 2013 at 6:41 am

                      Felix +1000

                    • jcuknz …
                      25 November 2013 at 9:33 am

                      Virtually every door in the States has a ‘look-out glass’ in it … very rare in NZ … I suggest that says something about both countries.

                • North …
                  24 November 2013 at 9:10 am

                  Careful what you ask for Piss73. A dorkis like you’d probably miss the burglar and shoot himself. And how helpful would that be ? No living complainant to testify that the entry was unauthorised.

                  • chris73 …
                    24 November 2013 at 9:16 am

                    Thank you for your concern but I’ll be ok

                    • North …
                      24 November 2013 at 10:13 am

                      That’s great Piss. Ummmmh…….I take it you did save the comment you’re sure to have made denouncing the stabbing (to death) in Manurewa of young Maori boy Pihema some years ago ?

                      The 17 year old whose life was stolen by some twisted psycho’ defending his “property”, viz. his fucking fence, from a real or imagined tagging.

                      A “defence of the fence” finally achieved when the psycho’ pursued and got hold of Pihema some distance down the street from his fabulous fucking fence.

                      Haul that comment out Piss, please Would love to read it. Would be a wonderful counter to the mealy mouthed and grudging shit Garth McVictim of the SST put out.

                      Would also point up the bloodthirst inherent in your “why shouldn’t I be allowed……” stuff about guns.

                      You’re a dangerous man Piss.

                • David H …
                  24 November 2013 at 9:42 am

                  Chris If you are going to throw numbers around then you NEED to provide a link or it’s just more unsubstantiated bullshit.

                  it’s easier like this from 2009

                  There are about 1.2 million guns in New Zealand, registered to about 225,000 licensed owners. Police admit they do not know how many unlicensed guns there are.

                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2405890/Why-no-action-on-guns

                  This seems to be a very interesting site
                  http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

                  • chris73 …
                    24 November 2013 at 9:57 am

                    Well I said its about the numbers and that the numbers were from 2006 so they probably went up and the numbers i threw out were pretty close to what you put up, so I’d say I was closer then what poliicians call back of the envelope numbers anyways

                • infused …
                  24 November 2013 at 2:23 pm

                  If my family was endangered, I’d shoot. But I don’t have a gun license, and never plan to get one.

                  Should have this right though.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    24 November 2013 at 2:37 pm

                    How’d you know that you weren’t about to put a bullet through the wall into your kid or your neighbour?

                • North …
                  24 November 2013 at 2:34 pm

                  Piss73 if you knew the law about (a) defence of dwelling house (b) defence of land or building and (c) defence of self or another then you would know that you are so entitled.

                  I can give you chapter and verse from ss.48-56 of the Crimes Act 1961 if you’d like. Perhaps more face saving for you, a quick private look at those sections of the Crimes Act 1961.
                  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327382.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Crimes+Act+1961_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1

                  You’re unlikely to engage either educative measure of course since that would deny you the satisfaction of continued spouting off with extraordinarily ignorant claims and prejudiced mutterings. For the bigot there’s nothing so disarming as the facts.

                  From everyone elses’ point of view though it would be useful. In default of your ceasing your ignorant claims and prejudiced mutterings, it would point up the bigotry within which seeks a carte blanche for the taking of vengeance.

                  You’re not gonna get it. Tough. Suck it up Mr Vexed Impotence.

              • North …
                24 November 2013 at 9:06 am

                Piss73 – Do you understand how hopelessly, hopelessly Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman/Tea Party/Rush Limbaugh/”my cold dead hands” you present ?

                You poor, poor, piss-poor thing ! Even ShonKey Python and Archibald Banks don’t want ya mate. Oh…….The Twisted Colon does you say ? Well……OK…..that’s alright then.

                • chris73 …
                  24 November 2013 at 9:09 am

                  Bit early to be drinking isn’t it?

                  • North …
                    24 November 2013 at 9:12 am

                    You’ve got a fat buzz about the Piss…..73.

                    Are you projecting ?

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 9:15 am

                      No not really, I was just wondering where this came from:

                      North 31.1.1
                      22 November 2013 at 11:01 pm
                      You’re a nutter Piss73. Give the missus a serious seeing to when she got home late with the Maccers dinner and no dipping sauce didya ? You being too bone idle or unartful to peel some spuds while ya waited, as you related yesterday or the day before ? Walked home for that matter while you drove to and from work in the Grandly asprayshinul Vitara angling at the stylish Maori Land Bruiser VX, as you also related yesterday or the day before ?

                      Its not how you normally type so I was assuming you’d been drinking…

                    • North …
                      24 November 2013 at 9:29 am

                      Hey Piss73 – “not really” projecting you say. I see, just a little bit then ?

                      Remember Piss, to explain is to lose. Remember Lusky’s weekend workshop you went to a while ago……you know, a few Tory MPs there ? You just weren’t listening were you ?

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 9:35 am

                      Well I wasn’t explaining I was wondering where it came from so theres a bit of difference but anyway could you explain what you meant by this line then:

                      “Give the missus a serious seeing to when she got home late with the Maccers dinner and no dipping sauce didya ?”

                      I’m not sure what you meant it so if you could clarify it for me I’d appreciate it

                      cheers

              • greywarbler …
                24 November 2013 at 8:49 pm

                Cv Now you’re just being melodramatic!
                Every day in Nz something real and melodramatic occurs. (The latest is 3 young men being hijacked with a knife and made to drive around for hours). Guns, knives, we’ve got the dramatic but it ain’t mellow. We don’t need every goon to have a gun.

                And what’s this about bloggers in the Herald editorial. Only haute cuisine is good enough for me, and I’m sure others here are even more discerning.
                ” Ruthless MPs on either side of the House would chew him up and spit him out, leaving the bloggers and tweeters to bicker over the soggy, half-masticated scraps.”

            • Paul 1.2.1.1.1.2
              24 November 2013 at 8:54 am

              Some evidence, Chris to suggest gun ownership creates some problems with increased murders.

              http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

              Please support your argument in favour of owning guns with evidence as well.
              I know Colin Craig does not rely on evidence for his views on Climate change but please prove to readers of this blog that you do value substantiated arguments.

            • McFlock 1.2.1.1.1.3
              24 November 2013 at 9:12 pm

              why shouldn’t someone be able to defend themselves and their family from intruders?

              we can already use frce to defend ourselves and others.
              We’re just not allowed to kill someone to protect trinkets.

        • Murray Olsen 1.2.1.2
          25 November 2013 at 12:00 am

          A penis extension would be less dangerous to other people than carrying a gun around and probably make you feel just as good.

      • David H 1.2.2
        24 November 2013 at 9:46 am

        After reading the 2 Colin Craig articles it’s almost worth it to let him have a seat I think he is going to be a real handful in partnership he seems to be a standard fundamental Cristian, that no matter how many times you try you just can’t get him to alter his perception (I was going to say change his mind) on things he believes in.

      • newsense 1.2.3
        24 November 2013 at 10:45 am

        perhaps it is called boiling him alive? She senses the best way not to kill the golden quote goose is to seem to be giving it a sensitive ear.

        I didn’t realise just how nutty the guy was- in fact, I’d written him off as one of those weirdo ex-United Future types…

    • Tiger Mountain 1.3
      24 November 2013 at 8:25 am

      Colin Craig is a bit of a moneybags, and this is reason number one, two and three in real terms for the existence of the flaky Conservatives. He can bankroll his odd parliamentary dreams unlike many others. His obvious lack of a political core makes him an easy target for seasoned commentators and good job too if exposing him makes it less likely the Key gang will survive the ’14 election.

      Bit condescending on the “bloggers and tweeters” though given the number of story leads over the last several months the Herald was happy to co-opt from online writers and their investigations.

      • idlegus 1.3.1
        24 November 2013 at 8:28 am

        absolutely, considering many of us only look at the msm by clicking on links on these blogs. jeez thats a harsh editorial, & the webb caricature doing the rounds is plain ugly, usually webbs pictures are kinda cool but his craig one is ghastly, its great!

    • Northshoreguynz 1.4
      24 November 2013 at 8:27 am

      Then who are they going to dance with. Their card is looking sad and empty except for the old faded flowers in Dunne and Banks.

    • kenny 1.5
      24 November 2013 at 9:32 am

      The point is not whether he is a capable MP (look at Banks) but will he make up the numbers; will he bring an extra seat to the table. The numbers mean everything in a close contest or when you have no other options.

    • Anne 1.6
      24 November 2013 at 10:03 am

      Thank God someone in the MSM has had the guts to say it. He might be a nice guy but he’s the dimmest bulb ever to seek a parliamentary career. I suppose you could say that dim bulbs in NZ are entitled to representation but there’s a line in the sand beyond which we cannot go, and Colin Craig is on the wrong side of that line!

      • alwyn 1.6.1
        24 November 2013 at 11:39 am

        He is certainly pretty bad but “the dimmest bulb ever” is, in my opinion going just a bit too far.
        I can think of at least two MPs in the last 20 years who were worse.
        The worst would, I think, have been Alamein Kopu of the Alliance Party and the runner-up would have been Georgina Beyer of the Labour Party.

        • Tigger 1.6.1.1
          24 November 2013 at 11:53 am

          Name another successful small party lead by a dim bulb. There are liars, cheats and sell outs but they’re all savvy political operators.

          This party is doomed.

          • alwyn 1.6.1.1.1
            24 November 2013 at 12:07 pm

            Hey, you aren’t playing fair. Anne hadn’t limited her statement to party leaders. I don’t see how you can limit it to “successful” parties either. After all there are no Conservative Party members in Parliament so they can hardly be called successful.
            The rest of your statement is pretty accurate though.

        • Anne 1.6.1.2
          24 November 2013 at 12:23 pm

          Now that’s a bit odd. I remember a very popular TV show some ten or more years ago where IQs were measured and Georgina Beyer was runner-up to Raybon Kan. They were up against teachers, academics and other known luminaries too.

          So much for alwyn’s latest attempt to derail a post.

          • alwyn 1.6.1.2.1
            24 November 2013 at 1:04 pm

            “so much for alwyn’s latest attempt to derail a post”
            You can’t derail this post. It’s “Open Mike” remember and as it says at the top of the page it is for “For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose”. It isn’t a post solely about Colin Craig you know.
            As far as IQ goes, so what? There are a very large number of people who have much higher IQs than Dick Feynman’s was. They didn’t win a Nobel Prize in Physics though..

        • Naturesong 1.6.1.3
          24 November 2013 at 12:26 pm

          Alamein Kopu wasnt stupid, she was corrupt and devoid of any ethical compass. Perhaps thats why Tau Henere used to sing her praises.

          To call Georgina Beyer a dim bulb simply shows up your ignorance of her.
          You may not like her, and while I don’t think anyone would call her an Einstein / Hawking type, she certainly isnt stupid.

          You also picked 2 people that cannot fight back, Alamein is dead, and Georgina now suffers from a chronic potentially terminal illness.

          I’m beginning to suspect you’re not a very nice person.

          • alwyn 1.6.1.3.1
            24 November 2013 at 1:16 pm

            “You also picked people who cannot fight back”.
            I can be very sorry for Georgina’s problems, and hope that she recovers, but it doesn’t change the fact that she was pretty foolish in her time as an MP. Even her resignation was a farce when she resigned to act in a play, didn’t go ahead with it and then complained that the Labour Government wouldn’t appoint her to a board or two.
            To say that one cannot comment on the dead because they cannot fight back would of course preclude any discussion of the evils of the Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot. They are all dead you see. We cannot judge them because they can’t fight back.

            However, to fit into your set of mores, I shall not discuss the matter any more.

        • Murray Olsen 1.6.1.4
          25 November 2013 at 12:14 am

          That’s funny. The thickest ones I’ve seen would be John Carter, Ben Couch, and that idiot deputy speaker we have these days. Alamein wasn’t overly gifted, but Georgina is not stupid at all.

      • KJT 1.6.2
        25 November 2013 at 10:06 am

        You think he is thicker than Brownlee, or Bennett?

        Key, supposedly the best of the National lot, also has a limited cognitive range.

        Not to mention the many other politicians who seem to have cognitive and moral disabilities.

    • Rogue Trooper 1.7
      24 November 2013 at 10:19 am

      Hoots on Q&A: [Nats] can only remain if Craig is gifted a seat. Sounds positive for the Left

      on Genesis shares, Ad;
      McCarten -“I don’t think Genesis will be offered” (paraphrased; a little stuttering to decipher)
      Hoots- “will hold business over till if re-elected.”

    • The Pink Postman 1.8
      24 November 2013 at 12:48 pm

      Well Micky S. I wonder just how much longer those elderly Blue Rinses will allow the Nat’s to treat them with utter contempt . Or does the thought of power mean everything?

      • greywarbler 1.8.1
        24 November 2013 at 10:34 pm

        TPP?
        I think the blue rinses and the other dyed hair types as well feel that belonging to National is asperahunal. It’s where the smart people go, and they do interesting things. Men who think of themselves as wheeler dealers, as Men of Business and Women also, fell National is their natural Party. It is hard to reach the Superior Mind, that demands Quality. (Suitable advert for them.)

  2. ak 2
    24 November 2013 at 8:36 am

    One might say Grammatical Correctness gone mad, eh what?

    Sensible sentencing and all that….one’s Tory Sentence ending with a semi-colin;

  3. karol 3
    24 November 2013 at 8:36 am

    Ansell’s mind-boggling pro Titford rants are being reported on the front page of the Sunday Star Times today. Headline “Rapist Titiford “a big pussycat”.

    Ansell claims Titford “was fitted up by the state” and the 24 year sentence is “excessive”.

    Hone Harawira says he has to laugh rather than get angry.

    More about Titford on p4.

    P4 also refers to Titford being supported by Martin Doutre, who claims Celts were in NZ pre-Maori.

    There’s several articles on p4, including one by Andrew Geddis. The articles are more factual and show up Titford’s hate crimes, rapes and abuse more seriously than the sensationalist front page.

    With thanks to Press Display – available to all library members online.

    • North 3.1
      24 November 2013 at 9:17 am

      Wasn’t “Ansell” a once-upon-a-time brand of condom ? Oh Daddy Daddy why did you not use one ?

        • North 3.1.1.1
          24 November 2013 at 3:10 pm

          Thanks for the link Lanthanide – as I speak, a comp’ ten pack of product on its way to the “Kiwi Not Iwi” bloke.

          To acknowledge (a) ZERO emotional IQ (b) that he’s a Premium sorta guy (c) to match his Thin arguments (d) to ensure no further replication of a violently racist mindset.

          Notwithstanding the manufacturer’s claims not sure there’s much can be done about the appalling lack of sensitivity.

          From http://www.ansell.com/condoms

          “ZERO® Premium Thin Condom

          For the man who wants a thin, sensitive fit.
          The thinnest LifeStyles condom ever made – 45% thinner than our standard condom
          Provides more sensitivity and a next-to-nothing feel
          Long-lasting lubricant to extend the pleasure
          Premium quality latex
          10 count box”

    • joe90 3.2
      24 November 2013 at 10:08 am

      Titford was rather popular with revisionists, racists and racists

      • marty mars 3.2.1
        24 November 2013 at 10:52 am

        lol that breaking poos site is funny

      • gobsmacked 3.2.2
        24 November 2013 at 12:01 pm

        Well done to Adam Dudding for his report, following up Titford’s political connections …

        “Former National Party leader Don Brash, whose short-lived political successes of 2004-05 were based largely on a speech in which he said New Zealand needed to be purged of race-based legislation, says he had been well aware of Titford’s case when writing the “Orewa” speech.

        “It was a celebrated [case], as we thought he had been a victim of intimidation. It turns out that was not the case at all.”

        Titford wasn’t exactly a poster boy, says Brash, “but certainly he was a person that most people who were concerned about the Treaty were aware of. But we had a totally wrong idea of his situation.”

        Yes, that’s the man who so nearly became Prime Minister. It would be nice if some of those who were taken in by the Brash/Ansell myth-making – or who actively supported it – now acknowledged they were wrong, that they regret their vote in 2005, and are relieved Brash never made it.

        A simple “Sorry, and thanks for saving us, Helen” will suffice.

    • jcuknz 3.3
      25 November 2013 at 9:54 am

      I think 24 years is excessive too, pity we don’t have a ‘Devils Island’ or something that provides sustinence for them without costing the taxpayer …. fortunately I doubt if I have another 24 years so will not be contributing that long.

  4. North 4
    24 November 2013 at 8:43 am

    What ? Bloody what ?

    Combed the online Herald this morning and nary a single pap piece on ShonKey Python, much less a mini-hagiography. Not even from Old Man Armstrong whose lingering menopause he confirms with this re Cunliffe and Pike River compensation and a “not-pleased” spray at Shiny Shimon Bridges. (Oh dear the fellow must be out-of-sorts):
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong-on-politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502865&objectid=11161469

    Sad however that in its 151st year Tawdry Tory Audrey saw fit to defecate on the Herald’s new look with this pastel piece re Paula Bennettoinette:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/audrey-young/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501219&objectid=11160995

    Good to see Fran sturdily with the makeover though:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/fran-osullivan-on-business/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502864&objectid=11161528

    • Naturesong 4.1
      24 November 2013 at 12:40 pm

      The Armstrong criticism of Cunliffe and praise of Key and McCully starts about halfway down.

      “Do Labour’s claims really stack up in both cases?”
      He criticises Cunliffes approach as poiuntless.
      And goes on to parise McCullys approach of engagement with regemes like Burma etc.

      He then talks about Pike River and conflates the ACC payout with the court ordered fines and compensation.
      As a political editor he would know better. So his spin is as intentional as it is misleading.

  5. aspasia 5
    24 November 2013 at 9:16 am

    In my inbox this morning–looks worth attending:

    AUT Law School warmly invites you to a Public Lecture on “State surveillance and human rights”
    by a leading UK public lawyer and human rights commentator, Professor Keith Ewing, King’s College, London.

    Date: Tuesday 26 November 2013
    Time:Refreshments at 5 pm followed by the Public Lecture at 6 pm
    Place: AUT Sir Paul Reeves Building, Room WG 126, Mayoral Drive

    Keith Ewing, Professor of Law, King’s College London, has written extensivelyin the area of public law and human rights. He is, perhaps, best known for his 2010 publication,“The Bonfire of the Liberties: New Labour, human rights, and the rule of law”,which provides an outstanding critique of the failure of constitutional principle to protect civil liberties and restrict the power of executive government in the UK. His lecture will address recent legislation in both NZ & the UK which attempts to legitimise executive surveillance of private citizens.

    There is no charge for this event but for catering purposes, please RSVP to Michelle D’Souza, mdsouza@aut.ac.nz or 921 9999 x 5475

  6. tricledrown 6
    24 November 2013 at 9:42 am

    C73 cherry picking facts again crime has been dropping in all developed countries aging population video cameras security systems more focused policing.
    You would probably shoot one of your family first’
    You must be desperate to defend your position as a right wing toiltroll.
    Being so poor you can only afford a vitara you can easily be bought off.
    A titford toiletroll!

  7. tricledrown 7
    24 November 2013 at 10:01 am

    C73
    New Zealands rate of gun of gun homicide.
    13.5% of murders
    7 per year.
    US
    60% of homicide by gun
    9,200 per year.
    More than a 1,000 times more people die in the US.
    200 times the rate per head of population
    Why not just gone and live in the US and be happy.
    We don’t need anymore guns we have gone of the higjest fun ownership rates in the world already.
    A good percentage of those seven homicides will be from hunters shooting their mates.
    Experienced shooters failing to identify their target.
    So putting guns into the average persons hands will lead to mayhem.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      24 November 2013 at 10:08 am

      C73 wants handguns much more widely available, not hunting rifles. It’s madness. Police will have to go to automatic and assault weapons.

      • chris73 7.1.1
        24 November 2013 at 10:24 am

        You are a liar CV, you are completely wrong, I cannot say it anymore clearly then this. Show me where I mentioned anything about wanting handguns more widely available and I’ll admit you’re right and I’m wrong otherwise you are full of shit

        For home defence purposes (if it was legal) I’d go for a rifle because they’re accurate but its entirely up to anyone else to decide what they need

        LOL with a statement like that you can’t possibly have a serious interest in firearms for home defence

        – Ok I’m generally interested in why you think that and what would your choice be

        • Paul 7.1.1.1
          24 November 2013 at 10:29 am

          So much time on this site is wasted discussing ridiculous propositions put forward by people who shill for the 1%, either knowingly or unknowingly.

          This is Open Mike Chris.
          Do you agree with the climate denier viewpoints on the Godard site? You dodged that question earlier.

          • chris73 7.1.1.1.1
            24 November 2013 at 10:39 am

            I’m actually interested in why he thinks a rifle is something he wouldn’t choose because he might have a idea I hadn’t thought of (unlikely but why wouldn’t i hear what he has to say)

            and the reason I don’t want handguns widely available is because they’re really dangerous, check this out from the FBI:

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

            or more importantly:

            Total firearms: 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,583

            Handguns 7,398 6,800 6,501 6,115 6,220
            Rifles 453 380 351 367 323
            Shotguns 457 442 423 366 356
            Other guns 116 81 96 93 97
            Firearms,
            type not stated 1,705 1,825 1,828 1,933 1,587

            Hand guns/pistols (whatever you want to call them) are the main problem in the usa and remember when they say rifles that means anything from bolt action hunting rifles to semi-auto military style rifles

            I didn’t dodge it, I just haven’t looked at it because I’m more interested in this

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.2
          24 November 2013 at 10:40 am

          You didn’t mention handguns explicitly, but of course that’s what is required for home personal defence.

          – I stand by what I said, I would go for a rifle over anything because of the greater accuracy

          For a moving target at a range of 4m or less? You are kidding.

          – Ok I’m generally interested in why you think that and what would your choice be

          No comment on this sorry.

          • chris73 7.1.1.2.1
            24 November 2013 at 11:03 am

            So you admit you got it wrong, well thats good

            “You didn’t mention handguns explicitly, but of course that’s what is required for home personal defence”

            – No it isn’t, I (and this is just for me) prefer a rifle to pistol because:

            A. A rifle is more accurate then a pistol, anyone who has ever shot a pistol will tell you that hitting a moving target at even 4 meters with a pistol is not easy without a boatload of practice

            B. A 5.56/.223 means the recoil is very small so easier for both myself and anyone else smaller then me to use

            C. You can still hunt game with a .223 meaning you don’t have to buy separate rifles (although you should if you’re hunting larger game)

            D. Its easier to learn to shoot with a rifle and is less “fiddly” then a pistol and if you’re in a situation with the adrenaline pumping you really should be totally familiar with your weapon

            E. You need an endorsement on your licence to buy a hand gun

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.2.1.1
              24 November 2013 at 11:10 am

              So you admit you got it wrong, well thats good

              You’re still making shit up. Handguns are required for home personal defence. I’m just making it clear what you are implying.

              A. A rifle is more accurate then a pistol, anyone who has ever shot a pistol will tell you that hitting a moving target at even 4 meters with a pistol is not easy without a boatload of practice

              I find it really fascinating that you feel that rifles are the appropriate weapon to use at personal defence ranges. It means that no one should take advice from you on the topic of firearms for home personal defence.

              • chris73 …
                24 November 2013 at 11:17 am

                Handguns are required for home personal defence. I’m just making it clear what you are implying.

                – Ok you say that, where did you get that information from, do you have a link or did you just watch a lot of movies?

                I find it really fascinating that you feel that rifles are the appropriate weapon to use at personal defence ranges. It means that no one should take advice from you on the topic of firearms for home personal defence.

                – and we should take advice from you? Whats your background? I’ve given 5 reasons as to why I’d choose a rifle over a pistol and you’ve given…well none, you haven’t given anything to back your opinion

                • Colonial Viper …
                  24 November 2013 at 11:48 am

                  Own whatever guns you like mate, not my business.

                  • chris73 …
                    24 November 2013 at 12:04 pm

                    No

                    You stated: “Handguns are required for home personal defence” and “I find it really fascinating that you feel that rifles are the appropriate weapon to use at personal defence ranges. It means that no one should take advice from you on the topic of firearms for home personal defence.”

                    I want to know where you come by your information and why you think your information is any better then mine

                    And because you’ve watched some movies doesn’t count as information

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 November 2013 at 12:13 pm

                      I’m right and you’re wrong. And my primary position remains that having guns for use in the home is a very bad idea. But you can own whatever guns you like, it’s none of my business.

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 12:35 pm

                      – You’re a liar first off, just thought I’d get my reply off on the right foot

                      I’m right and you’re wrong.

                      – Why am I wrong, so far I’ve given you 5 reasons as to my position and all you’ve given to back your position is… nothing except I’m right and you’re wrong (now I’m no expert in debating but I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t win you any points…)

                      – Do you know why you’re right? Can you tell me why you’re right or have you just watched Die Hard one too many times?

                      And my primary position remains that having guns for use in the home is a very bad idea.

                      – Ok thats cool thats your opinion and thats ok

                      But you can own whatever guns you like, it’s none of my business.

                      – See above

                    • Naturesong …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:02 pm

                      Though I do not currently own a gun, growing up, my dad ensured that we had a working knowledge of guns.
                      So I know how to shoot, clean and care for a single shot bolt action .22, a .267 hunting rifle and a double barrrel shotgun.

                      If you think that a rifle is the best tool for hitting a moving target (possibly in poor light) at short range, then you either have no experience handling and shooting guns, or you are an idiot.

                      I’ve not used a handgun, but for short range I’d choose a handgun because it’s designed specifically for that. To kill humans at short range.

                      If a handgun were not available, then a shotgun would be second pick for short range – but you really, really do not want to be firing one of those inside a house.

                      I’d choose a short stick over a firearm for home defence. A 2′ baton applied to a persons ankles, knees, elbows, wrists, corner of their shoulder is going to discourage someone very quickly.

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:20 pm

                      Though I do not currently own a gun, growing up, my dad ensured that we had a working knowledge of guns.
                      So I know how to shoot, clean and care for a single shot bolt action .22, a .267 hunting rifle and a double barrrel shotgun.

                      If you think that a rifle is the best tool for hitting a moving target (possibly in poor light) at short range, then you either have no experience handling and shooting guns, or you are an idiot.

                      – I’ll go with 7 years military experience ackshully

                      I’ve not used a handgun, but for short range I’d choose a handgun because it’s designed specifically for that. To kill humans at short range.

                      – in that case I’d suggest you go fire one because I guarantee you’ll be surprised by how inaccurate it is (i know i was)

                      – The inaccuracy and practice required to get that accuracy up to an acceptable level is what makes me choose a rifle…

                      – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

                      – Salient point is that even us police who get a fair amount of practice have an accuracy rate of 34%…

                      – Most people don’t have the time to get that accuracy up to speed

                      If a handgun were not available, then a shotgun would be second pick for short range – but you really, really do not want to be firing one of those inside a house.

                      – I agree but I’m also thinking of the kick back as well, my wife has issues with her shoulder so the recoil of a .223 wouldn’t be a problem for her but a shot gun would

                      I’d choose a short stick over a firearm for home defence. A 2′ baton applied to a persons ankles, knees, elbows, wrists, corner of their shoulder is going to discourage someone very quickly.

                      – True but thats assuming theres only one of them and they’re unarmed, what if theres more then one of them, what if they’re holding a pick ax handle or baseball bat etc etc

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:31 pm

                      – I’ll go with 7 years military experience ackshully

                      How many building clearances did you do during that time?

                      If a handgun were not available, then a shotgun would be second pick for short range – but you really, really do not want to be firing one of those inside a house.

                      A short barrel carbine might be a second option too. But again, firing one of those inside a house is typically a very bad idea.

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:38 pm

                      How many building clearances did you do during that time?

                      – Why don’t you answer my questions about your experiences that make you such an expert? Scared?

                      – But back to the matter at hand: None which is probably not a bad thing as I’ll be in a defensive mode anyway which means they’ll come to me so it’ll be more akin to an ambush rather then a clearance

                      – Assuming of course they choose to ignore my dogs

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:41 pm

                      So in your 7 years military experience you gained no specialty in urban warfare or in clearing and securing buildings and residences?

                      – Assuming of course they choose to ignore my dogs

                      I think dogs are better than guns at keeping a family safe.

                      – Why don’t you answer my questions about your experiences that make you such an expert? Scared?

                      “Scared”? Huh?

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

                      So in your 7 years military experience you gained no specialty in urban warfare or in clearing and securing buildings and residences?

                      – So I’ve basically answered as many of your questions as I can yet you won’t answer any of mine so I’ll try again…

                      You said:

                      Handguns are required for home personal defence. I’m just making it clear what you are implying.

                      – My question is: Ok you say that, where did you get that information from, do you have a link or did you just watch a lot of movies?

                      You said:

                      I find it really fascinating that you feel that rifles are the appropriate weapon to use at personal defence ranges. It means that no one should take advice from you on the topic of firearms for home personal defence.

                      – My question is: and we should take advice from you? Whats your background? I’ve given 5 reasons as to why I’d choose a rifle over a pistol and you’ve given…well none, you haven’t given anything to back your opinion

                      My final question is: why are you so scared to answer my questions, I’ve answered yours yet you won’t answer mine

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:51 pm

                      Mate I get all my info from playing Modern Warfare.

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 1:59 pm

                      Mate I get all my info from playing Modern Warfare.

                      – I believe you

                    • felix …
                      24 November 2013 at 6:27 pm

                      Just to be clear chris73, are you claiming to be a police officer with 7 years military experience or not?

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 8:11 pm

                      Did you mean this:

                      “Salient point is that even us police who get a fair amount of practice have an accuracy rate of 34%…”

                      Sorry my bad I could have written that better, I meant US to signify that even police from the USA who practice regularly have an accuracy rate of 34% so no I’m not a policeman

                    • felix …
                      24 November 2013 at 8:51 pm

                      lolz, I realised just after posting that you probably meant that.

                    • jcuknz …
                      25 November 2013 at 10:08 am

                      I was in my Regimental Rifle Team when using a rifle but with pistol or automatic I was unlikely to hit the target …. but I have read more novels now and believe I know how to hold a pistol these days 🙂
                      The one time I used a Sten gun I remember seeing the CSM coming at me but fortunately the magazine emptied before he reached me 🙂 The sideways pull of the Sten is almost uncontrollable, ideal for house to house fighting …. spray …. spray …spray … reload … spray …..

              • Te Reo Putake …
                24 November 2013 at 7:40 pm

                “A. A rifle is more accurate then a pistol, anyone who has ever shot a pistol will tell you that hitting a moving target at even 4 meters with a pistol is not easy without a boatload of practice”

                Ahem. Not actually my experience when I was a teenage pistol club member. Got to rep level in a few weeks, mainly on the 25 metre rapid fire. In a close situation like a house, I’d be going for the pistol every time. Over distance, a rifle is obviously more accurate, but in your hallway, a handgun is simpler, quicker and more effective.

                But, of course, the best protection is no guns at all.

                • chris73 …
                  24 November 2013 at 8:17 pm

                  Well you’re good with a pistol and have experience with one so for you a pistol makes sense but for me I prefer the rifle whereas others would go for a shotgun

                  I personally found the rifle easier to use and aim but thats me and everyones different, I was more wanting to know why CV was saying what he was saying without backing it up

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    24 November 2013 at 9:06 pm

                    I was more wanting to know why CV was saying what he was saying without backing it up

                    I know stuff. *Shrug*. Like I said, I’m happy for you to use whatever you would like.

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 9:50 pm

                      Well I’m always interested in learning stuff about subjects I’m interested in so if you can let me know your reasoning and/or experiences I could probably kearn from it

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 11:00 pm

                      So basically you don’t know and just did a quick google search, thats cool

                      But remember most of what you’re linking to is from the USA where hand guns are reasonably easy to get hold of and there are certainly many more places to train with them

                      Most people in NZ don’t have the time or the inclination to join the clubs and do the testing required to get the endorsement for a hand gun

                      Whereas its relatively simple to get a standard firearms licence and get a rifle (or shot gun) and practice

                      Bottom line should be:

                      Go for what you’re comfortable with using and train constantly

                    • felix …
                      25 November 2013 at 12:02 am

                      “Go for what you’re comfortable with”

                      Ok. I’m most comfortable when I know that you and Simon Lusk and Bruce Emery and Garth McVicar aren’t sitting around with loaded weapons (oh sorry, “cleaning” them) waiting for an excuse to murder someone.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 November 2013 at 2:12 am

                      So basically you don’t know and just did a quick google search, thats cool

                      Oh fuck off chris73. I didn’t learn this shit in the last 24 hours if that is what you are implying.

                      Your presumption that a rifle is the best weapon for personal home defence is DEAD WRONG, was wrong from the start, is wrong now, and all the experts you wanted referenced say exactly that.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 November 2013 at 2:25 am

                      Most people in NZ don’t have the time or the inclination to join the clubs and do the testing required to get the endorsement for a hand gun

                      Whereas its relatively simple to get a standard firearms licence and get a rifle (or shot gun) and practice

                      Right, that makes it clear. I had thought that you were talking about people who were serious about home personal defence and understood the gravity of the factors involved.

                      If I had known from the start that you were talking about people who can’t be assed making a proper effort to get it right, I would have said, yeah just use whatever POS firearm you happen to have lying around.

                    • chris73 …
                      25 November 2013 at 7:22 am

                      “Oh fuck off chris73. I didn’t learn this shit in the last 24 hours if that is what you are implying.”

                      – I’m not implying, I’m saying thats what you did because

                      A. the only evidence or personal experience or anything you’ve offered to back up your assertion is something you googled

                      B. Whatever it is you say I can’t believe because of the amount of lying you did

                      “Your presumption that a rifle is the best weapon for personal home defence is DEAD WRONG, was wrong from the start, is wrong now, and all the experts you wanted referenced say exactly that.”

                      – A rifle is best for ME, not everybody else because everybody elses circumstances is different

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    25 November 2013 at 12:48 am

                    I would always go for a pistol or revolver inside a house as my second choice. My first choice would be to not be paranoid, and realise that the chances of someone actually entering my house with bad intent are pretty miniscule. In the past, when they have, I found that showing a knife or, in one case, a German officer’s sword, was sufficient. If I wanted to take out people who made me paranoid at 200m as they entered my street, I’d use a rifle.

                    • vto …
                      25 November 2013 at 6:39 am

                      Just follow the US example and go for “best form of defence is attack”. or undertake a “pre-emptive strike”.

                      Off to the bad hoods you go, gun loaded and looking for a likely suspect.

                      Such is of course the logical next step, as the US government affirms.

                    • jcuknz …
                      25 November 2013 at 10:18 am

                      The recent shocking example of pre-emptive strike … a black young woman’s car breaks down she goes to a house for help and the home owner shoots her in the face with his shotgun …. obviously ‘no gun’ equals ‘live girl’

                  • KJT …
                    25 November 2013 at 9:55 am

                    If you look at the evidence from the USA you would not have a gun.

                    The person most likely to be shot by your gun, loaded ready for use, in your home, is you, or a member of your family.
                    Either accidentally or deliberately by a family member, or by the burglar who takes it off you.

                    Anyway, from what I have seen, a bar stool is far more accurate, and has more “stopping power” at close range, than a gun. And, If you hit your teenager sneaking home at 2 am, you have, most likely, stunned, not killed, them.

                    • jcuknz …
                      25 November 2013 at 10:32 am

                      My son lives in the States in a rural area and earlier this year was debating if to get a gun.
                      Bearing in mind my Daughter-in-law was out ‘getting her cat in’ one evening and noticed a bobcat some ten or twelve feet way from her …. they both hi-tailed it back into the house pronto. Bears also come around from time to time, so rubbish is not put out, or in ‘bear-proof’ containers, and bears are incredibly ingenious in openning ‘bear-proof’ containers.
                      Since we have neither bobcats nor bears in NZ I don’t see any need for guns except for sporting purposes.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 November 2013 at 10:39 am

                      Indeed, there’s very legit reasons to have firearms in the rural US just as there are in rural NZ.

                    • jcuknz …
                      25 November 2013 at 4:40 pm

                      Afterwards I thought I should have extended sporting cover to pest control and ‘for the pot’

    • alwyn 7.2
      24 November 2013 at 11:56 am

      I was quite surprised to see how low the number of murders using firearms was in New Zealand.
      Checking it out confirms your figures, which is a great change, and improvement, from the average of about 18/year 25 years ago (say 1988-1992 inclusive).
      The rate per head of population is out by a decimal point by the way. On the numbers you quote it would be about 20 rather than 200.

  8. Paul 8
    24 November 2013 at 10:24 am

    Bernard Hickey: A Faustian pact we cannot accept

    “It was like a neutron bomb going off in the heart of New Zealand’s economic strategy.

    The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, released a must-read report this week on land use and nutrient pollution.

    It directly addressed the huge ramp-up in cow numbers over the past decade and how that was affecting our waterways. Using models from Motu (Economic and Public Policy Research) and NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research), the report looked at the growth in cow numbers forecast by the Government as it tries to double agricultural exports by 2025. The results were deeply unsettling.

    “Even with best practice mitigation, the large-scale conversion of more land to dairy farming will generally result in more degraded fresh water,” Wright said.

    Think about this. No matter how many waterways are fenced off and how much effluent is spread on paddocks, the problem gets worse. Even 100 per cent compliance with Fonterra’s Sustainable Dairying Accord signed this year does not solve the problem. This is saying New Zealanders must accept the permanent poisoning of our rivers if we are to grow our economy through dairy exports, which is our main strategy at the moment.

    It is a Faustian bargain with four legs, a tail and whole lot of cud-chewing. It says New Zealanders must accept that dairy farmers are going to privatise the profits of permanently damaging our rivers while the losses are socialised.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11161882

    • JK 8.1
      24 November 2013 at 10:52 am

      ” Think about this. No matter how many waterways are fenced off and how much effluent is spread on paddocks, the problem gets worse. Even 100 per cent compliance with Fonterra’s Sustainable Dairying Accord signed this year does not solve the problem. ”

      Isn’t it too early to say fencing off waterways won’t be sufficient ?

      Very few waterways through dairy land have been fenced off and planted – and much more needs to be done, plus there need to be a few more years allowed for the trees and native shrubs to grow and start spreading their shade over the waterways.

      At the same time, bio-fuel could be properly research and made from cow manure maybe – as well as the effluent spraying onto paddocks. More pressure needs to be put on government sources to make this sort of thing happen properly, and all over the country where dairying is being done.

      And maybe a temporary halt to any more dairy farms being proposed – a moratorium say, for five years, while all these other things get under way.

      There is NO need for NZ to accept that more dairying means more polluted waters.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1
        24 November 2013 at 11:08 am

        Isn’t it too early to say fencing off waterways won’t be sufficient ?

        No, the scientists already know how fast the pollutants from the cows goes through the land.

      • Tracey 8.1.2
        25 November 2013 at 7:09 am

        But dont we have to accept that by beginning dairying in drought susceptible places we have increased other environment dangers, such as the degridation of rivers and eco systems to divert water to land that was never meant to be lush? North canterbury for example.

        We cant continue to force the land to bend to the desire to financially benefit from cows without expecting a backlash. Nature (including us) is about balance. We are tipping the balance int his regard way off its axis.

      • Molly 8.1.3
        25 November 2013 at 9:32 am

        Considering also that this intensification has come with a considerable increase in farming debt during the last decade it does make you wonder how any (logical) business model would show it to be a success.

  9. tricledrown 9
    24 November 2013 at 10:28 am

    CV the right are running out of
    t/rolls scraping the bottom of the barrel!
    C73 is failing to identify his target and continues to shoot himself in the far right of his very large foot which is stuck in his mouth.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      24 November 2013 at 10:42 am

      🙂

    • chris73 9.2
      24 November 2013 at 10:52 am

      I’m showing (with links because the left love to ask for links) that homicides in the USA is dropping, I’ve showed that firearms arn’t the problem its hand guns (in the usa anyway) but back to you

      Why not just gone and live in the US and be happy.

      – I like NZ

      We don’t need anymore guns we have gone of the higjest fun ownership rates in the world already.

      – What does that even mean? Do you mean to say there should be a limit as to how many firearms someone can own or that it should be made easier to get a firearms licence (I think the licence requirements are good as they are)

      A good percentage of those seven homicides will be from hunters shooting their mates.
      Experienced shooters failing to identify their target.

      – I agree

      So putting guns into the average persons hands will lead to mayhem.

      – I agree, the NZ firearms licencing system seems to be working just fine as it is so theres no need to change it

      • Colonial Viper 9.2.1
        24 November 2013 at 11:01 am

        I’m showing (with links because the left love to ask for links) that homicides in the USA is dropping

        What, from about 14x NZ’s death rate to just 7x?

        • chris73 9.2.1.1
          24 November 2013 at 11:11 am

          Wow you got me, the USAs rate is higher then NZs so we’ll just ignore the fact that the rate in the USA is dropping and thats from data taken over decades

          • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1.1
            24 November 2013 at 11:13 am

            So how many decades before they hit merely quadruple NZ’s death rate?

            • chris73 9.2.1.1.1.1
              24 November 2013 at 11:22 am

              and whats that got to do with anything?

              Have I stated we should follow the USA

              – No I stated the firearms licence should stay as it is

              Have I stated we should have pistols more widely available

              – No (even though you seem to think thats what I’m stating) I think the main issue with the USA is the hand gun

              You’ve made up your mind about what I’m saying so it doesn’t matter what I type here

              • Colonial Viper …
                24 November 2013 at 11:52 am

                That’s odd, I thought you were pushing for wider ownership and use of guns in the home but it seems all you are interested in is the status quo and recognising that the US is not the example to follow. I’m Ok with all that.

                • chris73 …
                  24 November 2013 at 12:01 pm

                  What is it with you today?

                  I’m for following the firearms licencing code because it works well, if suddenly a million kiwis up and get their licences and buy weapons in the next week I’m ok with that

                  If those same kiwis get the endorsements for handguns and then buy handguns I’m also ok with that

                  I’m not ok with people being able to buy firearms without a licence nor am I ok with people buying handguns without the proper endorsements

                  I’d also like to see the castle doctrine bought into NZ and set up for kiwis, by kiwis, so everybody know where they stand

          • fender 9.2.1.1.2
            24 November 2013 at 11:16 am

            Can you just accept the dinner invitation Chris, I’ve got some ammo I want you to take a look at.

            • chris73 9.2.1.1.2.1
              24 November 2013 at 11:24 am

              Depends, what are you serving?

              • fender …
                24 November 2013 at 11:48 am

                Remington rosettes and buckshot bread.

                Seriously I’m disturbed about your love for guns and support for Crazy Colon and his shoot the visitors policy.

                • chris73 …
                  24 November 2013 at 11:52 am

                  I enjoy target shooting and I think the castle doctrine is something that should be looked at…I’m amused no one even bothered to mention the free education for national service thing, which I think is a good idea though it could be increased for things like pest eradication, doc work etc etc

                  • fender …
                    24 November 2013 at 12:03 pm

                    Could be cheaper and less problematic to just fund DOC sufficiently and subsidise education too.

                    I’ve been annoyed with Mormons and JW’s on the doorstep but never felt like shooting them.

                    • chris73 …
                      24 November 2013 at 12:07 pm

                      Could be cheaper and less problematic to just fund DOC sufficiently and subsidise education too.

                      – Yeah but theres benefits to be had with national service, I mean Singapore and Switzerland seem to do all right and kids can learn trades and skills…

                      I’ve been annoyed with Mormons and JW’s on the doorstep but never felt like shooting them.

                      – The best thing about shooting them is they generally forgive you (thats a joke I don’t condone shooting anyone of faith)

                    • felix …
                      24 November 2013 at 8:05 pm

                      “(thats a joke I don’t condone shooting anyone of faith)”

                      Oh ffs chris, you’ve spent all day drooling on about your supposed right to shoot people who threaten your “castle”.

                      Worthless fucking troll.

                  • Molly …
                    25 November 2013 at 9:36 am

                    Castle doctrine… Really?

                    Given most of our castles have an alternate exit – wouldn’t it just be easier to get through it and away? Castle is still there when you get back.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                24 November 2013 at 11:49 am

                Magnums, not hollow points like you Dum Dum 😉

  10. phillip ure 10
    24 November 2013 at 10:37 am

    (this had me laughing like a drain..

    ..bill maher compares reagan and kennedy..)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/bill-maher-jfk-kennedy-vs-ronald-regan-video_n_4329327.html

    phillip ure..

  11. tricledrown 11
    24 November 2013 at 10:51 am

    Paul Farmers are aloud to operate under different rules to every other business.
    They are aloud to dump
    Nitrates and phosphates into our streams rivers lakes water table virtually at will.
    Any city based company which
    tried to dump effluent of anytype would be shut down immediatly forced to pay for the clean up then heavily fined.
    Farmers have taken over running a lot of the rural regional councils and gone lightly on farmers!

    • Foreign Waka 11.2
      24 November 2013 at 5:03 pm

      And be aware of the tactics and sheer bullying, if not aggression to “defend” what they belief is “theirs”.
      I propose that for every ill every possibility to affect a species how ever small, that a 10 meter strip along any water way or well is being confiscated for the purpose of creating a corridor for harm minimization. Any complaints and and another problem, 15 meters is the next lot – what? there is a protest and some more of the same, 20 meters it will be.
      I don’t belief that Farmers really have a nation on their mind as they are the Land Gentry who have inherent the attitudes of long gone generations left behind in Europe. There people were shot when digging up potatoes due to starvation, citing theft.

  12. newsense 12
    24 November 2013 at 11:01 am

    http://0-library.pressdisplay.com.www.elgar.govt.nz/

    From Karols comment above. Any other online awesomeness available through the library system?

  13. newsense 13
    24 November 2013 at 11:01 am

    http://0-library.pressdisplay.com.www.elgar.govt.nz/

    From Karols comment above. Any other online awesomeness available through the library system?

    This is the auckland gateway

  14. Draco T Bastard 14
    24 November 2013 at 11:15 am

    #Maori culture could be trademarked by TPP multinationals

    Iwi leaders and the corporate arm of tribal organizations need to show their blatant disregard for the TPP, as it will significantly impact the majority of Māori. Traditional knowledge like rongoā (medicinal practices and customs), carving, weaving, and even the Māori language are in danger of being hijacked by TPP investors. Indeed, Auckland University law professor Jane Kelsey, a forefront activist against the free trade agreement, says that tribal leaders need to see the ecological, socio-economic and intellectual property fallout that will transpire once the TPP is employed.

    “It is also likely to lead to more Māori names being trademarked by foreign companies, and traditional knowledge about things like rongoā or natural medicine being claimed by companies.”

    Something else to think about as regards the TPPA.

  15. phillip ure 15
    24 November 2013 at 11:35 am

    this one is also of interest..

    http://boingboing.net/2013/11/23/nsa-hacked-50000-global-netwo.html

    and yes..nz is on the spied-on list/map..

    ..whoar..!

    ..eh..?

    ..next question..seeing this has been going on since 1998..

    ..who here knew..and when..?

    ..or are we as is indonesia to australia on this..?

    ..it has to be one or the other..

    ..with both deserving of questions/answers..

    ..phillip ure..

  16. tricledrown 16
    24 November 2013 at 11:57 am

    C73 the crime rates in developed countries has been dropping for a long time poor excuse for a failed argument
    A rifle is far more accurate and less fiddlly than a hand gun
    More lies .
    A handgun is less fiddly and more accurate at
    short distance

    A rifle following the law c73 has to be in an approved locker loocked up with the ammo and firing pin kept seperatly by the time you get your rifle loaded and ready to fire the socold threat will have overpowered you got what he wants plus your gun and made your pathetic rational look as silly as you are.
    With crime rates dropping so rapidly there is no need for guns for personal protection .
    C73 you dog whistling to the far right.

    • chris73 16.1
      24 November 2013 at 12:19 pm

      C73 the crime rates in developed countries has been dropping for a long time poor excuse for a failed argument

      – Not everywhere

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-123421/Crime-shows-biggest-rise-decade.html

      – Did you know they have very strict gun ownership laws?

      A rifle is far more accurate and less fiddlly than a hand gun
      More lies .
      A handgun is less fiddly and more accurate at
      short distance

      – No you are wrong, the length of the barrel improves the accuracy as the bullet travels down the barrel of the gun, it is literally spun by the many grooves which line the barrel. These grooves serve to greater increase accuracy by attempting to stabilize the bullet by spinning it , as much as it can while in flight. Thus allowing the bullet to remain in its trajectory and hitting the target spot-on.

      – Please stop getting information from hollywood movies as they’re not accurate

      A rifle following the law c73 has to be in an approved locker loocked up with the ammo and firing pin kept seperatly by the time you get your rifle loaded and ready to fire the socold threat will have overpowered you got what he wants plus your gun and made your pathetic rational look as silly as you are.
      With crime rates dropping so rapidly there is no need for guns for personal protection .

      – Just as an example but whos to say I didn’t have my weapon out and was checking/cleaning it when I heard a noise…

      – However I also have a couple of dogs to give me excellent prior warning and they have very loud and deep barks

      – Yes the Police and National are doing a wonderful job of looking after the country, I’m so glad you agree

      C73 you dog whistling to the far right.

      – Um if I was then I’ve chosen the wrong site to do so don’t you think…

      • North 16.1.1
        24 November 2013 at 6:28 pm

        You’re a masochisic arsehole Piss. Or terminally stupid. I go with the latter frankly.

        • chris73 16.1.1.1
          24 November 2013 at 7:37 pm

          You don’t seem to want to answer this but I’ll try again:

          Could you explain what you meant by this line:

          “Give the missus a serious seeing to when she got home late with the Maccers dinner and no dipping sauce didya ?”

          I’m not sure what you meant it so if you could clarify it for me I’d appreciate it

          cheers

      • McFlock 16.1.2
        24 November 2013 at 10:27 pm

        – Just as an example but whos to say I didn’t have my weapon out and was checking/cleaning it when I heard a noise…

        All well and good, until you have to explain why a kid ended up shooting their friend with the gun you were supposedly storing legally.

        • chris73 16.1.2.1
          24 November 2013 at 10:43 pm

          I do get your point in general but in my case thats not likely to happen because we don’t have kids so we don’t have kids over, its just the two of us

          • fender 16.1.2.1.1
            24 November 2013 at 10:52 pm

            The time stamps on your TS comments showed you had been busy typing for hours while your loaded gun sat around.

            • chris73 16.1.2.1.1.1
              24 November 2013 at 11:11 pm

              “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act which deprived a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

              ― Mahatma Gandhi

              and I think theres something in that for all of us

          • McFlock 16.1.2.1.2
            24 November 2013 at 11:21 pm

            Right, so it’s just you not getting all panicky and shooting through the bathroom door at the “burglar” when you thought the missus was out, then.

          • felix 16.1.2.1.3
            24 November 2013 at 11:56 pm

            “I do get your point in general but in my case thats not likely to happen because we don’t have kids so we don’t have kids over, its just the two of us”

            Getting quite specific, this castle doctrine. A couple more comments and it’ll be narrowed down to apply only to Cameron Slater and Bruce Emery

            • Rogue Trooper 16.1.2.1.3.1
              25 November 2013 at 12:04 am

              Evens the score!

            • Murray Olsen 16.1.2.1.3.2
              25 November 2013 at 12:55 am

              These guys would probably let Titford have one in his cell. After all, that’s his home for a while now, and I suspect there will be the odd home invasion.

            • chris73 16.1.2.1.3.3
              25 November 2013 at 7:31 am

              You do know castle doctrine is about someone in your house right, not about people lurking outside your house

              Just because the american judicial systems interpretation of the law is screwed up doesn’t mean NZ has to follow, we could do our own version (yeah I know we have to follow absolutely everything america does)

              • McFlock …
                25 November 2013 at 1:31 pm

                Yes.
                It’s about blazing away at people inside your home who do not present a reasonable threat to your life or the lives of your loved ones.

                If they do present a threat to you or others, you’re already covered by the law and can blaze away to your heart’s content – as long as it’s reasonable.

      • jcuknz 16.1.3
        25 November 2013 at 10:39 am

        Is that why target pistols have long barrels unlike the snub nosed pistols people carry for law enforcement and law breaking?

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.3.1
          25 November 2013 at 10:43 am

          longer barrel = less barrel rise when firing, more accuracy and faster muzzle velocity (higher kinetic energy, implies longer range and more stopping power).

          Those things matter less when you are intending to use the weapon at ranges of 10m and less.

  17. ianmac 17
    24 November 2013 at 11:58 am

    Rodney Hide is critical of Key-Government deals. Wot!!!! Surely not and sort of agreeing with Mr Cunliffe. Wah?
    “But do we want the Prime Minister cutting deals with business? I don’t think so.
    There’s now a long list of hands-on deal making. We had Warner Bros in making The Hobbit trilogy, $1.2 billion for Chorus to roll out fibre, the consequent questioning of the Commerce Commission doing its job determining the price of copper, $30 million for Rio Tinto to stay a bit longer and the pokies-for-convention-centre deal with SkyCity.

    Each of the deals has a logic. The benefits each time may well outweigh the costs. Each on their own possibly stacks up. But taken together they show a disturbing pattern of a Government willing not just to sit down with individual businesses but willing to talk turkey and strike very specific deals….”
    Well Rodney wont be very welcome back in Parliament will he.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11161876

  18. Rogue Trooper 18
    24 November 2013 at 12:09 pm

    Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse, with focus on pre-conception until three years of age.

    Report of Health Commitee (Dr Paul Hutchison, Chairperson.)

    See 3 , The economics of early intervention with children : referencing Heckman, The economics of human potential .
    http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201347/Full-report-text1.pdf

    Q&A
    Hutchison : spending on the young leads to highly productive lives (contributing to tax-revenue)

    King: prioritization of new funding to the early years, including conception; sections of the Report will translate directly into Labour’s 2014 manifesto.

    Recommendations were accepted by all members of the Health Commitee. If National do not commit, King could campaign on the differentiation.

    Even Hoots, “the Baby Boomers have been too politically powerful for structural change… an actuarial approach may improve investment ” (sorta paraphrased) Comrade Matthew! However, lets leave the oil in the ground as well aye. 😎

    To conclude, the Health Vote expenditure per 0-5-year old is $5000, while the comparison for over-85-year olds is $25,000 .

    • Treetop 18.1
      24 November 2013 at 2:25 pm

      Both groups would benefit from adequate nutrition and insulated housing. Lunch in schools and prepacked meals, as well as insulation installers would create employment.

      Good antenatal care and good nutrition is being proactive.

      • Rogue Trooper 18.1.1
        24 November 2013 at 3:25 pm

        Yes, many reports in the MSM of low-income elderly people doing it very hard. Furthermore, many folk in their 60’s are likely to live for another 20 years or so, with relief looking less and less unlikely. Still, at least these conversations are becoming more mainstream also, in little pockets of sanity.

      • North 18.1.2
        24 November 2013 at 6:23 pm

        What utterly indulgent silliness Treetop ! Let the indolent bastards waste I say, for the “bad choices” they stubbornly insist on making still. Life after all is about the “good people”, the Piss73s, the Bowel Motions, the Infuseds, the SS-Lands, the blowhard little soldiers of the ShonKey Python cargo-cult revolution. The ones still reading “Boys’ Own”.

        I tell you, the only people worth investing in are those with more money than a bull can shit shit and more money than Imelda could spend. Get real my brother !

        • Treetop 18.1.2.1
          25 November 2013 at 3:26 pm

          Ah North insulated housing has many benefits and the less electricity used the less profit the shareholdres have!

      • jcuknz 18.1.3
        25 November 2013 at 10:47 am

        I would echo the insulation …. although my house was built about twenty years ago according to the then, perhaps still current, insulation standards over a period of about a year I double glazed and today I enjoy the considerable benefits of that home-improvement. Usually only needing a 400 or 600watt heater for personal comfort ….. being an older person on blood thinning medication.

  19. ghostrider888 19
    24 November 2013 at 3:48 pm

    Had not heard this Song for Ages, ’til it wafted across the road on the wind.

    You see life through distorted eyes
    The race is run the book is read
    The end begins to show
    The truth is out, the lies are old
    But you don’t want to know

    Nobody will ever let you know
    When you ask the reasons why
    They just tell you that you’re on your own
    Fill your head all full of lies

    Everything around you
    What’s it coming to
    God knows as your dog knows
    Bog blast all of you
    Sabbath Bloody Sabbath

  20. PHILG 20
    24 November 2013 at 3:54 pm

    Xox
    Bernard Hickey and Rod Oram are among the few journalists with an informed analysis of the business and environment nexus. The solution to this problem is simple really, but politically unpalatable. The truth often is. When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

  21. Rogue Trooper 21
    24 November 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Doctor Who 50th Anniversary. PRIME 8.30-10.15 NZT

  22. Colonial Viper 22
    24 November 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Rodney Hide – “Trader John” not what we need in Government

    I think it prudent to have our politicians stick to policy and to making rules that apply to all businesses equally.

    Of course politicians should meet business leaders but it should be on matters of policy and government direction, not for particular deal-making with individual businesses.

    So full strength to David Cunliffe’s arm. There’s more at stake here than just who wins the next election and which side of the political fence we happen to lie.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11161876

  24. Rogue Trooper 24
    24 November 2013 at 11:54 pm

    White Rabbit