Open mike 27/11/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:44 am, November 27th, 2014 - 269 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

John Key must goOpen mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

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

Step up to the mike …

269 comments on “Open mike 27/11/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    27 November 2014 at 6:45 am

    Tweet of the week by David Slack …

    WHALE POETRY

    Yesterday upon the stair
    I met a man who wasn’t there
    He wasn’t there again today
    This whole thing’s getting super cray

    https://twitter.com/DavidSlack/status/537658122806894592

    • The Al1en 1.1
      27 November 2014 at 6:54 am

      As the pm’s office have released the text exchange with wo, a couple of observations.

      The claim labour tried to kill slater – There’s the future insanity plea/defense being given ‘air’ before the court hearings.

      Foul mouth, agenda driven gutter blogger has pm’s private number – Is this unique? Or does pu have it too?

      • Manuka AOR 1.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 9:43 am

        “The claim labour tried to kill slater – There’s the future insanity plea/defense being given ‘air’ before the court hearings.”

        Herald is headlining it (for posterity, or anyone who doesn’t know). “Labour tried to kill me.”
        (Should Mr Slater possibly be on some sort of medication?)

    • phillip ure 1.2
      27 November 2014 at 7:05 am

      i wd have used ‘fey’ as the last word..

      ..”is ‘cray’ some new/hip slang i am not up with..?

      ..or was it made-up/shoehorned into the piece..?

    • phillip ure 1.3
      27 November 2014 at 7:17 am

      (suggested edit/rewrite..)

      ..yesterday up in the air..

      ..i met a man who wasn’t there..

      ..he wasn’t there again today..

      ..this whole thing’s – getting rather fey..

    • David H 1.5
      27 November 2014 at 9:39 pm

      I like the original version and it’s fitting as well.

      Yesterday upon the stair
      I met a man who wasn’t there
      He wasn’t there again today
      I wish, I wish he’d go away
      When I came home last night at three
      The man was waiting there for me
      But when I looked around the hall
      I couldn’t see him there at all!
      Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
      Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door
      Last night I saw upon the stair
      A little man who wasn’t there
      He wasn’t there again today
      Oh, how I wish he’d go away
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hughes_Mearns

  2. mickysavage 2
    27 November 2014 at 7:19 am

    Serious question. Has anyone ever met Josh Forman?

  3. Sanctuary 3
    27 November 2014 at 7:34 am

    (Labour) “played the real dirty politics…even tried to kill me… I have evidence of”.

    Slater has now gone over the edge into delusional paranoia. Remember, folks, this guy has a firearms license.

    • Paul 3.1
      27 November 2014 at 7:54 am

      The Herald running this at the top of their online news.
      They don’t really believe what Slater says, do they?

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11365258

      • mickysavage 3.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 8:02 am

        Utterly amazing. The PM misleads Parliament and lies to New Zealand and the headline is about a clearly delusional utterance.

        • Anne 3.1.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 8:17 am

          Ok, apart from Mike Smith dropping in to help out in a volunteer capacity during the election campaign, who are the Standard blogger Labour Party HQ staffers eh?

          And I’m very hurt I wasn’t included in the Slater hit conspiracy.

          Joking over. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. Was John Key humouring Slater or did he really believe the deluded Slater was telling the truth? If the latter, then NZ is moving into very dangerous territory indeed.

          • mickysavage 3.1.1.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 8:21 am

            All part of a clever strategy to divert attention Anne. See how some of the media are now talking about the supposed death threat?

          • lprent 3.1.1.1.2
            27 November 2014 at 8:33 am

            You can always tell when Mike is helping out family or gets new grandkids or helps Labour or he gets too interested in golf. He stops writing posts

          • Tracey 3.1.1.1.3
            27 November 2014 at 12:48 pm

            Not a single reference to key blaming goff for the leak until after this text exchange

        • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1.2
          27 November 2014 at 9:04 am

          Delusional, alright, Micky. But to be fair, we know Slater has struggled with depressive illness before and this may just be a small relapse. I don’t like the guy, but mental health issues are no joke, so I really hope commenters here show some restraint around the claim.

          • KJT 3.1.1.2.1
            27 November 2014 at 9:49 am

            Slaters actions are not because he is depressed, they are because he is an evil prick.

            • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1.2.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 9:58 am

              Cheers, KJT, there’s that restraint I was talking about!

              It’s not Slater’s actions per se, it’s the claim that Labour wanted him taken out. That strikes me as being symptomatic of a disturbed mind, not just part of his day job (which, as we know, is mainly done by others anyway).

              • weka …
                27 November 2014 at 10:32 am

                It could just as easily be part of his play. Or he’s mouthing off and has a certain set of social boundaries that means he doesn’t care how it looks. Or he really believes that someone in Labour tried to harm him (that’s possible without being delusional). So we, here on the internets, have absolutely no way of knowing anything about the true state of his mental health.

                I agree that it’s best not to go down that track eg Slater, delusional, firearms in the same sentence is gross, baseless speculation that also conflates mental illness with extreme scarey violence. We have anough stigma around mental unwellness without adding to it.

                • KJT …
                  27 November 2014 at 10:41 am

                  Plenty of people with mental illness around who are contributing, (when they are well enough) and decent, members of our society.

                  Major projects, which people safely use every day, in Auckland, were designed by a man who had schizophrenic episodes, for one.

                  It no more defines someone’s character than having cancer does.

                • Murray Rawshark …
                  27 November 2014 at 6:42 pm

                  We do know that he has guns and has often blogged about who he can beat up. He has also blogged about keeping his guns handy to defend himself from ferals who might want to attack him. For me, that’s enough about his mental state to say he should lose his guns.

                  It should also be enough for the police, because Kiwis are not allowed to own guns for self defence. Try giving that as your reason when you apply for a firearms licence. You won’t end up with as many weapons as Blubber Boy has.

                  • weka …
                    27 November 2014 at 8:42 pm

                    You have no way of knowing what is related to his mental state or not (myself I think the fact he is an narcissistic arsehole who is often in situations where power is abused is far more relevant). If you have genuine concerns about his behaviour or his intentions I suggest that you contact his local police station and point out the evidence to them (blogposts etc). If enough people do this they might take it seriously.

                    When you make random connections on the internet such as mentally ill +guns = danger, then you further engrain the stigmatism against all people with mental health issues, and you do absolutely nothing to inform the police about your concerns.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      27 November 2014 at 9:56 pm

                      I didn’t mention any illness he might have. Mental state is a much wider category than just sick. The connection between Blubber Boy’s brain and his armoury is evidenced in his posts. I am usually very careful about what I write. If I meant his mental disorder, I would have used those words. The police are unlikely to take much notice of an email from Brisbane, so I won’t be getting in touch with them.

                    • felix …
                      27 November 2014 at 10:03 pm

                      Cameron’s mental state is that he’s an asshole.

                    • weka …
                      27 November 2014 at 10:33 pm

                      “I didn’t mention any illness he might have. Mental state is a much wider category than just sick.”

                      I don’t think social stigma against people with mental illness takes much notice of such distinctions.

                      You seem to be largely missing my point.

                      “he connection between Blubber Boy’s brain and his armoury is evidenced in his posts.”

                      No, it’s not. No-one here knows what is his brain, what is put on, what is personality etc etc. The things you describe could just as easily be ascribed to his belief systems. Or the mouthing off of an idiot.

                    • felix …
                      27 November 2014 at 10:43 pm

                      “The things you describe could just as easily be ascribed to his belief systems. Or the mouthing off of an idiot.”

                      Those are also things that are “in his brain”, weka. We do actually know quite a lot of what is in his brain, because he spends an enormous amount of time and effort expressing his brain in public.

                      And no, I’m not at all interested in or commenting on any illnesses he might have. I’m not his doctor (and if I was, this is hardly the forum 😀 )

                      I am, however, a keen observer of fuckwits, idiots, fools and cretins, and I see no reason not to pass comment on Slater’s exhibition of these character traits.

                    • weka …
                      27 November 2014 at 10:57 pm

                      Of course. Talk about his character and his behaviour based on what you see and experience (which I assume for pretty much all of us is via virtual reality).

                      But when someone starts talking about mental states and putting their own interpretation on them, they’re immediately taking us into the territory of stigmatising people with mental health issues (irrespective of any formal diagnosis or not).

                      If we lived in a world where people didn’t inaccurately equate mental illness with violence and then practice active prejudice and discrimination, then sure, maybe talk about it. But we don’t and conversations like this just reinforce a whole bunch of negative and harmful stereotypes.

                      (btw, the brain argument might be academically interesting, but pretty much irrelevant to the point I am making)

                    • felix …
                      28 November 2014 at 10:23 am

                      The tricky bit is that many words have a clinical definition as well as a common use definition, and this difference is easily exploited.

                      For example, Slater was on radiolive yesterday (1pm – 2pm) and someone said he was being delusional. Cameron immediately accused them of victimising him due to his mental illness.

                      Do you think it’s reasonable to pander to that sort of dishonesty and manipulation? Delusion isn’t limited to a specific clinical term. It’s a character trait of a narcissist, and that is obviously the context in which it was used.

                      I have no intention of allowing such language to be shut down by those who wish to avoid legitimate criticism.

                    • weka …
                      28 November 2014 at 10:31 am

                      anyone can be delusional irrespective of their mental health state. I think that word has enough varying definitions to be useful without buying into mad memes. Depending on how it is used of course.

                      Myself, if Slater is going to run the victim line, I’d just avoid the word and talk solely about his behaviour. It’s not like there isn’t plenty there to be going on with.

                      Fpr people that want to use the word delusional to refer to Slater, then make sure it’s used in the non-clinical sense. The problem here of course is that the lay person meaning gets used to marginalise people who have perfectly legitimate beliefs, which is part of why I personally think criticise what he does and critique what he believes rather than just using relatively throw away and ambiguous words like delusional.

                      Am out of time, will try and think of some examples later (will see if I can find the Radio Live bit too).

                    • felix …
                      28 November 2014 at 1:09 pm

                      “criticise what he does and critique what he believes rather than just using relatively throw away and ambiguous words like delusional.”

                      Who said “just”?

                      As soon as you say you shouldn’t use the word, in its proper context, you’ve made Slater the arbiter of what’s acceptable criticism of him.

                      And that’s crazy.

                      p.s. “critique what he believes” – to do that, you’d have to know what’s in his brain. I thought you didn’t want to presume to know…

                    • weka …
                      28 November 2014 at 2:09 pm

                      You are misunderstanding me felix.

                      Behaviour:

                      eg makes a comment about ferals and their deserved death on his blog.

                      eg says he won’t talk to Campbell, then talks to Campbell

                      eg accepts Blomfield’s hdd then whines about his own being hacked.

                      Belief:

                      eg that Labour conspired with others to have him suicide.

                      eg that… sorry ran out of interest to actually think about this much more. If it’s really an issue (eg you think understanding his beliefs requires looking into his brain as opposed to reading his posts or what he says in public) then I’ll think up some more examples.

                      Discussion of those doesn’t require talking about the state of his mental health.

                      “Who said “just”?”

                      I did. It wasn’t about you btw, it was in reference to people who are pointing at Slater and going ‘crazy person’ when talking about his behaviour. Lots of people are using the term delusional, which I don’t have a problem with except where it gets confused with the clinical term (we have no way of knowing if he is delusional in a clinical sense). You can probably find an instance of me using the word delusional in reference to Slater.

                      “As soon as you say you shouldn’t use the word, in its proper context, you’ve made Slater the arbiter of what’s acceptable criticism of him.”

                      But that’s not what I am saying. Use the word delusional. If you use it in it’s clinical sense, then expect to get called out by people that have mad politics. If you use it in its other senses, my personal preference is we focus on his behaviour and beliefs, because those are things we can actually observe at this distance.

                      I don’t give a flying fuck what Slater wants or doesn’t want and me chosing language based on my politics has nothing to do with him.

                      “And that’s crazy.”

                      It would also be crazy to choose to use a word out of fear that not using it was allowing Slater to set the agenda.

                      “p.s. “critique what he believes” – to do that, you’d have to know what’s in his brain. I thought you didn’t want to presume to know…”

                      lolz, not really interested in the semantics of all that sorry. There are enough of his beliefs clearly visible to be going on with.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      28 November 2014 at 4:26 pm

                      His belief systems don’t reside in his knee. They reside in his brain. His hate blog is constructed by his brain, not his bloody ankle. I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re building a sandman.

          • Tracey 3.1.1.2.2
            27 November 2014 at 12:50 pm

            Dont demean sufferers from depression by suggesting slaters behaviour in this regard is due to depression. This suggests lying or paranoia and the depressant folks i know exhibit neither.

            Narcissism maybe but most deppresives do not behave this way.

    • Rosie 3.2
      27 November 2014 at 10:07 am

      Delusional. Grant Robertson said as much on his Radio Active interview this morning. Also called him a “fantasist” and “beyond bizarre”

      • Rosie 3.2.1
        27 November 2014 at 10:10 am

        PS. I continue to go into moderation every time…………

        [RL: Not your fault. The mods have to release them manually and we try and do it in a timely fashion. It’s difficult bug Lynn will probably not get around to fixing until the weekend. Hopefully]

  4. Tracey 4
    27 November 2014 at 7:51 am

    well done Louise Upston.

    Slamming Rennie, praising suttons victim/s and making it clear that until we have equal pay women are not “done”

    Contrast with PMs feeble “people make mistakes” dismissal

    • ScottGN 4.1
      27 November 2014 at 11:48 am

      I wouldn’t get too excited Tracey. Call me a cynic but I’ll bet the Nats polling was showing that the absolute cockup by Rennie/Kibblewhite/Sutton had resonated badly with women voters so they’ve wheeled Upston out to try and contain it.

      • Tracey 4.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 11:54 am

        You are probably right but I continue to hope that there is a vacuum forming between key and collins and that maybe a couple of nats are considering growing some balls and are sick of the association…

        Look at someone like jaqui blue now she isnt in the fold

        • RedLogix 4.1.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 11:58 am

          Pedantic note: It’s Jackie Blue.

        • ScottGN 4.1.1.2
          27 November 2014 at 12:13 pm

          Upston hasn’t got the cojones to criticize the higher-ups which is why her belated outburst on behalf of the Women’s Affairs Ministry (which the govt has determinedly strangled over the last 6 years) seems like a cynical ploy. Her biggest claim to fame is grimacer-in-chief behind Key at QT.

          • Tracey 4.1.1.2.1
            27 November 2014 at 4:04 pm

            Oh, is that she?

            • the pigman 4.1.1.2.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 9:51 pm

              Yeah, also a paying client of Lusk along with JLR if I remember correctly (covered in DP, I believe?)

              Always wondered if she had some kind of stimulant addiction.. her guffawing and carry-on behind Key goes beyond distracting sycophancy.

  5. Jenny Kirk 5
    27 November 2014 at 7:54 am

    So – here we go again ! The PM and WO trying to attack Labour to cover up their own misdoings. If someone hasn’t read the Herald’s story this morning, here is the link :

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11365258

    • BM 5.1
      27 November 2014 at 8:14 am

      This has certainly livened things up, was all a bit dull to be honest.

      Death threats
      Labour involved with the hacking.
      Annette King involved with dodgy bloggers
      Goof leaking reports.

      There’s some juicy stuff for the media to get their teeth into.

      • RedLogix 5.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 9:25 am

        Only the last one seems to have the faintest skerrick of reality – and at this point we don’t have sufficient information to understand whether it has substance or is just another distraction.

        How plausible do you think all four of these are BM?

        • BM 5.1.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 9:32 am

          There’s this

          http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/11/josh-forman-attempt-leak-information-government-job/

          [lprent: Have I ever mentioned that I think Cameron Slater is an delusional fool before?

          In this post he is claiming that that Annette King is involved with the slightly left of centre fool Forman because her first name starts with the same 3 letters as the “Annie” that Forman was getting info from.

          Are you aware of how many people have Ann starting their names, and I have never heard of Annette King ever being called “Annie”.

          Cameron Slater is just stupid. So it appears are you if you believe this has any meaning. ]

      • Clemgeopin 5.1.2
        27 November 2014 at 10:38 am

        You left out all the BS peddled by our honourable PM, the CTC John.

      • David H 5.1.3
        27 November 2014 at 10:21 pm

        Hang on wasn’t Slater supposed to have been leaking bits and pieces of the report for a few days?

  6. Tautoko Mangō Mata 6
    27 November 2014 at 8:41 am

    So who is running the country? Is it the PM or Slater through the PM?

    • millsy 6.1
      27 November 2014 at 10:39 am

      It looks like Slater owns the PM. My views on him are well known, but judging from what I have been reading it looks like the only thing worse than being his enemy is being his friend. If/when John Key goes, it will be Slater’s doing. He probably has as much dirt on him as he does anyone else.

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 6.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 10:51 am

        It looks like Slater is publicly letting Key know who is boss. Exquisite karma on its way!

  7. RedLogix 7
    27 November 2014 at 9:04 am

    At last new and better meaning for ABC – Anything But Coal

    The booming African electricity market has an “everything-but-coal” approach, United States financial services group Citi says, reinforcing its bearish outlook on the commodity.

    Citi’s assessment of the US-China climate change agreement signed recently was that it would reduce worldwide coal demand by $US1.6 trillion ($1.87 trillion) during the next 15 years. Coal, in both its metallurgical and thermal forms, is Australia’s second-biggest mineral export after iron ore.
    The recently released World Energy Outlook 2014 by the International Energy Agency supported Citi’s view, the financial group said in a new research paper.
    “Despite coal industry optimism about the role of coal in alleviating energy poverty in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, our interpretation of WEO-2014 almost suggests an “everything- but-coal” approach”, the Citi paper said.

    The IEA said African energy demand from coal in 2012 was estimated at 105 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe). By 2040, this would rise to 164 Mtoe.
    However, as a share of the total energy pie, coal would go from producing 56 per cent of Africa’s energy needs in 2012 to just 27 per cent by 2040.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/coal-not-the-cure-for-developing-worlds-energy-needs-citi-group-says-20141126-11uaga.html#ixzz3KCt7WxvU

  8. James 8
    27 November 2014 at 9:43 am

    The other accusation is that Labours Chief of staff was involved in the hacking.

    Now – that would be interesting if it was proven to be true.

    [lprent: He is a technophobe. Moved to Open Mike as off topic. Next time I ban ]

    • phillip ure 8.1
      27 November 2014 at 10:01 am

      little was funny on that on nat-rad..expressing his disbelief at the allegations..

      ..he said:..’mccarten struggles to open his emails in the morning’..

      • Tracey 8.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 12:04 pm

        Remember when slater was certain DotCom was the hacker…

        • felix 8.1.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 12:49 pm

          Remember when Key said he knew who recorded Bill English telling the truth at that conference, and he knew they were “Young Labour”?

          • Tracey 8.1.1.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 12:55 pm

            Funny how the right demands proof of everything but none of their own.

            Our RWNJ have gone quiet again… Quite the pattern emerging tnis week.

      • adam 8.1.2
        27 November 2014 at 12:35 pm

        I saw Matt been offered a Smart Phone once, and the fear on his face was unpalatable.

    • Tracey 8.2
      27 November 2014 at 4:14 pm

      Gee, Slater says that?

      “… Sean Plunket speaks to Cameron Slater about the sources for Nicky Hager’s new book “Dirty Politics”.

      Slater claims that he has evidence that Hager has used emails that Internet Party founder Kim Dotcom assisted in obtaining.

      “I’ve had evidence supplied to me this morning in the form of a text that was sent to my informant by Kim Dotcom saying ‘See, I told you that Cam would go down – gee I wonder who did that :)’,” Slater told Plunket

      http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Cameron-Slater-claims-Nicky-Hager-used-hacked-emails-from-Kim-Dotcom-to-write-new-book-Dirty-Politics/tabid/506/articleID/52141/Default.aspx

      ?…

      • McFlock 8.2.1
        27 November 2014 at 5:11 pm

        yeah, another compulsive liar who’s becoming a public farce. Not so much “beef hooked” as “bull shit”.

        • Tracey 8.2.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 5:22 pm

          And so when his text suggested mccarten, the media could have juxtaposed it with his earlier proclamations, you know, as a quote

          • McFlock 8.2.1.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 5:31 pm

            but then the medias’ audience would have asked something similar to “why the fuck are they giving oxygen to this lying piece of shit?” rather than oo-ing and ah-ing at the developing political intrigue…

            • Tracey 8.2.1.1.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 5:43 pm

              And so it goes on… With john armstrongs flayling about in moral outrage wondering who will hold this govt to account

              • McFlock …
                27 November 2014 at 5:49 pm

                I agree with his sentiment. We almost need a number of professionals whose job it is to pay close attention to our political leaders and alert the populace to any activities of civic interest, with a smaller cadre of professionals who are paid to give the public their expert opinions about political affairs. That could well be the key to preserving democracy. /sarc

                • Tracey …
                  27 November 2014 at 6:53 pm

                  What a great idea. But who wise mcflock, who?

                  I just keep seeing the scene in holy grail…

                  Shes a witch, shes a witch…

  9. Te Reo Putake 9
    27 November 2014 at 10:10 am

    Good points, wyndham. I’m not sure that his blogging career is a result of his affliction. I imagine he’s always been a prick and the blog reflects that. But the claim that “Labour even tried to kill me” is clearly so out there as to be a separate matter and one that looks far more like a mental health issue.

    One thing occurs to me though; why didn’t Key respond to that information? I would have thought he’d be rather interested to know how and why the attempted hit was organised! But, noooo … nothing. Maybe it wasn’t Labour who hired the hitman, but Key? It’s all very Game of Thrones.

    • Te Reo Putake 9.1
      27 November 2014 at 10:22 am

      Wyndham’s comment seems to have vanished into the ether and my reply has dropped down here. But the substantial question remains. Why didn’t Key ask more about the hit? Was it because he already knew, because it was really him organising it? I don’t know if it’s true, but I think we should be told!

    • stever 9.2
      27 November 2014 at 11:17 am

      Or maybe he did ask…but that txt sequence was sanitised. It’s certainly not a screen-shot of an actual txt conversation.

  10. Northsider 10
    27 November 2014 at 10:13 am

    Note to Labour MPs and spokespersons.

    —-Not all bloggers are alike.
    —-Do not allow the MSM to get you to rubbish bloggers as a single collective.
    —-Do not say that you do not like/support/respect bloggers when you do not mean it or have used/benefited from them is the past.

    Labour MPs should be proud to be associated with The Standard. Labour’s own Blog site, Red Alert, is still up! OK it is shite, thanks Clare and Grant.

    That RNZ twat Kathryn Ryan tried to get Little to say such words this morning but he held his ground. Thank you Andrew!

    National are trying to characterise black ops and nasty blogging a Labour activity as much as a Natz one. Labour MPS must not walk into that trap.

    • alwyn 10.1
      27 November 2014 at 11:04 am

      ” Labour’s own Blog site, Red Alert, is still up!”
      When I saw this I went to have a look for it as I thought it had expired.
      It might technically exist, in the sense that you can look at it but it is certainly no longer breathing. I suspect the only reason it is still there is nobody knows how to turn it off.
      The last two posts were by Clare Curran on 14 June and Darien Fenton on 26 July. Those are four months and five and a half months ago.
      Darien’s was about her valedictory speech and really is a valedictory speech for Red Alert itself I would have thought.
      I used to read, and occasionally comment there. It ceased being of interest because their banning policy became such that nothing that wasn’t slavishly loyal to the party line was allowed and anyone who seemed to have an original thought was immediately banned for life.

      • phillip ure 10.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 11:24 am

        heh..!

        ..i lasted there slightly over a nano-second..

        ..there was some silly old man there who was self-appointed watchman..

        ..was that mallard..?

      • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 10.1.2
        27 November 2014 at 8:53 pm

        Red Alert seemed to have missed Cunliffe winning the primary some time ago, some of Cunliffe’s presentations such as at conference/congress, the General Election and Cunliffe’s debates, as well as the recent primary and Andrew Little’s leadership result. Very surprising (or maybe not) omissions?

  11. westiechick 11
    27 November 2014 at 11:06 am

    I loved it during the election when someone found the hairdresser of Levin who spoke out in support of raising the minimum wage and contradicted Key’s assertion about how small employers (in particular haridressers in Levin) would react.
    Joyce has told us the people in Huntly don’t care about truth, honesty, ethics and the rule of law. Could someone from Huntly please contradict him, preferably publically.

  12. Bob 12
    27 November 2014 at 11:08 am

    Another day, still no calls for Goff to resign even though he faces jail time for leaking the Gwyn Inquiry…even though he admitted doing it on radio yesterday! http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20158687

    “Gwyn said she was aware of Goff’s statements that he had disclosed some information concerning findings in her report. She would be seeking further information from Goff and others. A conviction for a breach under the IGIS Act could trigger a fine of up to $50,000 against a company or corporation or a $10,000 fine and a year in jail, or both, for an individual.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63583181/How-did-Key-mislead-Parliament

    • RedLogix 12.1
      27 November 2014 at 11:14 am

      The counterview is this:

      Presumably such a prosecution would be under section 29 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996, which prohibits the unapproved publication of IGIS reports. But it is difficult to see how such a prosecution could possibly succeed, because the report was approved for release. While it was discussed with the media before the IGIS made her announcement, a press embargo is a PR measure, not a security one.

      http://norightturn.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/this-takes-cake.html

      If this is true, then the worst that can be levelled at Goff is that he wanted his version in the public domain first. As the injured party this seems quite reasonable – and especially in the light of the absurdist response the Key PR machine has tried to run with ever since.

      But more information needed before conclusion.

      • Bob 12.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 11:42 am

        That may be true, but let’s put that aside, he is still being investigated for a crime, now based on the responses for past National MP’s (and ACT MP’s) who have been investigated for crimes, there always seemed to be a backlash. The fact that there is no backlash on Phil Goff this time just makes the whole ‘John Key should stand down’ meme look rediculous (and like the blantant politicing it is), John Key isn’t being investigated for a crime, Phil Goff is.

        • lprent 12.1.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 11:48 am

          No he isn’t being investigated for a crime.

          He is being investigated because a complaint was made against him about an embargo. It appears he said nothing substantive about the report which he was entitled to see. He just gave a heads up. So I am pretty sure that it won’t even get to the point of laying charges.

          You could put John Key or even you in the same state by merely complaining to the police.

          Perhaps you should report yourself for terminal stupidity about legal process. I love the way that the moronic right jump direct to convictioooooooon. It is moranic.

          • Northsider 12.1.1.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 12:19 pm

            Bob is a Nat Troll. He has nothing of value to add to human existence.

            BLOCK him.

            • lprent 12.1.1.1.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 12:39 pm

              We block for behavioural reasons that affect the site. However congenital brain defects or rigid belief systems about avoiding thinking are not behavioural issue per se; until they are expressed as a bad behaviour.

              Besides they provide entertainment, righteous indignation and an education that are useful to all on the left who read them.

              • Weepus beard …
                27 November 2014 at 7:29 pm

                However congenital brain defects or rigid belief systems about avoiding thinking are not behavioural issue per se

                Heh, you’re talking about BM, aren’t you?

            • Bob 12.1.1.1.1.2
              27 November 2014 at 1:37 pm

              Good old left wing freedom of speech in action aye Northsider.

              • lprent …
                27 November 2014 at 1:48 pm

                Just as well that he doesn’t run the site eh? Of course if you do run a site like that, then it rapidly gets very very stale in the comments.

                • Bob …
                  27 November 2014 at 1:52 pm

                  True, looks like RL likes it that way though.

                  [RL: You were directly asked to produce evidence to support your assertion “he (Goff)is still being investigated for a crime”. You completely failed to even remotely do so in the reasonable time since. Explain why I should not treat you as a liar.]

                  [RL: Come on Bob it’s not hard. All you have to do is say “My mistake, I was wrong about an investigation”.]

          • Bob 12.1.1.1.2
            27 November 2014 at 1:35 pm

            “Perhaps you should report yourself for terminal stupidity about legal process. I love the way that the moronic right jump direct to convictioooooooon. It is moranic.”
            Sorry, maybe I should have said ‘Goff should stand down as it is possible to convict him of a charge that has a sentence of 1 year jail time’ to be more like you…
            http://thestandard.org.nz/skycity-theyre-toxic/#comment-745707

            People in glass houses lprent.

            • lprent 12.1.1.1.2.1
              27 November 2014 at 1:59 pm

              As I said, you are a bit of an idiot. There is a rather large difference between a complaint and a charge. Perhaps you should read up on them.

              A charge means that the police think that they have a pretty good probability of conviction after looking at the evidence. A complaint can be made by any fool who has a rush of blood to their teeny thinking organ about almost anything on about anyone. The police will investigate…

              As I was saying about conservatives….. They appear to require considerable chiselling of the built up granite that they use for thinking – before they finally go and learn enough that they don’t look like a moran.

        • RedLogix 12.1.1.2
          27 November 2014 at 11:51 am

          No you cannot put it aside. NRT’s argument is absolutely, indivisibly central to whether a ‘crime’ has been committed at all, much less an investigation.

          My position is that there is insufficient information in the public domain to reach a conclusion. However I stand ready to be proven wrong. If you cannot produce a clear reference that unambiguously backs your assertion, then I’ll have to treat you as just another liar.

          • Bob 12.1.1.2.1
            27 November 2014 at 1:42 pm

            Sure, listen to this interview from 5:30 onwards http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20158687

            Do you look for clear references that unambiguously back your assertions on John Key’s direct role in the Gwyn inquiry?

            [RL: You have failed to produce any evidence to support your assertion above. You have had plenty of time, therefore I conclude you have just made it up. Another rightwing liar. One month ban]

            • Bob 12.1.1.2.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 2:26 pm

              RL: Since you can’t/won’t listen to the link, I have attempted to transcribe what Phil Goff said (not 100% accurate as there is a lot of talking over each other):
              Phil Goff “I gave an outline of some relevant points that I said that this ah cleared my integrity ah in the matter and I talked, (Guyon interrupts with ‘so you admit it’) it’s not a case of admitting, I was quite clear that I rang up journalists to say I’d be doing a heads up on this at 10 o’clock, look, what I did was perfectly appropriate, if a journalist decided to run information given to them in confidence then you should raise it with your colleagues”
              Now read the article that was released ahead of the lifting of the embargo:
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11363842
              “The Herald understands that after being briefed by the SIS on what Mr Goff had been told about the agents, Mr Key’s then deputy chief of staff, Phil de Joux, suggested to Jason Ede, another staffer in Mr Key’s office, that he contact Slater suggesting he request information about the Goff briefing.

              It is understood the report finds information Dr Tucker gave to the Prime Minister’s office and which was released to Slater was edited in a way that highlighted content about the suspected Israeli agents when that material was only part of what Mr Goff was briefed on.

              The report is said to criticise Dr Tucker for presenting the information in a way that was incomplete, lacked professionalism and risked giving the impression of political bias.

              It is understood the report recommends the SIS apologise to Mr Goff and that Dr Tucker’s replacement, Rebecca Kitteridge, will do so this morning when the report is released.”

              That seems to be a lot of information given in confidence!

              Have a read through this:
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11364950

              Ms Gwyn said early disclosure of some of the report’s findings was “grossly unfair to others”.
              “Some of the coverage was not accurate and I’m sure the irony of that in this context is not lost on you.”

              Apparently it is lost on some!

              {RL: Wrong assumption to assume I had not listened to the interview. I did yesterday and made reference to it is here at this comment :http://thestandard.org.nz/cut-the-crap/#comment-931714.

              All the rest of your material does is confirm exactly what Goff said he did. Nowhere do I find the word ‘investigation’. Do you want the one month ban to stand or not? ]

              • lprent …
                27 November 2014 at 2:45 pm

                Of course what you are probably missing is that the journos probably had a embargoed press release from the IGIS prior to the press conference. It is normal.

                Have you asked them?

              • lprent …
                27 November 2014 at 2:52 pm

                You are presuming that it was Goff. Pretty presumptuous of you…

                However it is also the type of information that is required to get journos to a presser. And it was general information that was about to be released anyway on a very long document.

              • Bob …
                27 November 2014 at 3:39 pm

                I do apologise Redlogix, I have re-read the article above and appear to have wrapped two issues into one, until Ms Gwyn completes her new inquiry Mr Goff would not be facing any criminal charges:
                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11364950

                “Affected parties Ms Gwyn released the report to early, including Mr Goff, were subject to confidentiality orders made under the Inspector General Act. Breach of confidentiality orders under the Act carries a potential penalty of a $10,000 fine or a year’s imprisonment.

                This afternoon Ms Gwyn said she was “examining what steps to take over the early disclosure of information from the report”.

                Ms Gwyn said she was aware of Mr Goff’s subsequent statements that he had disclosed some information concerning findings in the report and would be seeking further information from Mr Goff and others.

                “The broadcast or publication of that information may also have contravened the IGIS Act and, in any case, these events raise questions for the handling of future reports.

                “Any issue of prosecution will, however, be for the police,” she said in a statement.”

                • RedLogix …
                  27 November 2014 at 3:51 pm

                  Fair enough. Ban rescinded.

                  At the moment there appear to be several conflicting versions of what is applicable here.

                  One is Gwyn’s version that there was a legal confidentiality order in place. Which NRT (who usually knows his stuff) thinks is a nonsense.

                  The other is that it was simply the usual kind of PR embargo that has no legal status whatsoever. That would be the more plausible scenario.

                  But as I said before – not enough information is available to determine which is the case at present. Maybe some other better informed commenter could help.

                  • Tracey …
                    27 November 2014 at 3:57 pm

                    If it is an embargo that means wait til a specific time or event, yes? In this case presumably following Ms Gwynn’s press conference.

                    Interesting that she has seen fit to publicly state an investigation of Goff but no statement correcting Mr Key’s very elementary misunderstandings of her report.

                  • Tracey …
                    27 November 2014 at 7:35 pm

                    “.. if a journalist decided to run information given to them in confidence then you should raise it with your colleagues” …”

                    so the journos broke the embargo

        • Jenny Kirk 12.1.1.3
          27 November 2014 at 11:53 am

          Andrew Little said on TV B/fast this morning that he’d been told Phil Goff had only advised the media the report was out, NOT what was in it. So all this “blow up” re Phil leaking is quite likely just another one of ShonKey’s diversionary tactics.

          Its hardly worth bothering about, but Bob at 12 appears to be fixated with it.

          • Tracey 12.1.1.3.1
            27 November 2014 at 12:01 pm

            The redacted journalist can clear this up… Confidential interview or phone call with gwyn.

          • weka 12.1.1.3.2
            27 November 2014 at 12:36 pm

            Goff in the RNZ* link above says he told journalists that his name was cleared and he gave an outline of what was in the report. Also he did this in confidence. That’s not the same thing as only advising the media the report was out.

            I think that Goff probably fucked up here, which is a real shame because if he hadn’t, all the focus would be on the PM’s office and now Key/Slater.

            *unfortunately Espiner was being a wanker and wouldn’t let Goff actually answer without being interupted so we don’t really know what Goff mean by ‘outline’. Do your fucking job Espiner, which is to elicit information for the public. It’s not to push your own agenda.

            • RedLogix 12.1.1.3.2.1
              27 November 2014 at 1:57 pm

              Let’s be crystal fucking clear here. It is very normal for the media to look for background material in the day or two prior to a report embargo being lifted.

              Everyone knows the report was approved for release. Nothing in it was ever going to remain confidential or classified.

              The point of a press embargo is mainly to allow the various media outlets to coordinate their coverage of it in a reasonably fair and even-handed fashion. It also allows the affected parties time to consider their public responses.

              But that does not stop the media preparing as much as possible in advance. That would make sense given the tight deadlines involved. It did not prevent any of them contacting Goff and asking him questions. This all seems pretty routine stuff from what I can gather.

              It’s Espiner who is being the complete and unprofessional dickhead here.

              • weka …
                27 November 2014 at 3:21 pm

                and the journo who talked to Slater after they talked to Goff.

                If this is normal practice (what Goff shared), then there is always the option of Labour releasing what he said and to whom. Of course that might just fuel the dickhead fires as well as the DP ones. But at the moment all we are left with is a series of conflicting rumours.

                Labour and the GP have to get better at preempting these things and having strategies for how to respond. That inclued preparing for both the DP and the dickhead factors. (I thought Goff did pretty well in the Epsiner interview, but wish he had pushed harder to get his whole point across).

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  27 November 2014 at 3:26 pm

                  Hi Weka, left you a response at OTL, moderator trashed it – basically saying Science doesn’t define truth – that’s a red herring – it seeks understanding, which I think is quite compatible with your remarks.

                  Thanks for the discussion – good food for thought.

                  • weka …
                    27 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

                    Hmmm, not sure if one is missing, or is it in the mental health thread? I asked over there. I do find the layout and convo list not that conducive to ongoing conversations, but it may be that they don’t want the kind of freeflow debate culture that we have here either. Looks like it’s going to take time to figure out what the deal is there.

                    Agree, good convo and food for thought. We will no doubt pick it up again here 🙂 (might be easier to have the convo here too).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 November 2014 at 4:14 pm

                      That’s the one: in the mental health thread. I responded to your last comment as above. Stephanie says I’m too prolific there: it seems to result in random deletions whether or not I’m on topic.

                      I think they’re looking for a safer space for discussion – and perhaps a more academic environment, and I think that’s pretty cool, though I’m not sure the feeling’s mutual 🙂

                    • weka …
                      27 November 2014 at 5:24 pm

                      Doh! I thought you meant one of my comments had been trashed.

              • Tracey …
                27 November 2014 at 3:58 pm

                Did the embargo not apply to the media who published stuff early?

              • Tracey …
                27 November 2014 at 4:00 pm

                So, the media who published anything ahead of the embargo, breached the embargo too?

          • Bob 12.1.1.3.3
            27 November 2014 at 1:46 pm

            Jenny, did you listen to the interview with Phil Goff I linked too? Or read the article I linked too regarding the possible outcomes for Goff?
            I would have thought the potential for jail time is more than just a diversionary tactic! Of course I guess that all just depends on where your shonky (fify) moral compass points….

          • phillip ure 12.1.1.3.4
            27 November 2014 at 3:31 pm

            @ jenny..and goff/labour are doing a very poor job of countering that spin..

            ..why has this story been running for days..?

            ..why hasn’t goff come out and made that definitive-statement..?

            …on the very first day the allegations were made..?

            ..this is very poor management..

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.4
          27 November 2014 at 12:29 pm

          Hey Bob, I notice authoritarians like you like to skip the “innocent until proven guilty” part. And especially the “politically motivated ordering around of law enforcement and security services” part.

          • Bob 12.1.1.4.1
            27 November 2014 at 1:50 pm

            Not at all, but there have been calls for John Banks, Judith Collins and John Key to all stand down this year by authoritarians on this site that like to skip the “innocent until proven guilty” in their cases, but have no problem for one of their own even when he admits to doing it!
            I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

            • Colonial Rawshark 12.1.1.4.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 3:26 pm

              The hypocrisy is your comparing Goff acting in the public good above board facing the media, with Banks, Collins and Key fucking over NZers with their backroom dirty politics.

      • Murray Rawshark 12.1.2
        27 November 2014 at 8:13 pm

        Goff did not publish anything. Key is reaching here, and the squirrels are happy to accomodate him. The new terror bill has some really tasty nuts for them.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    27 November 2014 at 11:17 am

    For the world’s largest oil drilling rig operator – the global “recovery” is worse than the post Lehman Bros collapse.

    This demonstrates quite well how our declining economic system can barely afford to keep pumping oil out of the earth.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-26/worlds-largest-rig-operator-recovery-now-worse-post-lehman-collapse

    And here:

    The “shale oil revolution” doesn’t work at $80/bb

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-26/19-us-shale-areas-are-suddenly-endangered-shale-revolution-doesnt-work-80

    [Bunji: Moved as off-topic]

    • minarch 13.1
      27 November 2014 at 11:45 am

      Big oil is a sunset industry, We are starting to see the first death rattles now

    • Enough is Enough 13.2
      27 November 2014 at 12:07 pm

      WTF has that got to do with Key’s lies?
      [Bunji: original moved as off-topic]

    • Colonial Viper 13.3
      27 November 2014 at 12:25 pm

      Thanks Bunji – I thought I was in OM but must have switched tabs to another post my mistake. Apologies.

    • KJS0ne 13.4
      27 November 2014 at 5:48 pm

      On a related note (via Zero Hedge) Obama cutting a deal with the Saudis to dump the price of oil, risking bankrupting the Shale & Tar sand oil industry in order put the squeeze on Putin is very risky cut your own nose to spite your face type bollocks.

      Medium term worst case scenario is shale & tar sand companies kick the bucket, SA comes clean that the tap cannot continue to stay on full blat, and all of a sudden you have an oil shortage, economies reel and we’re faced with another recession.

  14. ianmac 14
    27 November 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Dita has gone straight to the central issues again today. Mighty.
    Director of the SIS Rebecca Kitteridge is being widely touted as a new broom after just six months in the job at the head of our intelligence service.

    The reality is that she helped Prime Minister John Key cover his butt in the leadup to the 2014 general election, just like her predecessor, Warren Tucker, did in the leadup to the 2011 election. She continues to do so, all the while presenting as reasonable, fair-minded and politically neutral as apple pie…….
    …Kitteridge was the person who insisted the Prime Minister was right when he said Slater had not received favourable treatment in receiving the information, or that his office had anything to do with the release of the document, before the election this year.
    Wow!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11364995

    • phillip ure 14.1
      27 November 2014 at 3:37 pm

      i think di boni is top of the pecking order of political journalists working in this country here/now..

      • Tracey 14.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 4:03 pm

        I think she would make a good replacement for mike williams on the panel.

        • Once was Tim 14.1.1.2
          27 November 2014 at 4:50 pm

          Yep – she’s onto it.
          I suspect Kitteridge might be about to have a few regrets – but nothing she can’t get past with a little bit of double-speak. Of course she has to say nice things about the people she works with and their integrity, and I know she won’t take shit from them. So far, for me she’s both impressed me and disappointed me. I hope she wakes up to certain things before she becomes dog Tucker because I don’t doubt her integrity, just her willingness to be a little too charitable

          • Once was Tim 14.1.1.2.1
            27 November 2014 at 5:13 pm

            Christ! I went into moderation briefly – that must mean I’m a dirty filthy left wing konsprissy theeerisssst – although not that left wing cos it was very brief.
            But while I’m at it – where the fuck is Krus Finlayson coming from these days? I’ve never been a Nat, but where the fuck are the older Nats with a modicum of integrity these days? They’ve all ‘left’ I think – either rolling in their graves, or looking on with amusement.
            ……visions of an Eastern Suburbs rest home in the future. There will be Annette King and Chris Finlayson reminiscing. There will be Annette – re-assuring Chris that she’ll look after him as the minimum wage worker wipes his arse, and as a ‘red haired’ visitor delivers a few grapes with platitudes.

            Fuck me! shoot me now someone! (actually I already have a pact )
            Annettte will be saying ” You and ya bloody Ryman Healthcare! I hope she gets to turn off the drip

    • Murray Rawshark 14.2
      27 November 2014 at 8:51 pm

      She’s really surprising me. How long before she loses her job?

  15. finbar 15
    27 November 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Parliament Radio has just gone dead as Hipkiss was asking the speaker regarding the P.M. REPLY to questions about his communication with Cameron Slater,early November.They are now back on,would like to know why that happened.It was not a reception problem.

  16. phillip ure 16
    27 November 2014 at 3:17 pm

    turei and finlayson do a mongoose vs. snake routine/duet..and lotu-inga dies on the vine..again..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/new-zealand-parliament-list-of-questions-for-oral-answer-thursday-27-november-2014/

  17. greywarshark 17
    27 November 2014 at 4:30 pm

    lprent
    Are archives working?

    [lprent: Should be. Appear to be working ok for me. ]

    • weka 17.1
      27 November 2014 at 10:42 pm

      Search engine has been a bit random lately, sometimes not returning recent hits.

      I’ve also had a few of that bug where clicking on a link in the comment list takes me to a random comment.

      As an aside, any chance you could sometime add an author search to the archives? Searching for Bill’s posts on climate change (or anything) via the search engine is crazy making.

    • greywarshark 17.2
      28 November 2014 at 11:31 am

      lprent
      The last comment in my archive is 10.16pm 25/11/14.

  18. Colonial Rawshark 18
    27 November 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Labour UK forced to agree to devolution of taxation powers to Scotland

    Appalling slide in Scottish polling put pressure on Labour UK to drop it’s opposition to Holyrood getting far reaching powers over taxation and spending.

    The far-reaching reforms are due to include £3bn worth of welfare powers, including the housing elements of universal credit, attendance allowance and carers allowance, the work programme and winter fuel payments, as well as air passenger duty. Along with the income tax powers, the total package is estimated by Treasury officials on the commission to be worth about £11bn.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/26/scottish-parliament-control-income-tax-welfare-spending

  19. One Anonymous Bloke 19
    27 November 2014 at 5:28 pm

    A “fun slap”?

    What the fuck?

    Seriously: what the fucking fuck?

    Consider that the “normal” context in which “fun slaps” are “appropriate” is also considered to be “kinky”.

    Off with her head.

    • Colonial Rawshark 19.1
      27 November 2014 at 5:41 pm

      It’s the gradual corruption of all our civil institutions until all that remains is a farcical shadow of what should have been.

      Great to know that “fun slaps” have been officially OK’d in workplaces though. Maybe that guy can stay on as CEO of CERA now?

      • The Al1en 19.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 7:37 pm

        Sad day for women and justice for women if this ruling is allowed to stand.
        I understand it will be challenged, and rightfully so, so let’s keep those fingers crossed.

    • Te Reo Putake 19.2
      27 November 2014 at 6:05 pm

      Actually, it seems like a sound decision. Only a single incident was shown to have happened and it couldn’t be said to be explicitly sexual in nature. For harassment to be proven there generally needs to be a pattern of behaviour. In the case of a single incident, there’s a pretty high threshold and to succeed in a claim, the behaviour would have to be pretty severe, and either admitted or witnessed. This case falls into the silly old duffer/benefit of the doubt end of the scale.

      And the second part of the claim – constructive dismissal – was never going to fly. Hope her lawyer doesn’t have the cheek to bill her.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2.1
        27 November 2014 at 6:13 pm

        Bollocks.

        I’ll come and slap your arse and see if it doesn’t make you uncomfortable, eh?

        • Te Reo Putake 19.2.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 6:23 pm

          I might like it!

          As I said, the determination seems entirely consistent with NZ law. Sorry you don’t like it, but every slap on the bum in the workplace does not automatically constitute sexual harassment.

          • b waghorn 19.2.1.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 7:07 pm

            i wonder if she’d up and smacked him in the head weather she could use fun slap as a defence

            • Te Reo Putake 19.2.1.1.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 7:14 pm

              No.

              • felix …
                27 November 2014 at 8:22 pm

                What’s wrong with a fun slap across the cheek?

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  27 November 2014 at 8:36 pm

                  Nothing, according to the determination! That is the cheek, you meant, isn’t it, felix?

                  btw, just for clarity, the phrase ‘fun slap’ came from the boss’s lawyer, I believe*. The authority member was quoting her, but I doubt the meeja will get the difference.

                  *It might have been the boss himself, but I assume the lawyer did most of the talking.

                  • Ergo Robertina …
                    27 November 2014 at 8:45 pm

                    It’s reasonable for media to use the term ‘fun slap’ as it is significant the authority member accepted the characterisation.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 November 2014 at 8:55 pm

                      The authority member did not accept the characterisation. Apart from recording that the boss said it in his defence, the determination does not mention it. It certainly is not used in the part of the document where the authority member gives her decision. It’s the boss’s phrase (or his lawyer’s).

                      edit: this quote in the herald is not to be found in the determination:

                      “Ms Newman was being cheeky about Mr Sanson’s floppy hat and he slapped her on the bottom. It was a one-off slap, which I accept was a ‘fun slap’.”

                      Jonolism?

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      27 November 2014 at 9:04 pm

                      “Ms Newman was being cheeky about Mr Sanson’s floppy hat and he slapped her on the bottom. It was a one-off slap, which I accept was a ‘fun slap’.”

                      This is a direct quote from the finding. I haven’t read the decision, and don’t know where it appears, but it reads as though the characterisation is accepted, and appears central to finding the behaviour did not constitute sexual harassment.

                      edit – OK I just saw your edit. That’s really strange.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      27 November 2014 at 9:17 pm

                      I checked, it is there:

                      http://dol.govt.nz/workplace/determinations/PDF/2014/2014_NZERA_Auckland_481.pdf

                      [47] The final incident, in my view, while inappropriate and which should not be
                      repeated by Mr Sanson, must be seen in context. The context was a joke between
                      Mr Sanson and Ms Newman. Ms Newman was being cheeky about Mr Sanson’s
                      floppy hat and he slapped her on the bottom. It was a one-off slap which I accept was
                      a “fun slap”.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 November 2014 at 9:21 pm

                      Ah, no. Partial apologies to the journo, it does appear in the document.

                      But in the document, it’s clearly a quote (and italicised, which I can’t replicate):

                      It was a one-off slap which I accept was a “fun slap”.

                      In the Herald, the quote marks are singular (‘fun slap’).

                      The Herald gives the impression that the phrase was the ERA member’s by not clarifying that the sentence was quoting the boss. However, I think you are right, the ERA member accepted the characterisation.
                      .

                    • The Al1en …
                      27 November 2014 at 9:33 pm

                      Thanks for the link to the determination, but what a load of crap.

                      I could rip those supportive witness statements to bits, but clearly this isn’t the place for it, but from memory, nothing is as it seems in these findings.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      27 November 2014 at 10:11 pm

                      The Al1en – the ERA member’s interpretation and focus seems off the mark, such as the weight placed on the motivation for her partner working at the centre, or the fact she didn’t itemise every inappropriate instance in her resignation, when the central issue (‘lewd comments and behaviour’) and final straw incident are both stated.
                      His text in reply re her ‘ur fans’ is manipulative and patronising.
                      Good on you for standing up for her. The quote from the Herald speaks volumes: ”She wasn’t my type”. What a creep.

                    • The Al1en …
                      27 November 2014 at 10:30 pm

                      The findings may be deemed ‘fair’ given the supporting information, and though my word v theirs, of course, I (know) believe those supporting witnesses weren’t being truthful at all.

                      Maybe the brief isn’t so good after all. I’d have pushed for their wage data and contracts be made available. People don’t, in my opinion, lie without reward.

                    • The Al1en …
                      27 November 2014 at 10:41 pm

                      ” ”She wasn’t my type”. What a creep. ”

                      Never have I seen a man so fixated about a woman. In fact it was a running joke among the rest of the staff.
                      The blokes a total wanker.

                • felix …
                  27 November 2014 at 9:08 pm

                  What if the slap is intended to correct the behaviour of an employer?

                  Should a slap, as part of good employer correction, be a criminal offense in NZ?

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    27 November 2014 at 9:27 pm

                    I agree. The state has no business criminalising good workers. The PM agrees:

                    In 2007, John Key said, “… if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their boss, then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime. It’s poor law-making …”

                    Still voted for it though.

          • b waghorn 19.2.1.1.2
            27 November 2014 at 7:28 pm

            could any slap be classed as common assualt

          • weka 19.2.1.1.3
            27 November 2014 at 8:57 pm

            “I might like it!”

            It’s not about what individuals like though. It’s that a slap on the bum has history and context quite different than say a pat on the back. For many women it’s a trigger for all sorts of reasons. The idea that it’s ok for a boss to slap an employee on the bum, esp male to female, is a hangover from the days where women who complained about such things were told to stop being prigs. We don’t live in the 70s any more, and irrespective of whether there was a pattern or behaviour provable or not, the slap on the bum should not have been publicly described as a nothing in this context (employment, sexual harassment case etc).

            • Te Reo Putake 19.2.1.1.3.1
              27 November 2014 at 9:12 pm

              It wasn’t described as “nothing”, though, was it? It was described as inappropriate by the ERA member and the boss was warned not to repeat the behaviour.

              • The Al1en …
                27 November 2014 at 9:18 pm

                He was warned by me too… Before he sacked me lol

              • weka …
                27 November 2014 at 9:20 pm

                I think your comment above comes across as both dismissive and suggesting that a slap on the bum is nothing.

                http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27112014/#comment-932277

                “It was described as inappropriate by the ERA member and the boss was warned not to repeat the behaviour.”

                Can you please link to that? You may be right, and it may be Stuff that has been dismissive – “A sexual harassment claimant who was slapped on the bottom by her boss has been told by the Employment Relations Authority it was just a “fun slap”

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  27 November 2014 at 9:39 pm

                  “I think your comment above comes across as both dismissive and suggesting that a slap on the bum is nothing.”

                  Don’t blame me, I don’t write the law. The comment you link to is perfectly accurate. And it’s not dismissive anyway. I said it was inappropriate. So did the ERA member. That’s not nothing. It’s specifically saying the behaviour was wrong. But it’s all in the context and in this context, it’s something, not nothing. But it’s not proven sexual harassment.

                  A slap on the bum can actually be nothing, btw. I mentioned Richie McCaw somewhere else on this thread. He’s at work when he does it, but in that context, it really is nothing.

                  • weka …
                    27 November 2014 at 10:48 pm

                    as I made clear in my first comment, I’m not talking about the law and I’m not talking about proven sexual harassment. I’m saying that irrespective of the outcome of the investigation, it should be made clear that a slap on the bum by a male boss to a female worker is not ok. I didn’t get that from your post or the Stuff article. Both minimised the action as a playful slap by a silly old duffer. Wrong message to send.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 November 2014 at 11:19 pm

                      Neither Stuff’s article nor my comment minimised anything. Stuff reported the decision. And I explained in the first comment exactly why the decision was correct in law. Read the determination and I’m sure you’ll understand why this case failed. It was never going to succeed in the first place.

                      I also said it was inappropriate behaviour by the boss, as did the ERA member. No minimisation there either. Nobody is arguing that the boss’s behaviour was acceptable.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      28 November 2014 at 12:49 am

                      Of course it sends the wrong message.
                      While calling the incident ‘inappropriate’, the decision immediately qualifies it saying it ”must be seen in context” – as a ‘joke’, a ‘fun slap’.
                      Fun slap has no legal standing or valid context at work.
                      It is assault; the only person having ‘fun’ is the assailant.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 November 2014 at 7:54 am

                      “Fun slap has no legal standing or valid context at work.
                      It is assault; the only person having ‘fun’ is the assailant.”

                      Wrong, ergo. Firstly, in this specific case, both parties acknowledge that they were joking around; they were having fun. But the boss went too far. Secondly, it clearly can have a valid context at work. It seems weird to have to mention Richie McCaw for a third time, but if you genuinely think he is assaulting his workmates when he does it, have a crack at a citizen’s arrest. See how that works out for you.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      28 November 2014 at 9:02 am

                      Go to work and tackle your boss to the ground, see how that works out for you.
                      It’s weird that you repeatedly cite a young fit man playing a potentially dangerous contact sport to justify sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. It is a flippant non sequitur.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 November 2014 at 9:19 am

                      It’s also weird how you can’t follow a thread or apparently comprehend the isolated comments you do read. To save you bothering to read the other comments, I’ll recap: Rugby players, and other professional sportspeople, pat each other on the bum on occasions while they are working. It’s not sexual assault, it’s for encouragement. Nor is grabbing the shorts of front rowers in the scrum sexual harrassment. It’s done to help lock the scrum together. The reason I’ve raised that example (4 times now!) is because it shows that context is important. When Richie does it, it is not sexual assault. However, when that league player John Hopoate stuck his finger up the arse of some of his opponents, that could easily be considered to be a sexual assault. Context is an important part of the law and each case is treated on its individual merits.

                      In this case, there was no evidence offered that the pat on the bum was sexual in nature. An allegation is not evidence. It is not an acceptable thing to do, but it is not automatically sexual assault. The case was not proven. You and I both have sympathy for the complainant, but that cuts no ice in law. Without evidence that it was done in a sexual context, the case was always going to fail.

                      Hope this explanation is helpful for you, ergo.

                    • weka …
                      28 November 2014 at 9:20 am

                      “It’s weird that you repeatedly cite a young fit man playing a potentially dangerous contact sport to justify sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. It is a flippant non sequitur.”

                      Yes, it’s the abstract argument when the issue is RL.

                      “Bum slap just a fun slap, ERA says”

                      That’s the Stuff headline. Hard to see how that’s not minimising, or how it is sending the right message.

                    • weka …
                      28 November 2014 at 9:23 am

                      “In this case, there was no evidence offered that the pat on the bum was sexual in nature. An allegation is not evidence. It is not an acceptable thing to do, but it is not automatically sexual assault. The case was not proven. You and I both have sympathy for the complainant, but that cuts no ice in law. Without evidence that it was done in a sexual context, the case was always going to fail.”

                      There is more at stake here than just the law.

                      A slap on the bum doesn’t have to be intended to be sexual in nature for it to be a problem (consider hugs too). The issue is about power relationships and whether physical behaviour is appropriate.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 November 2014 at 9:37 am

                      Dead right, weka. Which is why the ERA member said the behaviour was inappropriate and should not be repeated.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      28 November 2014 at 12:38 pm

                      ‘It’s also weird how you can’t follow a thread or apparently comprehend the isolated comments you do read.’

                      That’s ironic, given that up-thread you misleadingly insisted an essential quote from the decision denoting the central finding did not even exist!
                      You call it a ‘pat’ when even the boss (or his lawyer) admitted to a slap, which strongly suggests you’re arguing in bad faith.
                      As for your whining that people on this thread (and on today’s OM) don’t accept your lousy rugby analogy, it’s rather pathetic.

                    • The Al1en …
                      28 November 2014 at 12:42 pm

                      The era member is new, and apparently made many mistakes in the handling of the case which will be argued out in the appeal.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 November 2014 at 12:56 pm

                      Ergo, I corrected the mistake immediately. I re-read the entire document to check that I was right in what I said and when I found I was wrong, I said so. I believe that’s actually arguing in good faith.

                      Re the rugby analogy, I think most people reading here actually understand the point I’m making. But one or two don’t seem to be able to get their heads around it.

                      Al1en: The ERA member is not that new. She’s been in the job 2 and a half years. She’s handled 146 cases according to the ERA database, including Ports of Auckland/MUA stuff. That’s a significant workload. And you don’t get the gig in the first place without considerable experience.

                    • The Al1en …
                      28 November 2014 at 1:01 pm

                      Have to accept your numbers as I can’t back up what I’ve been told.
                      Maybe she’s new to Hamilton, rather than at the job, but whatever, she still muddled the hearing which I hope will come out in the appeal.

                    • weka …
                      28 November 2014 at 1:04 pm

                      “Dead right, weka. Which is why the ERA member said the behaviour was inappropriate and should not be repeated.”

                      But that’s not all they said, so please stop selectively quoting in response to the point I am making.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      28 November 2014 at 1:08 pm

                      TRP – Read my comment again. The bad faith remark was in relation to you calling what happened a ‘pat’, rather than the ERA accepted ‘slap’.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 November 2014 at 1:20 pm

                      Ergo, I used the word ‘slap’ in just about every comment I made. Dozens of time, as it happens, coz it’s been a long discussion. That I replaced it with a (admittedly weak) synonym once (consciously or unconsciously) is not evidence of bad faith arguing.

      • The Al1en 19.2.2
        27 November 2014 at 7:28 pm

        It’s not, it’s a crock of shit. I’m an insider and the pattern, although not demonstrated satisfactory here, is true enough.

        Ask if you want, but let’s not take the side of a dirty old man.

        • Te Reo Putake 19.2.2.1
          27 November 2014 at 7:37 pm

          You may be perfectly correct, Al1en, but unless you’ve got proof that’s mighty close to defamation. Given that you worked there, and are presumably easily identified, I’d suggest that’s not a line that’s wise to pursue, just in case.

          • The Al1en 19.2.2.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 7:40 pm

            I am perfectly correct, and after being stabbed in the hand with a pitch fork, beaten up and then constructively dismissed by this prick, I’m not really fearing a defam suit, in fact, bring it, and bring your expensive lawyer being bought with the cash from daddies will.

            Easilly identified 😆
            On the 13/6/14 he was sent through his legal reps instructions to remove my name from his company website. It’s still there, so yeah, id away.

            Save anyone the time looking [deleted]

            [RL: Not sure if this is ok]
            [lprent: Not worth the risk. The rest doesn’t identify the person. Sorry ]

            • weka 19.2.2.1.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 8:02 pm

              Given what you have said I personally don’t have a problem with you taking this risk, but there is also the people who run the standard to consider.

              Also, if you err on the side of caution, we get to see your comments rather than them being moderated 🙂

            • The Al1en 19.2.2.1.1.2
              27 November 2014 at 8:36 pm

              “[RL: Not sure if this is ok]
              [lprent: Not worth the risk. The rest doesn’t identify the person. Sorry ]”

              Sorry about that. Hate to make work for the mods at the best of times 🙂

          • RedLogix 19.2.2.1.2
            27 November 2014 at 8:02 pm

            [RL: @ Al1en. I’ve put that comment back into moderation for lprent to look at. I’m not comfortable with it. ]

            • The Al1en 19.2.2.1.2.1
              27 November 2014 at 8:11 pm

              It probably is out of bounds, so best delete it if it makes things easier for the site.
              Just as long as you remember I wrote it for all to see is good enough. 😉

        • greywarshark 19.2.2.2
          28 November 2014 at 8:03 pm

          I can’t understand how any thinking person writing here can consider someone receiving a hand on the bottom, a slap, a pat, whatever is okay workplace stuff no matter who does it to whom. I can’t understand then how TRP could argue this point below.

          I was once patted on the bottom at work by a senior, same sex, and I really resented it. Patronising sod. I bloody couldn’t do that and I didn’t see that I was a cattle beast to be handled at will. My point is that it is actually assault, and I think if done in the street could result in a charge whether done to a stranger or someone known. Why should a workplace result in a loss of rights of respect.
          Don’t know where that ERA person comes from, surely it is assault and if not regarded as sexual, is still an assault on that person which can’t just be dismissed
          as nothing.

          In this case, there was no evidence offered that the pat on the bum was sexual in nature. An allegation is not evidence. It is not an acceptable thing to do, but it is not automatically sexual assault. The case was not proven. You and I both have sympathy for the complainant, but that cuts no ice in law. Without evidence that it was done in a sexual context, the case was always going to fail.

    • Murray Rawshark 19.3
      27 November 2014 at 9:05 pm

      That gives me the shits. Give a cop of any gender a fun slap and you’ll get tasered and probably charged. Our society is far from the fair and egalitarian myth so many of us like to believe.

    • ankerawshark 19.4
      27 November 2014 at 10:48 pm

      Maybe she should try charging him with assault.

      I was gobsmacked when I read that article OAB. bTW good to see you back

  20. halfcrown 20
    27 November 2014 at 5:41 pm

    I see the fucking money trading spiv is lying over that he never lied to parliament.

  21. The Al1en 21
    27 November 2014 at 6:04 pm

    Dirty old man gets away with it.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11365541

    And insult to injury, her name, along with mine, still appear on his company website contact page.

    • The Al1en 21.1
      27 November 2014 at 7:09 pm

      Herald have added interviews and quotes for those interested.
      Seems like the fat lady hasn’t finished the vocal exercises yet.

      Just spoke to her and she’s staying strong. Good kid, aye.

      • Te Reo Putake 21.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 7:27 pm

        If you’re talking to her, tell her to get a better lawyer. While the employer does sound like a git (going on the comments he made post-case), she was never going to win because of lack of evidence. The admitted behaviour was never going to be enough to justify a constructive dismissal, though it was obviously inappropriate.

        Each case is treated on its merits, and in this case, your colleague was unable to establish that her claim had any merit at all. Which her lawyer should have been straight with her about right at the start.

        • The Al1en 21.1.1.1
          27 November 2014 at 7:33 pm

          We share the same lawyer and he’s okay.

          Bruce Sanson has told a pack of lies to the tribunal and got away with it… For now.
          But regardless of this case, what a precedent to set – It’s okay to hit girls on the bum as long you only convince people you did it once and then say it’s all in fun. :shocker:

          Don’t go out on a limb for this dirty old man. You’re reputation will get as shot to bits as his ultimately will.

          I haven’t even started yet, so stay tuned.

          • Te Reo Putake 21.1.1.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 7:41 pm

            Well, good luck with it. But without evidence, nothing is going to change, except you and your workmate are going to be a lot poorer and your Mr Scott will be paying for his next holiday with your money.

            • The Al1en 21.1.1.1.1.1
              27 November 2014 at 7:47 pm

              Message received loud and clear – Don’t complain about shit bosses, no matter how justified, unless you have the cash. Got it, ta.

              And there’s evidence, but the remaining staff won’t corroborate, for whatever reasons.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                27 November 2014 at 7:56 pm

                Look, you have my sympathy, but you’ve written that wrong. It’s not unless you have the cash, it’s unless you have the evidence. And you’ve just confirmed you don’t. So why are you wasting money on a lawyer?

                • The Al1en …
                  27 November 2014 at 8:04 pm

                  “So why are you wasting money on a lawyer?”

                  Sure, accepted rolling over and kissing goodbye to principles, rights and justice is a lot cheaper than hiring a $300+ph lawyer, but given the nature of the alleged serial offending, for which their is evidence but as yet uncorroborated, doing nothing is a very poor call.

                  Way back on here I wrote win lose or draw he’ll be outed. This is just the beginning of his end.
                  Have you read the shit quotes he’s given to the reporters? He’s loving it, and that’s so wrong.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    27 November 2014 at 8:22 pm

                    Yes, I read his quotes and he sounds like the bastard offspring of Jeremy Clarkson and Nigel Farage, and he needs to STFU, but he won the case hands down, so it’s no surprise he’s feeling chipper about it. I read the determination, btw. It’s a comprehensive dismissal of the claims, because of late filing, lack of evidence and complainant’s own failure to raise the matter when she had earlier opportunities.

                    Here’s another quote, from the Equal Opportunities Commissioner:

                    “… incidents of a sexual nature had to meet a high threshold to be deemed as sexual harassment. Sexual harassment was usually a repeated incident, and if it was a one-off incident it had to be quite significant and cause harm and detriment.”

                    Not a million miles away from what I wrote above in reply to OAB.

                    Seriously, while he doesn’t deserve to get away with it, if what you say is true, there is no point taking a losing case. It’s costs you and emboldens him.

                    • The Al1en …
                      27 November 2014 at 8:26 pm

                      “Sexual harassment was usually a repeated incident, and if it was a one-off incident it had to be quite significant and cause harm and detriment.””

                      Yeah, wasn’t a one off, all the women at the shop and cafe knew about the previous slapping incidents and creepy comments.

                      “, if what you say is true, there is no point taking a losing case. It’s costs you and emboldens him.”

                      Not having competing fabricated witness statements is partly why I haven’t proceeded yet, that and not having the money to pay my man, but I have the breaches of privacy and dodgy record keeping to pursue with the privacy commission and the labour inspector, so other avenues are open.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      27 November 2014 at 8:43 pm

                      Again, good luck. I’d like to think my contributions here might help you in some way, even if it’s only to be the devil’s avocado as you do the SWOT test.

                      But, again, you’re sailing close to the line with what you claim others knew, so I think I’ll stop giving the gratis advice on the specifics of the case now because I don’t want to encourage you to go down that track. Hope you get satisfaction in the end.

                    • The Al1en …
                      27 November 2014 at 8:53 pm

                      I can’t un-know something I know first hand as fact or forget conversations with those people about those facts, whether they’ll selectively remember them or not.
                      Justice is an arse if I can’t relay in open discussion, but yeah, best quit it cause I can’t not say what I know.

          • Murray Rawshark 21.1.1.1.2
            27 November 2014 at 9:20 pm

            I hope you get a good result. I agree fully with you on this matter.

            • The Al1en 21.1.1.1.2.1
              27 November 2014 at 9:35 pm

              Thanks for that.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                27 November 2014 at 11:36 pm

                Good luck with it all mate. And IMO, TRP is giving you some advice worth reflecting on above there. As difficult as it is to read I feel it is a sound professional judgement and not an off the cuff personal one that he is sharing.

  22. karol 22
    27 November 2014 at 6:28 pm

    Campbell Live pays Jason Ede a visit tonight.

    CL tweeted

    Where is Jason Ede and why does he matter? The star of #DirtyPolitics has never responded to its accusations, so tonight, we pay him a visit

    • Weepus beard 22.1
      27 November 2014 at 7:36 pm

      Missed it. What happened? Let me guess: no-one home.

      • ianmac 22.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 7:39 pm

        John did pretty comprehensive summary of the Eade issues and placed the key questions in black and white onscreen. But no sign of Jason though he was at home. Peeped through the curtain. Worth a watch when up online.

      • karol 22.1.2
        27 November 2014 at 8:35 pm

        And a 3 News journo talked to Slater in the street. Slater said he didn’t talk to Campbell Live (or NZ Herald or RNZ) ….. then proceeded to answer the journo’s questions on why he didn’t talk to these news outlets, plus related questions

        – is all because they reported on Dirty Politics and didn’t ask for Slater’s views on his role in DP before publishing – and because they published the content of his private emails.

  23. Murray Rawshark 23
    27 November 2014 at 6:32 pm

    I just made my first ever submission on a parliamentary bill. It will have no effect whatsoever, but I don’t want to be ruled by squirrels:
    The SIS, the GCSB, and the Police already have enough powers to keep Aotearoa safe. The threat of terrorism is virtually nil and will remain so as long as we do not send our children to fight in other people’s wars.
    The main threats to our democracy come from the childish irresponsibility of John Key in the way he oversees the security agencies. Who voted for Cameron Slater, who seems to be the PM’s chief advisor?
    The Green Party and New Zealand First should vehemently oppose this Bill. Labour, the other half of our governing tag team, should take a stand as well. It is not good enough for the leader of the opposition to call on the PM to “Cut the crap” and then vote for an intensification of the authoritarian nature of the state.

  24. Te Reo Putake 24
    27 November 2014 at 7:12 pm

    “You’re now asking me, in a period of three months where I’ve dealt with an election campaign, where I probably deal with, I don’t know, a thousand text messages a day from hundreds and hundreds of people, you’re now telling me I have to remember exactly the number.” Key, Radio NZ this arvo.

    Fuck me. And there I thought we employed this fool to run the country. But, no, he spends his days textering. Let’s say he deals with 2 txtes a minute. That’s 120 an hour. Nearly 8 hours each day trying to find the smiley face icon or typing ‘lol’. No wonder he was too busy to ask more about the Great Labour Death Plot.

    I’m worried he may overuse his digits and get carpal tunnel vision or whatever they call it these days. OOS, that’s it. I’m worried that Key may turn out to be OOSless.

    • mickysavage 24.1
      27 November 2014 at 7:34 pm

      A simple OIA asking how many texts are sent and received from his phone each day should provide a good understanding of what he does each day.

      • Te Reo Putake 24.1.1
        27 November 2014 at 7:53 pm

        I’ve already got a good idea of what he does all day: dream of Hawaii. And Golf. And Obama. And Golf with Obama.

        Really, the 1000 text quote from Key is just another one for BLiP’s Big List ‘o’ Lies. Key just can’t help bullshitting to the point where he’s oblivious that he’s even doing it.

      • weka 24.1.2
        27 November 2014 at 9:02 pm

        Which txts are OIA-able? The PM’s obviously, but what about John Key’s? The OIA request would need to be carefully worded to avoid the answer being a nonsense.

        • mickysavage 24.1.2.1
          27 November 2014 at 9:40 pm

          Yep like “Without disclosing the contents of the texts, how many texts per day has been sent from the PM’s phone and how many texts per day have been received by the PM’s phone for the past 365 days?”

          Metadata is a real bastard …

          • weka 24.1.2.1.1
            27 November 2014 at 11:11 pm

            unless he has more than one phone.

            btw, do you know what kind of message the screen shot was (smartphone email?), and whether it was possble to tell if it was from Slater’s phone or the other person’s?

  25. ianmac 25
    27 November 2014 at 7:45 pm

    I read a piece the other day by Gordon Campbell called “Why Good Journalists Are So ‘Rude’”. Adds a bit of understanding to Guyon and Suzies job especially when up against a master of deflection like Key.

    …..Hello, reality check. It is simply not useful to berate journalists for why ‘getting a straight answer out of politicians’ has become so difficult, if not impossible. The modern reality of interviewing is the one that Thompson touched on. We are operating in a media environment where almost everyone fronting up for an interview has been schooled in the tactics of smothering, diverting and re-framing the narratives of media inquiry. Our politicians, corporate chieftains and bureaucrats all know how to do this, and it is only a little bit harder these days to frustrate journalists in interviews than it is to block and delay government responses to OIA requests. Which is something politicians routinely and selectively do, as the Prime Minister has happily conceded……

    Reckon it might be worth a post on a reflective day?
    http://werewolf.co.nz/2014/11/why-good-journalists-are-so-rude/

  26. Ad 26
    27 November 2014 at 8:18 pm

    I think we are in for the same rude shock as at the election.
    Polls will be largely unmoved.
    People will know he lies, and love him still.

    Change attack soon Little; this will go nowhere.

    • Ergo Robertina 26.1
      27 November 2014 at 8:38 pm

      What would you suggest as a line of attack?

    • RedLogix 26.2
      27 November 2014 at 8:45 pm

      Hard to know.

      Part of me wants to agree. Such is the power of cognitive dissonance it’s possible that Key’s polling might even rise.

      But Little’s already played it correctly today – when asked if Key should resign – he rather neatly softened his approach.

      • weka 26.2.1
        27 November 2014 at 8:59 pm

        The public won’t be the ones that bring Key down.

        I agree Little is handling this very well, adjusting strategy as he goes.

      • Murray Rawshark 26.2.2
        27 November 2014 at 9:36 pm

        Why is that correct? Key should resign. He should have resigned over his Tranzrail share portfolio. How bad does he have to get before Little will say it? His job is not to negotiate with Key on our behalf, it is to get rid of Key.

        • felix 26.2.2.1
          27 November 2014 at 9:54 pm

          Context is everything. I’ve heard him say Key should resign several times.

          He also said, on being questioned by Espiner on what it would take for him to accept Key not resigning, is that he has to take responsibility and apologise for misleading the country.

          Which of course Key can’t do, because if he did, he’d have to resign anyway.

          Which I thought was quite clever really. That’s how I took it anyhoo.

    • Weepus beard 26.3
      27 November 2014 at 8:56 pm

      Polls will be largely unmoved.
      Morally corrupt rightwingers and amateur landlords will know he lies, and love him still.

      FIFY.

    • mickysavage 26.4
      27 November 2014 at 10:01 pm

      Polls will be largely unmoved.

      Yep it probably depends on confidence ratings and unemployment levels despite everything else …

      • adam 26.4.1
        27 November 2014 at 10:13 pm

        I think what the real one will be Micky is underemployment. Where by the young in particular are only in bit work. Good I feel like I’m writing in a victorian dime novel. Damn you, you neo-liberalist, dragging us back over a hundred years in relation to work.

        Confidence is waning – slowly, and it’s falling rather pronouncedly amongst small retail/hospitality business people. I think the people I talk to in this area are frightened by the TPP and rightly so – They have computers they know what NAFT is and the see the impact.

  27. odysseus 27
    27 November 2014 at 10:19 pm

    When is the next reliable poll anyway?