Open mike 28/11/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:50 am, November 28th, 2014 - 190 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 …

190 comments on “Open mike 28/11/2014”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    28 November 2014 at 6:53 am

    BLIPs famous list of Key’s porkies will have been extended by recent days’ events.

  2. Wairua 2
    28 November 2014 at 6:53 am

    I once stood in the Kabul Museum and gazed in wonder upon a statue merging features of Buddha and Apollo.

    I don’t know if it survived destruction by the Taliban.

    Joyce & Key have played a similar role in this country.

    Neither of them an original intellect, they have left an enduring legacy and contributed to the development of a new career – of undercover scientist.

    Can I interest anyone in a cheap analysis ?

  3. RedLogix 3
    28 November 2014 at 7:02 am

    Skeptical Science has put this very neat interactive together:

    97 Hours

    See if you can spot the kiwi.

  4. chris73 4
    28 November 2014 at 7:25 am

    So Andrew Little gets a 8/10 for his performance thus far (just that thing about Goff holding him back from a 9) and Labour gets a 7/10 which would have been 8 as well but for Goff (he really should know better)

    John Key gets a 3/10 which would have been 2/10 but for Goff and National gets a 4/10 for weak exonerations but still exonerations

    Littles doing well so far, Key needs to up his game and end this distraction quickly

    • b waghorn 4.1
      28 November 2014 at 7:33 am

      I think ‘dirty politis’ will be gift that keeps giving, Key s getting a hunted look in his eyes.

      • chris73 4.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 7:37 am

        Unless Keys strategy is to hope that the public get very bored of it all and stop listening, it worked for the election but its a high risk game hes playing now

        • b waghorn 4.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 7:56 am

          Most of the people don’t pay much attention but the press are warming to Little and the people will go were the press take them.I had hoped he would resign but now I want him to tuff it out so he can take nats to it’s biggest defeat in 2017.

          • weka 4.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2014 at 8:59 am

            “the people will get bored” seems to be the right’s best defense at the moment, but as you point out a fairly hopeless one because it’s the media that runs the show and Little will keep them interested for quite some time I imagine. How long until the RWNJs realise the game has changed?

    • weka 4.2
      28 November 2014 at 9:05 am

      “Key needs to up his game and end this distraction quickly”

      Completely wrong analysis chris. This isn’t a ‘distraction’. It’s a fundamental crisis for NZ’s governance. It’s also the most overt manifestation of the long term fight between good and evil that NZ has seen in a long time, probably since the 80s.

      I’m not sure it’s possible for Key to up his game in the face of being finally proven a bare face liar who’s been taking the piss with the PM hat for quite some time.

      • tc 4.2.1
        28 November 2014 at 9:35 am

        what chris means is Key has to up his spinning and BS’ing as that’s been his game for as long as he’s been in parliamant

        • weka 4.2.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 9:37 am

          True, but I think there is a limit to that working and Key has just reached it. When the MSM stop believing him he’s pretty much screwed. See, the emperor has no clothes.

      • felix 4.2.2
        28 November 2014 at 1:57 pm

        Perhaps chris meant to type ” Key needs to up his game and find this distraction quickly 😀

        • weka 4.2.2.1
          28 November 2014 at 2:18 pm

          😀

          Key really is scraping the bottom of the barrel when he has to release his own txts as a distraction.

          • Tracey 4.2.2.1.1
            29 November 2014 at 9:16 am

            Transcripts of some of his texts. Let us not presume it is the full text exchange, uneditted.

            He also released docs last week of the election which he said proved something they didnt. In that instance he relied on people not reading them, espesh in the media.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.3
      28 November 2014 at 11:29 am

      John Key gets a 3/10 which would have been 2/10 but for Goff and National gets a 4/10 for weak exonerations but still exonerations

      There were no exonerations Chris no matter how much John Key lies about it.

  5. Ad 5
    28 November 2014 at 8:00 am

    Great to see Ferguson the ex-head of the GCSB come out hard against the new SIS-enabling bill on National Radio.

    However I don’t think this whole issue will hurt Key in the polls much.

    LIttle needs to start to turn to housing. Labour said almost nothing about Hamilton City’s decision to sell off its entire public housing portfolio yesterday – at least nothing with cut-through.

    With migration set to be sustained at high levels for the next few years, house prices in Auckland are going to escalate to places never yet seen in New Zealand. LIttle needs to get set to attack the rentier class, and decent the public housing sector – citizens need shelter.

    That’s where the new electoral gold is.

  6. Manuka AOR 6
    28 November 2014 at 8:19 am

    This week marked a long overdue turning point in NZ politics, and in media coverage of events. Bryce Edwards’ round-up of the week’s links could be helpful for future reference.
    Bryce Edwards: The Democratic Deficit of Dirty Politics
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11365448

    • ianmac 6.1
      28 November 2014 at 9:26 am

      Thanks Manuka AOR. A big read. And a bit unusual from Edwards as he usually puts all the good news for Key’s Government first and tacks on a bit of contrary stuff at the end. Not this time!
      It may be true that the huge detail available will kill the interest of the general public. Perhaps the next poll will have National riding higher? Dammit!

    • Chooky 6.2
      28 November 2014 at 12:16 pm

      +100 Manuka AOR….that comprehensive article by Bryce Edwards is a wake up call for the danger now facing democracy in New Zealand ….It is a MUST READ for everyone!

  7. Te Reo Putake 7
    28 November 2014 at 8:40 am

    UK Tory MP Andrew Mitchell comes a cropper in the ‘plebgate’ libel case: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/pleb-andrew-mitchell-loses-libel-case

  8. weka 8
    28 November 2014 at 8:54 am

    Anyone come up with John and Cam’s celeb name yet?

    Camkey?

    Something with oil in it seems appropriate.

  9. millsy 9
    28 November 2014 at 9:21 am

    In a year’s time Bill English will be National Party leader and PM.

    Someone more dependable upon to push through that the financial elites want Especially ‘reforms’ to health and superannuation. Remember: this was the guy who oversaw dozens of hospital closures in the 1990s.

    John Key will be given the US Ambassadorship which becomes vacant next year and a knighthood as compensation, so he can focus on the Washington cocktail circuit.

    English has been plotting his utu for years. His hands clean from dirty politics and busy with the economy, he will want to present himself as one who “gets on with it”.

    You heard it here first.

  10. The Murphey 10
    28 November 2014 at 9:23 am

    Q. Who are Barry and Faye Kurren?

    A. _______

  11. weka 11
    28 November 2014 at 9:36 am

    Women vote in first general election 28 November 1893. Interesting voter stats.

    New Zealand women went to the polls for the first time, just 10 weeks after the governor, Lord Glasgow, signed the Electoral Act 1893 into law, thereby making this country the first in the world to give all adult women the vote.

    Despite the short timeframe for voter registration, 109,461 women – about 84% of the adult female population – enrolled to vote in the election. On polling day 90,290 of them cast their votes, a turnout of 82% (far higher than the 70% turnout among registered male voters). There were then no electoral rolls for the Māori seats, but women cast perhaps 4000 of the 11,269 Māori votes that year.

    Despite warnings from opponents of women’s suffrage that ‘lady voters’ might be harassed at polling booths, election day passed off in a relaxed, festive atmosphere. According to a Christchurch newspaper, the streets ‘resembled a gay garden party’ – ‘the pretty dresses of the ladies and their smiling faces lighted up the polling booths most wonderfully’.

    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/page/women-vote-first-general-election

  12. amirite 12
    28 November 2014 at 10:23 am

    This is the sort of life-saving medicine Labour so sorely needed:

  13. les 13
    28 November 2014 at 10:49 am

    Toby Manhire brilliant in todays NZH.

    • Blue 13.1
      28 November 2014 at 1:59 pm

      The funniest part is the comments. Most of them have completely missed the satire and are wholeheartedly ‘agreeing’ that Key can do no wrong.

      Friday lolz:

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11365588

      • Murray Rawshark 13.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 6:18 pm

        More evidence for the theory that NAct supporters really are as thick as pigshit.

        • Sans Cle 13.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 8:07 pm

          In fairness, there were a few comments from non-Nats, who took umbridge at what Toby had written (thought he was being serious), or else just read the by-line and commented without reading at all. I am shocked/bemused that people (on both sides) don’t even realise its satire……which just reinforces the critical role of MSM, soundbites, headlines and how important they are as influencers over what people think…..It kind of frightens me, how reality for some people is so different to reality for others……we read the same piece of news and take polar opposite messages from it. Is it intellectual laziness, low literacy levels or what? From a political perspective, if you want to gain support for your point of view, if you want to try to get people to see the world how you see it (like accepting a new policy), it begs the question of how you reach people (who see the world through completely different eyes).

          • Murray Rawshark 13.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2014 at 9:01 pm

            Yeah I know, some on the left are also not intellectually blessed, but Blue hadn’t mentioned them.

            As for why, somehow we seem to have built a culture of instant gratification. People want information, and pleasure, in short bursts and right now. They seem to just want their preconceptions fulfilled, so if a headline does that, they stop. There’s a lot to be said for slowing down and smelling the kowhai flowers.

  14. The Al1en 14
    28 November 2014 at 11:05 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/63625960/job-offer-after-bum-slap-by-boss-ruled-ok.html

    “Sanson hoped the decision wouldn’t tarnish Newman, and said she had made a “youthful mistake.”

    “When you’re 20 or 21 everything is black and white and when you’re 61 you realise there is a hell of a lot of grey and I can put it down as a youthful mistake [on her part].”

    Sanson said he would still rehire Newman. However, the 23-year-old declined the offer.

    “No, he’s creeping me out with that. No, I definitely [do] not feel safe to be anywhere near him.”

    Newman plans to appeal the decision.

    • Weepus beard 14.1
      28 November 2014 at 11:13 am

      Presumably the grey is when you can touch one of your young female employees whenever you feel like it.

      • The Al1en 14.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 11:24 am

        Oddest thing is if he’d been an employee and did it to a co-worker, he’d be up for dismissal and all sorts without a leg to stand on.

        But do remember that face those women who shop for plants in Hamilton.

        • Te Reo Putake 14.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 11:31 am

          Nope. The same rules apply to both employers and employees. Context, remember.

          • The Al1en 14.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2014 at 11:42 am

            Not what I’ve been told, but if you want to volunteer a slap on a co-workers arse, go ahead and let me know how you get on.

            Edit:
            Just remember to laugh and joke first and only say you did it once.

            • Te Reo Putake 14.1.1.1.1.1
              28 November 2014 at 11:49 am

              Can I just mention Richie McCaw for the 6th time? Context, Ai1en. And remember, both parties agree that they were joking at the time, so, um, context.

              • weka …
                28 November 2014 at 11:58 am

                Except that everyone else in the conversation can tell the difference between playing rugby and working in a plant shot.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  28 November 2014 at 12:03 pm

                  There is no difference. They are both workplaces. Richie is an authority figure, just like the boss. They are both subject to the same law. Richie has the same defence as the boss, which is that, in context, it’s not sexual harassment.

                  • weka …
                    28 November 2014 at 12:31 pm

                    lolz, keep trying to define reality for everyone, see how well that works.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 November 2014 at 12:42 pm

                      Strange reply, weka. It’s not me defining reality. It is reality. It’s hundreds of years of jurisprudence, the laws of NZ, the common law and case law.

                      In a nutshell, you don’t appear to like the outcome. And therefore, you are willing to completely dismiss the sound legal reasons for the outcome. That’s an attempt to define reality, right there. Let’s see how well that works, eh?

                    • The Al1en …
                      28 November 2014 at 12:45 pm

                      Sound legal reasons for the outcome were arrived at by a new era member based on, in my opinion (allegedly known as fact by me)*, false testimony by witnesses.

                      *Trying really hard not to call a spade a spade in order to protect TS.

                    • weka …
                      28 November 2014 at 3:15 pm

                      “In a nutshell, you don’t appear to like the outcome. And therefore, you are willing to completely dismiss the sound legal reasons for the outcome. That’s an attempt to define reality, right there. Let’s see how well that works, eh?”

                      I don’t have an opinion about the outcome, as I haven’t read the report.

                      Go back and reread my comments on this topic TRP. You will see that right from the first one I have been commenting on the meta issues. I’ve stated twice that my point is in addition to or separate from the legal issues.

                      You insist on making this conversation solely about the legal issues, hence my comment about defining reality. There are at least 3 subthreads going on here. The Al1en’s, which is a mix of the legal and direct experience/anecdote and covers law and ethics. Ergo’s, which I haven’t followed closely enough to accurately summarise. And mine, which is about the necessity of clear messages beyond legalities from organisations like the ERA and Stuff. I think we’ve all talked about the importance of culture in addition to law.

                      Trying to define this solely in terms of the strict law of this case is like trying to talk about roastbusters solely in terms of the police investigation and their legal parameters.

                      Hundreds of years of jurisprudence, the laws of NZ, the common law and case law is no the only way to understand reality.

              • The Al1en …
                28 November 2014 at 12:07 pm

                Mention st richie all you like, but the joking around is a red herring.
                A laugh and a joke is not a pre cursor to an unwanted sexual advance that, as was stated but not accepted by the hearing, was the last in a sequence of similar events.

                If his ‘witnesses’ had told the era what I know them to know, the result would be very different.

                I have accepted that because of the false statement from one of his witnesses (same one as in Newman’s case), and despite having a list of dates, times and places, I can’t win my own case unless I pay to forensically expose the lies (which I can’t), so I have to cough up for the bill I’ve run up and let it go.

                Still, got two and a half years left before the cutoff date to proceed, so plenty of time for the dirty old man’s stories to unravel.
                Gutted though, cause the guy is fuckstick and needs to be stopped.
                All this case has done, so far, is bolster his sense of impunity. Knowing the man, it won’t last. He won’t be able to help himself, though with a mail order bride on the way he may be occupied enough at home.

                I have, as a final clutch at a straw, sent a request to Campbell live to have a little look at things, but I don’t hold out much hope.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  28 November 2014 at 12:18 pm

                  Fair enough, Al1en, that must be a bitter pill to swallow. I don’t know either you or the boss, but I know who’s version sounds the most likely. Particularly after his Benny Hill style comments in the media.

                  Regarding the witnesses, don’t be too hard on them. There’s all sorts of reasons why they might say things that don’t align with your understanding. They might be intimidated, afraid of losing their jobs. Or they might not understand or care. Or they simply might have seen it differently from you (the Rashomon effect).

                  • The Al1en …
                    28 November 2014 at 12:26 pm

                    It is a bitter pill and it’s lodged about halfway down my throat at the moment, but it’s nice to be considered a reliable witness by someone.

                    As for the witnesses, who I know to have been less than honest, I feel nothing but scorn and contempt.
                    For the record, I was intimidated and afraid of losing my job too, yet stood up for what’s right – It was a no brainer as far as I was concerned. In my opinion, women who ignore, deny, mitigate and/or cover up this sort of behaviour, for any of those reasons listed, I say fuck ’em, which may be extremely harsh, but these women allowed this dirty old coot to get away with it.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      28 November 2014 at 6:59 pm

                      When this behaviour is allowed or ignored by one, this just makes sure it will happen to someone else. There are all sorts of reasons why people don’t speak up, but I wish they would. I knew a woman years ago who worked in a petrol station and copped all sorts of garbage off the boss. For about an hour. After telling him to stop 3 or 4 times and being laughed at, she put a screwdriver through his hand. That stopped him.

              • Murray Rawshark …
                28 November 2014 at 6:51 pm

                Rubbish. The manly bonding between sweating giants of our national sport necessitates a few slaps on the well muscled buttocks of a comrade. This is both encouragement and reward and is understood by manly men in all the changing rooms and on all the ritual battlefields of the land. When John Key, captain of the All Blacks, pats another player on the bum, it is for encouragement and promise of knighthoods to come.

                When a dirty old man of a boss does it to a young female worker, it’s a statement of power over her. It cannot be compared to joking about whatever stupid hat he was wearing.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  28 November 2014 at 7:19 pm

                  Murray, I’m sure you understand that the same action in different situations can have different meanings. The action of the boss in this case is not as insignificant as those in the rugby player analogy, but it is not sexual harassment as it is defined in NZ. It is not repeated and it is not sufficiently severe to meet the threshold, in the circumstances as we know them. If you don’t like the law, by all means campaign to have the definition tightened.

                  If the complainant was able to provide any corroboration at all of repetitive harassing behaviour or a witness that confirmed the incident was more severe than it was said to be by the boss, then there would be a different outcome. The actual outcome seems consistent with the proven facts.

                  • Murray Rawshark …
                    28 November 2014 at 7:28 pm

                    I’m not trying to give a legal opinion here. I’m not qualified. What I am qualified to do is write what I think about the situation. In any case, it just confirms once more that the courts and tribunals are stacked against workers.

                    • The Al1en …
                      28 November 2014 at 7:54 pm

                      And if you haven’t got the money to hire the professionals, and let’s face it, most low paid workers don’t, one is always going to be up against it.
                      Justice costs, and those without go without.

    • weka 14.2
      28 November 2014 at 11:37 am

      Why was she dismissed?

      • The Al1en 14.2.1
        28 November 2014 at 11:44 am

        She wasn’t, she resigned.
        The point is that on the evidence presented, if I as a co-worker had slapped her bum, I would have been dismissed or disciplined for it, yet he gets off scot free.

      • Te Reo Putake 14.2.2
        28 November 2014 at 11:45 am

        She wasn’t dismissed, weka. She resigned, then unsuccessfully claimed constructive dismissal. That’s the concept that the resignation was forced by the employer’s behaviour. ie. that the worker had no reasonable alternative but to resign. It’s usually very hard to prove.

  15. Penny Bright 15
    28 November 2014 at 11:37 am

    What were Cameron Slater’s links (if any) with the Israeli State back in 2011?

    Was the attack on (then) Leader of the Labour Party Phil Goff, to help stop his asking ‘hard’ questions in the House about the strange circumstances surrounding the deaths of three Israelis in the Christchurch earthquake?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5311491/Investigation-cleared-Israelis-of-spy-claims-PM

    Three Israelis were among the 181 people who died when the earthquake struck on February 22.

    An SIS officer told the Southland Times there were fears Israeli agents had hacked the police national computer, compromising highly sensitive files. Police have since said their systems are subject to regular security audits and are secure.

    The investigation centred on a group of four people in a van in the city centre. Driver Ofer Benyamin Mizrahi, 23, was killed instantly and the other three left the country within 12 hours. The newspaper reported Mizrahi was found with five passports.

    Key refused to answer questions about the revelations when he was grilled by reporters this morning, saying it was not in the “national interest.”
    …….
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    In WHOSE ‘national interest’?

    The national interest of New Zealand or Israel?
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Cameron Slater made a trip to Israel which was partially paid by the Israeli Embassy in Wellington in August 2014.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11312402

    But the Israeli Embassy in Wellington is relaxed about picking Slater – a climate change denier – to cover the World Science Conference in Israel. Despite the bad publicity, it believes Slater is “fair-minded” and “spiritual”.

    The embassy picked Slater to be part of a media delegation to the conference a long time ago. He had a reputation for controversy even before the release of Dirty Politics, a book based on his leaked emails and revealing deep cynicism and some nasty communications between Slater and some people in politics and PR.

    The embassy’s cultural and public affairs director, Patricia Deen, stands by its choice, and said Slater’s fairness showed in his coverage from Israel so far. Israel has been part-funding Slater and other writers to the conference, which was scheduled to run from August 17 to 21. While it never went ahead because of the war on Gaza, Slater has stayed on to write about Israel.

    The Israeli Government paid part of his costs, and he paid extra to extend his visit to cultural places, said Deen. “Cameron is a very spiritual person,” she said.

    Like other countries, Israel pays for journalists to visit so they can get media to see their side of the story. NZ does much the same thing in helping journalists visit our “100 per cent pure” nation. In Israel’s case, though, such delegations are often designed to counter what it believes is an anti-Israel bias on the part of international media.

    …..
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    hmmm…………………

    Penny Bright

    • Chooky 15.1
      28 November 2014 at 5:19 pm

      +100 … great post Penny…and thought provoking questions!

      …i also think i remember a whole lot of passports at issue with those Israelis after the Christchurch Earthquake when the remaining surviving Israelis were spirited out of the country very fast by their fatherland…this all deserves much wider investigation

      ….eg what exactly is New Zealand’s relationship with Israel?…we know where Helen Clark stood ….but since it seems to have got very murky ….where do the GCSB and the SIS stand on these issues?…are there hidden agendas both in New Zealand and Australia…eg ex Jesuit Priest Tony Abbott….what is his stance?…given the concerns of United Nations on human rights violations and genocide against the Palestinians….i think the Labour Party, Greens , Mana/Int and NZF parties should looking at these questions as a priority

      …especially with new warrantless spy legislation proposed by John Key and Nact on New Zealanders…will there be any accountability ….and if so to whom?!

      …these questions are crucial for our democracy and sovreignty

      • Murray Rawshark 15.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 7:06 pm

        Tony Abbott was never a Jesuit priest. He wanted to be, but he was booted from the seminary for lack of empathy.

        As for ngati poaka saying their systems are secure……..what are the odds that a good part of the IT comes from companies with links to Israel? The Zionists have shown great willingness and ability to access the computer systems of other countries.

        On Slug Boy – he has no credentials whatsoever to report on a science conference. It’d be like sending a deaf reporter to report on a symphony.

        • Chooky 15.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 9:49 pm

          thanks for that correction re Tony Abbott….well that is interesting…he got the boot from the seminary for “lack of empathy”! ( my respect for the Jesuits goes up …and respect for Aussies voting him in… after all… goes down)

          …what is “ngati poaka” ?…SIS?

          lol…re “Slug Boy”…science credentials …but what about Slater being “a very spiritual person”?!…

          (See Penny’s post :- “Israeli Embassy in Wellington is relaxed about picking Slater – a climate change denier – to cover the World Science Conference in Israel. Despite the bad publicity, it believes Slater is “fair-minded” and “spiritual”….said Deen. “Cameron is a very spiritual person,” …)

          ….definitely an Orwellian spin

          • Murray Rawshark 15.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2014 at 10:38 pm

            Ngati poaka are the tribe of pigs. They wear blue and have different rules and customs to the rest of us. Some people have objected to my use of this name, but I’m relaxed about it. Not in a Key way, though, I have sought advice.

    • The Murphey 15.2
      28 November 2014 at 9:01 pm

      Q. What is the difference

      1. Agent
      2. Asset
      3. Sayanim

  16. James 16
    28 November 2014 at 11:47 am

    Breaking on NZ Herald John Banks conviction overturned.

    More to come.

  17. ianmac 17
    28 November 2014 at 11:48 am

    Herald Breaking News!

    John Banks’ conviction overturned

    John Banks’ conviction has been overturned.

    In August, Banks was sentenced to two months’ community detention after being found guilty of knowingly filing a false return in relation to the donations, which were declared as anonymous.

    More to come.

    • ianmac 17.1
      28 November 2014 at 11:50 am

      And Stuff: In a judgment released this morning, the Court of Appeal set aside his conviction and ordered a retrial.

      • Naki man 17.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 12:55 pm

        I hope crim.con is charged with perjury, Banks spent a fortune on clearing his name he would not have done that if he could not prove crim.con was lying.

    • Te Reo Putake 17.2
      28 November 2014 at 11:52 am

      Off to a retrial, so not out of jail just yet. So to speak 😉

      • tc 17.2.1
        28 November 2014 at 12:56 pm

        Another drag on the big germans resources coming up….

        • Murray Rawshark 17.2.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 7:08 pm

          Nope. Dotcom doesn’t pay for the Crown to prosecute Banks. He is at most a witness.

          These yanks suddenly appearing is just too convenient.

      • McFlock 17.2.2
        28 November 2014 at 1:04 pm

        bit of a bugger, but the system will get there eventually.

        Worst case is he gets off, but he and the rest of the tories would have had a mighty shock the first time 🙂

        • Te Reo Putake 17.2.2.1
          28 November 2014 at 1:59 pm

          Yep, a fright alright. That’ll probably be the last time a prominent candidate puts his hand out directly for a cheque. It’ll be ‘see my campaign manager while I look away’ in future. Though I saw somewhere recently that they are now finding alternative ways to channel the big bucks, via intermediary organisations. And really, the only crime is getting caught, eh.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.3
      28 November 2014 at 1:21 pm

      John Banks’ conviction overturned

      Mr Banks had appealed and introduced affidavits from two US-based businessmen who had been at the same lunch at which Mr Dotcom claimed donations were discussed. The pair – David Schaeffer and Jeffery Karnes – both said donations were not discussed at that lunch.

      It’s entirely possible to be at the same lunch and not in the same conversation and thus not hear or see what was actually taking place.

      • DoublePlusGood 17.3.1
        28 November 2014 at 5:23 pm

        There’d be some short odds that Schaeffer and Karnes have received some anonymous donations too.

      • Once was Pete 17.3.2
        28 November 2014 at 5:40 pm

        Yes it is, but Dotcom and his wife gave evidence that there were no other parties present that day, so undoubtedly since the two businessmen have said in an affidavit that they were there and donations were not discussed it would have unquestionably have had a major impact at the trial.

    • Tracey 17.4
      28 November 2014 at 4:22 pm

      Am pleased for his wife who has been dragged through this.

      Interestingly John Banks may get a not guilty on the basis that wilfully not reading a form can absolve you from responsibility and accountability. Ironic from the party that preaches accountability and responsibility. Imagine if you will, a beneficiary taking money after signing a form they didnt read and thereby didnt know what they had agreed to. Banks and ACT would be squealing like stuck pigs.

      Good riddance. It is just a shame there are more with his lack of ethics and accoubtability ready for the trough.

  18. Naki man 18
    28 November 2014 at 1:09 pm

    So the murdering pedo is on his way back to NZ. Unbelievable that he was collecting
    a student accommodation allowance while being kept by the tax payer.

  19. b waghorn 19
    28 November 2014 at 1:37 pm

    There is a good article on stuff from Russell Norman about oia’s

  20. greywarshark 20
    28 November 2014 at 1:49 pm

    10 mins with Slavoj Zizek thinking about the situation of so many being ‘disposable people’. How do we live full lives in a world where capitalism creates a two part world – inner and outer. Where the ratio is 20:80 the smaller number that are wanted and the vast majority who are disposable. University students study and pass exams knowing that there is no job available.

    He suggests they do not shy away from being creative, artistic. If we concentrate our endeavours only on the utilitarian then too many firstly are unemployed, and then become unemployable.

    Where life is like the inside of The Truman Show for the 20% and they cannot see the fringes of their elite bubble. If you feel edgy watching him, then just listenn

  21. greywarshark 21
    28 November 2014 at 2:07 pm

    One thing that young men can do is play cricket and other sports. There you are disposable as in the recent cricket death of Abbott in Australia. (Unfortunately it wasn’t their vicious RW PM. Here is what he had to say about it. No promise to request humane treatment with a ban on this type of bowling.)

    The thought that a player in his prime should be killed playing our national game is shocking and sobering. We should be conscious of the risks that our sportspeople run to give us the pleasure that they do. What happened has touched millions of Australians.
    Very Emperor-like viewing the gladiatorial contest.

    So they could now have the greatest memorial for this young guy Hughes and the
    bowler ‘s state of mind by requesting a ban on this type of bowl, and making people in sports and their officials, likely for charges of manslaughter. Because this is what they bring about by their own actions and agreement with a disgraceful practice.)

    • DoublePlusGood 21.1
      28 November 2014 at 5:25 pm

      I think that comment on the issues of bouncers in cricket should be left to those that actually play cricket and thus understand the issues.

      • greywarshark 21.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 6:04 pm

        Oh I understand the issues all right. There is a blind drive to worship some activities from war to sport and to rush off in a group to participate ignoring that pain, injury, crippling even or death may follow. There is groupthink at work here. And it drags everyone along into a black hole. Learning how to behave like an intelligent humane human is always up against this ‘great’ idea of risking injury or causing a sacrifice to serve whatever the project is. And the aggression raised by sport spills over from the teams facing each other, to the parents at the sideline attacking their child’s opposition, or the ref.

        The unions want to protect foresters and miners from being killed and injured at work. Yet the power of sport to attract people into its midst and encourage them to think it is manly to accept that they may be badly injured or killed is very strong. Rugby have their spear tackles.

        The dirty play and dangerous play becomes acceptable when there is mana or money for winning and if there are bad, careless rules of attack and people die because of them, who cares. You obviously don’t, you are callous and unthinking.

        • Clemgeopin 21.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 6:48 pm

          The primary function of a bowler is to attack the wickets, not the man. The bouncer does that. It is meant to attack the man’s head, face or body in order to intimidate. So, I agree, the bouncer should be banned. If the bouncer is above a certain stipulated height, it should be deemed illegal, with serious consequences to the bowler and his/her team.

          • b waghorn 21.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2014 at 6:57 pm

            There would be 1000’s of bouncers bowled every year to change the game for one freak accident is ridiculous I bet more cricket players die from melanoma each year than have ever been killed buy a ball ffs

          • greywarshark 21.1.1.1.2
            28 November 2014 at 7:36 pm

            This from Wikipedia on bouncers.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncer_%28cricket%29
            There have been several occurrences of injurious bouncers in recent times. In 2006, Australian opener Justin Langer, was struck on the head in his 100th Test from a bouncer from Makhaya Ntini and hospitalised.
            In 2008 West Indies batsman Shivnarine Chanderpaul was knocked out for several minutes after being hit by a bouncer from Australian fast bowler Brett Lee during a test match.[7] Shoaib Akhtar was a regular offender; he injured both Gary Kirsten (2003) and Brian Lara (2004) with fast bouncers. Both batsmen had to be taken off the field.[8]

            NZ Herald finds excuses for throwing an object – violence – in the name of sport. They say the Hughes tragedy is a rarity and perhaps death is but in recent years batsman have been hit as above. The Herald article shows that the bouncer is part of the expectation of fans, it wouldn’t be so interesting a game without it. Heaven save us from the morality of fans!

            There is some good technical discussion about bowling and the difficulties that changing the rules might cause that cricket fans will enjoy and want to think about.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11365898
            But one of the reasons the Hughes’ tragedy has hit home so hard is its rarity. It was described by one commentator as a one in 10 million occurrence. I would suggest those odds are too skinny. At the elite level, in the helmet age, this is unprecedented.
            Banning the bouncer aimed at the head could actually be counterproductive and more dangerous. If lawmakers draw the line, say, at the batsman’s shoulders, this would give those on strike a greater level of comfort only if cricket had no variables. As anybody who has played the game will tell you, it is hard to think of a sport with more variables.

          • Te Reo Putake 21.1.1.1.3
            28 November 2014 at 7:44 pm

            It is ‘illegal’ if it’s too tall. It’s a no-ball. It costs a run and has to be re-bowled. At amateur level, the height is often lower (shoulder height when I last played) to discourage bouncers.

            btw, the primary function of the bowler is to get the batsman out. Bowling him is just one way of achieving that. Less than a quarter of test dismissals are out, bowled, nearly half are out, caught fielder.

      • Murray Rawshark 21.1.2
        28 November 2014 at 7:12 pm

        Aussies should just go back to underarm. That’s where they shine.

  22. ianmac 22
    28 November 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Not sure if we heard the Tuesday Mary Wilson interview with John Key on his continued “contesting” the connection between his office and Slater’s OIA. This is classic Key denial! Wow! and Mary sounded incredulous.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/20158616/direct-link-between-pm%27s-office-and-blogger

  23. Bob 23
    28 November 2014 at 3:16 pm

    Cameron Slater interviewed on Radio Live if anyone interested, not going to change anyones views, but he does make some big accusations around Dirty Politics being a big conspiracy by a number of left wingers (including Matt McCarten) for which he states he has proof: http://www.radiolive.co.nz/FULL-AUDIO-Cameron-Slater-in-studio-with-Willie–Ali/tabid/506/articleID/62929/Default.aspx

    • Tracey 23.1
      28 November 2014 at 4:25 pm

      When will he publish his proof? Bob,have you asked him?

      • Bob 23.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 4:56 pm

        If you listen to the audio, apparently the only reason he hasn’t released proof is due to the continuing Police investigation.
        He has been known to be as credible as Winston Peters on matters like this though.

        And no, I haven’t asked him, if I ever meet him (which is highly unlikely) I will though, just for you Tracey. Maybe you could ask Matt McCaten if he is involved in a conspiracy?

        • weka 23.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 5:46 pm

          Peters has more credibility in his little finger than Slater will every have.

          And that’s coming from someone who thinks Peters ruined MMP.

        • Tracey 23.1.1.2
          28 November 2014 at 7:33 pm

          Yes, of course Bob, and why not release his evidence that LP tried to kill him, or the evidence he has the LP pollies do dirty politics.

          Let Slater make a dick of himself but have some pride man.

          • Bob 23.1.1.2.1
            29 November 2014 at 9:54 am

            Tracey, you clearly did not listen to the interview, he states several times the the Labour Party were not behind Dirty Politics or part of the far fetched conspiracy around him topping himself.

    • McFlock 23.2
      28 November 2014 at 4:32 pm

      …. and he has proof that the aliens who kidnapped him and gave him a rectal probe were all Labour Party caucus members, too. /sarc

    • ianmac 23.3
      28 November 2014 at 4:50 pm

      Thanks Bob. I did listen and decided that Cam has similar dislocated thinking/justifications as Key. No wonder they are soul mates. He certainly says he believes that there is a conspiracy to “get him.’ Maybe it is just his guilt tormenting himself.

      • Tracey 23.3.1
        28 November 2014 at 7:38 pm

        ” ..Narcissism, in lay terms, basically means that a person is totally absorbed in self. The extreme narcissist is the center of his own universe. To an extreme narcissist, people are things to be used. It usually starts with a significant emotional wound or a series of them culminating in a major trauma of separation/attachment. No matter how socially skilled an extreme narcissist is, he has a major attachment dysfunction. The extreme narcissist is frozen in childhood. He became emotionally stuck at the time of his major trauma of separation/attachment

        Some narcissists may have the ability to change into a variety of identities according to the situation. The wounded child inside may choose to present a front as a “bad ass” and tough individual. He may look, by appearance, intimidating and scary to the average person. He could also play the “nice guy/person” whom everyone likes. A corporate type version can be one that is diplomatic, proper, and appearing to care but in reality does not. Another very likeable extreme narcissist can be the one that chooses the comedian role. He is the life of the party and has everyone in stitches, making them laugh constantly. Everyone wants to include this person because they are a lot of fun.

        . http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/04/how-to-spot-a-narcissist/

    • emergency mike 23.4
      28 November 2014 at 5:21 pm

      So Slater is claiming to have proof! But he can’t show it right now…

      Gosh. An unprecedented turn of events.

      I remember when he had ‘proof’ that Karol who posts here and Tania Billingsley were in cahoots as part of a Green party conspiracy to embarrass National with her sexual assault claim. His evidence turned out to be that Karol wrote here in one of her comments that she thought that Billingsley would agree with her about some point or other. Yep.

      I was working on the assumption that Slater was just a compulsive BS artist, but I’m starting to think that he actually believes a significant amount of his own manure. If so Key must be racking his brains on how to get rid of him – it’s rather dangerous and risky to trust such a person. If he can’t he must figure out how to mollify him, and thus remain under his grip, or else his position will become untenable sooner or later, when he be forced to simply leave.

      • Weepus beard 23.4.1
        28 November 2014 at 5:49 pm

        Bryce Edwards suggested today that Key cannot afford to cut Slater loose for fear of him going nuclear and spilling what dirt he has on Key.

        Edwards stopped short of calling it blackmail but that is what it is, isn’t it?

        Either way it appears Slater has power over Key and that puts this country in a very vulnerable position.

        • Anne 23.4.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 7:54 pm

          Bryce Edwards suggested today that Key cannot afford to cut Slater loose for fear of him going nuclear and spilling what dirt he has on Key.

          It’s more likely he knows what dirt Key’s got in his top drawer. He also probably knows how Key obtained it which could be the more dangerous info. should it ever become public knowledge.

  24. Draco T Bastard 24
    28 November 2014 at 3:38 pm

    This governments attacks on civil liberties goes international:

    Whatever the motivation, the raid, like the Australian anti-whistle-blower laws and President Obama’s anti-leak investigations, is certain to have a chilling effect. Of course, such steps are always explained as a result of a careful balancing between national security and civil liberties. What is becoming increasingly clear is that political self-interest — which serves no one except the powers that be — is just as important a factor.

    My bold.

  25. chris73 25
    28 November 2014 at 5:07 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63631562/John-Banks-I-m-an-innocent-man-today

    I said he’d be found not guilty (I admit I got the time frame slightly wrong) and its looking more likely thats whats going to happen, they might not even bother with the re-trial

    Thats what happens when you listen to nut bars like McCready and Dot Con

    • stigie 25.1
      28 November 2014 at 5:28 pm

      “Thats what happens when you listen to nut bars like McCready and Dot Con”

      Could’nt agree more Chris 73 and also Penny Bright !~

    • Weepus beard 25.2
      28 November 2014 at 5:37 pm

      I read that the affidavits of the two American gentlemen in question differ on the details of the day. If they couldn’t even get their story straight after being coached by Banks’ wife then how is this evidence admissible?

    • Draco T Bastard 25.3
      28 November 2014 at 5:40 pm

      He hasn’t been found not guilty, he’s been sent for retrial.

      • chris73 25.3.1
        28 November 2014 at 6:16 pm

        Good, let the whole truth be known

        • Draco T Bastard 25.3.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 7:29 pm

          I’d love for the whole truth to be known. Unfortunately, the actions of Banks and other right-wing politicians such as John Key over the last few years would indicate that they’ll be lying and generally trying to hide the truth as much as possible.

        • Tracey 25.3.1.2
          28 November 2014 at 7:43 pm

          Do you know why they werent subpoened at trial? Dotcom must have known who they were and mr and mrs banks would have recalled their names. Interesting ruling that this was new evidence given their existence was known.

          I havent read the decision.

          • karol 25.3.1.2.1
            28 November 2014 at 7:51 pm

            Banks said his wife was very vigilant in tracking down the new witnesses. They weren’t available at the earlier court case.

            • Weepus beard 25.3.1.2.1.1
              28 November 2014 at 8:02 pm

              Is Banks going to fly them out to testify at the retrial? Where will they stay? How will they be entertained? And other questions.

              • chris73 …
                28 November 2014 at 8:22 pm

                Banks will be vindicated and (once again) Dot Con will have found to be talking porkies and all the leftards that supported and praised him will have egg on their faces (again)

                • Weepus beard …
                  28 November 2014 at 8:35 pm

                  That is not what I asked. No one has lied in this case except Banks and his wife. They are liars, and the court has said so. That a judge would find testimony from Kim Dotcom and his wife more reliable than from Banks and his wife must really sting for you and for them.

                  You and Banks and all your type are deceitful liars and should not be close to positions of power.

            • Tracey 25.3.1.2.1.2
              29 November 2014 at 8:49 am

              From my own experience not getting them to give evidence and not knowing they exist to give e idence are very different things. Remember the recent case with the crown against one SCF…

              IF these guys were known to all parties then they are not strictly speaking new evidence but as I wrote I havent read the decision.

              • karol …
                29 November 2014 at 9:05 am

                According to the Stuff report of the court decision:

                The Court of Appeal said that although Banks’ defence could have tracked the businessmen down before the trial, it was satisfied that if their evidence had been known at the trial the outcome might have been different.

                Well, I guess only Banks and his wife knew they existed. If they had been mentioned in the trial, surely we would have heard about it. I guess Team Banks didn’t want to talk about these witnesses until they tracked them down and learned what the witnesses had to say about what went down re-the donation discussions.

                • Tracey …
                  29 November 2014 at 9:11 am

                  Understood. Odd thing is they arent hard to find. I guess Banks wasnt listening when he was introduced to them.

                  I get the part that their evidence could change the judges view, its the couldnt find them bit. I guess banks spent his money on all the appeals and strike outs instead.

    • Tracey 25.4
      28 November 2014 at 7:41 pm

      You ok with people signing forms without reading them, even when they preach accountability and responsibility to others?

      He took money to be ED of Hujlich and his defence was that he didnt know anything about operations… Executive director who takes BIG fee but knows nothing about Ops.

  26. geoff 26
    28 November 2014 at 7:49 pm

    Has any journalist actually asked John Key why he organised his office so that political operatives, such as Phil de Joux, were the people who talked to the SIS rather than himself.

    From what I can gather this was an unprecedented move, all previous Prime ministers spoke to the SIS directly, in secret.
    By organising his office this way it was inevitable that something like the SIS/Whaleoil leak would occur.

    Why did he do this?

    • Anne 26.1
      28 November 2014 at 8:05 pm

      Pretty obvious why. He decided to use Slater as part of the Black ops. brigade he set up within his office – Slater was the conduit through which the ‘information’ could be picked up by the MSM. Lets face it, as a wheeler/dealer Key would have been well versed in the art of undercover operations and deceptions.

      The MSM journos would have known what was going on, and were more than happy to go along with it. I suspect that is what some journos are worried about. They know their reputations will be badly tarnished if the truth was ever revealed. I bet that’s what Slater has over them.

      • geoff 26.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 8:31 pm

        Yeah I know it is obvious why he did it, it’s clear as day to anyone who has been watching National and its appendages for any length of time. But has any journalist actually asked him why?

        Are you suggesting that no journalist would ask him this because it would endanger their career??

        • Anne 26.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 8:49 pm

          Are you suggesting that no journalist would ask him this because it would endanger their career??

          No, they’re implicated to a degree. It’s common knowledge that many in the MSM read Slater’s blog on a daily basis looking for scraps of info. It’s also known Slater gave some of them a heads-up (privately) on what was coming. The journos knew where most of the info. was coming from – the Black Ops brigade in Key’s office and in that sense they were part of the Dirty Politics conspiracy.

          Fall foul of Slater and he’ll dob them in. My god, the more one thinks about it, the more dirty/sleazy it becomes.

          • Tracey 26.1.1.1.1
            29 November 2014 at 8:53 am

            The herald or stuff this week wrote they knew of rumours about what Ede was doing… None of them investigated or shared.

    • Draco T Bastard 26.2
      28 November 2014 at 8:11 pm

      By organising his office this way it was inevitable that something like the SIS/Whaleoil leak would occur.

      Why did he do this?

      Do you really need to ask?

      • geoff 26.2.1
        28 November 2014 at 8:33 pm

        The journalists need to ask this, not me!

        I wanna hear the ‘official’ reason from Key why he did this.

        I find it surprising that no journalist has asked him this. (if they haven’t)

        • Draco T Bastard 26.2.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 10:26 pm

          Ah, fair enough.

        • Ergo Robertina 26.2.1.2
          28 November 2014 at 11:01 pm

          Agreed. I haven’t heard every interview (or question in Parliament) but there seems to have been little attention on the unprecedented use of a party hack in the PM’s office to deal with the SIS.
          The Nats have banked too much on Kiwis’ lack of interest in civil liberties and process. it’s a bit early to tell, but my sense is that people like to think they don’t have to worry about this stuff, but now it all seems a bit dodgy.

        • Tracey 26.2.1.3
          29 November 2014 at 8:56 am

          I wonder about this too. There are only three answers…

          I am busier than previous PMs and needed to give up something so chose nat security over tourism

          I am not up to the job, incompetent

          I want it to be a political tool that cant taint me

          Oh, and the fourth

          I dont recall

    • Weepus beard 26.3
      28 November 2014 at 8:12 pm

      He did it because he thinks the way to govern a country is the same as the way they ran Merrill Lynch. Rules and integrity do not apply if you can get away with it.

  27. Weepus beard 27
    28 November 2014 at 8:18 pm

    NY Times…

    The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

    Civil Liberties in Peril Down Under

    By RAYMOND BONNER
    NOV. 27, 2014

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/opinion/civil-liberties-in-peril-down-under.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

    • chris73 27.1
      28 November 2014 at 8:31 pm

      Hmm an article on civil liberties under fire from the USA…I suppose the USA would know all about that

      • Weepus beard 27.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 8:39 pm

        Well, at least the socially responsible people of America will now know what is happening down here and that can only be good for the future.

      • Tracey 27.1.2
        29 November 2014 at 9:01 am

        You sound scornful yet uncommenting on our own slide in that area

    • Anne 27.2
      28 November 2014 at 8:37 pm

      Thanks Weepus beard.
      That’s an excellent rundown of events here and in Aussie. It deserves wide dissemination but It won’t get it of course.

  28. Neil 28
    28 November 2014 at 8:23 pm

    What has Slater got on Key? Why else would Key be defending his involvement with Slater?

    • Weepus beard 28.1
      28 November 2014 at 8:56 pm

      Anne reckons it’s not so much what Slater has on Key (because in reality Key is a very boring person), but what Slater has about the dirt Key hold in his draw and more to the point, how he got it.

      Which is kind of the crux of this whole SIS/PMO thing at the moment and has always been my biggest fear about Key: that he’d have no problem using state apparatus to maintain power.

      But, here I go again, this is the weekend…

  29. Penny Bright 29
    28 November 2014 at 8:56 pm

    So – is this UNSC Resolution 2178 (which is behind this Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill) – going to help the formation of a ‘greater Israel’ – by ‘weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project’?

    http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/ris-foreign-terrorist-fighters_0.pdf

    Regulatory Impact Statement

    Foreign Terrorist Fighters – Targeted review of relevant legislation
    …………………………………..

    ‘Status quo and problem definition’ :

    2. The threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and other violent extremists is evolving rapidly. The most immediate and latest manifestation of the FTF issue is seen with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL). fighters invloved with ISIL are responsible for widespread use of indiscriminate and extreme acts of violence primarily in the Iraq and Syria region. there are an estimated 15,000 – 20,000 FTFs associated with ISIL of which an estimated 3,000 hold western passports. these fighters threaten to return to their countries of origin radicalised and with military training.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

    This article was published on Global Research April 29, 2013.

    Global Research Editor’s Note

    The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.

    According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

    When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.

    “Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.

    The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

    Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

  30. The Al1en 30
    28 November 2014 at 9:44 pm

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/kim-dotcom-a-flight-risk—crown-2014112819

    So what they mean is air and sea port passport control will have as chronically impaired recall as john banks that they won’t recognise an eight foot tall man with a germanic accent who has been all over the news for a few years.

    That’s a worrying development for the nations border security.

    • weka 30.1
      28 November 2014 at 9:49 pm

      I thought that was funny too. Almost as funny as the Crown alleging that KDC has been playing too many video games based on what he has said on twitter.

      How hard would it be to get out of NZ? I think he’s not allowed to travel very far and no helicopters, so that limits it to leaving on a private boat from near Auckland right?

      • The Al1en 30.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 10:13 pm

        Stowaway on a super yacht parked up in the viaduct, or rowing boat out of the mangroves to a waiting u-boat in Manakau harbour. Ridiculous reasoning and spiteful in intent. Which department or office did the ‘get Dotcom email come from?

        As for video games, I’m not hard core and I do have to play on easy these days (no more legendary master chief for me), and though taking a wild, but non sexist guess that shooters wouldn’t really be your thing, I saw a trailer for call of duty advanced warfare Exo zombies add on content today, and my trigger fingers have been itching ever since.

        You shouldn’t click, but players should.

        http://www.gamespot.com/articles/watch-new-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-exo-zombie/1100-6423847/

    • Murray Rawshark 30.2
      29 November 2014 at 6:08 pm

      “The Crown’s case is based on two affidavits from special FBI agent Rodney Hays, who didn’t appear on the witness stand.”

      A bit too many of these affidavits from seppos who can’t be cross examined, methinks. They should be given no weight whatsoever.

  • Comments are now closed

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Older posts

Older posts

Older posts