Open mike 29/04/2010

64 comments on “Open mike 29/04/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. uke 1

   29 April 2010 at 7:13 am

   I made a side-comment about this issue on a thread some time back. It continues to bother me, although it is a little difficult to explain exactly what I think is the problem.

   As an everyday part of the “business news” in the New Zealand MSM, there are statements from spokespeople from banks, financial and investment institutions. These include firms with names that are becoming rather notorious, such as Goldman Sachs and Merill Lynch. Now these spoekspeople are not “interviewed” per se, they usually give their analysis of “the markets” or “business confidence” or something like that.

   No doubt these people have a form of expertise. At the very least we are getting the “Goldman Sachs” or “Westpac” perspective. But I think there are several questions to be asked:

   1. Can we actually trust these statements? (I vaguely recall that Hanover Finance used to be interviewed in a similar way – were not such “statements” part of their false advertising?)

   2. What are these firm’s actual financial interests in the matters they discuss?

   3. Given their involvement in various scandals, shouldn’t the MSM exercise more scepticism about the Goldman Sachs-type views of the world? Why are these spokespeople never interviewed as such?

   5. Should not the MSM be presenting, in the name of balance, some different viewpoints to the economic orthodoxies that are flushing the world economy down the toilet?
   • Jenny 1.1

     29 April 2010 at 7:40 am

     How about this for MSM balance?

     “Confidence soars, up to 5pc growth predicted”

     So declares the headline on the Stuff.co.nz website. 29/04/10

     But when you go to the link the only thing that the headline is based on is a subjective measure of business confidence, no hard data at all.

     Maybe they are trying to provide balance to the bad news headlines on the economy from the day before.

     “Another market crisis brewing” Stuff 28/04/10
     • uke 1.1.1

       29 April 2010 at 8:29 am

       Perfect demonstration of the pseudo-scientific “expertise” at work. I wonder what effect these headlines have on major financial decisions. At the very least they contribute to an unhealthy climate of trust around the expertise.

       The danger is that the MSM has framed these spokespeople as “objective authorities”. We don’t question their expertise and worldview. They become trusted, their firms given regulatory leniency. They are allowed to excercise great power.

       It is this very trust, this lack of questioning, that helped speed the financial collapse.

       One wonders whether Goldman Sachs and others in New Zealand are using “Computerised Front Running” to rig the stock markets:

       http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/computerized-front-runnin_b_548148.html
   • prism 1.2

     29 April 2010 at 9:28 am

     Perhaps Goldman Sachs in NZ have made efforts to be more reliable – their brand name is Goldman Sachs J B-ware isn’t it! The private firms have hooked their way into national government affairs. They speak in place of the Reserve Bank Governor for instance, or other official viewpoint.

     As for the spokespersons on economics and finance – I often could give the same updates from the information I have gained from radio news and newspapers. Latest I have heard is that RB may not change its base interest rate till September.

     As a mortgage holder that will help me with my renewal of mortgage due mid-year. At present I am paying about fixed 8.35% and it was too costly to change and take advantage of lower rates. It would be sad if in an effort to have some stability of finances, that I would always be refinancing at the high end of the interest rate movements. When I was younger you set up a mortgage on a 25 year basis, not this short-term shuffling around that creates so much uncertainty for the ordinary citizen, and incurs extra costs, and probably helped the climate suitable for sub-prime wheeling and dealing.

     Law is drafted by private firms. I don’t know if there is a residual Law Drafting department in government administration now. Private interests of the wealthy sort must be much closer to the government now than before Rogernomics. I remember one department head saying she couldn’t get in to speak to her Minister till about 11 pm when the private guys giving their slant had gone.
     captcha attached
   • Bill 1.3

     29 April 2010 at 10:49 am

     The financial institutions, their spokespeople and their facts are passed down to us because the market is impartial, neutral and scientific.

     Utterances from such quarters are authoritative and as they come unencumbered by ideology unchallengeable.

     Kind of like the pope in the middle ages.

     edit…should have read all the comments and saved basically repeating what was already said I guess
     • uke 1.3.1

       29 April 2010 at 11:34 am

       “Kind of like the pope in the middle ages.”

       Very apt analogy.

       And then Martin Luther came along… maybe it’s time to nail some questions to the door of Reserve Bank?
       • Bill 1.3.1.1

         29 April 2010 at 11:39 am

         Would rather nail some rationally optimising mouthpieces of the financial institutions to the door of the Reserve Bank if it’s all the same with your good self.
2. eye saw 2

   29 April 2010 at 7:38 am

   Gold man sacks.
   A very quick scan of wikipedia on gold man sacks has it looking like a rothschild affiliated zionist ,one world order ,rockefeller ,organisation.
   To get a good handle it pays to read about how the rothschilds started their empire.To much to relate here but it makes an interesting read.There are various web sites it pays to look at a few as some are better than others.Sorry dont have time to do links.
   • Pascal's bookie 2.1

     29 April 2010 at 7:53 am

     Dude, what they have been doing is bad enough, best not to let them off the hook by flinging mid twentieth century paranoid, antisemtic, nativist conspiricy theories at them.

     Just saying.
   • Scott 2.2

     29 April 2010 at 8:47 am

     That’s a lot of anti-semitism in one small comment. Did you forget to mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
     • prism 2.2.1

       29 April 2010 at 9:36 am

       Pretty knee jerk responses to rothschilds, goldman sachs comment. What are the facts behind this. There is usually something definite behind a circulating fable.
       It is known that USA Jewish groups have a lot of power, how do they exert this, how do they get so much leverage to act how they wish about Palestine. Where does Zionism come into it? Why shouldn’t it be discussed?
       • Armchair Critic 2.2.1.1

         29 April 2010 at 10:28 am

         “Where does Zionism come into it? Why shouldn’t it be discussed?”
         Because in discussing Goldman Sachs and Zionism a link is implied their religion, culture and ancestry to their behaviour. By association it also implies other people who share the religion, culture and ancestry will show the same behaviour, and that’s unreasonable, demonstrably untrue and has been used to incite violence. It also suggests a causative link between the two, where such a link has not been shown to exist.
         Go wild discussing the bad behaviour of Goldman Sachs et al, but don’t suggest it is because the are Jewish.
         FTR I’m not Jewish, and neither are any of my ancestors AFAIK. Also, none of my friends or colleagues are Jewish. But I remember what Pastor Niemoller said.
       • Scott 2.2.1.2

         29 April 2010 at 10:53 am

         The knee-jerk reaction was due to the offensive nature of the comment. The myth of the unscrupulous Jewish moneylender/banker has been one of the most consistent themes of anti-semitism over the years.
         • prism 2.2.1.2.1

           29 April 2010 at 11:34 am

           Don’t look – the emperor may not have clothes on. Instead of stopping any comment and inquiry with labels of anti-semitism, have a look at what the facts are, then the rightness and integrity of those discussed will be revealed. If not totally acceptable then understandable. The truth of the matter is then known, including about the doubters and the origin of the myths.

           If you label a parcel fragile, fine china, mustn’t be opened, well you’ll never know the contents will you.
           • Pascal's bookie 2.2.1.2.1.1

             29 April 2010 at 12:28 pm

             I think the problem is that when the parcel is labelled with a bunch of antisemitic slogans, the contents can be easily guessed at.

             Do you really believe that there is a cabal of Jewish bankers plotting to take over the world, and that the salient point to focus on is their ethnicity?

             Why are the Bank of America, HSBC, S&P, Citigroup, Bear Sterns etc missing from the list? Are/were they secretly controlled by the Jews?

             Ignore ethnicity, it’s irrelevant. If there wern’t crazy racist theories to explain things, the bastards would do well to invent them.

             This is a much more fruitful explanation of the way things work. IMV:

             http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sacrificial-scams.html
             • prism …

               29 April 2010 at 9:32 pm

               Thanks PB for informative link on USA moves. The disjunct between the very rich and the ordinary person making a reasonable living and being able to enjoy a full life, is so extreme!
               No wonder ex President and Mrs Bush could make totally belittling comments about the New Orleans displaced citizens. It’s like the Indian upper castes and the street people begging for a living. – just the way it is, that’s life etc.
       • Adrian 2.2.1.3

         29 April 2010 at 11:00 am

         A few years back, one of the proponents of socialised election funding in the States outlined how Israel maintained it’s influence. Apparently a lot of the “assistance” that goes to that country finds it’s way back to fund individual campaigns, Republican and Democrat. De facto government funding if you will, he wanted to cut out the middleman. I can’t remember who it was but he was a heavyweight insider and coincidentaly Jewish, so there was no personal agenda, just a desire for transperancy. Every time the Rothschilds are critised the old anti-Semitism tag is trotted out. The fact that they were Jewish is incidental, admittedly they were able to be bankers because they were Jewish but they could just as easily be another race who were not Muslim ( so they could charge interest) and have a large familial network across the whole of Europe. Ironicly the harassment and diaspora of the Jewish race allowed for this networking to be so useful.
         • prism 2.2.1.3.1

           29 April 2010 at 11:23 am

           Thanks Adrian I was trying to remember the background to the comments and you have pinned it down.
           Incidentally Kim is interviewing on Sat morning a Jewish commentator who speaks his mind outside the accepted rhetoric. Sounds as if he will be interesting.
         • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.3.2

           29 April 2010 at 11:43 am

           Actually, the Catholic and Anglican Church’s have also prohibited lending money at interest in their history. So it couldn’t have “easily be another race who were not Muslim” especially considering that most of Europe happened to be Catholic for a large portion of the time. There are many similarities between the Muslim and Christian religions and the prohibition against usury is one of them.
           • prism 2.2.1.3.2.1

             29 April 2010 at 11:48 am

             Charging interest by church/ religious lenders is current practice now. The prohibition of ‘usury’ must mean the dictionary definition of lending at exorbitantly high rates of interest.
3. mickysavage 3

   29 April 2010 at 8:03 am

   And the Government continues to backtrack on climate change. The Herald today reports ,

   Environment Minister Nick Smith said yesterday “New Zealand would be unlikely to proceed with the full obligations for the energy, transport and industrial sectors and to add additional sectors to the emissions trading scheme in New Zealand if there was not progress in other countries, particularly of trading partners like Australia, Japan and the United States.”

   They certainly want us to be a fast follower. At this rate we will be fastly following the rest of the world into a future of environmental devastation.

   Captcha: Lose
4. gingercrush 4

   29 April 2010 at 8:26 am

   Oh I’m fine with Westpac etc being asked for an opinion. Its when the fucking MSM quote Bernard Hickey where I have the problem. Or when he turns up on TV. He is one of the most pathetic people around and his consistent the war between X and Y generation and the baby boomers is one of the most stupid concepts I’ve ever read. Yet he gets asked for his opinion all the time. Its rather maddening.
   • The Voice of Reason 4.1

     29 April 2010 at 8:34 am

     Seconded, GC. I get the feeling that he’s seen as ‘independant’ and therefore his must be a balanced view. Same sort of approval the MSM give to Nigel Latta when it’s a family related issue.
     • vto 4.1.1

       29 April 2010 at 10:01 am

       Thirded. Most people commenting on property say how bad it is to invest there. You know – does nothing for the country, should invest in the sharemarket, etc etc yada yada.

       I seriously don’t think you will get the average kiwi investor putting anything other than the vast majority of their funds into property for the foreseeable future. Every few years some investment category gets blown apart and the masters of that category snaffle some unearned investment dollars – sharemarket, term deposits,..

       Companies and entities completely disappear off the planet when there is a meltdown, property does not. Until this permanence feature is matched by some other investment category then the commentators who pillory property will get nowhere. Average joe and joy will simply continue to nod sternly in agreement and then go off in the complete opposite direction and buy more property. Haha, makes me laugh.

       …bit of a tangented rant …
       • Armchair Critic 4.1.1.1

         29 April 2010 at 10:13 am

         And the few companies that you could expect to be stable and reliable investments have a habit of de-listing in NZ and going to Sydney, or New York or elsewhere.
       • Pat 4.1.1.2

         29 April 2010 at 12:43 pm

         Fourthed (is that a word?). Hickey’s doomsday predictions are getting tiresome. Remember the 30% drop in house prices he predicted for 2009?
         • Clarke 4.1.1.2.1

           29 April 2010 at 12:57 pm

           Clearly “accuracy” is not one of the criteria the MSM uses to decide whether or not to give a commentator air-time. If it was, then most of the investment commentators would have long since been consigned to the cutting room floor.
5. prism 5

   29 April 2010 at 9:11 am

   Gordon Brown said the wrong thing. I have composed a rap (in the style of Flight of the Conchords?). He returned to apologise to constituent Mrs Duffy and stayed for nearly half a day.

   Gordon Brown had his say
   But it didn’t pay.
   So he’s back today
   And he won’t go away.
6. toad 6

   29 April 2010 at 9:20 am

   The Police State advances:

   Auckland field crime manager Detective Inspector Stu Allsopp-Smith said the company’s directors and employees were granted bail on the condition that staff maintain records of all customers purchasing equipment at its stores

   They must check every customer’s photo identification and record their full name, date of birth, address, contact phone number, and ID serial number.

   They must also record descriptions of all purchased items, along with serial numbers or other unique identifications.

   Each transaction record should be dated and signed by the employee, and must be made available to police for inspection, Mr Allsopp-Smith said.

   “These businesses can continue to operate, but people purchasing legitimately from them will need to produce identification – the obvious inference being that we don’t want to in any way frustrate a business from behaving and operating lawfully,” he told NZPA.

   The Bail Act provides that:

   …a defendant who is charged with an offence and is not bailable as of right must be released by a court on reasonable terms and conditions unless the court is satisfied that there is just cause for continued detention.

   Hard to see how maintaining a register of all your customers and making the register available to the Police is a “reasonable” condition, or that it is compliant with the Privacy Act.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     29 April 2010 at 11:49 am

     That’s despicable.
7. Ianmac 7

   29 April 2010 at 10:35 am

   Notice that the 10% rise in cost of cigarettes last night is probably going to have another 2.5% GST added on Budget Day. Thats 12.5 %. Welcome it but wonder if there is a reason for doing the 10% now?
8. rainman 8

   29 April 2010 at 11:13 am

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/04/28/1247fee22c01

   “Go-ahead for South Canterbury irrigation scheme”

   Is this a decision that would have come under ECan’s purview? If so, that didn’t take long.
9. rainman 9

   29 April 2010 at 11:16 am

   Also in the news:

   http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/04/23/55343/ibm-crowd-sourcing-could-see-employed-workforce-shrink-by-three-quarters.html

   “Tim Ringo, head of IBM Human Capital Management, the consultancy arm of the IT conglomerate, said the firm would re-hire the workers as contractors for specific projects as and when necessary, a concept dubbed ‘crowd sourcing’.

   [Sidebar: What is crowd sourcing?

   Crowd sourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by an employee and outsoucring it to an undefined group of people on a project-by-project basis, in the form of an open call.

   Firms wishing to follow this model could encourage employees to set up a company with 10 or more colleagues, and buy back their services as and when needed.]

   “There would be no buildings costs, no pensions and no healthcare costs, making huge savings,” he said.”

   Welcome to the new world of employment. Amazing that if you put a snappy name on exploitation it sounds almost like a good idea.

   Captcha: droppings. Like trickle-down, only worse?
10. toad 10

    29 April 2010 at 11:18 am

    One of the Commissioners who heard the consent application is also one of the Commissioners who will replace the elected ECan members later this week. So expect more of the same.
11. prism 11

    29 April 2010 at 11:59 am

    Talk on freedom campers and the detritus they cast on radio this morning. Down south they put in a good loo system with $1 charge to cover the expensive maintenance, road kms, personnel etc. The practice was observed of propping the door open, so that a whole busload could use it for $1. Perhaps travellers could buy cards that would give them a bulk charge in a certain area, and cheaper than an alternative coin-paying system which would still be available. Tourist bus companies using the area would have discounts also and be expected to pay upfront for the amenities so needed by them and their passengers. That would bring more money in.

    I have been suggesting for some time that there should be a portion of GST returned to the area where the purchase was made. This means that sparsely populated, but high tourist number areas, would get a wad of tax back from the business transactions to put into infrastructure. GST would have area codes, and it would be both used for my suggested scheme, and also to track economic activity in an area. I suggested it to Mayor Bob Harvey thinking he seemed an ideas man but haven’t heard of it being discussed by any suitable forum.
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      29 April 2010 at 12:38 pm

      International tourists are technically exempt from playing GST, they are entitled to claim it back when they leave the country if they show receipts. Generally this isn’t done except by those in the know and/or making large purchases.
12. pollywog 12

    29 April 2010 at 12:08 pm

    I reckon Goff could show Key and English the middle finger and add some real value and impetus to his and Labours standings in the polls if as a matter of solidarity, integrity and honesty he came out and said…

    ” NZ simply cant afford to give tax cuts to the wealthy so we, and all Labour party members of parliament will put aside the 5 percent savings from the taxcuts in the budget, as it applies to our individual salaries and start a charity fund to help the many not the few, until such time as we get back into gov’t and reinsititue the higher rate for high income earners while pushing out the threshold for those to qualify”

    ..or something to that effect. To my mind, if he and the Labour party MP’s take the tax cut and pocket the windfall, he’s as culpable in the wealth transfer as any of Key’s ‘rich mates’ to whom Key is purportedly pandering to.

    Basically, if he doesnt agree with the tax cut, then don’t accept it and put it to better use while upping his mana in the process by standing with the many, not the few who will benefit. It’s not like MP’s, even in opposition are struggling and any savings made from the tax cut is money they don’t see now, so wouldn’t miss.

    It would make a grand statement on Labours values while sticking it to the lie of Key’s donations to charity and English’s money grubbing housing rort, even to the misuse of gov’t credit card spending by saying…

    ‘we are not deserving of what amounts to a 5% payrise while the majority of workers suffer without’.

    It would also help restore the publics faith in politicians as essentially honourable and morally righteous people, or at least show that Labour politicians are a cut above the rest.

    Were that to happen, i’d like to see the charity fund go towards Pasifikan descendant scholarshipsbut i’m not gonna hold my breath…

    Now i’m wondering, is there some clever person with a bit of time on their hands who wouldn’t mind humouring me with stats and incomes and could add up how much the Labour MP salaries are worth, what the payble tax is and how much savings 5 percent of that would make even up til election time next year ?
    • Lanthanide 12.1

      29 April 2010 at 12:44 pm

      Don’t have full stats for you, but the backbencher MP salary is about $130k/year. The 5% cut to the top rate would give them back $3,000/year. As the tax cuts will most likely occur on 1st September, and allowing for election time and Labour to win and roll-back the cuts, you’re looking at 1 year to 18 months of money, so 3 – 4.5k per MP. Say there’s 40 MPs and you’re looking at 120k – 180k, and throw in a few 10k more for the higher paid members that I haven’t factored in.

      While it’s not pocket change, it’s not exactly a huge amount, either, mainly because of the short time frame. If that were a full 3 years worth of tax savings you’d be looking north of 500k.
13. j 13

    29 April 2010 at 1:44 pm

    This may not be an original idea, (haven’t heard it before but who knows), but would it be possible for Labour to put out an alternative budget, either just before, or just after English announces his. I know there’s an attitude that labour shouldn’t give away their future policies too soon. This would not be a promise of future action, just a promise that this is what labour would do if it were in govt now. I think there is a real problem with the electorate not knowing what labour stands for. It’s difficult to remedy if labour intends to play Key’s game from the last election (not announcing policy till the last minute – if at all) to get labour’s positive messages out there (whatever they are – I’m in the dark as much as anyone).

    Just thought it might be an opportunity for the voters to be able to compare and contrast (that’s if the media gave it any space). Maybe three or four main points, with other lesser ones.
    Wouldn’t need to be as detailed as Englishes, but it would need to be costed.

    Might even give some hope to those who are currently being shat on by this govt!
14. pollywog 14

    29 April 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Cheers Lanthanide, ok so it’s not a huge amount but a symbolic amount that could buy a shitload of goodwill and PR, maybe if the greens kicked in they could make up a few scholarships as well.

    Even at 150k, that’s still 30 scholarships of 5k each which some hard done by family could apply for that currently isn’t in the system.

    The point is, if its about a wealth transfer to Key’s rich mates by ‘robbing the poor to give to the rich’ and you’re against it but you accept the pay off anyway…

    …it’s like receiving stolen property and you’re just paying lip service
15. just saying 15

    29 April 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Btw I somehow missed putting my full moniker on my previous post (J).

    I didn’t realise it was poss to have multiple identities here – are there many who do?

    [lprent: We don’t particularly restrict it. Some people will argue in a different ‘voice’ on occasions. But it is pretty rare.

    We don’t require logins, but if you aren’t logged in, then we require the anti-spam word.

    The gravator image reflects your e-mail and effectively stops most ‘identity’ fraud because you have to know the e-mail that someone used on this site. You can change that as well.

    New ‘names’ have to be approved by a moderator for at least one message.

    The moderators usually keep an eye out on the IP’s for people abusing it. ]
    • Bright Red 15.1

      29 April 2010 at 2:20 pm

      that’s why we have the little images besides our names, they come from the email we type.
      • marty mars 15.1.1

        29 April 2010 at 3:03 pm

        how do we change those little images?
        
        [lprent: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/faq/gravatar/#GravatarSignup ]
16. well, well, well (3 holes in the ground) 16

    29 April 2010 at 3:14 pm

    The Herald’s ‘Your Views’ makes for some interesting reading:

    Are you happy with the current National Government?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10640935

    Barely a positive comment about National. Comments such as these:

    ‘Hate to say it, but I almost wish for the other crowd back – at least they weren’t selling us out to foreign interests or big business all the time.’

    and

    ‘I voted for them solely because Labour had stopped listening and become dictatorial and I thought we needed a change like most others. It appears that they said what we wanted to hear just to get in, with promises of tax cuts and cycle ways.’
17. ianmac 17

    29 April 2010 at 3:58 pm

    iprent:”We don’t require logins, but if you aren’t logged in, then we require the anti-spam word.”
    Does that mean that once logged in, that no longer require anti-spam word?
    
    [lprent: Correct. Makes leaving messages a lot easier.
    Spammers have to get past the anti-spam on registration and have a valid e-mail address so they can get a password. They are then easy to remove if they use the login. They don’t bother….. 😈 ]
    • ianmac 17.1

      29 April 2010 at 3:59 pm

      Ah ha. Yes it works without the antispam. Thankyou.
18. Pascal's bookie 18

    29 April 2010 at 6:18 pm

    I believe the phrase rhymes with wholly trucking fit.

    3 News has obtained confidential documents which say a secret meeting took place yesterday between Ms Bennett and Ms Fuller.
    A monetary settlement was discussed and the idea of Ms Fuller dropping the complaint was floated.
    When 3 News confronted the minister today, she wasn’t ruling the suggestions out.
    Advice from the Privacy Commissioner obtained by 3 News today is that the complainant, in any case, can withdraw their complaint and effectively shut down the investigation.
    3 News understands the Privacy Commissioner was due to issue a ruling this week.
    Ms Fuller did not want to be interviewed about her secret meeting on camera. However, she said she has had to have counselling, move house and change her phone number since Ms Bennett went public,

    classy.
    • mickysavage 18.1

      29 April 2010 at 9:05 pm

      I thought I would start with my capcha “Terminal”

      I am really getting to respect the server Lynn!

      Bennett is terminal. It was horrendous what she did last year to the beneficiaries. All they were trying to do was get the same opportunity that she had.

      Her misuse of official information was clear. I wondered why it took the Privacy Commissioner so long to make a decision.

      She should have accepted the decision and the critisism and the state should have then dealt with the repercussions.

      But her visiting and apparently offering money is horrendous. The Crown should not be allowed to use its resources to minimise political damage of ministers when they breach individuals rights.

      Paula is a disgrace and should go.
19. Pascal's bookie 19

    29 April 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Ms Bennett sure looked rattled on Campbell live.

    Denied a specific claim about offering money to make the complaint go away, wouldn’t say if such an offer would have been out of order, and wouldn’t say whether she had been meeting Ms Fuller.

    The video which should be up soon is killer. Watch her face. Not the usual breezy confidence she’s been showing of late that’s for sure.
    • The Voice of Reason 19.1

      29 April 2010 at 7:44 pm

      Oh Lord, please let her lie about it in the house like she lied to Campbell’s reporter! Her body language and choice of words were interesting, to say the least. And the exhale as she walked away was priceless.

      She’s a goneburger if there is a tape or an email to back it up.
      • Jim Nald 19.1.1

        29 April 2010 at 9:06 pm

        This is stunningly, breathtakingly … how do I put it … not good

        Reason and logic boggles when she pleaded on privacy grounds
        (I nearly, really, fell off my chair … maybe I shouldn’t have sat so close to the edge when I viewed the TV3 clip?!)
        Was she serious? Truly?

        “Blah blah blah process blah blah process blah blah blah blah process”
        I wouldn’t want to be too explicit and candid here in offering to describe her ‘process’

        Who was she trying to persuade in that interviewer? The reporter?? Errrmmm …
        You and me? … gawd help us

        Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,
        et lux perpetua luceat eis
        …
        Juste judex ultionis
        Donum fac remissionis
        Ante diem rationis
        …
        Confutatis maledictis
        Flammis acribus addictis
        Voca me cum benedictis
        • Pascal's bookie 19.1.1.1

          29 April 2010 at 9:19 pm

          “Who was she trying to persuade in that interview?”

          Key, Joyce and McCully.

          And that respecting my process stuff just reminded me of that chappie from destiny church using it when they had those defections in aussie over tithing…

          I wonder what ‘confidential documents’ means in the initial 3news report. Would emails be described that way, or would emails be ‘private communications’ or something? Anyone got an up to date journamalism code book?
          • Jim Nald 19.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2010 at 9:30 pm

            oh yes, she respected the process from the very start and earned herself a nickname

            Captcha: process
            (hell! I’m serious … this is amazing)
            • bobo 19.1.1.1.1.1

              29 April 2010 at 9:35 pm

              This is very serious as she could be up on bribery charges if money was offered to make this all go away, how amateur and stupid is she to even attempt it.
              • Jim Nald …

                29 April 2010 at 9:43 pm

                Buying off a problem that one was responsible in starting in the first place? Naahhh

                Hey, I’m wanting some private time to talk privately about a private matter with a private citizen

                Oh, I’m merely going through a process. Yeah right
            • prism 19.1.1.1.1.2

              1 May 2010 at 3:32 pm

              Could the name be Process Princess?
      • bobo 19.1.2

        29 April 2010 at 9:19 pm

        The whole saying no while nodding yes, nervous gulps, is classic lying 🙂 any bets shes goneski over this? Anyone remember the nats paying a visit to a taxi driver last year who was reportedly assaulted by some MP friends son , seems to be a pattern developing here…

        Gordon Brown isn’t the only epic fail today
        http://www.3news.co.nz/Paula-Bennett-talks-exclusively-about-pay-off-allegations-/tabid/367/articleID/153452/Default.aspx
    • Armchair Critic 19.2

      29 April 2010 at 9:08 pm

      Ouch – skewered.
      What really stood out for me was how RL asked at 1.12 into the interview
      So Natasha Fuller is alleging she has been offered a sum of money as a form of compensation for what she says she suffered.
      and while the words used by PB in response (at about 1.23) indicate the negative
      Well that’s absolutely not true
      her nodding head indicates strongly that the response should be in the affirmative.
      What a shame parliament is not sitting tomorrow – no question time.
20. Anne 20

    29 April 2010 at 7:53 pm

    The video is up.
    Evidence damming. Bully Bennett has obviously tried to bully Natasha Fuller into shutting down the complaint. The deadline is tomorrow. It must be a damming report against Paula Bennett for her to take such a risk. I only hope that Ms Fuller has seen through the ‘charm offensive?’ and doesn’t pull the complaint at the last minute.
21. Killinginthenameof 21

    29 April 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Pretty offensive comment from Mark Sainsberry on TV1 tonight.

    Said that skin head Shannon Flewellen was going to jail for his beliefs. No mark, hes going to jail for murdering someone.
22. Adrian 22

    29 April 2010 at 8:17 pm

    The tide is changing, TV3 used its most unflattering file footage at one stage, when that happens you know that attitudes have changed. She’s dog tucker. Go Carmel.
23. IrishBill 23

    29 April 2010 at 9:50 pm

    The interesting thing is Rebbecca Wright is the tv3 jurno that replaced Sia Aston when she went to Bennett’s office and it’s Wright who has broken the story. It’s a small world, eh.
24. ianmac 24

    29 April 2010 at 11:35 pm

    John Key said today that he had no problem with Paula Bennett’s attempt to bribe Natasha Fuller yesterday. He thought it was careless of her to get caught but her biggest mistake actually was in not offering a big enough sum, actually and he would be quite willing to chip in a few bucks to help out. When asked if this was a case was serious enough for the Minister to step down, he thought actually that it was a minor matter actually and that he was quite relaxed about it all actually.
    “Actually,” said Minister Bennett. “I really think that you people should actually respect my privacy. Privacy is every person’s right and it would be cruel, unjust, and and unfair to actually betray that trust, actually..”
    (Just a bit of satire actually. 🙂 )
25. bobo 25

    30 April 2010 at 12:26 am

    Herald asks if readers are happy with Nat gov.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10640935

    Seems alot of unhappy nat voters judging by the comments.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS