Open mike 29/08/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 29th, 2016 - 173 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

173 comments on “Open mike 29/08/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  3. Tony P 3
    29 August 2016 at 6:47 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/83651875/this-is-why-finland-has-the-best-schools

    “Our mission as adults is to protect our children from politicians,” one Finnish childhood education professor told me. “We also have an ethical and moral responsibility to tell businesspeople to stay out of our building.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 8:24 am

        …all because right wingers hate the freedoms of speech and association: targeting children to attack unions.

      • Puckish Rogue 3.1.2
        29 August 2016 at 10:24 am

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland#Teachers

        Teachers

        Both primary and secondary teachers must have a master’s degree to qualify. Teaching is a respected profession and entrance to university programs is highly competitive. A prospective teacher must have very good grades and must combat fierce opposition in order to become a teacher. Only about 10% of applicants to certain programs are successful. The respect accorded to the profession and the higher salaries than the OECD average lead to higher performing and larger numbers applying for the positions, and this is reflected in the quality of teachers in Finland.

        Imagine the howls from the union if National said teachers would get higher pay but you must have a masters degree to teach

        • I Feel Love 3.1.2.1
          29 August 2016 at 10:38 am

          Bollocks. Most teachers would happily welcome further training for an increased wage, you know nothing about teaching or teachers, much like this recent ODT editorial…

          https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/education-changes-coming

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.2
          29 August 2016 at 10:39 am

          We don’t have to imagine it, you lying malicious piece of shit.

          In Finland politicians recognise that putting the strategic educational needs of the country before their own party interests produces great results.

          If enough of us ask, New Zealand politicians can do the same.

          PPTA.

          • Puckish Rogue 3.1.2.2.1
            29 August 2016 at 11:17 am

            I have as much faith in the PPTA do whats best for children as I’m sure you do in National

            The PPTA can say what they like but they are for teachers first and everyone else second

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.2.1.1
              29 August 2016 at 12:31 pm

              Nah, shithead, it took me less than a minute to expose your malicious lie: a blanket statement about “the union”. It’s quite clear from your subsequent comment that you are motivated by hate.

              It defines you. Choke on it.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                29 August 2016 at 1:13 pm

                The PPTA can say whatever they like, I don’t consider what they have to say of any relevance because its comes from a position of looking after themselves first

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  29 August 2016 at 1:42 pm

                  Got to keep on with and defend the lie now that you’ve been shown that you were wrong.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    29 August 2016 at 2:15 pm

                    No I’m not, I don’t believe anything that comes from the PPTA

                    “We care about the children that’s why we’ll strike during exams”

                    “We don’t get paid enough” “how much do you get paid?” crickets chirping “We don’t get paid enough”

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      29 August 2016 at 3:12 pm

                      Strike action can only be taken during collective bargaining, so why not blame the Government for not settling more quickly?

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      29 August 2016 at 3:38 pm

                      Damn straight Stephanie, whatever the PPTA want the Govt should just give it to them that way the PPTA (with a heavy heart and a deep sadness that its come to this of course) won’t strike

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  29 August 2016 at 2:25 pm

                  It’s relevant because it exposes your malicious lie and low character.

            • Gangnam Style 3.1.2.2.1.2
              29 August 2016 at 1:04 pm

              What is good for the teachers is good for the children.

          • Reddelusion 3.1.2.2.2
            29 August 2016 at 11:35 am

            Settle OAB you will pop a vein

            • reason 3.1.2.2.2.1
              29 August 2016 at 7:53 pm

              Teach us more about the ” Deranged Key Syndrome” that your in the know about RedD …………

              something as important as that and you only mention it once………

              If nothing else do it for poor Puckish ………. he’s feverish with it :0

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.3
          29 August 2016 at 1:40 pm

          Imagine the howls from the union if National said teachers would get higher pay but you must have a masters degree to teach

          There would be none. The teachers really do want the best for the children that they teach.

          But imagine the howls of outrage that the RWNJs would make once the taxes were raised to cover the higher salaries and ongoing education of the teachers.

    • save nz 3.2
      29 August 2016 at 10:08 am

      +1 Tony P

  4. The Chairman 4
    29 August 2016 at 6:56 am

    Easter Trading

    “Despite being a conscience vote, all Labour MPs opposed Easter Trading, as did all other opposition parties.

    “Labour believes everyone deserves some time off with their family. We will re-examine this law in Government to make sure workers aren’t being forced to work when they’d rather be spending Easter Sunday with their loved ones,” Su’a William Sio says.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1608/S00504/councils-shouldnt-rush-into-easter-trading.htm

    Interesting. Despite being a conscience vote, all Labour MPs opposed Easter Trading. Yet, there is no commitment from Labour to overturn the Bill if they regain power. Albeit, they may tinker around the edges.

    Did Labour strike the right balance taking this position or is it another example of Labour falling short?

    Thoughts?

    • Paul 4.1
      29 August 2016 at 7:17 am

      What are your thoughts?
      What is your view on the Labour position?
      Express your ideas so we can respond to them, rather than simply saying ‘Thoughts?’

      • The Chairman 4.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 7:28 am

        I feel Labour’s position falls short.

        I also feel Labour continually falling short is costing them support.

        But this is not just about what one mere voter thinks, hence I put it out there to see what others think.

        • Sabine 4.1.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 8:14 am

          Well maybe next time you tell us first what you think and then we can tell you what we think.

          Thoughts?

          • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1.2
            29 August 2016 at 9:54 am

            Harsh for a Monday morning, maybe he/she was interested in what other people were thinking?

          • The Chairman 4.1.1.1.3
            29 August 2016 at 5:35 pm

            Sabine, are you implying people can’t formulate and share their own opinions on a highlighted matter without initially hearing mine?

            Moreover, I expressed my thoughts on the matter when asked by Paul above, yet you failed to comply with what you asserted.

            • McFlock 4.1.1.1.3.1
              29 August 2016 at 5:53 pm

              What I read from Sabine’s comment was that you’re usually asking everyone else’s opinion without offering your own. A little bit one-sided, that.

              From my perspective you also seem to recycle issues days after they were discussed as a result of being in the news – if you wanted to know what people thought, you could just read those discussions, for example.

              • The Chairman …
                29 August 2016 at 7:21 pm

                Yes, I tend to seek the opinions of others before later offering my own. And there are a number of reasons for doing that.

                Nevertheless, that shouldn’t prevent people from formulating and sharing their own opinions on a highlighted matter. Additionally, if they genuinely want to know my position, all they need to do is ask.

                As for Sabine’s comment, it was posted after I already expressed my thoughts, thus bringing into question Sabine’s genuine intention.

                As for this discussion, it relates to a more recent press release which differs from (and was put out after) the discussion from the other day.

    • Scott 4.2
      29 August 2016 at 10:07 am

      I think you’re missing the point of the comments on here. It is not about sensible discussion of current events. You are meant to express a strident view on it and then have others abuse you for daring to express a view counter to the echo.

      I think the Easter trading idea was silly. They should have just answered the question rather than devolve yet another politically problematic topic to local government. A bit like fluoridation.

      Labour won’t repeal it though, they will be just as happy to get it off the central government hands. Their opposition is just tokenism, but that is the status quo.

      • The Chairman 4.2.1
        29 August 2016 at 5:26 pm

        Enjoyed the sarcasm, but going off some of the discussion on here, it holds some merit.

        When Labour opposes something but fails to commit to overturning it, it helps to strengthen National’s position (TINA) while generating voter distrust and confusion. As shown with their position on the TPP.

    • Gabby 4.3
      29 August 2016 at 12:32 pm

      Labour believes everyone deserves some time off with their family.

      Discuss.

      • The Chairman 4.3.1
        29 August 2016 at 5:32 pm

        “Labour believes everyone deserves some time off with their family.”

        So they say.

        Yet, although they may tinker around the edges, there is no commitment from Labour to overturn the Bill if they regain power.

        Nor did Labour advocate for the NZ Land Wars commemoration day being a new public holiday.

        Labour often seem to talk the talk but fail to walk the walk.

      • Colonial Viper 4.3.2
        29 August 2016 at 7:19 pm

        Labour believes everyone deserves some time off with their family.

        It’s bullshit because Labour no longer believes in the fundamental right to a 40 hour work week.

  5. The Chairman 5
    29 August 2016 at 7:31 am

    Flexible” Drone Regulations Add Concern for NZ Pilots

    The concerns of New Zealand pilots and air traffic controllers about the ‘woeful inadequacy’ of safety regulation around the commercial use of drones, or Unmanned Aerial System/Vehicles (UAS), are yet to be taken seriously.

    Despite our numerous pleas, the government response was “flexible” regulations designed around a ‘wait and see’ approach, rather than legislating ahead to prevent a major accident occurring.

    Commenting on a pizza company’s plans to trial delivery by drone, NZALPA President Tim Robinson said that Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations that came into force in August last year did not take into account the informed and often repeated advice of pilots and the increasing number of ‘near-miss’ accidents that have underpinned pilot’s safety fears.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1608/S00308/flexible-drone-regulations-add-concern-for-nz-pilots.htm

    Thoughts?

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      29 August 2016 at 8:01 am

      They are leaving the door open for the operation of covert and semi-covert military, intelligence and law enforcement drones.

    • joe90 5.2
      29 August 2016 at 9:24 am

      Thoughts?

      To paraphrase my brother the JetStar skipper, everything’s peachy – until a fan engine necks one and brings a ship and a couple of hundred souls down.

      • The Chairman 5.2.1
        29 August 2016 at 5:49 pm

        Indeed.

        The problem with New Zealand being used as a test case in this manner is New Zealanders are put at risk of the consequence of things going wrong.

        And with “flexible” regulations designed around a ‘wait and see’ approach it’s far from reassuring.

  7. Robert Guyton 7
    29 August 2016 at 7:41 am

    Comments from whitebait article:
    “The only unregulated fishing in NZ – why is it you can catch as much bait as you like? No licensing, no quota – a free for all !!!
    Then sell sell your il gotten gains for $100 kg – tax free !”

    ” I find it astounding that in this day and age of food accountability and tractability, that whitebait can to sold without a license by anyone to anyone, how much of that advertised “westcoast” whitebait is actually brownbait from the Avon”

  8. Ad 8
    29 August 2016 at 8:00 am

    There is something to be said for local election season.
    The parties are largely incoherent on it, and all there is, is people knocking on doors, putting up signs, selling their own self to get in there, fundraising one drinkie session at a time. So less mechanised – and up here in Auckland there are some really good leftie candidates.

  9. Repateet 9
    29 August 2016 at 8:02 am

    A prominent propagandist for the National Party has posted a link about their leader and his son. This is seemingly to give good PR to the leader.

    In the future the same propagandist will bitch when others use information about the son to give bad PR to the leader or merely for news purposes.

  10. Colonial Viper 10
    29 August 2016 at 8:07 am

    Dmitry Orlov speaks of the growing cognitive dissonance of western empire, the changing balance of geopolitics and the Middle East, the risks of war and how Russia and China are defending their interests

    ‘What the US tried to sell as its main product since WWII is stability: financial stability, political stability. But that was not working as well as becoming a mafia-like global protection racket’

    An example of this is how Slobodan Milosevic has been declared by the ICTY as being innocent of war crimes, after two decades of demonisation by the west and being used as a core part of the west’s excuse for the bombing and dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

    And the mindset which allows ordinary middle class Americans to ignore the negative effects of US exceptionalism throughout the world and even within their own country.

    • Psycho Milt 10.1
      29 August 2016 at 8:46 am

      An example of this is how Slobodan Milosevic has been declared by the ICTY as being innocent of war crimes, after two decades of demonisation by the west and being used as a core part of the west’s excuse for the bombing and dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

      1. Yugoslavia dismembered itself, long before “the west” had the slightest interest in the place.

      2. The only reason “the west” was eventually, reluctantly, forced to take any interest in the place was due to the flood of refugees into western Europe once Milosevic and his pals started on their apparently non-criminal “ethnic cleansing” of Yugoslavia in pursuit of a Greater Serbia. I was living in Germany at the time and attending learn-to-speak-German classes with those refugees, people like engineers and architects now working as cleaners in a foreign country because that was way better than being shot by Greater Serbia enthusiasts.

      3. There’s a big gap between a trial finding there was insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, and being “declared innocent.”

      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 10:07 am

        Sorry it breaks with the narrative you bought into.

        NATO wanted to see Yugoslavia broken up into little pieces and then assimilated into the western alliance, and that is the result they got.

        • Wayne 10.1.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 11:38 am

          CV,

          You seem to not know that NATO was quite happy with Yugoslavia under Tito.

          I don’t think it is credible to blame the multiple civil wars in Yugoslavia on the West any more than you can blame Assad on the West. Mind you that is exactly what you do.

          The reality is that these civil wars have their own origins and imperatives. For instance the US only really got involved in Bosnia after the Sebrenicia massacre. Stopping the Bosnian Serbs led to the Dayton Accords. And that basically ended the war (Kosovo excepted).

          What would you have done after a massacre of 8,000 within Europe, given the history?

          Nothing?

      • CC 10.1.2
        29 August 2016 at 10:54 am

        Strange – the media reports use the term ‘exonerated’. That sounds more like ‘declared innocent’ than ‘insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict’. Accordingly, it appears CV is more credible than PM.

        • McFlock 10.1.2.1
          29 August 2016 at 12:37 pm

          lol which media?

          You could flip through the judgement (big pdf) or use handy citations in footnotes from wikipedia, and find that although he wasn’t directly linked to genocide, he did supply the perpetrators with knowledge of their actions. Not to mention the ICJ judgement back in 2006 with reckoned that Serbia violated the genocide convention by not preventing it and shielding the perpetrators.

          So hardly “exonerated”.

      • CC 10.1.3
        29 August 2016 at 10:54 am

        Strange – the media reports use the term ‘exonerated’. That sounds more like ‘declared innocent’ than ‘insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict’. Accordingly, it appears CV is more credible than PM.

        • Psycho Milt 10.1.3.1
          29 August 2016 at 12:12 pm

          The judgement summary is here (PDF): http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement_summary.pdf.

          It mentions “does not have sufficient evidence…” and multiple instances of “not satisfied that” particular charges against Milosevic were proven, but doesn’t mention anything about declaring him innocent. But if you prefer media reports and loony right-wing nutcase web sites over the actual judgement, I can’t stop you.

          • CC 10.1.3.1.1
            29 August 2016 at 1:04 pm

            Are Radovan Karadžić and Milošević one and the same person? Check out the judgement you linked to then perhaps try again.

            • McFlock 10.1.3.1.1.1
              29 August 2016 at 1:34 pm

              The finding is mentioned in the full judgement I linked to above.
              Knock yourself out. Milosevic is sure not “exonerated”.

            • Psycho Milt 10.1.3.1.1.2
              29 August 2016 at 1:59 pm

              Sorry, yes, wrong judgement – given the “common plan” element of the charges against them it’s easy to end up in the wrong one. However, the correct one McFlock linked to has the same feature: plenty of “not satisfied” and “insufficient evidence,” but nothing to suggest Milosevic was actually innocent of the charges.

              • McFlock …
                29 August 2016 at 2:16 pm

                well, it’s the correct judgement, but the bit dealing with Milosevic was too minor to include in the media summary as opposed to the full 2.5k-page judgement.

                But then the paragraph or two “exonerating” (lol) Milosevich is a straw big enough for the ‘it’s all a western conspiracy’ crown to grasp at, I guess.

                • CC …
                  29 August 2016 at 3:01 pm

                  So Dragomir Milosevic is one and the same as Slobodan Milosevic is he?

                  • McFlock …
                    29 August 2016 at 3:12 pm

                    No, now you’re persisting in being an idiot. Check out the full judgement, p1303.

                    Fuck it, I’ll give you a freebie. This is your so-called “exoneration”:

                    3460. With regard to the evidence presented in this case in relation to Slobodan Milošević and his
                    membership in the JCE, the Chamber recalls that he shared and endorsed the political objective of
                    the Accused and the Bosnian Serb leadership to preserve Yugoslavia and to prevent the separation
                    or independence of BiH and co-operated closely with the Accused during this time. The Chamber
                    also recalls that Milošević provided assistance in the form of personnel, provisions, and arms to the
                    Bosnian Serbs during the conflict.11026 However, based on the evidence before the Chamber
                    regarding the diverging interests that emerged between the Bosnian Serb and Serbian leaderships
                    during the conflict and in particular, Milošević’s repeated criticism and disapproval of the policies
                    and decisions made by the Accused and the Bosnian Serb leadership,11027 the Chamber is not
                    satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milošević
                    agreed with the common plan.

                    So yeah, apparently he wasn’t entirely cool with genocide, but nor was he so disturbed by it that he was going to cut off supplies and keep his army out of it.

                    edit: basically in line with the ICJ judgement a few years back that said Serbia didn’t actively participate in the genocide but failed to prevent it and hid the perpetrators

  11. Gosman 11
    29 August 2016 at 9:07 am

    Interesting article that has a huge relevance for blog sites such as this one

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160823-how-modern-life-is-destroying-democracy

    • Gosman 11.1
      29 August 2016 at 9:09 am

      This bit I think especially rings true in terms of mindset displayed by many Herr

      ‘“I’d come back to my predominantly liberal social circle and try to explain that the other side isn’t ignorant or malevolent,” he says. He faced harsh rebukes for his open-mindedness, including accusations of treachery’

      • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 9:48 am

        I like this bit:

        “However, whatever you do – don’t use this article to try to change someone’s mind. Given evidence against our beliefs, the “backfire effect” tends to make us believe our original views even more strongly. It looks like you’re unlikely to win that debate with your friends any time soon. “

        • Craig H 11.1.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 7:12 pm

          There’s an exception if people challenge the opinion with facts quickly, although stuffed if I can remember where I read that…

      • Stuart Munro 11.1.2
        29 August 2016 at 6:18 pm

        White-collar criminal resents accusations of treachery – “It’s hard enough betraying one’s country without the ghastly spectre of accountability” he said.

    • joe90 11.2
      29 August 2016 at 9:43 am

      I reckon a growing anti-intellectualism combined with everybody’s a fucking expert is the worry.

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america

      I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not mean the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.

      http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

      • Colonial Viper 11.2.1
        29 August 2016 at 10:11 am

        The most highly qualified people in the world, the leading politicians and bureaucrats who went to the most prestigious universities in the world have led our multi-decades long charge into this industrial technological financialised neoliberal nuclear confrontational GMO polluted mess.

        No wonder the credibility of experts with the ordinary working class person is in a state of collapse.

        • McFlock 11.2.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 12:48 pm

          The irony being that the working class person in any given society is better off, lives longer, and is probably happier than they would have been without the assistance of all those experts.

  12. Sanctuary 12
    29 August 2016 at 9:34 am

    John Armstrong’s blog piece on the Havelock North water poisoning scandal doesn’t just hit the whole issue out of the park, it smashes it into orbit. He sums it all up brilliantly to the point it warrants IMHO a linked post all of it’s own so it be read by a wider audience.

    https://armstrongonpolitics.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/somethings-in-the-water-somethings-astray-in-the-bay/

    I have to say, being freed from the shackles of the NZ Heralds pro-National agenda has been very good for Mr. Armstrong’s writing.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      29 August 2016 at 10:13 am

      The usual story, if you want to be fed and not live day to day like a pauper, you need to compromise your personal values and thoughts to some degree in line with the expectations of status quo power.

    • Bearded Git 12.2
      29 August 2016 at 10:51 am

      Thanks Sanctuary-very interesting reading. When Armstrong is not being ordered by the Herald to write anti-Left attack pieces he can be quite balanced.

      Love the conclusion. Key’s government has always been a “do-nothing” regime, except for tinkering to help the top 5% and the farmers while spinning (lying) continually about issues such as the environment.

    • save nz 12.3
      29 August 2016 at 10:53 am

      +1 Sanctuary worth reading – gives you a good insight on the Havelock North from a National voting perspective.

      • Sanctuary 12.3.1
        29 August 2016 at 11:07 am

        There has been a fair bit of snickering and schadenfreude around Hawkes Bay at the, *ahem* “democratising” impact of this event on so many of the self-appointed royal posteriors of Havelock North.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    29 August 2016 at 10:42 am

    Six or eight soldiers of the post Charlie Hebdo killings anti-terrorism ‘Sentinelle Project’ stood outside the Bataclan concert hall and did nothing during the massacre

    These French soldiers were fully armed with army issued Famas assault rifles, on anti-terrorism detail, and outnumbered the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attackers who were slaughtering the concert goers inside the hall.

    The final death toll was 90.

    When the first lightly armed police units finally arrived and asked the soldiers for support (which they refused to provide), then asked the soldiers to lend them their assault weapons to use against the terrorists, the soldiers refused to hand them over.

    And on and on.

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/french-military-bataclan-massacre/

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6be88540c0a7407fb4563f6eef7a7df8/french-legislators-urge-intel-overhaul-after-paris-attacks

    http://thestandard.org.nz/fair-and-sustainable-economics/#comment-1224936

    • marty mars 13.1
      29 August 2016 at 10:51 am

      Okay I read both those. Still don’t get your point. Are you suggesting complicity, incompetence, or what, that something else is afoot.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 10:53 am

        I’m suggesting that I’d prefer to be looked after by a unit of the NZSAS any time of the day or night.

        But yeah, a mix of tactical leadership incompetence and bureaucratic paralysis.

    • Puckish Rogue 13.2
      29 August 2016 at 11:10 am

      “They felt that they were not to intervene because their rules of engagement did not anticipate that they had to intervene. Their rules stipulated that they could protect themselves. It is entirely unbelievable, amazing.”

      Yeah I can see that happening (if that’s what happened of course) it would probably be drummed into the soldiers to be careful, that if they get it wrong they can be done for murder etc etc

      Similar thing happened during the training for the soldiers going over to Timor, how important it was to follow the rules, how you had to be certain and examples were given of soldiers that didn’t and were sentenced for murder etc etc

      Of course after the Pte Manning incident the ROE were interpreted differently

      • McFlock 13.2.1
        29 August 2016 at 12:45 pm

        Sucks to be everyone there, including the six soldiers, but I much prefer soldiers/cops who don’t shoot when not allowed vs them that shoot off their own bat.

        • Puckish Rogue 13.2.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 1:23 pm

          I guess to me its how the rules are laid out but then we don’t know if what the links are saying is actually true or not

          • McFlock 13.2.1.1.1
            29 August 2016 at 2:30 pm

            Yeah.

            At worst it simply looks to me like the old “lack of single identified commander in charge and aware of all resources at the scene” problem, i.e. someone who could change the soldiers’ ROE or get them to do something useful.

            At best someone on the interwebs got the wrong end of the stick, it’s not as if that’s happened before…

        • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.2
          29 August 2016 at 3:27 pm

          Sucks to be everyone there, including the six soldiers, but I much prefer soldiers/cops who don’t shoot when not allowed vs them that shoot off their own bat.

          I prefer police and soldiers who are on duty, and assigned to anti-terrorism duties to use their professional initiative in order to intervene and save dozens of civilian lives during an ongoing terrorist attack in progress, instead of wondering whether or not .

          Otherwise why are we bothering with funding this security surveillance state and the massive resources and human rights it sucks up and spits out?

          • McFlock 13.2.1.2.1
            29 August 2016 at 3:47 pm

            Of course you would, because you want it both ways, and you have the magical power of hindsight and the intrinsic intelligence of the universe telling you what to do.

            How were they to know it wasn’t going to be a hostage situation, and if they ran in it wasn’t going to turn out like Beslan when the bombs went off? How did they know that if they go in one side, that some cops won’t similarly use their “professional initiative” and go in the other, and both groups end up shooting each other in the dark and catching civilians in the crossfire? Or maybe they save the day only to be shot by the cops when they try to leave because nobody knows who’s in there?

            Now yes, Captain Hindsight, maybe there will be command and control lessons learned from this incident. But when soldiers start using their “professional initiative” in a situation that blurs with civilian policing, we end up with all sorts of really nasty things going on, things that no doubt you’d bitch about with your 20/20 hindsight. Almost as bad as when cops start pretending that they’re soldiers.

            • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.2.1.1
              29 August 2016 at 4:39 pm

              The risk averse bureaucratic mindset at work.

              While armed soldiers on anti-terror duty stand around listening to the screams of dozens of their countrymen being shot to death inside a concert hall by Islamic terrorists.

              • McFlock …
                29 August 2016 at 5:05 pm

                You’re assuming that they all had the same knowledge of the situation as you do now. And yet if they’d rushed in, and the gunfire was just into the air to corral hostages but the impromptu storming by half a dozen soldiers was faced by a couple of dozen hostage-takers who set off their bombs when confronted in a confined auditorium and the ensuing blaze killed as many or more than what occurred in reality… oh but then you’ll have been judging it as an amateur response by gung-ho rambo-wannabees and decrying the surveillance state from that angle.

                I’m sure if you’d been one of those soldiers you’d have saved the day. /sarc

  14. Karen 14
    29 August 2016 at 10:47 am

    Great news!

    Sue Bradford has managed to get her left wing think tank off the ground. The launch will be on Friday but the website is already live. At last there will be some quality research available to counter the right wing spin that comes out of the NZ Initiative.

    https://www.esra.nz/

  16. Lanthanide 16
    29 August 2016 at 11:56 am

    “Strident moderation will be exercised in the comments section”

    I think you mean “strict”.

    [Off-Topic Dribble – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]

  17. Scott 17
    29 August 2016 at 11:58 am

    All I know is that she lists being chairperson of it on her university profile page. I just used google (same as the guest poster of this post but perhaps a bit more carefully).

    I’m not the one making the accusation that the organisation is fictitious. At least on its face it is not.

    [DERAIL – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]

    • joe90 17.1
      29 August 2016 at 12:07 pm

      (same as the guest poster of this post but perhaps a bit more carefully).

      Oh do fuck off.

      You ignored the poster noting that – we tracked down a small group of people (like, 4-6 people, it seemed) at the University of Canterbury that might be the Special Needs Association! Was this it? No. And anyway, that small band of merry folk are disbanding – the same organisation your supposedly superior google foo turned up .

      • Scott 17.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 12:56 pm

        I did not find the “Special Needs Association”. I didn’t even look for that. I have no idea whether that organisation exists, or is disbanding.

        What I looked for was the “Special Education Association” (the one mentioned by the Minister according to the post above), and what I found was the “New Zealand Special Education Association”. And I found it appears to have a chairperson who seems a serious sort of academic.

        It took me 30 seconds. I claim no searching skill, just looked for the organisation that was said to exist.

        Next time I’ll just ask on twitter I guess, or phone a couple of like minded mates.

        • Matthew Whitehead 17.1.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 1:53 pm

          For an organisation that provides seminars and conferences it has surprisingly little web presence. I could find the relevant contact email, (on a Christchurch directory) but that was it.

          I’m willing to bet it’s probably just CV padding at this stage, although I suppose I could be wrong.

  18. Lanthanide 18
    29 August 2016 at 12:00 pm

    It’s actually the first result on google (for me), even without quotes or without searching for NZ websites.

    Hard to tell if it was like that at the time when blip searched though; google does update its index fairly frequently and so the discussion around this point could have promoted the site higher.

    [DERAIL – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]

    • Scott 18.1
      29 August 2016 at 12:11 pm

      The exchange on Facebook does make it look like the Minister was not actually quoting someone from the Association, and hence that the answer in Parliament may have been unclear (choosing a nice word), but what got my back up was that the accusation being made was so easily check-able and yet no attempt seems to have been made to do so.

      If it had been checked and the apparent organisation discounted then there ought to be some explanation about that, like it used to be but is now defunct as confirmed by its apparent chairperson. But a flat out statement that the organisation doesn’t exist fails at the most rudimentary investigation.

      • Sacha 18.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 12:29 pm

        Hansard was clear that Parata was emphasising the name like an official organisation, and the skilled stenographers capitalised it accordingly. The Minister tries to fudge this by using lower-case in her Facebook responses, but there is absolutely no doubt what the words mean. If she meant the whole ‘sector’ she would have used that word.

        The post author has identified and discounted the grouping your google-fu led you to. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

        • Scott 18.1.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 12:37 pm

          No, the poster identifies and eliminates the ” Special Needs Association”.

          What my simple search discovered was the “New Zealand Special Education Association”.

          Look, I see see what you mean about the facebook comment, it is at odds with the statement in parliament. But when someone is accusing a Minister of lying in Parliament they ought to be more careful. “I phoned a couple like minded mates”, asked on twitter, and (apparently incompetently) did a google search doesn’t cut it for me.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 18.1.1.1.1
            29 August 2016 at 1:00 pm

            And then the Minister, herself, did *not* say it was the group you’re crowing about being able to find on Google. So enough of this weaselly “it’s at odds”, “it does seem unclear” defence of Hekia Parata. She lied to Parliament and the evidence is in her fudging when called on it.

            • Lanthanide 18.1.1.1.1.1
              29 August 2016 at 1:10 pm

              Scott is not defending Hekia at all.

              He is criticising this post for making an accusation that is unfounded.

              It is quite possible to think Hekia is a lying twit, and also think that this post is making an untrue accusation.

            • Scott 18.1.1.1.1.2
              29 August 2016 at 1:19 pm

              I’m not defending her at all. She seems to have stuff up royally. All I’m saying is that the accusation made appears to be wrong.

              If you’re pointing the finger at someone like this, you ought to do so carefully.

              At the moment, the only evidence that she lied to parliament is that the comment in parliament is inconsistent with a later facebook comment attributed to her. So what? It needs more digging, and a more careful accusation.

              • Andrew Geddis …
                29 August 2016 at 1:29 pm

                The accusation is that Parata made up the organisation. The fact that an organisation exists (or, existed) with this name does not disprove that accusation.

                • srylands …
                  29 August 2016 at 1:32 pm

                  Why would she make up something?

                  You know Andrew said stop barking at every passing car? This is one of those cars.

                  • Andrew Geddis …
                    29 August 2016 at 1:38 pm

                    To make her answer sound more credible?

                    But I don’t know if she did or not. I’m simply pointing out to those who say that “the Google proves Parata didn’t make this up” that it does no such thing.

                • Scott …
                  29 August 2016 at 2:24 pm

                  Well yes it does, because if the organisation exists then she did not fabricate the organisations existence.

                  Now she might have made up what she attributes to it, or have wrongly attributed it to them. But those are not what the headline and the body of the post say. They say she simply made the organisation up. The existence of the organisation would appear to disprove that particular accusation.

                  • North …
                    29 August 2016 at 3:28 pm

                    Have it your way Scott…….in which case she didn’t lie about the association but she lied about what it said. Can’t have it both ways boyo. Are you OK ?

                  • Scott …
                    29 August 2016 at 4:00 pm

                    to North

                    Yes, quite happy with that. She may have either made up what she claimed she was told, or wrongly attributed it.

                    But what we can be increasingly sure of she that did not do what the headline and the article accuse her of.

                • Atiawa …
                  29 August 2016 at 4:39 pm

                  Any chance of Nicola Standing’s phone number?

          • mpledger 18.1.1.1.2
            29 August 2016 at 5:03 pm

            The ministers “Special Needs Association” and the “New Zealand Special Needs Association” are not the same thing – the former is missing the words “New Zealand”.

            But your argument “but I found the organisations that she was talking about” fails because you didn’t find the organisation she named. You found a similarly named one.

            It her job to get things right when questioned. We are meant to trust that when she says the name of an organisation that she correctly names the organisation.

            But it turns out to be even worse than that because she just made up some stuff that sounded like it was some official body when it was just odds and ends of people she talked to.

        • Johan 18.1.1.2
          29 August 2016 at 12:57 pm

          Do not be too hard on Scott, the intransigent Glaswegian.
          There are a number of other websites, sporting his Tory BS tactics.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.2
        29 August 2016 at 1:22 pm

        So either the Minister was lying about the support, or got support from perhaps one member of an organisation, that was so organised it disbanded from lack of interest.

        I suppose the only grounds for not resigning at that point is that all the alternative candidates are worse. This being the National Party, that seems quite likely.

        She’s answerable to this same corrupt rabble, so nothing will come of this perjury and/or gross incompetence.

  19. smilin 19
    29 August 2016 at 1:24 pm

    On the winz beneficiary site there is this insidious series of entries from the stats dept about trends taking up 2/3 of the space on any page stating information about the particular benefit available
    Why is there a need for a beneficiary to be sidetracked from what they need to know is beyond me as this stat info in trends is of no use to a beneficiary
    As it is there is nothing to direct beneficiaries to further help outside of winz and this is what we get for all the supposed increases for beneficiaries
    Bigger fatter salaries for what less help for beneficiaries

  20. save nz 20
    29 August 2016 at 1:42 pm

    “It’s become a well-accepted fact in Christchurch that wealthier areas of the city received a better deal from government agencies and quicker responses to the disastrous earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 than poorer suburbs.”

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/08/29/if-this-isnt-corrupt-practice-what-is/

    • Chooky 20.1
      29 August 2016 at 6:35 pm

      +100 this is very true…and John Minto was a superb columnist for the Christchurch Press….I really missed his insightful, hard hitting, truth telling columns when they dis-established him

      I guess now that Minto is standing for mayor the Christchurch Press (which is usually right wing and pro National in slant ) will have to give him coverage again.

      Also sincerely hope he becomes Mayor of Christchurch

      • save nz 20.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 8:55 pm

        +1 Chooky – yep no matter your politics Chch should vote Minto in to get rid of all the corruption and get the reconstruction back on track and fair for all.

  21. Lanthanide 21
    29 August 2016 at 1:47 pm

    But I don’t know if she did or not. I’m simply pointing out to those who say that “the Google proves Parata didn’t make this up” that it does no such thing.

    And this is the KEY to the misunderstanding of yourself (and others) and what Scott is saying.

    Scott has not said “the Google proves Parata didn’t make this up”.

    Scott has said “the Google evidence contradicts the statement made in this article, that no such organisation exists”.

    [DERAIL – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]

  22. alwyn 22
    29 August 2016 at 2:29 pm

    When, and from whom, did Sue Bradford get a PhD?
    I had heard that she was studying for one but not that she had actually received it.

    [Derail – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]

    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1
      29 August 2016 at 4:31 pm

      Are you offering to pay someone to do your homework for you? Otherwise I don’t think much of your chances.

      • alwyn 22.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 4:58 pm

        I got mine years ago you silly little fellow. What has that got to do with my question? Have you learnt to read yet?
        I was curious where Sue went.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 5:03 pm

          *whoosh*

          I’ll find out for you for an exorbitant fee. I reserve the right to ridicule your inability to use Google while I’m at it.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.1.2
          29 August 2016 at 7:48 pm

          I take that back: I’m going to ridicule your inability to follow the links in the post instead. Now let’s discuss my fee 😆

        • North 22.1.1.3
          29 August 2016 at 8:29 pm

          Cha…I’m a fucked right wing Doc/Coc/onetime Labour voter. We lie down down to you Tralwyn.

          [Settle down – First and last warning – BLiP]

    • Chris 22.2
      29 August 2016 at 5:01 pm

      You’re not another one of these people that won’t accept anything unless they’re fed links, are you?

    • North 22.3
      29 August 2016 at 7:13 pm

      Gossip gossip gossip nasty cow Tralwyn !

  23. Lanthanide 23
    29 August 2016 at 3:06 pm

    I agree with your stance in this matter Scott, but I’ll note that the sort of careful semantic argument you’re making here is very often mis-read by others – not deliberately, just that for many it’s hard to see the very precise point that you’re making. So they put it together in their own mind and assume that you’re defending the minister, when of course you’re doing nothing of the sort.

    I didn’t bother to raise this particular argument on this post because past experience told me of how this would end up. Ultimately it doesn’t matter a lot either way, since as others have shown there’s already sufficient other evidence (primarily from her statements on facebook) to think that Hekia just made her attribution up.

    [DERAIL – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]

    • Scott 23.1
      29 August 2016 at 3:53 pm

      Cheers.

      There does appear to be a story here, but like so much lately the desire to make it as spicy as you can leads to hyperbole, and ultimately to the message being lost.

      • BLiP 23.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 5:45 pm

        ‘

        Oh, puhleeze, just fuck off. The message of the post has not been lost, despite your attempts to cloud the issue with a public demonstration of failure to comprehend. If your objection really is about the style of the post rather than the content, feel free, by all means, to join the ranks of Guest Authors and show us all how it should be done.

        • Lanthanide 23.1.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 8:39 pm

          Or, we could just comment on the posts. Since discussing posts is what the comment section is for, after all.

  24. Wayne 24
    29 August 2016 at 3:25 pm

    When an item produces a debate of 74 posts of whether she made it up or not, it is probably an indication that this particular attack on the Minister is going nowhere.

    Most people will just give up on determining the the exact correctness of what was said, and on what basis.

    Surely it would better to focus on the policy itself, which I am certain will be of much more interest to parents.

    A Wellington-centric debate of who said what when is missing the point.

    An all too frequent occurrence on this blog.

    [DERAIL – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]

    • North 24.1
      29 August 2016 at 3:50 pm

      The passive/aggressive Wayne’s “going nowhere” is Wayne doing exactly what Scott has been doing all along…..derailing. What does remain is yet another example of National Party arrogance and dishonesty.

      • srylands 24.1.1
        29 August 2016 at 3:52 pm

        Well good luck with getting any traction whatsoever on this with normal people. You know most people. Who vote.

    • Lanthanide 24.2
      29 August 2016 at 4:08 pm

      Actually Wayne, most of the debate has been about the things this article says.

      It very plainly and clearly says a google search was carried out, but no such organisation as “Special Education Association” exists. Except when I and others perform this same search, they appear as the first google result.

      So the article is clearly wrong.

      • BLiP 24.2.1
        29 August 2016 at 4:55 pm

        . . . So the article is clearly wrong.

        Nope. Hekia Parata fabricated a Special Education Association which is a different entity than the Special Education Association which appears in Google, and that latter entity is moribond which, functionally, is the same as non-existent. Hekia Parata’s Special Education Association, on the other hand, is entirely imaginary. The post author specifically references the Google result and easily dismisses it as being the Special Education Association, Hekia Parata is then quoted, confirming this.

        Hopefully, an MP concerned about National Ltd’s orchestrated and perpetual mendacity will follow up with this latest example. A good question to ask might be: “Show us the DOX where the Special Education Association said this latest policy will provide the benefits you claim”.

        • mpledger 24.2.1.1
          29 August 2016 at 5:08 pm

          Or someone does an OIA asking for all material related to her communications with the Special Education Association.

        • Lanthanide 24.2.1.2
          29 August 2016 at 5:38 pm

          Nope. Hekia Parata fabricated a Special Education Association which is a different entity than the Special Education Association which appears in Google, and that latter entity is moribond which, functionally, is the same as non-existent.

          And people call me a sophist.

          The article says:

          I tried Googling. I’m good at Googling. But nothing.

          If your version of events is to be believed, it should say something like this:

          “I tried Googling. I’m good at Googling. I found a reference to the New Zealand Special Education Association, so I thought I’d found it! Some quick further research showed this group to be moribund, and after talking to the chairperson, I confirmed that despite having the same name as the organisation Hekia quoted, they had in fact not spoken to her”.

          But the article didn’t say that. It said this:

          I tried Googling. I’m good at Googling. But nothing.

          The article is wrong.

          If only the article said what you claim it says, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But it doesn’t say what you think it says.

          • BLiP 24.2.1.2.1
            29 August 2016 at 6:02 pm

            ‘

            I understand your point. I disagree. Now drop it, please. Enough. Saying the same thing over and over again does not make that thing any more true or false. What it does indicate, though, is an attempt to clutter a conversation with a trainspotters’ squabble to detract from the main point of the post. Such behaviour sometimes require’s a strident response if it goes on too long.

      • North 24.2.2
        29 August 2016 at 5:46 pm

        Yes Lanth’, and you and Scott are wearing green cardigans, no hang on they’re purple aren’t they, no, yellow…….oh bugger, they’re cardigans for fuck sake. Talk about pedantry…….one for the sake of it the other to protect a liar.

    • DoublePlusGood 24.3
      29 August 2016 at 5:13 pm

      That debate of 74 posts only occurred because a couple of trolls are deliberately ignoring the blatantly obvious truth that Hekia Parata lied her pants off, and for whatever reason are trying to disseminate away from that. As are you. Obviously you support Hekia Parata lying in parliament. Perhaps this is because you did the same?

  25. Lanthanide 25
    29 August 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Scott hasn’t been derailing, he’s been making a very specific point that most people have mis-read.

    Now, the point he is making is ultimately not important in the grand scheme of things (which seems to be a large part of why people are mis-reading what he is saying), but the point he is making is valid, none-the-less.

    [DERAIL – Moved to Open Mike – BLiP]