Open mike 30/07/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 30th, 2015 - 153 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 …

153 comments on “Open mike 30/07/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Morrissey 1
    30 July 2015 at 6:04 am

    Radio NZ hack claims National’s dirty politics scandal merely a “beltway” issue.
    Are Michelle Boag and Matthew Hooton writing their scripts now?
    Radio NZ National Checkpoint, Wednesday 29 July 2015

    Conservative Party founder and (until recently) leader Colin Craig has announced he is suing extreme right wing National Party blogger Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater for the campaign of lies and intimidation the fat man has been running against him for months. This cynical assault on our democracy was exhaustively laid out last year by Nicky Hager in his book Dirty Politics.

    However, according to Radio NZ National’s Liz Banas, whether or not this brutal National Party operative is lying is nothing more than a “hard core beltway” issue. She tried unsuccessfully to upset Craig by firing that statement at him several times tonight….

    COLIN CRAIG: …. Holding these guys to account is the right thing.

    LIZ BANAS: But you’ve put things in this brochure that the public don’t even know about and probably much less care about.

    COLIN CRAIG: Well I think it DOES matter to the New Zealand public that we have politics that is free from this sort of agenda that the Dirty Politics brigade run.

    LIZ BANAS: Well I think you’ll see from the election result that people didn’t really take too much notice of the Dirty Politics when it came to voting.

    COLIN CRAIG: I think it does matter the sort of country that we have, and the way that we run it. I think it does matter what the agenda of people is. It is our law in this land that you are not allowed to go out and defame public persons, for very good reasons. And I think that this is NOT a core value for New Zealanders, this sort of attack. We are honest people, we like a fair game and we like people to play within the rules. Good debate is good, a bit of argy-bargy is good, but having biased referees, or one team cheating, taking out an opposing player with a foul, that’s not the way we are.

    LIZ BANAS: But it’s seriously beltway. I mean, a lot of these allegations people wouldn’t have any idea about. It’s hard core beltway.This is just for the people who are really involved in politics will be talking about this. As far as they’re concerned, you lost the election, you’ve admitted to inappropriate behavior with Miss McGregor, your party has imploded, and a lot of people would regard you as finished, politically.

    COLIN CRAIG: Well, I think Liz you’ve said an awful lot there, but the reality is that this is a public issue. People DO know all about this, they DO want to know the truth of it, going to the court and having the court rule on whether these guys are telling the truth or whether I’m telling the truth DOES matter. That’s what political credibility is about, who’s telling the truth? Am I honest, or are they honest? We can’t both be right, the public do need to know.

    LIZ BANAS: Do you worry that people see you as a laughing stock?

    COLIN CRAIG: Oh I don’t worry about that at all. I stand for issues, I am who I am, and I’m very comfortable that this is the right approach to take with these guys who have been campaigning against me for week after week after week. I mean, it’s unheard of. This is unprecedented, there isn’t this sort of attack that’s gone on before. It’s serious stuff, and the court will rule whether or not I’ve been telling the truth. That matters to people. ….

    ………

    POINT TO PONDER: It’s not as if there was a more competent and serious journalist on hand to make up for her shoddiness. Thanks to the recent purges at Radio NZ National, her partner was… Jim Mora.

    • Paul 1.1
      30 July 2015 at 6:17 am

      Well RNZ now invite Jordan Williams, Michelle Boag and Matthew Hooton as regular visitors.
      They are rapidly becoming another worthless news source.

      • Skinny 1.1.1
        30 July 2015 at 8:41 am

        RNZ is heads and shoulders above any of the other News outlets. I do believe Jim Mora is on borrowed time holding down the late afternoon slot.

        The Monday morning political show with Hooton & Williams I personally find quite insightful and is a good summary on current political issues. Plunket’s Friday show with National cyborg Boag and Williams is equally as good, recently Sean gave the cyborg a real decent crack over the non Govt foreigner’s register, it was classic.

    • Hanswurst 1.2
      30 July 2015 at 8:36 am

      I’m not sure whether I entirely agree with this. I certainly do think that there is a disparity between the easy ride that government MPs (especially Mr. Key) get in the face of obviously and woefully inadequate statements in interviews on the one hand, and the belligerent but content-lite attack interviews on successive labour and green leaders. However, I also think that it is an interviewer’s job to challenge the motives and framing of any and all politicians that they interview, and try as I might, I can’t see any more in the above than that. Her framing could be more informed/informative, but I think the basic line of questioning is appropriate and gives him ample scope to respond.

      Craig is being challenged to explain why his legal and PR campaign is a public interest issue, rather than a personal vendetta that serves nothing but his own satisfaction. Assuming that his info and claims are true, then it is in the public interest, but it’s still up to him to state his case and show the public why it’s important. Interviews like that facilitate that best, because the members public can hear many competing aspects of the argument and make up their own minds. I don’t wish people would stop interviewing Craig like that, I wish they would do more in that vein to Mr. Key.

      • greywarshark 1.2.1
        30 July 2015 at 1:01 pm

        @ Hanswurst Good objectivity from over there, good to have.

      • JeevesPOnzi 1.2.2
        30 July 2015 at 2:56 pm

        I guess it comes down to whether you think “PR” stands for “Personal Rachel”, or “Public Relations”……..

        I thought the latter- ergo its a Public issue.

    • DoublePlusGood 1.3
      30 July 2015 at 11:37 am

      I think that using ‘beltway’ repeatedly immediately makes that person more beltway than anything they’re talking about or anyone they’re talking to.

      • Matthew Hooton 1.3.1
        30 July 2015 at 3:16 pm

        That is a very good point. I have never heard a non-“beltway” person say “beltway”.

    • greywarshark 1.4
      30 July 2015 at 12:59 pm

      @Morrisey
      I heard Liz Banas name mentioned the other morning when I expected to hear Susie’s and I looked up but could find no Liz Banash in presenters.

      Are you saying that Jim Mora is on early morning instead of Guyon. Do you know about changes? Holiday breaks? I looked up google for –
      radionz management advice on personnel changes
      and found nothing except headings about news not about the entity.

  2. Morrissey 2
    30 July 2015 at 6:35 am

    “No no no…. I understand that…. all right….okay…”
    British state television frontwoman comes horribly unstuck on HARDtalk

    Poor old Mishal Husain had her lines carefully written out—including such gems as calling a Financial Times hatchet job a “well considered piece”—but she simply lacked the intellect to counter Stathis Kouvelakis. What followed was one of the most complete humiliations of a BBC hack since Tim Sebastian’s 1993 trauma at the hands of Lee Kuan Yew.

    Enjoy….

    HARDtalk Stathis Kouvelakis

    • Paul 2.1
      30 July 2015 at 6:58 am

      It’s great the way you expose the media, Morrissey.
      Some people seem unaware of how dumbed down the media has become.

      For example, today, while Grosser and his Randite minions are trading away NZ’ s sovereignty in Hawaii, our miserable media has barely a word to say in this act of treason.

      • Morrissey 2.1.1
        30 July 2015 at 7:03 am

        As biased as the media are, the Labour “opposition” is also failing us. Can you imagine the non-stop, hour by hour furore that would have ensued if it were a LABOUR government in Hawaii negotiating away our right to Pharmac?

        Instead, the Labour Party leader talks about how he doesn’t like our national anthem.

        By the way, the nasty, dim BBC hackette dying so horribly in that HARDtalk interview was Zeina Badawi, not Mishal Husain.

        • Jenny Kirk 2.1.1.1
          30 July 2015 at 9:22 am

          Darn it, Morrissey. Andrew Little has spoken out against TPPA several times lately.
          The piece about the national anthem was picked out by the MSM of a speech he was giving in Parliament about the flag debate and used to trivialise whatever he was saying then. You of all people should know how easily the MSM trivialise whatever Labour says to keep attention away from the important stuff they say!

          • John Shears 2.1.1.1.1
            30 July 2015 at 10:25 am

            Go Jenny

          • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.2
            30 July 2015 at 1:13 pm

            Thanks for that Jenny. We shouldn’t chop Labour down to miniscule over MSM misrepresentation. It’s good to be put right otherwise we don’t hear the truth only the manufactured litany of lies from the ba….s.

            I noticed Toby Manhire and Sean Plunket yesterday getting affronted on Key’s behalf because Groser got testy with Key. The Notionals seem to have made ‘friends’ with many jonolists who are willing to write about Gullible’s Travels!
            Peons of praise?
            edited

          • Morrissey 2.1.1.1.3
            30 July 2015 at 1:42 pm

            Fair comment, Jenny. I have no doubt that Gower and his friends have utterly distorted what he said—and I was foolish enough to amplify it here. I am, however, not convinced that Labour has a coherent policy on this vital issue. If National was in Opposition, and it was a Labour government pushing this profoundly anti-democratic measure, all the media would be saturated with the message that Labour was selling out our public health system.

            I’m also still trying to come to terms with the way Little and his colleagues meekly supported the Government’s snooping legislation a few months ago.

            By the way, may I say what a privilege it is to be handed a whupping from someone with such a distinguished Labour name.

            • Jenny Kirk 2.1.1.1.3.1
              30 July 2015 at 4:06 pm

              absolutely NO relation to the distinguished Labour name, Morrissey – sheer coincidence – thanks all the same.

      • Jenny Kirk 2.1.2
        30 July 2015 at 9:19 am

        Try reading Scoop NZ News, Paul. There’s a very long piece by Gordon Campbell about TPP.

    • Marvellous Bearded Git 2.2
      30 July 2015 at 10:38 am

      @Morrissey
      That is not Mishal Husain doing the interview. She is (from memory) Cambridge educated and very smart. Works on Radio 4 Today programme now.

    • tc 2.3
      30 July 2015 at 10:41 am

      Once was the standard bearer for intellectual rigour and objectivity and under fresh threat from DC and his backers like Wuppert etc

    • Blue Shorseshoe 2.4
      30 July 2015 at 11:41 am

      Paid actor, presenter gets arse handed ….

      MP’s are paid actors too and in NZ we have Z list actors

      That includes the NZLP

  3. Tautoko Mangō Mata 3
    30 July 2015 at 7:57 am

    WikiLeaks
    WikiLeaks TPP Expert Analysis on SOE Ministerial Guidance
    https://wikileaks.org/tpp-soe-minister/analysis/page-1.html

    Pages 9 and 10 list the questions that need to be answered.

  4. marty mars 4
    30 July 2015 at 8:25 am

    Thank you minister tolley

    A plan to treat vulnerable newborns as “lab rats” by sitting back for two years to see if they were abused has been blocked by the Government.

    The Ministry of Social Development proposed to include 60,000 children born this year in an “observational study” to test the accuracy of its new predictive risk modelling tool.

    It attempts to predict abuse, welfare dependency and the likelihood of a child’s downward spiral into crime on the path to adulthood so it can better target spending.

    The Government gave the go-ahead to develop the model in 2012, as part of the Children’s Action Plan. It had now begun testing it.

    But documents show officials had sought ethical approval for one study which involved risk-rating a group of newborns and not intervening in high-risk cases, to check whether their predictions came true.

    A furious Social Development Minister Anne Tolley said she could not fathom what her officials were thinking.

    She has called a halt to the study.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/70647353/Children-not-lab-rats-Anne-Tolley-intervenes-in-child-abuse-experiment

    Seriously wtf??? – check whether the predictions came true??? What is wrong with our society???

    • Puckish Rogue 4.1
      30 July 2015 at 8:46 am

      Wow…just wow

    • RedLogix 4.2
      30 July 2015 at 9:00 am

      These kinds of controlled experiments raise ethical issues all the time. For instance trials of new experimental drugs – there is always a control group who don’t get the potentially life-saving treatment.

      Or you could argue that now this study has been squashed – that NO children will potentially benefit from it now. Sort of like tossing all the lab rats in the bin.

      • marty mars 4.2.1
        30 July 2015 at 9:31 am

        I think this is different – not intervening in high risk cases to check the model is completely unacceptable, morally and in every other way.

        The example used above of experimental drugs is not equivalent imo and therefore not a good counter example.

        • RedLogix 4.2.1.1
          30 July 2015 at 11:12 am

          Sighs – the equivalence is actually pretty good.

          All we have is a possible model of which children may or may not be at risk. This is the direct equivalent of a medical diagnostic tool – but until it is tested we have no evidence of whether it is going to work well enough or not.

          If the researchers simply developed an untested social diagnostic tool to predict which children were at risk – and then applied it as an en-mass intervention on the whole population what do you imagine might happen?

          For a start – how would you deal with all the false positive cases?

          • Grant 4.2.1.1.1
            30 July 2015 at 11:19 am

            “If the researchers simply developed an untested social diagnostic tool to predict which children were at risk – and then applied it as an en-mass intervention on the whole population what do you imagine might happen?”

            Isn’t this precisely the reason that new interventions usually are trialed on small control groups under informed consent before introducing them to the general public or larger group concerned?

            • McFlock 4.2.1.1.1.1
              30 July 2015 at 11:50 am

              But almost all interventions have negative as well as positive effects, so applying them to people who don’t need them leaves the negative for no actual positive – i.e. they can actually do harm.

              I’m in favour of seeing if it works before leaping to conclusions about every kid in the country.

              • RedLogix …
                30 July 2015 at 12:13 pm

                Which is pretty much what was planned. The target study group was going to be one cohort of 60,000 children born in one year, and thereby large enough to give a statistically confident result.

            • RedLogix 4.2.1.1.1.2
              30 July 2015 at 11:56 am

              And therefore we can never do any studies, of any kind, with children because we cannot ever get ‘informed consent’ from them? That’s another kind of nonsense.

              This was only ever a passive ‘observational study’. Whether it proceeded or not – the lives of the participants would be exactly the same. So precisely what are you asking ‘informed consent’ for?

              Besides there is the practical question of the study needing to be of a significant minimum size in order to obtain a results with acceptable statistical confidence.

              • marty mars …
                30 July 2015 at 4:10 pm

                My understanding is that they didn’t want to intervene in high risk cases so they could ascertain whether their predictions were correct.

                • McFlock …
                  30 July 2015 at 4:19 pm

                  They didn’t want to intervene in cases identified as “high risk” by the untested predictive model.

                  That doesn’t preclude normal intervention when/if current systems come to the same conclusion – indeed, that would be one of the measurements involved in the assessment of the accuracy of the new model.

      • Grant 4.2.2
        30 July 2015 at 11:16 am

        My understanding is that medical and drug trials should always be done with informed consent. Was this the case with the MSD proposal?

    • vto 4.3
      30 July 2015 at 9:01 am

      Yep, whoever dreamed that scheme up in the public service needs to be shown the door – it is way off the planet

      Its like replacing the crash-test dummies in simulated vehicle crashes with real people.

      absolutely unbelievable.

      • RedLogix 4.3.1
        30 July 2015 at 9:06 am

        Unless you can show that these researchers had access to an equivalent ‘crash test dummy’ model that would give equivalent results in this space – I don’t think that comparison works vto.

        • vto 4.3.1.1
          30 July 2015 at 9:18 am

          Eh? Too technical redlogix…

          These ‘researchers’ were prepared to let people seriously damage their lives in order to observe that damage…. that is fucked in the head and smells of the third re1ch…

          I can understand if the effect on natural people is minor and negligible, and repairs itself like a scratch with a band-aid, but not this shit. Its over the top by a country mile.

          • Hanswurst 4.3.1.1.1
            30 July 2015 at 9:25 am

            +1. Not least because there are any number of measures that can be implemented to improve people’s lives without having to inflict that sort of harm upon anybody.

            • RedLogix 4.3.1.1.1.1
              30 July 2015 at 9:30 am

              The study has been shut down and the harm will continue regardless. You seem to have cause and effect arse about face here.

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 July 2015 at 10:36 am

                RL the study design could have been done differently to address the ethical concerns raised. For instance, a higher level of monitoring of the “high risk” group, with protocols for intervention in any instances where children were detected to be actually mistreated (whatever group they were from).

                Remember that one of the issues with the “Unfortunate Experiment” were healthcare professionals who were aware that certain research subjects were at higher risk of developing cancer – but then doing nothing about it.

                • RedLogix …
                  30 July 2015 at 11:05 am

                  Again the ‘Unfortunate Experiment’ example is not so clear cut as you would like to think.

                  The original experiment design made reasonable sense in the light of the knowledge of the day. There were many aspects of this cancer not at all well understood at the time.

                  Like much medical research it made an easy target with the benefit of hindsight – and definitely Green should have been more pro-active about managing the arising cases of cervical cancer that did arise. But the issues were nowhere near as black and white as the popular outrage of the day.

                  • Grant …
                    30 July 2015 at 11:14 am

                    Not according to Cartwright. Your interpretation is itself revisionist and made with the benefit of many years hindsight. Greens “experiment” was very definitely ethically questionable at the very least and bears remarkable similarities to MSD’s proposed study. Some people are slow learners.

                    • RedLogix …
                      30 July 2015 at 11:40 am

                      And everyone also ignored the fact that Herb Green designed his study in the mid-60’s – and it was considered acceptable in the light of the thinking of the day. It’s completely and utterly wrong to condemn a man for actions taken in ignorance of knowledge yet to be discovered.

                      There was by the 1980s an extensive international literature questioning whether early intervention was necessary or was over-treatment, causing more harm than good.

                      Medicine faces a especial challenge in that the public find it very difficult to separate out the role of a researchers who have a role of studying illness – and that of clinicians whose role is to treat it. And back in the 60’s that distinction was virtually non-existent; it was absolutely common-place for clinicians like Green to also be researchers.

                      But that is not the case with this proposed social study at all.

                  • Molly …
                    30 July 2015 at 4:10 pm

                    It’s been a while since I read the book, but from what I remember this is not true.

                    It was against current thinking at the time. The ethical and management teams of National Women’s were not robust enough to challenge Green, and efforts by McIndoe to ensure care was given, and standards were upheld were constantly overridden.

                    As a female child born in that hospital at the time, I may have been one of those female newborns that were given a smear test – without knowledge of my mother – and without any particular research benefit. The practice continued for two years after Green decided the results coming from newborns were not supporting his theory.

                    The continual recall of women identified for “non-treatment” and observation was appalling. And they would have been under the mistaken idea that they were receiving timely and appropriate treatment.

                    I fail to see how you given Green such credit.

                    • RedLogix …
                      30 July 2015 at 4:59 pm

                      Most of the problems arose because by force of circumstance Green was forced into the role of both researcher and clinician. These days the roles are usually quite separate which makes these kinds of ethical issues much easier to manage.

                      Actually Green’s thinking turned out to be correct – that early hysterectomies and large cone biopsies which often prevented women from conceiving again were usually unnecessary; a conclusion that current practise endorses.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Green

                      Worth a read. I accept that by current modern standards there are things he should have done better, but ultimately there is a lot more to the story than the narrow conclusions Cartwright came to. Incidentally I was delivered by Herb Green. I was a very late term baby and he saved my life. So maybe I’m biased.

                      And as it happened my family knew MacIndoe as well. They were all good people just doing the best they could with the understandings they possessed at the time.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2015 at 5:10 pm

                      Ahhh thanks for the context RL.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  30 July 2015 at 11:26 am

                  Tolley also appeared to signal a major backdown on a proposed population-wide application of the model, saying it was “unlikely” to be used on children that had not already been notified to Child Youth and Family (CYF).

                  Well, it seems that the entire predictive modelling has now been canned which, of course, means that those children who are at high risk of being abused will now most likely be abused and CYF won’t actually know about them.

                  Thanks idiots.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    30 July 2015 at 11:51 am

                    Gawd i wish the left was a bit more far-sighted.

                    What do you think a future Tory government might do with a tool that is proven to demonstrate that certain parents or classes of parents are more likely to be child abusers? Or if such a database listing those parents and families was leaked?

                    • RedLogix …
                      30 July 2015 at 12:02 pm

                      So far everyone is calling foul because we might have a predictive tool to prevent abuse – and this proposed study was not going to intervene.

                      Now you are calling foul because it might be used to intervene.

                      Damned if we do and damned if we don’t eh?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      30 July 2015 at 12:11 pm

                      Exactly RL

                    • marty mars …
                      30 July 2015 at 4:17 pm

                      The area is fraught with fishhooks which is why careful hands are needed and careful policy too.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2015 at 5:06 pm

                      well the tool is inevitably going to end up scientifically justifying the singling out of specific types of households and classes of people who have done no wrong (yet).

                      Under a responsible and enlightened regime, that might be tolerable, even useful.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      31 July 2015 at 12:29 am

                      I think this comment neatly highlights an important distinction between a predictive tool based on correlational datasets and a causal understanding (or scientific theory) of a phenomenon – i.e., exploration of a ‘real’ scientific theory as opposed to statistical modelling based upon empirical regularity.

                      Correlational ‘predictions’ are not based on causal understanding (i.e., causal scientific theories) but on statistical regularities (which are often developed into so-called ‘models’).

                      Importantly, in construction of such tools the statistics to which the tool’s builders will inevitably turn are the ones already being collected (and which were typically developed to serve other purposes).

                      And that’s where the danger of using a statistical predictive tool exists, in policy terms.

                      If the causal processes involved in generating abuse are not being used to guide policy then interventions are triggered based on statistical probabilities embedded in the ‘tool’.

                      Here’s a revealing example. Being a young Maori male (as opposed to being a non-Maori young male) is correlated with criminal offending (it helps explain some of the variance of criminal offending in the general population).

                      A predictive tool to identify those ‘at risk’ of criminal offending could be developed based on that statistic (which is already collected and available in many datasets).

                      In fact, that ‘tool’ has already been invented and is, of course, often called racial profiling.

                      The difference can be put in stark terms: being a young Maori male does not cause criminal offending but it does (statistically at the population level) predict it.

                      For those interested, this is all part of the esoteric debate between those known as ’empiricists’ and those known as ‘scientific realists’.

                      Interestingly, much standard economic modelling seems to be of this empiricist kind and tends to eschew realist scientific theorising (i.e., production of theories that postulate hidden, generative causal mechanisms – e.g., such as William Harvey’s theory of the circulation of blood through veins and arteries).

                      An unfortunate consequence of that – given the leverage economists often have in the policy space – is that the public, and presumably many politicians, often interpret these economic ‘theories’ – i.e., statistical and mathematical models – as causal scientific theories.

                      But they aren’t. (Folk theories – appealing to ‘common sense’ – are sometimes used to provide the de facto causal explanation in support of the predictions of the modelling.)

                      That misunderstanding I think helps create all kinds of dangerous ‘unintended consequences’ in the social policy space – e.g., beneficiary bashing, retributive impulses towards those who commit crimes, anti-Maori racism, etc..

                      Fortunately there are growing areas such as behavioural economics, evolutionary economics and neuroeconomics that are trying to introduce ‘proper’ scientific theorising into economics.

                      For too long, economics, it seems, has relied upon Smith’s postulates about human nature as the only realist bit of theorising in the discipline.

                      Much science has been done on the general topic of ‘human nature’ since Smith’s time.

                      Until recently, that science seems to have passed economics by.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 July 2015 at 12:54 am

                      I agree entirely Puddleglum.

                      In fact IMO it’s one of the reasons that economics so far has been more religion than its acolytes’ pseudoscientific pretensions would have is believe.

                      If you went to the doctor with an ache and the doctor made a diagnosis solely on how your stats matched epidemiological data, your doctor should be done for malpractise.

                      It doesn’t work in medicine, it doesn’t work in economics, and it won’t work in social work.

            • Charles 4.3.1.1.1.2
              30 July 2015 at 9:35 am

              Indeed. To use the crash test dummy analogy:

              It’s like putting real people in a test car and sending it into a crash wall at 130kph, knowing full well the impact will kill them (ignoring earlier research), and purposely neglecting to first reduce the speed to a level that will not kill, but just give them a headache.

              But why you’d do it that way – even try to give them a headache – just exposes 1) total lack of ethics in aims (and lack of education or skill in research techniques) , 2) psychopathy 3) really really poor science 4) being told to do it that way by your employers/funders/Minister.

              Tolley must go, so must the so-called officals. They were her people. In fact, the whole fucking lot have to go, which makes the argument kind of pointless. Get rid of these psychos – problem solved.

              • RedLogix …
                30 July 2015 at 11:00 am

                Again cause and effect being horribly muddled.

                It’s not the researchers putting these kids at risk. They are ALREADY strapped into the seat of life – and some of them are ALREADY hurtling towards the crash wall.

                We are just not sure which ones.

          • RedLogix 4.3.1.1.2
            30 July 2015 at 9:28 am

            But how is NOT observing these children going to make anything better either?

            It’s not as is the researchers were proposing to actively intervene in their lives in order to set them up for abuse and crime. It really amounts to exactly the same thing as any other major longitudinal study – but with some predictions thrown in to test some ideas.

            Social science is full of these issues because you really have no alternative but to conduct your research on real people – and the more serious the problem being studied – the more difficult these ethical issues become. That is why these supervisory committees exist.

            But in each case you have to also include the impact of NOT doing the study as well.

            • vto 4.3.1.1.2.1
              30 July 2015 at 9:36 am

              Some screwed up negative backwards type statement/questions in there methinks RL, in particular first and last sentences.

              Then there is this
              “It’s not as is the researchers were proposing to actively intervene in their lives in order to set them up for abuse and crime.” ……….. Yes they were, from what I can see. They were going to actively intervene by way of active non-intervention

              Sounds like you are familiar with these things, but I would suggest that if this sphere of study has got to this point then it has gone way too far down the rabbit hole and needs hauling out by the bunny tail for a severe telling-off

              • RedLogix …
                30 July 2015 at 10:52 am

                Yes they were, from what I can see. They were going to actively intervene by way of active non-intervention

                And NOT doing this kind of study is a massive non-intervention as well. You just cannot have it both ways. This is exactly the same as many other hugely valuable research projects such as:

                http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/

                It’s been running over 40 years – and almost certainly it has included individuals who’ve been victims of harm, abuse and crime. Want to shut that one down as well?

                • Grant …
                  30 July 2015 at 11:10 am

                  Quite a different thing as there was no attempt at predicting outcomes before the study started and then standing back to see if it actually occurred. Taking a slice of the general population and following their lives (including presumably State interventions) is not the same. Can I draw your attention again to the Cartwright enquiry into the “unfortunate experiment ” which is a much closer analogue to this proposed study by MSD.

                  • RedLogix …
                    30 July 2015 at 11:26 am

                    Now you are doing the pin dance.

                    From the perspective of the participants the effect of the study, whether it is passively observational only like the famous Dunedin study – or this new one where the researchers were also attempting to use the data to validate a proposed predictive model – is exactly the same.

                    • Grant …
                      30 July 2015 at 11:33 am

                      The ethics of such studies is based only partly on the effect on the subjects. It is also based on the state of knowledge of the researchers. Do they know or suspect that an UNINFORMED control group are at risk without intervention yet CHOOSE not to warn or inform or intervene.

                      Again, this is why the MSD proposal bears striking similarities to Green’s study.

                    • RedLogix …
                      30 July 2015 at 11:45 am

                      Do they know or suspect that an UNINFORMED control group are at risk without intervention yet CHOOSE not to warn or inform or intervene.

                      They have a proposed diagnostic model, but until they have tested it against real life they cannot use it in the manner you suggest.

                      It may for instance throw up a rate of false positives or negatives which render it impractical to use.

                    • Grant …
                      30 July 2015 at 11:58 am

                      “They have a proposed diagnostic model, but until they have tested it against real life they cannot use it in the manner you suggest.

                      It may for instance throw up a rate of false positives or negatives which render it impractical to use.”

                      Which is precisely the rationale used by Green to justify his study and which the Cartwright Inquiry found to be ethically unacceptable.

                    • RedLogix …
                      30 July 2015 at 12:06 pm

                      But Cartwright had the benefit of hindsight – by 1987 it was known that early medical intervention was indeed the right thing to do. But when Green started the study in the 1960’s no-one knew that for certain.

                      Again I ask the question – what if it had not been the case? What if Green (and others) had not done the research and it turned out that early intervention had killed many women instead?

                      What Green did miss out was the ‘informed consent’ part. But again this was a consideration made in hindsight – in the 1960’s this was not thought of as so important. Indeed given the role of the placebo effect it was considered a simple way to ‘blind’ the study.

                    • weka …
                      30 July 2015 at 5:19 pm

                      I think that’s misleading Red. I don’t know about 1960, but in later decades what Green was doing was unethical by contemporary practice at the time. It wasn’t the benefit of hindsight, it was the women at the time (patients, staff, feminist activists), who called the medical staff and the hospital on the practice and a stop was put to it.

                      That in the 1980s it was still very hard work to break the doctor is god ethos simply reflects that the culture was unethical too. But it’s not like the ethics hadn’t been discussed before that time. People didn’t suddenly have an ephiphany in 1987 about what was right and proper, people knew for a very long time, that’s the whole point, and that’s why we’ve had subsequent processes in NZ like the development of the Health and Disability Act.

                • vto …
                  30 July 2015 at 11:12 am

                  I think you’re missing the point..

                  “It’s been running over 40 years – and almost certainly it has included individuals who’ve been victims of harm, abuse and crime. Want to shut that one down as well?”

                  If a researcher on this one see one of the subjects about to harm themselves and the researcher does nothing about it then absolutely yes it needs to be amended.

                  I think you can’t see the wood for the trees RL

                  • RedLogix …
                    30 July 2015 at 11:20 am

                    That isn’t how these studies work.

                    The researchers are not hovering 24/7 over the shoulders of anyone. If something bad happens to one of the people participating the researcher usually only finds out about it well after the event.

                    They simply are not in the business of intervening – that’s the role of other institutions like the Police.

                    • vto …
                      30 July 2015 at 11:23 am

                      Yes and that is why I used the word ‘if’.

                    • Grant …
                      30 July 2015 at 11:29 am

                      The point is that they are using existing diagnostic tools to predict in advance that a certain very vulnerable group is at risk and then proposing to take a “watch from afar” role in order to see whether the predicted harm comes to pass.

                      This is what makes this case so similar to Green’s experiment at National womens. He actually suspected that intervention was the way to go, but didn’t intervene and watched the cancer develop in order to develop data to support his case for intervention. (From Memory).

                    • RedLogix …
                      30 July 2015 at 11:48 am

                      So Green’s alternative was to never do the research and hope that early intervention was the correct model. As it happened it was.

                      But what if it had not been?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 July 2015 at 12:25 pm

                      Green had plenty of ethical alternatives. For instance, he could have told affected women that their case had reached an early cancer stage and would they like to exit the study and get treatment.

                      By doing so he could have avoided accusations that he was playing God with other peoples lives.

                    • greywarshark …
                      30 July 2015 at 12:42 pm

                      CV
                      I’m glad to see you put it so clearly. There was an alternative, which would have allowed his study to run with useful findings and you have explained it.

                      The medical profession is strong on trust being important which comes up often when a desire for ethanasia to be legal comes up. But they will countenance some dodgy practices from within their own.

                      Green’s experiment would have caused a massive lack of trust in doctors when family concerned found that Green had allowed the cervical cancer to advance too far for healing treatment. Particularly among the people who had to arrange to go with Mum or daughter from the regions to the clinic in the city many times, at their own cost I should think, but always disruptive of family life and trusting him to care for her and advise the true situation, and ask for permission to delay treatment and explain outcome which was not done properly.

                      Details:
                      http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/

            • Sabine 4.3.1.1.2.2
              30 July 2015 at 10:05 am

              did any of these children volunteer to be part of the study group?

              that is your difference to your group trying experimental medicine. The guys that are dying of cancer might volunteer for a new drug to be tested for a. a cure that will heal them, or b. a cure that may heal those that get ill long after the study subjects have died.

              However, the babies/newborn/little children in this ‘study group’ would most likely not have volunteered or consented to this study. And as far as i am concerned if we know that a child is in danger of abuse we have a duty to call CYF or the police.

              So again….?

              • RedLogix …
                30 July 2015 at 10:56 am

                No-one volunteers for abuse or illness either.

                And as far as i am concerned if we know that a child is in danger of abuse we have a duty to call CYF or the police.

                And at no point would have this study stopped these normal processes. No-one was proposing that the researchers just let it keep on happening for the jollies of it.

                All it was attempting to do was predict the risk of abuse – and no-one can act to prevent this before it happens.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  30 July 2015 at 12:29 pm

                  And at no point would have this study stopped these normal processes. No-one was proposing that the researchers just let it keep on happening for the jollies of it.

                  The briefing note the Minister got clearly said that follow up would be at 2 years, to see if predicted negative outcomes had in fact occurred.

                  • McFlock …
                    30 July 2015 at 1:41 pm

                    But this is different to not letting CYF intervene if abuse is detected through the normal methods, e.g. a teacher reports it.

                    Folk are acting like the study was designed to look at the kid’s factors at birth, then refuse to provide any social service or government interaction for two years, upon which time they just count how many of the kids are dead.

                    As it is, the lack of assessment could simply result in a number of kids being labelled “at high risk” when they’re not, wasting resources and at worst resulting in needless prosecution (false positive “high risk” kid breaks arm as simple accident, and the risk rating makes people more suspicious of abuse which changes their enforcement bias) while genuinely at risk kids are ignored.

                    • marty mars …
                      30 July 2015 at 4:22 pm

                      “Folk are acting like the study was designed to look at the kid’s factors at birth, then refuse to provide any social service or government interaction for two years, upon which time they just count how many of the kids are dead.”

                      Can you read it another way? Graphic language aside that is a good summing up imo.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 July 2015 at 4:35 pm

                      Yes.

                      The predictive model is untested and possibly either not sensitive enough (so it doesn’t actually help in the prevention/detection of harm) or not specific enough (so resources are rationed from those in greater need to those in little to no need), so making intervention decisions based on that model is not just unwise but could possibly do more harm than good.

                      So no interventions should be made based on that model until its reliability as a screening tool is known.

                      Interventions based on all the systems currently in use would still be made, and where the model predicted those interventions, that’s good for the model, where the model did not predict those interventions, that’s bad, and where the model predicted interventions were required when they were not, that’s also bad.

                    • marty mars …
                      30 July 2015 at 4:40 pm

                      Thank you that clears it up.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 July 2015 at 4:50 pm

                      well – that’s how I’d do it.

                      There are real concerns with using macro data to make predictions about specific individuals, though, simply because the closer you look based on assumptions the more likely you are (and the more inclined you are) to find something, so it reinforces one’s prejudices rather than being a genuine tool.

                      That’s essentially the problem with racial profiling by police.

                      I tend to follow the philosophy that macro data can make extrapolated predictions at a population level, but you need direct case data to draw conclusions about individuals. But then this predictive model comes along so if a case worker makes a judgement based on the facts of the case they might have to second-guess the model. But if they do that, it’s on their head if they’re wrong, but if they just say “computer says abuse” their arse is covered.

                      I guess my issue is with the concept of the model itself and what it will be used for, rather than the testing proposal.

                    • marty mars …
                      30 July 2015 at 6:27 pm

                      Yes the racial profiling is an issue and they can’t seem to help themselves in doing it.

        • Grant 4.3.1.2
          30 July 2015 at 9:33 am

          “An unfortunate experiment”?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartwright_Inquiry

    • just saying 4.4
      30 July 2015 at 9:43 am

      Except there needs to be some check that Tolley’s “interventions” don’t do more harm than they prevent. Given how intrusive this kind of monitoring of people who have committed no crime is, and the profiling involved, some checks do need to be done.
      From what I understand, these families are going to be treated as criminals rather than given extra support and resources. It would be better to provide families with what they need, but this is not the ‘treatment’ that these families in the control group are missing out on, nor is it the default for vulnerable families or people in need generally.

    • greywarshark 4.5
      30 July 2015 at 9:44 am

      If Anne Tolley stops anything on the basis of it being wrong I wonder what’s the real reason.

      I thought the predictive model was to identify the most at risk of family violence or distress, and ensure that the family concerned had assistance through the difficult years. Presumably that could involve learning better parenting methods, and coping strategies.

      But needed is understanding that concomitantly a lot of the problem arises from chronic poverty and people’s necessary accommodation to the way of life that brings. The money worries, regular shortages or absence of comfort and meeting of needs with no hope for better conditions would remain as the elephant in the room. That would not have been helped by this callous, irresponsible government system at presently operating.

      Watching to see if the predictive model was effective did not have to mean, not doing anything. The government welfare arm is not a nature photographer or researcher recording nature unrestrained. Just watching and stepping in when needed, supporting and helping to a certain extent, then stepping out and monitoring the effectiveness of that help, would have been enough to provide results for assessment without the strict extreme required for academically rigorous proof.
      That would have shown an honest willingness on the part of government and Tolley but from her past history, it has been observed that she is not a person who wishes well to the strugglers of our country.

      We have an aristocratic mutation grown in our society, which is more the meritocratic model. And these self-satisfied higher educated highly paid people regard themselves on the one hand as exceptional and deserving of high rewards, and on the other hand as models that anyone who wanted to achieve the same lifestyle, could follow if they tried and worked harder. Contradictory thinking.

      Now we have the code of deserving and undeserving that goes right back to the cold charity, unwillingly ladelled out with many strictures, of the 19th century. How we have advanced! Not.

    • weka 4.6
      30 July 2015 at 10:39 am

      “What is wrong with our society???”

      The thing that bothers me is that this is now so deeply embedded in the civil service culture.

      This one stood out:

      “It attempts to predict abuse, welfare dependency and the likelihood of a child’s downward spiral into crime on the path to adulthood so it can better target spending.”

      Why are they measuring is spending targeting rather than assitance targeting? They’re not the same thing, but I think it’s clear that it’s all about the money now.

      • marty mars 4.6.1
        30 July 2015 at 10:57 am

        Yep – all about the money. – better target spending ffs

        It will be interesting to see this model with the indicators on it – I wonder what it says…

        Do you have or have you had a parent or relative in Jail for any period of time?

        Are you a person of colour or do you have a ‘Māori’ sounding name?

        Do you know anyone that HASN’T been abused?…

      • RedBaronCv 4.6.2
        30 July 2015 at 8:36 pm

        Well if we want to target spending, ministerial expenses are out today.
        Now maybe should we start profiling MP’s to see which ones will spend more time in the mini bar than others adding to the public health bill , which ones won’t find receipts or want to stay at only the best hotel which ones are going to have their kids brought up by the state after a broken marriage, add in a drug test or two so they don’t get paid until they are clean.

        That way we could pick the one’s that don’t cost as much.

    • McFlock 4.7
      30 July 2015 at 12:04 pm

      the thought that occurs is that, while I disagree with her decision, credit to Tolley for actually doing her job and making a decision based on an interpretation of what she actually read.

      CF. the serco debacle where the information was handed on a plate and ignored until it hit the media.

  5. Penny Bright 5
    30 July 2015 at 8:33 am

    FYI.

    30 July 2015

    Will PM John Key personally profit from the TPPA?

    Where’s my OIA reply Trade Minister Tim Groser?

    Dear Minister Tim Groser,

    I STILL do not have a reply to this now overdue and VERY urgent OIA request.

    [Penny, you have been asked not use cut and pastes. Just give a brief summary and a link. Last chance. TRP]

    See original OIA here: http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28072015/#comment-1050873

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1
      30 July 2015 at 9:21 am

      We will all profit from the TPPA, Penny.

      • vto 5.1.1
        30 July 2015 at 9:29 am

        how?

        • Charles 5.1.1.1
          30 July 2015 at 10:01 am

          it easy vto, just close your eyes, clear your mind, say it slower:

          WE WILL ALL PROFIT FROM THE TPPA.

          Silence thought. Thought is all in your mind.

          The National Party have good intentions.

          Anyone can see that. Anyone at all.

          WE WILL ALL PROFIT.

        • Macro 5.1.1.2
          30 July 2015 at 5:21 pm

          The fool is referring to the 0.1% . All of the 0.1% will profit.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2
        30 July 2015 at 11:38 am

        No we won’t. The majority of people will be worse off.

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.3
        30 July 2015 at 11:46 am

        Major corporates and their shareholders will definitely benefit from the TPPA. That’s why they are the ones pushing hardest for it. And keeping it secret.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.3.1
          30 July 2015 at 12:31 pm

          They’re keeping it secret because negotiating in public tends to make negotiation difficult. That is why they have all been done this way since the beginning of time. By everyone.

          Last year, we made a billion and a half dollars from the China FTA. Tax on a billion and a half dollars is about $400m. We spent that on shit you guys like getting for free.

          • thatguynz 5.1.3.1.1
            30 July 2015 at 4:08 pm

            Oh really TGF? So how come the teams of all of the top corporations in the US have seen/influenced the documents?

          • Blue Shorseshoe 5.1.3.1.2
            30 July 2015 at 4:25 pm

            1. Prove it

            2. Show where the money went

            3. Show how much China has extracted from and or will extract going forward. Oh and illustrate environmental damage and other societal mess left behind by the FTA

            Quite comfortably you are one of a most puerile posters here which is saying something

            Coming across as a fuck-wit comes exceedingly easily to you

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.3.1.2.1
              30 July 2015 at 7:22 pm

              Coming across as a fuck-wit comes exceedingly easily to you

              Thanks, man. Coming from you, that means a lot.

          • half crown 5.1.3.1.3
            30 July 2015 at 5:14 pm

            ” We spent that on shit you guys like getting for free.”

            Really !!

            And what shit was that then ?

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.1.3.1
              30 July 2015 at 5:28 pm

              Gormless doesn’t like education, healthcare, ACC or border controls, apparently.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.3.1.3.2
              30 July 2015 at 7:23 pm

              Health. Education. Welfare.

              What would you cut $400m off half crown?

              • half crown …
                31 July 2015 at 10:05 am

                Gormless wrote @12.31 pm 30.7.15

                “What would you cut $400m off half crown?”

                Try these for starters
                Welfare for

                Rio Tinto,

                Warner Bros. I noticed Jackson is still on the rich list. Hasn’t he done well assisted by the tax payer

                Sky City

                Any sporting body who’s participants want to play at life i.e. America’s Cup. and once again hasn’t Couttss done well via the tax payer.

                Pay down the massive debt (now at over a billion) created by that double dipping dickhead from Dipton giving tax breaks to the higher income earners who do not pay the same % of their income through tax avoidance.

                Private schools, If these prats want to send their offspring to an elitist school to learn how to rule, don’t expect tax payers to subsidise it

                Charter Schools, a dismal failure but still being bailed out by the tax payer.

                Stupid referendum on the flag that nobody wants

                Gold plated perks for ALL Members of Parliament for life.

                Let’s start having a bit less of the corporate welfare, when the money should be allocated to other areas.

                Nothing is free we all contribute with our taxes the only ones getting it free are the likes of Rio Tinto.

                You wrote

                “We spent that on shit you guys like getting for free. “

                I see you have used the royal “we”. Who the fuck are the “we”? More to the point who the fuck are you? You are not another non society Randian brain dead fuckwit are you, who thinks that you have some god given right and privilege and first go over other people.

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  31 July 2015 at 10:25 am

                  I am all for no corporate welfare.

                  • half crown …
                    31 July 2015 at 10:29 am

                    “I am all for no corporate welfare.”

                    Well that’s good news, Thanks for that.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      31 July 2015 at 10:44 am

                      How will Labour reduce our reliance on the dairy sector without corporate welfare, I wonder?

          • Instauration 5.1.3.1.4
            30 July 2015 at 11:43 pm

            But when all parties to the negotiation have seen the position documents – why would you not release the position documents to the people whose position is described ? Todd couldn’t quite deliver clarity on this,

  6. Adrian 6
    30 July 2015 at 8:40 am

    On the face of it this TPP directive looks to put even the Superfund on the skids forcing it to be run by private operators taking a bigger cut and even EQC to give way to the big insurance companies.
    The new age of serfdom is just around the corner.

  7. adam 7
    30 July 2015 at 8:44 am

    I missed this the other day and it was thrown back into my to view box on youtube I think after watching your video today Morrissey – So thanks. It raises some great points about the workings of propaganda in The USA. Which, I think we see here. I’m thinking the NBR or the herald are probably our equivalent.

  8. ianmac 8
    30 July 2015 at 10:03 am

    A post from David Hood over on Public Address is rather technical but also disturbing. It seems that billions of dollars are entering the housing market but it is not known from whence it comes. He calls it Magic Money.
    He also looks at the flaw in the “supply side” claims.
    David says “somethings up.” Indeed.

    http://publicaddress.net/speaker/house-prices-and-the-magic-money/

    • lprent 8.1
      30 July 2015 at 4:56 pm

      It is a good analysis based directly on data reported to the Reserve Bank. I read it this morning.

      The divergence between local mortgage funding and the funds tied up in houses over the last 15 years, especially since 2006 shows a bloody disturbing pattern of excessive speculation, and catastrophically in the last 4 years.

      Unless of course some ideological numerically challenged idiots can point to funding sources in the local economy for hundreds of billions of dollars, I’m just going to assume this is from cheap overseas money piling into speculating mainly on Auckland properties.

      In fact I am going to take a little informed leap and say that just at present most of the magic money appears to be coming from mainland China – because it is logical and backed by some rough but statistically valid evidence.

      This isn’t a particular attack on Chinese despite what dickheads chose to believe. The problem is that there is nothing to stop people with capital that isn’t working much anywhere in the world looking for reasonably safe property investments with good returns continuing to pile it high in the Auckland market. The consequences for Auckland as a working city are dire.

      I’d also point out to our numerically illiterates who were quoting David Hood’s analysis at me last week, that this magic money was what all of his previous analysis said as well. They just hadn’t read the comments carefully enough to understand what it meant.

      I guess that I’ll just have to educate our local numerical idiots for a few years about the value of data and how to read it.

      (if anyone hasn’t figured out that I’m annoyed by some of the blatant ideological stupidity I saw last week, can probably detect it now… )

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 8.1.1
        31 July 2015 at 8:19 am

        So angry all of the time. Try a comment without using “idiot” and “dickhead”. If you put love into the universe, you get it back. It’s science, dude!

  9. greywarshark 9
    30 July 2015 at 10:26 am

    Nauru is going through a crisis with the President and leaders rejecting democracy in favour of direct, dictatorial action to suit themselves. Australia and the flow of money and the dumping of aliens in bad conditions on the island causing strain on the political system has probably tipped the balance.

    In addition Nauru’s leaders looking round the world, have the example of barefaced dictatorial behaviour in Fiji by Bana….and the military there. There is Mugabe who has found a satisfactory system for him to grasp and hold onto power in Zimbabwe. There is the willingness for the USA to support countries with undemocratic political systems when it suits the USA.

    The powerful democratic nations can surprisingly, act against encouraging the system of democracy in their own as well as other countries, with it virtues of valuing of individuals as well as groups. But the empty rhetoric about it continues while the undermining of it goes on.
    edited

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      30 July 2015 at 11:35 am

      as the social, economic and environmental conditions of individual countries deteriorate, we will see the process of democracy continue to get hollowed out or abandoned.

  10. Puckish Rogue 10
    30 July 2015 at 11:17 am

    Breaking news! Whaleoil interviews Colin Craigs “Mr X”

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/07/exclusive-mr-x-talks-to-whaleoil/

    🙂

    [lprent: Looks like Cameron interviewing his cock – you can tell from its sense of morality.
    But more likely it is just Slater talking to himself. ]

      • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1
        30 July 2015 at 11:31 am

        Fair enough

        • freedom 10.1.1.1
          30 July 2015 at 11:43 am

          Would you agree the style of presentation suggests Slater really really really does not want this to go much further ?
          Apart from alluding to sexts and how he is obviously lusting after the associated scandal-mongering that would ensue, he appears to be concerned with the prospective duration and the potential for exposure from the legal proceedings.

          • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1.1
            30 July 2015 at 11:48 am

            Thats the problem with bully boys like Colin Craig isn’t it, they can afford to tie up people in the courts they threaten people with the courts

            Even the most biast, one-eyed, Whaleoil hater (otherwise known as the your average Standard reader) would agree that Colon Craig is just trying to keep his name in the public eye

            A damn expensive way to do it imho and its going to come back and bite him in the ass

            • freedom 10.1.1.1.1.1
              30 July 2015 at 11:56 am

              it’ll be like watching a chess game where most of the pieces are missing and only half the board is in view at any time

              • Puckish Rogue …
                30 July 2015 at 11:59 am

                I hope it does go ahead but I reckon Colon won’t go through with it which would be a shame

            • lprent 10.1.1.1.1.2
              30 July 2015 at 12:05 pm

              …would agree that Colon Craig is just trying to keep his name in the public eye

              Nope. I doubt if he cares enough about that particular role now.

              I suspect that he has decided (like so many of us) that Cameron Slater and other similar opportunistic arseholes just need to be eliminated from our political sphere. They don’t add anything. They lie routinely about facts because they care far more for the look of things than reality. They cause a lot of damage to the local political debate. They don’t add a damn thing to the debate because all they are concerned about is destruction rather than construction.

              Anyone sensible just needs to go a little out of their way to screw them over in whatever way is required to get them out of the way of the rational public debate. Flush them in such a way that no-one wants to try the same tricks again. Do the same to their rather disgusting apologists.

              Does this make it clear enough for you?

              • Puckish Rogue …
                30 July 2015 at 12:25 pm

                What it comes down to is you don’t like them therefore you support anyone that wants to take them down even if the people doing the “taking” are…dubious to say the least

                • mac1 …
                  30 July 2015 at 12:35 pm

                  Puckish, that could be restated as saying that the cause for which you may have allies is more important than who that ally is. Lprent has been very strong for a long time about Slater and his actions. Craig has just finally come to that realisation when he fell out with his fellow right wingers for whom Slater is the hack man.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    30 July 2015 at 12:41 pm

                    I’m just saying that championing people such as Colin Craig, you know the guy thats got his former PA tied up in a non-disclosure agreement yet seems to spread as many details about as his likes and Krim Dot Con is not a good look

                    • mac1 …
                      30 July 2015 at 1:16 pm

                      And I’m ‘just saying’ that people who look beyond that rather shallow interpretation of events will see that the cause which both Craig and many left -wingers espouse is the correct one.

                      That common cause is the rat-bag actions of a sociopathic individual who is used by others as their dirt-spreader and purveyer of pathogenic politics.

                      You know, Puckish, I never read of many individuals who criticised the New Zealand government for having allied with Joe Stalin in their common cause against fascism and Hitler. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

                      Secondly, who’s ‘championing’ Craig? A rather loaded word, there.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      30 July 2015 at 3:15 pm

                      Heres the thing though I don’t think Colin Craig is all that bothered by the cause so much as he can use it to stay in the limelight and convince the rest of followers that hes still a viable option for election

                      Desperate times call for desperate measures and this is hardly desperate except for those people who really, really dislike John Key

                      Its not a good look for the left to be cuddling up to drongoes simply because they don’t like certain individuals on the right

                    • freedom …
                      30 July 2015 at 3:40 pm

                      here’s a different thought:
                      As Colin Craig is reported as being a sternly religious person who obviously strayed off whatever path he was walking, perhaps the legal proceedings (he might be embarking upon) are a penance.
                      A form of redemptive service to allow him to reinstate his own conviction to his own beliefs.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      30 July 2015 at 4:25 pm

                      I hadn’t thought of that possibility, I guess thats as good a guess as any as to his motivations

                • lprent …
                  30 July 2015 at 5:35 pm

                  I don’t just dislike them. I think that they are dangerous and probably criminals.

                  I look at people and organisations as being potential dangers to our society and act against the worst of them first.

                  The conservatives I don’t like much because of their policies and attitudes. However they were acting well within the framework of political change systems in NZ. That means I will voice my opposition to them and their ideas, but respect their right to disagree.

                  Cameron Slater and the idiots at Lauda Finem, I view as acting as deliberately destructive fools who are too stupid to understand what they are really doing (read Dirty POlitics on the corrosive effects that they produce in politics). I also think that it likely that much of what they do is criminal. So I act against them as far as the laws allow, and encourage others to do so as well.

                  What is so hard for you to understand? This behaviour on my part must be pretty damn obvious even to posturing fools. FFS you rail against criminals here in a simplistic and rather stupid way all of the time as being a danger to society, in fact I have seen you do it today. You appear to follow the exact same logic – just because my reasons are a bit more thoughtful and less reflexive than yours shouldn’t make that much of a difference.

                  So your point is?

    • Puckish Rogue 10.2
      30 July 2015 at 12:28 pm

      Well yes I’m guessing its not serious but it is amusing

  11. half crown 11
    30 July 2015 at 11:59 am

    This could be of interest

    I did like Ross Ashcrofts comment

    “Austerity is back door privatisation”

    http://everyinvestor.co.uk/2015/07/23/video-film-director-warns-on-financial-crisis/

  12. Marvellous Bearded Git 12
    30 July 2015 at 12:10 pm

    Mainfreight just attacked the government’s lack of support for rail on RNZ saying just for Mainfreight alone if the rail system was closed this would add 21,500 truck movements.

    Stick that in your pipe Bill English.

    The Nats really don’t get the long-term vision thing.

  13. Chooky 13
    30 July 2015 at 12:54 pm

    Labour needs to introduce an Anti- Money Laundering BIll…banks need to be on notice!

    (Penny is right on the button to keep going on about the need for anti- corruption and anti -money laundering laws… especially as applied to what is going on in Auckland…It is no solution to Auckland’s problems to spread it to the rest of New Zealand )

    “The “wall of Chinese capital” hitting property markets in Sydney and Melbourne will not ease up until the government introduces its anti-money laundering legislation, says an expert in ‘flight capital’….

    The $US50,000 limit on exchanging Chinese currency into $US and $A was being breached in the majority of Chinese property deals in Melbourne and Sydney, and once the AML laws were introduced, the “wall of capital” from China would dry up.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/wall-of-chinese-capital-buying-up-australian-properties-20150628-ghztdf.html#ixzz3hFO1I1gK

    ( the same legislation is required in New Zealand)

  14. greywarshark 14
    30 July 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Is anyone else suffering from Facebook’s attentions more than usual lately? I get two or three a day from them telling me I have more friends than I know about exhorting me to embrace and tell all to the world. FT. I don’t want to share every little nook and cranny about me so they can read me like a hedgehog in a spotlight, and be at my elbow guiding me to sites where they want to sell, sell.

    Others seem to love fb and tweet. Yet as time goes on sinister things pop out of all these tech things like an evil genie.

    Zizek says that there is too much smoothing our way so we slide or are directed along well-oiled grooves with expected levels of satisfaction, rather than stride around our domain and find and experience new things, have serendipity meetings and surprises.

    • vto 14.1
      30 July 2015 at 1:42 pm

      The whole thing is a myth grey, a myth…

      just like the myth of getting more work done by having your emails sent to you day and night – doesn’t save time at all, just re-orders it to intrude into private time. No savings or advantages whatsoever…

      In the past in an 8 hour day, communicate 1 hour, work 7.
      Today in an 8 hour day, communicate 3 hours, work 5.

      Amply evidenced by recent projects completed which took same amount of time, money and effort as pre-email days…. i.e. internet communicatons provided no benefit to cost or time. Fact.

      Just like we were sold the idea of speed and ease of eftpos – ha ha ha ha ha

  15. greywarshark 15
    30 July 2015 at 2:14 pm

    Does you good to have a larf occasionally vto. Just a quick one and don’t burst a foo foo valve.

  16. Puckish Rogue 16
    30 July 2015 at 3:47 pm

    So can any lawyers on here explain why this guy doesn’t have a preventitve detention order slapped on him instead of a jail term in case he doesn’t take part in any courses and is still considered a threat when his sentence ends

    Surely judges should err on the side of keeping the community safe?

  17. lprent 17
    30 July 2015 at 5:01 pm

    The site is a bit slow at present. There is some clown in AWS east coast that has a new largish attack cluster that is a bit aggravating.

    I got up last night to put a preventative in. However that just limited the impact, which has continued to increase today. So page displays and comments are a lot slower today. It hasn’t been worrisome enough to divert more time to..

    I’ll be blocking the fool a bit more strongly after I get home, and getting their attack base shutdown.

    • lprent 17.1
      30 July 2015 at 7:24 pm

      Ok, that attack is toast. An interesting one to counter though. Almost worth writing a timewasting honey trap for.

      • b waghorn 17.1.1
        30 July 2015 at 7:38 pm

        Sounds like more fun than shooting tame lions in Africa for sure. How do you resist sending something nasty back down the pipe to fry his stuff?