Open mike 30/10/2015

72 comments on “Open mike 30/10/2015 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. North 1

   30 October 2015 at 6:26 am

   In its terms this Waatea News article doesn’t sufficiently indicate that SERCO runs Christmas Island –

   http://www.waateanews.com/Waatea+News.html?story_id=MTEzNDQ%3D&v=291#.Vi7jsfkk3-k.facebook

   This workpermit.com article expressly confirms that fact –

   http://www.workpermit.com/news/2015-01-22/serco-wins-5-year-australian-immigration-contract

   Stayed at the Taufua Fale at Lalomanu, Upolu, Samoa, couple of years ago. Recall sitting on the beautiful beach there looking out to Nu’utele Island – the site of a leper colony 1916-1918 – http://samoa.southpacific.org/upolu/eastern.html

   As I gloried in the warmth of Lalomanu and lively, embracing Samoan hospitality I would contemplatively muse – “How must life have been for those poor souls ?”

   It is a bitter, bitter irony that our Minister of Corrections Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is Samoan. How must life be Sam……in the SERCO establishments you continue to licence……thus smartening the investment portfolios of the British upper-middle class……gifting wealth way beyond need ?

   Deploying for a moment the risibly fake ‘Everyman’ diction of The Ponce-Key……”I reckon” if SERCO had been around in Germany and Poland in the 30s and 40s……there would have been some magnificent profit turned.

   Sam……like a boy you do your masters’ bidding and you truck with the corporate beast SERCO, seemingly without shame. You do that in our name. No ! No ! Where is Fa’a Samoa in you Sam ?
   • Morrissey 1.1

     30 October 2015 at 6:37 am

     He’s a politician, North. His primary loyalty is to the National Party.
     • North 1.1.1

       30 October 2015 at 7:06 am

       Mmmm……a National Party politician…….he and Alfred Ngaro, the fiapalagi bait The Ponce-Key patronisingly disported before Pasifika of South Auckland last election…….that turned out beautifully, didn’t it ?
2. Morrissey 2

   30 October 2015 at 6:36 am

   Britain’s Poppy Fascism
   by Finian Cunningham, 29 October 2015
   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43274.htm

   It’s that time of year again – when Britain’s “poppy fascism” dominates public life. Television presenters are perhaps the most conspicuous exponents, whereby the paper facsimile of the little red flower must be donned on all lapels.

   Now weeks ahead of the official commemoration day, more and more Britons, including TV personalties, are pinning the poppy in public.

   It may seem innocuous, but there is a disturbing authoritarianism to the increasing custom. Those who don’t wear the symbol commemorating Britain’s war dead are liable to be castigated and abused for being “traitors”.

   The BBC is a classic example. The publicly owned state broadcaster says that its presenters and reporters have the option of not wearing the red poppy. But in practice such is the peer pressure and jingoistic mood of modern Britain that all BBC staff will have to conform to a personal display of the red floral tribute. Bet on it.

   Some brave television figures refuse to go along with the established “norm”. It was Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow who coined the phrase “poppy fascism” a few years ago when he was publicly berated by BBC journalists and other media outlets for refusing to don the flower during his nightly broadcasts. It remains to be seen if the Channel 4 news anchor will this year cave to public pressure – a pressure which seems to be growing every year.

   Ever since 1919, Britain and its Commonwealth states, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand hold Remembrance Day on November 11.

   It marks the armistice of the First World War in 1918. The first commemoration was held by Britain’s King George V who wore a red poppy, thus inaugurating a tradition that continues to this day. The delicate flower was commonly seen on the battlefields of Belgium and France and came to symbolise the millions of soldiers killed during the four-year-old war.

   Across Britain, Remembrance Day is marked by sombre ceremonies in towns and cities during which poppy wreathes are laid at war memorials. The biggest event is held at the Cenotaph in London’s Whitehall. Queen Elizabeth, Prime Minister David Cameron and other political leaders will be among the chief dignitaries, along with senior members of Britain’s armed forces.

   So what, you may ask, is objectionable about Britain’s annual Remembrance?

   In its early observance, the event was indeed a momentous mourning for the millions who died in the First World War. It was an occasion to vow “never again” should mankind be plagued with such horror.

   However, the massive demonstration of grieving and repudiation of war has since given way to an obscene glorification of war. The danger of such co-option was there from the beginning when King George V led the first Remembrance Day. For the British monarch – whose cousins included Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II and other European aristocrats – personified the basic background to the conflict. It was an imperialist squabble that exploded into a conflagration that consumed up to 18 million ordinary civilians among the warring nations. ….

   Read more….
   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43274.htm
   • savenz 2.1

     30 October 2015 at 7:51 am

     +1
   • Ad 2.2

     30 October 2015 at 8:02 am

     Personally I find it the most respectful representation of war that I’ve seen.

     And I definitely wear it with pride.
     • Proud poppy wearer 2.2.1

       30 October 2015 at 8:04 am

       +1
     • miravox 2.2.2

       30 October 2015 at 8:48 am

       “And I definitely wear it with pride”

       On Remembrance Day I’d agree with you – pride or sorrow for the loss of lives spent in war or for futures than never were. But it’s not even November yet and the poppy is everywhere (peer pressure? It’s not meant to be a fashion statement). I feel this devalues the day itself.
       • Anne 2.2.2.1

         30 October 2015 at 6:00 pm

         Agreed. It’s like that beautiful word “awesome”. Once apon a time it was used in it’s correct sense. Something that filled one with awe. Now it has been debased by it’s gross overuse (young people especially) and it’s lost it’s status.

         The same will happen with the poppy remembrance. For that reason I refuse to wear it on any other day other than the 25th April.
     • Grant 2.2.3

       30 October 2015 at 10:16 am

       I’d agree with you if you’d said you wore it in sorrow.

       DULCE ET DECORUM EST

       Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
       Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
       Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
       And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
       Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
       But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
       Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
       Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
       Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
       Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
       But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
       And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
       Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
       As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
       In all my dreams before my helpless sight
       He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
       If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
       Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
       And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
       His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin,
       If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
       Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
       Bitter as the cud
       Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
       My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
       To children ardent for some desperate glory,
       The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
       Pro patria mori.
     • tracey 2.2.4

       30 October 2015 at 4:15 pm

       Which war did you both (Ad and Poppy with pride) serve in, if you don’t mind me asking.
       • Ad 2.2.4.1

         30 October 2015 at 9:48 pm

         Not at all. None. Thank God.
   • Proud poppy wearer 2.3

     30 October 2015 at 8:03 am

     Poppy fascism 🙄 what drivel
     • Morrissey 2.3.1

       30 October 2015 at 4:06 pm

       Poppy fascism what drivel

       ??

       Could you back up your rather emotional statement with an argument please?
       • Proud poopy wearer 2.3.1.1

         30 October 2015 at 6:18 pm

         The article you link to jumps from reasoned debate to an utter ugly and ill founded rant to fit the event to the author’s very public and well known counter-positions on monarchy, armed forces and UK government.

         As a retired serviceman the ceremonies are a tiny moment of peace and stillness to reflect as a nation upon the futility of war and the loss of friends and comrades through the years. It remembers, for example, the fight against Nazi Fascism and in all the other conflicts in which we are caught up – mostly as a result of the failure of Politicians and Diplomats.

         Those who shout loudest against events such as this have largely never worn uniform and put their lives in the hands of others. They do not recognise the value of service, they don’t see value at all, only cost. That is why, for example, the Monarchy that gives so many millions of people so much pleasure and generates so much for our nation, is the easy target for small minded and jealous writers whose own lives are monotonously dull and grey. For those of us who wore uniform, and who continue to do so, we do so for a variety of reasons – and not all are nationalistic or idealism – but ultimately because we are prepared to do so detractors are able to contort their faces into anger and shout their spittle laced messages from the safety of their own lives. The Poppy is a dignified sign of respect and thanks. If you don’t wear it that is up to you – freedom to exercise such rights is after all part of what we fought so hard for (unlike those compelled to wear a yellow star for example) – and frankly if you are so blinded by ugly rhetoric and cannot see the humanity beneath the November ceremonies you should not and neither are you decent enough person to be a Poppy wearer. Keep shouting – few are listening but many gave their lives that you could
         • Morrissey 2.3.1.1.1

           30 October 2015 at 7:24 pm

           What is your assessment of the New Zealand soldiers who murdered all those boys and men in Surafend in 1918, after the war had finished?

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2675357/Old-words-cast-fresh-light-on-Anzac-atrocity

           Do you think it acceptable that the RSA never spoke out against the massacre, and in fact published doggerel in its magazine in praise of the murderers?
   • vto 2.4

     30 October 2015 at 10:07 am

     It is about the people who died, nothing else.

     Certainly not about nationalism, not about the ugly military and their armies, not about government, not about the frikkin’ crown, not about politicians. Those things are all responsible for war and should be arsed out of the commemorations. Fuck them.

     Unfortunately today, it has morphed into nationalism, militarism, government, crown and politicians.

     It is fucked in the head and leading straight back to more war and death.
   • Grant 2.5

     30 October 2015 at 10:08 am

     I knew a simple soldier boy
     Who grinned at life in empty joy,
     Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
     And whistled early with the lark.

     In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
     With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
     He put a bullet through his brain.
     No one spoke of him again.

     You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
     Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
     Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
     The hell where youth and laughter go.
     • Anne 2.5.1

       30 October 2015 at 6:03 pm

       Thanks Grant. Said in a nutshell.
3. RedBaronCV 3

   30 October 2015 at 7:52 am

   Wellington employers Chamber of commerce wants to take action against the city council for issues around the living wage.
   On the board -detail on website -are
   Daniel Fielding – Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
   Richard Stone – JacksonStone & Partners
   Pierre Woolridge – Optimum Websites Ltd
   Charles Finny – Saunders Unsworth
   Zane Fulljames – NZ Bus.
   Linda Sissons – Wellington Institute of Technology (WelTec)
   Peter Cullen – Cullen Law, President
   Cas Carter – Massey University, Vice-President
   Olivier Lacoua – CQ Hotels
   Ian Cassels – The Wellington Company
   Brent Callaghan – Westpac
   John Dow – Agenda Limited

   Not exactly your small local business’s are they – wonder if the membership looks the same.
   You’d have though that on behalf on their members they would be more likely to support an increase in lower level pay and a hold on the upper level pay.
   After all that would mean more people outside their door with money to spend. Looking at the CV’s I suspect a number of them may have council contracts – is there a conflict of interets? Go on journo’s do your stuff – ask the questions.
   • Sanctuary 3.1

     30 October 2015 at 8:06 am

     The hysteria around this move by the WCC is incredible. What is it about people not electing the “right” local government that so gets under the skin of the neo-libs? Farrar is practically demanding a judicial coup against the democratically elected councillors complete with blood curdling threats of hefty fines – and all over less than $3,000,000 a year in extra wages?

     It is a bizarrely over the top authoritarian response from an increasingly intolerant and Fascistic right wing that seems to think anyone who doesn’t agree with them has no right to govern.
     • srylands 3.1.1

       30 October 2015 at 3:40 pm

       You think Farrar is neo-liberal? You know he is called “Pinko” right?
       • McFlock 3.1.1.1

         30 October 2015 at 3:51 pm

         only by the insane fringes of torydom that you inhabit.
       • tracey 3.1.1.2

         30 October 2015 at 3:53 pm

         I thought that was reference to his skin colour?
         • Grant 3.1.1.2.1

           30 October 2015 at 6:42 pm

           http://www.arkive.org/star-nosed-mole/condylura-cristata/image-G76377.html
   • vto 3.2

     30 October 2015 at 8:07 am

     Lovely people aren’t they.

     Pushing to pay people less than it costs to live.

     Fucking bludgers
     • Roflcopter 3.2.1

       30 October 2015 at 9:17 am

       Does that include the Councillors who voted for the living wage, but refuse to pay their own business staff it? e.g. Mark Peck
       • vto 3.2.1.1

         30 October 2015 at 10:04 am

         everyone
       • tracey 3.2.1.2

         30 October 2015 at 4:00 pm

         yes.

         So you are for it now that we have cleared that up?

         Westpac

         “Cash earnings in the New Zealand business rose to $441 million in the six months ended March 31, from $432 million a year earlier, the Sydney-based bank said in a statement. Net interest income rose 6 per cent to $832 million as the local lender grew its mortgage loan book 5 per cent to $40.7 billion and business lending expanded 5 per cent to $24 billion. Impairment charges on bad debts rose to $31 million from $4 million a year earlier, when the bank benefitted from provision recoveries.

         “We achieved good growth in New Zealand, supported by changes to our distribution network and the increased use of digital channels,” group chief executive Brian Hartzer said.” May 2015

         “…The Australian parent reported a small dip in first-half profit to A$3.61 billion, from A$3.62 billion a year earlier, with cash earnings flat at A$3.77 billion. “
   • Tautoko Mangō Mata 3.3

     30 October 2015 at 8:35 am

     Can I suggest that the Wellington Chamber of Commerce should be asked to come up with a weekly household budget for a person living on the minimum wage to support their argument with the Wellington Council.
     • savenz 3.3.1

       30 October 2015 at 9:18 am

       @Tautoko Mangō Mata – and then the chamber of commerce people have to live on it for a month.
       • Sabine 3.3.1.1

         30 October 2015 at 10:37 am

         and their families.

         lol…t’would be fun to watch……
       • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.2

         30 October 2015 at 1:04 pm

         A month wouldn’t be long enough. Needs to be a year at the very least.
   • Wainwright 3.4

     30 October 2015 at 10:44 am

     That line-up shows the chamber of commerce is just another rightwing front like the Taxpayer Union. Using the credibility of local business owners to push their agenda.
     • tc 3.4.1

       30 October 2015 at 1:51 pm

       yup ‘Charles Finny – Saunders Unsworth’ stands out amongst others.
       • savenz 3.4.1.1

         30 October 2015 at 3:20 pm

         And rent a place paying the average rent in Auckland.
   • Rosie 3.5

     30 October 2015 at 1:44 pm

     Despite the Chamber of Commerces’ hysterical (good word Sanctuary) reaction to the vote to retain the living wage for council staff and get council contractors on board with the living wage too, the main contractor in question, Recon, who provide noise control services to the WCC and whose staff would benefit from moving to the living wage haven’t said a word about it as yet. (Maybe they have and I missed it – or is Recon a member of the Chamber of Commerce and they want to stay under the radar?)

     It is absurd that their ideological viewpoint would prevent them from putting $$$ into potential customers hands to spend at their stores (eg John MIlford used to be CE of Kirkaldie and Stains, and look where that store has ended up after 150 years of trading – down the tubes, no customers!)

     Absurd too that Nicola Young, right wing councillor for Lambton Ward, in her opposition to introducing the living wage to council staff last year, said those on minimum wage get benefits from the government to top up their existence. I thought those nats thought people who receive benefits are bludgers, draining their precious tax payer $$$?

     By opposing the living wage in their blind mean spirited way, these guys are in fact opposing increased trade, let alone the reduction of financial stress in people’s lives, that which of course they couldn’t care about.
     • gsays 3.5.1

       30 October 2015 at 1:57 pm

       hi rosie,
       re. living wage being paid: there is a great ted talk that covers this amongst other things.
       put “plutocrats and the pitchforks are coming” into the search.

       essentially he helps to define capitalism and deals with inequality, arguing that the middle class is where jobs and growth are generated.

       while he is at it he smashes a few of those neo-liberal myths, eg.tricledown, raising minimum wages costs jobs etc.

       thoroughly reccommended 20mins.
       • Rosie 3.5.1.1

         30 October 2015 at 2:15 pm

         Thanks gsays. I’ve heard of Ted Talks but never listened to one. Do I just google ted talk and who is the speaker I look for? Ta.

         The other thing that just occurred to me is that is would make sense for a banker, ie, Brent Callaghan from Westpac of the board of the Chamber of Commerce, to oppose a living wage. If people could actually afford to live they would use their credit cards less and less for essential and non essential items.

         People like Brent, I would assume, would want workers to remain on low wages and be dependent on the bank for credit. The business of debt is big business for them. It’s pure profit.

         Imagine if wages in general went up. You’d get more side orders at your cafe, in addition to orders for mains, and more covers. People, once their debt is under control could do nice things like go out and enjoy themselves. Your business would increase, then you can all have wage increase too!!!

         Hey, go the whole hog, abolish GST and theres more money for everyone!!!

         We’d get our financial independence back!!!
         • Draco T Bastard 3.5.1.1.1

           30 October 2015 at 2:54 pm

           The speaker is billionaire Nick Hanauer and he makes some excellent points. Video here. He’s got an article up here as well covering the same ground.

           People like Brent, I would assume, would want workers to remain on low wages and be dependent on the bank for credit. The business of debt is big business for them. It’s pure profit.

           That is pretty much exactly how our financial system works.

           https://vimeo.com/71074210
           The poor are in debt because they can’t afford to live and the interest that they pay goes to the rich and then stays there because our banks create money to loan out rather than loaning out money that they have on deposit.

           Imagine if wages in general went up. You’d get more side orders at your cafe, in addition to orders for mains, and more covers. People, once their debt is under control could do nice things like go out and enjoy themselves.

           And they become nicer to everyone else as well as competition between people decreases. This is another reason why our government should be bringing back full employment as a policy setting.
           • Rosie 3.5.1.1.1.1

             30 October 2015 at 5:36 pm

             Thanks Draco. I’ve got 5 minutes into the Nick Hanauer talk, before I have to dash off and do things, and he’s talking alot of sense.

             Those boofheads at the Chamber of Commerce need to listen to what he says about inequality being bad for business, regardless of your moral stance – sort of what I was getting to above, in a less articulate way.

             In Robert Reich’s “Inequality for all” that same theme is covered: (Trailer)

             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9REdcxfie3M

             I’ve seen you post that “A flaw in the monetary system” video before and will give it a look later. And re the poor being in debt, I think it’s increasingly more the middle classes too. Everything points to out current system holding us back financially which affects us personally and socially. I believe our society is under a great strain but here in Nu Zuland I think those pitchforks are going to stay safely tucked away in their garden sheds for quite some time.

             PS: Stephanie has a good post on her blog Boots Theory about the living wage Vs the chamber of Commerce.
         • gsays 3.5.1.1.2

           30 October 2015 at 9:41 pm

           ‘Imagine if wages in general went up. You’d get more side orders at your cafe, in addition to orders for mains, and more covers.’

           that is one of points nick hanauer (thanks draco) makes;
           its a good thing if you pay your staff enough so they can afford to eat at your place.
     • tracey 3.5.2

       30 October 2015 at 4:14 pm

       Fighting to keep paying people what is regarded as insufficient to lead a decent life…
   • tracey 3.6

     30 October 2015 at 3:56 pm

     Oh the injustice, Council are SUCH bastards, paying a living wage to security guards. Westpac make billions a year in profit but pay their security guards 14.70 (gross) per hour to guard the loot
     • RedBaronCV 3.6.1

       31 October 2015 at 5:49 pm

       By evening this article had dropped way down stuffs online presence to near invisibilty-
       maybe not such a good idea by the Chamber?
4. Treetop 4

   30 October 2015 at 7:53 am

   Will there be a spin off for Fonterra in baby formula sales due to China increasing the population?

   In 1979 China introduced the one child policy, 400 million less births have occurred due to the policy. Not sure when but there has been a relaxation in some provinces to allow a second child due to an aging population. Knowing how many extra children have been born in the provinces with a second child would interest me as it would give an estimation of how many people may elect to have a second child.

   In rural areas often the parents go into the cities to work and leave their children in the care of grandparents.

   Increasing the birth rate is part of China’s vision for the next five years. I can now see why establishing the production of milk solids in NZ is important for China.

   At some point the population in China will reach 2 billion, it is currently 1.4 billion.

   During the year of the dragon the birth rate increases and during the year of the sheep it decreases. Planning maternity services for an extra child is just the start, next is housing, child care, education, health, jobs etc.
   • Treetop 4.1

     30 October 2015 at 8:00 pm

     There was a bit more on TV 3 news at 6 pm about the one child policy. A woman dared to have a second child, the child was deemed to not exist as there was no entitlement to health care, education or travel documents. I was left thinking how forward thinking this mother was.

     I would like to see all children who were born under the one child policy, treated the same as a first born.

     A neighbour mentioned to me that many children overseas have elderly parents in China. I also think that there could be a shortage of females.
5. Tautoko Mangō Mata 5

   30 October 2015 at 8:22 am

   “Court Orders USTR To Justify Industry Advisor Confidentiality In TPP”
   The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) next week is expected to provide justification for withholding from a Freedom of Information Act request the communications with its industry advisors as confidential commercial or financial information. The case involves communications in the lead-up to completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and could set a precedent for exemptions of communications with lobbyists.
   http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/10/29/ustr-called-on-to-justify-industry-advisor-confidentiality-in-tpp/

   Good and about time! In addition there needs to be a political donations disclosure requirement from lobbyists.
6. savenz 6

   30 October 2015 at 9:21 am

   These guys are raising money to make a documentary about TPP.

   https://www.pledgeme.co.nz/projects/4209-beautiful-democracy-documentary-on-activism-through-art
7. ianmac 7

   30 October 2015 at 9:27 am

   Wonder who wrote this Editorial? Interesting to see the connection between Slater and Hager.

   “Blogger Cameron Slater and author Nicky Hager have much in common, even beyond the emails one wrote and the other obtained, possibly illegally, now the Supreme Court has ruled computer files are property.

   Both claim to be journalists, and both have found their work subject to the scrutiny of the High Court……….
   …..The Supreme Court’s ruling suggests receiving illegally obtained email may be a crime.

   On this basis, Hager’s challenge to the police search of his house may be harder to sustain. But since his book served a public interest, free speech should prevail.”
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11537132
   • savenz 7.1

     30 October 2015 at 9:50 am

     Although data might be property is is clearly pretty different from physical property in the sense that the person still has the data even if it is copied. Also someone who wipes out data from the original should be treated differently than someone who just copies data.

     Also it should take into account where the data came from, is it Facebook? (already face book and many other sites keep copies on their servers even if they are deleted).

     In the Hager case, nobody can prove where it came from anyway. There is no proof it was stolen apart from what contempt of court Slater has said. Slater could have printed it out and lost it at the park or accidentally sent it to the wrong person – or what ever. Plenty of SIS and ACC scandals about this.

     The rumours are that Slater records everything like his conversations with the prime minister for example. He is not going to admit he ‘lost or accidentally’ sent the data off to the wrong person rather say it was not his fault and it was stolen.

     So I don’t think some sort of receipt of ‘stolen goods’ is applicable in the Hager case as a defence at all. So many holes in it.

     I just don’t think the police can prove anything on that one. In fact the police have always said Hager is NOT a suspect for criminal activity in the media.

     And even if the data was copied from Slater then the ‘for the public good’ will apply.
     • tracey 7.1.1

       30 October 2015 at 4:02 pm

       That Slater is th only person to get a public apology from our PM suggest to me that he does indeed KEEP. EVERYTHING.
8. Tory 8

   30 October 2015 at 9:27 am

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/288342/dotcom's-bid-to-stop-hearing-rejected
   Good to see common sense has prevailed and finally a decision will be made.
9. r0b 9

   30 October 2015 at 9:57 am

   Please come and join us on the Q&A with Alastair Thompson post…
   • weka 9.1

     30 October 2015 at 10:23 am

     just had my comment not appear, presumably into moderation. Is that the random bug?

     edit, nevermind, it’s there now 🙂
10. Ffloyd 10

    30 October 2015 at 12:16 pm

    Audrey young very wise not to open her opinion piece to comments. Lovely photo of esteemed pm with his stubby in his hand.
11. Tautoko Mangō Mata 11

    30 October 2015 at 1:07 pm

    TPP- the latest news and ongoing saga.
    TPP Text Needs Further Work After Japan; Release Not Expected For Weeks
    Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) officials will not be able to finalize the text of the agreement by Oct. 30, when a drafting and legal scrub session is slated to wrap up in Tokyo, meaning the release of the final text is still several weeks away, according to informed sources.
    http://insidetrade.com/
12. veutoviper 12

    30 October 2015 at 2:12 pm

    A further David Fisher article on the Hager/Westpac information release is on the Herald’s website today, which is a good round-up of the overall situation re banks and others providing information to NZ Police. It is somewhat hidden on the site, and I had missed it earlier and only heard about it through another blog site.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11537431
    • tracey 12.1

      30 October 2015 at 4:03 pm

      a cynic would suggest they didnt really want the spotlight on this… untilt hey discovered i tmight affect their bottom line
    • tracey 12.2

      30 October 2015 at 4:11 pm

      ” The simple act of transparency is likely to reduce the practice. That was TradeMe’s experience with its Transparency Report.”

      Interestingly, once a company publishes the number of requests it receives (but no identifying names), Fisher suggests it reduces the number of attempts the police make….
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    30 October 2015 at 2:43 pm

    And more information coming to light that it was foreign investors pushing our housing bubble:

    Overseas investors are deserting Auckland’s property market as the Government crack down on foreign buyers works, but experts say asking prices now remain too high for the remaining local buyers.

    There Idiot/Savant draws and almost correct conclusion:

    But the fact that it has had such a noticeable effect tells us something about the sort of money we’ve been playing haven too, and how a deregulated market enables foreign crime and corruption.

    A deregulated will also enable our own crime and corruption which is why the psychopaths like it so much.
    • savenz 13.1

      30 October 2015 at 3:27 pm

      Love the way the politicians denied it was foreign investors and some money laundering issue for so long in Auckland.

      Now there are some basic ways to curb foreign investment in place to buy a property and people are going to be taxed if it is resold before 2 years – we don’t have the run away prices.

      If they had bothered to do it 4 years ago, there wouldn’t be the mess!
14. AsleepWhileWalking 14

    30 October 2015 at 3:20 pm

    In creepy news, researchers discover how to use Wifi to see what’s happening inside your house.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3292246/Forget-X-rays-walls-using-WI-FI-Device-captures-silhouettes-identify-people-stood-CONCRETE.html
    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      30 October 2015 at 6:33 pm

      Take it you haven’t watched the first series of Continuum then?

      Admittedly, the idea there was to map the patterns of reflections of existing wifi and cellphone towers.

      And it’s not as if they’ve discovered anything – RADAR has been around awhile. It’s just now that they’ve developed the technological capability needed to do it.
15. Morrissey 15

    30 October 2015 at 4:25 pm

    So, Lord Lloyd-Webber, what would Jesus do about tax credits cuts?
    If there’s one thing he couldn’t stand, it was the poor whining on about being hungry.
    by MARK STEEL, The Independent, 29 October 2015

    George Osborne should be aware of his achievement, because he must be one of the first people to be warned he’s being too mean to the poor by a body made up of the aristocracy, people dressed in ermine and bishops.

    This proves his leadership potential, similar to a burglar being so determined he’s told by his colleagues: “Hang on, George, leave them the Sugar Puffs. We can’t take everything off the poor sods.” But instead of taking credit, he’s humble enough to explain the main issue of this uneasiness about cutting the income of the poorest people, which is that it creates a “constitutional crisis”.

    That’s the real pain that will be felt by the families who lose £1,300 a year. When children ask: “Why have we got to go without breakfast from now on, Mummy?” they’ll be told: “Because if we’re allowed to keep getting tax credits it would disturb an unspecified constitutional legislative protocol that may or may not have been established in 1910. Do you want to ruin that just for a boiled egg? Now remember, if you faint at school, chew on a finger.”

    Some of us might wonder how you can spoil a constitution when there isn’t a constitution. He might as well say: “The House of Lords has drawn over the masterpiece I painted, and murdered my stegosaurus.” But the most important thing is he’s explained thoroughly that the cuts won’t make people poorer at all, although they will save £4.4bn.

    To be fair, this is genius and if we all did it we would be much better off. To start with, we could call the electricity company and say: “I have to make essential savings, so from now on, I’ll only be paying half my bill. But don’t listen to anyone who suggests this will make you worse off, they’re all extremists.” Then you can get a trolley full of shopping from Sainsbury’s and insist you’re only giving them £2 as you have to make essential savings, but it’s fine because they’re not getting any less than if you gave them £70.

    Because, as Osborne says about tax credits: “It’s ridiculous that we give with one hand and take it away with the other.” So it’s much more efficient if we dispense with the “giving” bit of that process – which, after all, is the expensive bit – and stick to the taking away, which makes everything much more manageable.

    In any case, as the Government repeats about every issue, we all benefit from these savings because they create a strong economy which makes us all better off. So if you’re receiving tax credits, the most sensible thing to do is accept these cuts, then demand they take more off you, forcing you to place your floorboards on eBay and put a great aunt on the game, then you’ll be living the dream.

    This is why so many lords and ladies selflessly gave up their time to vote with the Government. Lord Lloyd-Webber, for example, hasn’t bothered voting for two years, because nothing in the past two years has really mattered. But this week he flew in from New York and cast his vote, because cutting tax credits to the poorest people in work is the one issue where he had to make a stand. And he’s so dedicated I don’t suppose he even checked to see whether he qualifies for tax credits himself, because for him it’s all about the principle. …..

    Read more…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-lord-lloyd-webber-what-would-jesus-do-about-tax-credits-cuts-a6713916.html
16. Morrissey 16

    30 October 2015 at 6:02 pm

    Mark Reason: New Zealand “deserved” to have that sixteenth man in 2011
    The Panel, Radio NZ National, Friday 30 October 2015, 4:50 p.m.

    Horrible, braindead, unsporting rhetoric from Reason and Farrar. All their faux-patriotic, one-eyed bullshit fails to convince Gayford or Mulligan, however….

    MARK REASON: [speaking slowly and carefully to show how serious he is] The appointment of the referee is very important. Think back to 2011: we all thanked the Lord that Craig Joubert didn’t penalize New Zealand once in that last twenty minutes. We DESERVED to have a hometown referee for our home final! ….

    DAVID FARRAR: I don’t think anybody will care if the Australians are complaining after the match, AS LONG AS WE WIN! Ha ha ha ha!

    CLARK GAYFORD: [dubious] Hmmmmmmm.

    JESSE MULLIGAN: [deeply uncomfortable] Heh heh heh heh….
    • b waghorn 16.1

      30 October 2015 at 6:16 pm

      I will admit I never knew there was/is any dessent over the last final due to the fact that I don’t watch much sport “news” ,sport to me is entertainment pure and simple and as a ex rugby player that’s my chosen entertainment.
      I’d put farrars comment down to a bit of pre game sledging .
      What do you get if you take the AB’s out of wallabies??

      Wallies!!:-)

      What do you make of the 95 final??
    • Reddelusion 16.2

      30 October 2015 at 8:24 pm

      It’s only a game of footy Morrissey a bit of light hearted banter is getting your knickers in a twist, chill as I have counselled you before, build a bridge re the 2011 rwc final, the result ain’t going to change
      • Morrissey 16.2.1

        31 October 2015 at 8:18 am

        It’s only a game of footy [sic] Morrissey a bit of light hearted banter is getting your knickers in a twist,

        First point: adults say “football”. Please don’t use puerile language.

        Second point: I don’t see anything lighthearted about systematic cheating, a referee who colludes in that cheating, and commentators like Mark Reason who claim that “we” deserved to have a “hometown referee” for that farcical match.

        the result ain’t going to change

        Lance Armstrong still has those Tour de France titles to his name. But perception of the worth and validity of his victories has changed. It wasn’t immediately apparent that he’d cheated; it was and is immediately apparent that the All Blacks did in 2011. Our pyrhhic victory in 2011 was immediately condemned by the French players, and in France generally. That this country has maintained a Soviet-level official silence over the scandal doesn’t mean people don’t actually know what happened—as Reason’s words so clearly demonstrate.
17. Morrissey 17

    30 October 2015 at 7:17 pm

    I’d put farrars comment down to a bit of pre game sledging.

    Fair comment.

    What do you get if you take the AB’s out of wallabies?? Wallies!!:-)

    http://static.commentcamarche.net/es.ccm.net/pictures/Ud6krzOUaQiVrbx4IWkuzUrMD8vWr4qbG1wMtmWKQ94r7Doi6fybXXnACJoLFtKR-lol.png

    What do you make of the 95 final??

    Epic match. I presume you are hinting at Laurie Mains’s muttering about “Suzy”. I wouldn’t trust Mains as far as I could kick him.

    I suggest you take a look some time at the 1999 final, which was in many ways a grim foreshadowing of the 2011 final. The commentators for Television New Zealand’s live coverage—Keith Quinn, John McBeth and Wayne Graham—were all clearly disturbed by the performance of another South African referee, Andre Watson.

    I’ll post more on that débâcle some time in the future.
    • b waghorn 17.1

      30 October 2015 at 7:29 pm

      You’re very willing to condemn kiwis yet you seem to not think it possible that the fledgling rainbow nation wouldn’t see winning the world cup by any means as plausible. Why so down on nz?
      • Morrissey 17.1.1

        31 October 2015 at 8:33 am

        You’re very willing to condemn kiwis

        I don’t condemn “Kiwis”. Most of my analysis concerns the performance or non-performance of South African referees in 1999 and 2011. I’ve acknowledged that while the All Blacks, led by McCaw, cheated flagrantly in 2011, so would have any team that was granted such carte blanche immunity by a “referee”. Read my posts again.

        yet you seem to not think it possible that the fledgling rainbow nation wouldn’t see winning the world cup by any means as plausible.

        Maybe it happened. I don’t trust South Africa any more than any other country. But there’s never been anything more than allegations about “Suzy”. I wouldn’t trust anything Mains said or says on that matter or any other.

        Why so down on nz?

        Once again: look at my posts carefully. My criticisms are mainly of the referees, both of them South African. The beneficiaries of Andre “The Warbler” Watson’s extraordinary 1999 RWC final performance—a chilling preview in many ways of what happened 16 years later—were not the All Blacks but the Wallabies.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS