Sack Henry Now.

241 comments on “Sack Henry Now. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. djp 1

   27 March 2009 at 6:32 pm

   Breakfast is full of boring fluff pieces… that was funny, stupid but funny

   It is interesting what subjects remain taboo these days.. nobody blinks an eyelid at explicit sexual innuendo for example
   • Macro 1.1

     27 March 2009 at 8:03 pm

     If you think that is funny then you are a seriously deficient individual. It wasn’t even sarcastic, and that is the lowest form of wit. It was nothing more than insolence and arrogance. Who does he think he is.
     • David 1.1.1

       27 March 2009 at 8:40 pm

       Maro, believe it or not we are alowed to make fun of this Green Peace woman, it is not against the law so it aint insolent and as for arrogent you dont know the meaning of the word. and it was funny Ive always thought the woman needed a wax or a shave.
       • Michael Over Here 1.1.1.1

         27 March 2009 at 9:00 pm

         You’re allowed to make fun of anyone you like. Just don’t expect to that you deserve a job on TV doing it.
       • Macro 1.1.1.2

         27 March 2009 at 10:26 pm

         There is a huge difference between making fun and insulting someone. And No! – public TV presenters should not be “making fun” of anyone – it is demeaning of them and it is not their job – they assume too much for themselves if they think they have that right.
         • Tigger 1.1.1.2.1

           30 March 2009 at 9:33 am

           Someone who saw the show originally airing swears that Henry was guffawing off to the side immediately after the Mills interview (this part doesn’t show up in any of the online versions). Why else would people email into the show to mention the facial hair unless Henry had given them the in here? Facial hair on a woman is hardly something to make you want to leap into print.

           Being vile to an invited guest about their personal appearance has nothing to do with political correctness. It’s just rude and mean. You can no more defend this than you could if I went on the show and smashed Henry in the head for being a misogynistic prick and defended myself by saying ‘I hit the sexist bastard to make a stand against being PC’.

           And let’s be clear – it is misogynistic – Henry would not have made similar remarks about some guy with odd facial hair (guys go on these shows sprouting mountains of ears and nose hair all the time and no one says a thing!).

           When asked for comment Mills herself has smartly kept refocussing the issue on the whole reason she was there – campaigning for people poisoned by French testing in the Pacific. Good on her and for the work she’s doing!

           If you’re worried about this don’t write to Rick Ellis, make a formal complaint to the BSA. The more formal complaints that are referred to the BSA the worse it looks officially for TVNZ.
2. Johnty Rhodes 2

   27 March 2009 at 6:36 pm

   Done, sent a reply supporting Paul as follows:

   ‘Please do not sack Paul Henry for describing Greenpeace’s Stephanie Mills as having a moustache (his view). Paul is a delight on TV and although he says some possible nasty things I like his manner and his way of making boring news stimulating.’
   • Monty 2.1

     28 March 2009 at 5:23 pm

     I concurr – a letter to TVNZ supporting Paul Henry as well as all the advertisers seems well in order. A delight to wake up each moring to this guy whi is funny and irrevant, The problem with the lefties is that they are incapable of laughing at themselves. No wonder they are such a drab and humourless lot.

     Paul Henry is one of the few remaining asstes TVNZ now has.
     • vinsin 2.1.1

       28 March 2009 at 5:29 pm

       I just have to say, so glad your back monty. Please don’t get yourself banned to soon, we’ll miss you too much.
3. David 3

   27 March 2009 at 6:40 pm

   Why sack Paul Henry? Unless he was instructed by his producer NOT to read the email there is no cause to sack him.

   The emails are printed out for the presenters to read, all emails given to the presenters go past the producer or the producers assistant. Once an email is passed on the a presenter they then have permission to read it on air.

   Its the producers arse on the line not Henerys. He was handed a loaded gun and told to fire it.

   Remember, the presenters are autoque readers, the “pretty” face in front of the shows producers. Ratings go up, more money from the ads, and we are all happy cos we get an extea bonus.
   • DeeDub 3.1

     27 March 2009 at 6:48 pm

     He was told NOT to read the emails but his producer in his cans and by his co-host….. He is WAY more than an autocue reader – always running his mouth of about things he knows very little about..

     It’s pretty obvious the guy thinks he’s the wit of the century.

     Maybe he’s stuck in the closet and angry at the world?

     Come OUT Paul, you’ll be so much happier….. and so will we.
     • David 3.1.1

       27 March 2009 at 7:33 pm

       The producer gave him the email, therefore he can read it. If they did not want him to read it they would not have given it to him.

       Let me be more clear. The producer gives the email / fax to Paul Henery, they say to Paul, read this on air, Paul reads it. The little fu**er is an autocue reader he does what hes told just like the rest of them.

       With the change of government we now have more leeway to be less sensitive and less PC. Labour are no longer the government get over it, we are going to have some fun at last, and make some money! higher ratings, more advertising. more income = bigger bonus! Poking fun at Green Peace and the Labour party WILL mean higher ratings, I make more money thats what its all about.
       • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1

         27 March 2009 at 11:10 pm

         With the change of government we now have more leeway to be less sensitive and less PC. Labour are no longer the government get over it, we are going to have some fun at last, and make some money! higher ratings, more advertising. more income = bigger bonus! Poking fun at Green Peace and the Labour party WILL mean higher ratings, I make more money thats what its all about.

         Lordy, what a target rich environment you provide. A right surfeit of fucking stupid.

         Sentences start with capitals. Greenpeace is one word. ‘That’s’ is a contraction, so is ‘it’s’.

         With regard to the content of your semi literate blurt, who is the ‘we’? Are you speaking for TVNZ, or just as part of the downtrodden mass of emasculated fuckwits that feels it has been so cruelly oppressed for lo these many years?

         If the former, that is interesting. Perhaps you could tell me what the target audience is for breakfast magazine shows.

         If the latter, that’s just sad. Are you really saying that you haven’t felt like you’ve had permission to say what you want while Labour was in power? What sort of lame arsed dickless wonder are you? Seriously.

         The whole shtick with the “pc silences me’ routine has got to be the biggest excercise in whiny arsed toddler level tantrum throwing that can be imagined. All it amounts to is a claim that you should be allowed to say whatever damn fool bigoted spiteful shit thing you want and others shouldn’t be allowed to call you on it. The fact that you frame it as you being silenced, when no one is silencing you at all, is almost freudian in it’s projection. What you really object to is that when you say bigoted shit, people call you a bigot.

         Harden up you big sook, ’cause we aren’t going anywhere and we find your shit offensive. We are going to keep letting you know about it, and sticking up for the people you pick on.

         Go ahead and have a wee cry that I’ve had some harsh words to throw at you. Prove me right.
         • Travellerev 3.1.1.1.1

           28 March 2009 at 2:14 am

           hear hear
         • illuminatedtiger 3.1.1.1.2

           28 March 2009 at 12:23 pm

           About time someone straightened that idiot out. Thanks PB!
         • John 3.1.1.1.3

           28 March 2009 at 12:29 pm

           Cry me a river! You are way too sensitive.
         • Michael Over Here 3.1.1.1.4

           28 March 2009 at 3:45 pm

           Well put. I say let the morons say whatever they want. Makes it easier to spot them and keep them from having any influence.
         • Scribe 3.1.1.1.5

           29 March 2009 at 8:44 pm

           PB,

           Not sure what “excercise” is. Can you elaborate?

           …is almost freudian in it’s projection…

           Bummer. That’s a possessive, so no apostrophe.

           Epic fail, grammar and punctuation policeman 😀
     • TightyRighty 3.1.2

       28 March 2009 at 8:11 am

       so it’s all right to question his sexuality, but not all right to laugh at a circus freak? your moral compass is all over the show
       • Ari 3.1.2.1

         28 March 2009 at 10:07 am

         How about it’s not alright to do either, and both of you should shut up? 🙂
4. DeeDub 4

   27 March 2009 at 6:43 pm

   I would have thought making fun of someone’s appearance like that on nationwide TV is ALWAYS wrong.

   Or can we have a go at pulling HIS appearance apart on air sometime?

   The f***king little reactionary weasel.
   • trademark 4.1

     27 March 2009 at 7:03 pm

     It’s a breakfast show – i.e., not the most stimulating or high quality television one can aspire to watch, especially when something as serious as the issue of victims of nuclear testing descends into a farce about supposed facial hair. If anything, this will probably attract more viewers – if these mainstream media programmes teach us anything, it’s that controversy, sensationalism and reactionaries sell.
   • Michael Over Here 4.2

     27 March 2009 at 9:16 pm

     Seriously. Was Henry channelling David Brent? The most uncomfortable part of the entire performance is his co-host literally begging him not to make an ass of himself and bring down the image of their show.
     • vinsin 4.2.1

       27 March 2009 at 9:25 pm

       Agreed. Peter has his head in his hands the whole time, and the whole floor went quiet. Most people would’ve realised they’d gone too far but Henry kept going like the fool he is.
5. Principessa 5

   27 March 2009 at 6:48 pm

   Firstly I want to disclose that I am “Gina”- I posted on this over at the Handmirror also.

   There’s is so much behind this to unpick but I want to put a case scenario to you. Tell me how this would be different:

   Let’s say Paul Henry interviewed one of our Chinese MP’s- say Raymond Huo or Pansy Wong.

   And let’s say a viewer faxed in something that read like “Wow, Pansy Wong has an accent. Maybe she should do something about that. Maybe she should learn to speak English properly.”

   Now Paul reading that out would be an absolute outrage wouldn’t it?
   • Phil 5.1

     28 March 2009 at 1:16 am

     It probably would, but you’re making the mistake of thinking that, in this increasingly superficial world, the two scenario are compatible.

     ‘Looks’ and ‘Fashion’ will always trump ‘message’.
   • Inventory2 5.2

     28 March 2009 at 4:03 pm

     Yet strangely, there’s no outrage when Labour MP’s mock Pansy Wong’s accent in the House, or make references as to whether Nick Smith has or hasn’t taken his medication – the joys of Parliamentary privilege eh 😉
     • vinsin 5.2.1

       28 March 2009 at 4:19 pm

       The difference is that Henry is on public tv and breakfast is watched by many people: parliament proceedings are not. You’re more than welcome to get annoyed by what happens in parliament as i do; however, because Paul is on national tv on a show that has fairly healthy ratings it means he should show a level of modicum and respect for his guests.
       Also in parliament ministers have to withdraw and apologize with they say something offensive; while you have a right to feel aggrieved with Labour taking the piss out of Pansy or Nick, you must also take into consideration the fact that parliament isn’t watched by the whole country, it has it’s own code of practice, and it also has it’s own disciplinary procedures.
       To be honest comparing the two is a redundant activity.
       • Pascal's bookie 5.2.1.1

         28 March 2009 at 4:27 pm

         And any way there is plenty of outrage about that stuff, and I certainly don’t see the level of defence of it that we are seeing from the righties here.
     • DeepRed 5.2.2

       28 March 2009 at 11:10 pm

       If you’re referring to David Cunliffe’s slip of the tongue a few years back, then I’m afraid that doesn’t count.
6. John Dalley 6

   27 March 2009 at 7:30 pm

   Complaint to Rick Ellis sent.
   Paul Henry is a complete Jackass and as David is obviously on as well i will need to point out the the ear-peace that they both have in their ears was telling him not to read the emails out.
   • David 6.1

     27 March 2009 at 7:46 pm

     John Dalley, you are not privy to what is said by the producer to the presenter via the earpeace.

     Again If the Producer did not want Paul Henery to read that email, Paul would not have been given it!

     Anyway it WAS funny!
     • Felix 6.1.1

       27 March 2009 at 7:51 pm

       Are you privy to that particular info yourself David? No? Think I’ll just go by what I heard Paul Henry say and do then, thanks.
     • Macro 6.1.2

       27 March 2009 at 8:07 pm

       “Anyway it WAS funny!”
       NO IT WASN’T” it was insulting and insolent.
       • David 6.1.2.1

         27 March 2009 at 8:16 pm

         No Marco it was funny, still is funny. It was insulting, but it was still funny. It wasnt insolent, being rude to Green Peace people is allowed therefore its not insolent. I suggest you get used to being insulted we have had a change of government, were allowed to have a non PC sense of humour now
         • Macro 6.1.2.1.1

           27 March 2009 at 10:30 pm

           You have a very twisted idea of what is funny! You are only taking this view “it is funny” because deep down you and every one else who has a modicum of decency knows that it was insolent and degrading!
         • Chris G 6.1.2.1.2

           28 March 2009 at 2:11 pm

           You David, are a royal fuckwit and a waste of space.

           And saying its fine because we have had a change of government? You are mentally unstable too.
7. mike 7

   27 March 2009 at 7:36 pm

   Get a sense of humour FFS. It strange how the lefties get all sensitive when one of their own get burnt but its SOooo funny when they are the giving it out.

   Harden up.
   • Felix 7.1

     27 March 2009 at 7:47 pm

     Grow up mike, this is way beyond left vs right politics and well above your tiny head.
   • Macro 7.2

     27 March 2009 at 8:11 pm

     The wingnuts think that insolence is humour..
     Just as in everything else they are wrong.
     If I insult you publicly and you have no recourse that’s funny is it??
     • David 7.2.1

       27 March 2009 at 8:33 pm

       Marco – There is nothing more fun than being insolent to some self important f-wit. so what you going to do about it.

       The woman does neet a shave, a wax or a brown paper bag over head for the sake of decency.
       • Macro 7.2.1.1

         27 March 2009 at 10:36 pm

         “The woman does neet a shave, a wax or a brown paper bag over head for the sake of decency.”

         I suppose you think that sentence “funny”! You just exposed yourself as a complete an utter moral degenerate. And bully to boot. I would be ashamed to even think what you have just said. You have no decency at all.
8. John Dalley 8

   27 March 2009 at 7:47 pm

   Are you a total idiot mike. It has nothing to do with sense of humour, it was rude and ignorant and he was told not to read the emails out.
   • mike 8.1

     27 March 2009 at 7:59 pm

     ..and thanks for the link guys, I have sent Rick an email congratulating him on not caving in to the PC brigade.

     He’s a bloody funny man
     • DeeDub 8.1.1

       27 March 2009 at 9:00 pm

       This is quite a common reaction on some of the sites I’ve seen…. all the way up to this at nzguitars.com:

       “He got himself in trouble that time.
       He’s a bastard, a good bastard.
       I think he is great, I like it that he is proudly politically incorrect.
       He alway pushes his luck.

       Moustaches on chicks is extra gross.
       Same as a big hairy growler, yuk.”

       It would seem he has fans – and just look at their intelligence level?
   • aj 8.2

     27 March 2009 at 8:01 pm

     I agree he was allowed to read the email, then let readers make up thier mind.

     What he did was editorialise, and way over the top. He could have launched the same insensitive spiel over John Keys jewish heritage of Bolger’s Catholic upbringing or any number of insults to a huge range of people and I would be equally offended.

     Well, I say we were warned. Anyone remember his pathetic Intrepid Journey’s episode when he manage to make me embarassed to be a fellow kiwi.
9. jtuckey 9

   27 March 2009 at 8:00 pm

   It is quite funny when a woman fronts as a spokesman on National TV for Greepeace with a tash that a Eric Estrada would be proud of – it could have been a clip from Monty Python or Not the Nine O’Clock news.
10. tsmithfield 10

    27 March 2009 at 8:12 pm

    If she knew she was going on TV, then why didn’t she shave first?
11. Brett Dale 11

    27 March 2009 at 8:22 pm

    Fire someone for that?????, Thats not very left wing of you, perhaps Paul should call the Union if they do in fact sack him and of course you have to support the union because they have your best interests at heart and not their political ideals.
    • Macro 11.1

      27 March 2009 at 8:32 pm

      If a worker continues to act outside of fair boundaries set by an employer then a Union would have no problem with the worker being dismissed.
12. Brett Dale 12

    27 March 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Even if he said it himself, he shouldn’t be fired for it The fact is he was reading out freakin emails, I think he was trying to show how stupid bigoted people are, I think it was satire, I suppose people here would want the music of Randy Newman or the comedy of George Carlin banned also?

    In saying that, I hate it when people make fun of people like that, it reminds me of the bullies at school, the ones who have thier special table in the common room, that only they can sit at, and you better not be too tall, too short, too fat or too skinny or different, or else its open season.
    • George Darroch 12.1

      28 March 2009 at 5:48 pm

      Have you watched the clip?

      Paul Henry shrieks with hysteria: “A woman with a moustache! A woman with a moustache!”

      If you watch the clip and there is nothing to suggest he is doing anything but agreeing with the statements.
    • Joseph 12.2

      28 March 2009 at 7:05 pm

      You’re comparing Paul Henry to George Carlin?

      You need your head looked at.
13. RT 13

    27 March 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Thats two strikes so far. Another one and he should be gone
14. Macro 14

    27 March 2009 at 8:40 pm

    its not satire!
    Wiki defn
    “A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that “in satire, irony is militant”.[2] This “militant irony” (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack.”
    He wasn’t even attempting to be sarcastic, he was just down right insulting!

    Your right though about the bullying – that is what he was on about – because she has a different agenda to his.
15. the sprout 15

    27 March 2009 at 8:40 pm

    Trouble is Henry is so consistently beyond the pale that this sort of thing is almost expected of him and largely overlooked.

    I think Henry’s never gotten over his profound humiliation as a failed National candidate losing a safe blue rural seat to a Maori transexual. Says a lot about how personable people find him. I think now he just pre-emptively acts like an arsehole as an emotional self-defence.
16. Felix 16

    27 March 2009 at 8:41 pm

    You know a thread’s beyond repair when Brett’s comments seem like the thought-out ones. (Not that I agree with them).
17. Dean 17

    27 March 2009 at 8:41 pm

    Time for some hate speech laws right? I mean, it’s not as if humans don’t judge each other based on appearance every single day.

    And you all absolutely LOVED the chinless scarf wearers comment from your former deity, but I guess what’s sauce for the goose doesn’t necessarily taste so good when you’re the gander?

    Pathetic.

    “And let’s say a viewer faxed in something that read like “Wow, Pansy Wong has an accent. Maybe she should do something about that. Maybe she should learn to speak English properly.’

    An accent is exactly the same as having excess facial hair? Really?

    You need a reality check, Gina.
18. tsmithfield 18

    27 March 2009 at 8:47 pm

    Dean “An accent is exactly the same as having excess facial hair? Really?”

    An accent is something you can’t readily change. Facial hair can be sorted out in about two seconds. Honestly, even as a male, if I had some scruffy bit of bum fluff under my nose and I knew I was going to go on TV I would shave it off. If I didn’t and Paul Henry made some comment about it, I would think it fair enough.
19. Principessa 19

    27 March 2009 at 8:48 pm

    My point Dean is that some people seem to be comfortable with this Sexist behaviour, yet I don’t think they’d tolerate Racial prejudice in the same way.
    • Dean 19.1

      27 March 2009 at 8:51 pm

      You’re entirely deluded if you think that racism is in any way comparible to this.

      I see you dodged the old bullet though. What’s your opinion on people who make derogatory remarks on people’s religious beliefs? I await with baited breath for your condemnations of this, as well and the former PMs comments.
      • Principessa 19.1.1

        27 March 2009 at 8:57 pm

        Give me a link for what you’re referring to please so I can educate myself about what you are talking about?
        • Dean 19.1.1.1

          27 March 2009 at 9:10 pm

          Clark and co called the exclusive brethren “chinless scarf wearers”.

          Like you didn’t know what I was talking about. If you’re pretending you didn’t know that already then that says more about you than what you’re trying to make a point about.
        • Felix 19.1.1.2

          27 March 2009 at 9:36 pm

          Yeah I wouldn’t mind a link to that either, Dean. Google reveals nothing but blog commentary as far as I can see.

          I’m sure you’d be able to point to a source though, you seem pretty sure of your facts.
          • Dean 19.1.1.2.1

            27 March 2009 at 9:46 pm

            “Yeah I wouldn’t mind a link to that either, Dean. Google reveals nothing but blog commentary as far as I can see.

            I’m sure you’d be able to point to a source though, you seem pretty sure of your facts.”

            Are you actually joking, Felix?

            Are you that much of a doublethinker that you can’t remember this happening?

            Really?
          • Felix 19.1.1.2.2

            27 March 2009 at 10:18 pm

            I’ve heard people say it, but I’ve never read or heard the source.

            If you can point me to a link I’d appreciate it, I’m quite interested in the origins of memes.

            I’m only asking you because you make it sound like it should be easy to find out about but I tried and came up blank – if you don’t know the details of it just say so and I’ll stop asking you.
20. Principessa 20

    27 March 2009 at 8:54 pm

    So Sexism is not as bad as Racism? Is there an ism-heirarchy I am unaware of?
    • David 20.1

      27 March 2009 at 9:00 pm

      This aint sexist, its funny and offensive at the same time. What makes it even more funny is the response.
      • Michael Over Here 20.1.1

        27 March 2009 at 9:12 pm

        What’s funny about pointing at someone and braying “moustache!” like a donkey? Seriously, the united states gets witty comedians on TV like Jon Stewart but we get this? There are hundreds of talented people that would kill for a chance at Henry’s job, I say give them a chance.
21. illuminatedtiger 21

    27 March 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Does anyone see similarities between this and what happened on Alt TV?

    For those who don’t know Alt TV screened some nasty (racist from memory) text messages during an afternoon concert. It later eventuated that the person in charge of screening them was drunk and the channel were forced to close for an afternoon as “punishment”.

    There is essentially no difference between the drunk text screener and Paul Henry (except Paul’s lack of judgment is likely hereditary) – they’re performing the same task. If there is a difference it’s that Alt TV’s screener got sacked and Paul Henry will be able to continue with his moronic rantings and ravings for the foreseeable future.
22. DeeDub 22

    27 March 2009 at 9:06 pm

    By the way I GUARANTEE if the ‘chick with a moustache’ had been representing anything Henry believed in (Starship Hospital, Cancer Kids etc) he wouldn’t have read a single email against her, facial hair or no….

    Notice he managed to get in another bloody cheap shot at Greenpeace. He can’t attack the message with any authority so he attacks the messanger.

    If Henry said stuff like that about MY daughter I’d fly to Auckland and drop the bastard.
    • David 22.1

      27 March 2009 at 9:13 pm

      DeeDub – Is your daughter a bit on the hairy side?
      
      [lprent: Banned 1 week. Read the policy]
      • illuminatedtiger 22.1.1

        27 March 2009 at 9:14 pm

        Care to piss off? Save that rubbish for the sewer.
        • David 22.1.1.1

          27 March 2009 at 9:18 pm

          Whats your problem? No Im not going to “piss off” why dont you!
      • DeeDub 22.1.2

        27 March 2009 at 9:17 pm

        No mate, but every woman is someone’s daughter, eh?

        How about some good old fashioned basic respect for others feelings on our national broadcaster? Too much too ask?

        Henry took the opportunity to have a go at Greenpeace, which he despises, by taking a cheap shot at their spokesperson.

        F**ked!
        • Patrick 22.1.2.1

          28 March 2009 at 9:03 am

          Feminists like Mills spend their entire lives trying to look masculine.
          Paul Henry just gave her a compliment
          • George Darroch 22.1.2.1.1

            28 March 2009 at 5:52 pm

            Wow, this whole thing brings out the sexist trolls.
    • Dean 22.2

      27 March 2009 at 9:15 pm

      “By the way I GUARANTEE if the ‘chick with a moustache’ had been representing anything Henry believed in (Starship Hospital, Cancer Kids etc) he wouldn’t have read a single email against her, facial hair or no .”

      Have any proof of your assertion? Take your time. Give us some even halfway comparible situations he’s been in where he’s done what you’re accusing him of.
      • DeeDub 22.2.1

        27 March 2009 at 9:19 pm

        Dean, it’s a supposition not an assertion. It can’t be proved or disproved.

        But just ask yourself the question and be honest.

        Can you see him treating this woman like this if she had been representing some sensitive charity or such like?

        I doubt it.
        • Dean 22.2.1.1

          27 March 2009 at 9:23 pm

          But you “GUARANTEE” it, DeeDub.

          Either you put up some evidence with this GUARANTEE (emphasis all yours) or you admit you’re wrong.

          Just because you dislike the man – and I share that dislike – doesn’t mean you get to say what you like about him.
          • DeeDub 22.2.1.1.1

            27 March 2009 at 9:24 pm

            OH MY GOD! You semantic-obsessed trolling asshole.

            So you don’t like him either but you’re willing to defend him for such vile behaviour?!!

            I retract the word ‘Guarantee’. Satisfied?

            I’m ‘fairly sure’ (as any sane person would be) he wouldn’t so berate a representative of a ‘sensitive’ lobby group – but if you’d rather argue semantics all night good luck to you…
          • Felix 22.2.1.1.2

            27 March 2009 at 10:11 pm

            If we’re going to get all semantic over it then Dean, you should know what a guarantee means.

            DeeDub’s guarantee was that Paul Henry wouldn’t do some specified thing. The guarantee doesn’t mean he has to prove anything, it means that if he’s proved wrong by Henry actually doing the specified thing, then DeeDub would be required to submit to some kind of forfeit – maybe you get to fuck his Dad, for example.

            It doesn’t matter anyway as he’s withdrawn the word “guarantee” but there it is.
23. Schwule 23

    27 March 2009 at 9:09 pm

    Is a married woman sexist when she openly lies about being happily married to a strange man for over two decades while she has a girlfriend called Judith?
    • vinsin 23.1

      27 March 2009 at 9:20 pm

      Schwule, no. And way off topic. Tread carefully sir.
24. vinsin 24

    27 March 2009 at 9:16 pm

    My god, what planet is Henry on. Serious ailments like cushings and ovarian cancer are mentioned and his retort is to say “go to a group.”

    And he didn’t just read out the emails, he read out the emails, then placed an editorial comment afterwards. He didn’t need to do that, he could’ve moved on like Alison was saying. I don’t think he should be fired for being offensive, i think he should be fired for being an idiot of gargantuan proportions that doesn’t follow the producers, or his co-hosts advice.
25. the sprout 25

    27 March 2009 at 9:29 pm

    The comparison with Alt TV is a good point.
    This needs a good rash of BSA complaints:
    http://www.bsa.govt.nz/
26. justthefacts 26

    27 March 2009 at 9:35 pm

    Paul Henry is the best presenter/host that TVNZ have, all he did was tell the truth.

    MIlls DOES have a moustache, it DOES look ridiculous, and of course all Henry did was read out emails.

    Get over yourself Tane, you wold have no issue at all had Henry been having a laugh at the expense of a member of the business world, indeed I often see posts on this site that one could take as being in extremely bad taste yet you say nothing.
    • vinsin 26.1

      27 March 2009 at 9:46 pm

      He didn’t just read out emails, he added an editorial comment afterward. Later on in the show he kept going on about the moustache, he was not reading emails then.

      He fucked up. Period.

      As for Tane getting over himself and him not caring if a member of the business world got ridiculed, well, that’s a moot point. Business take care of themselves and there would be anger amongst the right-wing community who would complain. Who’s going to complain about Henry ridiculing a greenpeace woman on the right? Perhaps your moniker could do with a rejig to something like, “just un-thought out drivel that often gets shot down and proved wrong,” i know it’s a bit long but at least it’s correct.
    • Tane 26.2

      28 March 2009 at 10:05 am

      I don’t think it’s okay to abuse a position of power to publicly ridicule someone like that. This isn’t about who Stephanie is or who she works for, it’s about holding the powerful to account for their actions.

      Paul Henry’s shown by his serious lack of judgement that he’s not fit to be on our screens.
      • George Darroch 26.2.1

        28 March 2009 at 5:56 pm

        He didn’t “tell the truth”. He screeched like an 8 year old talking about wee wees. It degrades him more than anything, but that doesn’t make it any less a breach of common decency that we expect, treating other people with respect, and section 6f (particularly), 6b and 6g of the BSA code.
27. Dean 27

    27 March 2009 at 9:45 pm

    Deedub:

    “OH MY GOD! You semantic-obsessed trolling asshole.”

    You can call me names all you like, but you’re the one who said it. I’m not quite sure how quoting you back is trolling though.

    “So you don’t like him either but you’re willing to defend him for such vile behaviour?!!”

    I can’t stand Paul Henry. It’s called “freedom of speech”. You should look into it sometime.

    “I retract the word ‘Guarantee’. Satisfied?”

    Sure. So, you didn’t mean it to be so ironclad when you used the word? If not, why did you choose it?

    “I’m ‘fairly sure’ (as any sane person would be) he wouldn’t so berate a representative of a ‘sensitive’ lobby group – but if you’d rather argue semantics all night good luck to you ”

    You’ve got no actual proof he wouldn’t do so then.
    Doesn’t that make your entire rage against the machine pointless?
    • Felix 27.1

      27 March 2009 at 10:29 pm

      That’s not what guarantee means, Dean. I explained it above. It means if Henry does what DD guarantees he won’t (ridicules an equally hirsute right-winger on his show), you get to fuck his Dad (or whatever the terms of the guarantee were).

      It’s semantics, but no more so than your comment and it has the added bonus of being true.
      • Dean 27.1.1

        28 March 2009 at 12:24 am

        Thank goodness you don’t have any legislative power, Felix.
        • Felix 27.1.1.1

          28 March 2009 at 1:07 am

          What difference would it make to you, Dean? You don’t have a fucking clue what’s going on around you as it is.

          You don’t know the meanings of commonplace words and you haven’t managed to back up anything you’ve said all day.

          You’re like Brett Dale with spellcheck.
    • vinsin 27.2

      27 March 2009 at 10:57 pm

      While we’re harping on semantics here i’d just like to point something out dean.

      “It’s called “freedom of speech’. You should look into it sometime.”

      Freedom of speech is a two way street. Paul is allowed to say whatever he wants; however, we don’t have to agree with it or like it and we can use our freedom of speech to say, “he’s a fuckwit,” complain, and so on. Freedom of speech is a right, not a defence.

      Perhaps freedom of speech would work better if it was a one way street where everyone could say anything about anyone and not have any repercussions…but i doubt it.
      • Dean 27.2.1

        28 March 2009 at 12:22 am

        I think you missed the part where Tane calls for him to be sacked. Perhaps you’d like to lend your support to some hate speech laws?

        I think you also missed the whole freedom of speech part. Never mind, with enough effort im sure you’ll understand it at some stage.
        • Pascal's bookie 27.2.1.1

          28 March 2009 at 12:46 am

          No Dean, it’s not a freedom of speech issue. Henry’s freedom of speech means he can say whatever he wants as a citizen, and the government shouldn’t prevent/punish him.

          It most certainly does not mean that he can say whatever he wants as an employee of a television station, or that the television station can’t fire him for the things he says on their broadcasts.

          If you think about it real hard, for quite some time, I’m sure you can think of examples of things people can get fired for saying in all sorts of jobs. For television presenters, speech is absolutely not free while they are working. Think real hard about it and I think you’ll figure out why, at some stage.
28. mike 28

    27 March 2009 at 9:47 pm

    “Serious ailments like cushings and ovarian cancer are mentioned and his retort is to say “go to a group.’

    If it was not a Greenpeace spokeperson vinsin Henry would not have responded like that.
    It’s disgusting how people like you pull out “serious disease” faux outrage when the women is unshaven only because it fits with her genre
    • vinsin 28.1

      27 March 2009 at 9:56 pm

      The “serious disease faux outrage” that you speak of is not faux at all. He should’ve shown some sensitivity, followed his co-host’s lead, and shut the fuck up.

      As for “fits with her genre,” well maybe, i fucking hate hippies but that doesn’t mean i don’t get pissed off when a woman (it doesn’t matter to me that she’s a greenpeace chick) gets mocked on national tv because of a purely physical flaw. I don’t give a shit if a woman gets mocked because she’s an idiot, or naive, or lacking in sensibilities but i draw the line at taking the piss out of someone’s appearance. It’s purile, immature, childish and beneath anyone with any kind of standards.
29. justthefacts 29

    27 March 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Vinsin

    Don’t you think that editorial comment was hilarious?, I sure did as did the bulk of the people watching the show, in fact I have not spoked to anybody who did not think it was a brilliant bit of TV.
    • vinsin 29.1

      27 March 2009 at 9:58 pm

      No, i didn’t find it funny. That’s not to say that i wouldn’t find it funny if i was with my mates having a beer and taking the piss out of someone privately but on national tv i think it’s best if presenters show a bit of respect, a bit of decency, and don’t go for easy laughs.
    • Felix 29.2

      27 March 2009 at 10:32 pm

      in fact I have not spoked to anybody who did not think it was a brilliant bit of TV.

      I’m just going to leave that there…
30. justthefacts 30

    27 March 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Lets see, what is worse

    Chinless scarf wearers?

    Cancerous and corrosive?

    That lady has a moustache?

    I think you will find that the last comment is the least offensive by some distance, at least is was factual.
    • Dean 30.1

      28 March 2009 at 12:29 am

      Sorry, but you’re going to have to provide LINKS on the INTERNET showing members of the former government said these things. Otherwise, Felix and co will refuse to believe it.

      It’s like they refuse to believe it could have happened. Quite astounding.
      • Felix 30.1.1

        28 March 2009 at 12:59 am

        Actually Dean, in real life you do have to provide references for your statements if you want people to take you seriously.

        As for the chinless scarf thing I thought I explained this already – I don’t doubt that it could have happened, I’ve just never heard the actual source of the comment you keep referring to and I WOULD actually like to.

        If you can’t help me find it then just say so, Dean.
        • George Darroch 30.1.1.1

          28 March 2009 at 6:02 pm

          Well, I never thought that “cancerous” was in any way insulting to cancer sufferers. Cancerous is an adjective referring to cancers, rather than people.

          I can see why people might take it the wrong way, but it was never something intended to be insulting to anyone (except Brash, and his politics of division).
        • Dean 30.1.1.2

          29 March 2009 at 12:40 am

          Still prentending it didn’t happen I see, Felix.

          Never mind. I’m sure Labour will be back behind the cabinet benches before too long. Hopefully before then you learn to pay attention to what politicians say.

          No, I’m not going to do your homework for you in other words.
          • Felix 30.1.1.2.1

            29 March 2009 at 5:02 pm

            Dean why don’t you try saying something like “Oh I don’t really know the details either but I’ve heard it mentioned around the blogs quite a bit and it sounds believable enough to me”.

            I’m trying to help you, Dean. I’m trying to help you save a little bit of face.
        • Strathen 30.1.1.3

          30 March 2009 at 3:01 pm

          Apologies for my lack of knowledge in showing links, if a moderator feels the need, please change these:

          Mallard saying chinless etc: http://tinyurl.com/d49uqc

          Clark calls Brash “cancerous and corrosive.”: http://tinyurl.com/chqp2c
          • Felix 30.1.1.3.1

            30 March 2009 at 3:30 pm

            Thanks Strathen, I didn’t realise that was something Mallard had said in the house.

            And justthefacts didn’t even know it was Mallard who said it, so we’ve all learned something.

            See Dean, that’s how you point to things that you know about.
31. astounded 31

    27 March 2009 at 10:16 pm

    So I suppose people with a lisp or a stutter or a wart/mole on their face or a cleft palate will be fair game for broadcasters now?

    Because judging from the apologists on this thread, mocking inherent/inborn characteristics such as female facial hair is “hilarious”.

    FYI: People, it’s called maturity.
32. Aj 32

    27 March 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Such interesting responses from David tsmithfield justthefacts and their ilk, very revealing. They are condoning a personal attack on a person because they look ‘different’

    I presume they would also excuse Paul making degrading and insulting comments about a wide range of people. Including adults and children with other pyhsical or mental disabilities.
    • Linda Axford 32.1

      27 March 2009 at 10:42 pm

      So, waxing is cheap Mr Henry? On your salary, what about getting those buck teeth seen to, it might stop you from spraying your co-host with spittle everytime you make one of your stupid childish jokes. While you’re at it, how about getting your lack of maturity checked out, must be a cinch with the salary from TVOne. You’re the only cheap thing going….

      By the way, I can’t stand you and never could, Linda Axford
      • Linda Axford 32.1.1

        27 March 2009 at 11:41 pm

        I remember Paul Henry commenting on a female rower’s legs many months ago, thinking ‘how absurd’, but nothing was mentioned over this. Henry really needs those thick glasses, there wouldn’t be much for him to comment on if he were blind, in fact he’d have to use his ears….

        Linda Axford
33. QoT 33

    27 March 2009 at 11:13 pm

    It’s hilariously telling how vociferously some commenters here feel the need to defend their right to mock a woman’s appearance.
34. Madeleine 34

    27 March 2009 at 11:20 pm

    It was funny TV.

    I felt for the woman as having a problem like that is embarassing and having it all over TV is not nice but its like any personal problem that is visible, if you are about to go on TV you pop that pimple, you wipe that snot, you clean your face, you do your hair, you put on makeup and tidy clothes, you wax/shave your mo.

    If it had been over something that was not a matter of personal care, such as “gee she was ugly” then fair enough.

    All people did was point it out. Everyone is being ridiculously over-sensitive.
    • vinsin 34.1

      27 March 2009 at 11:38 pm

      Madeline, if that was your mother, your sister, your friend on television would you be happy to have them ridiculed like that? Would you be being overly sensitive if you got pissed off with Paul? Also, if she did have a wax she’d have a red patch over her lip, and maybe later she’d get in-grown hairs. Maybe Stephanie thought she’d be judged on what she had to say and not what she looked like – imagine that.

      Yes all people did was point it out – Paul didn’t need to editorialize though, he also was told not to read them. It’s kind of like when you point at a down’s syndrome kid and say, “look at the retard,” or when you say, “look at that fatty.” It’s fine if you do it with your friends at home or privately but not if you’re on tv – well, not if you want to keep your job that is.

      I imagine Paul will have to publicly apologize, which he should do privately anyway. If Paul had apologized on the show as opposed to thinking he was funny and continuing to dig himself a hole i imagine this wouldn’t be talked about so much.

      It’s not being over-sensitive it’s called calling someone on being a dick when they’re being a dick.
    • Macro 34.2

      28 March 2009 at 12:37 pm

      And you call yourself a christian Madeleine!
      • Chris G 34.2.1

        28 March 2009 at 2:22 pm

        She is a ‘christian’ warped by her political ideology.. the worst type of zealots.

        eg. jumping to defend Henrys degrading comments just because the other righties are… whilst admitting she felt for the woman. But Madeleine tells us that was okay because he only mentioned her level of personal care.. had he insulted her as ‘ugly’ it would have been a problem.

        Thats fucking Twisted and you know it.
        • Felix 34.2.1.1

          28 March 2009 at 2:31 pm

          Christianity does require an ability to hold several contradictory beliefs simultaneously. A rational person, by definition, is incapable of this feat.
          • Macro 34.2.1.1.1

            28 March 2009 at 7:48 pm

            Does it? That’s a fairly bold statement to make. That’s your opinion. I hold a different one Felix.
          • Pascal's bookie 34.2.1.1.2

            28 March 2009 at 8:27 pm

            Care to explain the trinity?

            Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, there is only one God.

            There is no insult in saying that there are many doctrinal aspects of Christianity that are not rational.
          • Felix 34.2.1.1.3

            29 March 2009 at 5:05 pm

            It’s an entirely rational statement to make actually Macro, and your opinion is neither here nor there to the question of it’s rationality.
    • Ag 34.3

      29 March 2009 at 2:40 am

      You used to throw terrible public tantrums when people mocked your appearance when you were at Waikato.

      This was uncalled for. To give an example. Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley aren’t particularly attractive women. Sure, it was fine for satirists to mock them up to a point… on comedy shows, but mocking them after they had given a straight interview on a news talk show would have been unacceptable.
35. Craig Ranapia 35

    27 March 2009 at 11:25 pm

    Tane:

    Sorry to say this, but I think your initial call was the right one. Giving a second-rate presenter on a third-rate waste of airtime and money any more publicity is entirely counter productive.
    • ak 35.1

      27 March 2009 at 11:53 pm

      This goes way beyond “2nd-rate presenter” material Craig: as I would hope you realise, this is 1000th-rate person behaviour. Moronic, nauseating, cruel and utterly repulsive on a multitude of levels – and put alongside Mau, like a gurgling pile of shit beside a pavlova. If his employers have a sliver of understanding of acceptable behaviour on our national airwaves, he’ll be gone by lunchtime – and good riddance.
      • Craig Ranapia 35.1.1

        28 March 2009 at 12:58 am

        ak:

        I hope you’d realise that rewarding a shock jock with attention (including from certain sections of the media who are apparently completely irony-free) makes about as much sense as having an open bar at an AA meeting. Apparently not.

        Henry can’t fail to meet expectations, because I have none where he or the miserable waste of airtime and public money he fronts is concerned.
      • Felix 35.1.2

        28 March 2009 at 1:17 am

        I must say I agree with Craig; giving these creeps oxygen is pointless. Henry’s behaviour is indefensible and no-one worth engaging would attempt to defend it, an opinion to which this thread bears witness
36. Alex 36

    27 March 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Thanks for the email link!!! I used it to implore them to keep Paul Henry!! Awesome
37. John Dalley 37

    27 March 2009 at 11:44 pm

    Schwule. Any guess’s that your D4J ???
38. Patrick 38

    28 March 2009 at 12:24 am

    Yeah, I’m with you. Thanks for Rick Ellis’s email. I’ve just sent him my congratulations That was really funnny
    • ak 38.1

      28 March 2009 at 12:38 am

      Oh yes, Pat, hilarious. Almost as funny as the sight of assorted conservative morons desperately spinning to keep one of their most influential cheerleaders on air – despite the obvious fact that he has blatantly transgressed every standard of common decency that they purport to uphold. Sorry pal, the protestation on this thread is just far, far, too much. He’s dogtucker: and the sooner some of your talkback hosts join him, the better.
      • Patrick 38.1.1

        28 March 2009 at 8:20 am

        …………………………………diddums…?
39. LGD 39

    28 March 2009 at 2:21 am

    I don’t want him sacked. I want him to wax his facial hair every morning for the duration of his on-screen employment at TVNZ.
40. bobo 40

    28 March 2009 at 2:35 am

    Paul Henry for some reason reminds me of thingy the puppet Jason Gun used to hang out with.
    • r0b 40.1

      28 March 2009 at 2:51 am

      I think you’ll find that Thingy was smarter, better looking, and had much more integrity.
      • Patrick 40.1.1

        28 March 2009 at 8:30 am

        gosh – are some offended lefties resorted to making harsh comments on Pauls Henry’s appearance? ….
        …now what do they call that again? . oh yes , ‘Hypocrite’
41. Santi 41

    28 March 2009 at 7:01 am

    Henry ought to be commended for telling the truth.

    Mills’s moustache would make any youngster (and pussyccat) proud.
42. aj 42

    28 March 2009 at 7:13 am

    Those of you who are proud of Henry’s behaviour really need to take a long hard look at yourselves.
    It was so infantile I feel sorry for him.
    • Patrick 42.1

      29 March 2009 at 12:02 pm

      and of course it was hugely funny when you and the media were slagging off Rodney Hides poor appearance with his yellow jacket
43. The Voice of Reason 43

    28 March 2009 at 8:12 am

    I didn’t find Henry’s comments funny, but that is not the point. It is a question of appropriate behaviour, not the quantity or quality of the ‘jokes’ he made. Most of us will recall jokes that are offensive. We may share them with others if we feel the social context is appropriate, but most of us are mature enough to hold back if we know that some people who will hear it will be offended.

    Paul Henry was told via the ear piece not to read the emails out. His co-presenter squirmed with embarrassment. Henry even mused aloud about whether he should read the messages. He did it anyway and now he should be disciplined for his mistake.

    Its only a few months since Russell Brand and Johnathon Ross were stood down from their BBC jobs for similar ‘jokes’. And this despite the errors being made on a notoriously anarchic comedy show, not the morning news.

    For mine, it’s not a sacking offence. But taking this witless waste of space off the screen for a few weeks would be entirely appropriate.
44. TightyRighty 44

    28 March 2009 at 8:17 am

    would you simpering pussies be offended if paul henry mocked nick smith’s lobster like appearance?
    • David 44.1

      28 March 2009 at 8:54 am

      Nick Smith does look like a lobster!
45. mike 45

    28 March 2009 at 8:36 am

    Henry provide us with a commodity that has been in serious shortage over the last 6 or 9 years – freedom of speech.

    I repeat the comment that is often stated about TV that people dont like.

    Its called the ‘Off’ switch.

    If you think he is dope -turn the TV off. But you will find that the population has tired of bland ‘lets not offend anybody, lets apologise for everything’ attitude. Look at the newspaper columns – they are saying some serious way stuff that Uncle Helens lot wouldnt allow a few years ago.

    Although having some serious facial hair is a bit unfortunate for any woman – that fact is that its unusual and those who let it grow must know that it will be noticed and commented on. And for a green peacr spoksperson it as sure as hell is going to be noticed.
    • Mike's fat retarded daughter 45.1

      28 March 2009 at 8:54 am

      You’re right mike, you ignorant little shitefaced loser, we are sick of all that PC stuff. Your wife is a whore and you are a sailor’s slut. Go fuck your dad. What’s that? You do? Figures.

      There. That’s much more like it. Cuntnose.
      • Patrick 45.1.1

        28 March 2009 at 9:10 am

        If you are Mike’s fat retarded daughter,(as you claim) and Mikes wife is a whore (as you claim). Does that mean Mike is your dad? or is your dad one of your mothers other customers?
        • JTUCKEY 45.1.1.1

          29 March 2009 at 2:29 pm

          Felix is Mike’s daughter …. go figure.
          • Felix 45.1.1.1.1

            29 March 2009 at 5:08 pm

            Please explain?
46. no leftie 46

    28 March 2009 at 8:44 am

    Thank you for posting on this and an even bigger thanks to all the tragics who have also passed on their outrage. Paul Henry will be pissing himself reading this. I can’t wait til he tells the next leftie icon she’s ugly/fat/buck-toothed/stupid/hairy or what ever else pops into his mind.
    • Mike's fat retarded daughter 46.1

      28 March 2009 at 8:58 am

      That’s because you are a penis-breathed dog-rooter with a mashed swede for a pre-frontal cortex.

      [lprent: Thats over the top even for this thread. Continue this and I’ll ban you and put you into auto moderation regardless of what handle you’re using]
47. jcuknz 47

    28 March 2009 at 8:58 am

    I say give the man a rise ….. but meanwhile back at the ranch …..

    An interesting article to put it crudely that America gives its money to the banks while Europe gives its money to the workers. The crisis in the US of A is that people are not spending and keeping the ecconomy going and so recovering, whereas the Europeans with their social security arrangements are keeping people in work, perhaps on short time, and therefore spending. It will be interesting to see which works out best . socialism or the free market.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/world/europe/27germany.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

    Why bother with TV it is all crap, even the news is only partly so …..
48. aj 48

    28 March 2009 at 9:13 am

    Mike, this is not a great example of why we should allow his comments under the cover of freedom of speech. Henry had a platform on which to attack this person. She was not present to reply to it. If he’s such a brave big boy, why didn’t he insult her to her face. He’s nothing but a cowering little bully.
    Funny, out of a world population of 6.7 billion people, there are about 6.1 billion people over the age of 5.
    Of that number, perhaps there are a dozen who think what he did was right, and funny. And they are all here commenting on this post.
49. keith 49

    28 March 2009 at 9:15 am

    gee, quite a few responses to this post. It’d be fantastic to get rid of Paul Henry from such an influential position, he’s been swaying moronic breakfast-watching swing voters to the right for years now with his editorialising.
50. The Voice of Reason 50

    28 March 2009 at 9:19 am

    Mike:

    The ‘off switch’ argument doesn’t work in this case. The behaviour was awful, even if not a single viewer was watching. I choose not to watch Henry because he’s an annoying Tory twat and I therefore did not ‘see’ him attack Mills. However, having watched the clip, it’s clear he did attack her despite being literally begged by his co-presenter not to do it.

    Freedom of speech is not without limits. The old saw is that I have the right to shout ‘fire’, but if I do so in a crowded cinema I am responsible for the consequences.

    No freedom without responsibity, Mike. Henry should apologise without delay.
51. Anita 51

    28 March 2009 at 9:32 am

    Does anyone have a list of advertisers who buy space during Breakfast?

    I will write to Ellis but I reckon saying “I don’t watch Breakfast cos Henry’s a dick, now I’m going to keep not watching it” is not going to be my most effective tactic 🙂 I’d happily write to all the advertisers (copied to Ellis) and that might be more effective.
    • IrishBill 51.1

      28 March 2009 at 9:55 am

      Good idea. I’ll add it into the post.
52. keith 52

    28 March 2009 at 9:35 am

    you read the youtube comments and you begin to wish a massive asteroid would just wipe humanity out of existence.
53. RedLogix 53

    28 March 2009 at 9:48 am

    Some individuals are innately good a mathematics, or sports, or art, or writing, while others are not. In order to function effectively though most people need some minimum level of ability in many of these areas, therefore we have schools that seek to broadly teach these things.

    The capacity for abstract thought, empathy, socialisation and morality is …. like most human abilities … deeply variable between individuals. In some people, this kind of skill appears quite readily, while in most it needs to be taught, both overtly and by example. Traditionally this was taught by the religious institutions to adults, who in turn passed on these skills to their children in a family setting. In this manner a society could maintain an acceptable minimum level of socialisation in most people.

    Since the churches faded from their primary role in this matter, it is now perfectly apparent (and this thread is a perfect example) that large numbers of children are being ‘left behind’ in terms of their moral/social development. We now inherent the tragic result of this failure with huge numbers of ‘adults’ who occupy their grown up bodies, with the minds of morally bereft children.

    Why so many of them should have congregated on this thread is lessor, but interesting little puzzle.
54. large fat man 54

    28 March 2009 at 10:00 am

    paul henry for pm
55. justthefacts 55

    28 March 2009 at 10:01 am

    This story just keeps getting better, if the actual event was not enough to make you laugh then the hysterical over reaction as witnessed by the comments in this thread should do the trick.

    I wonder if the management at TVNZ have considered making Mills a regular guest on the show?, it would do wonders for their already high ratings.
56. aj 56

    28 March 2009 at 10:05 am

    I compare the thoughtful post at 9:48am with the one at 10:01am and it makes me glad I’m on Tane’s side on this.
57. jcuknz 57

    28 March 2009 at 10:05 am

    They visited this thread becuase it was advertised on their normal slanging ground.
    I’m glad I’m not moronic becuase I’ve never watched morning TV except in the States to get the weather forecast.
58. Redbaiter 58

    28 March 2009 at 10:31 am

    Of course the real issue here is that we have one mainstream TV personality who isn’t a gutless left wing sycophant.

    Therefore, he must be exiled.
    • aj 58.1

      28 March 2009 at 11:05 am

      I don’t care about his politics, its the fact that he’s a bullying brainless infantile moron. You guys keep defending him though, great show.
    • lprent 58.2

      28 March 2009 at 11:12 am

      I’d have to agree with aj on this. The guy makes me want to (and do) hit the off button whenever I see him. I have actually watched to him a few times without coming away with any more information than I started with – apart from an even lower opinion of the fuckwit.
59. justthefacts 59

    28 March 2009 at 11:35 am

    Cancerous and corrosive.

    Chinless scarf wearers.

    Feral inbreds.

    I wonder who made those comments and I wonder where the shouts of outrage were from the left?
    • Felix 59.1

      28 March 2009 at 2:23 pm

      Sauce!
      • Dean 59.1.1

        30 March 2009 at 2:10 am

        Hi Felix. I have done your homework for you.

        http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3464/features/7128/who_let_the_dogs_out,1.html;jsessionid=93A6C4D8EF60A911E9093FF9BE05BD23

        It wasn’t even particularly difficult to find either.
        • Felix 59.1.1.1

          30 March 2009 at 3:36 am

          That’s your “source”?

          Mallard called them “chinless scarf-wearers’

          That’s it?

          I’d still like to see the quote but it took you 3 days to find those three words so there’s not much point asking you, is there? You just don’t know. Jesus, until just now you couldn’t even tell me it was Mallard who said it!

          Fuck, Dean, you haven’t found a single report of what Mallard said or who he said it to or when he said it. You get an D for your homework, Dean. You’ll probably fail the class.

          Or maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I should just accept that you know all the details but you just don’t want to share any of them with me.

          Yeah that makes sense.
60. DeeDub 60

    28 March 2009 at 11:41 am

    Source and context please?
61. GlobalWarmingIsACrock 61

    28 March 2009 at 12:13 pm

    Hardly a sacking offence. Harden up ya homo.

    [lprent: Banned one week for being too thick to read the policy]
62. Oliver 62

    28 March 2009 at 12:14 pm

    Storm in a teacup
63. John 63

    28 March 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Get a life people! Was it not on this site, that people were taking shots at Farrar for being a short, fat man? You are simply calling for him to resign, as he is a right-winger. The facts were she had a mo, and viewers pointed it out.
64. Brett Dale 64

    28 March 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Felix:

    Are you sure you don’t post at pandasport??
    • Felix 64.1

      28 March 2009 at 2:25 pm

      Fairly sure. Can’t guarantee what happens in my sleep, but I’m fairly sure. I’m not really a big sportsfan. Why do you ask, Mr Brett?
65. no leftie 65

    28 March 2009 at 1:45 pm

    “That’s because you are a penis-breathed dog-rooter with a mashed swede for a pre-frontal cortex.”

    As great an example of the mind of a Labour voter as you could imagine.

    Keep crying losers, it’s good fun for us winners.

    [lprent: pot and kettle.. The comment you’re referring to got a warning. The only reason it didn’t get a ban was because it showed some imagination. Your comment displayed no imagination or thinking. It is however close to my flame troll boundary – read the policy]
    • DeeDub 65.1

      28 March 2009 at 2:11 pm

      If you care to read the CONTEXT of this ridiculous and obviously satirical statement you would see that the poster meant to make a point about the mindless, wingnut blather about ‘freedom of speech’ supposedly extending to the ‘right’ to belittle and insult guests on TVNZ..

      Try reading everything before you go off half-cocked, eh?
66. Ms X 66

    28 March 2009 at 1:53 pm

    This is plain and simple – would he say, “Wow Rodney Hide’s ugly” or “look at the nose on Bill English”? No, it’s a sexist patronising remark. What right does anyone have to decide if someone needs to do something about their appearance? The woman wasn’t a presenter, a celebrity or fashion model. She is talking about her cause and it’s just unfortunate that she was talking to someone with the mental age of five, who probably thinks the word ‘brown’ is funny for its toilet links. Isn’t it about time we had some intelligent front people on govt funded tv? Enough of the loudmouths. Remember Holmes and his disgusting comments? He’s on the way back apparently. It’s nothing to do with what you believe in, or who you vote for, it’s basic good manners – or in this case, bad manners. They do still exist don’t they?
67. Redbaiter 67

    28 March 2009 at 2:19 pm

    “I don’t care about his politics, its the fact that he’s a bullying brainless infantile moron.”

    I’d estimate that as a lie, because I’ve never read one comment from you complaining of any such “bullying brainless infantile moron” on the left, even through all of their vicious and cowardly attacks on (for just one example) Sarah Palin.
    • aj 67.1

      28 March 2009 at 7:24 pm

      You could ‘estimate’ as much as you want but you’d be wrong mate. The right are far better at it of course and present many more targets. Think of the smear campaign against Helen Clark and Peter Davis during the last decade.
68. Chris G 68

    28 March 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Redbaiter show me an example of that and I wont condone it at all, as will many others posting and reading. As has already been expressed by a number of people, if you would drop your political ideology, what Henry did was inappropriate, cruel and downright disgusting.

    This sentiment was made more obvious by everyone else in the room telling him not to read the emails: the co-presenter obviously feeling embarrassed even appalled, producers telling him not to, the room falling silent… How much more evidence do you need? Or are you simply blinded because he was insulting someone from Greenpeace who you clearly dont like? Too tied to your love for the ACT party that you cant feel some sympathy for the enemy?

    The question therefore begs RB: Do you condone what he did?

    The next question that begs is: – Are all the mike’s, Patrick’s, David’s and Dean’s posting on this thread just the same person… Paul Henry himself? I’ve never seen them comment before.

    I will amen Keiths comment about an asteroid wiping out humanity..
    • Felix 68.1

      28 March 2009 at 4:25 pm

      Are all the mike’s, Patrick’s, David’s and Dean’s posting on this thread just the same person Paul Henry himself?

      I can’t imagine Henry being able to type.
69. Redbaiter 69

    28 March 2009 at 4:32 pm

    “The question therefore begs RB: Do you condone what he did?”

    It doesn’t actually. Wrong use of that phrase and wrong context. The question is raised, not begged.

    Yes, I condone what he did. Further than that I congratulate him for having the balls to read out comments from readers that the weak spineless excuse for a journalist Alison Mau wouldn’t.

    She should be fired a long time before Henry for completely failing to do her job and protect us from over-powerful government. The prime role of journalists.

    Here’s a clue you cultural totalitarians- as Lprent suggests, you don’t like Paul Henry, don’t watch him.
    • lprent 69.1

      28 March 2009 at 6:24 pm

      I’d prefer to not have him polluting the morning with vacuous bile. But since that pretty much describes most TV in NZ…. So I think that getting rid of the vacuum in the morning is probably a good idea and worth me putting some effort into.

      I’d prefer to have my tax dollars spent on something interesting – like Agenda
      • Dean 69.1.1

        29 March 2009 at 12:36 am

        lprent, are you going to call him a dickhead now?

        Honestly. You people would have a fit over Howard Stern. What is wrong with you?
70. grumpy 70

    28 March 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Well, she has got a moustache!

    Talk about typecast. You wouldn’t see Sue Kedgley with a mo like that – maybe Sue Bradford though…..
71. Brett Dale 71

    28 March 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Felix:

    You have the exact same writing style as a member over there, and the same political views, you could be his twin or something.
    • Felix 71.1

      29 March 2009 at 11:37 am

      That’s funny. It honestly isn’t me though.
72. Clint Heine 72

    28 March 2009 at 11:38 pm

    I am amazed at all the experts out there who seem to know what was being said to Paul in his ear, and who have intimate knowledge of the emails being given to him by his producers….. He did what he was told and thoroughly enjoyed it. Peter Williams enjoyed it too. The advertisers and producers did as well, as now people will watch SIMPLY to see what he will say next.
    • ak 72.1

      29 March 2009 at 12:11 am

      No they won’t Clint. Poor wee Pauly forgot that over half the population is female.

      The slimy little shit has just well and truly jumped the shark.

      Just like you did when you pasted Helen Clark’s head onto pornography and broadcast it to the world.

      It’s why both you, he and your surnames will never, ever, be forgotten.

      Branded for generations in fact.

      Internationally.

      Sleep well brother.
      • the sprout 72.1.1

        29 March 2009 at 1:21 pm

        Clit you don’t seem to realise how many people who work at TVNZ despise Paul Henry, not least of which those who have to work with him and who’re the constant target of his denigration.

        There are plenty of TVNZ staff more than happy to elaborate on exactly what he was being told from the control room. The comments reported here are pretty much accurate.
73. Kaplan 73

    29 March 2009 at 9:29 am

    I am willing to accept that there are countless examples of this kind of thing in comedic context. Comedians may use this kind of humour as part of a routine and there are certainly plenty of dubious jokes on this kind of subject. i.e. peoples physical appearances, handicaps, diseases etc. They are all distasteful and often the humour actually arises from the fact that you would not normally be mentioning possible taboo subjects outside the realms of a joke. They seldom target individuals.

    I am not going to pretend that I myself haven’t had a chuckle or perhaps even repeated a joke to others that contained a derogatory component. I would not repeat it though, or think kindly of someone who repeated one, in earshot of a person that would be obviously offended by it. It’s called tact. I know some people would go further by not repeating them at all, but I think our society does allow for tactful ridicule in context.

    However, the big problem in this case is that rather than being a broad tasteless joke their was a specific individual targeted by the comments. Paul re-read comments, AND ELABORATED ON THEM, that were about a specific individual who had appeared on the show and deserved much more respect than she was given. I can tell you right now if it were me I would be demanding public on air apologies form Paul, Breakfast’s management and TVNZ. I hope she makes these requests.
    • Chris G 73.1

      29 March 2009 at 6:28 pm

      good post.
74. justthefacts 74

    29 March 2009 at 9:51 am

    A spokesman for TVNZ said “we have received a HANDFUL of complaints”

    Seems like the vast majority of the viewing audience agreed with Paul Henry.

    Time to stop the faux outrage guys.
    • the sprout 74.1

      29 March 2009 at 1:18 pm

      yeah right like they’re really going to acknowledge the actual number of complaints.

      i think what they’re doing is called ‘Damage Control’

      i think what you’re doing is called gullible. or disingenuous.
75. no leftie 75

    29 March 2009 at 9:57 am

    And the “hairsteria” continues…..

    Don’t forget Paul Henry also laughed at Helen when she fell over in Christchurch last year as well….grrrrr.
76. Santi 76

    29 March 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Give it a few more months and Stephanie could start curling the mo at the tip. I reckon, she’ll look awesome.
77. Sarkozygroupie 77

    29 March 2009 at 12:17 pm

    I took the advice and emailed Rick Ellis. I asked him not to sack Paul Henry. Thanks for supplying the email address!!

    PS, while you STANDARD people indulge in your fruitless and whimsical tantrum throwing did it ever occur to you that Stephanie Mills doesn’t actually care about what people think? She was prepared to go on national television, at breakfast time, no less looking the way she did. People who present an image out of the ordinary – news flash, women don’t generally sport such visible facial hair – generally invite some kind of interest and response. You telling me you’ve never commented on something/someone out of the ordinary?

    Man, this country needs to grow a sense of humour and stop with the PC sensoring and faux outrage.

    Now run along children. Don’t worry no one ever died from having a laugh.
78. Ruth 78

    29 March 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Paul Henry is no gentleman, and the saying ‘politically incorrect’ is often used to justify rudeness and bad manners.

    His comments could be said in the pub without complaint – not on national television.

    Other professional corporate men and women would never say such a thing.

    How do these clowns get on TV?
    • the sprout 78.1

      29 March 2009 at 3:50 pm

      perhaps Diane Foreman’s reach is further than we realise?
79. sweeetdisorder 79

    29 March 2009 at 5:19 pm

    All this outrage over PH talking about Mill’s mo, but nobody is talking about what Mill’s was trying to say. She, not her message has become the subject of discussion. Mills and Greenpeace really need to get their act togethor in what the communicate and how they communicate.
80. LynW 80

    29 March 2009 at 6:08 pm

    I turned off watching TV1’s morning show many months ago, having tired of Paul Henry’s immature, unprofessional nature demonstated by the derogatory and unnecessary remarks he made. I also tired of observing his constant need for reassurance from the crew around him. This time he has indeed gone too far and although Stephanie Mills is treating the whole thing with admirable maturity the fact remains that the minimum of an apology is in order along with some acknowledgement from Paul Henry that personal attacks are totally unacceptable. He did not just read the emails out The issue also needs to be addressed by the relevant complaints authority. I will be forwarding my concerns.
81. Helena 81

    29 March 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Letter to Rick Ellis
    I wish to add my voice to the many other adverse comments you would have received regarding the inappropriate behaviour of Paul Henry on your TV1 Breakfast show.

    A couple of weeks ago Paul Henry ridiculed an 8 year old boy who stated that his mother worked for the Labour Party. He almost fell off his chair in his attempts to show he felt physically ill when the boy honestly answered a question that Paul had put to him. All he did was look foolish and biased.

    In the lastest incident he made several inappropriate comments about Stephanie Mills from Greenpeace because she had a shadow of a moustache on her upper lip. It is not uncommon for women to have moustaches for various reasons. Why should anybody feel they should make changes to their appearance in order to safeguard themselves against Paul Henry’s rude comments.

    These appalling behaviours from Paul Henry are merely two of the arrogant and uncaring examples of inappropriate behaviour and displays of attitude I have seen on your show over quite a long period of time.

    Paul Henry shows an extreme bias to any group of people who do not fit his narrow view of the ideal world. His comments are a long way away from fulfilling the requirement of unbiased reporting which is espoused by the Broadcasting Standard Authority’s charter and are offensive I think to many people who share the value of inclusiveness in our society.

    I will not be passively watching this behaviour continue and as such if Paul Henry does not leave your morning show, then I’m afraid I will not be adding to your viewer figures.

    I feel sad that you have appeared to condone this behaviour merely by not doing something in order to rein him in.

    In any other workplace this type of behaviour might be construed as serious misconduct and be dealt with in accordance to the appropriate policies and procedures of your workplace.

    Thankfully, I have lately found that the hosts of TV3s breakfast show appear to have a lot more fun and do this without putting other people down in such a nasty manner. They certainly have a lot more respect for their visitors than Paul Henry has ever had.
    • grumpy 81.1

      30 March 2009 at 11:40 am

      Did you sign your name?
82. Brett Dale 82

    29 March 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Doesnt matter how many letters you write, as long as the ratings are up, Paul will stay on, and do you really think Rick will be reading the emails, there will be some office clerk answering them.
83. teitei 83

    29 March 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Proper dirty [deleted. no racism]
84. justthefacts 84

    29 March 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Helena

    I can assure you it was no “shadow” that Mills had on her top lip, it was a full on moustache and wuite an impressive one at that.

    I am not sure where you get the idea that “It is not uncommon for women to have moustaches”, I spent the day out and about, not once did I see a shelia with a moustache.

    Your faux outrage is actually quite funny, you might have got away with it had you not made the mistake of saying you watch TV3 in the morning, that show is hardly a bastion of objective journalism is it.

    I can’t wait to see what Henry gets up to this week, hopefully he will make comment about Peter Davis not accompanying his wife to the USA, and ponder why that might be.
    • Quoth the Raven 84.1

      29 March 2009 at 8:19 pm

      Maybe it’s because Peter Davis has a career here that he does not wish to leave. Why do care about their private lives anyway? I suppose you righties are all conformists. You expect people to conform to how you wish them to behave. “A married couple should behave like this blah blah blah” Frankly I don’t give a shit. It’s no wonder you righties lapse into authortarianism with such ease.
      Get a fucking life.
      • Daveski 84.1.1

        29 March 2009 at 8:42 pm

        With respect QTR, I think you’ll find the left are just as good (bad?) and creating stereotypical views of rights – it’s no more or no less conformist.
    • lprent 84.2

      29 March 2009 at 11:37 pm

      Evidently you don’t know much about women. Have you ever heard of waxing, bleaching, electrolysis and all of the other assorted things that women do to remove unwanted hair. Merely contemplating some of the things that are used makes me scared shitless, and I’d never contemplate doing them.

      I suggest that you restrict yourself to contemplating your rather obvious virginity.

      If you want to actually learn about real woman rather than the contortions of blowup dolls, then I’d suggest that you start reading The Handmirror and other sites frequented by woman (ie avoid the sewer)
      • infused 84.2.1

        30 March 2009 at 12:12 am

        Men do it too. In fact I get waxed regularly. Men need to look after themselves more than they use to.
        • lprent 84.2.1.1

          30 March 2009 at 8:57 am

          Braver than I am. Looks bloody painful.
85. James 85

    29 March 2009 at 7:41 pm

    The women is the Yeti…..It was funny,un PC and brilliant spontanous Television…Henry is the best thing on TVNZ and has gained another fan here…

    As for your pursed lipped handwringers…

    Start a group!….;-0

    I feel that pharse is going to enter the Kiwi venacular and stay there……nice one Paul!
86. teitei 86

    29 March 2009 at 7:46 pm

    You wouldn’t find that pussy cunt in pub. He’d get fucked up.
87. James 87

    29 March 2009 at 7:47 pm

    “I can’t wait to see what Henry gets up to this week, hopefully he will make comment about Peter Davis not accompanying his wife to the USA, and ponder why that might be.”

    Ask inside the Labour party….it was a standing joke when I was a member that Helens “marriage” was for the express purpose of presenting an acceptable face to the electorate in order to get Helen to her goal of PM…..Now no longer PM the reason for the charade no longer exists…….bye bye Peter.
    • lprent 87.1

      29 March 2009 at 11:28 pm

      Don’t be a fuckwit. I’ve known them for 20 years and you’re just jerking off you pathetic little man.

      There have never been rumors inside the party, so I’d guess you’re simply lying about being a member. It has however been rumors in the misogynists of the right since I first heard it from Nats in the 1981 campaign in Mt Albert (when I helped out the Nats). It was started by their campaign team at the time as part of their campaign to take the seat and repeated by fuckwits like you (and Wishart) ever since.

      We’re all aware of the type of pathetic misogynist males that want to somehow stuff things back to a mythic 19th century in gender relationships. I’d guess that you’re just another of those prurient morons who hasn’t caught up with what happens in real marriages and relationships with both partners working. In this case with a marriage where both partners are hitting their sixties. Peter has a job that he is doing here, and at which he is probably the best at NZ. He is unlikely to find that type of job in New York. What do you propose – that he should give up his work?

      In short you’re just full of bullshit about things that you have no knowledge of.
88. justthefacts 88

    29 March 2009 at 7:48 pm

    teitei

    Yeah man!!

    Why would Henry (or any decent human) want to spend time in “pub” with low life’s and Labour voters?
89. James 89

    29 March 2009 at 7:49 pm

    [deleted. no racism]
90. justthefacts 90

    29 March 2009 at 7:54 pm

    James

    I am shocked!…you mean the person who said “it’s all about trust” has been telling lies all these years?
91. RedLogix 91

    29 March 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Rope. Length thereof. Autoasphyxiation.
92. pk 92

    29 March 2009 at 8:05 pm

    Interesting thread this

    – I’m impressed how many people seem to be able to watch day time tv
    – The one time I saw henry, I was unimpressed
    – However, a significant proportion of humour is insulting, derogatory and with shock value – not that I thought what he said and did was funny – not because I’m bothered by taking the mickey out of a spokesman for a political party who decides that having significant facial hair is fine (the spokesman that is not the party – sadly, we partially decide on looks when we hear opinions – that’s life) – it just wasn’t funny
    – Some vindictive, abusive, derogatory and downright insulting behaviour can be funny – depending on your background, circumstances and audience
    – As a white middle age middle class male I’m happy to state much of the humour nowadays is against my “class” – it’s vaguely irritating but also often funny, and often not – but it does not receive the same level of outrage
    – We appear to be selective in our outrage the collective “we’ shows bias

    Are we moving to a situation were any statement that offends specific segments of the population will be subjected to some level of “punishment” – that’s scary – that’s censorship – that’s Aldous Huxley territory? Particularly, as it appears we do not have equitable standards , e.g. Islam is not fair go but Christianity is. I’m an atheist by the way and don’t care about either religion in case I’m suspected of bias.

    Henry is a twit but I would prefer to have a wide variety of twits with differing opinions than the standard twit with a single opinion.
93. Contrarian 93

    29 March 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Henry has been sailing close to the wind for a long time. This is not the first time calls have been made to sack him.
94. gorjusgeorge 94

    29 March 2009 at 10:58 pm

    Just how did we manage to slither over to Helen’s marriage? Oh, but of course, right wing nongbrains can never think of anything new and original to say.

    I think Henry is an irritating ass – no – that’s insulting to asses – Henry is a simpering, stupid, smug arse.

    Frankly, I don’t really care if the plonker makes a comment about a woman having facial hair – soppy sod probably doesn’t realise they have pubic hair as well. I just object to his gormlessness. I doubt he ever had any gorm but he’s totally lost it if he ever did.

    While desperately gazing around the studio for one person who wasn’t cringing with embarrassment, he said something about ‘the elephant in the room’ – all the while steadfastly ignoring the size ten boot sticking out his gob.

    Get rid of the sad git.
95. Principessa 95

    29 March 2009 at 11:00 pm

    Thanks for deleting all the racist comments LPrent. What about the sexist ones?
    • lprent 95.1

      29 March 2009 at 11:11 pm

      I kill or ban as I spot things that need fixing. However I’m not there all of the time.

      Update: I left replies to a few of the more idiotic ones…
96. r0b 96

    29 March 2009 at 11:29 pm

    With the many important issues covered recently by The Standard I find it depressing that the post that generates over 200 comments is about this prat Henry. We are too much driven by “personalities”, not enough by the issues that matter.

    I am also morbidly fascinated by the jerks who are cheering Henry on – “just a laugh and so on”. This attitude as at the heart of the culture of bullying that we have in NZ (pick on the fat kid, it’s just a laugh), which is one of the reasons that we have such a deplorable youth suicide rate in this country. It’s sickening.
97. tommy onions 97

    29 March 2009 at 11:53 pm

    I’d never paid much attention to him before – and having viewed this piece of crass ineptitude I’m very pleased.

    No doubt Paul’s of the opinion that ‘ladies’ shouldn’t have facial, leg or underarm hair. In fact some men prefer women not to have pubic hair either – but you do have to wonder about those who get turned on by prepubescent looking genitalia.

    God knows why women subject themselves to all this torture. Maybe Paulie’s punishment should be to have his butt and balls waxed – on tele.
98. infused 98

    30 March 2009 at 12:01 am

    I love what Henry says:

    “I certainly have no intention of apologising to people who have written in and complained. The key thing to me is what a fortunate life they must have that they can afford time and energy to complain about such an insignificant thing.”

    Indeed.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/2299151/Henry-faces-up-to-moustache-gate
    • Matthew Pilott 98.1

      30 March 2009 at 10:26 am

      It’s not hard to complain about something. Took me all of half a minute the other day – but Henry saying something that’s less than intelligent seems to be the theme, thanks for pointing out how he’s keeping it up…
99. DeeDub 99

    30 March 2009 at 12:12 am

    Don’t you guys think Paul’s attitude to feminine facial hair is just a Freudian, knee-jerk (the emphasis on the jerk in this case) reaction to his spray on hair?

    His bullying anger speaks to the sad little buck-toothed boy who was probably himself bullied mercilessly at school and developed his ‘sense of humour’ as a defence mechanism.

    He is just a lost little boy in a big man’s shirt.

    ‘Celebs’ with no specific talent often are.

    Imagine the person who has to live with that? And pity him/her.
100. tommy onions 100

     30 March 2009 at 12:32 am

     Well this time his knee jerked so hard he smacked himself in the mouth.

     And nah I don’t think he was bullied – more likely did the bullying. He got a real kick out of saying something that he thought would humiliate a woman who he dislikes for her politics. It was just – so – indescribably crass and mean spirited.

     If it had been a right-wing male politician with moobs do you suppose he would have shrieked about the ‘gentleman with breasts’?
101. James 101

     30 March 2009 at 12:47 am

     “Don’t be a fuckwit. I’ve known them for 20 years and you’re just jerking off you pathetic little man.”

     Then you are blind or a liar…..but thats no suprise.

     “There have never been rumors inside the party, so I’d guess you’re simply lying about being a member. It has however been rumors in the misogynists of the right since I first heard it from Nats in the 1981 campaign in Mt Albert (when I helped out the Nats). It was started by their campaign team at the time as part of their campaign to take the seat and repeated by fuckwits like you (and Wishart) ever since.”

     There most certainly WERE rumours inside the party…..it was a nod wink type of strange injoke that I was let in on back in 92 when I joined.

     “We’re all aware of the type of pathetic misogynist males that want to somehow stuff things back to a mythic 19th century in gender relationships. I’d guess that you’re just another of those prurient morons who hasn’t caught up with what happens in real marriages and relationships with both partners working. In this case with a marriage where both partners are hitting their sixties. Peter has a job that he is doing here, and at which he is probably the best at NZ. He is unlikely to find that type of job in New York. What do you propose – that he should give up his work?”

     I have no issue with lesbians etc….just lies and falsehoods being told to the NZ public…

     “In short you’re just full of bullshit about things that you have no knowledge of.”

     We will see….;-)
     • lprent 101.1

       30 March 2009 at 8:56 am

       I notice that in your statement that you offered up absolutely no support for your statements. I’d have to conclude that it is because you’re simply believing what you want to believe.

       On the other hand, I have pretty good access to both Helen and Peter. Helping both of the technophobes (wrong generation) deal with computer systems means that I’ve spent a lot of time with them since I dropped a computer on Helen’s desk in 1992 and told her that she had to get into the right century. I’ve seen the affection that they display in private.

       So I’d have to conclude that you’re just another liar like Wishart on this subject.
102. tommy onions 102

     30 March 2009 at 10:01 am

     All through the lead up to the election these spiteful little rumours were circulated on the ‘net by the right. Like the issues to do with the painting and the speeding etc etc – they work on the principle of ‘throw enough mud’ and some will stick.

     Not that I want to pander to these lame brains who act like neurotic little dogs with a bone, but the facts are HC and PD are married; they live together; they clearly love and respect each other.

     Do these nastily prurient and small minded people who attack Clark and Davis in such vicious and sometimes downright cruel ways think that ALL politicians and others in the public eye should reveal ALL the details of their personal lives? Oh, no that would be intruding into their right to privacy.

     This creepy obsession with Helen Clark’s marriage is the internet equivalent of being a peeping tom. GET A LIFE!
103. tommy onions 103

     30 March 2009 at 10:22 am

     And – why am I not surprised that the same sort of people who support Paul Henry’s right to mock and insult a spokeswoman for an international organisation are also obsessed with Helen Clark’s marriage?

     Clearly these folk are not drawn to Hooter Henry because of his sophistication or wit, or his gravitas and towering intellect or his journalistic judgment and political acumen.

     No, they like him because he’s a provincial, dull, superficial and puerile big booby – and he validates their world view.
104. James 104

     30 March 2009 at 12:50 pm

     “So I’d have to conclude that you’re just another liar like Wishart on this subject.”

     I have information that I was going to post but decided would be better not done so here…

     [lprent: probably the wisest thing that you’ve ever said here.]
105. SukieDamson 105

     30 March 2009 at 1:12 pm

     Wow, this place was becoming rather dull of late, thankfully Mr Henry has led us to what feels like the heart of the matter. Is Paul Henry funny or obnoxious? I thought Michael_Over_Here hit the target with his channelling David Brent comment. Just watch Alison Mau cringe.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSee3aZXos

     So what is it that we are laughing at ?
106. Felix 106

     30 March 2009 at 1:29 pm

     What the fuck has happened to the lemons in the supermarket under this National/Act government? They’re hard as rocks, grown for appearance only. You can’t get any bloody juice out of them!

     I swear I haven’t had a decent lemon from the supie since November 8th.
107. Contrarian 107

     31 March 2009 at 12:53 pm

     Sack Henry ? The All Black coach ? Are you craaaaaaaaaaazy ? Before the World Cup ? How do I keep the punters, er .. rugby lovers .. happy ?
108. Jeff Stone 108

     31 March 2009 at 5:58 pm

     “Everyone is saying ‘Don’t read them out.” This is when his tiny Remuera shitebag brain should have told him THEN DON’T READ THEM OUT. But because Henry’s an arrogant moron, he went right ahead and did it. Sack this infantile little microbe right now. What amazes me is that it took this long for everyone else to realise the man is a complete and utter tosspot.

Links to post

1. TVNZ upholds Paul Henry complaint at The Standard: posted on 5 May 2009 at 5:04 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS