The Daily Refrain takes on Larry Baldock

Written By: - Date published: 8:31 pm, June 18th, 2009 - 15 comments
Categories: child abuse, humour, youtube - Tags:

So. There’s this dude who writes a song a day (weekdays only) and puts it on Youtube. Calls it The Daily Refrain. He’s been going three weeks now. Mostly pretty funny and well written. Great little project. Seems like he’s a Kiwi. He’s put up one about the child-beating referendum which is brilliant.

Hilarious. But my favourite one is #3 ‘Headphones‘

Side note. See Simon Bridges on Breakfast admit he signed the referendum petition but is now obediently following master Key and dissing the referendum itself? Good to see Tauranga’s keeping with its tradition of electing dickheads.

Oh and great line from that Jacinda Ardern – “It’s like going out to the public and saying ‘should we lift the ban on chocolate?’ There is no ban on chocolate, so how do you answer the question?” Good point.

Still going to vote Yes. Because life’s about who you stand beside. In this case you can choose Plunket, Barnardos and UNICEF or Baldock, Farrar, and riding-crop lady.

15 comments on “The Daily Refrain takes on Larry Baldock ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. So Bored 1
    18 June 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Truly magnificent, splendid, wonderful, to be hummed as we dream malicious thoughts of Baldock. Love it.

  2. Redbaiter 2
    18 June 2009 at 9:04 pm

    What an ostentatious bore.

    Typical sneering leftist narcissist.

    IMHO, totally devoid of talent.

    “It’s like going out to the public and saying ‘should we lift the ban on chocolate?’

    Its not anything like that at all.

    The question is a metaphor for “Do you want communists like fat arsed Sue Bradford telling you how to raise your kids?

  3. Dan 3
    18 June 2009 at 10:10 pm

    RB, you have really lost it lately. I am sorry your expected El Dorado has not emerged with Mr Key. It was never going to.

    As for sneering, your recent posts do indicate some skills in that area.

    It is reference to narcissism that amuses me most. In talking to your keyboard, you seem unaware that what you accuse others of fits your right-wing paranoia to a tee: narcissism, according to a basic definition is “self-centeredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder”

    Red baiter……. yeah right!

  4. felix 4
    18 June 2009 at 10:57 pm

    Brilliant.

    And in response to “Headphones”, the solution is “Speakers”.

  5. Robbie 5
    19 June 2009 at 12:02 am

    I liked this post-election YouTube song: also shares a static background.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtTQyxw78us – a tribute to Helen in the form of a Ronan Keating parody, with bonus Section 59 reference.

  6. Redbaiter 6
    19 June 2009 at 1:11 am

    Dan, obviously your parents didn’t thrash you enough as a child.

  7. serpico 7
    19 June 2009 at 6:44 am

    Were you rather sad standard sods all put in a clothes dryer as kids, because to think that jack ass video song is funny then you are all a lost cause? Your humour tumour is much like a revolting cancerous smear test.

  8. Jo Botherer 8
    20 June 2009 at 2:36 pm

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0018/latest/DLM407671.html?search=ts_act_Crimes_resel

    says:”(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

    so it is TRUE that they have BANNED chocolate – You are NOT allowed under any circumstances to smack for correction.

  9. Craig Glen Eden 9
    20 June 2009 at 5:33 pm

    This law is poor and its net is two wide. The left have done a poor job of this I have to admit as Illustrated by Jo Brother

    “(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

    If our intention was to stop child abuse then thats what needs to be out lawed. A smack on the bottom is not abuse, a smack on the hand is not abuse. Leaving a mark on a child is! Sadly both sides have overplayed things and used emotional language to brand the other which is not helpful.

    No one in their right mind wants to see children abused and no one should want parents to be afraid to smack a child lightly for fear of having the police at there door, let alone prosecuted.
    I will not be voting in this referendum because the question is loaded. I think the law does need to be change but it should be strong enough that juries don’t let people get away with what was clearly excessive force and abuse as has happened in the past.

    • Anita 9.1
      20 June 2009 at 5:53 pm

      Craig Glen Eden writes,

      This law is poor and its net is two wide. The left have done a poor job of this

      I don’t think this was a left-right issue, it may have been Bradford who had her bill pulled from the ballot. In the past MPs from both National (Bob Simcock) and NZ Firat (Brian Donnelly and Barbara Stewart) had placed bills to amend/repeal s59 in the ballot and simply been unlucky.

      As the bill passed through the house there was significant support for from both sides of the house (as an aside, Paula Bennett’s consistent support for the bill is to her credit). It passed third reading with a massive majority (113:8 tally here).

      I don’t happen to like the wording, I think we’ve enshrined ambiguity to allow us to avoid facing some controversy, but I think it clearly was the will of the whole Parliament.

  10. Jo Botherer 10
    21 June 2009 at 9:09 am

    Referendum Question: Here’s how to make it easy to understand…put some commas in. That way you don’t have to judge whether smacking is good or not, just whether it should be a criminal offence. Thats the question – should it be a criminal offence like it is now (see crimes act link above in previous post). “Should a smack (,) as part of good parental correction (,) be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    • Anita 10.1
      21 June 2009 at 10:59 am

      If the question was “Should a smack be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” then the question would be “Should a smack be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. The six words you’re saying we can ignore actually carry meaning and actually are part of the question.

  11. Jo Botherer 11
    21 June 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Sure Anita, but many people are confused and think the “good” refers to the smacking not the parental correction. I have not attempted to delete those six words but punctuate it up to try to resolve the ambiguity.

    • Anita 11.1
      21 June 2009 at 5:58 pm

      Um, I’m not sure how the commas help. I mean they make it look parenthetical and it’s not. If you were going to paraphrase rather than punctuate what would you come up with?

      I can’t paraphrase into a single sentence, I’ve tried 🙂