General Debate 19 February 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment43

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (43)

Login to comment or vote

Linda Reid

Remember the people Labour got rid of when they took office? WINZ boss Christine Rankin because they didn’t like the way she dressed, and Police Commissioner Doone because they just plain didn’t like him.

Now it looks like Barry Matthews will go – but for doing a piss-poor job – not for party political reasons.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 10:29am
MyNameIsJack

And we still have this sham of policy on the run, we still have English and Jonkey ranting about “saving” iconic NZ companies.

F&P? well, 25 mill profit isn’t a company on its knees.

Fuck the corporate welfare Jonkey, let shareholders bail themselves out.

Jonkey, if you want to do something worthwhile for the nation’s economy, make the shareholders fully responsible for their businesses, remove the sham of “limited liability companies” and see the improvement in corporate governance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 10:35am
dime

“remove the sham of “limited liability companies”

yea, that will inspire people to start new businesses!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 10:37am
MyNameIsJack

Why should people who start new businesses, or invest in old ones, be protected from stupidity? Why should they prosper at the expense of theircreditors, other business people who run well managed and succesful businesses?

What don’t you like about taking personal responsibilty.

[DPF: Your knowledge of breakfast obviously comes from cereal packs. Let me try and explain. Let us say you work hard for 20 years and save $1 million, including a house worth $700,000. You decide you want to try to set up a business. You can do so by putting in $200,000 – hence if it fails you still have a house to live in, and $100K. But under your model if the business fails you would lose your house, your car, your clothes and all your cash.

Now how many people will set up a business if they risk homelessness by doing so?]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 10:40am
casual watcher

Don’tknowjackshit – acquaint yourself with some facts of the F&P situation and what John Key said before you start rambling. Your ideology is blinding you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 10:49am
Owen McShane

The limited liability company is one of the great inventions of western civilisation.
IT simply means that if I buy shares in a company and the company goes broke my liability is limited to my investment in the company.

Are you really suggesting that my liability should be unlimited and that creditors of the failed company should be able to take my house, my car, my belongings and everything I have?

The priniciple of llmited liability is that I should not be held infinitely liable for losses for which I had no direct responsibility. Of course if I buy sufficient shares to claim a directorship then I can be held personally liable as a director.

If there were infinite liability then there could be no super funds or other pension plans because every pensioner would be personally liable for all the losses from any failed company.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 10:55am
Sonny Blount

The Standards coverage to date of the TV3 poll results:

>burt
>February 18, 2009 at 8:03 pm
>But the polls tell us the people are loving it.

>IrishBill: removed: nobody likes a linkwhore, burt.

>vto
>February 18, 2009 at 8:16 pm
>Irishbill, re Burts link, you guys are funny the way you are so selective. No doubt it would have been left up if it had shown Labour on a record 64% rather than National on a record 64% and Labour at 27%.

>Oh well, its your house.

>IrishBill: yep, it is my house.

>[lprent: besides it was a stupid link whore – worthy of someone like the unlamented Rob (not r0b)]

My comments on their censorship policies didn’t pass moderation suprisingly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 11:00am
Captain Crab

Peter Garrett wants the International Whaling Commision to expand its focus tt break the deadlock between non whaling and whaling countries.

“Mr Garrett said the commission must broaden its “narrow focus” on hunting whales to take in other environmental threats to the mammals.

“This includes current and emerging threats like climate change, marine pollution, ship strikes and habitat disturbance,” he said.”

I would have thought the Whales would be looking forward to sea levels rising 100 metres!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4851956a12.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 11:27am
Murray

The only way to actualyl stop whaling is to declare open season on whaling ships and have our navies sink them on sight rather than leave it to half arsed amatures with no follow through.

While not actually opposed to this plan I foresee some legal issue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 11:33am
greenfly

David. You rightly call upon us to ‘repeal the Guilt Upon Accusation (Copyright Law) but ignore the “Guilt Upon Accusation” DNA collection legislation. Don’t you get a sense of discomfort from the strange juxtaposition of the two issues? Do you not see it, or are you willfully ignoring the glaring similarities?

[DPF: No similarities. Your DNA sample is destroyed if you are found not guilty or charges are dropped.]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 11:39am
big bruv

Oh how delicious, the racist Maori rugby team has had its plans to play against South Africa dashed by the SA government, it seems that their government will not allow teams to play in South Africa when they are selected on a racial basis.

How come it takes the Safa’s to point out that we have an apartheid rugby team in NZ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 11:54am
peterwn

Linda, I think you are wrong here. There were non-political reasons in both of these cases. As far as I remember Christine had difficulties relating to her peers and the State Services Commissioner, I am pretty sure the Commissioner would not have reviewed her contract regardless of the party in power. Similarly Peter Doone lost the Government’s confidence because as far as I remember he effectively pulled rank when the car he was in was the subject of police attention, interestingly in this case he did a stint in the PM’s office after ceasing to be Commissioner – hardly a sign of intense political dislike.

I cannot help thinking that Barry Matthews may have had to knuckle under a Labour government and just make the most of a bad job. I do not know his personal views on private prisons, but the shutting down of the private arrangement would have taken away a useful comparison yardstick and hence one of his available management tools – possibly too the Corrections Minister lent an excessive ear to the unions.

In both the Corrections and Social Welfare cases, the problems coming to light essentially gained traction under a Labour Government. It makes Helen Clark’s 1999 election night rhetoric about a caring government seem even more hypocritical when it is highly probable that Social Welfare staff were referring people to the pawn shop or loan shark on the corner (in Mangere, not Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) during the time of a Labour government.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:00pm
libertyscott

Um on the DNA point, is it actually possible to trust the state to destroy the sample? Trust the Police? What recourse do you have if this does NOT happen? A simpler approach is to retain the status quo, allow samples to be taken from the guilty for a database, and for those charged to volunteer for a DNA test. Failure to volunteer will be declared at trial, and the accused may be cross examined why, and juries may take the view that you refuse to take the test for fear of incriminating yourself. That is the view I took when I was on a jury many years ago.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:01pm
greenfly

If you are suspected of wrong-doing, the ‘Guilt Upon Accusation (Copyright Law) allows action to be taken against you (and this, Mr Farrar, you don’t want)
If you are suspected of a crime, the proposed “DNA’ legislation allows action to be taken against you (the forced collection of your DNA). This, Mr Farrar, you are comfortable with and blithely say, ” No similarities”. How so?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:19pm
baxter

Christine had difficulties relating to her peers and the State Services Commissioner, I am pretty sure the Commissioner would not have reviewed her contract regardless of the party in power. Similarly Peter Doone lost the Government’s confidence because as far as I remember he effectively pulled rank when the car he was in was the subject of police attention, interestingly in this case he did a stint in the PM’s office after ceasing to be Commissioner – hardly a sign of intense political dislike.

PETERWN………….No on both counts Christine by all accounts was very popular among her staff…Peter DOONE had lies about his conduct covertly and anonymously leaked exclusively to a Dominion Scribe by Helen CLARK.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:20pm
Chthoniid

If you wanted to stop whaling, then the simplest plan would be to let what economics has done to (almost) every other whaling country on the planet. Let it die out without fanfare.

The problem has been that since the early 80s, anti-whaling groups have turned an issue of dubious economics, into an issue of principle. That way you box in Japan- who cannot let whaling ebb away- without losing face.

The problem is that many environmental NGOs(by and large) now depend on the donations that come from opposing whaling. We all know that whaling ranks very low as a conservation threat (pollution and ship-collisions are higher) and that many whale populations can sustain the very low takes currently being maintained. These are threats that the IWC could take a more pro-active line on.

The reality is that opposing whaling brings in too many donations- and strokes the egos and vanity of enough key players- that they would lose out if whaling was permitted. Paul Watson might have to get a real job…

If their concern was really about cetacean conservation, then they would be directing their effort at the various, highly endangered small dolphin species. But as the baiji was becoming extinct, as *Budweiser* poured money into an effort to save it, these anti-whaling groups ignored it completely. What makes minkes- with very high populations- more valuable than river dolphins? In conservation terms they’re not. But in donation terms, there’s the rub.

Japan has signaled that they would prefer to do coastal whaling (over Antarctic) on numerous occasions, but has not got the permits that the US and other Caribbean countries have managed. Essentially, the US gets to kill whales as a reward for impoverishing and hammering the cultures of their natgive coastal communities. Japan gets punished for not doing so.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:20pm
greenfly

DPF: No similarities. Your DNA sample is destroyed if you are found not guilty or charges are dropped.
You’d be happy then, that when you are found not guilty of illegal downloading etc. your ISP will reconnect you? Is that all it would take for you to support the new copyright law? Sweet. You’re easily satisfied.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:27pm
MyNameIsJack

Owen McShane (569) Vote: 5 0 Says:

February 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am
The limited liability company is one of the great inventions of western civilisation.
IT simply means that if I buy shares in a company and the company goes broke my liability is limited to my investment in the company.

Are you really suggesting that my liability should be unlimited and that creditors of the failed company should be able to take my house, my car, my belongings and everything I have?

Yes, I am.

I believe that the debtor should pay. You seem to believe the creditor should. Why should you be treated differently if you start up a business to someone who simply works for wages? Why do you think that certain classes of debtors should be free to suck the lifeblood out of well perfoming businesses?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:37pm
big bruv

I see that Hussein Messiah Obama has now decided to do something about those facing foreclosure on their homes.

The interesting part of his speech for me was the part when he said he wanted to restore confidence in Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.

This is the same Freddie and Fannie who contributed more to his election fund than anybody else.

This is also the same Freddie and Fannie who were involved with Obama a few years back when he was arranging these dodgy loans to people who clearly cannot afford them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:40pm
gd

mynameisjack shows the same level of understanding of business as the last government. having dealt with more than one Minister and a current Regulatory controller whose grip on the realities and knowledge of the market place were shall we be charitable rather sparse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:48pm
big bruv

Great news about the NZ debating team wining the world champs, even better news to see that the captain of the team is Bill English’s daughter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:51pm
beanee

MyNameIsJack – on that basis you’d expect that all members of a rugby league club should be stumping up their houses to get the NZRL out of the poop (hhhmmm……isn’t Ms HE Clark closely associated with Rugby League? Might be a good idea then).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 12:55pm
Jack5

MyNameisJack in his 10.35 and 12.37 posts attacks the concept of limited liability companies.

If he had read economic history he would know that limited liability companies were critical in the commercial infrastructure that allowed the Industrial Revolution to occur. The “company’s undertaking” is one of the most common securities for the lenders who finance daily business. How an unlimited liability company would put up similar security, MyNameisJack can tell us. The company structure, which isn’t feasible without at least some limited liability, facilitates company life length by making it feasible to change ownership, too.

There are Unlimited companies in mining in some countries and the United States has an Unlimited Corporation structure in which profits and losses flow straight through to shareholders, but there are still limits to their liability.

In some countries, I’m not sure about NZ (a lawyer might tell us), there are already ways in which limited liability can be lifted in the event of fraud. This would apply to the fraudster and not innocent investors.

What does MyNameIsJack want? No companies or socialist companies approved by the State along the lines of the British East India Company and the Hudsons Bay Company etc?

Even with limited liability investors assume considerable risk as anyone even most cursorily who follows the sharemarket knows.

Without any form of limited-liability companies, New Zealand would have either a population of about 500,000 people and be agrarian, hunting and fishing based, or a population of about five million and be stinking poor on a Third World Scale.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 1:16pm
georgebolwing

big bruv

From returns to the Federal Electoral Commission, I can find that the Federal National Mortgage Association Political Action Committee (Fannie Mae PAC) gave a grand total of $4,000 to Barak Obama for his senate campaigns in 2004, 2005 and 2006; but made no contributions to his Presidential Committee.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Political Action Committee (Freddie Mac’s PAC) does not appear to have ever contributed to any of his campaigns.

(See here for the returns of all those PAC’s that contributed to his presidental campaign or campaigned against it: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2007_P80003338)

Can you please inform me of the source of your suggestion that “Freddie and Fannie who contributed more to his election fund than anybody else.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 1:17pm
georgebolwing

As I posted on the More on the Bailout thread:

Removing limited liability status would return us to the economic conditions that existed in the 19th century.

In the absence of limited liability, every shareholder would be severally liable for ALL the debts of the company. You own one share in F&P, you are liable for 100% of all of its debts. No rational person would own shares in a company in common with strangers, and you would be very wary of owning shares in a company with friends and relatives, and you would want to have a private contractual arrangement with them that was equivalent to limited liability.

I am sure that there are people who use limited liability for nefarious purposes. The solution is not to lend to companies owned by such people, or if you do, then ensure that they give a personal charge over their assests
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 1:20pm
Chuck Bird

There is an interesting topic on MacDoctor.

http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=1483#comments

It is in regarding a GP who has pleaded guilty to sexually abusing 3 girls under 12 over 20 years ago. He is trying to get permanent name suppression so he can practice medicine again.

MacDoctor raises some very good points. Where are the militant feminists who opposed Clint Rickard practicing as a lawyer?

What do others think would be a more appropriate jail sentence for this paedophile – 10 years, 3 years or home detention?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 1:49pm
thedavincimode

Mr thingyjackythingy

I suggest that you lie down, take two aspirin with a large glass of water, and don’t ever extend credit to a limited liability company. Because the benefit of being able to trade with limited liability so as protect personal wealth is the very reason that God invented the company in the first place. Naughty bad capitalist conspiracy God. But don’t you buy into his nasty conspiracy. And don’t you go buying into His rationale that without companies we would all still be walking everywhere and saving the bullock cart for Church on Sundays. Or that we wouldn’t have medicine, computers, petrol, wide screen TVs, beer bottles, SKY Sport, or shaving foam.

Then let those who decide they wish to trade with such entities to make their own decisions about how they protect themselves for example: by first and foremost deciding not to trade with them at all, or alternatively, mitigating risk by obtaining security for amounts owing, and/or requiring remalpa clauses, credit references, liens, payment in cash, or any such other measures that might be perceived as mitigating credit risk. Suckers!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 1:55pm
Jack5

The NZ Herald today (page A5) has immigration agent Tuariki Delamere battling immigration officials who seemingly want to deport a family of Chinese overstayers who have an NZ-born child.

This is the same Delamere who as an NZ First Minister in a National Coalition government was Minister of Immigration. He lost the portolio in 1999 reports Wikipedia ” … after a scandal regarding the application of immigration rules. Specifically, it emerged that Delamere had approved permanent residency for a group of Chinese businessmen provided they invested generously in various Māori development schemes. Delamere was widely criticised for using his authority to ensure that money was given to certain groups. Delamere himself claimed that his actions were a perfectly reasonable method of addressing Māori development needs.”

Perhaps understandably, today’s NZ Herald report didn’t mention that Delamere last year was found not (not) guilty of 14 forgery and fraud charges related to overseas clients investing $1 million each in NZ to qualify for entry. But how can the Herald push his client’s case in such a one-sided way after all the controversy that has followed Delamere?

Southern posters may remember a South Island incident when Delamere was Minister. He firmly rejected strong community appeals to allow a German couple to stay with their New Zealand born children. The father apparently had some sort of undeclared drug conviction earlier in his life. Delamere was stone hearted then.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 2:18pm
PhilBest

big bruv (2664) 1 0 Says:

February 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
“I see that Hussein Messiah Obama has now decided to do something about those facing foreclosure on their homes.

The interesting part of his speech for me was the part when he said he wanted to restore confidence in Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.

This is the same Freddie and Fannie who contributed more to his election fund than anybody else.

This is also the same Freddie and Fannie who were involved with Obama a few years back when he was arranging these dodgy loans to people who clearly cannot afford them.”

You are onto it, BigBruv. Did you know that Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was a director of Freddie Mac in the most crucial fraudulent years? Did you know that Senator Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” had a top job there? Conflicts of interest, pork, and sleaze in all directions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 2:33pm
PhilBest

From stopthehousingbailout.com

“….A government bailout of the housing market is both fiscally and morally irresponsible; it is an unfair subsidy being paid to the wealthy (bankers), the greedy (mortgage brokers, flippers, and yes some homeowners), and the incautious (some homeowners), with little or no benefit to those paying the bill (taxpayers)…..

“….A bailout sends the wrong message about personal responsibility. It tells Americans in no uncertain terms that their financial decisions have no consequences; the government will pick up the tab.

A bailout tells responsible Americans that they are suckers. If responsible American had been smart, they would have overextended themselves, purchased homes they could not afford, and taken out home equity loans based on the paper value of their property. Then, when the bill came due, they could just pass it to the government.

A bailout allows banks, mortgage brokers, speculators, and refinancers to benefit from their abuse of the system. By doing so, it encourages these people to act irresponsibly in the future.

A bailout will force Americans who acted responsibly to pay for those who did not. The average American — who saved and scrimped for years to buy a house, but could not because speculators and over-extenders boosted home prices beyond affordability — will now be forced to pay for the homes of those who were less scrupulous.

A bailout will have a disproportionately negative affect on the minorities and the youth. Minorities and Americans under 35 (scroll down the link for 2007 data) are disproportionately underrepresented among homeowners. While non-hispanic whites enjoy a 75% homeownership rate, less than 50% of blacks and hispanics own homes. Similarly, only 42% of Americans under 35 own homes, compared to 80% for Americans 55 and older. A government bailout will perpetuate this race and generation gap by propping-up inflated house prices, thereby permanently pricing minorities and a generation of youth out of the market. And in a Kafkaesque irony, these folks will actually have to pay (i.e., taxes) to prevent themselves from buying homes.

A bailout props up over-inflated housing prices, thereby putting homeownership out of reach for young families and responsible Americans who recognized that there was a bubble. The housing market needs the correction that the bailout seeks to prevent because the average American cannot afford to purchase a home. “You cannot be both in favor of affordable housing and in favor of propping up home prices!”

A bailout creates perverse incentives. Rather than punishing their behavior, it encourages fiscal irresponsibility among bankers, mortgage brokers, speculators, and refinancers. These folks made money hand over fist in the past nine years (remember, homeborrowers who tapped their home equity received cash money to pay for Escalades, vacations, and stainless steel appliances; now they want you to pay for it!). Why change your behavior when you benefit from it?

A bailout shifts the risks of falling market prices from financially secure banks to the American taxpayer. As a result, either taxes or the federal deficit will skyrocket! This is a government handout that we simply cannot afford and, moreover, it is wrong!….”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 2:36pm
Patrick Starr

Greenfly – I believe DPF is talking in general, however in your case it may be sent for further scientific research
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 2:39pm
PhilBest

MyNameIsJack; on businesses and the people who start them.

One of the main causes of the economic mess we are now in, is that we, and that includes the USA as well, have made it less and less attractive to go into business and employ people. The returns in all likelihood just will not be there.

You might have to have your money, including borrowings on which you are paying interest, tied up for years waiting for a resource consent to even build the premises, at a cost of 6 figures in regulatory and consultants and lawyers costs.

You might make an employment mistake that will cost you a few grand in “go away money” even if you do everything by the book. Put a foot wrong, and some lowlife who was wrecking your business while he “worked” for you, might get the shirt off your back in “unjust dismissal” settlements.

And accident, or assault, or incident that gives offence to one of your employees, might be deemed by some faceless tinpot Napoleon to have been your fault; at a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars (minimum, not maximum).

If things don’t go too well and you need to close your doors, redundancy payout requirements ensure that you will indeed lose everything you have staked. In fact, even a moderate retrenchment in the event of a downturn is not an option, as the cost would probably finish you off there and then. This factor will ensure that any downturn is far more serious for the country than otherwise, as businesses face “all-or-nothing” sudden death.

In the event of a dispute with a customer, any judge or jury will be against you from the start.

And then there’s the taxes. Even before you pay yourself out a dividend, the State gouges out a share of the money you might have reinvested and created new jobs with.

Nah. If there are easier ways of making money, like speculating in property, let’s do that. Or shares. Not shares in businesses that actually make things or provide services, that might be safe, but the returns are too low (for all the reasons outlined above and then some). Nah, there’s new, exciting dotcom stocks, or Collateralised Debt Obligations, or Derivatives.

We have collectively set ourselves against business men, and made pariahs of them, for too long. We are paying the penalty now. Our elected socialist representatives have taken for granted, the revenue from this sector; the expansions of government of the last few years have been based on the revenue from a fake, credit-inflated, consumption-driven economy. We are certainly not in the time now, of the collapse of the free market, we are in the time of the revenge of the free market, in the same sense that the motor of your boat gets revenge on you for caning it too hard for years and neglecting maintenance, by leaving you stranded somewhere out at sea as night falls and a storm is building up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 2:57pm
gd

Philbest again right on na dto a lesser extent same in NZ those of us who have been prudent borrowers in the past and have paid back our loans intime and in full are now being penalised by low interest rates and having subsidise those who made bad decisions and over borrowed.

So we now bare the risk and they get the reward.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 2:58pm
philu

big bro is wrong again..

..brownie points for consistancy..tho’..eh..?

..if he can’t even get basic facts about one of his illustrious leaders..

..what cred can his other dribbles/excretions have..?

(the winner is not englishs’ daughter..)

..and good on you for being so ‘green’..eh..?

..and continuing to recycle those american rightwing thread ‘talking points’/blaming of the poor..

..for the greed/excesses of the rich..

..hearing those idiots rant..

..you’d think a democrat president had spent nine years taking america from record surpluses..to record deficits..

..and that it was a democrat president..who ‘torched’ the global banking system on his way through..

..yay..!..bush..!..eh..?

..and..y’know..it is really fucken funny…

..how many of you one-eyed ideologues supported monkey-boy president..

..no matter what he did..

..as he fucked your financial world..

..now..that’s irony..!

..phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 4:24pm
Rex Widerstrom

greenfly asks:

David. You rightly call upon us to ‘repeal the Guilt Upon Accusation (Copyright Law) but ignore the “Guilt Upon Accusation” DNA collection legislation. Don’t you get a sense of discomfort from the strange juxtaposition of the two issues? Do you not see it, or are you willfully ignoring the glaring similarities?

to which DPF replies:

No similarities. Your DNA sample is destroyed if you are found not guilty or charges are dropped.

And then the fairies at the bottom of your garden come and leave you a penny for your trouble. Sorry David but your touching faith in Mr Plod bepspeaks of someone who’s never had to deal with him, certainly not over issues of your own liberty.

Fingerprints and photographs taken of an arrested person who is later found not guilty, or against whom the case is dropped, are meant to be destroyed, too. But I have personally seen officers looking at pics of me in NZ well after a not guilty verdict and I have people in Australia willing to swear they’ve been shown pics of me obviously taken under similar circumstances.

Give the Police a power and they’ll find a way to abuse it. And then, like poor bloody Rex Haig, their political masters will tell you it’s tough that your rights were abused and not to expect a penny to help get your life back.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 4:49pm
Jack5

DNA has freed lots of wrongly convicted people Rex Widerstrom.

I can’t see what there’s to be frightened of. DNA is even more unique than a finger print. We just need the safeguards on methods of collection, storage, and testing to make this a good tool of justice.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 5:04pm
greenfly

Jack5 – despite Rex’s ‘heads up’ you are keeping yours firmly in the sand. Farrar is not working for you here, he’s deceiving you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 6:12pm
dad4justice

greenfly do you support the racist Maori All Blacks? Will the Minto wanker stop the tour?

phool – time for a treatment centre matey!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 19, 2009 7:03pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi

Hilarious:
NY Post cartoon of Obama-chimp stirs outrage

I believe the NY Post made a funny. 😆
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2009 1:55am
sbk

When the state funded lowlife who assaulted an 85 year old veteran outside the RSA is finally caught ,i sincerely hope that he is thrown in a cell with BIg Bad Boy Bubba.Hanging is to good for this scumbag.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2009 7:39am
Patrick Starr

strike one
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2009 7:45am
infused

This is awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 20, 2009 8:37am
wikiriwhis business

“This is awesome”

lol, who would’ve put tuxedo’s and a leisure craft together

on another note, I’m sick of having to sign into this site all the time !!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 21, 2009 1:44pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Thomson responds

Very sadly ironic »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Woman of the day
Hompaddock
The strange case of the I am Hope funding
The Standard
You Read It here First – I bet you’re sorry about that
No Minister
11.30am Live from Pennsylvania – Waatea Sunday Morning Political Podcast US Election Special
The Daily Blog
Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d