About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 12, 2013 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 12 May 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment170

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (170)

Login to comment or vote

alex Masterley

Ut shows clearly the truism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:09pm
UglyTruth

But the fact is your a nutter and a lazy thinker.

Like I’ve said before Kea, when you find yourself unable to argue the facts you resort to slander.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:10pm
UglyTruth

Well, that’s us atheists scuppered port & starboard…..if we can’t reference a creator then no Court of Appeal.

You could always shop around for a sympathetic theist lawyer to act on your behalf, nasska.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:14pm
mandk

Fess up, UglyTruth, are you the offspring of Phil Ure and Penny Bright?
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:14pm
wat dabney

“ Give me three examples of these default rights ? ”

Everything which I can do in the absence of cooercion. Everything which follows from not being a slave.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:14pm
alex Masterley

Oh god, please no.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:16pm
Left Right and Centre

Sunday Sundaes…..

1) I’m in Courtenay Place at a bakery around 5-6am (sitting eating custard square/ melting moment)

2) Charming young (intoxirooted?) white kiwi gentlemen are buying hot chips etc.

3) Said men ask for tomato sauce. Sure… 30c per packet.

4) Men repeatedly demand to be given tomato sauce free. (“We don’t operate like that, we don’t operate like that’- in a mildly or even very intimidating tone and manner)

5) Young Asian assistant gives in and gives men sauce saying “just this time”.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:16pm
Kea

The joke is on you, F E Smith.

LOL 🙂

I think Mr Smith may have won a few more cases than you Ugly. Just sayin …
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:16pm
F E Smith

No, Ugly, you appear to have misconstrued that definition. The important part that you appear to have missed is this

In another sense…to which we are to look for an understanding of what constitutes the law

Because that is very different from the first part

The origins from which particular positive laws derive their authority and coercive force. Such are constitutions, treaties, statutes, usages, and customs.

Based upon your reading of that definition, my copy of Adams is in fact a source of the criminal law, when in fact it is a commentary on the criminal law. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (and the name should give away what it is) is not a source of the law.

Can I also point out the word statute is cited as being a source of the law?

But you carry on, it is most entertaining.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:17pm
Viking2

The mystery of the breakdown between rents and house prices .

his analysis provides a number of useful insights, including the extents to which low interest rates are disguising the underlying affordability problem and enhancing the attractiveness of both buying for investors and buying versus renting for first home buyers. But one of the most interesting insights provided by these reports is the breakdown in the
relationship between the national average house price and the rent on the average rental property. The left chart shows that after largely tracking each other in the 1970s, 1980s and 2000s, a yawning gap opened up between the national average house price and the average rent between 2002 and 2008.

http://www.sra.co.nz/pdf/RentMysteryMay13.pdf

And like most things in NZ you will note that the relationship went astray during the Labour Years.

Oh bohoo bohoo The Socilaists have fucked their own again.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:18pm
UglyTruth

I know there MUST be case law, because that is how common law is made

You cling to the lies of the state like a drowning man clinging to a concrete lifebuoy.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:18pm
MT_Tinman

nasska (6,283) Says:
May 12th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Well, that’s us atheists scuppered port & starboard…..if we can’t reference a creator then no Court of Appeal.

As it should be.

There are heaps of available gods around – the Xtians have three although they call them one – and if you’re too lazy to choose one or two it’s your own fault that they won’t listen.

Mine are beauties, they’d beat that Yahweh fella with one hand tied behind their backs 🙂
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:19pm
MT_Tinman

Do you run for Mayor/Parliament like the other Penny Ugly?
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:21pm
alex Masterley

I had always understood Blackstones commentaries to be just that. Commentaries. Reading UT almost made me wonder if Nigel Jameison had been wrong about what they were when he taught legal system so many years ago.
I don’t think UT will see the irony you allude to FES.
Righto, off to the yacht club for a beer that is only just merited by some lawn mowing this morning.
Later chaps.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:23pm
Viking2

More From Maggie Thatcher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=okHGCz6xxiw
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:23pm
Kea

wat, I come to your house, rob you, beat you up, steal your wife and burn the house down. (This sort of thing is common through out human history.)

You have claimed that no one gave you any rights. They just exist by default.

So what will you do about it ? You can not run to the police because they did not give you those rights. By your own admission no one gave you the rights so no one can enforce them.

My version is different. In my version society decides certain rights should be given. Those rights are enforced, protected and provided by the society that created them. My version works better than your hippy law or Ugly’s bronze age cult god.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:25pm
Chuck Bird

alex Masterley (1,137) Says:
May 12th, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Nostradamus, he has had no exposure to reason and logic. You are right about unrepresented litigants. It drives the judiciary mad.

I believe you are right Alex but that is no excuse for a judge particularly in the High Court not to treat an unrepresented civil litigate fairly.

There are good reasons like costs why a person chooses to be unrepresented.

Many years ago in I was unrepresented on a couple of occasions in the Family Court. I was treated fairly and with respect. I have been forced to represent myself because I am up against a former lawyer turned bad so that make matters worse.

I certainly question the ethics and honesty of some lawyers and sad to say some judges.

Do you practice criminal or civil law?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:27pm
Nostradamus

Even UglyTruth may appreciate this smackdown by a US judge in a very short judgment:

Before the court is a motion entitled “Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response Opposing Objection to Discharge.” Doc. #7. As background, this adversary was commenced on December 14, 2005 with the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge. (Doc. #1). Defendant answered the complaint on January 12, 2006. Doc. #3. Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s answer on January 26, 2006. Doc. #6. On February 3, 2006, Defendant filed the above entitled motion. The court cannot determine the substance, if any, of the Defendant’s legal argument, nor can the court even ascertain the relief that the Defendant is requesting. The Defendant’s motion is accordingly denied for being incomprehensible. 1

The footnote to the judgment said:

____________________________________________________________
1 Or, in the words of the competition judge to Adam Sandler’s title character in the movie, “Billy Madison,” after Billy Madison had responded to a question with an answer that sounded superficially reasonable but lacked any substance,

Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Deciphering motions like the one presented here wastes valuable chamber staff time, and invites this sort of footnote.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:28pm
UglyTruth

No, Ugly, you appear to have misconstrued that definition.

No, you’ve simply misdirected with irrelevances and falsehood. You’re not a lawyer by any chance, are you?

The relevant text is:

“In another sense, [sources of the law are] the authoritative or reliable works, records, documents, edicts, etc., to which we
are to look for an understanding of what constitutes the law. Such, for example, …. with reference to the common law, are especially the ancient reports and the works of such writers as … Blackstone, and others.

Can I also point out the word statute is cited as being a source of the law?

You could, but it would just be another irrelevancy since the subject matter is the common law.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:29pm
Kea

Uglytruth, ok so you claim that case law (made by Judges decisions) is not common law.

1. What is common law ?

2. You have convinced me with your erudite arguments. I now only recognise common law. Please tell me where I can find it, so that I can comply with that law ?
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:32pm
F E Smith

You’re not a lawyer by any chance, are you?

Yes, I am! But don’t let that put you off, Kea and Nostradamus have done a fine job of not getting a straight answer from you yet.

But you still haven’t addressed my question about the importance of the Norman invasion, and the wholesale change to the preceding Saxon laws that they brought with them.

to which we are to look for an understanding of what constitutes the law

Well, you missed my point, but never mind. Going on your logic, am I therefore entitled to say that a Commentary on the Christian Scriptures is therefore also a part of the Christian Scriptures?

EDIT: Well, seeing as how you claim that Blackstone is a source of the law, when Blackstone refers to statutes, does that make them a part of the common law? Or is he wrong in averting to statute at all?
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:37pm
Kea

Chuck Bird

Unrepresented litigants are given a huge amount of lattitude by Judges. They would never put up with that from a lawyer. The unfortunate thing is many people who represent themselves are quite mad.

I am amazed the family Court treated you fairly. You must be a woman, or maybe your partner started injecting drugs and beating the kids right in front of the Judge. 😉
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:41pm
wat dabney

“ So what will you do about it ? You can not run to the police because they did not give you those rights. By your own admission no one gave you the rights so no one can enforce them. ”

I can enforce them; either singly or collectively. Collectively could mean a police force which I and others choose to fund, or a state with an army.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:42pm
liarbors a joke

ahhh…life is good today here on Ko Samui. 30 degrees , sea breeze , g-bangers everywhere…life doesnt get much better

Off for a prawn and a beer leo…
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:43pm
Left Right and Centre

Wine availability at a NZ supermarket….

showing 1-15 of 884 items

far out man

beer and cider 199 items

kiwis sure must love their piss
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:44pm
UglyTruth

I had always understood Blackstones commentaries to be just that. Commentaries.

Blackstone’s works are commentaries. They are also called sources of the law because the document it, they help us understand what law is. This whole issue arose because of Kea’s problem with theism in law. I used the term “source of the common law” to show that theism had a basis in law.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:50pm
Kea

I can enforce them; either singly or collectively. Collectively could mean a police force which I and others choose to fund, or a state with an army.

Enforce what ?

How about my right to take things by conquest ? It is my default natural born right to take things by force. Modern society would not exist without conquest. You and I would not even be here.

What is good in life? To hear the lamentations of the neo-hippies 😉
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:50pm
wat dabney

“ Enforce what? How about my right to take things by conquest ? ”

There is all the difference in the world between being a coercee and being the coercer.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:55pm
UglyTruth

Uglytruth, ok so you claim that case law (made by Judges decisions) is not common law.

No, I said that the two are not equivalent. Case law is a subset of common law, but the state misrepresents common law by leaving out the central philosophy of the common law, which includes reference to deity, due process and the privilege of making oath.

1. What is common law ?

To learn about the common law you could read the legal code of King Alfred the Great, or the maxims of the common law, or Blackstone’s commentaries.
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:57pm
Kea

This whole issue arose because of Kea’s problem with theism in law

No I am ok with it. I am still trying to figure out if he law applies to atheist me and I am unsure on how to advise my Chinese friends. It would help if you could refer me to this unwritten, unrecorded, common law you speak of.

Why do you regard Blackstones as a source of law, but ignore other sources ?
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:59pm
Kea

To learn about the common law you could read the legal code of King Alfred the Great, or the maxims of the common law, or Blackstone’s commentaries.

So the only valid law was written in the dark ages by an unelected dictator born into a life of privilege in England and who regarded all others as his servants and who believed in some brutal primitive desert cult imported from the Middle East.

Wow !

Hard to know where to begin with that claim.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:05pm
Kea

If anyone thinks this is Uglytruths own words, then think again. The internet is full of this shit.

Ugly is just a confused Parrot. 🙂

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:08pm
Pauleastbay

I pop out for a few hours for the mothers day thing come home and find fuck witticism truly has gone to previously unknown levels, if there was a scale it would now be off the chart.

My only hope is is that somehow according to your logic Ugly the Electoral Commission finds that you are not legally a person and won’t be able to vote next year otherwise I am in total despair.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:08pm
F E Smith

Ugly, have you read Blackstone? I have; I even own a copy that is well over 100 years old (getting a first edition is pretty difficult, to be fair).

In his Commentaries, Blackstone makes frequent use of sources of the law, such as cases and statutes. They are right throughout the damn thing.

Indeed, there is an interesting bit early on, where Sir William says with reference to the Common Law

how are these customs or maxims too be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined ? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositary of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the law of the land.

Which would suggest that perhaps case law has something going for it. Blackstone has a lot to say about the legitimacy of statutes of Parliament, too.

The fact is that the Common Law really doesn’t exist much in NZ today. We have a law based primarily upon statutes. Hell, even your Legal Code of Alfred the Great was a statute. In fact, in calling itself a code it purports to replace all previous law covering the same subjects that it contains.

And you still haven’t addressed the real problem that you have with regards the Norman invasion.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:10pm
UglyTruth

Ugly, I would be interested to hear how the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and the subsequent adoption of Norman French legal precepts (such as trial by combat) into the common law affected the validity and standing of the Legal Code of King Alfred the Great of Wessex.

Trial by combat was never consistent with King Alfred’s common law, it represented the law of the predator as practiced by Rome. The conflict between the principles of English common law and the civil law that originated with the Roman twelve tables existed before the advent of Rome and continues today. The problem with your approach is that you look to the exterior form to determine validity rather than to the underlying nature of the system.
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:14pm
F E Smith

The problem with your approach is that you look to the exterior form to determine validity rather than to the underlying nature of the system.

That makes no sense at all.

EDIT: To be fair, nor does this:

The conflict between the principles of English common law and the civil law that originated with the Roman twelve tables existed before the advent of Rome and continues today.

FURTHER EDIT: Are you suggesting that the Common law is only that which pre-dates the Norman invasion of 1066?
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:17pm
UglyTruth

If anyone thinks this is Uglytruths own words, then think again. The internet is full of this shit.

Like I said, Kea slanders when he can’t argue. When I quote the words of other authors I give a reference, I don’t plagiarize their work.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:17pm
F E Smith

Have to go. Off to see friends and the wife won’t let me stay home to comment on KB!!!

Bye, all.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:20pm
UglyTruth

That makes no sense at all.

Animus ad se omne jus ducit. It is to the intention that all law applies.

The underlying nature of the common law deals with the relationship of ethics to consciousness. The exterior legal form can be ambiguous.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:24pm
Chuck Bird

Unrepresented litigants are given a huge amount of lattitude by Judges. They would never put up with that from a lawyer. The unfortunate thing is many people who represent themselves are quite mad.

Kea, I can assure you I am not mad. My issues is extracting money from a deadbeat failed lawyer and failed property developer who once was my friend when he wanted to borrow money. Because of a lazy High Court Judge I lost a caveat I had on the property so the best I can hope for is getting a judgement against the piece of scum. I will be struggling to get the money now I lost my security.

I found in the Family Court unrepresented litigants were given a huge amount of latitude by Judges. Two Judges I was more than happy with Judge Mahony and Dame Silvia Cartwright. I actually met up Judge Mahony about 10 to 15 years ago with a group of fathers. That is something that never happened Judge Peter Boshier. When I saw him on TV this morning on Q+A I could puke. He is almost as bright as Binnie the ninny. It sounds like you were in the Family Court after me. Sadly, it must have got more anti-father and anti-men.

Boshier has similar mannerisms to Judge Bill Hasting who decided to bat for the other team. Boshier seem very anti men and fathers. He claims that in an expanded version of domestic violence that includes saying unkind things men are also the worst offenders. If his theory was correct there would be little domestic violence amongst lesbians.

Are you a lawyer of just had a bad experience in the Family Court?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:28pm
UglyTruth

how are these customs or maxims too be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined ? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositary of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the law of the land.

The thing is that in NZ the judges are bound by oath to serve Elizabeth II according to law, and they marginalize the law of the land by misrepresenting it as simply case law.

lex terre:
The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand. Developments made by New Zealand courts mean that New Zealand now differs from the United Kingdom on some aspects of the common law.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:38pm
Kea

Chuck Bird, I have personally had no bad experiences, or even appeared, in the family court. But I have seen a bit of what happens there and it is not pretty.

I can not really answer your questions about what I do. It would limit the sorts of things I could say on a public forum. That is the only reason I do not use my real name.

As for “getting a judgement against the piece of scum”, you have to also get your money. Getting a decision in your favour will not make the money magically appear. I hope it goes well for you and he has the means to comply with the courts judgment.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:40pm
Kea

The thing is that in NZ the judges are bound by oath to serve Elizabeth II according to law

What, as opposed to some king who lived over 1200 years ago before NZ was even settled ?

Law is made by people. The people today can change any law they like. You have provided no evidence that some arbitrary point in time had the only valid binding law.

At the end of the day you are just making stuff up and constructing a conspiracy theory. It is not even original or clever.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:47pm
Pauleastbay

The law is a living thing it grows as we grow, it changes as we change. Do you like that?
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:54pm
Kea

Pauleastbay, apparently not. The only valid law was made in the 800’s by King Alfred, inspired by [his] god. (a god borrowed from a primitive desert cult. I am unsure if Iraq/Syria are still sources of law today)
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 4:57pm
UglyTruth

The only valid law was made in the 800′s by King Alfred, inspired by [his] god.

Who told you that, Kea?
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:12pm
Kea

UglyTruth, I checked out your website. A good balance of legal nonsense and Chemtrails !

[The crazy is strong in this one]
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:22pm
UglyTruth

At the end of the day you are just making stuff up

Project much, Kea?

You said: “You mean Judge Russell thought he had jurisdiction to hear the matter and was mistaken. That is not fraud.”

Is that not making stuff up?

BTW, what stuff, exactly, do you think that I made up?
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:28pm
Kea

Ugly, you seem a bit shy about the details of case. I think you may have been confused about what happened there.

Yes your entire argument is fantasy, so it is made up.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:40pm
dime

Gilmour has quit 🙁
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:42pm
Pauleastbay

dime

as least he had the balls and hasn’t used Parliament to fund a TAB account.

One down , another 100 or so to go and we are winning
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:44pm
Steve (North Shore)

Gilmore has quit 🙂
He is still not taking ownership of his own shit though
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:45pm
UglyTruth

Ugly, you seem a bit shy about the details of case. I think you may have been confused about what happened there.

No confusion Kea, I was there at the time. It you who is making stuff up.

Yes your entire argument is fantasy, so it is made up.

You mean my argument that the state is lying about the basics of law, or a different one?
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:49pm
big bruv

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8662910/Fourth-Auckland-crash-victim-dies

I imagine that somebody else has already raised this point but how the does this person qualify as a “victim”?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 5:58pm
nasska

Gilmore’s statement was reasonable under the circumstances Steve. From TVNZ’s website:

….”Gilmore maintains his support for the National Party and Prime Minister John Key remains unwavering.”…..

At least he didn’t throw his toys out of the cot. I’ll warrant although, that selection criteria for the Nat’s list is tightened up somewhat.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 6:00pm
wiseowl

PEB.
What a stupid comment.
Parliament funds no MP’s TAB account.
If an MP chooses to use his income to put funds himself into a TAB account then that is their business.
Just a pathetic comment and I hope Horan tackles you.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 6:02pm
wiseowl

What a sad situation when his replacement is someone in a civil union relationship.

National really are proving how far they have moved from their principles.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 6:04pm
Kea

You mean my argument that the state is lying about the basics of law, or a different one?

Yes that one.

Take a step back and have a look at what your saying. Look around you, it is clearly wrong. Parliament does make laws and they are binding. They will be backed up with force.

Regardless of who is right about this, what are you going to do about it ? Appeal to your “creator” ?
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 6:05pm
nasska

wiseowl

The National Party’s founding principles go something like this:

….To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry…..

On first glance they don’t say a hell of a lot about who an MP sleeps with & less about the state overseeing the bedrooms of the nation.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 6:16pm
UglyTruth

your entire argument is fantasy

Which parts are fantasy?
1. The fact that parliament and the judiciary both refer to common law as being equivalent to case law.
2. The fact that Blacks dictionary of law describes common law as the principles and rules deriving authority from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, as well as case law.
3. The fact that Blacks dictionary of law is a reputable source of information about common law.
4. The fact that English common law, as established by King Alfred the Great, began with the ten commandments.
5. The fact that parliament and the judiciary should know the truth about the nature of common law.
6. The implication that they are lying about it.

Parliament does make laws and they are binding. They will be backed up with force.

Agreement to implement unlawful policy is conspiracy, regardless of the fact that it is done by parliament.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 6:33pm
Pauleastbay

wiseowl

why would he tackle me.?

Mind you he has plenty of time, he contributes fuck all, sits there taking tax payers money for fuck all and hasn’t got the balls to resign even though the only reason he is there is because he was tacked onto a party list. 4600 people voted for NZF not Horan no matter how you want to dress it up.

the proof will be next yeat, I’ll wager 4600 votes won’t win Tauranga.

If you think brendan Horan is in any way honorable you are very very sad
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 6:41pm
Longknives

Is Ugly Truth actually Philu in disguise??
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 7:10pm
nasska

Good grammar, punctuation, spelling & sparing with ellipses.

No chance Longknives! 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 7:16pm
wiseowl

PEB.you totally missed the point.
I have no truck with Horan, nothing to do with him but you made a snide comment,accusation if you may, that I felt was out of order.
Do you have evidence?

Nasska.
All I am saying is it is out of character for someone in a civil union same sex relationship to be in the National Party.It is more likely a situation you would find with Labour.
Not interested in what they do in the bedroom ,that’s their business.It could however fit well with the socialism factor.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 7:25pm
Pauleastbay

wiseowl, he has a TAB account (public knowledge )and Parliament give him a salary( public knowledge and a travesty).
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 7:31pm
big bruv

What ever happened to Phil U and D4J ?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 7:36pm
Nostradamus

Big Bruv:

Everyone was mean to them, so they decided to howl at the moon from the safety of their own blogs (which no one reads) instead.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 7:49pm
wiseowl

PEB.
You implied Parliament paid money into his TAB account.
That’s the subtle difference .
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 7:49pm
nasska

The Brisbane police were searching for a man they suspected
of a string of burglaries. They had six photographs of
the man, all taken in different locations and from different
angles. They sent fax copies of these pictures to police
stations all over the state.

Several days later, Brisbane HQ received a fax report from the
police sergeant in a small town in Northern Queensland. The memo read,
“We immediately went to work on those six pictures you sent.
We’ve located and shot five of the suspects, and we have
the sixth under observation right now.”
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 8:00pm
Manolo

Well said, Karl du Fresne: http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/karl-du-fresne-debasing-debate.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 13, 2013 6:21am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« 10/10 in 37 seconds

Hide on Greens/Labour nationalisation »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K 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

"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Sharp departure in child poverty approach
Point of Order
Continuous Process Improvement
No Minister
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
Popuphobia’s Javier Milei Problem
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
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