|
Maybe something from his days as a financial trader or whatever?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
It was for accepting "anonymous" donations from Kim Dotcom knowing fully well they came from him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Dotcom donations were for Banks, not Key. Unless there are some new ones which are only coming out now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Dotcom donations were for Banks, not Key. Unless there are some new ones which are only coming out now. Oh, I saw the interview, and Chris Hopkins was talking about Bank, not Key. He was saying that Key's cabinet wasn't as stable as Jami Lee-Ross was claiming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
newtestleper posted:Oh, I saw the interview, and Chris Hopkins was talking about Bank, not Key. He was saying that Key's cabinet wasn't as stable as Jami Lee-Ross was claiming. Maybe I have wax in my ears then. I don't know WHY I watch that show. Every morning though, I just want noise and moving pictures while I am eating my cereal....
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
I like 3 better but my wife prefers 1, though we are united by our hatre of Petra Bagoost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
 I thought it was made clear by Key that changes to Pharmac were off the table as far as NZ was concerned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:
What has he done to make you think he would keep his word on something like that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:
If it means sucking up to any American interest Key will do anything. He'd murder a child to get a pat on the back from America. And if the Pharmac thing goes though, he will be murdering people!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
Goat Bastard posted:What has he done to make you think he would keep his word on something like that? I thought it was something he'd said specifically but I've found where I read it and he just says that there "might not" be changes. http://www.interest.co.nz/news/56699/pm-key-says-nz-drug-buyer-pharmac-may-not-be-changed-under-trans-pacific-partnership-talk quote:“I’m not even necessarily anticipating any changes there. We need to make our way through the finer details. But there’s always a give and take in every deal, that’s the nature of these things. But on balance of benefits, it has to benefit New Zealand otherwise we won’t do it, and we’ve demonstrated in the past we can. It’s not in our interest, I believe, to get rid of Pharmac,” he said. Yea, no poo poo. That's quite a bit different from "we won't be making any changes to PHARMAC at all". Given that they're so shy about interest on student loans (at the moment) you'd think something with far greater political implications would also be a big no-no, but still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Keep in mind that he said he won't sell assets or cut public service jobs in 2008 when discussing whether or not Key can be trusted to keep his word on anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Yeah and it is not just like Pharmac is the only thing that is particularly concerning, IP: http://fairdeal.net.nz/ And yeah, not sure if I trust Key's word on much/anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Everyone's favourite German troll is at it again, in some teaser screenshots he released of the new filesharing site he is building he hinted he has more stuff to lay on the PM
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
This is alarming. http://thestandard.org.nz/butterfly-upon-a-wheel-or-we-havent-changed/ Senior Labour MP uses back-end Red Alert data to cross-reference poster's email addresses with the party membership list, then the poster receives 'cease and desist' calls from the party if they criticize the party online from under a pseudonym. What the actual gently caress. A member speaks out: http://yournz.org/2012/12/07/labour-issuing-cease-and-desist-notices-to-members/
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
It's time to fix the economy! We need to cut all benefits, institute a flat tax, and ship our prisoners overseas (to China, who would be thrilled to take them). Oh Stuff Nation 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Know your role and shut your mouth: What the actual gently caress II, 'the Greens are stealing our votes, how dare they challenge us' edition. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong/news/article.cfm?a_id=3&objectid=10852707
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:This is alarming. It's an understandable move after the way things were handled in the build-up to and aftermath of the recent party convention. Part of what happened was that there were rogue MPs making critical posts anonymously creating a perception that the party leadership was unstable (maybe it was, but that ended up dominating the discussion surrounding the convention, rather than any meaningful focus on policy announced). At least when munters like Jones, Mahuta or Mallard makes a dipshit tweet, it's done under their own name and it's not too difficult for leadership to call them up and tell them to wind their necks in and if they have a problem with party leadership, they can discuss it in house instead of making it look like a public spat. Quite frankly, the Standard (and Tumeke, for that matter) have been throwing their toys out of the cot since Cunliffe messed with the bull and got the horns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
In lighter news: we have mint weather today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
truther posted:In lighter news: we have mint weather today. Yes indeed. Planning a beach mish for Thursday as we speak
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Part of what happened was that there were rogue MPs making critical posts anonymously creating a perception that the party leadership was unstable Really? Are you sure? I've been trying to follow along and this is a rumour I haven't read till now. Where did this info come from? MPs normally talk/leak to reporters as opposed to make anonymous blog comments. See - senior Labour MP #6 [Mallard] claiming Cunliffe is running a coup (while out of the country ffs). quote:Quite frankly, the Standard (and Tumeke, for that matter) have been throwing their toys out of the cot since Cunliffe messed with the bull and got the horns. Labour's getting a shellacking from it's membership because, quite simply, the performance of the party is loving appalling. I think Cunliffe's seen as a savior simply because the status quo is such a loving mess - I doubt there'd be the clamour for Cunliffe if Labour were acting like a credible political party. eg - I thought Clark was a neoliberal time-waster, but at least the members liked her because she was a very credible political leader. Labour's membership is at a record low - and now the Parliamentary wing seems determined to burn them off. And the quality of the current crop of MPs is the weakest that I can ever recall in the last thirty years. The question I keep asking myself - how much longer does this go on for? How do things improve from here - when the two conditions on the last paragraph persist? When will the dam burst? dusty fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:It's an understandable move after the way things were handled in the build-up to and aftermath of the recent party convention. Part of what happened was that there were rogue MPs making critical posts anonymously creating a perception that the party leadership was unstable (maybe it was, but that ended up dominating the discussion surrounding the convention, rather than any meaningful focus on policy announced). It's NOT an understandable move. 'Silence all critics' is not how a democratic party works. It's an attempt to stifle dissenting comment, but you know, only free speech that questions Labour's poor performance. Trevor Mallard already digs through IP addresses of people who disagree with them on Red Alert to make I KNOW WHO YOU ARE type statements. It's completely ridiculous and the opposite to how any political party should operate. Why would anyone comment on Red Alert when their data isn't safe and will be used against them? Labour has had no qualms about making attacks on public servants in the past for far less than anonymous blog comments (many of those who choose anonymity likely do so for that reason). It's also not based in fact - targeted Standard commenters have said themselves that they have to take a break from contributing to political discussion because of threats from the Labour Party. They aren't MPs. One of them is the head of the Otago Uni Labour branch. They are members who've been told to keep their mouth shut or assumeably face consequences. And of course, dusty is right - if a Labour MP wanted to destabilise their own party they can do it by going to the media and getting a much bigger crowd. This type of thing is really unacceptable and pathetic. At what point does a bunch of 'stupid one-off mistakes' or 'brain farts' actually become just what level of conduct is acceptable in the Labour caucus? Labour needs to be focusing on the government, not taking out its, frankly, long-suffering supporters. Curran and Mallard are tearing the party apart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
For all the talk of rejuvenation, it's hard to believe anything has changed until we either see major sackings or an updated party list. The entrenchment of dead wood on the Labour list at the last election was an embarrassment for a party that was trying to refresh itself after Helen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Bryce Edwards is really worth reading on this http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/12/clare-curran-the-standard-and-the-state-of-the-labour-party.html#more /edit And here's the ODT with confirmation that Curran is the MP grinding her axe with the membership ODT posted:Dunedin South MP Clare Curran admitted she was the senior MP attacked online at the weekend and yesterday for complaining to Labour Party hierarchy about comments made by commentators and bloggers. dusty fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:For all the talk of rejuvenation, it's hard to believe anything has changed until we either see major sackings or an updated party list. The entrenchment of dead wood on the Labour list at the last election was an embarrassment for a party that was trying to refresh itself after Helen. True, but at the same time, we're seeing a role reversal in that this latest gently caress-up is being brushed under the carpet due to National Party cabinet ministers loving up, like Collins dumping Justice Binnie's report on the Bain compensation case (and his retort) or Parata's apparently potentially illegal amalgamation of an all-girls special school with an all-boys special school (I didn't realise there were laws surrounding this sort of thing, but hey, there you go).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
What would people's fantasies for a functonial and good labour party be at the moment? I can't really imagine any scenario that would see me voting for them in the next election but Grant Robinson at the top could possibly give me question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
swampland posted:What would people's fantasies for a functonial and good labour party be at the moment? I can't really imagine any scenario that would see me voting for them in the next election but Grant Robinson at the top could possibly give me question. As a former Labour voter, a party that doesn't shoot itself in the foot twice a week with totally avoidable, bitter and childish sniping at its allies and partaking in that quaint pastime of holding the government to account. Of course, that would mean selecting MPs who actually have knowledge of their portfolios (and Labour just banished the only well performing one). Any type of interest to carrying out potentially painful internal reform that may upset some of their entrenched, entitled MPs rather than just paying lip service. If Labour wants to be in government again, it needs to sort out its internal issues. I just can't see them being able to maintain any kind of stable government with the current lot. Look at how they treat their most critical coalition partner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 12:16
|
|
|
They'd have to improve dramatically before I see any reason to vote for them over the Greens. They could cut out all the old fucks who don't seem to do anything but squabble I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
So David Bain and did he?/didn't he? is having another round in the media. It seems there are issues with the report from Justice Binnie which caused Collins to go to an unusual step of getting someone else to peer review his report essentially to retort his findings. In some ways this seems a bit like the ACC policy of sending people to doctor after doctor until you can find one who will allow you to drop the claim. However it is also very important that they get it right and if the initial report is flawed that surely needs to be addressed. Disclaimer I knew people associated with the case/investigation and am of the opinion David is probably guilty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
While I'm not sufficiently familiar with the case to have a proper opinion on it (I skimmed over the Binnie and Fisher reports and came to the conclusion that they are both quite long), it seems to me that there's a serious discrepancy in Binnie finding Bain probably innocent and the legal history of the charges. If Binnie's assessment is correct, then surely something went majorly wrong in Bain's two trials and associated appeals. There's a huge gulf between probably innocent and guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so if probably innocent is the correct assessment then surely the judges involved in these cases should have dismissed the charges before they got near a jury. It'd be different if some key exculpatory evidence came out post-trial, but that hasn't occurred. I don't see how a probably innocent assessment can be compatible with police, crown prosecutors, and the court all considering that there was a case to answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Felix_Cat posted:I don't see how a probably innocent assessment can be compatible with police, crown prosecutors, and the court all considering that there was a case to answer. So does that mean that no one who has been jailed can ever be found to be owed compensation for wrongful imprisonment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
ledge posted:So does that mean that no one who has been jailed can ever be found to be owed compensation for wrongful imprisonment? Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
There is no automatic right for compensation for a wrongful conviction in NZ. Instead it has to be done as a special act by Cabinet. There are no hard rules covering it only a set of guidelines which can be set aside at the discretion of Cabinet/The Justice Minister.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Felix_Cat posted:It's time to fix the economy! We need to cut all benefits, institute a flat tax, and ship our prisoners overseas (to China, who would be thrilled to take them). It's either this or something to do with babies/children. It's all interesting stuff and I always click on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
It is becoming pretty clear that Judith Collins will be a future Prime Minister of NZ. She is handling the Bain/Binnie case very astutely.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
Felix_Cat posted:It's time to fix the economy! We need to cut all benefits, institute a flat tax, and ship our prisoners overseas (to China, who would be thrilled to take them). You missed the best one, cut the minimum wage to $8 but give the dole to hardworking business owners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, the New Zealand voter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
Felix_Cat posted:While I'm not sufficiently familiar with the case to have a proper opinion on it (I skimmed over the Binnie and Fisher reports and came to the conclusion that they are both quite long), it seems to me... Sorry but nothing you said from this point on has any legal or social value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
Smithersnz posted:You missed the best one, cut the minimum wage to $8 but give the dole to hardworking business owners. Hmm, yes if businesses can just pay people way below the amount of money they need to survive then the the economy will improve because people will somehow be able to buy things even though they have no money and the government won't be forced to spend way more on welfare so people don't just die in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 10:07
|
|
|
swampland posted:Hmm, yes if businesses can just pay people way below the amount of money they need to survive then the the economy will improve because people will somehow be able to buy things even though they have no money and the government won't be forced to spend way more on welfare so people don't just die in the streets. Uh excuse me, I'm a small business owner putting in 100 (+!) hour weeks and in my spare time (not that I have much since I'm such an entrepreneurial spirit) I've been reading about this thing called the 'proletariat' and long story short I think the Brits had it right back in the 1800s because production was through the roof and businesses were doing really well and they didn't have all these uppity
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Goat Bastard posted:Sorry but nothing you said from this point on has any legal or social value. If you have a comment to make just make it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 13:38
|
|