[DPF: On the contrary I can almost guarantee you have not read the EFB. I have read it many times from beginning to end. If currently requires you to sign a statutory declaration before you can send an e-mail to a friend telling them what you think of a political party]

As much as I sympathise with that individual I have to say that I would like to see him banned as well – simply because when our trolls run out of arguments they start baiting him and there goes another thread.

While I’m annoyed with what has been happening recently on Kiwiblog I would suggest that people don’t quit coming to the site. That’s simply going to give the likes of Tane the victory they want. After twenty years of reading the bloody Listener or watching One News/TV3 the development of right-wing blogs has been hugely pleasing.

But I still face the fact that finding the time to comment is tough when I’m juggling full-time work and family life. It’s difficult to get the hours in the day (or night) to comment on any thread – and that leaves the field wide open to people like Tane and co. who apparently have all the time in the world.

It’s actually a great example of what the EFB is all about: I don’t have the time to speak as often or for as long as left-wingers because I have chosen to focus on family and making the money to support a better life. The latter is something that left-wingers often sniff at: ‘well if you care so much you’ll organise a protest won’t you! Suits on the street – that’ll be the day, heh, heh, heh’. But that’s the whole point – there is an implication that the left-wing deserve to dominate the discourse because they are willing to sacrifice family or lifestyle or money to a cause, and if you’re not – well your ideas get buried – tough!

That’s where money comes in: if it was not for money that I can use to buy an advertisement or a mailout – or more to the point, that I can contribute towards someone else doing so on my behalf (e.g. PayPal support of Michael Yon) – the things I believe in would have no voice at all.

Money in an election, or in any campaign, is pretty much all I’ve got to combat the seemingly endless quantities of time of Tane and Robinsod and Gnome.

So let’s not don’t give up. We just have to be better at ignoring people indulging in obvious threadjacking and only respond when they put something up that has some argument behind it.

A worthwhile point. The trolls need to be banned irrespective of political affiliation. There is one multiple personality disordered individual who does as much to disrupt the discussion as Tane does and he never seems to go away. And as soon as he’s taken a day’s leave he returns under one of his other aliases.

They are certainly dragging Kiwiblog down and it’s becoming relatively unpleasant to come here.

I must admit my present mood is not lightened by the fact that many of these people are actively supporting a situation which is designed to limit freedom of speech, yet cry foul when anyone has the audacity to suggest their input is irrelevant, or that they should be banned. If yo want evidence of this read the affected outrage evident on the standard when the are taking the p**s out of this blog.

I am going to adopt a ‘zero-tolerance’ attitude to these people. ie I’ll refuse to discuss ideas I hold dear with them, because I have lost most of my respect for them.

But why should we have to scour through the blog bypassing all the inane nonsense to hunt out one or two relevent postings?

A bit late in supporting you but you are right – Pita Sharples speach was excellent. Certainly the best I have heard from him – no stuuttering or stammering and an excellent summation of the overspending in the 2005 election.

An admirably succinct summary, thank you. You’ve inspired me to go back and read DPF’s posts on this issue again – when I get a chance.

There were two separate issues going on, of which there appears to be a degree of confusion.

The AG warned all political parties before the 2005 election that they were not to spend parliamentary services money on the election campaign. Labour kicked for touch several times, and postponed meetings with the AG to clarify the rules on what parliamentary services money could be spent on. After the election, the AG ruled that the parliamentary services money Labour spent on its pledge card, and other items totalling some $900k, was campaign expenditure, and therefore unlawful. Only the Labour Party feigned surprise at the AG’s ruling. The AG’s ruling was backed up by an opinion from the Solicitor-General.

The second issue related to a series of correspondence between the Labour Party and the Chief Electoral Officer, in which the Labour Party agreed to include the pledge card, and other expenditure, as campaign expenditure, before the last week of the election. The CEO held the view that the pledge card was campaign expenditure, and needed to be included in Labour’s cap and expenditure return. The Labour Party subsequently changed its mind after the election and refused to include the expenditure in its return.

The police investigated this, and despite legal opinions from the AG, the Solicitor General, the CEO, and clear agreements before the election from the Labour Party, the police concluded that there was “too much confusion” and refused to prosecute.

That’s consistent with my general understanding of the actual sequence of events. Yes, DPF did a fairly detailed series of posts some time back.

There were other posts around that time that had the scanned letters.

POC – I wouldn’t fall for that if I were you. The relevant point is that the auditor warned Labour, they agreed to include it on their return, then they changed their mind. Open, closed.

Could you clarify the bold text? Are you saying that Labour reached some kind of understanding with the AG that the expenditure could be included in the return? And that the AG subequently changed his position?

This is really an unnecessary distraction from the thread, but I’ll briefly comment.

There’s a significant difference between those who (voluntarily) choose to go public with their name and/or background and those who (voluntarily) choose to keep that information to themselves. D4J is the single best illustration of the former (although his background is an unknown quantity, as we only ever hear his side of the story). Redbaiter is a good illustration of the latter (no doubt his identity is a matter of purient curiousity). We seem to know enough about your background. Much of that is probably due to your own voluntary disclosures – although, to be fair, others seem to have “outed” some aspects of your life. For what it’s worth, I think the person who originally posted your surname, whoever that was (D4J?), went too far.

It’s true that we’ve had a fair bit of dealings – and that includes some very constructive discussions as well as some sword-fighting. Hopefully all is forgiven?

Leaving aside the name-calling and fan mail, others here also engage with you. As I’ve explained before, I think much of that is to do with your posting style. You go to more effort than many. But those who post authoritatively with empirical data and references, and who presumably expect to be taken seriously, should expect to have their comments closely scrutinised. And there really shouldn’t be any problem if the comments are defensible. It all adds to healthy debate. It also goes to the difference between facts and opinions derived from facts.

Frankly, I’m starting to grow weary of Kiwiblog, as there are a notable few repeat offenders who disrupt multiple threads on a daily basis. It’s not quite the blog it once was. There are a few commentators whose comments I skip over altogether, as I can be confident that they generally don’t add anything constructive to the debate. I don’t know that DPF’s moderation policy has made much impact to date.

But yes, in case it assists, I’m a lawyer. I only left NZ very recently, for a better life overseas.

[rakaunui(moderation):: Thankyou P.O.C. for that insight in your comment regarding moderation.
I will ask DPF whether we can crank up the severity of moderation a notch or two]

Again, I repeat, what are you so worried about? I’m not even asking for your name – BTW I’m a 26 year old Masters student studying at Otago University. See, it’s not so scary.

Labour just ignored the bloke and then acted surprised when he called them on it.