The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry

November 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm by David Farrar

Okay just got back from the march.  Didn’t quite go as I envisioned.  You see while I have promoted the march here, I’m not one of the organisers and my involvement was purely to stroll along at the back, and see how it goes.

Sadly these plans went awry. The cessna flipping at Wellington Airport took out two of the three speakers and an extended Select Committee hearing took out the third.

So around 5 minutes before the march started I was told I am now the main speaker.  Yay – and I have so much time to prepare. It is hard to describe the clenching feeling you get in your stomach when you suddenly realise you have to do something with no preparation, and in front of every outlet in NZ. Reminds me of bungy jumping.

Then as the march started I got told this also entails having to march in front of the main banner.  Great – I’m leading a protest march.  The last time I did this was in 1989 against Phil Goff in Dunedin as a student activist.  And I wasn’t even a speaker, just one of those who got to chant into a megaphone “Eff off Goff” several hundred times.

As expected Young Labour did a spirited counter protest complete with masks and megaphones.  They didn’t appreciate the irony that what they were doing would itself be illegal next year. They will make the news I am sure which is what they wanted.

Not a large turnout (but around what I expected for a weekday in Wellington) and got to Parliament fairly quickly.  I spoke a couple of times, we gave counter protesters a couple of minutes also.  Then Stephen Franks spoke.  Jeanette Fitzsimons asked to speak.  I knew the organisers hadn’t wanted any MP speaking as it was meant to be a message to them, but seeing Young Labour (to be fair the guy who spoke said he was not a Labour member, but almost all his colleagues were) got to speak we let Jeanette speak.  Then Nick Smith and Gordon Copeland also spoke to be balanced and that was it.

Afterwards was in a taxi when the 2 pm news came on.  Heard my voice blaring as the first item, and the taxi driver turns to me and say “You know that guy sounds a lot like you”.  Hilarious.

Very sad that John Boscawen couldn’t make it.  Not just because it would have got me off the hook, but that he has put so much time and energy (and his own money) into this cause he is passionate about.  I’ll blog a copy fo the speech he would have given once I have an electronic copy. But I think he has more marches planned for Christchurch and Hamilton anyway.

Tags: , ,

215 Responses to “The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry”

  1. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    [DPF: Just post the link to PA, and some extracts. Not the entire column. If nothing else it deprives them of advertising revenue.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    oops – should have been this link:

    http://publicaddress.net/default,4625.sm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    the joker from the counterprotest who spoke said he wasn’t young labour, hadn’t voted labour in his life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    Oh great, the rogered gnomer who lacks any mettle posts a link to soft news – the brown run paris hilton of the internet .

    Well done David and all the others who Marched against the disgusting antics of a deluded government .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    I’m still hoping that shortly I’ll land back in the New Zealand that has a sense of fairness and proportion, and can debate this revised bill on its merits.

    So am I, Roger, so am I.

    This bill is a minefeild. Drafted in haste, with a stated egalitarian purpose to disguise it’s intended one. Giving newspapers and editors “free reign” provided they only inform or entertain. If freedom of the press is so regarded, why the qualified exemption? Why not a blanket one?

    This bill also captures TVNZ, who, as a SOE, is expressly forbidden from election advertising. King has said they are exempt because of the broadcasting act, but the EFB does not stipulate this. TVNZ’s legal dept has siad that under the auspices of the EFB, as a government entity, it cannot engage in, or assist those engaged in any form of election advertising.

    This is another example of a bad law, drafted in haste to meet a deadline, not a purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Grant (444 comments) says:

    What I find telling about the whole sorry saga is the fact that Fitzsimons was permitted to speak at the march , but that the Nats weren’t consulted by her governing partners, (Labour), with regard to the original contents of the bill that the protest was about.
    Speaks volumes about the bill’s intentions to me.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Linda Reid (417 comments) says:

    Well done David – I look forward to seeing you on the news tonight.

    I just about started to write why I agree with you over all this, but then changed my mind. It appears that most people have entrenched views and are not looking for information. They even think passing more law that should be ignored (using the law of common sense) is good government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. helmet (807 comments) says:

    What a fucking awful lawyer you would be Sam. You’re a smug little guy, and you claim to have the law degree; you certainly have the dishonesty and capacity to lie freely, but you’re just too fucking stupid to ever be any good.

    I mean seriously Sam, what kind of cereal box did you get this degree from? Doesn’t happen to be in Hamilton does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    What I found telling was that the rightwing speakers could only speak about some minor theoritical issues about megaphones, when their real concern is that their few, ultra-wealthy (and sometimes foreign?) backers will not longer be able to fill National’s coffers secretly or secretly run parallel campaigns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    If Sam Dixon has a law degree then I am your next Prime Minister ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    OK DPF – Fair enough. Some extracts then….

    This is an interesting piece on on the EFB by Steven Price of the Coalition for Open Government. It can be found at public address.

    http://publicaddress.net/default,4625.sm

    Well, now we can all see the changes. And as someone who’s spent his life studying, writing about, and arguing free speech issues, I think this bill is much better. It shortens the net capturing “election advertisements”. It doubles the amount that people can spend on them. It scraps the onerous statutory declaration regime. It restricts overseas donations. Best of all, it introduces new controls on secret trusts and anonymous donations.

    I am mystified by the people who are claiming that the changes aren’t significant and that the bill is still “draconian”. Bill English: this means you. Why are you telling people that this is about silencing Labour’s critics? Shouldn’t you point out that it equally restricts Labour’s cheerleaders, and National’s critics?

    How can you justify calling this “heavy regulation” of free speech? Shouldn’t you mention that no more than a handful of people want to spend more than $120,000 on electioneering? And that hardly any of us even spend the $12,000 that would require us to register our identities with the Electoral Commission so that everyone knows who’s behind our ads? Most of us exercise free speech by talking to each other, writing letters to the editor, and talking to the media. Those things aren’t regulated at all.

    What’s that you’re saying about the regulations applying one year in every three? Shouldn’t you point out that political speech in the early months of the year is very unlikely to be calling for people to vote one way or another – so it won’t fall under the Act?

    For example, if the Sensible Sentencing Trust runs an ad in March calling for MPs to vote for the More Prisons Amendment Bill, that speech won’t be affected. If they run an ad in October calling for the public to vote against the parties who refused to support the More Prisons Amendment Bill, it will count as an election advertisement. As it should.

    Is the bill perfect? No. There are still some flaws. I’d like to see the limit for anonymous donations reduced still further, for example. Why should parties be able to get $10,000 donations each year from people without telling voters their identities?

    And the bill should be tweaked to make it clear that people with loudhailers and placards don’t have to put their names and addresses on them (the government has announced it will fix this).

    I’m still hoping that shortly I’ll land back in the New Zealand that has a sense of fairness and proportion, and can debate this revised bill on its merits. When that happens, we might start asking ourselves some really interesting questions, such as who stands to gain most from the lack of fairness and transparency in the present system — the system that will prevail if this bill is defeated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    D4J – I do have a law degree; fortunately for the country, I don’t think you’ll be the next PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    David

    I do hope that there is a march organised for Hamilton, while it is a lengthly trip for me to make I will definitely be attending as I believe this is a corrupt and evil piece of legislation.

    I only hope that the scum from young Labour also decide to make an appearance, that alone will be worth the trip.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    Look David F can’t you ban this fuckwit roger gnome as this is bloody ridiculous from the cut and paste queen !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    helmet – I’ve read the Bill, the jokers on Kiwiblogblog have read the Bill, Steven Price and Graeme Edgeler from the Coalition for Open Government have read the Bill

    – don’t know about the kiwiblogblog fellas but me, Graeme and Steven are legally qualified, Farrar is not.

    we all agree that Farrar is put an absurd interpretation on the clause in question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. AGJ (563 comments) says:

    I think Sam got his law degree at the same place Rog got his first class honors degree. Comedy Gold

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    but you’re just too fucking stupid to ever be any good.

    So how many demerit points do you think that should be worth Helmet?

    50 perhaps?

    “50 points – For grossly inflammatory comments with no redeeming quality”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. helmet (807 comments) says:

    The only thing more embarrassing than a layman who’s no good at understanding the law is someone who claims to have a degree, and still can’t get it right ay Sam?

    I liked Graeme’s response to your misdirected and misinformed rant the other day, comedy gold mate, well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. helmet (807 comments) says:

    I’d say a hundred roger, perhaps two? Go cry to someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Look David F can’t you ban this fuckwit”

    D4J – looks like your headed for 50 more demerit points as well hey? Here’s a song just for you dad…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    Sam

    If you do have a law degree then it’s possible you are a filthy rich bastard. You must be denigrated for this alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Go cry to someone else.”

    Who’s crying helmet – just letting you know that you’re skating on very thin ice – I would have thought that some gratitude would be in order for the heads up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. helmet (807 comments) says:

    I usually find that when pricks like the above two trolls feel they have to spout off about their qualifications in order to give their arguments some credibility, it means the argument’s already been lost.

    No amount of bragging by Sam about his supposed law degree changes the fact that despite his qualifications he can’t even understand the law correctly even when Graeme Edgeler breaks it down so even a moron could comprehend it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “just letting you know that you’re skating on very thin ice”

    Um thanks Roger, but maybe it’s escaped you but this ain’t your blog buddy, and a warning from you doesn’t carry much currency around here buddy. Thanks all the same though?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Pics:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00346.htm

    Videos:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    the stan dard has a photo of the rally up: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=748#respond

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    we all agree that Farrar has put an absurd interpretation on the clause in question.

    I’m with you on this one, Sam. Basically, DPF, you are misleading the small audience that actually adhere to what you say.

    In a previous post you claim that five lawyers agree with your interpretation, when, while one of them might turn up to the same march as you (Stephen F), two of them clearly state a different position (Dean K and Steven P) and I can’t speak for the last two, but you have presented no statements from them that back up what you say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    heh-heh-heh-heh-heh..!

    the right..and demos..eh..?

    dpf to the barricades..!..eh..?

    so..how many did you get..?..a hundred..?..counting mredia.?

    phil(whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Sheesh two ‘buddy’s ‘ in one post, I really need to get a proofreader.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    helmet – I didn’t brag, someone asked, I told them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Helmet –

    You’ve been the biggest troll on this thread. Foul mouthed and personally abusive in the extreme. It’s hard to think how you could have been more anti-social and disruptive if you had tried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    I have finished my law degree therefore am most qualified to speak on this matter. I have come to the conclusion that if the Bill shuts people like D4J up considering the amount of bullshit he posts here that often completely fucks up any decent comments thread on Kiwiblog then I’m all in favour of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    MikeE – so, the protest took about 35 seconds to pass a stationary camera, and it wasn’t very dense or wide.. that makes for small numbers.. earlier I would have said 200, now I’m thinking 100-150.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Sam drools “helmet – I didn’t brag, someone asked, I told them.”

    You’re not a liar then Sam, I take it back. You just have the memory of a fucking goldfish- this from twenty minutes ago:

    “don’t know about the kiwiblogblog fellas but me, Graeme and Steven are legally qualified, Farrar is not.”

    Not bragging eh. Never masturbated either I suppose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Helmet – you bragged on Phil U’s blog that you’re “a lawyer” – that comment has since been deleted, and you’ve denied that you said it. I was wondering philU, if you’re still here, can you confirm that Helmet did in fact say this on your blog therefore he is a hypocrite and a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Roger- “You’ve been the biggest troll on this thread. Foul mouthed and personally abusive in the extreme. It’s hard to think how you could have been more anti-social and disruptive if you had tried.”

    I suppose I could have cut and pasted long exhaustive posts from other blogs instead of just placing a link?

    Seriously though, stop being such a sook. Sam can abuse and defame people with the best of them, I’ve actually been quite moderate in comparison. And I assume that with his law degree, he’s big enough and ugly enough to handle it. If some moderator wants to issue demerits I’ll accept it as well.
    Now, quit stalking me Roger, it makes me feel uncomfortable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Nice try David, but next time it might be best to leave the demonstrating to us.

    We know how to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. catwoman (123 comments) says:

    Steven Price needs to put his glasses on. This bill actually prohibits TVOne running election advertising – Section 55 B
    Certain persons and bodies may not promote an election advertisement. The following persons and bodies may not publish or cause or permit to be published any election advertisement:

    the chief executive (however described) of a department of State or a Crown entity:
    (b) a department of State:
    (c) a Crown entity:
    (d) a State enterprise (within the meaning of section 2 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986) or a Crown owned company:
    (e) any other instrument of the Crown.

    Well done Annette King – Hoist with your own lying petard!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    Helmet me old mate, When you get as much as I do you, you don’t need to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Not this one again Nome. I keep telling you, if you’re going to throw accusations like that around you’d better have some proof.

    But you never do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Sam D … great response

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Isnt it ironic that the group campaigning to remove the anonymity from potitical donations, turns up to a counter protest march with their faces covered by masks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Sam, you’ve never, ever, done me. Now stop making shit up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nat Girl (8 comments) says:

    Congratulations David, with no law degree you are able to interpret this load of crap better than those with an LLB (LLB is that Lying Labour Bunch)

    Section 55B does actually prevent TVNZ from running any advertising in election year because it is crown owned.

    You bloody ripper. I makes you wonder what else will come out of the woodwork next year……………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    catwoman – – is TVNZ a SOE within the meaning of SOE ACT 1986, s2?

    Because that section says SOE’s are the organisation listed in schedule 1 of the same Act, and TVNZ isn’t on the list http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes

    even if TVNZ is and SOE for within the meaning of SECT Act 1986, s2, its a minor legislative flaw, easily repaired, that’s one part of what readings are for, to remove mistakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Seriously though, stop being such a sook.”

    I’m a “sook” for pointing out your hypocrisy for calling me and sam “trolls”? Look back over the thread helmet, and tell me which posters have used abusive language. “wa wa wa – roger called me a hypocrite and he was right” – sooky baby boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    Bevan – the masks were satire, they took them off and spoke with their mask off, gave their names too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    You know it is such a shame that Labour apologists have so little disregard for our freedoms.

    I know that had National put up this dog of a bill the screaming from them and the marching would have been enormous, the fact that almost, with the exception of a few dedicated and loyal citizen, the left has made this a partisan issue is truly sad for our country.

    I will offer up a wry smile when they get tossed from power and then suffer a rewrite of our Electoral Law without their input. I won’t agree with that either, and if our rights are trampled i will fight that as well but for the left who have silently condoned this out of pure ideological spite, I will smile.

    You reap what you sow and what you have sown are the seeds of distrust. Nicky probably won’t like that but tough shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    Well done David. Enjoyed your speech, and your point about letting The Labour Thugs even have their say – even if it was lost on them. They wer like possums in the headlights

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Joker (40 comments) says:

    The numbers on the march were a joke.

    Considering all the annoymous gnashing of teeth that goes on by people on the blog around this subject it is sad that they didn’t have the stones to take action when they had a chance.

    If memory serves me right the majority of Kiwi Blog readers are from Wellington so the “I live somewhere else” excuse doesnt wash.

    I was there trying to do my bit for democracy and it was sad that I felt embarrased by how few people actually care.

    That fuckwit Fitzsimmons asked the crowd how they would feel if large groups of Labourites got together with large budgets and had a crack at the National party – They already exist they are called the Unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. bobux (349 comments) says:

    Sam Dixon

    I’m responding to your initial comment on this sorry-arsed slanging match of a thread. The counterprotest joker did indeed say that he had never voted for Labour. Mind you, he didn’t look old enough to vote, so that doesn’t tell us much.

    As I posted on the previous thread, the guy with the megaphone making the noise is on the Young Labour national executive.

    Kent Parker
    “DPF, you are misleading the small audience that actually adhere to what you say.”
    Kent – what exactly are you trying to say? There is no way to determine how many people ‘adhere’ to David’s views. Like many regulars, I agree with some and disagree with others. However, he does attract more comments on a single post than most NZ blogs get in a week. The fact that people like you who strongly disagree with David’s views turn up to post their two cents worth is a kind of backhanded testament to how significant Kiwiblog has been in NZ political debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    No, Sam. TVNZ is a Crown Company. Crown companies are precluded under the EFB from placing political party advertising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Good Joker (2 comments) says:

    Hi David

    You didn’t look rattled and I think you have done a marvellous job on promoting this cynical attack on our democratic freedoms.

    First of all I’d like to say YES I believe we should know where money donated to political parties comes from and would support changes on that basis.

    The rest of the bill is all about Labour trying to get a fourth term.

    I am particularly astounded no one seems to have picked up the hypocrisy that a council candidate has the same spending cap of $20000 as a candidate standing for local MP BUT the council candidate often is only representing 20 – 25% of the electorate ie. a ward. The council candidate also is only limited to $20000 within the 3 month period. A Mayor on the other hand has an even higher limit of $55000 which is the same as a Regional Councillor. A Mayor & Regional Councillor is campaigning over an area a similar size to an MP candidate would do ie. a whole city. An MP candidate although has to fight a campaign with a limited $20000 budget for a whole year against a sitting MP with a huge Government marketing budget and tax payer paid offices and support staff!

    Q) So what is the rationale for a candidate for local MP from 1 January of election year having a maximum spending limit of $20000??

    A) So Labour and it’s friends can win the election! pure and simple
    …. lousy cheating hypocrites that they are!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Steven Price (4 comments) says:

    I don’t want to weigh in about law degrees (though I have one), but I do want to point out that if you’re simply saying “this bill is great” or “this bill is awful” or “those cretins protesting against the bill don’t know what they’re talking about” or “those cretins protesting against us don’t know what they’re talking about” — that behaviour doesn’t come under the bill. It needs to be reasonably regarded as aimed at voting behaviour at an election. Even where there’s some ambiguity, the Bill of Rights Act requires the law to be interpreted to favour free speech.

    As for the TVNZ issue mentioned by catwoman, I never said the bill was flawless. I suspect the government will probably clarify that point. But as things stand, you’ve got the Broadcasting Act that does authorise those ads (and has provisions specifically about broadcasting political ads, and whose purpose is plainly to allow and regulate political advertising) and the EFB that would ban SOEs from political advertising (whose provisions are aimed at all SOEs generally and whose purpose is about regulating electoral advertising generally). That’s a clash. I’m pretty confident that a court would say that the specific provisions in the Broadcasting Act would prevail over the general ones in the EFB. Or else they’d interpret the EFB requirement to mean that TVNZ couldn’t broadcast electoral ads of its own (as opposed to other people’s). Still, better off clarified, I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    Sam

    How lucky we are that our Uni’s turn out people like you with such excellent qualifications to draft law for the Labour party.

    Ha ha ha.

    DPF: Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Yes Nome, you are a sook. Typical Roger, the truth always offends you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Sam, TVNZ is a Crown-owned company (CROC). So it’s caught by Section 55B(d) which you’ll see reads:

    The following persons and bodies may not publish or cause or permit to be published any election advertisement:
    (a) the chief executive (however described) of a department of State or a Crown entity:
    (b) a department of State:
    (c) a Crown entity:
    (d) a State enterprise (within the meaning of section 2 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986) or a Crown owned company:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    virtualmark – chur

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. catwoman (123 comments) says:

    Sam D – you’re the lawyer (so you say) and therefore I would expect you to know that TVNZ is a crown owned company not an SOE – so its not on the list.

    You are fucking joking – this is a minor mistake – the Labour mouthpiece silenced in election year.

    Of course all Labour’s mistakes are minor …….. yeah right!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    aww, poor helmet – gets exposed as a hypocrite and a liar, and now all he can do is cry “but you’re the sook, not me” – poor widdle helmie.

    Can’t wait for PhilU to come back and expose you for the repeated and blatant liar that you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Um Roger, the only thing worse than bragging about your qualifications is declaring your own victory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    bobux – Pretty sure that guy was well into his twenties. how many 17 year olds do you know with beards who walk around in suits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    Stanley – you forgot the Margaret Wilson Memorial Law School graduate Sam needs to be included as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    declaring “victory”? Where? You just look like you’re grasping at straws now i’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. catwoman (123 comments) says:

    Labour has hit the jackpot with this one.

    Their CROC (TVNZ) has been disqualified from participating in election year advertising by a piece of CROC OF SHIT legislation.

    Woohoo……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    So TVNZ is a CROC Right ON Its a CROC of shit run by a bunch of arseholes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    catwoman – being a lawyer doesn’t mean you know the legal status of every governemnt owned company.

    Also, I’m not a lawyer, I have a law degree. Its illegal to call yourself a lawyer if you haven’t done your profs and been admitted to the Bar (well over half of law graduates do not become lawyers, its only necessary if you want to practice)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. catwoman (123 comments) says:

    Sam D

    I suggest you get yourself admitted to the bar – it would appear that you need a lot of practice……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    yeah, CROC is a funny term, well done guys

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Obviously you’re too thick too get this Roger, so read closely, I’m only going to explain this once. You and Sam are so similar, it’s quite cute, it’s the reading comprehension that lets you down.

    You just said that I’ve been exposed as hypocrite and liar, which um, hasn’t actually happened yet, so before you make an accusation, it’s common courtesy to wait for the proof, if it exists.

    Not to hard was it Roger? Now I’m not interested in a slagging match here, so cut down on the bullshit, and put up, or shut up. And seeing as you have no evidence yet, I’d say it’s about time to STFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Sam D, it’s pretty clear that TVNZ is caught by the EFB as currently drafted.

    I think this error is symptomatic of how poorly conceived & constructed this legislation is. I’m not against campaign finance reform, but this is simply not the way to go about it and Labour’s pig-headedness in the face of continual errors & missteps leaves me in no doubt their real intention is just to rort the country for Labour’s own benefit.

    I’m not quite there on Steve Price’s view that the Broadcasting Act will over-ride these provisions and for sure if I was Rick Ellis at TVNZ I wouldn’t want to take that chance. I’d suggest the industry-wide provisions in the Broadcasting Act provide the context for MediaWorks etc to broadcast ads, but the provisions in the EFB that specifically affect TVNZ would over-rule.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Its illegal to call yourself a lawyer if you haven’t done your profs ”

    Interesting – so helmet, have you done your “profs”? If not you were apparently behaving illegally when you called yourself a lawyer on PhilU’s blog. I wonder if that’s why that comment was eventually deleted by the blog owner? well, well, well…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Setting the bar is normally only done by those who are good enough to practice. The fact that Sam hasn’t, actually says quite a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    Sam, you clearly don’t know anything other than how to lie unconvincingly. There’s another blog over here for people like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Sorry should be sitting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    bobux:

    Kent – what exactly are you trying to say?

    Misleading, by supplying false information, eg: his interpretation is shared by 5 lawyers, named in a previous thread.
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/paranoid_and_odious.html#comment-370203

    There are a certain number of Yes Men on this blog.

    how significant Kiwiblog has been in NZ political debate.

    All the more reason for the blogger to be held answerable to integrity and honesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Now I’m not interested in a slagging match”

    Stop being such a sook helmet. If you’ve got any integrity you’ll admit to saying that you’re a lawyer on PhilU’s blog before he comes back and exposes you as a repeated and blatant liar. Common wee helmie …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    helmet – you’ve no idea. Most of the people I gradutaed with have not done profs becuase it costs a shitload of money and take another year – its not worth the time and money if you aren’t going to be a practising lawyer. Most people with law degrees use their legal skills in roles that don’t require them to be a lawyer.

    Anyway, let’s get back to Farrar’s latest fiasco, that’s the topic of the thread after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. david (2,564 comments) says:

    My god it would be nice to have a dollar for every time an apologist for the EFB who has said “well, yeah, it might have flaws but they will be fixed in the SC” or “well, yeah, it might have a few minor errors but they will be fixed in the Committee stages in the house”

    I reckon I could fund a half decent political campaign in favour of drafting well written, comprehensive and comprehensible legislation with that sort of money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Profs takes 19 weeks if you do it online I’m told (the longest way).

    If you had a law degree you would know this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    virtualmark – the provision can easily be amended to exclude TVNZ for clarity, its poor drafting but that’s the Crown Law Office’s fault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Of course, sitting the bar would be waste of time if you were too stupid to pass it, or too useless to practice, ay Sam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    “All the more reason for the blogger to be held answerable to integrity and honesty.”

    Why don’t we start at the top and work our way down to bloggers.

    I for one would love to see those qualities in the leadership of this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    I’ve got a union rep waiting in reception who needs me to do him a free favour (typical union rep bludger) – he wants me to draft a letter to the CTU outlining his union members’ concerns over the EFB. He’s not keen on it either.

    Might tell him there’s a chance we’ll abolish Wednesdays at the firm and make him do press-ups until he’s buggered to get negotiations rolling…he already has to come in and do 10 sit-ups every time a Cabinet minister gets fired.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    helmet:

    “Of course, sitting the bar would be waste of time if you were too stupid to pass it, or too useless to practice, ay Sam.”

    So you’re no interested in a slagging match helmie? Looks to me as though you’re into slagging matches – just not the one that show you to be a hypocrite and a liar hey? sooky waa waa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    I see we have no need to worry about the EFB.

    Yes I know the Electoral Commission has serious misgivings about this bill, seeing as they have to enforce it and all, and the Law Society are remaining critical of the bill in it’s current form calling it unworkable.

    But Annette King does have a letter of support from the National Council of Women, so it’s all OK then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    helmet – I meant to write half a year, which is more or less true, they have two profs courses a year I understand. I never really looked into it becuase I didn’t want to be a lawyer. But dude this is so insubstantive – it can go on and on with you making stupid comments about the reasons most people with law degrees aren’t lawyers and me explaining the situation to you.

    Why don’t we talk about the fiasco of a march Farrar just held? Unless you’re happy to agree that it was another disaster from the people who brought us the Kill The Bill website.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Yes Catwoman, Sam needs to be admitted but alas they have been all shut down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Hopefully DPFs not going to ping me for going off topic but Im very interested to see what will happen to the Law Society next year when its no longer mandatory to be a member to practise.

    I wonder if the young people ( showing my age) will bypass the Society. Would be pity IMHO as membership of professional bodies is about the networks and the social side as well as the PD etc.

    Like all the other oldies I have close contacts that go back 35 years in the bodies I belong to and thats one of the real values of membership

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Bevan – the masks were satire, they took them off and spoke with their mask off, gave their names too.

    Now was that before or after they were prompted to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Helmet I work very closely with lawyers all day. Sam is right that a lot of law graduates never go on to practice as lawyers, and so never do profs. It’s got nothing to do with being too stupid to pass or too useless to practice, it’s just common sense.

    It’s bloody intensive to get through profs and you don’t do it just for the personal development.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Ok Sam- I guess your right, in hindsight it actually does seem entirely unreasonable to point out that you don’t know you shit, but I’ll try and stop unless it’s absolutely necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Sam, I think you mean “the provision can easily be amended to exclude TVNZ for clarity, its poor drafting but that’s the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s fault” :-)

    Seriously though, this poor drafting is inexcusable … even if you’re a leftie can’t you concede that this is not the way we (as a country) should be developing our electoral laws? Can you not recognise that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Virtualmark- I realise that people might not want to actually be lawyers, and not bother getting admitted to the bar.
    I’m just pointing out that other people simply are not capable, because, as you mentioned, profs is bloody intensive. From the quality of the work Sam shows around here, I’d say he’s one of those people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    PS Sam, if I’d known you were at the march today I’d have arranged to catch up. I missed the march but arrived in time to hear the speeches at Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. david (2,564 comments) says:

    There you go again Sam, “just a minor error, easily fixed, someone else’s fault” Whatever happened to “get it right first time”, TQM, “do it once, do it right” which are the hallmarks of a quality outfit.

    Shoddy work I’d say, reflective of confused thinking, an inability to communicate adequately and poor understanding of issues reflected in the second rate response.

    Easy to blame the Crown Law Office but if the pupil hasn’t learnt, it is usually because the teacher hasn’t taught and should look to his own ability and standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. david c (254 comments) says:

    I was standing on Lambton Quay when the march slipped past me and I have to say I was underwhelmed by numbers. What made it even worse for me was that near the back were a group of school kids.

    Firstly, why aren’t they in school and secondly why are kids waving placards for a protest that, I’m sure if you asked, they wouldn’t understand?

    There’s a lot of really mature jerkfaces on here today

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    Sam Dixon has a law degree, but that doesn’t matter, because according to our Minsister of Justice, all you need is common sense anyway.

    Two birds with one stone, that will clear the court backlog as well!

    (Stupid stupid woman – proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Mark (496 comments) says:

    Electoral Commission chief executive Helena Catt says she has serious concerns about interpreting the new Electoral Finance Bill.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4283213a10.html

    But since all you leftie lawyers are stating this law is so easy to interpret, why do you give a call to the Electoral Commission and explain it to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. pkiwi (111 comments) says:

    Beat-up: I didn’t see any kids waving placards and very few around at all.

    Oh right so now there might be some “minor errors”. And there is something called the Common Sense Act is there??? Funny I don’t recall that one. This is just bad, bad law. Simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Sam, you cannot possibly claim that the process has been reasonable, and that the Bill is robust, when it was rammed through at such absurd haste, and yet replete with all these mistakes.

    It is one thing to write electoral law to suit yourself, at the expense of everybody else, with the express intention of desperately holding onto power. It is another thing entirely to do so incompetently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Julian (178 comments) says:

    Sam you’re missing the point (yet) again.

    A vast number of individuals and institutions think the Electoral Finance Bill is an undemocratic, unconstitutional piece of legislation and the process by which it was constructed was poorly managed.

    If this bill has been properly designed to prevent entities being able to ‘buy’ elections, why all the opposition from parties with no vested interests, like the Law Commission and the Human Rights Commission?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. The Double Standard (69 comments) says:

    I would like to know if anyone in the heckling crew got smacked in the mouth with a megaphone!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. baxter (893 comments) says:

    SAM…..If as a qualified Lawyer you find the bill so elementary could you explain it to your Learned Friends on the Law Society who have stated it is too complex and needs to go back to the select committee. You might also be able to help the Electoral Commission who can’t understand it and don’t know how to implement it…I think it must have been you who provided the Liabour/Winston First/Dunne Coalition with the legal advice when it was framed, yet modesty has never been a virtue previously claimed by you, so why not claim the credit anyhow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Even where there’s some ambiguity, the Bill of Rights Act requires the law to be interpreted to favour free speech.

    Wasn’t that the one that there is a court case in progress to say that it is in breach of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    This is a very unpleasant thread and most disappointing. Come on guys. This is something very precious we are talking about.

    I do not have a law degree but I certainly take notice of well qualified organisations such as the law society. Their initial view was that this bill was so fundamentally flawed that it simply could not be fixed.

    Their latest comments are that much of the bill is unintelligible. I note also that Annette King also cannot explain the bill relying instead on this being governed by the “rule of common sense.”

    This is extraordinary. I can’t believe that laws are written so poorly that essentially they have to be ignored.

    Sam and Co, it seems to me that to say DPF is telling nonsense if very hard, I don’t care what your qualifications are. If the Law society don’t have the foggiest what this bill means, if the government can’t explain it either, then how can anyone with any certainly say that an interpretation is right or wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Also those that have such confidence in the SC process, repeat after me:
    Terrorism Suppression Bill

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    virtualmark – pulling me up twice in a day, shoddy work on my part, eh? :)

    Look, I’m far from happy there’s these kind of petty mistakes in the Bill they give Farrar and National tlaking points with which to criticise the Bill without having to talk about their actual grounds for opposition – which is they’ll have to reveal who they are getting massive donations from and groups running parallel campaigns for them will no longer be able to do it in the shadows.

    baxter – I’m not a lawyer – see above.

    [DPF: Sam if you read my submission I have advocated an end to all anon and trust donations above the reportable limit. I have also said I support say a $250,000 for last 90 days cap on third parties. It really would be nice if just once you creited me with some integrity and that I have constantly said I support a law change to restrict anon donations. In fact on this blog I called for the Greens to move amendments removing the exemption for some anon donations]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    Double Standard – why would you hope there had been violence? What kind of person are you?

    I saw no violence from either side, just some heated words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. pkiwi (111 comments) says:

    Scenario: Sitting National Govt, prior to an election. As required, under the Public Finance Act, Treasury produces a fiscal responsiblity statement. In accordance with ‘genuine’ wishes to educate the public, it gets circulated, in a nice glossy to every household. Oh with some nice supplementatl material, well perhaps a bit of legalese license about the about risks and scenarios they can include – like how Labour will blow out fiscal responsiblity, and how National’s policies are so in line with OECD, growth, etc. etc. Electioneerring – oh no.

    Killing the bill isn’t just good for National, or Labour – but essential for keeping all the bastards in check.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    I might also add the shocking admission from Steve Maharey and Michael Cullen. To quote directly Mr Maharey said:

    “The intention of (the Electoral Finance Bill) is to capture people like the Exclusive Brethren, not the Catholic Church.” In addition, the deputy prime minister, Michael Cullen, asked the justice minister to amend the bill so that the Catholic Church’s planned anti-poverty campaign would be allowed to proceed, on the grounds that it would support Labour’s Working for Families policy, in contrast to something the Brethren might say.

    In other words, our deputy prime minister and a potential Labour prime minister are openly arguing that some religious groups should be allowed to express their views, while others should not.

    A country where the government determines who should be allowed to speak and who should not, and then writes legislation that specifically enforces this is not the NZ I grew up in. Frankly, for Roger and co to be supporting such a bill, all I can say is – shame on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Sam, as I’ve commented on other threads …

    Firstly, I’m sure National will already have banked its anonymous donations for the 2008 campaign, so that horse has already bolted. If I’m wrong then the National party office should be sacked immediately.

    Secondly, the only group in recent memory who’ve run a parallel campaign were quite happy to hold a press conference and out themselves. They are also quite able to run a repeat of that campaign in 2008 under the terms of the EFB. This bill does not stop a well-constructed parallel campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I am torn.

    “Why don’t we talk about the fiasco of a march Farrar just held? Unless you’re happy to agree that it was another disaster from the people who brought us the Kill The Bill website.”

    On one hand I have to congratulate those who bothered to exercise their democratic rights, on the other, I wish it had been more.

    One one hand I can understand what motivates people to belittle their effort, on the other, I can’t understand why some are so twisted by small-mindedness that they could possible see the march as a threat.

    Some people disagreed with a proposed law, they protested. For this they have apparently earned the contempt of others. That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.

    For all the scorn that has been heaped on the protesters, no one has organised a march in favour of the EFB have they?

    Perhaps the debate should be thrown open to more people. Perhaps the TU/Labour movement, or the Green movement should be out there organising their own actions, if (as they appear to) they feel so strongly in favour of the Law.

    Surely this is a viable option for those who claim tht the protesters only represent a small bunch of nutters. Come on let’s see the numbers that can be mustered to support the EFB!

    Or is it easier to claim a mandate, and then snipe about the protest? Strange that they feel they that they have to ridicule and denigrate those who could be bothered to get off their butts to make a point.

    I remember once reading that a ‘critic can be likened to a baboon on a greasy pole. The higher up the pole he climbs, the more of his ass is visible to the rest of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. david c (254 comments) says:

    “In other words, our deputy prime minister and a potential Labour prime minister are openly arguing that some religious groups should be allowed to express their views, while others should not. ”

    Wow, that’s a massive leap of logic there sonny jim.

    What the Catholic Church are doing is anonymous funding to bolster support for one political party, it’s a policy they’re supporting. And not anonymously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. david c (254 comments) says:

    Sorry what the Catholic Church are NOT doing….

    doh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    There is no massive leap of logic at all. If Cullen and Maharey say that they specifically changed the law to allow the Catholic church to publish material, but stop the EBs, then how else is this to be translated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    virtualmark – I agree with you that the horse has bolted this time round in terms of the money movements. But the longer eleciton period will have an impact this time.

    Also, the Maxim Institute and the Fair Tax outift ran parallel campaigns for National last time (both with coordination HQ, no prizes for guessing my source on that), and tha’ts only the ones we know about remember – the whole point of parallel campaigns is that they influence votes while not attracting the media spotlight. The EFB, despite it faults, will put this out in the open.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. david c (254 comments) says:

    Itn’s not so much to stop the EBs but to stop the sort of campaign they ran.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    Exactly David, stop the campaign they ran. By doing that, they can no longer publically speak.

    To repeat, this law has been designed to allow some religious groups to speak, and others not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    The difference that the trolls want to overlook here is that Freedom of Speech should be an inherent right for any person to publicly protest with the only fair restriction being that it is done peacefully.

    Hey No longer

    The dreaded EFB says that you must register and put your name and address on anything that is connected with taking a position and this is the start of 1930’s fascism .

    It is cold clear Mugabe-ism!

    Sam – If National were in power and you didn’t agree with them deregistering your union and you wanted to publicly protest do would you think that it is fair that you name and address should be on your Protest placade?

    So we have yellow stars for the EB’s,
    And Names and Addresses only if publicilly protesting for all others .
    (Blue or Green Stars optional depending on party you are supporting)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. david c (254 comments) says:

    “Exactly David, stop the campaign they ran. By doing that, they can no longer publically speak.

    To repeat, this law has been designed to allow some religious groups to speak, and others not.”

    The SORT of campaign they ran. The EB are free to run a campaign if they want, just not how they conducted their old one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    John Boscowan’s gonna be interviewed on Radio Rhema in about five minutes – tune in and listen now, http://www.rhema.co.nz to see the frequency in your area.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    OK make that now, he’s already being interviewed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Strange that they feel they that they have to ridicule and denigrate those who could be bothered to get off their butts to make a point.

    No one likes being shown to be self-serving and corrupt. If my demonstrating elicited ridicule and denigration from the supporters of this legislative train wreck then let me know when the next demonstration is scheduled!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Sam, as I understand the EFB the Maxim Institute and Fair Tax whoever could still run unregulated parallel campaigns as long as they restrict themselves to advocating policy positions rather than directly referring (in the negative or positive) to any party.

    So the Fair Tax group could run a campaign arguing for a flat tax (please!) and wouldn’t need to register and wouldn’t have any spending caps.

    I’m happy to be proven wrong on that one, but I think that’s the right interpretation.

    In which case, that might be an inkling of where third parties will refocus their efforts. A carefully constructed “policy” campaign could still quite precisely target a specific political party.

    Hey, now I’m thinking it might be a good idea to launch a third party campaign publicising my thoughts on political parties rights to raid the public purse for their own ends …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    David, your qualification/justification was not what Michael Cullen and Maharey said. He said that religious groups that wanted to support the government would be allowed to, and the law was written to allow them to. But those like the exclusive breathren would not be allowed to as they views would most likely be critical of the government. To repeat again:

    The deputy prime minister, Michael Cullen, asked the justice minister to amend the bill so that the Catholic Church’s planned anti-poverty campaign would be allowed to proceed, on the grounds that it would support Labour’s Working for Families policy, in contrast to something the Brethren might say.

    So, the law is designed to allow some to speak, and others not. Rather disturbing parallels to other regimes we all remember, some even from the recent past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    For clarity I should add, both Maharey and Cullen focused on the content of what they said, not how they said it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    VirtualMark, that is incorrect. No party actually needs to be named. A campaign for Flat Tax, if one party was to advocate the same, would be seen as election advertising for that party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    roger said..

    “..Helmet – you bragged on Phil U’s blog that you’re “a lawyer” – that comment has since been deleted, and you’ve denied that you said it. I was wondering philU, if you’re still here, can you confirm that Helmet did in fact say this on your blog therefore he is a hypocrite and a liar…”

    um..!..i don’t delete comments..

    if it’s there..it’s still there..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    The EFB also covers advertising from which the TYPE of party supported or attacked can be inferred.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and ..y’know..!..the short-term memory..?..

    what was that..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Kimble, is that still the case? I know the original version of the EFB that people submitted on captured any policy or issue that a party or candidate was associated with. But I thought the redrafted version had softened that?

    If you’re right (and you may well be) then someone needs to let Jeanette Fitzsimons know immediately. This afternoon at the march she clearly said that the EFB wouldn’t stop public campaigns about policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    I think what phule meant was…… .. . .. .!@…. if it WAS there….@.3.#>>$…. it is still there…1…1..32.4…s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    VM, it still contains a reference to a TYPE of party. So basicly no party needs to be explicitly named.

    “Dont vote for the party that supports same-sex marraige!!!”

    Would be an election advertisement that is covered by the EFB as this would be against the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    Where did they get their draftsmen from? some of this motley lot? Are we seeing a new style of legislation where everything is prohibited except what the ¨Court of Public Opinion¨ allows. This is a new form of tyranny. It has already happened with the ant-smacking law: now CYPS are intimidating families by offering to put them in touch with CYPS contracted foster parents.

    This government hasń´t a clue about the rule of law with Pooh Bar as Attorney General and a Minister of Justice who can´t read a Bill. Ministers should be dealing only with politics, not believing that they are executive material. Few have any proven competence and some have very nasty habits and are not fit persons to have any public office.

    Now we have the government quoting the Prime Minister´s spouse as an authority. I thought he worked in the Dept of Linguistic and Social Manipulation. If he wants to join the ranks with Pooh Bar he should get on the party list. It could be difficult next year if her is precluded from speaking politics with his wife of record because of this irritating Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Kimble, just had a closer look at it. I think you can advocate for flat taxes (to use an example), as long as you don’t try to “encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party or for a type of candidate” that holds that policy.

    This is where this law is an ass. For example, several members of the Brethren could collectively fund a $2 million campaign focussed purely on promoting or attacking an environmental policy … and carefully construct the campaign so it in no way mentions the Greens. Sure, it’s not as blatant as directly saying “The Greens are loonies” (don’t laugh, it’s true) but the public is clever enough to join the dots.

    In political circles this sort of thing is known as “no fingerprints” instructions. Labour is very very adept at it … “I would be less open with if this woman is involved”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    VM I think that because you can “encourage or persuade” implicitly that the statement “vote for” or “do not vote for” dont need to be said.

    It leaves open the possibility that a campaign on environmental issues could be considered an attack on the Green party and therefore subject to the cap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. john (478 comments) says:

    David ,good effort but do you REALLY think you were going to change mein fuhrer clarks, mind about being pm for ever, SILLY BOY. wait for the knock on the door tomorrow morning around 2.00am

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Kimble, this is one of those areas where I’m a lot more sanguine about this bill than some. Personally I think:

    * the Bill is poorly drafted and will not actually prove able to stop the behaviours it’s meant to stop
    * any attempt by Labour to see the Bill enforced will prove to be a PR disaster for them
    * the swing voters who’ll decide the next election are not Labour-acolytes and will be turned off by the attitudes this Bill encapsulates
    * the media attention on this Bill will tend to reinforce people’s general perception that Helen Clark is a cynical, mean-spirited, untrustworthy, died-in-the-wool politician who is only capable of self-interest
    * Labour will spend the entire electoral campaign defending themselves against this bill, making it all but impossible for them to get positive stories out into the media

    I could go on, there’s other aspects of it that I think will backfire on Labour.

    Overall it’s a sloppy piece of mis-guided & evil legislation that attacks our individual freedoms. But I think it’ll hurt Labour not help them, so for that reason I can’t get as wound up about it as some others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    Kimble, re your comment I think that because you can “encourage or persuade” implicitly that the statement “vote for” or “do not vote for” dont need to be said. It leaves open the possibility that a campaign on environmental issues could be considered an attack on the Green party and therefore subject to the cap.”

    I’d love to see that happen during the election campaign. If Labour tried to stop a clearly policy-oriented publicity campaign by getting people charged by Police & being dragged off to Court … how do you think that would go down with middle New Zealand.

    That sound you’d hear is Labour’s votes going down the toilet.

    Especially if you attack Labour on a sore point that, say, would strike a chord with morally conservative Pacific Island voters in South Auckland …

    I really think this bill is a neutron bomb for Labour … if it goes off in the election campaign it’ll kill their chances while leaving the election standing …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    VM, you wont see it. Labour wont do it. But you can be sure there will be a lot of nuisance accusations.

    Guaranteed the person that would kick up a stink wouldnt be traceable to the Labour party. Just look at the counter protest today; the leader said he wasnt a labour supporter. Yeah right!

    But the realistic impact this bill will have is it will discourage people from trying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    the realistic impact this bill will have is it will discourage people from trying I’m not so sure Kimble. I do think it would deter Mums and Dads. I’m not sure it’d deter people with a bee in their bonnet, like the EB, the Maxim Institute, the Business Roundtable etc etc.

    The more I think about it the more I think you could do a lot of damage in the election through a carefully constructed campaign focused purely on policy that very deliberately doesn’t advocate for or against any party.

    Labour would have to either let you get away with it without sanction, and take whatever hits that implies, or be seen to be a total evil grinch, with the negative publicity that implies.

    And the third parties can be holier-than-thou saying that they’re only focussing on policy and never ever intended it to be construed as being against Labour, or pro-National or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    And, separately, you just wait for the election campaign and see Labour, NZ First etc spend every day clarifying whether that day’s posters, flyers, pamphlets were paid for from party funds or from the parliamentary budget.

    It’ll be a continual distraction that’ll stop them getting their real messages out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    “Overall it’s a sloppy piece of mis-guided & evil legislation that attacks our individual freedoms.”

    OK, but there are people here who think they bill only has a couple of minor flaws. They are the ones most likely to complain on Labours behalf. They are the sort that cream their pants when they reread The Hollow Men for the tenth time.

    They considered some shitty little fliers printed by the EB to be the most blatant and horrendous attack on our democratic process in the same election that Labour misapprpriated $800k of tax payer money for their own election purposes!

    The dont even see the self serving nature of the proposed laws! They will never acknowledge that it favours the ecnumbants over the challengers!These people are also the ones who think that National only opposes the law because they want unlimited anonymous donations.

    These loons wont even address the fact that the limit on anonymous donations matches what Labour has histroically been able to raise. They will say that all the anonymous donations National gets are bad, but at the same time IGNORE the anonymous donations Labour gets.

    These accolytes are the sorts of blind ideologues that will be running interference for Labour. These guys see Right Wing conspiracies everywhere, even in $40 bank deposited donations to the most transparent lobby group in NZs history!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. virtualmark (1,540 comments) says:

    But Kimble, those people won’t decide the next election. They’ve sold their souls to Labour long ago and couldn’t ever contemplate swinging their vote to someone else.

    They make a lot of noise, but they’re not going to decide the outcome. (To be fair neither am I for that matter).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    Kimble

    OK, but there are people here who think they bill only has a couple of minor flaws.

    The problem really is that there are people here who said when the bill was first drafted that it only had a couple of minor flaws, then after they were fixed and more were found there was just “a couple of minor flaws”. Then after the next round of corrections there was of course just “a couple of minor flaws”.

    Sadly these people would say there there are on a couple of minor flaws no matter what state the ledg is in because they are partisan hacks who will defend anything Labour do.

    nome, dixon, tane etc – you know who you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “roger said..

    “..Helmet – you bragged on Phil U’s blog that you’re “a lawyer” – that comment has since been deleted, and you’ve denied that you said it. I was wondering philU, if you’re still here, can you confirm that Helmet did in fact say this on your blog therefore he is a hypocrite and a liar…”

    um..!..i don’t delete comments..

    if it’s there..it’s still there..”

    Well Roger, there goes your argument. Fucking moron. You just got your arse handed to you so are you gonna take it like a man or keep whining?

    Perhaps a loss is too much for your fragile ego to handle, so how about we all just pretend that you won this one, and um, yeah PJ, you just kicked another Tory butt! Yeah!

    Now piss off to your ‘girlfriend’ you sad little prick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. rynso (1 comment) says:

    Videos from today’s march now on Youtube at:

    Stephen Franks – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMWn5cun3PI

    Nick Smith – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKwQq5Ovy78

    David Farrar – http://youtube.com/watch?v=UUudswrhDDE

    Gordon Copeland – http://youtube.com/watch?v=IziMC6pPF8Y

    Janet Fitzsimmons – http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-YSFmRFuPo

    Bill Supporter – http://youtube.com/watch?v=PpxtBHWnEVg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. The Double Standard (69 comments) says:

    Sam

    “why would you hope there had been violence”

    Nice try at spinning what I said. I merely inquired if anyone had been hit. It is an interesting contrast that those marching against EFB can actually manage a protest without resorting to violence, unlike certain Labour party members eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Roger spouts off – “If you’ve got any integrity you’ll admit to saying that you’re a lawyer on PhilU’s blog before he comes back and exposes you as a repeated and blatant liar.”

    Oh shit Roger…… I’ve been exposed….. NOT!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Double Standard- Sam, Roger and Tane are all compulsive liars. I’d be kind and say their mistakes mean they’re just stupid, not dishonest, but as this thread perfectly illustrates, they’re a pack of calculating, lying, dog-whistling arseholes. They have no credibility.

    The way those sickos work, you mentioned violence, so you must be into it.

    And if you’re not, well, you must be racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    D4J. 3.00pm

    Ha Ha, your so funny. You should stand for PM, you have as much show as John Key.
    I’ll vote for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. ben (2,384 comments) says:

    Bogusnews is making some excellent points on this thread. The exemption for the Catholic Church was shocking, I had forgotten about that. But its not about an exemption for religious groups per se, its an exemption for whoever can a) be granted an exemption at low political cost, and b) be relied upon to use an exemption to increase Labour’s chance of re-election. The catholics fit the bill nicely. So do unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. ben (2,384 comments) says:

    What is most galling to me is that in a city of 300,000, just 200 – did I get that right? – turned out to support the fight against this utterly unprincipled, widely condemned attack on democracy itself.

    On days like this I hate this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    Stephen Franks on his blog has called Minister King a liar. There is no such legal creature as the ¨Court of Public Opinion¨.

    Having been with IRD for years when I had to exact tax I know the only law is what is in the book. If it´s not enacted you can´t collect. It´s no different with any other legislation, you have to deal with what parliament has enacted, and that does not include the explanatory notes or Select Committee reports or Hansard. They may only be considered by a Court if there is a serious problem with interpretation. The words unless defined elsewhere have to stand on their own. The rules of statutory interpretation are well defined.

    If the present Cabinet deny them they are either liars or incompetent or both. At that level a modest understanding of how to read Bill is expected. Worse still, are the legal lackeys who have drafted these appalling provisions. as they know what they are doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. ZenTiger (435 comments) says:

    I attended the Wellington March. There were not a lot of people, but in my office only one other knew anything of the EFB – and they could only see it in terms of stopping the Exclusive Brethren from spending money on brochures.

    Apparently, Labour and Green supporters fear that there voter base are easily (mis)lead. They want the right to be the only ones that can mislead them.

    Jeanette spoke. She seemed terrified of allowing other people and groups to voice an opinion. Too much free speech is dangerous – it has to be rationed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. john (478 comments) says:

    practice saluting pictures of the davis, MIEN FUHRER clark as our leader expects it , dont say any bad words , YOU COULD DISSAPIER

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    Last year while in Wellington on business I took an afternoon off to visit Parliament, I stayed for question time and the debate that followed.

    Once the crowd had cleared (after question time) I noticed a rather large and strange looking fellow sitting in the viewing gallery opposite, after studying him for some time I decide that he was some sort of intellectually handicapped chap who obviously has an interest in politics, I did briefly consider that he may have been a Labour supporter but I dismissed that as even they do not look as weird or act as strangely as this chap.

    Imagine my surprise when I found out that this idiot was one of the senior leaders of young Labour, people who I since have spoken to about this fool tell me he is supposedly very intelligent and a future Labour MP, I did doubt them until today.

    This fool was one of the low life scum who attempted to disrupt a peaceful and lawful march in Wellington today, given his thug like actions and blind faith in this corrupt government I would say that he has every chance of being a Labour MP, I only hope the prick decides to attend the Hamilton march as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. weizguy (118 comments) says:

    big bruv

    So you’re complaining that a group of counter protesters are exercising their right to free speech. How exactly was his behaviour thuglike? Are you suggesting that his free speech should be limited?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    Big Bruv
    I was at the march today. The thug you describe was shouting into his megaphone beside me, so I covered his face with my placard most of the way along Lambton Quay. He was really angry, and there wasn’t a thing he could do about it – it was quite the funniest thing I have seen all week.

    I think the fact these Labour louts choose to use these type of tactics to interrupt a peaceful march, typifies the behaviour we see from the government.

    THEY WANT TO CONTROL EVERYTHING – not content for us to have our say they decided to shout over the top of us with megaphones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. ZenTiger (435 comments) says:

    No weizguy, I think Big Bruv was complaining about people with no manners.

    It wasn’t his “free speech” that I would take issue with, it was his “in yer face” antics that indicated a lack of respect for our right for free speech.

    BTW: I haven’t seen many protest marches where the anti-protesters were invited to have their say into the megaphone. You don’t need to try the “hypocrite” line of attack, that would be particularly unfair in this situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    I was there too.

    This thuggish, rude behavior was clearly aimed at disrupting the marchers right to be heard. Not unlike the protesters actions at the dawn parade.

    Why are they so afraid of a group of citizens politely and peacefully exercising their right of free speech? If our views were of so little obvious value, they why the need to contextualize? Do they think the public of Wellington are so stupid as to need this from a group of, what appeared to me, spotty teenagers?

    And once they were given the opportunity to address the crowd, they appeared gobsmacked, backed off, before reconsidering, then bumbled through a ridiculous attack on National.

    I have no doubt they will make excellent Labour MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    If you were John Boscawen you would have to wonder about the merits of blowing any more of your retirement money on this campaign. If the average Kiwi has not got the message yet that Labour and the fuckwits who are running this country are trying to further corrupt this pathetic excuse for a democracy, then what is the point. Let them all wallow in it because it is what they deserve. The shit will be up to their ears before they realise it and then it will be too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. francis (712 comments) says:

    MANY pictures, including quite a few of dpf:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nznationalparty/sets/72157603251507230/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    um..!..i found it..

    “..I am a right winger I suppose, but am an environmental lawyer and although I do not agree with you often, and I think you get a little too personal”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    are you an environmental lawyer helmet..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Hmm, political junkies from both sides at a rally
    over how much tax payer money will be spent.

    While the grandaughter of a Vietnam Vet has a rifle aimed at her and not a peep of it
    on this blog.

    Hmm, freedom, should a child in NZ have the freedom not to have a rifle pointed at her?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    btw..helmet..

    is this you also..?

    (signing as)..dogba bitch | E-mail: helmet@co.nz …?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome:

    Fact 1: You asserted that Helmet had said something – but you weren’t able to find it.
    Fact 2: Helmet’s quote exists (according to Phil).
    Fact 3: I asserted that you said something – and haven’t bothered to find it (though you tell me you weren’t able to find it).
    Fact 4: Your quote exists (according to numerous Kiwibloggers).

    Do I detect a pattern here?

    As Phil would say: whoar! Guess those search engines aren’t all they’re made out to be, hey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Waymad (136 comments) says:

    I can see a leetle niche for a website (think of bugmenot) loaded with useful names and plausible addresses (placards, for the use of).

    And a phone-in campaign to many Gummint orifices, from confused elderly people, wanting to check whether they can do stuff. Wouldn’t like to be paying the 0800 charges.

    Like Mr Virtual, I can see a lot of passive resistance, a lot of gumming up of the works, and a great deal of fun to be had, as a tired party staggers from one PR crisis to another. It’s going to be a very interesting year ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    love those photos of the ‘demo’..

    fifty dudes in suits..

    (oh…!..that’s right..!..it was lunchtime..

    so you got your best/biggest crowd..eh..?

    kinda sad really..eh..?)

    (heh-heh..!..)

    we can feel your anger..we can feel your pain..

    (at such a lame/lousy turnout..eh..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Chris Diack (748 comments) says:

    I have never put much store in Mr Price as a defender of our freedoms (I know DPF rates him)

    And fancy panting in support of the EFB which is a mess and really requires one to sign up to Mr Justice Bullingham’s rule of common sense in the law. What nonsense.

    It isn’t “common sense” that people spend a lot of their own money promoting their ideas. But thats the point – in a free society they can.

    Thats why rights are so often inconvenient so nonsensical. The virtue isn’t in the extent that one choses to exercise them or not; rather the virtue is in having the right in the first place.

    Mr Price argues that because he as not the wit or conviction to spend more than 12k of his own money or to raise voluntarily from others, that no one should be able to promoting their own political ideas as non candidates.

    No one with any legal education can deny the role of free political speech in holding the State accountable. Nor can they deny that the EFB is a derogation of those rights. In the context of political speech New Zealand should be moving towards removing barriers to political speech (as the law has been doing in say the area of defamation with a qualified privilege for political speech) instead they are being erected.

    The original Coalition for Open Government supported increasing the power of the individual vis-à-vis the State regarding access to official information. It was a noble cause.

    This latest sorry incarnation of the Coalition for Open Government supports increasing the power of the State vis-à-vis the individual regarding the use of that information in a political context.

    Thus I can apply under the Official Information Act for and get released embarrassing information about a politician, but I cannot (as a non candidate) put that in a pamphlet bagging that same politician and their party without running the maze of the Electoral Finance Bill.

    My how the worm turns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Chris:

    No one with any legal education can deny the role of free political speech in holding the State accountable

    I presume by “free political speech” you mean unrestricted political speech? If so, then clearly you’ve missed Sam Dixon’s numerous posts denying exactly that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    Wellington people, you should be ashamed!!!
    How fucking dear you all!!!
    Are you ALL employed by us and to scared to get out there???
    Hang your heads in shame along with those mino’s!!!
    Your a disgarce!!!
    200 hundred??????
    good on you two hundred and the rest of you go hide under a bridge!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. GPT1 (2,123 comments) says:

    GD wrote:
    “I wonder if the young people ( showing my age) will bypass the Society. Would be pity IMHO as membership of professional bodies is about the networks and the social side as well as the PD etc.”

    The One Society model should make joining the local law society a positive move for all practicing lawyers (sought of like being a CA, except better!). The actual cost will be minimal as regulatory functions will be compulsory in any event. Library costs the other big cost (and vital to access to justice) can be, and likely will, be levied for the first five years (as allowed under the Act). Frankly that should be compulsory also.

    CLE (continuing legal education) is likely to have an increased emphasis under the new constitution and rules of professional conduct so that will stay.

    My view is that membership of the Law Society and its branches will remain very close to universal – which is, as you say, a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    philu -Says:

    “heh-heh-heh-heh-heh..! the right..and demos..eh..? dpf to the barricades..!..eh..? so..how many did you get..?..a hundred..?..counting mredia.?

    If only Phil and friends had been organising it. The following piece by a former Otago university professor describes his efforts with the Phil’s of NZ:

    http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6625&IBLOCK_ID=35

    For those of you who don’t want to read the whole thing (but you really should for a chuckle) here are some choice cuts:

    “I was booked to speak at Dunedin’s J-Day rally in the Octagon, the city’s central square. I was hyped, ready to get up there and force the Presbyterians who run the city to deal with a senior academic making an in-your-face pro-drug speech. I imagined crowds of red-eyed pot-heads chanting and fanning out across the city to take the struggle right to the enemy.

    But when I got to the Octagon there didn’t seem to be anybody there — just a slight increase in the number of bums sitting on the steps. The only people who looked serious were a trio of well-dressed grownups. I went over to them and asked if they were the organizers.”

    Turns out these are the media. They direct him over to the “bums”.

    Finally I said, “Uh, hi, I’m here for, uh, J-Day? Anybody know who’s in charge?” There was a long, sneery silence. Then one of the coolest — you could tell he was cool because he had bleached hair in his eyes like a sheepdog, and drawled reeeeeally slowly — came out with this: “I don’t think there’s like a ringleader, dude.” The rest of them just sat there, smiling little smug smiles at the coolness of the reply.

    He praises the NORML organiser – Duncan – as a hard working organiser and a good activist but…..

    …….he was the only one in town. It wasn’t the old “German officer, Italian troops” deal; it was more like “German officer, row of shrubs.”

    Duncan organises a meeting at which this guy can thunder away about the drug laws. Needless to say the crowd does not impress:

    “What made it worse is that these people didn’t walk very well. I mean they seemed to’ve forgotten how; they loomed slowly, and veered aside even more slowly, like drugged groupers on a night dive.”

    “……They didn’t get any of it. Well, they got it — there were a few slow claps and mumbles of “yeah!” — but the timing was off; the cheers came halfway through my next sentence. There’s a reason Cheech & Chong were that slow, and told the “Dave’s not here” joke ten times in a row: they understood the mental metabolism of the pot-head in a way I just don’t.

    Incredibly (this guys a glutton for punishment), he attends next years “J-day”. The results (even for a smart, funny speaker from the Greens) are the same:

    …The reporter came, saw that there was nothing to report, and left, long before the hippie bus with the amplifiers and turntables finally chugged into sight. Then we waited for them to get set up. This, of course, was a Cheech & Chong routine in itself. “Wire? What wire, man?

    With the final result:

    “So you see, you stoners: I didn’t come by my contempt for your potential as anti-DEA allies casually. To paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson, I went as far as I could with you waterheads. There’s just no point in courting you, because you’re worthless troops. With troops like this, you couldn’t take a sauna.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Gruela (28 comments) says:

    Bah ha ha ha! All of this standing face to face and screeching at one another, and yet it’s so meaningless. Do the participants in either side of this arguement actually beleve the average kiwi gives a flying kawhai pizzle about the EFB, or it’s possible ramifications? (Although – note to National: any legislation that restricts political advertising ao any form can only be a winner in the heartland. Take note.) Bottom line: it’s the economy. It’s interest rates. It’s school fees and Grandma’s waiting list before she gats her new hip. You guys should get back on message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    Obviously the philu stoner is a prime candidate for front line tour duty, as a utopian para military trooper in the wildweed wilderness combat region located in Sue’s hairy arm pits ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. francis (712 comments) says:

    hey, democracymum – TV3 got footage of you covering his face with your placard and ran it as part of their 15 second coverage tonight. Great stuff!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    # francis Says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 10:38 pm

    hey, democracymum – TV3 got footage of you covering his face with your placard and ran it as part of their 15 second coverage tonight. Great stuff!

    You need to repeat this why??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    tom hunter said..

    “..If only Phil and friends had been organising it..”

    um..!..tom..

    the big anti-ge march in auckland a few years back..?

    was my (initial) idea..eh..?

    presented to a meeting odf about 60-70 multi-disciplinary activists ..at the green party offices in anzac ave..

    (fallen upon with crys of delight (and’used’) by russel norman..

    (and after he/locke/delahunty originally argued against it..(!)

    but that’s another story..)

    so..what was that..?..some 15,000 + marching..wasn’t it..?

    onthat anti-ge march.?

    (and it stopped the bloody government dead in it’s ge-pimping tracks..eh..?

    (pay me enough money..and i’ll ‘show you how’..)

    so..just plucking things from your nearest available orifice again/still..eh..?

    tom hunter..?

    you do have a ‘history’ in that area..?..don’t you..?

    and hey..!..you righties are all ‘mouth ‘n trousers’..eh..?

    ‘the keyboard warriors’..

    sad tossers..!

    (heh-heh..!..)

    but ya gotta laff..!

    those fifty dudes in suits..!..eh..?

    (gee..!..i wonder when the next time will be that dpf enthusiastically boosts/marches again..?..eh..?..)

    first goff..then this circus/farce….

    oh ! the humiliations..!

    oh..!..the humanity..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. toby1845 (194 comments) says:

    philu: as I’ve said elsewhere, some of us willprotest against the legislation via other means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. toby1845 (194 comments) says:

    Incidentally, philu, what do you mean about goff (sic)?

    Are you referring to our toerag Minister of Defence who, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, toadied up to a terrorist……

    and the shit-canned the US…..

    and then had his nephew blown away be a terrorist in Afghanistan……

    and then took a NZ taxpayer-funded business-class filght to the US to attend his nephew’s funeral?

    ……or are you referring to Dave Goff, who drives a school bus somewhere on the West Coast?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    wot..?

    write ‘angry’ emails to each other..?

    (”rightie bush-camps/plans’..?..)

    it’s game ..set..and match..!

    and the $1.5 million prize was not ‘retained’ by national..

    isn’t it funny/strange how dpf hasn’t even mentioned this castrating of the natty money-machine yet..eh..?

    by the way..dpf..

    has the penny dropped yet that..when you really boil it all down..

    ..national/key winning next year..?

    ..is looking more and more an ‘impossible dream.’.?

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    that’d be ‘dave te bus-driver’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Gruela (28 comments) says:

    toby1845
    how low can u go? let’s see, maybe you could use the death of a young man who obviously had a lot of potential, but was sent into war by a president who used his own political connections to escape being drafted into a similar war when it was his turn to fight, to score cheap points. That’s how low. Are u proud, now, slug slime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. toby1845 (194 comments) says:

    No phil, ‘angry mails’ (sic) aren’t part of it – believe me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Ahh – what the hell – It’s late – I’ll bite.

    the big anti-ge march in auckland a few years back..? was my (initial) idea..eh..

    You mean the activist effort that eventually led to “Seeds of Distrust”, fucked over any chance of gaining some real power in a coalition government with Dear Leader, and resulted in an election vote share vastly less than what the Greens had expected?

    No wonder the commies kicked you out of the Green Party!

    and it stopped the bloody government dead in it’s ge-pimping tracks..eh..?

    Well… for a while anyway. Keep plugging that AGW crisis though and GE will be back on the table at least as much as nuclear power is.

    (Audience chorus – “Thanks Greenies”)

    Strategy. Tactics. Battles. Wars!! Worth a look Phil.

    Just as a final aside – from laughter to boiling anger to laughter again in the space of two comments? With that sort of ‘flash’ anger management I can see why you’re off the sauce and on to White Lady. Keep it going – really – dude!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Wellington … are you ALL employed by us and to scared to get out there???

    Yes – of the 20+ folks that i canvassed while we were in civic square none (nada, zip, zilch, nil) were employed in the public service. Normally you can’t move without bumping into public servants in Wellington …

    Perhaps would-be marchers were scared of being seen by their politically intimidated bosses? Dunno.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    On a roll now…

    so..just plucking things from your nearest available orifice again/still..eh..? ………….tom hunter..?………. you do have a ‘history’ in that area..?..don’t you.

    Now that’s a terrible thing to say about someone from whom you lifted some quotes to your blog a few weeks ago, with comments such as “makes the most sense” and had “good historical perspective”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    It was a poor turnout, but it was also a diverse group. I did like seeing the angry masked puppets of state control. I thought they were part of the protest mocking politicians trying to shut people up to start with. They helped drive the message home that freedom to express your views – even if it’s shouting somebody else down or being shouted down, is a vital part of democracy. Imagine the same people next year without their megaphones… what twits they will feel when they finally realise they have scored a home goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    In a thread full of people claiming they have LLB’s (which to be honest we hardly need anymore) the overriding idea of this law was to stop the exclusive brethren or any other group spending their own money supporting right wing partys.

    In reverse you would have a near revolution. I can imagine it, National/ACT banning unions spending money on Labour. Imagine the tears and wailing. Of course this is made worse by the fact that Labour already pays taxpayers money to Unions!

    My my my, Labour supporters really do have severe issues with democracy. No wonder communism and socialism worldwide has failed or is toppling over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Free Speech! Free Speech!

    The EFB would outlaw this marvellous expression of Free Speech!

    Liberal shame over fake pamphlet
    Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent
    November 22, 2007

    Latest related coverage
    ‘Meat axe’ to public service
    Newhouse no to Laws over letter
    Turnbull state politics talk
    Phillip Coorey: A party losing its youthful appeal resorts to hysteria
    Coalition offers incentive to lure people to bush
    Annabel Crabb: Such a cute little piglet but then things get curly
    Business rushes to lock in pay deals
    Book sent to department to match Brough’s policy
    Tough tactics in final days
    Schoolboy whiz helps draft Labor cyber policy
    Marginal seat it seems Libs have surrendered
    Pollies can drive us round the bend and we foot bill
    The Stump: MPz in da Hood
    Advertisement
    THE Liberal Party was flailing last night after a senior NSW party official and the husband of outgoing MP Jackie Kelly were implicated in a dirty tricks campaign involving race hate in Ms Kelly’s former western suburbs seat of Lindsay.

    The ALP has written to the Australian Electoral Commission demanding action be taken after Ms Kelly’s husband, Gary Clark, and NSW Liberal Party state executive member Jeff Egan were caught distributing bogus pamphlets in Lindsay portraying Labor as sympathisers of Islamic terrorists.

    The two were among a group of five caught and photographed in the act by Labor sleuths on Tuesday night.

    Labor’s national secretary, Tim Gartrell, names Mr Clark, Mr Egan and Troy Craig, president of the Glenmore Park Action Group, in his complaint to the commission, and urges the matter be referred to the Australian Federal Police and NSW Police.

    The scandal was the last thing John Howard needed as he tried to resuscitate his campaign before Saturday, and will likely overshadow his final speech to the National Press Club today.

    The bogus pamphlet carries the ALP logo and is from the non-existent “Islamic Australia Federation”. It applauds the Labor Party for supporting Muslim terrorists.

    It thanks Labor for supporting the Bali bombers, who it says were “unjustly” sentenced to death, says Labor backs the building of a new local mosque, and praises the party for allowing Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly to live in Australia.

    “We gratefully acknowledge Labors [sic] support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings,” it says.

    “Labor supports our new Mosque construction and we hope, with the support and funding by Local and State governments, to open our new Mosque in St Mary’s soon.”

    Labor’s candidate for Lindsay, David Bradbury, called it “a disgraceful act”. The ALP campaign spokeswoman, Penny Wong, demanded the Liberals reveal what level sanctioned the behaviour. “People who are very senior in the NSW division of the Liberal Party are involved,” she said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ‘boiling anger’..?..’boiling anger’..?..”

    (t think you are confusing ‘cold contempt/disdain ‘ with ‘boiling anger’..eh..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    tom said..

    “..Now that’s a terrible thing to say about someone from whom you lifted some quotes to your blog a few weeks ago, with comments such as “makes the most sense” and had “good historical perspective”..”

    so..what happened..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Camryn (543 comments) says:

    Helena Catt lectured me at university. She might give pause to those on the left on this thread who think their legal interpretation is the shit…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477647
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477656

    The EFB is clearly rushed and flawed. If the previous law was so bad that it absolutely had to be replaced, why was it left until now to do so? The rush has led to seriously bad new law with no consultation. Undue haste indicates undue motivation!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Inventory2 (10,436 comments) says:

    The Bill has undoubtably become more complex since it re-emerged from the Select Committee. With so many Parts, Clauses and Sub-clauses, the Committee stage of the debate will be protracted, with doubtless numerous amendments moved on almost every clause and sub-clause. Will the government be able to get through the Committee stage in five sitting days so that it can have its Third Reading before the House rises for Christmas?

    Interestingly, Peter Dunne’s position on the EFB is now clear. UF will support the revised Bill, but oppose any urgency motion to rush it through. Which is grandstanding in the extreme – Dunne knows that UF’s votes will not affect the urgency motion if Labour, Greens & NZ First support it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    Talking of Dunne I hope some nameless party will have the balls to put a decent candidate up against him so we can see him in action backed into a corner. His waffle just may not cut it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. david c (254 comments) says:

    I want to know if Helmet’s an environmental lawyer or not….

    And if he’s going to apologise to Roger for calling him a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    Me too. To repost what Phil alleges he wrote on his blog:

    I am a right winger I suppose, but am an environmental lawyer and although I do not agree with you often, and I think you get a little too personal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    He’s probably too pussy to come back to this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Shucks Phil, you’re quoting Roger Nome’s deranged drivel there, not me.

    Seeing as Phil U doesn’t delete comments, and no comment exists to back up Rogers stalker claims, I’m still waiting for evidence. Just a link will do. A link to where I say I’m an environmental lawyer, if it exists.

    I know Roger’s a perverted little prick, but I just don’t see what my job, relationship status, size of my dick and the other rubbish he keeps harping on about have anything to do with the EFB or anything else.

    So David, Stan, forgive me if I don’t wait for some, y’know, evidence before I have to apologise ay guys?

    I’ve stated my job on this blog before, so it’s no big secret. If you’re that desperate to find out what it is, try a google search you retards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. helmet (807 comments) says:

    And Phil- dogba bitch? helmet@co.nz?

    I only post under one name, so I’ve no idea what you’re on about sorry pal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Lance (2,715 comments) says:

    Hey…
    We could have points system for validity of statements on this blog.
    Lawyers get 100points. Tertiary qualified in general 50 points. Politicians (not in afore mention categories) 10 points. Dumd-arse normal plebs -30.

    There could be a ‘bubble sort’ routine that keeps the clever little lawyers comments at the top and dumb-arses at the bottom… just like real life.

    Lawyers-legends in their own mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    “t think you are confusing ‘cold contempt/disdain ‘ with ‘boiling anger’..eh..?)”

    Naaah. Cold contempt/disdain is pretty much the standard leftist pose, particularly when it issues from such a virtuous person as yourself, so when any the pot starts to boil it’s quite obvious.

    Your mockery of quite ordinary fellow New Zealanders was nothing new either – I just thought I’d ladle a little back your way to see how you dealt with it.

    It would appear that you were not amused!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Cold contempt/disdain ”

    What a perfect description of Helen.

    She’s not even a masochist, that would invole passion.

    A block of ice that doesn’t see, hear or reason.

    Just dictates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. david c (254 comments) says:

    “A block of ice that doesn’t see, hear or reason.

    Just dictates.”

    How does a block of ice dictate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    Mr Cullen – take a letter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. helmet (807 comments) says:

    No proof from Nome still? The lying little cretin’s been caught shooting his mouth off….again.
    How many times is it now that you’ve been sprung lying PJ? It’s getting too easy lately boy, c’mon and show some spirit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. helmet (807 comments) says:

    And Dave C- if you really want to know whether I’m an environmental lawyer, just ask Nome, he’s got all the proof remember?

    Just in case he doesn’t come through with the goods though, and ‘cos you seem like a decent bloke, if he admits he was lying about the statements he said I made, I’ll settle the issue for you and tell you if I am or not, just so you can sleep easy ok mate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. david c (254 comments) says:

    thank you helmet, I appreciate the courtesy =D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. kehua (225 comments) says:

    david”how does a solid block of ice dictate?”

    “Like a frozen solid Chunk” spitting out a luke warm stream of dribbling cream”

    {courtesy of A.D.K. and Eskimo Nell}

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Like a frozen solid Chunk” spitting out a luke warm stream of dribbling cream”

    eww,, and it’s sour cream,, yucckkk!!

    Nice picture though if you see through the contradiction.

    Now I know someone understands me, cause I started off this line of thought :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “And Dave C- if you really want to know whether I’m an environmental lawyer, just ask Nome, he’s got all the proof remember?”

    what kind of lawyer is Cacofinix??

    That nutbar squirrel. A very hairy lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote