New Speed Campaign
A copy of the new anti-speeding advertisement from the Ministry of Transport
Hat Tip: Stephen Franks
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Humour, MOT, speeding, Stephen Franks, You TubeNew Speed Campaign
136 Responses to “New Speed Campaign”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Creepy. Why am I not surprised that there’s a hat-tip to the elderly free-market ideologue Stephen Franks? What is it with his type’s fascination with young foreign women? They’re often easily bought on the open market i guess? Supply and demand, supply and demand…. An extension of their extreme take on “property rights” perhaps?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“Why am I not surprised…”
It’s because you can read minds and you know everything. Duh.
What is it with you pinko types and fat ugly stupid women who can’t sing?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:34 am
roger
Would you rather see hairy legged members of “rainbow Labour” holding up the signs?
The purpose of any such campaign would be to slow down speeding motorists, “Rainbow Labour” members would only cause drivers to rapidly increase their speed, of course the upside might be that some of the rainbow members were run over but given that they are all indescribably ugly I doubt that anybody would want to damage their car by going anywhere near them.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
oh I’m sorry Bruv and helmet – I just have no sense of humor I guess. Actually when I think about it this is really funny. I especially liked the part when that girl shook here boobs
Comedy genius lol!
April 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
That is the funniest clip I have seen this year. How about a NZ Saturday Night Live hosted by Steven Franks?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
roger nome: Why so humourless? Your comments reflect Marxist-Stalinist style puritanism, and that’s deadly dull, deadly boring, and, well just deadly. Do you also hate gay parades or are the chests of lesbians and trans-sexuals subject to a different standard?
Good laugh Mr Franks. Thank you.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:47 am
“Why am I not surprised that there’s a hat-tip to the elderly free-market ideologue Stephen Franks? What is it with his type’s fascination with young foreign women?”
I got it now – it’s all part of their master plan – cut benefits, the minimum wage and employment rights, so all the women working in low-paid, part-time jobs like the retail sector (70% female), have no choice but to be fed and housed by a rich old dude i.e. them. A very cunning plot indeed.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Whats wrong with that Roger?..most of these bloody Shelia’s should be in the kitchen or home raising families.
Now there is a way to beat child obesity, make all the mums stay home and cook healthy meals for their kids, you might find that youth crime drops away as well.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
so phillip – downs syndrome – john dares to show his face again, and surprise! (sic) he is a dour humourless know-it-all git!
April 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The dripping Danish left in mortal ideological combat with their NZ comrades.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Hey people we all know Roger Nome has a zero sense of humour, so why be surprised he displays it again.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Should be banned.
I mean, the left are offended so that’s it.
Reminds me of the diet thread.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hey, what’s this about me having no sense of humor? I laughed at the boobs with you guys didn’t I? Didn’t those women look silly with their boobs all wobbling around like that, vulnerable, in public?! But at the same time you kind of want those silly women! Desire and disrespect come together in one perfect union! hehe, love it! More of this stuff DPF!
April 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hey, and where are all the women commenting on this thread DPF? I thought they would love this stuff? Just can’t figure out why they aren’t here. Any ideas?
April 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
hahaha oh excellent phillip john! hahaha hilarious, oh you progressives! you’ll have us in stitches!
why this is almost as funny as the time you decided to compare anyone who disagreed with you as having downs syndrome.
you go boy, keep it up, you’ll certainly persuade us to your views this way.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Brings to mind a thread I read a while ago actually:
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/the-standard-covers-wages-farrar-covets-boobs/
April 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Cool kiwiblogblog.
*tumbleweed blows through*
Men have commented on this post because men will likely find this joke funnier than women, because the joke is aimed at men. Men are more likely to be distracted by nice tits. That’s partly why it’s funny.
Where are the women? Where are they on your kiwiblogblog thread?
No women have complained about this post, perhaps you think they are not capable of calling DPF out? Lucky for the poor disadvantaged darlings a certain whiney little bitch has turned up to whine on their behalf.
Mouth breather.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Roger, did the women of NZ appoint you as some sort of moral guardian? If you don’t like it don’t look at it. And, just a hint, the boobs wobbling wasn’t funny, that bit was hot. The funny bit was where it stopped all the men speeding. Just explaining it because clearly you don’t get it. But we’ve already established that you don’t have social skills – remember the Down’s Syndrome thing?
April 25th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
PaulL.
“did the women of NZ appoint you as some sort of moral guardian?”
No, but I’m not speaking on any woman’s behalf, only my own.
“that bit was hot.”
Yeah, we’ve already established that – remember? But at the same time you kind of want those silly women! Desire and disrespect come together in one perfect union! hehe, love it!”
“The funny bit was where it stopped all the men speeding.”
oh, yeah, hehe, silly me, must have missed that, I guess I was more focused on how funny it was that the women looked silly, vulnerable and without any appeal other than as objects of disdain-laden desire. Fucken cracked me up I gotta tell ya!
April 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Disdain? Ok Roger, speak for yourself bro. That’s pretty fuckd up.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
rogette may disagree with what you say but he will fight to the death for your right to say it.
Poor baby needs some counselling from a stern feminist.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
helmet:
Two words: Rhetorical question.
Mouth breather.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“Ok Roger, speak for yourself bro. That’s pretty fuckd up.”
helmet, another two words for you: Ironic prose.
Mouth breather.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“whiney little bitch”
Oh, and BTW helmet – the fact that no women are interested in you is no reason to be a misogynist. Just get over it.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
oooh little phillip john learned a new phrase to try and insult people, how clever! how , er *ironic*
better all hide unless he brings out *sarcasm*, *synecdoche*, or, wait for it, or the ultimate leftist form of abuse, he’ll accuse us all of being intellectually disabled again for not appreciating the wit and wisdom of a university leftist we are being offered
April 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“objects of disdain-laden desire” wow, that’s a very telling phrase. are you REALLY susan brownmiller?
April 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Roger, you’re a real piece of work. There was no disdain in my desire. I don’t assume that when a women’s breasts are visible that she automatically is vulnerable, silly, that it makes her less attractive or feel disdain for her. I just appreciate them. If she was smart before she’s now a smart woman whose breasts I can see. If she was a bimbo before she is now a bimbo whose breasts I can see.
I don’t understand how the seeing of a woman’s breasts suddenly makes you feel her less of a person, but I guess down there in Dunedin you don’t see too many breasts – probably too cold. Although that does open up some interesting possibilities….
April 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
what a surprise phillipjohn plagiarises again!
for a guy who claims to respect women, and spent all of last year trying to convince us he wasn’t a virgin, little PJ certainly has a lot of anger about sex doesn’t he?
April 25th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
hehe, nice francis – but nah. I do however have several friends that work for rape crisis, plus my partner lectures in gender studies, and when you here them talk about the “culture of rape”, you don’t really get a better example of it than this. Explaining this properly would take a good 10,000 words or more, so I choose parody/irony to try and get my point across. Don’t know how effective it’s been though.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“are you REALLY susan brownmiller?”
Um – no, that phrase I actually thought up there and then. Don’t think I’ve heard or read it before, though obviously the idea behind it isn’t anything new.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
If they are not careful speeding might be replaced by rear end collisions.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Didn’t find it funny either. But it seems roger and the leftists (kinda like Josie and the Pussycats, but with less intellectual rigor
) would prefer the present system – a bunch of tits in blue uniforms armed with
cash registers…err ticket books and a sour disposition, despite the fact that road toll figures prove repeatedly that they make barely a dent in fatalities.Personally, neither form of tit is particularly successful in convincing me that they know best what I should be doing – after all, virtually no one is now ineligible to become a police officer no matter how stupid, unfit, or even previously criminal they may have been. And presumably the topless girls had to pass the same sort of rigorous intelligence tests to qualify for their jobs.
But hey, we’ve already established that – in roger’s mind at least – freedom is just an abstract, but I’d prefer to keep mine intact all the same.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
The Nome on Denmark
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/goodbye_pineapple_lumps.html#comment-437082
The Nome on Denmark
Seesh. There’s no satisfying even happy social democrats – let alone the grim, grey ones!
April 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Roger Nome/Phillip “Downs Syndrome” John:
Your opening contribution to this thread:
What a prize pillock you are. So sex humour is a far-right neoliberal plutocratic concept now?
What was that relatively recent Kiwiblog thread:
Still, when you convince Deity Nigel that you’ve sorted your virginity problem out, you could upgrade to the next phase of Green humour. Seeing as you’re a self-reported vegan:
That should help you *cough* lift your game, Phillip John.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Apologies for the length of the following comment. As I said, putting across an argument was going to take a while. I’d also like to add that this is just off the top of my head, so doesn’t really do justice to the issue, but I think it gets the basic point across.
Paul:
“There was no disdain in my desire.”
Maybe there wasn’t. I guess I’ll have to take your word for it. But I will ask the following questions:
How many racists will admit to being racist? How many misogynists will admit to being misogynists? How many rapists will admit to being rapists? The reason most of them won’t admit to what they are? They actually don’t recognise that they are.
Think about it. These people see their views and actions as normal, acceptable and reasonable.
Most racists will say “I don’t hate them, I just don’t want to live with them”.
Most misogynists will say, while appreciating images of women being depicted as silly, powerless sex objects, that are also unattainable, and therefore “frustrating” to view (i.e.“how dare this silly little object not be sexually available to me”) “I don’t hate them, in fact I love them”.
Most rapists think they’ve had consensual, legitimate sex, when there has been no consent. It’s because, sadly they see their ideas about sex as normal i.e. you put the moves on, and if she doesn’t repeatedly yell at you to piss off, it makes it consensual (only, of course the woman doesn’t see it that way). This is why rapists will almost never admit to having raped someone (they really don’t think that they have). But why do they think this? Is it because they don’t see these “silly, powerless sex objects” as worthy of a simple “do you want to have sex”? You’ve got to wonder.
Around 20% of NZ female adults have been subjected to rape. It’s actually pretty normal in our society, and you’ve got to wonder why. Is it because there are fairly pervasive practices and/or ways of thinking within our society that create a “culture of rape” or a “context for rape to occur”? Is it at least partially because …. “sexy” women are often depicted as being silly, powerless sex objects, that are also unattainable, and therefore “frustrating” to view, and therefore not worthy of a simple “do you want to have sex”?
See, most people don’t actually like to think that they’re “bad”, “evil” or “harmful”. And once they recognise what they’re doing or saying is harmful then hopefully they’ll see it as “wrong” and will stop. It’s just getting 99.9% of NZers to that point, and in my opinion, this video doesn’t help us get there.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
POC:
“So sex humour is a far-right neoliberal plutocratic concept now?”
Don’t know where you get that idea from. It was a joke POC. I suggest maybe you took a little personally? Some of you right wingers just have no sense of humour
“Glyde condoms for vegans – no milk enzyme as in latex.”
Sounds good to me! Must say, I don’t see how it contributes to the culture of rape though.
“No wonder the Greens have gone up in the recent polls – their new campaign strategy seems to be offering sex for votes!”
Um, actually the T-Shirts said “I only date guys” (other t-shirts said “girls” instead) that vote green. You will hopefully get the point that “dating” doesn’t always entail sex? In any case I have commented to some green party friends that the campaign was pretty lame and problematic.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
This thread is actually about speeding motorists. So you’ve shared your idea about rape prevention (don’t show videos that normalise the behaviour) – great. Now what’s your solution to speeding motorists: tax the bejesus out of them to force them off the road?
April 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
POC:
“This thread is actually about speeding motorists.”
That was … uhum … one focus of the video…. and based on the comments so far, not one that came through very strongly. There were however more salient, and in my opinion, disturbing aspects.
As to speeding, I haven’t actually given the topic much thought. What are your opinions?
April 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
sigh, everything turns into a lecture about why ordinary people are in fact wrong and need to be re-educated with some people doesnt it.
Now we are all rapists
thanks once again phillipjohn for illustrating the sad, dark,lonely little world that you inhabit. Every innocent action reveals a subtext of class warfare and biological oppresssion. Great.
Me, I like fast cars, fast women, drink, drugs and rock and roll! I don’t need to rape anybody, and I certainly don’t have to roll over and pretend to be neutered in order to stay in with the PC crowd.
and my ancestors fought for my right to enjoy my choices. I know what my granddad down at the RSA would have thought of your pedantic homilies. In fact why don’t you head down to the local Dunedin one now and give them all a rark up about their lifelong oppression of women. If you get out alive, you might realise that he and his mates would all have approved of the danish bikini girls. He could have done with a a few of them in Changi.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
A bit disingenous – those comments were responding to yours!
What concerns me most is stupified drivers who combine alcohol/drugs with excessive speed. I suppose at least with speed (and no alcohol/drugs) there’s a remote possibility that wannabe rally car drivers can arrive at their intended destination without inflicting collateral damage on everyone else. Once they’ve become boozed or drugged up to the hilt, that remote possibility becomes an absolute impossibility.
The Police do themselves no favours by excessively deploying speed cameras in low-speed urban areas – instead of focusing their efforts on the open road. I can think of a particular stretch of road which was a favourite hunting ground for speed camera victims. At the bottom of a steep hill in a 50km/h area, to avoid being pinged a driver had to slam on the brake pedal (dangerous for following traffic). My father – for no particular reason other than share curiousity – actually stopped there one day to ask the duty officer (who was reading a book, while letting a speed camera whir in the background) how many fatalities there had been on that road. None that the officer could recall. My father then asked the duty officer about the level of fatalities on the open road. The duty officer’s exact words: “Point taken sir”.
And therein lies the problem: the apparent public perception that speed policing is about revenue gathering and not traffic safety.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Roger, sure, rapists don’t think they are rapists, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who thinks they aren’t a rapist must be one. You know, that whole superset/subset thing. A is a member of B doesn’t mean that all members of B must also be A?
On the stat that 20% of women in NZ have been raped – source please. I have seen studies and misquotes of this statistic before – there are reputable studies and ones that are less reputable. I have had people quote this statistic to me and when I went and checked the source material it was actually percentage of women who had unwanted sexual contact in their life – including touching or sexual comments. Shit, I’ve had unwanted sexual contact from both men and women, so I’d be surprised if that number were so low. Doesn’t make it right, but it is very different from 20% being raped. Given your penchant for misquoting, I’d like to see the study before I provide comment.
What I will say is that, in common with my view on the smacking legislation, criminalising behaviour at the light end of the spectrum in the hopes that it will impact the behaviour of the recidivists is not the right answer. Complaining about pornography, let alone about a pretty tame video of a couple of women with their breasts out, to me trivialises a real issue about rape. I don’t personally believe that a healthy attitude to sex, and some level of interest in seeing the nudie bits of the gender of your preference is somehow contributing to the rate of rape in our society. In fact, I would argue that repression of sexuality leads to an inability for many to judge where appropriate lines should be drawn about behaviour (there’s that thing that you aren’t good at again). We tell people that everything is wrong, and it becomes difficult for them to judge the difference between wrong in a “I don’t think you should do that but actually it hurts nobody” sense and wrong in a “you are violating someone else’s rights and I’m going to lock you up for 20 years” sense.
I have a similar argument about drugs – we see caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes as “acceptable” drugs – they are legal. Ecstasy, party pills, pot are all not acceptable, despite having impacts similar, slightly less or slightly more than our legal drugs. What credibility do we have with herion, cocaine and the like when we tell our kids ‘actually, those other drugs were just a bit bad, but these ones, they’re really bad’ when we’ve gone over the top on the little stuff.
So, perhaps you’ll excuse me if I find offensive your equivalence argument about my appreciation of a video with a handful of women’s breasts with the fact that rapists think they’re doing nothing wrong. Really, there should be a goodwin’s law for something like this.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The genius formerly known as nigel6888 once again completely misses the point. I could debate you but that would be like playing my two year old nephew at chess. Not an overly interesting activity.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Great Philipjohn, it’s a crazy world you live in.
Ok to call a maori bloke a nigger, not ok to appreciate a nice rack.
All your squirming has just showed you up to be an insecure, ignorant moron with self control problems. All just to defend a partisan bigoted standpoint.
Your insulting, violent rhetoric and strained efforts to morally equivocate here are stronger indicators of a person with sexual violence problems than some people commenting rather mildly on some rather attractive topless chicks.
And calling you a whiney bitch isn’t being misogynistic, I was suggesting a canine similarity that is all.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“that would be like playing my two year old nephew at chess. Not an overly interesting activity”
Hmm I can imagine, you do seem to take losing rather badly.
I imagine your ‘black is white’ congnitive process would be a real pain in the ass for chess.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“but that doesn’t mean that everyone who thinks they aren’t a rapist must be one”
That’s silly Paul.
“On the stat that 20% of women in NZ have been raped – source please. I have seen studies and misquotes of this statistic before – there are reputable studies and ones that are less reputable. I have had people quote this statistic to me and when I went and checked the source material it was actually percentage of women who had unwanted sexual contact in their life – including touching or sexual comments.”
My friend who also used to run a rape crisis center. I expect she knows a thing or two about the subject. This source might help you to understand a little better what rape means as well.
http://rapecrisisdunedin.org.nz/what_is_rape.htm
April 25th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
On speed cameras. I saw a statistical analysis once of their effectiveness.
Consider a city with 50 intersections in it. Measure the accident rate at each of those intersections for a year, and assume some sort of random distribution. Measure the accident rate at those same intersections the following year, changing nothing.
If you look at the 5 intersections that had the highest accident rate (remembering this was random), then next year they are almost certain not to be the same intersections that are in the top 5. In other words, the fact that I selected the sites with the highest accidents automatically means that next year, on average, those same sites will have a substantial reduction in accidents.
If I now put speed cameras on those 5 intersections, I immediately have a statistic that shows that speed cameras reduce accidents. It is misuse of statistics like this that encourage those who mean well to think that they are making a difference.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Complaining about pornography, let alone about a pretty tame video of a couple of women with their breasts out, to me trivialises a real issue about rape. ”
I guess you know more about rape than the professionals that deal with it every day then Paul.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
“I don’t personally believe that a healthy attitude to sex”
Most rapists feel as though they have a healthy attitude towards sex don’t you know Paul?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Still banging on about the topless woman theme?
I don’t remember you having much – in fact anything – to say about this protest – see uncensored photo here. Do you suppose Prince Charles missed much? Should the woman in the second link have been awarded a Queen’s Birthday Honour for services services to attractive body art?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
What does rape mean? According to that link, pretty much anything.
Try again idiot.
“I guess you know more about rape than the professionals that deal with it every day then Paul.”
Turns out!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“I don’t personally believe that a healthy attitude to sex”
It’s not sexuality that should be repressed – it’s notion(s) of sexuality that create a culture of rape which should.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Hello – my post vanished into thin air…
April 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Still banging on about the topless woman theme?
I don’t remember you having much – in fact anything – to say about this protest. What do you suppose Prince Charles made of it all – that the topless protestors were vulnerable participants in the “culture of rape” you’re so concerned about?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
helmet – in case you hadn’t noticed I’m trying to ignore you and communicate with the sane people here.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
See uncensored photo here. Do you suppose Prince Charles missed much? Should the woman in the second link have been awarded a Queen’s Birthday Honour for services services to attractive body art?
[Apologies - had to split up post as other one never appeared]
April 25th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Evidently not very well on either count. D’oh!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Paul
“So, perhaps you’ll excuse me if I find offensive your equivalence argument about my appreciation of a video with a handful of women’s breasts with the fact that rapists think they’re doing nothing wrong.”
Think you’re confused PaulL. My point was that the video contributed to a “culture of rape” – your personal response was treated as irrelevant.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The link that you provided states that any unwanted sexual attention is rape. If that is the view of ‘the professionals’ then they are morons. I suspect I know the type of ‘professional opinion’ you’re drawing on here. Never mind, it’s not uncommon, a gender studies class I took way back taught that every instance of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman was rape by definition. The lecturer was an expert in her field, a professional, but like you, she was well educated and completely stupid.
Generally I have a high regard for the work people do at rape crisis but unfortunately the ‘educated stupid’ like you (and it looks like your partner as well sadly) insult and demean those who have been genuinely sexually violated when you adopt such a wide, trivial definition of rape.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“I took way back taught that every instance of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman was rape by definition.”
That’s an arcane view. Don’t personally know any feminists that believe that, and I know a few.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Helmet:
No no no – you overlook this:
On that same thread Phillip John (who claims to be the self-appointed hall monitor for women’s rights here) also had this to say:
Your thoughts, Phillip John?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Generally I have a high regard for the work people do at rape crisis” but helmet also thinks that they “insult and demean those who have been genuinely sexually violated”.
idiot.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Roger, I know what rape is. I want the source of your statistic. Either provide it, or I will assume you made it up.
And no, my comment wasn’t silly. You were attempting equivalence arguments. You were suggesting that my denying I was a misogynist somehow indicated that I was one. Or at least attempting to suggest that it meant nothing. My point was that you were being an idiot, which admittedly isn’t unusual, so perhaps didn’t need to be pointed out.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
For a lawyer earning “way over 100K a year”, you’ve got a lot of time to dredge up year-old threads on blogs POC. So my partner’s smart? We’ll you’ve got me there POC. Guilty as charged.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Today’s a public holiday. And don’t worry – it takes no time at all to find these hypocritical utterances of yours in my internet favourites folder. Shall I send you the bill on a billable hours basis, or would you rather I treat you as a pro bono (lost) cause?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
A video with some topless women who appeared to be quite happy to be in the video, and in fact to be exercising their legal rights, contributes to a culture of rape. How exactly Roger. Explain it in small words so we can all understand. I think that you are, once again, arguing about things that you sort of know the outlines of, but that you are putting together in the wrong order.
Tolerance of rape, treatment of women as objects and as being inferior and needing protection, as being entities that shouldn’t have rights, those things all contribute to a culture of rape. Accepting that women can display their breasts if they want, and that in so doing they aren’t actually asking to be raped, but just displaying their breasts, I would argue that reinforces the view that women are independent entities with rights.
I’m interested in your stand on prostitution. Did you support the decriminalisation work, and do you see prostitution as contributing to a culture of rape? How is it different to what you are arguing about here? Surely allowing sex to be bought and sold does much to objectify women on your definition? Whereas on my definition granting women the right to sell sex if they want to strengthens their rights – it demonstrates that women have the right to dictate the terms on which they have sex, and if they want to do it for money then that is just fine too.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“You were at least attempting to suggest that it meant nothing.”
No, I think you’ll find that I said I would take your word for it – i did however make some valid points about bigots not usually recognising that they’re bigots, which you seem to have mistakenly taken as comments personally directed against you.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“helmet also thinks that they “insult and demean..”
Keyword being generally, idiot.
“don’t personally know”- irrelevant. Hate to say it, but many of the radical feminist types who work in the rape crisis area are, while well meaning, absolutely barking mad. And I know a lot.
According to that definition on the link, I’ve been raped, every chick’s been raped, and you’re a rapist too. We’re all rapists in fact. It’s more than a culture of rape, it’s a total rape epidemic!
You could hardly call the type of attention the girls in the clip were getting ‘unwanted’.
A culture of rape? Whatever. Your argument is completely redundant if you apply the rape crisis reductio ad absurdum definition of rape, and you’ve yet to suggest anything better.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Hate to say it, but many of the radical feminist types who work in the rape crisis area are, while well meaning, absolutely barking mad. And I know a lot.”
Don’t think so helmet.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
PaulL:
You make sensible observations.
There’s a broad analogy to be made here, I think, with pro-Tibet/anti-China protestors hijacking the Olympic torch tradition for their own ends. This isn’t to introduce a new topic into the discussion. My point is that Phillip John/Roger Nome has taken an innocent video of women, apparently freely sharing their breasts with the world in the name of humour, as an opportunity to climb on to his personal hobbyhorse. We’ve apparently moved on from a discussion about the merits of the video, to Phillip John’s conclusion that it promotes a culture of rape. There’s a missing link there he’s not explaining.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Whatever Roger. I don’t give the irrlevant personal guesses of rapists much credibility.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
The link says
“Rape is any act of sexual violation.” – it goes on to include things like, Forced oral sex, Forced masturbation and Penetration with object.” For all intents and purposes pretty practical – all involve traumatically removing someone’s sexual autonomy.
NZ law defines rape as “penetration of a woman’s vagina by a man’s penis when she doesn’t want it” – in that case of coarse rape statistics are going to be low – it’s too narrow to be of use..
April 25th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Obviously roger is in touch with his feminist…er feminine…side. The average heterosexual male will find the video entertaining and mildly sexually stimulating. Not just for the exposure of breasts but the breasts that are on view are young and well developed. It’s biological!!! The campaign would not be as interesting or effective if the women were obese, very old, or Labour ministers.
The extension to ‘encouraging a culture of rape’ is not reasonable except in the minds of those who do their utmost to emasculate heterosexual males.
Roger, would you be so incensed if the Danish campaign used good-looking young men in thongs in an effort to reduce speeding by women and homosexual men?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
More self-serving lies from you. Section 128 of the Crimes Act covers rape and unlawful sexual connection:
And section 2:
Why might “unlawful sexual connection” not be sufficiently broad to cover things like: forced oral sex, forced masturbation and penetration with object (the examples you provided above)?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Nome you dishonest retard. The link also says that any unwanted sexual attention is a part of rape. That’s nuts.
I agree that the legal definition of rape is sometimes lacking. I also acknowledge that the cops and the friends and family of rape victims are usually useless when it comes to supporting a victim of rape- so I’m glad that at least if everything else fails there’s a group of often batshit crazy radical feminists at rape crisis who have experience and are eager to help.
Having seen the effects of rape in my own family and friends I find the trivialisation of rape evidenced by your comments today very shallow and lacking maturity.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Roger, you are misrepresenting what the page says. As always. The quote is from the page is:
This is contrasted with the NZ law view and a narrow view that is clearly unacceptable – “Rape only happens violently in dark, deserted streets.”
I believe the page is asserting that the broad view is a correct definition of rape. I don’t agree. I’m not trying to diminish the impact of those other offences, but labelling all of them as rape is, to me, failing to create a hierarchy of crimes. Rape (forced penetration) is to me worse than the other crimes described. Those others are also crimes, and have severe sentences applicable. That doesn’t make them rape.
It is like arguing that all crimes that involve someone dying must be murder. There is a reason we have definitions for murder v’s manslaughter v’s reckless disregard or whatever. They are different crimes, and we need clarity that some are worse than others. They are all bad, but it diminishes the heinousness of murder if we start treating those other crimes as also being murder.
In other words, Helmet was right and you are attempting to obfuscate. You are claiming a high level of rape in the NZ population based on a definition that does not accord with the commonly accepted definition of rape. As such, you are misleading, again.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
POC- Shit! stop it! You’re embarrassing him! You too Paul- by the way, I found the way you referenced me quite sexual and it was definitley unwanted. Rapist!
April 25th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Helmet:
““helmet also thinks that they “insult and demean..”
Keyword being generally, idiot.”
To work at rape crisis you actually have to go through training in which you learn that definition of rape…. All of them work with that definition of rape (but then again you don’t personally know anyone that works at rape crisis do you?). You were saying that applying that definition is to “insult and demean those who have been genuinely sexually violated” – but you also say that you generally have respect for the work they do.
You’re an idiot.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Roger- you’re wrong and you’re looking rather silly. Read my comments and figure it out.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
They do more at rape crisis than ‘apply a definition’ dipshit. If you knew anyone that worked there you’d realise this. No, your attempt to sidetrack has failed.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“Broad View: Rape is any act of sexual violation. All sexual attention that is not wanted is a part of rape.”
Yes but they don’t go as far ass saying that’s the definition to use, they just say that it acknowledges that rape is not always physically violent. They treat it as a useful concept rather than a concrete definition. You’ll acknowledge that they include Forced oral sex, Forced masturbation and Penetration with objects – but not “any construction worker wolf-whistling at an unreceptive person”.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Helmet:
And here I was thinking Phillip John’s embarrasing himself – silly me!
By the way, if you give yourself unwanted attention (Phillip John was the one who introduced masturbation into the discussion), does that mean you’re promoting a culture of rape?
I note Phillip John has nothing to say about the second quote in my 5:28 comment. What a surprise.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Which definition of rape? The one you misquoted above that actually says that any unwanted sexual attention is rape? Is that not Helmet’s point – that definition is wrong?
I agree with Helmet, working at Rape Crisis gives people a very warped perspective of what happens on average in NZ society – when almost everyone you meet through your work has been raped or abused you can understand that it would give you a rather peculiar perspective on society. Not saying that those things don’t happen, I know they do. I’m just saying that when you see it all day every day, and deal with the scum who perpetrate these crimes and claim that they were doing nothing wrong, well that gives you a particular perspective.
I found a similar thing when working at Child, Youth and Family. The stuff that they deal with is incredible, and it leads to a a very warped view of NZ life. Conversely, those people who never see those things probably imagine it doesn’t happen, and imagine that “social workers” spend their days poking their noses into people’s lives and generally busy-bodying. I think that most social workers wish that was what their job involved, instead of dealing day after day with children who have been abused in the most horrific ways.
In other words, I am sceptical of the claims by Rape Crisis workers on the prevalence of rape and abuse – because of their jobs everyone they meet has been raped. That isn’t a statistically valid sample.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Um, kind of hard to debate three people who are trying their hardest to distort the debate at the same time – especially when your comments keep disappearing. Anyhow, I think my point has been made, even if it has gone over the heads of kiwiblog’s resident right-wing clowns.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Sorry Roger, you are trying to distort the debate. And I don’t appreciate you calling me a clown. Down’s syndrome boy.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“I am sceptical of the claims by Rape Crisis workers on the prevalence of rape and abuse – because of their jobs everyone they meet has been raped.”
But none of them say that – the statistic is 20%. You’ll notice in the list of things they include as rape are: Forced oral sex, Forced masturbation and Penetration with objects – but not “construction workers wolf whistling at passers by” They don’t use “the broad view” they merely endorse it as a useful concept.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Paul:
“And I don’t appreciate you calling me a clown”
Well, you less-so I have to say.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Catch up Roger, I already commented on that. You need a faster internet connection – maybe you should vote National?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
POC- re your 5.28 comment- hate to say it bro, but he never really said that. I um, hacked his computer and it was actually me raping those women with my unwanted sexual attention, not him.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Yes, Roger Nome/Phillip “Downs Syndrome” John, who last year called Pascal’s wife a dog. A bit hypocritical of you to accuse others of distorting the debate, when your lies and dishonest summary of links have been exposed – yet again.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“My point’s been made…..”
Possibly, but not the one you think you made bro.
What’s the bet it’s dinner time POC?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Helmet:
I think you must be hacking into Phillip John/Roger Nome’s WordPress account again. His usual exit strategy is to say his gorgeous girlfriend has arrived, and that it’s time for him to go. I’ve caught you out there, Helmet!
April 25th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
POC:
“when your lies and dishonest summary of links have been exposed – yet again.”
Where exactly?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Oh well, was fun anyway mate. Gotta say it’s pretty nasty how you quote PJ’s drivel back at him. It makes me cringe every time. Time to do some work now I guess, the turd has been flushed from kiwiblog once again, I thought it was particularly easy tonight!
April 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Read the thread rog.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“His usual exit strategy is to say his gorgeous girlfriend has arrived, and that it’s time for him to go.”
No unfortunately it’s just one of my right-wing mates – we’re going to have a bottle of wine or two, and probably laugh about kiwiblog. That’s not for another 30-40 mins though, so a bit of time left….
April 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“the turd has been flushed from kiwiblog once again”
Don’t go helmet, I was enjoying you maniacal, teeth-gnashing blog stylings tonight
April 25th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
No, you’ve had enough boy.
Funny I thought it pathetic enough that you spend half the day on kiwiblog, now it turns out you spend the other half talking about it. How sad.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Oooh I like that “I know you are but what am I” debating style. Original.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
There’s this one for starters.
As for this thread, as Helmet suggests, you really need to read it through again. Look particularly at my 6:02 comment. Oh – and like PaulL, I’m still waiting for your proof that “[a]round 20% of NZ female adults have been subjected to rape”. You’ve had nearly three hours to find it – what’s taking you so long?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“Funny I thought it pathetic enough that you spend half the day on kiwiblog”
You really don’t like yourself too much hey helmet? It’s a shame, you’re such a charming young fellow – if grotesquely ugly.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
the deity formerly known as nigel6888 says:
Sad, yes. Dark, undoubtedly. But lonely? Hardly.
There are many who share the perspective roger has elucidated here. Sadly, society seems to a sort of perpetual motion pendulum on moral issues. Instead of swinging from one extreme to the other, slowly losing energy and arriving at a sensible, moderate mid point it swings from one extreme to the other and then further back in the opposite direction.
So we’ve gone from a totally unacceptable culture where women were expected to be comfortable with objectification and unwanted harrasment in the workplace to one where, if I politely enquire whether the pretty new receptionist would like to have a drink I’m not simply making a fumbling (and usually unsuccessful *sigh*) attempt to ask a woman out, but am exploiting the patriarchal power imbalance (or some such nonsense) and potentially leaving myself open to a lawsuit.
But the argument that extremism is the only antidote to extremism is one that’s increasingly heard from both sides of politics these days, and is one of the reasons why sensible people with moderate, workable solutions to our country’s problems can’t be bothered with public life – they just get frothed at from all sides.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
““[a]round 20% of NZ female adults have been subjected to rape”.”
Needless to say I’ll take the word of a professional who works in the area over yours POC
April 25th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Roger, how about we summarise then.
1. You took us off track to rape
2. You claimed that the video of the women with the nice breasts was contributing to a culture of rape
3. I (we) called you out on that, pointing our reasons why that wasn’t so
4. You claimed that 20% of NZ women have been raped, but provided no source
5. I called you on that, and said that many of those studies use dubious definitions of rape, and asked for a source
5. Instead of providing a source, you provided a link to educate us on what rape was
6. Helmet read it, and said the definition was dubious
7. You said it wasn’t, misquoted it and misquoted the NZ law in support of your argument
8. You mislead and obfuscated instead of saying “yeah, you’re right, that could be better worded”
9. We abused each other a bit in between some interesting points
Not much achievement for a day really, was it. Luckily I’ve done most of my work in between snatches on Kiwiblog, so I can go home soon and have a beer. And not have a laugh about kiwiblog – my partner found this cartoon too relevant: http://xkcd.com/386/
(PS: don’t forget the mouseover, and yes I know it was on kiwiblog a while ago so you all already saw it. But it is very relevant)
April 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Roger Nome/Phillip John:
PaulL made a valid point:
Your only response to a request, from PaulL and me, is to say:
This is a double-standard. You said this the other day:
I don’t necessarily expect you to identify your friend. But you could identify a reputable research study that reinforces your point.
In a nutshell: you have no proof.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Sigh, there goes the ‘I know you are but what am I’ insult again, twice in one night.
Rex, that’s a good post. Pity how the pinko extremists aspire to government, being the megalomaniac unemployable types that they are, while the right wing extremists tend to stay the hell away.
Paul I get that cartoon thrown at me all the bloody time. It’s true though!
April 25th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Helmet:
Spooky – how did you know I hacked into PaulL’s WordPress account to provide the cartoon link?
April 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I hacked back in and changed it. Sorry man.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Love checking out the nipples and surrounds , the bigger the sexier, more bonks for your money
April 25th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Paul:
“3. I (we) called you out on that, pointing our reasons why that wasn’t so”
Um, where? I haven’t seen one little piece of evidence toward that point.
“5. I called you on that, and said that many of those studies use dubious definitions of rape, and asked for a source”
Looks to me as though they look at serious sexual assault as rape. Useful I’d say – i.e. according the law, if it doesn’t involve a penis it isn’t rape, but is only sexual violation. So perhaps we’re getting into semantics here. i.e. isn’t being defiled by a broken bottle as traumatic as sexual assault involving a penis? And isn’t that what actually matters here?
It’s also worth while noting that the vast majority of rape and sexual assault incidences aren’t reported to police – so any police derived statistics aren’t going to be very useful. The only official statistic I could find that were of remote worth were in the 1991 victimisation survey which found that:
“Nine percent of the females in New Zealand interviewed for this project stated that they had been a victim of a sexual incident in the past five years” –
and that:
“It should be noted that there is a strong likelihood of under-reporting of sexual incidents and offences. It is probable that at least some women will not tell an interviewer that they were a victim of such a crime for a number of reasons. These include that it may be embarrassing for them; they may feel it is too intimate to disclose; or, if the assault was by someone living with them, disclosure may be awkward or even dangerous for them.”
Certainly, when you look at his information it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that 20% of NZ women had been “raped” (according to rape crisis’ definition) or “raped” and or “sexually violated” according to the law.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/1995/victimisation/chapter_2.html#2.12
“7. You said it wasn’t, misquoted it and misquoted the NZ law in support of your argument”
nah – I said it was unclear, but provided what I thought was the most reasonable interpretation.
“9. We abused each other a bit in between some interesting points”
Usually the way at kiwiblog
“Not much achievement for a day really, was it. ”
Usually the way at kiwiblog
gotta go drink some wine. Latter.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Shit, Roger replied and it is in the RSS reader, but not on the page. Very spooky. Maybe DPF has worked out a handicap system for the lefties. Anyway, responding before it turns up.
(3). 4:53 and 5:38
(5). The victimisation survey doesn’t rely on police reporting. It found 9% for rape and sexual assault combined. I believe that sexual assualt has a significantly higher incidence than rape. Even if the victimisation survey (usually considered authoritative) had it wrong by 50%, it is very unlikely that your claim that 20% of NZ women have been raped would be right. I could agree that sexual violation that involves forcible penetration is pretty much the same as rape. Forced masturbation (assuming that means women forced to masturbate a man) is much less so. Unwanted touching (even violent and forceful touching) less so as well. I believe those latter two would be a substantial proportion, without going and finding the info I suspect that the victimisation study is finding around 2-3% rape, even using your “middle way” definition. (By middle way I mean pretty much anything that involves forcible penetration of mouth, vagina or anus, but not other things that are sexual assault).
(7) That social interaction problem again. You never actually said it was unclear, you just argued yourself around to a different definition. It would be much clearer if you said “you are right, that was unclear, but I think it means xyz.” You never do that, it is one of your failings.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Now that is funny. Not there no matter how often I refresh, but post my comment and it turns up. I like the way that DPF has made Roger’s ability to post contingent on me pressing the submit button
April 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Paul, when you say you pressed a button, do you mean that sexually? I don’t fancy you, it would be most unwelcome, and I’m starting to think that perhaps I’ve been raped.
We’re gonna have to change your name to Clint if you keep this up mate.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Man, those bitches have got great tits.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I have come to this a bit late but I have a couple or three things to say about it. Firstly, though, a disclosure: I am a criminal defence lawyer. Actually, I don’t see how that is relevant but I will get it in anyway before someone accuses me of having a vested interest. For some reason the defence bar seems to be considered to be just as much responsible for crimes as the people who commit them, but I will press on regardless.
Anyway, a few points, if I may:
1. All of the organisations that do work on sexual or domestic violence claim that there is ‘likely’ to be a huge amount of under-reporting of the type of offending they are looking at. For some reason, they never have any empirical or anecdotal evidence of the under-reporting, they just claim it happens. Sort of an unprovable claim, therefore, because if they aren’t being reported then we can’t say they exist for sure. We are simply guessing.
2. Most statistics coming out of rape crisis and women’s refuges are not from random surveys of the general population. Some are completely made up: remember the claim in the 1980′s that 25% of children in NZ were being abused? That was grossly untrue.
3. The definition that Rape Crisis uses in its data gathering is extremely broad. Just the same as the Justice Department surveys on domestic violence. That way we seem to have far more of a problem than we actually do. And don’t think I am minimising domestic violence. I am all too aware of what happens in our country and have seem some shocking situations.
4. Sexual violation and rape are punished the same way. There is no difference between them for sentencing purposes. These days you can expect at least 8 – 10 years or more for either.
5. Unwanted touching is an indecent assault. Much more broad (was it a touching and would a reasonable person find it indecent?) but also means a far higher risk of being convicted. The most minor incident I have seen of this was a colleague’s client who was convicted of kissing a teenage girl (who he knew) on the cheek when saying goodbye. And don’t read anything more sinister into it than that- that was the allegation! So it is very broad in potential applications. The Rape Crisis definition is certainly broad enough to cover Indecent Assaults as being part of Rape. Which they are not. Unpleasant, but not rape.
6. Rape is an offence that is easy to allege but hard to defend. I am certain that I have seen innocent men go to prison on these charges, notwithstanding the jury process. That is because all it takes is the word of the complainant and nothing more.
7. There are a lot of false complaints. False complaints can be power trips, or revenge, or attention seeking, or manipulative, among many other things. Sadly, no-one has looked into why they are made so frequently. Even worse, because the authorities don’t want to discourage the huge mass of raped women that are apparently out there (which of course number in the hundreds of thousands of rape victims) they usually simply warn the person and leave it there. Charges are rare. There are also a huge number of regretted sexual encounters. Under the Rape Crisis definitions, those regretted encounters can also be considered rape.
8. The law is clear on what rape is, and to call anything less by that name is to minimise what those who are actually raped have gone through. The Justice Department report that came up with the 9% figure included all forms of unwanted sexual contact.
9. There isn’t a culture of rape in this country. Nor does the video that started this thread further a culture of rape. To say that is simply stupid. And I mean that seriously.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
edit- deleted
April 25th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
likewise
April 25th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
F E Smith:
An excellent contribution to the discussion – thank you.
I doubt you’ll ever convince Phillip John/Roger Nome about your points. He’s self-declared a vested interest: his girlfriend lectures in gender studies. But I believe most moderate-thinking folk, like you, would watch the video and conclude that it’s a harmless exercise in humour. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for your other point that “the defence bar seems to be considered to be just as much responsible for crimes as the people who commit them“: I think the negative public perception may arise from the pleadings in mitigation. Not to tar all defence lawyers with the same brush, but I can think of a recent example reported in the local press where a defence lawyer was busily assuring the judge that his client was deeply remorseful. The truth was otherwise: his “client” was reportedly smirking and grinning throughout the court proceeding. Naturally, it’s the defence lawyer’s duty to put the best case forward for the client, but when that “best case” stretches beyond the point of credibility and into fantasy land, I think that’s when defence lawyers generate the negative public sentiment. Again, not to tar all of them with the same brush.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
roger nome…you haven’t yet answered my questions.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Thanks, Peak Oil.
I take your point about taking pleas in mitigation too far. It is very important to keep an eye on your client while making the plea because of just that situation. Undoes anything the client may have told one earlier! Unfortunately there are some lawyers who are only too happy to believe everything their client tells them, although in my experience they usually aren’t specialist defence lawyers, simply general practitioners who occasionally appear in court. But it certainly doesn’t help.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
It’s great to see that the forelock tugging Danes still retain some vestiges of market capitalism.
Contracts offered and accepted are as encouraging as a Asian street stall
April 25th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“an”
April 25th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Is this thread still going?
well well, so feminist ideologues tell porkies to support their prejudices.
who knew?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
122 Comments and noone likes tits? What is this world coming to.
Surely any feminist should be defending a womans right to do what she wants with her own body… especially when it contributes to vehicular safety in this manner
April 26th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Stephen Franks:
I h8 miself and I am gay1
April 26th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Then:
WTF? Is this Phillip John’s idea of chardonnay socialism?
April 26th, 2008 at 6:59 am
It think the idea of twin air-bags as a safety measure has already been piloted elsewhere.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:03 am
yup POC I think you might be right. So not only is phillipjohn a dour humourless socialist git (but I repeat myself) he also can’t hold his liquor.
Interesting how he keeps on the unforced error. So PJs highest forms of insult are to call someone intellectually disabled or to accuse them of being gay. When he thinks about women he couples hatred (despises) with what he desires.
Some psychologist is going to have his/her next porsche paid for by PJ quite soon I reckon.
Wonder how his feminist gender studies “girlfriend” appreciates his misogyny, latent homophobia and self loathing – although I guess these are a set of core competencies for a male in the progressive left?
April 26th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Bahahahahahaha! I see this latest piece of David Farrar’s thematic misogyny has made the Herald this morning. A very bad piece of judgment by both Mr. Franks and his erstwhile manager.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:15 am
yes Tom an alleged “national party supporter”, feels the need to call the Herald about a wellington central candidate. Why the Herald one wonders? Who is Mr Prouse? surely not another labour party activist running a false flag campaign?
April 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Roger Nome / Phillip John, you are so outed: Political Boobs
April 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
This thread has largely run out of steam, but if I may add my two cents: It says something about Stephen Franks that he would have such a video on his website. Hasn’t he always been seen as being a little odd? This really isn’t about having a sense of humour, it’s about the difference between good and poor taste, maturity and immaturity. I mean, would Don Brash do such a thing? Would John Key? Would Rodney Hide? And Mr Franks wanted to be the leader of the ACT Party. Thank goodness he lost that contest. The Nats are welcome to this odd ball.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Lets face it. RogerNome obviously shares Mark Prebble’s views on breasts.
April 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Don’t go to the south of France in summer time roger. All the women on the beach promote rape whilst lying in the sun, going for swims, buying ice creams and having a good time. It’s a horrible place.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Roger Nome:
I find this a damn sight less “creepy” than ALAC’s latest shock jock ads showing in pre-watershed prime time. Including the charming one with ends with a drunk woman being lead into an alley by a man who turns to leer at the camera… and just as this image fades to black, she starts screaming.
Implied rape – A-OK?
April 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I got sent a link to this months ago by Nicky Wagner. Looks like National MPs and candidates are promoting it in a big way.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
ZenTiger, I just read your post over on NZ Conservative and that was some damn fine investigative work. I guess now we can see how hollow little old Philip John really is.