This entry was posted
on Saturday, August 1st, 2009 at 7:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Amusing is it not that politicians believe that they are doing such a
difficult job that they and only they should have their air travel
paid for by the taxpayer for private holiday trips.
As Sir Ed stated, they are a self serving bunch which is shown by the
arrogant statement by Douglas that he is entitled, while at the same
time he is ranting that government spending needs to be cut.
The really good one is the statement by some idiot reich winger that
Douglas deserves his knighthood for the courage he showed.
Yet Corporal Apiata who showed real valor gets the grand total of
$1200 a year for being awarded the VC.
Of course politicians would tell you he did nothing that would warrant
him getting free air travel for life.
Sir Ed was right, a self serving bunch.
“A bit of light entertainment with a Students’ Lundy 500.”
Personally I regard this as a stupid and tasteless stunt. A couple of students doing it as a controlled experiment in the context of a course would be one thing. A mobile circus is entirely another.
Another thing that annoys the heck out of me is the misappropriation of the label “the university” to describe its management, especially when it disapproves of something.
According to its empowering act (Victoria Unversity of Wellington Act, 1961) “The University shall consist of the Council, the professors emeriti, the professors, lecturers, Registrar, and librarian of the University for the time being in office, the graduates and undergraduates of the University, the graduates of the University of New Zealand whose names are for the time being on the register of the Court of Convocation of the University, and such other persons and classes of persons as the Council may from time to time determine.”
So, media, get it right, “the university” does not necessarily disapprove, even though its managers (and I) might.
Yet Corporal Apiata who showed real valor gets the grand total of
$1200 a year for being awarded the VC.
Equivelence sucks doesn’t it.
My father was awarded the MM in April 1945. It came with a small yearly honorarium. He didn’t know this and only got it in about 2002 or 2003. It was backdated to April 1945 when he was gazetted, inflation adjusted, and he got a nice big lump sum payout. When he got it he jokingly said that if he had known he would have got this much he ‘would have killed more bloody Teds’.
Cpl Apiata will get that money for life. A nice thank you every year, along with immortality as one of our VC heroes.
America crashed last year under a mountain of debt. Bush papered over the cracks until he could hand it over to Obama. Obama answer was to pile on the debt even more. It is game over.
The US taxpayer takes all the risk in the form of bailouts and the bankers take all the reward. All reward and no risk. This is unsustainable. Its immoral. Its game over.
The VC also entitles the holder to one free train trip return anywhere in the country. When rail was privitised they told Charlie Upham tough noogies when he tried to use his to go visit the family. His deal was with the government, not them.
They were never really up on the concept of public relations.
What particular acts of life endangering courage have these people ever undertaken to get a free ride for life?
Yesterday I showed all you Bloglanders Sue Bradford’s lying and arrogance regarding the anti-smacking law*. Today I’d like to show you John Key’s hypocrisy and arrogance regarding the anti-smacking law.
Apparently the power has gone to his head, because he’s given all of you the digital salute and said that that he doesn’t give a damn what the referendum result is because the government knows best (my interpretation of what he actually said). He’s just as arrogant as Bradford in that regard.
More than 80% of New Zealanders object to the anti-smacking law, and if they vote according to their convictions Key will be condemned by his own inactions when he ignores the result. What kind of a (so-called) democracy has non-binding referenda anyway?
Went to the shield match last night. Was a great match and Otago gave Wellington a huge scare. So much so that at one stage all you could hear was chants for Otago.
Well done boys you gave it a huge go and almost broke that 52 year voodoo. As an Otago fan I walked away from the game proud knowing that almost no one gave you a hope before the game.
Ok…. so no one is looking now?…. ok…. F*ck! Sh*t! F*ck! F*ck! Not f*cken again!!! What does Otago have to do to win this f*cken thing!!!
As I said, good game boys. You made us proud
“..who fell upon the public tit with cries/whimpers of gratitude..
..and has remained there ever since..
..suckling noisily..
..just occaisonally lifting his head from the trough..
..to berate us all …”
It was only a matter of time before our resident bludger, deadbeat and all-round life failure criticised someone else for sucking on the public tit. The only difference in the case of the Big Magpie is that in contrast to his criticism, he has never ever expressed any gratitude at all to those who pay the bill. And the further irony is that this criticism is from somone who, at the end of his rather pointless life, will have imposed a substantial cost on this country’s coffers without ever having made a contribiution to them.
… and BTW, to those who are so critical of Douglas’ taxpayer funded holiday (and I don’t know if anyone has made the point because I simply can’t be bothered sifting through the drivel):
1. Its an entitlement – simply a part of the remuneration package that is back-ended.
2. In that respect, its no different from salary or superannuation funded by government contributions. Should they refund that as well?
3. And yes it is stupid, but only because its not quantified and is open ended. We should get rid of it IN FUTURE.
4. Does that mean that existing MPs who have already earned the entitlement should be forced to surrender it? And without compensation? Whether you agree with it or not, it would open the door to the principle that it is somehow equitable to restrospectively reduce an employee’s employment income. In that case, there would be a number of morons who contribute to this site, or who have quite happily put their ignorance and stupidity on public display over this issue, who would have some historic exposures under that principle. I’ve had plenty of experience with idiots who ought to refund what they’ve been paid.
5. This benefit has been widely known for years. The recession hasn’t turned MPs into instant arseholes. If its good enough to compel a reduction in MP remuneration because of the recession, then its good enough to do that for everyone else. Start in the public service, first with the Police Commissioner, the Head of Corrections, extend it to academics in the political and macrame-making sciences, and give the money to schools and hospitals. And then send the Big Magpie down a coal mine so he pay back what he’s bludged for eternity.
… oh come on little Maggie, I know you moused over the negative karma, come on … you may as well … you know you want to … you can do it …
“Mirror mirror on the wall …
I am a useful member of society …
Its not that I just don’t want to do anything and prefer to live on the bludge …
And have Maggie Jnr grow up like that too
No, no nooo …
I have a higher calling …
I am the Big Magpie …
aka the Lone Blogger at the END of the urinal …
… and at the HEAD of queue at Social Welfare …
Yesterday you commented on the case of Wendy-May Connor who killed her son whilst driving under the influence of cannabis. You said
Yep Libertarians.. it is a victimless crime….
and Bok, true. Much of the libertarian doctrine only applies in a Robinson Crusoe type situation. (before companion Friday shows up at least]
Being paid $1000 a week to live in your own house and having 90% of your overseas travel paid because you happened to be a prime minister once….. to me this falls under the category benefit fraud. It might be legal but it certainly isn’t right.
Da Vinci is wrong;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;The Travel perks were not part of a remuneration package but were rapidly passed in the dead of the night by collusion between both parties after the then remuneration authority denied them an increase in pay.(Richard Griffin) Ever since they have made sure that they always have a rubber stamper in the position rewarding them above their overseas peers.
In English’s defence he probably could have moved into a Ministerial House and rented his own for a similar amount…I agree how-ever that all these perks are outrageous and set the standard for Benefit and employment abuses.
Grumpyoldhori should try to remember, or perhap learn, that Sir Roger Douglas was a Labour MP for many years and so far less than one year as an ACT MP. The son of a Labour MP and others in his immediate family support[ed] the Labour banner. Sir Roger came out with the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers with ideas to get rid of the more foolish articles of Labour creed and move to a centre right position in politics. The problem was the rabbid far left [Alliance/Greens ] and ignorant journo’s in search of a ‘good punchy’ story painted him to the right of National, more’s the pity. What with ‘cup-a-tea’s certain segments of the population have a lot to answer for.
>>> backster –all these perks are outrageous and set the standard for Benefit and employment abuses <<<
From personal knowledge I would say that benefit abuse stems from the confrontational approach of departmental thinking they were doing the right thing to minimise payments to beneficiaries which in turn bred a culture amongst bene's to do the bastards if we can. Without disclosing personal information and I didn't try this on the department, but was very upset to have my dole cut to a mere $7 a week because some damm beaurocrat decided I was earning too much, ignoring what I was passing on to a dependant not living with me. Another in the department had previously advised me it was AOK. So I could understand the attitude of somebody who I knew was on the dole, though I didn't approve of it or the department's apparent attude. I had struck this in my work situation where some pay clerks worked out what you were entitled to and helped you get it, while others did their 'best' to minimise payments.
I will quote one small piece of his totally dishonest article.
A different parent, father usually, may be called on. And to give the performance due seriousness he is liable to keep a stick, strap, bat, belt or hosepipe handy for the purpose.
Individuals in the NO lobby may favour the return of Section 59 as it was. However, the position of Family First is for a law change along the lines of John Boscawen’s private member’s bill.
The timing of Roughan’s dishonest opinion piece a the start of the referendum designed to misrepresent Family First’s position is reprehensible.
The Herald is a disgrace like John Key. They are totally misrepresenting what the referendum is about.
At present it is a criminal offence for a parent to smack a child for the purpose of correction. What does that mean in practical terms? I will give you a brief scenario.
A toddler picks up an expensive ornament. The parent picks up the child and moves him away from the object and says not touch it. A moment later the child touches to object with one finger to see if he can get away with it. After the event the parent smacks his fingers and says do not do this again. According to the legislation the parent is breaking the law.
The YES lobby may argue there are better ways to change the child’s behaviour. That is not relevant.
The referendum asks, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” In the above scenario the parent broke the law.
If you vote NO it is quite possible there will be no law change. If there is a law change it is almost certain that the law will not allow the use of an implement such as a strap.
I have a challenge for John Roughan. Debate the referendum question honestly and fairly on Kiwiblog and not abuse the power of the press that you have.
MTT — you simply don’t know what you are talking about and are a typical left winger angry with somebody who sees Labour for what it is and wants to achieve a better way to a responsible society as conceived by the early Labour movement developed to be relevant to modern times. To rid the country of the deficiencies of lift-wing errors, made by both Labour and National in pre-MPP times. At the time I joined the ACT party I was choosing between the Alliance and ACT with both looking for a similar responsible result. ACT’s common sense seemed the more likely to produce results, and some of these can be seen today, while the Alliance has dissappeared. I gave up on politics and membership of any party years ago.
The ‘Yes’ lobby are a small minority grouping and as such have to use extreme argument to further their case. In other words they are extremists and the sensible majority currently suffer from them. I’m glad I do not have any responsibility for children these days. The law as applied to smacking is an ass. For a humourous aside I refer you to my blog http://www.jcuknzs.blogspot.com ” My son got angry when I didn’t smack him”
What you have said is very good, but IMHO the primary issue is this: no state or person has the right to tell another person how to raise their children.
Another form of dishonesty occurs when the anti-smacking brigade describes smacking as “beating” and/or “child abuse”. Anyone not blinded by ideology can see the difference between “a swat on the rump steak” and “a lump of concrete to the head”.
The man who stated “never overestimate the troops” knew a thing or two.
I suspect you voted for National in 1984 and 1987. (Labour in 1990 for the trifecta?)
Unfortunately rewriting history to make it say what you want it to say does not work.
The Muldoon led National party formed the most left wing, do-what-we-say-because-we-know-best government in New Zealand’s history, far to the left of Gorbachov’s Russia of a similar era (and probably left of Bresnev’s).
I fail to see what your joining ACT (not formed at that time) nor seeing what the Labour Party really is when, with the assistance and leadership of the great and good Sir Roger Douglas, it was the Labour Party that provided the government that rescued NZ from that mad bastard Muldoon (and supplied the members who created ACT) has to do with this discussion and refrain from commenting at this time on anyone who admits to having to make a decision between the Alliance and ACT.
You state that you no longer belong to a political party.
What a shame Anderton’s Progressives or Dunne’s worm-joke outfit seem made just for you.
but IMHO the primary issue is this: no state or person has the right to tell another person how to raise their children.
IMHO the primary issue is this: who has primacy in how child should be raised – their parents or the State.
I believe the State has a right to tell parents how to raise their children if they are obviously harming their children. Under the old section 59 parents had the right to use reasonably physical discipline. When that physical discipline was not reasonably the State not only had a right but a duty to intervene.
Anyone who has seen the greatest movie ever made, “The Princess Bride” will love this link to a modification of the best sword fight in the history of cinema!!!
I agree that the state should punish violations of the non-aggression axiom, but no more. Clearly the parent-child relationship is a special case, e.g. I can’t walk up to someone on the street and put a nappy on him by force
When the state controls how parents respond to a misbehaving child by outlawing smacking for the purposes of correction/training (usually a swat on the rump steak or similar) the state is controlling the raising of children and IMHO that is utterly evil.
When the state legally requires children to be educated (whose children are they?), requires parents to seek permission to homeschool their own children (presumptuous arrogance of the highest order), sends enforcement agents (ERO) into the homes of homeschoolers (presumptuous arrogance of the highest order + a violation of property rights ), the state is controlling the raising of children and IMHO that is also utterly evil.
Remember that state control of children is a policy straight from the Communist Manifesto and I understand that state schooling as a means of controlling the ideology of children dates back to the Roman Empire (although I have not confirmed this).
Another example of our faux democracy in action: not only is the referendum non-binding, but groups like Family First aren’t allowed to spend more than $50k. That’s a violation of property rights.
kiwipolemicist
That argument is so weak that I was really contemplating not answering it. However I know that you posted in good faith so here is my response.
Any mind altering drug, does have an affect on the wider community. I spent some time in Holland where there is just as much petty crime and muggings for drug money as anywhere else. Like Alcohol, drugs diminishes the responsibility people take for their own actions. And people get hurt, or killed. When Anthony what’s his face went ballistic with the samurai sword and the gun, you could say his drug taking was victimless, but the results not… but you would be living in some fantasy land.
It’s a bit like saying a suicide bomber strapping the explosives to his own body is a victimless crime, it is only when he detonates it that we have to be concerned …. Or planning a murder is no problem, just when the person gets killed is it a problem.
How about breaking into your house is not a problem, except if they steal something…. the list goes on. And before you say it is against the law for all of the above… so is drugs.
Strapping explosives to your body does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights.
Planning a murder does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights.
Breaking into someone’s house is a violation of property rights, so you’re comparing two apples and a pear.
Taking drugs does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights; that’s an apple.
Actions done under the influence of drugs may be a violation of personal and/or property rights, just as I said in my post, and if so they are pears.
If you outlaw everything that may lead to (lead to, not cause) a violation of personal and/or property rights the following will be illegal:
• driving (you might kill someone deliberately)
• entering a shop (you might steal)
• going to work (you might steal)
• owning a pen (you might use it to blind someone)
• and so on.
kiwipolemicist – the examples you cite (driving, shoping) are activities that 99.99% of people experienced value from 99.99 of the time. So any suggestion of outlawing them would thankfully lead to an outcry. If you can point to cases where someone strapped explosives to their body with the intention of doing good to their fellow man then i’d like to hear them. If not then outlawing this behaviour is perfectly acceptable in my book.
The intent is irrelevant, because simply strapping them to your body is not a violation of personal and/or property rights.
If not then outlawing this behaviour is perfectly acceptable in my book.
If you are willing to outlaw those things that lack “the intention of doing good” to another person then getting out of bed will be illegal
You and Bok appears to be fans of social contract theory, which expects us to give up our rights in order to allow the state to maintain social order. That may sound nice but it’s a sheep in wolf’s clothing, as explained here:
I see so some-one’s property rights carry a premium over persional safety… mmmm
okay explain that to me.
Surely planning a murder, strapping bombs to yourself an maybe even having a joint knowing that you are going to drive, poses more of a threat than me walking up to your house and climbing inside…?
How about when that person straps on the bomb to blow up your property?
The problems with ideology (and let me state here that I am far more a Libertarian than a national or even act supporter) is that people get blinded by the stupidity of rigid points of view.
You have to admit, that if a child suggested to you that your car is more important than your mum or dad (who might be on the plane that is in the plan to be blown up) is just stupid.
But then lets approach it from your ideology (and mine but I am less blinded by it;’s short commings..)
People under the influence damage and often others property…
People who need to have medical help or those they injure, damage my property in that I have to pay for their medical help. (Taxes)
People who do drugs operate on less than 50% of their normal capacity and therefore they are a drag on productivity.
But like any true ideologue, you twist the argument into a nonsense. If a person goes into a shop, it is to uy or to look….. if they
drive it is to get some-where. With your argument there should be nothing wrong with driving with a blindfold. Surely if I want to wear a blindfold I am allowed. And I am only driving…
How about beig allowed to get in behind the controls of a jetliner with no experience…. same argument and just as silly as yours..
Using your argument, you are suggesting that making it a law that only those who are qualified to drive is stupid, and 5 year olds should be allowed to. See how stupid it becomes if you blindly follow ideology? How about I buy a plane…. my money. I cannot fly it but I want to be an airline pilot. I advertise cheap seats….. Fill the plane up and off I go…
Now I can crach into the oceaan and not damage any-one elses property… but kill 200 people. I did not violate any property rights… They got on the plane… and just like you do every time you fly they should have made sure the pilot is in fact a pilot…… You dont? Okay.
Now getting back to some-one who has some intelligence… kiwipolemicist the point is we can take any point of view or any absolute and make it seem reasonable. And getstaffed is right the 99 percentile is of importance.
An example…
Not everybody that enters your house is invited… Sometimes family or friends come round. Your brother might even take the key from under the flowerpot and enter your house without your consent but with good intentions (maybe returny ing some tools….)
The other side of the coin is also true. Not everybody invited intyo your house by yourself, enters with good intentions….
Surely you would not have your brother locked up for breaking and entering (which he did). And how about the guy you invited in that is casing the place? Ideology is fine… but commonsense is part of reality. The problem with libertarians are that they are the least free to accept variances. They like absolutes….
jcuknz yes I noticed the absolute bloody misery caused by Douglas when the SMPs were cut over night.
Bloody easy to state sacrifices must be made when one is coining it as a minister.
Oh for information, I believe ALL bloody MPs are a self serving bunch who believe they are the most important bloody people in the country.
So you would say Douglas has earned his free international air travel but Corporal Apiata VC has not earned the same ?
Phil do you think your drug induced robbery was a “victimless crime” as you legalisers would call it?
And on that subject, a few days back you mentioned a monitored heroin addict is a “perfectly functional human being”.
So in your ideal world, do aggravated robbers count as “perfectly functional human beings”?
Manolo you are talking to a lowlife that has no value…. I dont know if you have met the thing. Imagine Peter Davies (yes that one) and starve him for three months and then age him by 20 years….
He mistreats animals and children and has no morals. His carbon footprint in relation to his value to society makes Al Gore look like a hermit who only heats his water by leaving it in the sun…..
At this point in time I just want all of you out in blogsville to stand up and give a rousing ovation to Ban Ki Moon for giving Helen a job.
This meant that she took H2 with her, handed over the losers party to Goofy, thus condemning it to eternal damnation in the wilderness.
The bonus is that we don’t have to listen to the dreadful hag telling us how we should live our lives!!!!!!
Vote NO in the referendum — not because beating children is good but to send a message to the pollies that we DO NOT want them interfering in our lives any more. John Key —-ignore this at your peril.
Haha agreed hori.
And what about this troughing by English? Sure I’m a nat supporter. But is a quarter mil salary not enough to pay your own fucking mortgage?
Na, he needs an “accomodation supplement” by the taxpayer apparently
But like any true ideologue, you twist the argument into a nonsense.
No, it’s called reductio ad absurdum, and it’s a technique for showing up the flaws in an argument.
I see so some-one’s property rights carry a premium over persional safety…
You appear to have misunderstood my argument.
With your argument there should be nothing wrong with driving with a blindfold. Surely if I want to wear a blindfold I am allowed. And I am only driving…
Driving with a blindfold does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights and therefore I see nothing wrong with it. However, anyone with half a brain cell will know that they will be violating someone’s personal and/or property rights (via a crash) after about 5 seconds, and therefore will avoid driving with a blindfold. Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility, and people should avoid driving after taking drugs and/or alcohol for the same reason.
With all due respect, you’re not a libertarian if you expect the state to make illegal those actions which may harm you and/or your property.
My position, and the generally accepted Austrian Libertarian position, is that anything that does not breach the non-aggression axiom is fine. The non-aggression axiom is thus:
It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property
This is nothing personal, but I am clearly wasting my keystrokes debating this with you so I will say no more. I have stated my position and I believe that the logic of my arguments based upon the non-aggression axiom is clear (logic is independent of ideology).
philu – have you ever stopped to ask yourself where bitterness came from?
Like you had the finest of schooling in that strict Roman catholic college….. with all those Fathers and Brothers…..!!!!…. were you in the Rosmini Boys’ Choir?
I don’t care from which political hue one is,
If you are rorting the taxpaying you should be fucking ashamed of yourself
English is claiming a grand a week to live in his own house and made changes to the ownership of it earlier on this year so he could rort the system
Fuck and he has the audacity to tell public servants to watch their spending.
Makes a beneficiary getting 700 a week cheap.in comparison at least she is bringing up children
he is getting a grand for fuck all … on top of his salary
About a dozen protesters faced the rain today to stick a summons on Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s door. The protest, organised by Socialist Aotearoa was over National’s cutting of the Training Incentive Allowance (TIA) and Ms Bennett’s revealing of beneficiaries’ private information.
Watch as this becomes a common feature of our new landscape. If the govt tries to slowly peel away welfare entitlement there will be squeal after squeal from successive interest groups. We can’t afford repeated instances of minor surgery like this. Our welfare state is unaffordable, bloated with bureaucracy and in desperate need of a one-time major overhaul. But we lack leaders with the balls to do this.
as it turns out I know someone who was in school with you. he said you were nothing but a shitstirrer and trouble maker. What do you think sparked it? – Youre not bitter the pope only apologised to the aussies are you ?
The regular Parliamentary Register of Percuniary Interests was published in January of this year.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English’s pecuniary interests were declared in that register as:
Hon Bill ENGLISH (National, Clutha-Southland)
1. Company directorships and controlling interests
Resolution Farms Limited – farming
6. Real property
Family home, Dipton
Farm, Dipton
But earlier this week the first ever MP’s expenses register was published. It revealed, in relation to Bill English and a property in Karori, Wellington, that he was claiming from the Government almost $1000 a week expenses to live in:
A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003. However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English alone.
A spokesman for Mr English said the home, now worth an estimated $1.2 million, was always owned by a family trust.
…
They show he claimed $23,763 for Wellington accommodation costs in the first six months of the year for living in the Karori house.
…
A spokesman for Mr English told the newspaper the ownership of the house had remained with a family trust.
The transfer of title in March was caused by “changes in the trustee arrangements for personal and family reasons”.
Okay, so a couple of questions:
Question 1: Why does the home in Karori, which was in the joint title of Bill and Mary English from 2003 until March of this year, not appear in Bill English’s register of pecuniary interests published in January of this year?
Question 2: Is it lawful, and if so, is it ethical, for a Minister to claim almost $1000 a week to live in a house in Wellington that is owned by his wife, who also works as a medical practitioner in Wellington, together with the younger of his kids, who also live and go to school in Wellington.
English is the MP for Clutha Southland. As the Register of Pecuniary Interests reveals, he owns property there, but I understand it is or was either leased or rented out. So where does he stay when he is in his electorate overnight on constituency matters. In a motel or hotel perhaps, with the costs of that being charged back too.
Muppet and the other lefties climbing into Bill English because of his housing allowance are hypocritical, when H1 and her harridans flitted around the world at any hint of an open door.
They aren’t as hypocritical as the TV journos and news readers, however, when they attack English and other MPs on expenses. TVNZ bludges tens of millions from the taxpayer. It sends crews scooting around the world flippantly instead of buying footage from agencies. It maintains Dim Wilson in America to provide tabloid bytes on Jackson from Hollywood. Barbie will be on a big salary for reading her script nightly. TVNZ criticism of MPs on expenses is the pot calling the kettle black.
What’s wrong with a $50,000 a year housing allowance for a Minister whose electorate is in Southland any way? Am I wrong in thinking this is an alternative to living in a Ministerial house, which in real accounting terms is at least as big a cost to the taxpayer?
Has anyone seen any costings of what a tax free threshold like Australia’s would cost? Like in comparison with tax cuts we’ve already had. Would anyone have any kind of link to this?
It would reduce so much churn to set one at say $15-20K.
Why tax beneficiaries? Seems moronic when it just gets churned around.
And most people paying tax in these brackets are negative taxpayers anyway. You could cut benefits, NZ super, minimum wage etc and offset their loss in net income with a tax cut in this way
Haha phil accuses others of having the snout in the trough!
Phil I thought you’d at least have the decency to avoid that kind of embarrasment for yourself.
Phil, for someone who’s parents have tried their hardest (and sometimes struggled) to provide for me while I was growing up, without ever begging from the state (even when they would have been entitled) I find your outlook on life to be profoundly offensive.
I regard you as a little better than a petty terrorist, a selfish person who takes food from the mouths of the more needy.
Kapital said: From gblog posted in full as its interesting
Yes, very interesting indeed. The post, with links to evidential material, is here.
Do I see another Ministerial resignation coming on? The Deputy PM – hey, he’s be a big one to fall.
How can English’s name be on the title of a property in Karori, as it is reported to have been from 2003 until March this year, but not be declared in his Register of Pecuniary Interests published in January of this year?
This is far worse that Roger Douglas’ scamming a $44K holiday on the taxpayer because it was his “entitlement”. This, arguably, is corrupt, and English needs to provide some answers.
“Roger Douglas’ scamming a $44K holiday on the taxpayer because it was his “entitlement”. ”
No worse than Russell Norman clocking up $20k between himself and Katya to get only 2418 votes in the Mt Albert byelection.
He didnt have a shit show of winning so what a fucken waste of taxpayers money
What’s wrong with a $50,000 a year housing allowance for a Minister whose electorate is in Southland any way? Am I wrong in thinking this is an alternative to living in a Ministerial house, which in real accounting terms is at least as big a cost to the taxpayer?
er because he lives in Wellington full time with his family in a house he owns
Surely you see that as wrong? it is still wrong which ever party does it ? if the others do it too it is no excuse
And asking public service to reign in public spending when you yourself are rorting the taxpayer is the height of hypocrisy
so Philu – if youre so smart as you claim; (“the school iq test had me second most intelligent in the school”) how did you;
1./ end up on smack, ?
2./commit armed robbery ?
3./get caught ?
4./ end up in prison
5./ end up on welfare for the rest of your life?
could it be;
A./Rosmini was full of pigshit thick idiots?
B./ youre lying?
C./ you’re a natural born loser?
toad wrote
“Kapital said: From gblog posted in full as its interesting
Yes, very interesting indeed. The post, with links to evidential material, is here.”
If you look back at the 31 January 2008 return he declares an interest in a trust called Endeavour Trust. The Dompost story mentions the Wgton house is owned by a family trust. There may have merely been some delay in the change of Trustees being notified to the Land Transfer Office. Even though the house is owned by a trust, the Trustees are listed on the title.
That said, it seems strange that they would remove Bill as a trustee, has he proved himself not up to the task?
Earlier this week when justifying the release of personal details by Paula Bennet, dpf said
“Taxpayer funded benefits are not purely a private matter.”
I hope he will now call on the Revenue Minister to release the tax returns for the English family trust and Bill himself so all relevant material is available to the public
Phool,
Your goal is to make 5000, can you work out how many more to make 5000?
I wish I could set a goal like that, 5000 then a chocolate fish.
Oh man I really want that chocolate fish.
In other current affairs, here’s the racist idiot Crowley, America’s Susan Boyle, helping Gates navigate the stairs, while President Wonderful preens for the camera.
“has your friend/my ex-fellow-pupil grown up to be a stuffy old conservative/reactionary/bigoted ‘christian’..?”
nope – he’s a full blooded leftie, but like you he is old, unlike you he works for a living. (he has a conscience)
I congratulate you however on your later years qualifications. I left school early but it has never done me any harm (I pay 3.25x more in tax than you get on the benefit)
as I’ve also told you before I raised a child as a solo dad, no assistance – no welfare, no WFF’s. Every time I’ve given you advice on how to do it you threw up excuses.
I’ve missed nothing. In my younger years I was a very good looking man. Tall (well 1.8) dark and handsome. I played rep rugby and have a silver fern (NZ rep) in yachting. I’m and active hunter and fully participating dad to 3 kids.
I have no regrets – (apart from not undertaking pre-nups in 2 relationships)
I’m very sought after in my field of employment – and can afford the some of the luxuries in life.
You on the other hand claim to be: “the second most intelligent in the school” but seem to have achieved nothing since ……any explanation?
(again)
A./Rosmini was full of pigshit thick idiots?
B./ youre lying?
C./ you’re a natural born loser?
as I told you previously a pre condition of any employment was 5 or 6 weeks A/L. (and i’ve been in the same job a while now)
In addition I would use friends and family, (and reciprocate for the friends kids as well)
These arrangements are not difficult to make (provided you have any friends?) but I’ve heard all your excuses about school holiday camps and no family willing to step in. That’s all bullshit and it’s all about how hard you try.
You, Mr Ure do not put in any effort. This is the reason not many on this blog have any respect for you and give you the shit we do
Phool has no compunction about leeching off the state, but advise him to leave his kids to friends and family and he starts drooling violently and mouths off incoherencies.
Sounds a little bit like paranoia to me. Must be all the pot – they’re not really out to get you, Phil.
Hey, Patrick, Hurf, bruv, Phil, Steve – we’ve just got what is potentially the biggest political story of the year – alleged corruption by the Deputy Prime Minister.
And you guys use this thread here (when DPF’s obviously too otherwise engaged to start one on that topic) to bicker about trivial and personal issues.
Toad at 6.52 continues desperate lefties’ attempt to attack National, especially English and co., over MPs’ disclosed expenses.
Can Toad please explain how English’s Wellington house allowance differs from Helen Clark’s husband Peter being eligible for taxpayer money to visit H1 in New York repeatedly? (This is part of the travel perks of a spouse of a former longer-term MP). Okay to keep the Clarks together, but not to keep the Englishes as a family unit? If you think so you’ve spent too long in the mud at the bottom of the political pond, Toad.
Some labourites say Mrs English and their kids live outside the Southland electorate. Well good on them. They would see bugger-all of the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister if they were based in Southland. As it is he can be down there and back in a day.
Meanwhile nothing revealed about National MP expenses tops Labour’s move (stifled by the new Centre-Right government) to set up its party president with state-owned enterprise directorships.
And Toad, your allegation of corruption in a later post is just, well plain bullshit. Do you really want us to start raking up the scumbag stuff of labour to put things in perspective? Forged paintings. Speeding cavalcades etc etc.
Frogboy, my personal biggest story of the year is that Wet Wussell only got third in Mt Albert even with a 22% increase in the Green vote, Labour only just in opposition and a weak National candidate.
Why do your people have to travel around everywhere, anywhere? Tell them to get on their bikes, it’s environmentally friendly.
Wreck posted at 10.09:”…English … is abusing the spirit for which the allowance was intended.”
What rubbish! Allowances always have been tailored to especially help MPs like English and the Maori Party members who have far flung electorates. Without such help, these electoral seats would be open only to the very rich. Keeping a Minister’s family together, and helping him fill his ministerial post at the same time as serving a distant electorate is exactly what the allowance is for.
I’m not surprised the leftists on the attack in Kiwblog tonight can’t see this. They will be mainly from Wellington and Auckland, rather than from distant provinces that earn the country’s income. These posters will be mainly heavily indoor types studying social “science” subjects (or with qualifications in them already). They will be arthouse movie buffs, have posters of Che Guevera in his beret on their walls, will probably be civil servants, and will certainly be union members. In their most private inner dreams they will see themselves as heroes of revolution such as Russia’s in 1917. What delusion! They would have been on the boat out of Russia at the first rifle volley from the White Guards.
The Labour types in Southland will probably be of the old blue-collar type – tradesmen, freezing workers, farmhands, and the like. If only these sort of people still ran Labour instead of the Teachers’ Union and the dreamers like wreck1080.
Even as we speak Farrar , whaleoil , the Nat party research unit and crosby textor work deep into the night to spin their way out of the Bill Engish rort story.
A few valiant foot soldiers like jack 5 try to hold the fort but it is to no avail
When even the arch right blogger cactus Kate can see its a rort. things are not good
What will tomorrow’s spin be?
They do it too ?
Its my entitlement?
Its keeping my family together ?
Stay Tuned
toad wrote
“Kapital said: From gblog posted in full as its interesting
Yes, very interesting indeed. The post, with links to evidential material, is here.”
If you look back at the 31 January 2008 return he declares an interest in a trust called Endeavour Trust. The Dompost story mentions the Wgton house is owned by a family trust. There may have merely been some delay in the change of Trustees being notified to the Land Transfer Office. Even though the house is owned by a trust, the Trustees are listed on the title.
English delcared a beneficial interest, which most likely means he was a recipient of, or his farm or business was a recipient of, funds or other benefits from this trust. With regard to his family trust, as far as I’m aware, you don’t have to declare if you’re a trustee unless you’re likely to gain benefit now or at some time in the future. It is interesting that information seems to be missing from the Register though.
“He is abusing the spirit for which the allowance was intended. ”
100% right: Bill English is milking the generous system the politicians have created for themselves.
It’s no excuse to say this is common practice among MPs and “technically” legal. This sort of attitude to “entitlements” can only continue ruining our country by creating more bludgers at all levels of society.
I can’t even remember how/when they passed this; its been around as long as I can recall. But my point is that since that time, MPs will have come and gone and that was the deal they signed up to. Its there, its part of the “pay”.
But certainly it should go. Its ridiculous. But that is quite different from saying that those who use that entitlement should pay it back.
Unfortunately, this is what you get when people who wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of earning a parliamentary salary in the real world get left in charge of the honesty box.
AND, hasn’t this been an interesting series of outbursts from the Big Magpie. I think that he actually craves respect. He clearly doesn’t like confronting the fact that he is a dead weight cost on society. But not enough to get a job.
So what will happen when the little magpie leaves the nest?
Debilitating illness? Sore toe? Post parenting stress disorder? keep those cheques coming!
Why doesn’t the Big Magpie trust the little magpie enough (after all, he’s 14 years old, not 14 months) to leave him at home for 6 hours a day during the hols?
How many of you were left at home in the hols at age 14 because your parent/parents didn’t have a choice, other than go on the bludge? I’d say there are lots of us out there.
English delcared a beneficial interest, which most likely means he was a recipient of, or his farm or business was a recipient of, funds or other benefits from this trust. With regard to his family trust, as far as I’m aware, you don’t have to declare if you’re a trustee unless you’re likely to gain benefit now or at some time in the future. It is interesting that information seems to be missing from the Register though.”
No. The Endeavour Community Trust is different to the Endeavour Trust. They have different wording in their names, see! The Community one is a pub charity in the lower North Island that gives pokie money to organisations in the lower North Island. Their website states their aims are to provide;
“Funds for the promotion of amateur sporting teams or clubs who have been formally established and or legally constituted. To provide for the conduct of race meetings for the benefit of the public and to promote and control those meetings, including:” blah blah. I can’t see Bill English qualifying
We still don’t know if the Endeavour Trust is the English family trust, but if so in the last year or so Bill has ceased to be both a trustee and a beneficiary of it. I wonder why.
August 1st, 2009 at 7:17 am
A bit of light entertainment with a Students’ Lundy 500.
But how do you break the laws of physics?
August 1st, 2009 at 8:29 am
you wait until early the next morning when there is no traffic.
I’ve never quite believed the wife and daughter would be asleep at 7:30.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:52 am
Amusing is it not that politicians believe that they are doing such a
difficult job that they and only they should have their air travel
paid for by the taxpayer for private holiday trips.
As Sir Ed stated, they are a self serving bunch which is shown by the
arrogant statement by Douglas that he is entitled, while at the same
time he is ranting that government spending needs to be cut.
The really good one is the statement by some idiot reich winger that
Douglas deserves his knighthood for the courage he showed.
Yet Corporal Apiata who showed real valor gets the grand total of
$1200 a year for being awarded the VC.
Of course politicians would tell you he did nothing that would warrant
him getting free air travel for life.
Sir Ed was right, a self serving bunch.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:10 am
“The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from being one”
August 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am
good/fair comment there grumpy..
..(and what will voters at the next election remember..?..(when economic etc conditions will be worse than now..?
..what will they think when they hear act advocating ‘cutting the fat’..
..up will pop an image of ( ‘frankly my dear..i don’t give a damn..!’) roger douglas..
..lifting his head from the trough..
..and winking/smirking..)..
..(wasn’t it such a good idea to exhume him..?..eh..?
..hasn’t he been such a big win-win for act..?
..eh..?
(when are ya gonna wheel out ‘strewth’ richardson..?
..don’t we all need more ‘tough love’..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 9:27 am
“A bit of light entertainment with a Students’ Lundy 500.”
Personally I regard this as a stupid and tasteless stunt. A couple of students doing it as a controlled experiment in the context of a course would be one thing. A mobile circus is entirely another.
Another thing that annoys the heck out of me is the misappropriation of the label “the university” to describe its management, especially when it disapproves of something.
According to its empowering act (Victoria Unversity of Wellington Act, 1961) “The University shall consist of the Council, the professors emeriti, the professors, lecturers, Registrar, and librarian of the University for the time being in office, the graduates and undergraduates of the University, the graduates of the University of New Zealand whose names are for the time being on the register of the Court of Convocation of the University, and such other persons and classes of persons as the Council may from time to time determine.”
So, media, get it right, “the university” does not necessarily disapprove, even though its managers (and I) might.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:57 am
Grumpy
Equivelence sucks doesn’t it.
My father was awarded the MM in April 1945. It came with a small yearly honorarium. He didn’t know this and only got it in about 2002 or 2003. It was backdated to April 1945 when he was gazetted, inflation adjusted, and he got a nice big lump sum payout. When he got it he jokingly said that if he had known he would have got this much he ‘would have killed more bloody Teds’.
Cpl Apiata will get that money for life. A nice thank you every year, along with immortality as one of our VC heroes.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:01 am
America needs to collapse its GDP by 25% before it can recover. Otherwise the whole system will collapse and then it won’t matter.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:04 am
America crashed last year under a mountain of debt. Bush papered over the cracks until he could hand it over to Obama. Obama answer was to pile on the debt even more. It is game over.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:05 am
It looks like Bill English is spending $1000 of taxpayer money a week to rent his own house back to himself. WTF?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709676/Deputy-PM-gets-taxpayer-cash-for-his-home
This is not what I pay my taxes for!
August 1st, 2009 at 10:09 am
Chinese govt are printing money like no tomorrow. Want to make money head to China catch the next asset bubble. Make money then get out.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
Biggest banks in US reward stars with huge bonuses
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Biggest-banks-in-US-reward-apf-3849065425.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
The US taxpayer takes all the risk in the form of bailouts and the bankers take all the reward. All reward and no risk. This is unsustainable. Its immoral. Its game over.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am
The VC also entitles the holder to one free train trip return anywhere in the country. When rail was privitised they told Charlie Upham tough noogies when he tried to use his to go visit the family. His deal was with the government, not them.
They were never really up on the concept of public relations.
What particular acts of life endangering courage have these people ever undertaken to get a free ride for life?
August 1st, 2009 at 10:28 am
Yesterday I showed all you Bloglanders Sue Bradford’s lying and arrogance regarding the anti-smacking law*. Today I’d like to show you John Key’s hypocrisy and arrogance regarding the anti-smacking law.
Apparently the power has gone to his head, because he’s given all of you the digital salute and said that that he doesn’t give a damn what the referendum result is because the government knows best (my interpretation of what he actually said). He’s just as arrogant as Bradford in that regard.
More than 80% of New Zealanders object to the anti-smacking law, and if they vote according to their convictions Key will be condemned by his own inactions when he ignores the result. What kind of a (so-called) democracy has non-binding referenda anyway?
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/john-keys-hypocrisy-and-arrogance-regarding-the-anti-smacking-law/
* http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/sue-bradford-is-a-liar/
August 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
but..but..murray..!
it is rodger douglas..!
..the saviour of capitalism..!
..the failed pig concentration camp owner..
..who fell upon the public tit with cries/whimpers of gratitude..
..and has remained there ever since..
..suckling noisily..
..just occaisonally lifting his head from the trough..
..to berate us all for our ‘wastefullness’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Firefox downloads pass 1 billion…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8177829.stm
August 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
Roger Douglas is a has been, but at least he contibuted to the nation.
Unlike you who chooses to live 100% OFF the country. Little bit of shut the hell time for dole bludging phool I think.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Went to the shield match last night. Was a great match and Otago gave Wellington a huge scare. So much so that at one stage all you could hear was chants for Otago.
Well done boys you gave it a huge go and almost broke that 52 year voodoo. As an Otago fan I walked away from the game proud knowing that almost no one gave you a hope before the game.
Ok…. so no one is looking now?…. ok…. F*ck! Sh*t! F*ck! F*ck! Not f*cken again!!! What does Otago have to do to win this f*cken thing!!!
As I said, good game boys. You made us proud
August 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
“..who fell upon the public tit with cries/whimpers of gratitude..
..and has remained there ever since..
..suckling noisily..
..just occaisonally lifting his head from the trough..
..to berate us all …”
It was only a matter of time before our resident bludger, deadbeat and all-round life failure criticised someone else for sucking on the public tit. The only difference in the case of the Big Magpie is that in contrast to his criticism, he has never ever expressed any gratitude at all to those who pay the bill. And the further irony is that this criticism is from somone who, at the end of his rather pointless life, will have imposed a substantial cost on this country’s coffers without ever having made a contribiution to them.
August 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
long time member of shit-list/do not resond to..davincimode..
..(utilising my own custom-built ‘ignore-function’..
..dpf..!…take note..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am
… and BTW, to those who are so critical of Douglas’ taxpayer funded holiday (and I don’t know if anyone has made the point because I simply can’t be bothered sifting through the drivel):
1. Its an entitlement – simply a part of the remuneration package that is back-ended.
2. In that respect, its no different from salary or superannuation funded by government contributions. Should they refund that as well?
3. And yes it is stupid, but only because its not quantified and is open ended. We should get rid of it IN FUTURE.
4. Does that mean that existing MPs who have already earned the entitlement should be forced to surrender it? And without compensation? Whether you agree with it or not, it would open the door to the principle that it is somehow equitable to restrospectively reduce an employee’s employment income. In that case, there would be a number of morons who contribute to this site, or who have quite happily put their ignorance and stupidity on public display over this issue, who would have some historic exposures under that principle. I’ve had plenty of experience with idiots who ought to refund what they’ve been paid.
5. This benefit has been widely known for years. The recession hasn’t turned MPs into instant arseholes. If its good enough to compel a reduction in MP remuneration because of the recession, then its good enough to do that for everyone else. Start in the public service, first with the Police Commissioner, the Head of Corrections, extend it to academics in the political and macrame-making sciences, and give the money to schools and hospitals. And then send the Big Magpie down a coal mine so he pay back what he’s bludged for eternity.
FFS
August 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
… oh come on little Maggie, I know you moused over the negative karma, come on … you may as well … you know you want to … you can do it …
“Mirror mirror on the wall …
I am a useful member of society …
Its not that I just don’t want to do anything and prefer to live on the bludge …
And have Maggie Jnr grow up like that too
No, no nooo …
I have a higher calling …
I am the Big Magpie …
aka the Lone Blogger at the END of the urinal …
… and at the HEAD of queue at Social Welfare …
…[repeats]”
Now, see, you can do it now!
August 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Bok and Angus:
Yesterday you commented on the case of Wendy-May Connor who killed her son whilst driving under the influence of cannabis. You said
Yep Libertarians.. it is a victimless crime….
and
Bok, true. Much of the libertarian doctrine only applies in a Robinson Crusoe type situation. (before companion Friday shows up at least]
I have written a response to your comments:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/woman-kills-son-whilst-stoned-but-drugs-are-a-victimless-crime/
August 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
Being paid $1000 a week to live in your own house and having 90% of your overseas travel paid because you happened to be a prime minister once….. to me this falls under the category benefit fraud. It might be legal but it certainly isn’t right.
August 1st, 2009 at 11:53 am
The Bill English situation is simply not on. Truly disappointing. I can’t see how his claims be justified.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Da Vinci is wrong;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;The Travel perks were not part of a remuneration package but were rapidly passed in the dead of the night by collusion between both parties after the then remuneration authority denied them an increase in pay.(Richard Griffin) Ever since they have made sure that they always have a rubber stamper in the position rewarding them above their overseas peers.
In English’s defence he probably could have moved into a Ministerial House and rented his own for a similar amount…I agree how-ever that all these perks are outrageous and set the standard for Benefit and employment abuses.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
i mean..these troughers have pensions that would choke a horse..
..everyone else has to ‘cut back’..?
..but not them..?
(these are different times we are now living in..
..everything must be reevaluated…
..and just because something is a custom/’entitlement’..
..does not excuse that re-evaluation..
..this is a new world..
..lots of stuff..has to change..
..we have no choice in this..
..ignoring our perils..
..will only make them worse..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Gosh, who knew WhaleOil was mates with Arnie and Wilt.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Grumpyoldhori should try to remember, or perhap learn, that Sir Roger Douglas was a Labour MP for many years and so far less than one year as an ACT MP. The son of a Labour MP and others in his immediate family support[ed] the Labour banner. Sir Roger came out with the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers with ideas to get rid of the more foolish articles of Labour creed and move to a centre right position in politics. The problem was the rabbid far left [Alliance/Greens ] and ignorant journo’s in search of a ‘good punchy’ story painted him to the right of National, more’s the pity. What with ‘cup-a-tea’s certain segments of the population have a lot to answer for.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
jcuknz
The great and good Sir Roger WAS to the right of National.
So were communist Russia, Cuba and China.
Now of course the Nats don’t stand for anything at all, they simply roll over whenever PC pokes it’s head up.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2709814/Nats-decide-to-do-without-drinks
August 1st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
>>> backster –all these perks are outrageous and set the standard for Benefit and employment abuses <<<
From personal knowledge I would say that benefit abuse stems from the confrontational approach of departmental thinking they were doing the right thing to minimise payments to beneficiaries which in turn bred a culture amongst bene's to do the bastards if we can. Without disclosing personal information and I didn't try this on the department, but was very upset to have my dole cut to a mere $7 a week because some damm beaurocrat decided I was earning too much, ignoring what I was passing on to a dependant not living with me. Another in the department had previously advised me it was AOK. So I could understand the attitude of somebody who I knew was on the dole, though I didn't approve of it or the department's apparent attude. I had struck this in my work situation where some pay clerks worked out what you were entitled to and helped you get it, while others did their 'best' to minimise payments.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Lots of fun at Joe Biden Said That?
August 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
John Roughan has an opinion piece in the Herald.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10587889&pnum=0
I will quote one small piece of his totally dishonest article.
Individuals in the NO lobby may favour the return of Section 59 as it was. However, the position of Family First is for a law change along the lines of John Boscawen’s private member’s bill.
http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html
The timing of Roughan’s dishonest opinion piece a the start of the referendum designed to misrepresent Family First’s position is reprehensible.
The Herald is a disgrace like John Key. They are totally misrepresenting what the referendum is about.
At present it is a criminal offence for a parent to smack a child for the purpose of correction. What does that mean in practical terms? I will give you a brief scenario.
A toddler picks up an expensive ornament. The parent picks up the child and moves him away from the object and says not touch it. A moment later the child touches to object with one finger to see if he can get away with it. After the event the parent smacks his fingers and says do not do this again. According to the legislation the parent is breaking the law.
The YES lobby may argue there are better ways to change the child’s behaviour. That is not relevant.
The referendum asks, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” In the above scenario the parent broke the law.
If you vote NO it is quite possible there will be no law change. If there is a law change it is almost certain that the law will not allow the use of an implement such as a strap.
I have a challenge for John Roughan. Debate the referendum question honestly and fairly on Kiwiblog and not abuse the power of the press that you have.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
MTT — you simply don’t know what you are talking about and are a typical left winger angry with somebody who sees Labour for what it is and wants to achieve a better way to a responsible society as conceived by the early Labour movement developed to be relevant to modern times. To rid the country of the deficiencies of lift-wing errors, made by both Labour and National in pre-MPP times. At the time I joined the ACT party I was choosing between the Alliance and ACT with both looking for a similar responsible result. ACT’s common sense seemed the more likely to produce results, and some of these can be seen today, while the Alliance has dissappeared. I gave up on politics and membership of any party years ago.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The ‘Yes’ lobby are a small minority grouping and as such have to use extreme argument to further their case. In other words they are extremists and the sensible majority currently suffer from them. I’m glad I do not have any responsibility for children these days. The law as applied to smacking is an ass. For a humourous aside I refer you to my blog http://www.jcuknzs.blogspot.com ” My son got angry when I didn’t smack him”
August 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“these troughers”
The Big Magpie strikes again!
“..everything must be reevaluated…
..and just because something is a custom/’entitlement’..
..does not excuse that re-evaluation..”
Oooh err!!
“..lots of stuff..has to change..
..we have no choice in this..”
Yikes, could this possibly mean that the Big Magpie is about to cast his feathered cloak aside and get … a job??
Or is he just going to change his underpants a week early?
August 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Chuck Bird:
What you have said is very good, but IMHO the primary issue is this: no state or person has the right to tell another person how to raise their children.
Another form of dishonesty occurs when the anti-smacking brigade describes smacking as “beating” and/or “child abuse”. Anyone not blinded by ideology can see the difference between “a swat on the rump steak” and “a lump of concrete to the head”.
Lying by the anti-smacking brigade is nothing new:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/sue-bradford-is-a-liar/
This might interest you:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-anti-smacking-law-lets-citizens-be-agents-of-state-terrorism/
August 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
jcuknz
The man who stated “never overestimate the troops” knew a thing or two.
I suspect you voted for National in 1984 and 1987. (Labour in 1990 for the trifecta?)
Unfortunately rewriting history to make it say what you want it to say does not work.
The Muldoon led National party formed the most left wing, do-what-we-say-because-we-know-best government in New Zealand’s history, far to the left of Gorbachov’s Russia of a similar era (and probably left of Bresnev’s).
I fail to see what your joining ACT (not formed at that time) nor seeing what the Labour Party really is when, with the assistance and leadership of the great and good Sir Roger Douglas, it was the Labour Party that provided the government that rescued NZ from that mad bastard Muldoon (and supplied the members who created ACT) has to do with this discussion and refrain from commenting at this time on anyone who admits to having to make a decision between the Alliance and ACT.
You state that you no longer belong to a political party.
What a shame Anderton’s Progressives or Dunne’s worm-joke outfit seem made just for you.
August 1st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Isn’t it fantastic to see only two National MP’s prepared to state they will vote NO.
What a bloody disgrace this party has become.
August 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
IMHO the primary issue is this: who has primacy in how child should be raised – their parents or the State.
I believe the State has a right to tell parents how to raise their children if they are obviously harming their children. Under the old section 59 parents had the right to use reasonably physical discipline. When that physical discipline was not reasonably the State not only had a right but a duty to intervene.
August 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Is it just me or is kiwipolemicist’s constant linking to his own blog site fucking irritating?
August 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Anyone who has seen the greatest movie ever made, “The Princess Bride” will love this link to a modification of the best sword fight in the history of cinema!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYVQooRSlzg
August 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Chuck Bird:
I agree that the state should punish violations of the non-aggression axiom, but no more. Clearly the parent-child relationship is a special case, e.g. I can’t walk up to someone on the street and put a nappy on him by force
When the state controls how parents respond to a misbehaving child by outlawing smacking for the purposes of correction/training (usually a swat on the rump steak or similar) the state is controlling the raising of children and IMHO that is utterly evil.
When the state legally requires children to be educated (whose children are they?), requires parents to seek permission to homeschool their own children (presumptuous arrogance of the highest order), sends enforcement agents (ERO) into the homes of homeschoolers (presumptuous arrogance of the highest order + a violation of property rights ), the state is controlling the raising of children and IMHO that is also utterly evil.
Remember that state control of children is a policy straight from the Communist Manifesto and I understand that state schooling as a means of controlling the ideology of children dates back to the Roman Empire (although I have not confirmed this).
August 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Another example of our faux democracy in action: not only is the referendum non-binding, but groups like Family First aren’t allowed to spend more than $50k. That’s a violation of property rights.
August 1st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
kiwipolemicist
That argument is so weak that I was really contemplating not answering it. However I know that you posted in good faith so here is my response.
Any mind altering drug, does have an affect on the wider community. I spent some time in Holland where there is just as much petty crime and muggings for drug money as anywhere else. Like Alcohol, drugs diminishes the responsibility people take for their own actions. And people get hurt, or killed. When Anthony what’s his face went ballistic with the samurai sword and the gun, you could say his drug taking was victimless, but the results not… but you would be living in some fantasy land.
It’s a bit like saying a suicide bomber strapping the explosives to his own body is a victimless crime, it is only when he detonates it that we have to be concerned …. Or planning a murder is no problem, just when the person gets killed is it a problem.
How about breaking into your house is not a problem, except if they steal something…. the list goes on. And before you say it is against the law for all of the above… so is drugs.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Bok:
Strapping explosives to your body does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights.
Planning a murder does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights.
Breaking into someone’s house is a violation of property rights, so you’re comparing two apples and a pear.
Taking drugs does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights; that’s an apple.
Actions done under the influence of drugs may be a violation of personal and/or property rights, just as I said in my post, and if so they are pears.
If you outlaw everything that may lead to (lead to, not cause) a violation of personal and/or property rights the following will be illegal:
• driving (you might kill someone deliberately)
• entering a shop (you might steal)
• going to work (you might steal)
• owning a pen (you might use it to blind someone)
• and so on.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
kiwipolemicist – the examples you cite (driving, shoping) are activities that 99.99% of people experienced value from 99.99 of the time. So any suggestion of outlawing them would thankfully lead to an outcry. If you can point to cases where someone strapped explosives to their body with the intention of doing good to their fellow man then i’d like to hear them. If not then outlawing this behaviour is perfectly acceptable in my book.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
getstaffed:
The intent is irrelevant, because simply strapping them to your body is not a violation of personal and/or property rights.
If not then outlawing this behaviour is perfectly acceptable in my book.
If you are willing to outlaw those things that lack “the intention of doing good” to another person then getting out of bed will be illegal
You and Bok appears to be fans of social contract theory, which expects us to give up our rights in order to allow the state to maintain social order. That may sound nice but it’s a sheep in wolf’s clothing, as explained here:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/what-is-a-social-contract/
(For the record, I am adding this link in order to substantiate my statement)
August 1st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
you are a real hypocrite..aren’t you bok..?
did all the drugs you took do irreparable damage..?
what are the current manifestations of that damage..?
..did they make you go reactionary..?
..make you put on weght..?
..and you are ignoring your (favourite legal) drug/high..
..eh..?
..food..
as i said..you are a hypocrite..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I see so some-one’s property rights carry a premium over persional safety… mmmm
okay explain that to me.
Surely planning a murder, strapping bombs to yourself an maybe even having a joint knowing that you are going to drive, poses more of a threat than me walking up to your house and climbing inside…?
How about when that person straps on the bomb to blow up your property?
The problems with ideology (and let me state here that I am far more a Libertarian than a national or even act supporter) is that people get blinded by the stupidity of rigid points of view.
You have to admit, that if a child suggested to you that your car is more important than your mum or dad (who might be on the plane that is in the plan to be blown up) is just stupid.
But then lets approach it from your ideology (and mine but I am less blinded by it;’s short commings..)
People under the influence damage and often others property…
People who need to have medical help or those they injure, damage my property in that I have to pay for their medical help. (Taxes)
People who do drugs operate on less than 50% of their normal capacity and therefore they are a drag on productivity.
But like any true ideologue, you twist the argument into a nonsense. If a person goes into a shop, it is to uy or to look….. if they
drive it is to get some-where. With your argument there should be nothing wrong with driving with a blindfold. Surely if I want to wear a blindfold I am allowed. And I am only driving…
How about beig allowed to get in behind the controls of a jetliner with no experience…. same argument and just as silly as yours..
Using your argument, you are suggesting that making it a law that only those who are qualified to drive is stupid, and 5 year olds should be allowed to. See how stupid it becomes if you blindly follow ideology? How about I buy a plane…. my money. I cannot fly it but I want to be an airline pilot. I advertise cheap seats….. Fill the plane up and off I go…
Now I can crach into the oceaan and not damage any-one elses property… but kill 200 people. I did not violate any property rights… They got on the plane… and just like you do every time you fly they should have made sure the pilot is in fact a pilot…… You dont? Okay.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Phil your opinion is of no value so piss off.
And that is the last time I waste my time on adressing you.
Loser
August 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“did all the drugs you took do irreparable damage..?”
Whoar, is that a confession on your part? If so, it’s long overdue, although your addled-brain condition has been noticed by many around here.
I cannnot appeal to your decency (you have none), but try to redeem yourself finding a job and earning a living.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Now getting back to some-one who has some intelligence… kiwipolemicist the point is we can take any point of view or any absolute and make it seem reasonable. And getstaffed is right the 99 percentile is of importance.
An example…
Not everybody that enters your house is invited… Sometimes family or friends come round. Your brother might even take the key from under the flowerpot and enter your house without your consent but with good intentions (maybe returny ing some tools….)
The other side of the coin is also true. Not everybody invited intyo your house by yourself, enters with good intentions….
Surely you would not have your brother locked up for breaking and entering (which he did). And how about the guy you invited in that is casing the place? Ideology is fine… but commonsense is part of reality. The problem with libertarians are that they are the least free to accept variances. They like absolutes….
August 1st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
jcuknz yes I noticed the absolute bloody misery caused by Douglas when the SMPs were cut over night.
Bloody easy to state sacrifices must be made when one is coining it as a minister.
Oh for information, I believe ALL bloody MPs are a self serving bunch who believe they are the most important bloody people in the country.
So you would say Douglas has earned his free international air travel but Corporal Apiata VC has not earned the same ?
August 1st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Phil do you think your drug induced robbery was a “victimless crime” as you legalisers would call it?
And on that subject, a few days back you mentioned a monitored heroin addict is a “perfectly functional human being”.
So in your ideal world, do aggravated robbers count as “perfectly functional human beings”?
August 1st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Manolo you are talking to a lowlife that has no value…. I dont know if you have met the thing. Imagine Peter Davies (yes that one) and starve him for three months and then age him by 20 years….
He mistreats animals and children and has no morals. His carbon footprint in relation to his value to society makes Al Gore look like a hermit who only heats his water by leaving it in the sun…..
August 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
At this point in time I just want all of you out in blogsville to stand up and give a rousing ovation to Ban Ki Moon for giving Helen a job.
This meant that she took H2 with her, handed over the losers party to Goofy, thus condemning it to eternal damnation in the wilderness.
The bonus is that we don’t have to listen to the dreadful hag telling us how we should live our lives!!!!!!
Vote NO in the referendum — not because beating children is good but to send a message to the pollies that we DO NOT want them interfering in our lives any more. John Key —-ignore this at your peril.
August 1st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
so bok..you won’t answer/adress the hypocrisy..eh..?
it was fine for you to hang over mirrors/pack yr hooter with cocaine .. for as long as you wanted to..
..then you come here arguing prohibition against pot..
..’cos ‘it’s against the law’..
your hypocrisy/double-standards really know no bounds..do they..
..and i repeat..
..what are your physical/mental signs of damage from all that ‘packing’..eh..?
bah..!..humbug..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Haha agreed hori.
And what about this troughing by English? Sure I’m a nat supporter. But is a quarter mil salary not enough to pay your own fucking mortgage?
Na, he needs an “accomodation supplement” by the taxpayer apparently
August 1st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
so many questions nic..
..so little time..
..(yawn..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I strongly object to paying Bill English 1000 $ per week to live in his own home
August 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Waits for the DPF spin
August 1st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
So little time?
You dodged the only two questions I’ve ever asked you, but yes I’m sure you must be flat out
August 1st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Kapital.. where is that godess of yours who had more house out for rent than a bull could shit and still organizes taxpayer funded cars for her mates?
August 1st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Nickb please show some respect… he (lightly used term) is a radio station executive…. Oh no sorry that is gone as well…
August 1st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“..I dont know if you have met the thing. Imagine’..a bigger/more tightly-packed/more rotund michael moore..
..add a helmet/bouffant hair-do..
..a (short-pants) karitane-yellow safari suit..
(with lots of button-down pockets..)
..and a matching yellow browns bay tractor..
..and of course..man-jewellery..and rings..
..(totally retro..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Bok:
But like any true ideologue, you twist the argument into a nonsense.
No, it’s called reductio ad absurdum, and it’s a technique for showing up the flaws in an argument.
I see so some-one’s property rights carry a premium over persional safety…
You appear to have misunderstood my argument.
With your argument there should be nothing wrong with driving with a blindfold. Surely if I want to wear a blindfold I am allowed. And I am only driving…
Driving with a blindfold does not violate anyone’s personal or property rights and therefore I see nothing wrong with it. However, anyone with half a brain cell will know that they will be violating someone’s personal and/or property rights (via a crash) after about 5 seconds, and therefore will avoid driving with a blindfold. Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility, and people should avoid driving after taking drugs and/or alcohol for the same reason.
With all due respect, you’re not a libertarian if you expect the state to make illegal those actions which may harm you and/or your property.
My position, and the generally accepted Austrian Libertarian position, is that anything that does not breach the non-aggression axiom is fine. The non-aggression axiom is thus:
It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property
This is nothing personal, but I am clearly wasting my keystrokes debating this with you so I will say no more. I have stated my position and I believe that the logic of my arguments based upon the non-aggression axiom is clear (logic is independent of ideology).
August 1st, 2009 at 5:18 pm
philu – have you ever stopped to ask yourself where bitterness came from?
Like you had the finest of schooling in that strict Roman catholic college….. with all those Fathers and Brothers…..!!!!…. were you in the Rosmini Boys’ Choir?
August 1st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
nah..!..i was expelled from there..
..i was sorta anti-choir..
they didn’t like to expell..they sent discreet letters to parents..
“..we do not think phillip has settled in .. in his four and a half years at this school..
..therefor we do not expect to see him next term..”
brilliant..!..on so many levels..
..(i do appreciate the four years of latin..tho’..
..i think it helped teach me to write/appreciate/learn language..)
(and in their defence..i was an argumentative/mouthy kid..
..that’s a surprise..eh..?..)
..and i’m not ‘bitter’..
i’m optimistic..
..’cos i can see a way out thru all this..for us all..
..what’s to be ‘bitter’ about..?
..don’t mistake laughing at fools..and their foolish ideas/delusions..for bitterness..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I don’t care from which political hue one is,
If you are rorting the taxpaying you should be fucking ashamed of yourself
English is claiming a grand a week to live in his own house and made changes to the ownership of it earlier on this year so he could rort the system
Fuck and he has the audacity to tell public servants to watch their spending.
Spin it all you like its just fucking wrong
August 1st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Makes a beneficiary getting 700 a week cheap.in comparison at least she is bringing up children
he is getting a grand for fuck all … on top of his salary
August 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
From stuff:
Watch as this becomes a common feature of our new landscape. If the govt tries to slowly peel away welfare entitlement there will be squeal after squeal from successive interest groups. We can’t afford repeated instances of minor surgery like this. Our welfare state is unaffordable, bloated with bureaucracy and in desperate need of a one-time major overhaul. But we lack leaders with the balls to do this.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
as it turns out I know someone who was in school with you. he said you were nothing but a shitstirrer and trouble maker. What do you think sparked it? – Youre not bitter the pope only apologised to the aussies are you ?
August 1st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
From gblog posted in full as its interesting
August 1st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“..as it turns out I know someone who was in school with you. he said you were nothing but a shitstirrer and trouble maker..”
wasn’t that what i said..
was your friend who so disliked me..in the choir..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Muppet and the other lefties climbing into Bill English because of his housing allowance are hypocritical, when H1 and her harridans flitted around the world at any hint of an open door.
They aren’t as hypocritical as the TV journos and news readers, however, when they attack English and other MPs on expenses. TVNZ bludges tens of millions from the taxpayer. It sends crews scooting around the world flippantly instead of buying footage from agencies. It maintains Dim Wilson in America to provide tabloid bytes on Jackson from Hollywood. Barbie will be on a big salary for reading her script nightly. TVNZ criticism of MPs on expenses is the pot calling the kettle black.
What’s wrong with a $50,000 a year housing allowance for a Minister whose electorate is in Southland any way? Am I wrong in thinking this is an alternative to living in a Ministerial house, which in real accounting terms is at least as big a cost to the taxpayer?
August 1st, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Has anyone seen any costings of what a tax free threshold like Australia’s would cost? Like in comparison with tax cuts we’ve already had. Would anyone have any kind of link to this?
It would reduce so much churn to set one at say $15-20K.
Why tax beneficiaries? Seems moronic when it just gets churned around.
And most people paying tax in these brackets are negative taxpayers anyway. You could cut benefits, NZ super, minimum wage etc and offset their loss in net income with a tax cut in this way
August 1st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“..What do you think sparked it? .”
i’ve never been able to suffer fools/foolish ideas/beliefs..
(i wasn’t allowed to ask questions in religous knowledge classes..
..that’s also brilliant..eh..?..once again..on so many levels..
..and the school iq test had me second most intelligent in the school..(!)
..but they didn’t know what to do with that..
..and your friend couldn’t have been in my class..
..i was the class funny guy..
..the others could just sit back and laugh..and watch the show..
..as i ‘ran’ the teachers..
..teachers ii liked i left alone..but the fools just got grief..
..meh..!
..ahh..!..the memories..!..the thrashings/canings..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“i’ve never been able to suffer fools/foolish ideas/beliefs..”
ah….so you hate yourself?
August 1st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
i’ve never been able to suffer fools/foolish ideas/beliefs..
Like the belief that your entitled to a life of largesse on the backs of your fellow citizens?
August 1st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
delving into that ‘classics’/bkleeding obvious collection again..eh..?..starr..?
tell us the one about the finance minister preaching restraint..
..’adjusting’ his life ‘arrangments’..
..so he can suck another grand a week out of the trough..
..eh..?
..that ones hilarious..!
..eh..?
..and..i mean..he only gets a quarter of a mill a year..
..and has all his southland properties leased/rented out..
..fuck..!..he must be creaming it..eh..?
..and who is the/that joke ‘on’..?
..again..?
phil(whoar.co.n)
August 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“..and the school iq test had me second most intelligent in the school..(!)”
yeah yeah, your mate Rogernome made a similar claim
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2009/04/look-how-brainy-i-am.html
until everyone else did the test
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/04/iq_test.html
August 1st, 2009 at 6:39 pm
he’s underpaid as it is.
What may see this government tumble at the next election is not addressing the problem of bludgers like you (who are sucking the system dry)
August 1st, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Haha phil accuses others of having the snout in the trough!
Phil I thought you’d at least have the decency to avoid that kind of embarrasment for yourself.
Phil, for someone who’s parents have tried their hardest (and sometimes struggled) to provide for me while I was growing up, without ever begging from the state (even when they would have been entitled) I find your outlook on life to be profoundly offensive.
I regard you as a little better than a petty terrorist, a selfish person who takes food from the mouths of the more needy.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Kapital said: From gblog posted in full as its interesting
Yes, very interesting indeed. The post, with links to evidential material, is here.
Do I see another Ministerial resignation coming on? The Deputy PM – hey, he’s be a big one to fall.
How can English’s name be on the title of a property in Karori, as it is reported to have been from 2003 until March this year, but not be declared in his Register of Pecuniary Interests published in January of this year?
This is far worse that Roger Douglas’ scamming a $44K holiday on the taxpayer because it was his “entitlement”. This, arguably, is corrupt, and English needs to provide some answers.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Toad
“Roger Douglas’ scamming a $44K holiday on the taxpayer because it was his “entitlement”. ”
No worse than Russell Norman clocking up $20k between himself and Katya to get only 2418 votes in the Mt Albert byelection.
He didnt have a shit show of winning so what a fucken waste of taxpayers money
August 1st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
so..nicb..you view all sole-parents receiving a domestic purposes benefit in this way..?
..(what would you have..?..orphanages/poor-houses..?)
..or just those who don’t accept that payment as a gag..?..on political activity/voice..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
No phil.
Your son is school age. So for 6+ hours during the day, you are perfectly capable of working. Your son does more during the day than you FFS.
So why can’t you?
August 1st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
ncb..i am so tired of this groundhog day/meme..
..the subject is closed..
..rail on/moan all you like about me being a sole-parent on a dpb..
..i really couldn’t give a flying fuck what you and others think about that..
..eh..?
..and will not respond..
..(four and a half years is enough..
..go trawl the archives..the arguments are endlessly repeated there..
the subject is closed/debated to death/reduced to catch-phrases..
..meh..!
..i will use my own/personal/custom-designed ‘ignore-function’..
..it is now ‘on’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
As an aside from ‘the usual arguments’, here’s a lost city.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8177529.stm
Absoluetly amazing.
And Auckland gets a couple of reconditioned sheds…if the fuckwits can pull their fingers out of their arses in tim.
August 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
organised by Socialist Aotearoa
Surprise!
August 1st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“you are perfectly capable of working. Your son does more during the day than you FFS.”
phools argument has alway been ‘oh dear, what will I do about the school holidays?’
he’s a tired old parasite who will never get off his arse whilst the free money keeps rocking in
August 1st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
No Shit Sherlock, Quote of the day:
“Saying “yes” to the United States’ request for special forces could – to put it bluntly – result in some troops returning home in body bags.”
- John Armstrong, NZ Herald.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587898
And your meandering point is what John?
August 1st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
er because he lives in Wellington full time with his family in a house he owns
Surely you see that as wrong? it is still wrong which ever party does it ? if the others do it too it is no excuse
And asking public service to reign in public spending when you yourself are rorting the taxpayer is the height of hypocrisy
He has to go
August 1st, 2009 at 7:22 pm
And your meandering point is what John?
Haha! “Breaking news: soldiers die in wars!” You gotta love journalists, they do get up to some stupid shit.
August 1st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Has Phool told us yet how much he steals from us each week?
August 1st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
so Philu – if youre so smart as you claim; (“the school iq test had me second most intelligent in the school”) how did you;
1./ end up on smack, ?
2./commit armed robbery ?
3./get caught ?
4./ end up in prison
5./ end up on welfare for the rest of your life?
could it be;
A./Rosmini was full of pigshit thick idiots?
B./ youre lying?
C./ you’re a natural born loser?
August 1st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
the broad kaleidescope that is life..
..eh..?
d
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 8:31 pm
meanwhile..back at the story du jour..
..the troughing of/by english…
..your thoughts..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
toad wrote
“Kapital said: From gblog posted in full as its interesting
Yes, very interesting indeed. The post, with links to evidential material, is here.”
If you look back at the 31 January 2008 return he declares an interest in a trust called Endeavour Trust. The Dompost story mentions the Wgton house is owned by a family trust. There may have merely been some delay in the change of Trustees being notified to the Land Transfer Office. Even though the house is owned by a trust, the Trustees are listed on the title.
That said, it seems strange that they would remove Bill as a trustee, has he proved himself not up to the task?
Earlier this week when justifying the release of personal details by Paula Bennet, dpf said
“Taxpayer funded benefits are not purely a private matter.”
I hope he will now call on the Revenue Minister to release the tax returns for the English family trust and Bill himself so all relevant material is available to the public
August 1st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
so starr..has your friend/my ex-fellow-pupil grown up to be a stuffy old conservative/reactionary/bigoted ‘christian’..?
..like you..?
..and what did you do with your alloted years..?..here..?..starr..?
..start work at the insurance company at age 16..?
..and retire 50 years later..?
..wondering..”fuck..!..maybe i should have done ‘more’..?
..eh..?
..this was your life..!..patrick starr..!
..(dosen’t that have you going..’fuck!..i think i missed something..!’..)
‘cos whatever mine has been darling..
..it hasn’t been the life of a boring drone..
..like yours..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Phool,
Your goal is to make 5000, can you work out how many more to make 5000?
I wish I could set a goal like that, 5000 then a chocolate fish.
Oh man I really want that chocolate fish.
Stupid Prick
August 1st, 2009 at 8:50 pm
btw..dpf..
..has national had you do any polling of the newly unemployed..?
..y’know..asking how many of them voted for that ‘change’/national..?
..and asking how they now feel about ‘that nice mr key’..
..and whether they will vote nationalagain/next time out..?
..could be interesting..eh..?
..there is a big enough pool to get a clear picture..
..and it’s getting bigger every day..
..eh..?
..should be huge by next election time..eh..?
..’celebrating’..?..this weekend..?..were you..?
ah well..!..may as well..
..while you’ve still got the chance..
..eh..?
this time next year you’ll be/things’ll be a little grimmer..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Put a sock in it, phool.
In other current affairs, here’s the racist idiot Crowley, America’s Susan Boyle, helping Gates navigate the stairs, while President Wonderful preens for the camera.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/afterbeers_PS-0436.jpg
August 1st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
“has your friend/my ex-fellow-pupil grown up to be a stuffy old conservative/reactionary/bigoted ‘christian’..?”
nope – he’s a full blooded leftie, but like you he is old, unlike you he works for a living. (he has a conscience)
I congratulate you however on your later years qualifications. I left school early but it has never done me any harm (I pay 3.25x more in tax than you get on the benefit)
as I’ve also told you before I raised a child as a solo dad, no assistance – no welfare, no WFF’s. Every time I’ve given you advice on how to do it you threw up excuses.
I’ve missed nothing. In my younger years I was a very good looking man. Tall (well 1.8) dark and handsome. I played rep rugby and have a silver fern (NZ rep) in yachting. I’m and active hunter and fully participating dad to 3 kids.
I have no regrets – (apart from not undertaking pre-nups in 2 relationships)
I’m very sought after in my field of employment – and can afford the some of the luxuries in life.
You on the other hand claim to be: “the second most intelligent in the school” but seem to have achieved nothing since ……any explanation?
(again)
A./Rosmini was full of pigshit thick idiots?
B./ youre lying?
C./ you’re a natural born loser?
August 1st, 2009 at 9:07 pm
“..as I’ve also told you before I raised a child as a solo dad, no assistance – no welfare, no WFF’s. ”
what did you do with the child..on school holidays..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
as I told you previously a pre condition of any employment was 5 or 6 weeks A/L. (and i’ve been in the same job a while now)
In addition I would use friends and family, (and reciprocate for the friends kids as well)
These arrangements are not difficult to make (provided you have any friends?) but I’ve heard all your excuses about school holiday camps and no family willing to step in. That’s all bullshit and it’s all about how hard you try.
You, Mr Ure do not put in any effort. This is the reason not many on this blog have any respect for you and give you the shit we do
August 1st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
“what did you do with the child..on school holidays..?”
Of all the reasons you use to be a parasite Phool that is the weakest one by a country mile.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
go and get fucked..my boy couldn’t be turning out better..
..and you had family..and farmed yr kid out with friends..
..good on you..!
i’ve looked after mine..
end of fucken story..
..never again will i engage on this subject..
..as you say..you have done it endless times before..
..aren’t you bored fucken rigid with just saying the same crap over and over again..?
..fuck you’re a bore ..!..starr..with yr constant fucken whinging..the same shit..over and over again..
..and never anything of any import/substance..
..just your whine of..’you’re a bludging solo-parent’..
..you have the intelllectual rigor of a fucken gnat..
….and could ‘bore’ for ew zealand..
..and your corny old fucken lame jokes..
..i’d rather drive hot needles into my eyes..]]
..than spend any more time engaging with you..
..welcome to my shit-list/ignore-function..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Hurf
It is perfectly acceptable to be a racist just as long as you are not white.
Hell, armies of pinko’s will fight to defend your racist words or actions if you are black, brown, yellow etc…
August 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm
bruv..see 9.25..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“go and get fucked..my boy couldn’t be turning out better..”
Oh really?, does that mean he is already on the dole?
August 1st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
philu (4983) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
August 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
go and get fucked..my boy couldn’t be turning out better..
Happy place, phil, go to your happy place.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Ohh, what’s the matter Phool?, are you feeling a tiny bit guilty for stealing from the working men of NZ?
August 1st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
oh dear – I seem to have found a little conscience!
not once did I question how your son turned out. Stop fucken hiding behind him you pathetic drug fucked parasite
You are a natural born loser!
“i’d rather drive hot needles into my eyes..”
Yeah? – well I’m sure once you ran out of room on your arms and legs you’ve probably already tried that one
August 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“..i’d rather drive hot needles into my eyes..]]”
Please…..allow me to do that for you.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Patrick
““i’d rather drive hot needles into my eyes..”
Yeah? – well I’m sure once you ran out of room on your arms and legs you’ve probably already tried that one”
THAT is bloody funny!
August 1st, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Phool has no compunction about leeching off the state, but advise him to leave his kids to friends and family and he starts drooling violently and mouths off incoherencies.
Sounds a little bit like paranoia to me. Must be all the pot – they’re not really out to get you, Phil.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“..This is the reason not many on this blog have any respect for you and give you the shit we do..”
one final thing..
be very very clear..that if you think i give a flying fuck what the likes of you think about me..?
..dream on darling..!
..i have total contempt for you..
..and for the vile greedy/class-driven/environmentally destructive politics you believe/peddle..
..are we clear on that..?
..you are a fucken bad joke..
..nothing more..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Philu
one final question you still haven’t answered from yesterday;
“philu – did you do a thesis? what was it on? can you reply so i can understand you?”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/07/general_debate_31_july_2009.html#comment-590899
I’d like to know how many full stops it had?
August 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Hasn’t Prince Guthrie III of the Republic of Western Sahara answered your email about buying Whoar yet? No wonder you’re so wound up.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Hey, Patrick, Hurf, bruv, Phil, Steve – we’ve just got what is potentially the biggest political story of the year – alleged corruption by the Deputy Prime Minister.
And you guys use this thread here (when DPF’s obviously too otherwise engaged to start one on that topic) to bicker about trivial and personal issues.
Get with it.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Phil- found you a job! You’ll be vastly experienced!
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-me-jobs/Healthcare/Community-social-services/listing-229957461.htm?key=857287
August 1st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“..In my younger years I was a very good looking man…”
ugly old fuck now..are you..?
..and..not very shallow/vain..?..eh..?
(goes with the boring..eh..?..)
..did yr sir name go to yr head..?
and you can just shut the fuck up too..aunty toad..
..you prissy old thing you..
..look out..!..lift yr skirts..!..there’s a puddle..!
see back in the thread..
..b4 you shoot your mouth off..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 1st, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Toad at 6.52 continues desperate lefties’ attempt to attack National, especially English and co., over MPs’ disclosed expenses.
Can Toad please explain how English’s Wellington house allowance differs from Helen Clark’s husband Peter being eligible for taxpayer money to visit H1 in New York repeatedly? (This is part of the travel perks of a spouse of a former longer-term MP). Okay to keep the Clarks together, but not to keep the Englishes as a family unit? If you think so you’ve spent too long in the mud at the bottom of the political pond, Toad.
Some labourites say Mrs English and their kids live outside the Southland electorate. Well good on them. They would see bugger-all of the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister if they were based in Southland. As it is he can be down there and back in a day.
Meanwhile nothing revealed about National MP expenses tops Labour’s move (stifled by the new Centre-Right government) to set up its party president with state-owned enterprise directorships.
And Toad, your allegation of corruption in a later post is just, well plain bullshit. Do you really want us to start raking up the scumbag stuff of labour to put things in perspective? Forged paintings. Speeding cavalcades etc etc.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Frogboy, my personal biggest story of the year is that Wet Wussell only got third in Mt Albert even with a 22% increase in the Green vote, Labour only just in opposition and a weak National candidate.
Why do your people have to travel around everywhere, anywhere? Tell them to get on their bikes, it’s environmentally friendly.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
“..phil..
..try and join the real world..
..i believe your mother didn’t teach you to..
..talk in ellipses..
..you would sound rather weird if you were at school, wouldn’t you?..”
August 1st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Philu,
you’re engaging with me again – and so soon!
- did you go blind?
- did it hurt?
- eh?
-eh?
-eh?
August 1st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
And you guys use this thread here (when DPF’s obviously too otherwise engaged to start one on that topic) to bicker about trivial and personal issues.
Yeah, funny how it always goes quiet when mates are being BBQ’d.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
In my 9.53 post above I talked of the Labour president and public company directorships. I meant state-owned organisation directorships.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:58 pm
..talk in ellipses..
Ellipsis = 3 dots, not 2.
Don’t they teach anything before pre-school these days?
August 1st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Ellipsis = 3 dots, not 2.
Don’t they teach anything before pre-school these days?
Obviously not hubris, we have to be taught about how NZ Labour is the best party in the universe, Grammar hardly gets a mention anymore.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
English is a prick.
He is abusing the spirit for which the allowance was intended.
I hate it when people use technicalities to justify something that was never intended.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:10 pm
of all of Phools statements this one has to be the funniest;
“..and you had family..and farmed yr kid out with friends..
..good on you..!
i’ve looked after mine..”
yeah right – considering how much time he spends on this blog
August 1st, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Obviously not hubris, we have to be taught about how NZ Labour is the best party in the universe, Grammar hardly gets a mention anymore.
Is that the state interfering with how you bring up your kids again? Or your own choice?
August 1st, 2009 at 10:25 pm
“Is that the state interfering with how you bring up your kids again? Or your own choice?”
There is a reason why I typed the word WE. In other words, I have been taught that way.
And yet you criticise my poor use of grammar.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Wreck posted at 10.09:”…English … is abusing the spirit for which the allowance was intended.”
What rubbish! Allowances always have been tailored to especially help MPs like English and the Maori Party members who have far flung electorates. Without such help, these electoral seats would be open only to the very rich. Keeping a Minister’s family together, and helping him fill his ministerial post at the same time as serving a distant electorate is exactly what the allowance is for.
I’m not surprised the leftists on the attack in Kiwblog tonight can’t see this. They will be mainly from Wellington and Auckland, rather than from distant provinces that earn the country’s income. These posters will be mainly heavily indoor types studying social “science” subjects (or with qualifications in them already). They will be arthouse movie buffs, have posters of Che Guevera in his beret on their walls, will probably be civil servants, and will certainly be union members. In their most private inner dreams they will see themselves as heroes of revolution such as Russia’s in 1917. What delusion! They would have been on the boat out of Russia at the first rifle volley from the White Guards.
The Labour types in Southland will probably be of the old blue-collar type – tradesmen, freezing workers, farmhands, and the like. If only these sort of people still ran Labour instead of the Teachers’ Union and the dreamers like wreck1080.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
ophiuchus (95) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
August 1st, 2009 at 10:25 pm
In other words, I have been taught that way.
You wouldn’t have to use ‘other words’ if you had been clear in the first place. But I forgive you.
And no, ellipsis isn’t grammar, it’s punctuation.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Apology accepted.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Fucker
August 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Jack5 (753) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
What delusion!
Exactly, what the fuck are you taking?
August 1st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
…roll eyes sarcastically…
August 1st, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Stop it, you devil.
PS yay proper ellipses!
August 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Jack5…me a leftie? How did you reach that conclusion from my short comment? I am truly interested to know.
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 am
Even as we speak Farrar , whaleoil , the Nat party research unit and crosby textor work deep into the night to spin their way out of the Bill Engish rort story.
A few valiant foot soldiers like jack 5 try to hold the fort but it is to no avail
When even the arch right blogger
cactus Kate can see its a rort. things are not good
What will tomorrow’s spin be?
They do it too ?
Its my entitlement?
Its keeping my family together ?
Stay Tuned
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 am
Not the same trust. The Endeavour Trust is this: http://www.endeavourcommunitytrust.co.nz/
English delcared a beneficial interest, which most likely means he was a recipient of, or his farm or business was a recipient of, funds or other benefits from this trust. With regard to his family trust, as far as I’m aware, you don’t have to declare if you’re a trustee unless you’re likely to gain benefit now or at some time in the future. It is interesting that information seems to be missing from the Register though.
August 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 am
Lawl, Das Kapital believes in the Crosby Textor boogeyman.
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
“He is abusing the spirit for which the allowance was intended. ”
100% right: Bill English is milking the generous system the politicians have created for themselves.
It’s no excuse to say this is common practice among MPs and “technically” legal. This sort of attitude to “entitlements” can only continue ruining our country by creating more bludgers at all levels of society.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 am
I wonder if English has ever looked at the $1000 pw and asked… “Is this a nice to have, or need to have policy”.
Cut your own excesses first, two faced hypocrite. Having childless Ministers doesn’t look so bad after all.
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
National finally has a real crisis and the Bloggers are all asleep… or struggling to find a decent spin.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:11 am
Backster
I can’t even remember how/when they passed this; its been around as long as I can recall. But my point is that since that time, MPs will have come and gone and that was the deal they signed up to. Its there, its part of the “pay”.
But certainly it should go. Its ridiculous. But that is quite different from saying that those who use that entitlement should pay it back.
Unfortunately, this is what you get when people who wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of earning a parliamentary salary in the real world get left in charge of the honesty box.
AND, hasn’t this been an interesting series of outbursts from the Big Magpie. I think that he actually craves respect. He clearly doesn’t like confronting the fact that he is a dead weight cost on society. But not enough to get a job.
So what will happen when the little magpie leaves the nest?
Debilitating illness? Sore toe? Post parenting stress disorder? keep those cheques coming!
Why doesn’t the Big Magpie trust the little magpie enough (after all, he’s 14 years old, not 14 months) to leave him at home for 6 hours a day during the hols?
How many of you were left at home in the hols at age 14 because your parent/parents didn’t have a choice, other than go on the bludge? I’d say there are lots of us out there.
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Cris_C wrote
“Not the same trust. The Endeavour Trust is this: http://www.endeavourcommunitytrust.co.nz/
English delcared a beneficial interest, which most likely means he was a recipient of, or his farm or business was a recipient of, funds or other benefits from this trust. With regard to his family trust, as far as I’m aware, you don’t have to declare if you’re a trustee unless you’re likely to gain benefit now or at some time in the future. It is interesting that information seems to be missing from the Register though.”
No. The Endeavour Community Trust is different to the Endeavour Trust. They have different wording in their names, see! The Community one is a pub charity in the lower North Island that gives pokie money to organisations in the lower North Island. Their website states their aims are to provide;
“Funds for the promotion of amateur sporting teams or clubs who have been formally established and or legally constituted. To provide for the conduct of race meetings for the benefit of the public and to promote and control those meetings, including:” blah blah. I can’t see Bill English qualifying
Parliamentarians must include family trusts in their return for the Register of Pecuniary interests if they are a beneficiary of a family trust. See
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2EAA178E-ABE8-4200-A91E-86A0F977727B/96319/registerofpecuniaryinterestsnotes2009_1.pdf
and
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1957D70D-E412-4875-93F7-D7876317AFD7/96829/registerofpecuniaryinterestsnotestrusts2009_1.pdf
We still don’t know if the Endeavour Trust is the English family trust, but if so in the last year or so Bill has ceased to be both a trustee and a beneficiary of it. I wonder why.