This entry was posted on Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 8:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
“The school’s foundation owns three commercial properties in Wanganui, two of which have rateable values of just under $1m, while the third property, a car park on the corner of Victoria Ave and Glasgow St had a rateable value of $4.75m.”
She said there were schools with only a couple of thousand dollars of debt that had been hit with government intervention.
“From the state school’s perspective, when they get into difficulty they don’t get a government bailout, they get a bill for a limited statutory manager to sort it out.
“Wanganui Collegiate is on a different playing field,” she said
A few days ago, Anne Tolley vented her annoyance when Corrections Union disclosed that maximum security prisoners were transferred on AirNZ flights. I expressed concern on Kiwiblog in rather strong language that she indicated this should not be disclosed to the public and indicated this could be a vote loser. However it seems her concern was that details of a specific proposed transfer were released to the media with obvious security and safety implications. She was quite right to be concerned. My apologies to Anne for my original comments.
Mike Sabin wants to remove the right to silence which is and has been a fundamental human right. Another indication that this National govt is becoming a dangerous control freak nanny state with little regard for human rights and important constitutional rights
When Bains wedding guest killed the Schroder girl in Hokitika he effectively handed her and family a life sentence. Just 13 years later he is a free man to celebrate Bains new life. Just does not sound fair to me and also a bit creepy.
@ RF – I think it would be more accurate to say that Paul Wilson handed Kimberly Schroder’s family a life sentence, whilst handing Kimberly herself a death sentence, with no right of appeal, no parole and no perogative of mercy.
Rigrg (185 comments) says:
Mike Sabin wants to remove the right to silence which is and has been a fundamental human right.
The only times this so called ‘right’ is called on is when a wrong doer or a dishonest witness tries to pervert the course of justice. Honest people tell it like it is.
Those who withhold evidence are ALWAYS guilty of something. So Rigrg when one of YOUR family is abused or seriously hurt by one of these silent scumbags, make sure you back them up.
To most commenters here, my views on the Bain case are well known.
There are some whose views are broadly similar to mine. There are some who are clearly neutral. There are some who will not accept the fact that Mr Bain was found by the Privy Council to have suffered serious miscarriage of justice, and in a subsequent trial was found to be not guilty – a decision rendered by the Jury in near record time.
So there are some three or four groups of commenters, each with its own world view of the Bain case. But can we put that aside those differences for a few moments? That would be a reasonable course because in their pejorative “reporting” on Mr Bain’s weekend marriage, Fairfax and APN have achieved a new nadir in journalism standards.
I refer to the headlining of the fact that a former prison inmate, one Paul Wilson, a man he met during many years in Christchurch prison, is a convicted murderer and rapist, now on parole, apparently abiding by all parole conditions and rebuilding his life. And at this point can awe also put aside differences over whether anyone convicted of murder should ever be paroled/. We should, as an apparently civilised society, deal with the law as it is, and not treat people according how we wish the law had been written? Reasonable folk would think that a reasonable suggestion, would they not?
So back to the pejorative news coverage. At least four points clearly emerge: 1.) Mr Wilson has been on parole , gainfully employed, and living a normal life without coming to public attention; 2.) Someone with access to official files has kept tabs on Mr Wilson and identified him to media outlets, principally Fairfax and APN; 3.) Both Fairfax and APN carry almost identical “stories” giving full adverse detail on Mr Wilson’s background, and including comments from the family victimised 15 years ago, and 4.) Someone has chosen to emphasise the prison-based link between Messrs Bain and Wilson, as a means of denigrating Mr Bain’s marriage. I make no accusations, but the speed with which Mr Wilson was “identified” and photographed, the detail on his background, and the orchestrated comments from the victim’s family, suggest to me a planned campaign against Mr Bain.
There are only two organisations that have the detailed current knowledge, and resources to hold such data – Police and the Department of Corrections, Probation Service./b> So that suggests to me that this was not a media initiative. It also suggests to me that the person (or persons) responsible is a very sick puppy, needing both psychiatric help and disciplinary action of the sternest kind.
There can be little doubt that most Bain supporter are either themselves Criminals,people with massive chips on their shoulders about Police, or just plain bonkers ‘Conspiracy Theory’ nutters- So it was to be expected that the Bain Wedding would have a few of life’s lowest forms…
The “right” to silence is a pragmatic thing. If a guilty suspect is compelled to speak, then chances are they are going to lie anyway, so why waste the time and effort chasing down false stories spun by from compelled lies, rather than letting the silence speak for itself
What a proud parent you would be seeing your daughter’s groom and his best man!
Plenty of state schools over the years, also with valuable school-owned property like land and hostels, have had to be bailed out for substantial amounts by the Ministry. Normally this money has to be paid back. We rarely hear of any but the worst cases but the Ministry has a list of schools at financial risk.
And can anyone tell me why Aucklanders are happy with an invisible mayor?
yeah, but a state school probably doesn’t own a carpark – hard to see how this asset is related to the everyday function of a school. $800,000 is a big debt!
A case of privatise the profits, socialise the costs?
This bit is dodgy too
“In October 2012 Education Minister Hekia Parata recommended to the Cabinet that ministers reject the integration move and take no further action. However, a second paper two days later shows her recommendation was overruled”
“Traditionally private schools operated under a business model of supply and demand but when Wanganui Collegiate was integrated the demand for it didn’t exist, Ms Roberts said.
As of March 2012, there were 1407 unfilled places in state schools in the Whanganui region, with one – Wanganui Girls’ College – operating at less than 50 per cent capacity”
@ Peterwn – it has also emerged that, far from the transporting of maximum security prisoners by commercial flights being a new phenomenon as alleged by the head of the Corrections Association, Mr Hanlon himself raised concerns about it when Labour was in power in 2006. Cameron Slater busted Beven Hanlon and his selective memory loss yesterday.
It would appear that the election campaign has already begun, given the unseemly haste with which Jacinda Ardern jumped in to try and discredit Anne Tolley. Both she and Mr Hanlon owe the Minister full and unconditional apologies for doubting her word.
Surely the right to silence stems from the very basis of our legal system; that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is therefore up to the state to prove you are guilty as opposed to the charged having to prove his innocence.
On that basis (and no doubt it’s more complex and nuanced than that)silence is a fundamental right.
Tampering with the fundamentals is very dangerous.
Making parents responsible for out of control children…..again a knee jerk reaction to symptoms of a broken society.
The state removes the rights of parents to discipline their children and now we see the state trying to hold parents responsible for the actions of wayward children…….not that easy.
LK hits the bottom of the barrel with the last resort argument if people don’t agree with his several inconsistent arguments and ‘facts’ on the Bain case then they’re anti police.
Peterwn finally realises Anne Tolley’s concerns about security breaches by the media thankfully.
Keepingstock is ‘concerned’ about who is invited to a wedding, miffed perhaps that he didn’t get an invite or finally resolving that the significance of the Bain case is measured to his low threshold of ‘satisfaction’ of ‘guilt’ by reason of who attended the wedding.
Scott Chris takes to ‘guessing’ what it means, and hello its planet mars stuff – Wilson blackmailing David for a place at the wedding or he’s going to ‘reveal’ something – Disneyland beckons for the disaffected.
flipper gets it right. Particularly interesting that Aunt Fanny pops out of the woodpile on cue. All significant proof of no proof against Bain, just imagination and poorly performed witchcraft.
“It also suggests to me that the person (or persons) responsible is a very sick puppy, needing both psychiatric help and disciplinary action of the sternest kind”
I believe there are several here who are in need of immediate psychiatric help as well, I’m sure David meet numerous individuals with ‘colourful’ pasts during his time inside, so he invited one to his wedding, big deal, although another reason for the witch-sniffers here to go around beating their broomsticks and baying for blood.
Theres no doubt to me that you are as you put it ‘plain bonkers and ‘Conspiracy Theory’ nutters’
Didn’t you know its so ‘obvious’ what happened and these idiots here know so much more than the investigating cops, the PC, Binnie et al.
The prosecution could have done with them in court. I found it hilarious that despite it being so ‘obvious’ the prosecution had to bring in expert witnesses to contradict each other so they had very little agreement on the evidence from their own ‘experts’
I see this report says that Bain is waiting to hear if he will be awarded compensation.
Message to David Bain. “Your compensation claim has been ‘taken off the table’ so unless you agree to be interviewed again you won’t be hearing anything.”
I see Karam says there were around 15 members of the Bain family present. It would be interesting to know who those 15 familymembers were. I take it he is not including himself and his two sons who he says that Bain treats as family.
Come to think of it why would anyone want David Bain to “treat them as family” ?
Message to the moron.
We don’t need an expert witness to tell us that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room.
We know he had been wearing them because he told his lawyer and his aunt that he had been wearing them.
What we need you to explain to us, moron, is how the frame of those glasses came to be damaged on the Monday morning and how one lens from those glasses came to be in his brother Stephen’s room on the same day.
Also, moron, while you are about it, you might like to explain how Bain got those bruises on his head and torso.
And how he managed to get his brother’s blood on his clothing by innocent transfer.
And why he waited twenty minutes before phoning the emergency services.
Message to the Aunt Fanny the serial liar
When you c & p the same bullshit 100 times over it just gets ignored, you are just a broken record and it is not worth the time of day to reanswer most of the lies and misrepresentations put up by you.
Get yourself some pyschiatric help you bullshit artist.
Interesting to note how important the planted lens is, the one that was out in the ‘open’ to be photographed and not noticed by either the photographer or the grid searchers only to ‘mysteriously’ turn up in a different place. I guess it isn’t a mystery that it overshadows the blood smears on Robin’s palms, the cuts and bruises to his hands, dna inside the barrel and marks on his thumb that the Crown scientist can’t exclude as having arrived there from Robin using the magazine, along with Fisher at no point saying that he believed David was guilty or that Ian Binnie would have reached a different conclusion had he used the previously unheralded ‘Fisher’ method.
Yep, notwithstanding my suggestion that we have a reasonable discussion , confining it to the pejorative media coverage and those inspiring it, the nutters, scewballs, broomstick riders, and the just plain thick, promptly emerged and endeavoured to second guess the legal system, the Privy Council, and a respected , independent, international jurist.
The fact that real, tested in court, evidence demonstrated that Bain had no case to answer, and he was declared to be not guilty by both a Jury and Justice Ian Binnie, matters not a wit to such fools. They are the sort of people who attempted, with the connivance of Hutton et al (led by Fisher) , to claim jail house confessions by A A Thomas – until Justice Taylor sat them on their collective arse. Then there was Watson….and now there is Scott Chris…… and his fantasies that he “generously” labels “speculation”.
It simply reinforces my view that, having no grounds on which to debate and contest with logic, and honesty, they enter the sort of world that hitherto only Peter Jackson was able to portray. En passant, my apologies to Pukerua Bay Pete”, for the unfortunate “association”.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out the truth about the glasses and that they would have been no use to David that morning. It just takes a brain, I guess thats why Aunt Fanny can’t do it and prefers to lie about it instead. The same logic applies to the ‘whodunnit’
You are right Flipper, there is no case to answer and there never was, it is all speculation, guesswork and requires misrepresentation as occured in 1995 to get a verdict unsustainable on the ‘evidence’
pcplod (4 comments) says:
January 13th, 2014 at 8:45 am
Right to silance?
The only times this so called ‘right’ is called on is when a wrong doer or a dishonest witness tries to pervert the course of justice. Honest people tell it like it is.
Those who withhold evidence are ALWAYS guilty of something. So Rigrg when one of YOUR family is abused or seriously hurt by one of these silent scumbags, make sure you back them up.
pcplod I couldn’t agree with you more. My son was killed and the killers witnesses/associates all except one played the silent card. The one who gave evidence lied through his teeth.
I believe perjury and false accusations should receive the same penalty as the crime these people are lying about.
My son’s killer: 3 1/2 years, out in two; it was his 24th serious conviction. The perjurer received no punishment. Now here’s the rub: All four of this group have since been arrested for serious crimes including GBH and rape.
Maybe there’s a tiny expectation that we’ll see headlines like “Wanganui Collegiate sells assets.”
You know, them doing the sort of thing people apparently need to do to survive and get ahead. You know the sort of thing that Cabinet sees as essential. The same Cabinet which changed it’s mind about funding Wanganui Collegiate.
Hat tip to Whaleoil.. he has a posed photo of the glove puppet all dressed up in wet suit and all the associated gear. Showing that he is nothing by a “hippycrit” wearing sporting equipment that relies on petroleum for its manufacture.
The photo reminded me of that TV show “Thunder Birds” with the little puppets having their strings pulled. Where’s Clint when you need him.
If David Bain is so sure he will be found innocent again then he will, no doubt, be quite prepared to let Robert Fisher Q.C . interview him.
Message to the flapper.
The jury at the retrial had been beaten over the head with “reasonable doubt” until they couldn’t think straight so they came up with a not guilty verdict.
But Binnie ,the international jurist, determined Bain to be innocent . How he came to that conclusion one will never know.
So far as that lens is concerned , it is definitely showing in a photo taken when Stephen’s body was still in his room,which was on the Monday morning. So my question to those who still believe David Bain to be innocent is how did it get there?
As I have already pointed out [more than once] David Bain has admitted to wearing the glasses that lens came from.
And still no answers as to how David Bain got those bruises on his head and torso or how he got his brother’s blood on his clothing.
The blood on Robin Bain’s hands was almost certainly his own blood as was the blood on his clothes and those minor abrasions could well have been caused when he was replacing the guttering that weekend.
However the problem is with sentencing .24 convictions means the police are doing their job and the guilty are being convicted.That means that up to that point the system works (right to silence included).
Convicted serious criminals must be sent to prison for meaningful periods,full life if necessary.
Message to the moron.
Why would those glasses be of no use to David Bain on the Monday morning when they were of use to him on the Sunday evening prior?
Of course they were of no use to him after they were damaged, but how did they come to be damaged? That is the question I would like you to answer.
New revelations that the BBC spent at least £20,000 in legal fees trying to cover up the fact that their top executives took part in a green propaganda conference 6 years ago – a fact that was stumbled upon by a 69 year old blogger who filed for info under the Freedom of Information Act.
The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.
At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.
Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if climate change laboratories might offer material for a thriller.
A lobby group with close links to green campaigners, the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), helped to arrange government funding for both the climate seminar and other BBC seminars run by Mr Harrabin – one of which was attended by then Labour Cabinet Minister Hilary Benn.
Applying for money from Mr Benn’s Department for International Development (DFID), the IBT promised Ministers the seminars would influence programme content for years to come.
The BBC began its long legal battle to keep details of the conference secret after an amateur climate blogger spotted a passing reference to it in an official report.
Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their legal battle is understood to be much higher.
In a written statement opposing disclosure in 2012, former BBC news chief and current director of BBC radio Helen Boaden, who attended the event, admitted: ‘In my view, the seminar had an impact on a broad range of BBC output.’
Of course the reason that muggins knows what he/she claims to know, is that muggins was there, hiding behind the curtains, and then sitting in Robin’s shoulder… only fall off in fright when he shot himself.
It is possible that the fall badly affected muggins balance, and ability to think……
Do your self a favour muggins: Accept that you are hallucinating, and get psychiatric help, urgently.
I have just received, in this morning’s mail, an unsolicted request for money from some organisation called “The Starship Foundation”. Included in this request is a glossy fold out of sob stories of sick children, a glossy fold out with another sob story, and request for money slip (starts at $25), a prepaid envelope, and a small sheet of wrapping paper (a gift, apparently).
Nowhere on these 4 pieces of paper is there anything actually telling me what this “Starship Foundation” is, what it does, or what it intends to do with any money I might choose to give it.
Again Muggins just for your benefit as it is very amusing with thanks to ‘beyond’
Maybe you could provide that cartoon for amusement?
For far too long, M***** has clung to the one piece of evidence he claims proves the entire case. A piece of evidence he claims cannot be refuted. According to him, and many others, the broken glasses found in David’s room on the morning of the murders is enough to prove guilt.
He supports his argument with a statement by Jan Clark, David Bain’s aunt, who David is meant to have told he wore that pair of glasses during the weekend prior to the murders. David made this statement apparently during a discussion with his aunt a day or so after the deaths.
David said he cannot recall making that statement, and can see no reason why he would have said it as he did not wear the glasses.
So, did David wear those glasses or not?
I think we all know the circumstances involving the glasses. Plenty was said about them in Court.
The glasses, without any lenses were found on a chair, near the doorway of David’s room. There were no lenses in the frames. One was missing, the other was with the frames, but no longer in them.
Extensive forensic investigation failed to find any physical evidence on the frames or the single lens that indicated they had been worn by the murderer of the Bain family, or had been in the close vicinity of Stephen’s blood spattered room.
In the days following the murders, the missing lens was found in Stephen’s bedroom.
(this is where it gets confusing)
Detective Weir, responsible for the scene, stated he found that lens in a certain position. (A statement that he backed up with a photo). However, when evidence was produced that indicated the lens was not found in that position, Weir was forced to admit he had changed his evidence to fit the photo, (in essence he had lied).
Weir was also found to have encouraged an expert to ‘ignore the dust on the lens’. According to that witness, the amount of dust on the lens indicated it had been laying where it was found for a period of time before the murders. That is, it could not have been worn in glasses by the murderer on the morning of 20 June 1994, or in fact during the weekend prior to the murders.
Did David wear those glasses or not?
I think the answer lies in the difference between Margaret Bain’s eyesight and David’s. Whilst both were short-sighted, their prescriptions were not exactly the same.
Margaret had an astigmatism, and David did not. When David wore his mothers glasses on previous occasions, in order to obtain a positive improvement it was necessary for him to place his hand over the lens that was adjusted for Margaret’s astigmatism. (That astigmatism was confirmed by her optometrist).
David stated the glasses were only of use to him in lectures, or watching TV from the back of the room. He had watched TV on the Sunday before the murders, but had been sat near the table, close to the TV and could see the screen without assistance.
In order to drive wearing these glasses, he would need to cover one eye, as lenses made for astigmatism will cause distorted vision in someone without the problem. With an astigmatism the corneal surface has a high degree of variation on its curvature causing a distortion in light refraction. Lenses adjusted for astigmatism are curved to compensate for this aspect, and when used by someone without an astigmatism, cause their eyesight to be skewed by the alterations in light refraction. Hence David needing to cover his eye, and rely on 90% distance vision provided by the other lens.
What does this mean?
What it means is that if David Bain was to wear those glasses to go on a shooting rampage, he would have needed to cover the lens that was adjusted for the astigmatism. If he did not do this his vision would have been so distorted, that he would be unable to aim the rifle.
It would also have left him with only one arm to hold the rifle and pull the trigger.
The remaining lens, which was adjusted for Margaret Bain’s shortsightedness, improved David’s distance viewing by approximately 90%. But, the murderer did not need distance viewing, and the glasses instead of being of assistance, would have further inhibited David Bain’s near vision.
S***** Spectacular Spectacles are a distraction
Had S***** bothered to do his homework, or even conducted a minor search on the internet he would have found the information regarding astigmatism indicates what is said above.
I suspect S****** already knows this information, but as it is not supportive of his argument, he has ignored it. S***** argument is that the marks on David’s face were obtained when the bleeding Stephen knocked the glasses off David in the struggle. He argues Stephen used such force that the left lens was dislodged and landed where Detective Weir found it.
Had David Bain been wearing those glasses his vision would have been so distorted he wouldn’t have been able to distinguish his target lying in a bed, let alone hit them in the head. Unless Mr S***** is able to provide evidence that David Bain was able to aim, hold and pull the trigger with one available hand, then it would be better for all if Mr S**** stopped making a fool of himself, and accepted he is wrong.
The evidence – the dust, the lack of human matter on the frames and remaining lens, the dishonesty surrounding the evidence presented in Court by Detective Weir, and Margaret’s astigmatism, all point to only one conclusion, that David Bain did not wear those glasses on 20th June 1994.
The only thing spectacular about S***** spectacles is the disgusting spectacle he keeps making of himself.
Such an interesting discussion regarding the Bain wedding.
I agree with your suggestion Flipper – some people just aren’t content with letting due process take its course – they have to try and increase the odds through manipulation and suggestion.
It is interesting to see the weak minded that are absorbed and open to the power of suggestion. The usual suspects jump at the opportunity to take it on board, and attribute the appearance of a convicted criminal at a wedding, as some sort of evidence against Bain, – not to mention as indication of the demeanor of Bain supporters.
It has always interested me how Bain supporters are declared the conspiracy theorists – surely the right theory is the one supported by lawful actions – that is the not guilty verdict, and all others (JFRB) are in fact the conspiracy? Strange how the JFRB crowd need to manipulate the facts/data/knowledge in order to make their ‘stories’ fit (e.g. Aunt Fanny’s persistent lies.
Good on David – firstly for not accepting the excuse that the media had a right to infiltrate his private wedding just because he is of public interest, secondly for not taking the large amount of money offered so he could keep his special day intimate, and thirdly for having the guts to have a friend by his side, regardless of what everyone else’s opinion of that friend might be. Regardless of Wilson’s appalling criminal record – he was there for David when many others weren’t (including his own family). That sort of friendship and support supersedes the normal rules of social interaction.
I bet it annoys the living hell out of the witch sniffers that so many of the Bain family are now supporting David – and not even all the supporting family members could attend. “Incompetent Witch Sniffing” by Aunt Fanny – should be a good seller.
There’s a delightful developmental stage, where children think you can add the prefix “No offense, but…” onto the front of anything, no matter how rude and offensive, and that will make it all ok. e.g..;
NO OFFENSE, BUT I think your idea is stupid, and you’re just a c*nt. And you’re ugly too.
David Bain and those glasses.
The optometrist at the first trial said that without glasses Bain would have blurred vision whether it was light or dark. She also said that some people who are short-sighted may find greater blurriness in darkness as the pupil gets bigger in dull light,so there is more blurriness at the back of the eye.
Fact #1. On the morning of the murders a pair of glasses were found on a chair in David Bain’s room. The frame was damaged and one lens was with the glasses. The other lens was in his brother Stephen’s room. There were photos taken on the Monday showing that lens in his brother’s room.
Fact #2. Those glasses were a pair of Margaret Bain’s that David Bain said he had worn before when his were unavailabe.
Fact #3. David Bain’s glasses were unavailable because they were in being repaired after he had broken them on the Thursday prior.
Fact #4. A conversation arose about his glasses at his aunt’s house on the Tuesday morning. He said he really needed his glasses but that they were in being repaired. When his aunt asked him what he had been using in the meantime he said he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses. They weren’t perfect ,he said, but they got him by.
Fact #5. Before the trial Bain told his lawyer that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday prior.
Fact #6. David Bain denied wearing those glasses when he took the stand.
Fact #7. His aunt was at the trial when he denied wearing those glasses and she remembered that conversation from the previous year.
Fact #8. David Bain’s lawyer wrote to Judith Collins pointing out that David Bain had lied about those glasses.
So it doesn’t matter whether the lenses had dust on them or not. They obviously would not have had dust on them on the Sunday when David Bain was wearing those glasses. If they did have dust on them no doubt this was because they had fallen to the floor of a dusty room and the floor of Stephen’s room was very dusty.
The question is how did the frame of those glasses come to be damaged on the Monday when it was not damaged on the Sunday prior and how did one lens from those glasses come to be in Stephen’s room on the Monday?
“But Binnie ,the international jurist, determined Bain to be innocent . How he came to that conclusion one will never know.”
Binnie came to that conclusion because he has a brain and applied common sense to the evidence, he also had all the evidence, the full trial transcripts and not just media reports, he also has a darn sight better understanding of the law of evidence than the used car bumboy who tries to pass herself of as an ‘expert’ but is really just a stupid old goat way out of her depth with no clue what she’s talking about.
I for one want to hear more about the criminal scum Bain associates with- how many more murderers/rapists were at his wedding? etc
Bain is quite clearly NOT the ‘boy next door’ Karam successfully marketed him to the gullible NZ media as…
I also have the full trial and retrial transcripts re Bain. That is why I cannot understand why Binnie came to his decision .
I can understand the jury’s decision. As I have already pointed out they were beaten over the head with reasonable doubt for 53 days. Is it any wonder they couldn’t think straight when asked to make a decision. But Binnie doesn’t have that excuse.
Aunt Fanny and the ‘spin’
1. she has actually managed to get one thing correct for a change
2. Half truth, yes they were Margarets glasses but David actually said he had not worn them for over a year
3. 2 truths in a post, well thats a near record for the Mug
4. Conjecture, based on the aunts memory some 5 years previous
5. Again unverified ‘spin’ of what David ‘apparently’ told Guest
6. Correct, an extension of 5
7. ‘apparently’ how well is her memory of that conversation, does the Mug remember her conversations years after the time, She didn’t say anything in 1995 or until the PCA report some 5 years later.
8. Yes he did, but Guest is a fradulent dishonest lawyer and breaking lawyer client privilege by writing this, it is irrelevant.
It ‘actually’ matters very much that the glasses were ‘dusty’ and hidden away under folded clothing where they would never have got to in a fight, that is key evidence that the lens was already there and not involved in a bloody struggle.
Lets just ask DS Weir shall we, about why the need to misrepresent this in 1995, Is it because the truth didn’t support the conclusion he wanted to put to the court and the facts didn’t support his ‘evidence’
We ‘do not’ know that the lens was not damaged on the Sunday prior, this is a blatant misrepresentation.
As to the final question Aunt Fanny will just have to wait until she gets to join Robin in hell, Will she still tell him how he’s innocent if/when he tells her he isn’t!
As I pointed out to you Muggy that actually requires a brain, even if (which I doubt) you have access to the retrial transcripts.
The prosecution didn’t appear to share your expertise at the retrial, maybe thats why that had to haul in experts to contradict each other over the ‘evidence’, they just didn’t have the proof of any of there arguments.
Why is it that you cannot substantiate anything you say? This is a rhetorical question btw.
Interesting post by Andrew Geddis detailing the “New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust” taking NIWA to court over Niwa’s climate database and it’s use of that database to make claims about the climate warming.
It sounds like the trust case was inept and failed resoundingly to the extent that costs were awarded against it. Geddis says the trustees have now liquidated claiming the trust has no money.
Colin Craig is ripping into election year, getting more media flocking over his smacking stance. He thinks he’s tapping a big voter demographic but he’s taking big risks. Someone wanting to be an MP openly promoting the flouting of current laws could backfire.
Many parents object to Government telling them what they can’t do with their children but I think far fewer will feel comfortable with openly promoting smacking.
Kevin Hague’s office has a vacancy for a parliamentary intern for 2014.
This is an unpaid, voluntary position based in Wellington.
Wellington, where rules for other people don’t apply.
All political parties – including yours – make use of, and are no doubt grateful for, volunteers. Belief that people in paid employment should be paid a minimum wage is also shared across parties although there is disagreement about how the minimum is set. But there is nothing about that belief that implies people should not be permitted to volunteer their time!
Dave Kennedy makes a point:
While I fully support Kevin’s comment I do think we should be very careful about the fine line between genuine volunteering for mutual benefit and exploitation. In the US interns have now become an exploited source of cheap labour and many have worked for years on no pay in the hope of finally scoring a job and it discriminates against the poor: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unpaid-internships-mere-exploitation-095500544.html
Someone wanting to be an MP openly promoting the flouting of current laws could backfire.
It’s actually a very clever move given 87% oppose the law. He’s probably hoping the police attempt a prosecution which will give him even more free national publicity. It’s a very mild flouting of a very unpopular nanny-state unnecessary law and that’s always popular.
I think far fewer will feel comfortable with openly promoting smacking.
That’s because you don’t understand politics. See, unlike you and raging lefty commies, 87% of people DON’T associate a mild correctional smack with outright child abuse. Both you and raging lefty commies in your galloping hallucinations desperately TRY to paint it like that, but you will never succeed, because 87% of people are clearly far more fair, reasonable and sensible than are you and your commie bedfellows on this issue.
The Dunedin/OU disease seems to have inflected their law school as badly as it has infected local POLITICIANS.
Geddis suggests the trust may have been set up specifically for the case to try and limit liability.
1., It was set up avoid personal liability. This was made clear at the time of suit initiation and followed a request (from memory) to comply with Court Rules.
2. The Judge would not allow evidence questioning NIWA’s methodology and conclusions.
3. The Judge upheld NIWA’s risible argument that it had no obligation to under take best scientific practice.
4. The Judge did NOT find in favour of NIWA – said he was NOT competent to consider scientific matters.
5. Because of #2 above no scientific evidence was contested.
6. NIWA still refuse to substantiate the accuracy of their data/conclusions by providing the raw data for pe3er review, or defining the methodology used.
7. NIWA’s CEO says the Judge validated their data, but he did NOT -see #4 above.
8. None of this deals with the issue as to whether the Judge in question had a conflict of interest…..let’s just leave it at that.
Finally, anyone relying upon silly Gareth Renowden and his “Hot Topic” web site would be foolish indeed.
You would be better served by going to Richard Treadgold’s “Climate Conversation”, or the NZ Climate Science Coalition site.
Colin Craig admits to occasionally smacking other people’s children for money
Craig says that ordinary parents who smack their children have now become so fearful of the new law that they have turned to people like him to help them “fulfil their basic obligations as parents.”
“It’s just, parents are so afraid these days, they’re not willing to do these sorts of things themselves, because they know if they get caught, the police could turn up with sirens and everything.”
Craig acknowledged that his practice of accepting money to smack other people’s kids was “probably” against the law, but that he was “no different” to “two thirds of New Zealanders, who think this is a silly law and it should be thrown out.”
Craig is referring to a 2009 referendum that asked the question “Should a financial exchange between two parties for the deliverance of services by at least one party that include the smacking of the other party’s offspring, as part of legal parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
“…..Many parents object to Government telling them what they can’t do with their children but I think far fewer will feel comfortable with openly promoting smacking….”
C’mon PG, no one went around and openly promoted smacking children when it was legal to do so.
It was of course made referenced to in the likes of toddler training books ect, or for children who yelled and screamed in the lolly isle, and parents discussing what to do with 7-8 yld kids who play with matches ect.
Everyone knows what smacking is Pete, and everyone knows what abuse is. I can’t see what harm a smack does to a child or the adult giving it.
Peter Marshall, Judith Collins & Sian Elias would’ve all been rightly smacked as kids. How did it harm them Pete? – make them all illogical or something?
Are you proud of this comment you made about Dennis Horne the other night?
Scott Chris (5,479 comments) says:
January 10th, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Noticed on the news that the guy who crash landed his plane on some local beach then crashed it again trying to take off was called Dennis Horne
Not our Dennis surely?
If it was you Dennis, hope you’re okay though trying to take off with one wheel in the water didn’t seem like the best idea…
Rowan (1,407 comments) says:
January 10th, 2014 at 10:35 pm
Denny dunce the not so ‘expert’ pilot or dentist or pretty much any role he has given himself on KB, including pathology, urology, lawyer etc.
Just a self proclaimed know it all arsewipe who judges anyone that does not share his deluded opinions.
Good riddance to this arrogant twat.
So, because someone disagreed with you about David Bain, you decided to gleefully celebrate his death? (By the way, on my reading of the article, your celebrations were misplaced – Dennis will be back on Kiwiblog soon enough.)
I have to say, that’s right up there with the nastiest comments I’ve seen on Kiwiblog.
I can’t see what harm a smack does to a child or the adult giving it.
Neither does 8.7/10 of us Harriet. But Pete’s on a crusade. Clearly he’s got it into his head he’s on to a veritable winner in his secret mission to discredit Craig so as to bring himself kudos and plaudits and possibli even a silver medal from the most fair, reasonable and sensible in the whole wide world.
This outrageous “child abuse” business is clearly, in Pete’s fevered mind, the vehicle through which he can achieve a pat on the head and a quiet “well done” from FRS Snr and the rest of us, even with all logic and indeed reality at our command, have about as much chance of stopping that as one does a one ton bull from his chosen amour du jour.
Craig talking about the anti-smacking bill is getting him media time on an actual policy issue, and one on which he’s on the right side of public opinion. So from that point of view it’s a good move. But it carries a risk in how John Key (who seems to genuinely support the bill) will take it.
Much as they talk up their odds of getting above 5% on their own, an arrangement with National is the Conservatives only realistic path into parliament. John Key will be weighing the pros and cons of making such an arrangement. If Craig tries to make repeal of the anti-smacking bill a bottom line that could be another tick in the (already fairly lenthy) “cons” column.
If it was, it seems that his skills as a pilot may be on a par with his knowledge on the failed case against Mr Bain , and other matters.
Having said that, I am sure that Rowan would never, other than in jest, celebrate the injury if worse suffered by any KB commenter – except when they are in the process of lying and/or deliberately distorting.
If it was the mad dentist, I wish him well in his recovery, hope that the experience will be salutary, and that he will (now) actually make a careful and detailed study of all issues on which he professes to know more than a properly briefed and instructed Jury, The Privy Council, and an independent Judicial Officer of the highest international standing.
Remember when Helen Clark, Labour and co tried to foist the Electoral Finance Act on the country in an attempt to stop groups speaking during an election year?
Well, Obama is going to try something similar in the U.S using the IRS. It seems he thinks he can get away with it because after his last misuse of the IRS, nothing significant came of it, so he doubling down.
Despite the furor over the IRS assault on conservative groups leading up to the 2012 elections, this man – a despotic radical who’s turned our constitutional republic into one of the banana variety – has quietly released a proposed set of new IRS regulations that, if implemented, will immediately, unlawfully and permanently muzzle conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and their individual employees. (The 501(c)(4) designation refers to the IRS code section under which social welfare organizations are regulated).
The new regulations would unconstitutionally compel a 90-day blackout period during election years in which conservative 501(c)(4) organizations – such as tea-party, pro-life and pro-family groups – would be banned from mentioning the name of any candidate for office, or even the name of any political party.
Here’s the kicker: As you may have guessed, liberal lobbying groups like labor unions and trade associations are deliberately exempted. And based on its partisan track record, don’t expect this president’s IRS to lift a finger to scrutinize liberal 501(c)(4)s. Over at a Obama’s “Organizing for America,” the left-wing political propaganda will, no doubt, flow unabated.
These Orwellian regulations will prohibit conservative 501(c)(4) organizations from using words like “oppose,” “vote,” or “defeat.” Their timing, prior to a pivotal election, is no coincidence and provides yet another example of Obama’s using the IRS for “progressive” political gain.
Although these restrictions only apply to 501(c)(4) organizations for now, under a straightforward reading, they will also clearly apply to 501(c)(3) organizations in the near future.
Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action – one of the many conservative organizations to be silenced – commented on the breaking scandal: “One of the core liberties in our constitutional republic is the right to dissent,” he said. “But desperate to force his radical agenda on the American people, Barack Obama and his chosen political tool, the IRS, are now trying to selectively abridge this right, effectively silencing their political adversaries.”
That fruitloop is one of the nastiest commentators on KB, and judges anyone who doesn’t agree with him, no apologies from me, yes I have a difference of opinion but I don’t judge others based on their beliefs and make snide insulting comments at him everytime I read his posts.
The closer to the bone the greater the bullshit reaction.
Pete has it occurred that the reason we laugh is because you’re wrong, not because you’re getting “close to the bone?”
What if I told you I don’t really care about CC?
In that I like the thought of a conservative partner but I’m not fussed on anything in particular CC has said so far and I don’t really intend to make my mind up about him till later in the year when I’ve seen a bit more of him and his party.
Does that make any difference? Of course not.
It amuses me your byword is fair, reasonable and sensible because this seems to go out the window when your hero is under fire, then it doesn’t count, at all. Which says a lot about you, doesn’t it.
Too bad your byword wasn’t integrity, insight and intelligent comments. Then you might not get so many minuses, all the time, no matter what you say. OTOH, you still might, but it’s worth a shot, isn’t it. Suggest you give it a go and see what happens. (Hint: stop treating people as if they’re morons and when someone makes a negative comment about something you said, read it twice, lest you get the wrong end of the understanding stick. Again.)
LOL..the greens and Hughes are going on a road show opposing Anadarko and deep sea drilling for oil…going on the road…driving??
Hypocrites of the highest order…what..does their car /bus run on water/air ?!!
@ Longknives (3,688 comments) says:
January 13th, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Should you be made to reveal how many of your friends have criminal convictions?
David Bain is by law regarded as an innocent person. Offenders, even those on life time parole are allowed to associate with him, as he has the same status as you and me (well I’m sure about me anyway).
I don’t know why you, who seems like an intelligent person, would think you have the right to know such details about another private person in society. To me is almost seems like you have delusions of grandeur. Bain is none of your business – who he associates with is no more your business, that who you associate with is mine. Get over it and grow some bloody balls and act like man instead of whinging kid who can’t get his own way.
If you think that comment was the nastiest, you obviously haven’t read many of Dennis’ comments, some of which would equal, if not exceed the example.
Could you give me an example, please?
By the way, I didn’t say the comment was the nastiest – I said it was right up there with the nastiest. I just happen to think that it’s poor form to gleefully celebrate the misfortune of someone else – over nothing more than personal disagreements on a blog. I assume that Rowan and Dennis don’t know each other personally.
Taking a broader view of the matter, if you endorse what Rowan said, do you also endorse this behaviour? If not, how do you differentiate between the two sets of comments?
I assume you’ve read Gareth Hughes’ opinion piece (available here)?
The smarter alternative to risky deep sea oil drilling would be to look to strengths and focus on clean energy and protecting our valuable ‘100% Pure’ brand. [unsubstantiated opinion] The Pure Advantage group of successful business people say there is a $6 trillion clean energy, green tech opportunity we are at risk of missing a slice of [citation required]. Price Waterhouse Coopers say New Zealand has a potential $22b annual opportunity in clean energy [citation required] and research shows there are many more jobs created in clean energy than in oil [citation required]. New Zealand’s future isn’t in hoping someone finds oil deep in our waters and they don’t leave too much of a mess as they export the profits offshore; New Zealand’s future is in clean energy which will deliver a richer New Zealand [unsubstantiated opinion.
Once again Gareth – and the Greens – don’t come out and say whether these clean energy jobs would be self-supporting. That’s self-supporting as in “don’t require any government funding or cross-subsidisation”. And they also fail to explain how clean energy products would replace oil-based products that we currently take for granted in our daily lives.
Mr Craig as the leader of his own party has the luxury of opening his mouth & letting the Northwester blow his tongue around. In the unlikely event that he doesn’t scare the horses, makes it into Parliament & somehow gets his pro child bashing bottom line accepted as a condition of coalition, what then?
I would like see discussed what it is that you & your fellow Godwhacks actually want. Is it to be:
1) Simple reinstatement of Section59.
2) Open slather as instanced in the OT.
3) Some state defined limits on what constitutes “reasonable” discipline.
4) Something else???
The fact that nearly 90% of voting Kiwis don’t like the repeal of S59 is brought up ad nauseam. Little thought seems to be given as to what happens should your lot be successful.
I pushed one of the local Greens (and a councillor) to clarify what they actually meant in the weekend and she revealed a bit more of what’s behind their campaign but she backed off specifics. I don’t know if they actually don’t know how their ideals can be achieved or they don’t want to say. The crux of it seems to be that unless we limit fossil fuel use to 1/3 of what is currently discovered we will have a climate change catastrophe. Based on the 2006 Stern report.
But no idea of how to actually achieve it apart from vagueness as per Hughes. They come across passionate but hopelessly impractical.
Yesterday I asked Cr MacTavish:
What if a business boom on the back of gas fields enabled Dunedin to invest in better energy efficiency and less fossil fuel dependence?
As stated above, we can only afford to burn 1/3rd of what we’ve already found as a globe, Pete, to transition to clean energy. There’s no point going exploring for more – we can’t burn them. No point having all the clean infrastructure in the world, on a fried planet that we can’t live on.
I want you to tell me what you want to happen. And whether that should be Dunedin’s aim when the rest of the world does much less.
I’ve been quite clear about my understanding of what the science and analysis says is necessary for Dunedin (and the rest of the world) to have a decent future. My aspirations for the city are in line with that science and that analysis, as on the evidence available to me I think it would be negligent to aim for anything less. Pete, Im not sure that continuing this conversation on my Facebook page is particularly helpful. You obviously disagree with me, which you are clearly completely entitled to, but I don’t think that people want to wade through a conversation of this length. If you’d like to continue the dialogue I suggest you email me – email@example.com – but I’m not convinced I can add anything further.
I disagree with you on some things but far from on everything. Our main disagreement is how to achieve an ideal. I thought it was important to know what one of our councillors bases a strong anti-oil campaign on.
It’s a safe climate future campaign, which recognises the need for an end to additional oil and gas exploration. And yep, happy to have explained myself, but I think I’ve repeated myself a few times now
I had another go after that but she bailed out.
Climate change may (or may not) have serious adverse effects, but so would some of the proposed remedies.
They are convinced what they are doing is necessary and right, but I still don’t know how they hope to achieve it except by opposing things and trying to get them banned.
Pete – Pol Pot was convinced what he was doing was necessary and right. Stalin, sending millions to the gulag, was convinced what he was doing was necessary and right.
Zealots are always convinced what they are doing was necessary and right. Its up to more practical heads to avoid the more negative results of their one-eyed approach to things, that in many cases they either dont understand ie economics and human nature, or they do understand and they just dont care ie if you disagree with them, you are the enemy to be removed.
@ Longknives (3,690 comments) says:
January 13th, 2014 at 7:57 pm
Yet another demonstration of your ignorance in the Bain case. It was NOT the paper boy that claimed he could have been an international opera star. That issue was raised in court in evidence by ‘the paper boys’ singing teacher.
Dear oh dear, and there is Pauleastbay celebrating your ignorance – how appropriate!
Of course the music teachers comment was met with vehement denials and he was told not to be so stupid as his comments were just trying to make Mr Bain look good which of course was something that the defense wanted to avoid at all costs.
In fact I heard that the music teacher pestered the fuck out of the defense team to let him appear. They finally just gave in to shut the lunatic up so they could move on with their defense plan apologising to th Court for wasting its time with this little diversion.
For fucks sake Longknives , don’t you know anything. Judith is to Jurisprudence as the All Blacks are to rugby
David Bain believes he might have become an international opera star on a par with Jonathan Lemalu.
He made the comparison in his claim for compensation after spending 13 years in prison on five counts of murder, for which he was acquitted in a 2009 retrial.
He said when he first started singing lessons in 1992 his teacher told him he had a wonderful voice and could one day create a valuable career for himself.
“I have been told that I had the potential to have a career as successful as the New Zealand opera singer Jonathan Lemalu,” he wrote in an eight-page affidavit, under the sub-heading “loss of earnings and future opportunities”.
Right. So this is all related to Bain’s claim for loss of earnings and future opportunities. And the basis for the claim is a comment by Bain’s teacher “when he first started singing lessons in 1992″. That puts a slightly different slant on things, doesn’t it?
Edit: Rowan, do you automatically thumbs-down any comment you perceive to be anti-Bain, or do you actually have the ability to engage in critical reasoning.
I don’t actually know or care what you think about Bain and am not going to judge you for it. I thumbs down arrogant know-alls who try to pass themselves as ‘experts’ when in reality and judging the quality of there reasoning are as thick as pig shit, and/or can’t substantiate anything they say. This is not limited to Bain, I dislike KB trolls like Kea and Big Blouse who spout of there religous hate spew all over GD or religous threads and pretty much anyone who judges others on their individual ‘views’ whatever the topic.
Little thought seems to be given as to what happens should your lot be successful.
nasska, who’s “your lot?”
If so, you should know I don’t mix my politics with my religion. After all, Jesus clearly separated the world from God and that’s also what I do.
With respect to nanny state interfering in raising children, my position is get out of it, now, and never dare come in again. This has nothing to do with my religion and everything to do with my understanding of what this slice-the-elephant move on the part of the commies represents. You may recall the soviets were very keen on doing things to disrupt family freedoms and you might have observed wherever communism is and has been practiced that was a hallmark of their execrable regimes. You probably don’t know why they do that but I do. And it’s a very insidious evil that they seek to impose.
In and of itself anti-smacking is trivial, but it’s a foot in the door, just like gay marriage is. And it’s disguised as all their feet in the door are, as human wights. They do this to appeal to the well-meaning but naive amongst us who fall for the meme, relying on their ignorance of the commies real motives, which are collectively to destroy the integrity of the family unit so that individuals lose their most critical support mechanism and are forced, gradually over time, over generations, to become, more and more and more and more and more and more and more dependent on the state.
And note this has nothing to do at all in any way with “Godwhacks.” Does it.
It is inevitable that a religious belief will produce a set of ‘morals’ & these will influence your political leanings. No sale.
….”With respect to nanny state interfering in raising children, my position is get out of it, now, and never dare come in again”….
I concede that part of your argument has merit…..socialism is destroying family integrity. I still find it hard to accept that you would leave dependant children to the unregulated mercy of parents not worthy of having kids. The lives of misery some will live are going to result in some badly screwed up citizens of the future.
“…..I still find it hard to accept that you would leave dependant children to the unregulated mercy of parents not worthy of having kids. The lives of misery some will live are going to result in some badly screwed up citizens of the future….”
The government has only just started supporting families – WFF ect.
Prior to that they simply did nothing positive. Infact, they promoted hard line feminism ect which was detrimental to family and children – divorce – custodial mums and not fathers – single working mums – ect.
The government needs to keep publicly announcing that children with a mum and dad do best. And keep praising that standard. It will then become a standard for parents to aspire to.
The problem with no faults divorce is that Married people who are having ‘problems’ then concentrate on the negatives rather than the positives of being Married. That’s not to say that divorce should be made illegal – but that it is wrong to get divorced over such minor matters.
Hardly any people get divorced because of physical violence – they get divorced because they see it as being far easier than being responsable in Marriage. That’s the opposite situation of what grandparents had to endure in their Marriages – leaving was looked upon as being irresponsable.
There are social services for alcohol, gambling, mental health ect.
I thumbs down arrogant know-alls who try to pass themselves as ‘experts’ when in reality and judging the quality of there reasoning are as thick as pig shit, and/or can’t substantiate anything they say.
Have you ever thumbed-down Johnboy? He seems to have attracted a secret admirer in recent times – not sure he enjoys the minus-one-on-one attention though
Here you go ‘Big Bruv’ and other Kiwibloggers who simply ‘howl at the moon’, and whine at those of us who have the guts and gumption take action which cannot be ignored?
URGENT ‘Open Letter to NZ SFO CEO Julie Read, and General Manager for Fraud and Corruption, Nick Paterson
January 13, 2014 | Author Penny
13 January 2014
NZ Serious Fraud Office
Fraud and Corruption
NZ Serious Fraud Office
For your urgent consideration:
Please be advised that if Lisa Prager and myself (Penny Bright), have not had it confirmed by yourselves, by email, by 5pm Tuesday 14 January 2014, that the SFO will re-evaluate our following bribery and corruption complaint, then without further notice, proceedings for a private prosecution on this matter will be filed in the Auckland District Court on Wednesday 15 January 2014.
Please be advised that no such response by email, by 5pm Tuesday 14 January 2014, will be taken as a ’NO’ to our request.
I still find it hard to accept that you would leave dependant children to the unregulated mercy of parents not worthy of having kids. The lives of misery some will live are going to result in some badly screwed up citizens of the future.
Meanwhile in the real world precisely nothing has changed and bad parents continue to be bad parents. Don’t they.
Just like they always were going to be, with or without the law.
So, no sale on your justification nasska. You can kid yourself it’s made a jot or it will ever make a jot of difference, but the real world will continue to give you the lie.
And I knew that this would turn out to be the case, since it was never about holding bad parents to account. You and Pete can continue if you like to kid yourselves you’re both being fair, sensible and reasonable if you like, it’s a free world, but if you’re going to make up fantasies in your own heads about what the law you support is achieving, then I suggest you attempt to make your fantasy fit the reality we all see around us, lest some of us begin to think you and Pete have gone all peculiar.
Pauleastbay (4,940 comments) says:
January 13th, 2014 at 8:20 pm
In fact I heard that the music teacher pestered the fuck out of the defense team to let him appear.
You are such a source of ignorance. Bain’s music teacher was not male.
@ Nostradamus (2,622 comments) says:
January 13th, 2014 at 8:21 pm
Your comments change nothing. David Bain was told by a person qualified to do so, that he had a voice that was comparable of an international scale. Whether he would have made it as a singing star or not, is impossible to tell, however, it is relevant to his claim because it is an example of what ‘might have been’ had he not been wrongfully convicted.
To support that claim, and to demonstrate it was not just fanciful thinking, his example was supported by the testimony of a qualified person.
As it is unlikely that neither you, nor any of the witch sniffers on here have ever heard David Bain sing, or are qualified singing instructors, I rather think your comments are somewhat pathetic, and more indication of the desperation involved in the JFRB conspiracist discourse.
@ Pauleastbay (4,940 comments) says:
January 13th, 2014 at 9:01 pm
Unlike you Paul, I have a life that does not revolve round KB or the internet. If you haven’t learned by now, its time you did – no one intimidates me into doing anything, secondly, pathetic little weasels like you, who think they know it all, and in fact know nothing of any substance and therefore have to resort to bullying to make themselves feel better, are more of a joke, than a source of annoyance to me.
Your knowledge on the Bain case is pathetic, Nostradamus argument is equally pathetic and digresses from the issue you raised, which was that Bain thought he could have been an international singing star – which he never said he did – he stated he had been told… which in no way suggest he ‘thought’ he could be.
As it is unlikely that neither you, nor any of the witch sniffers on here have ever heard David Bain sing, or are qualified singing instructors, I rather think your comments are somewhat pathetic, and more indication of the desperation involved in the JFRB conspiracist discourse.
Wow. I mean wow!
What’s a “witch sniffer”? And where’s your evidence that I’m “involved in the JFRB conspiracist discourse”?
Nostradamus argument is equally pathetic and digresses from the issue you raised, which was that Bain thought he could have been an international singing star – which he never said he did – he stated he had been told… which in no way suggest he ‘thought’ he could be.
No, you completely missed the point of my comment, but that’s hardly surprising.
Nostradamus has raised the bar: critical thinking is now the prospective ‘quality’ of a voice when singing, others have also contributed – the Bain case may now be solved by closely observing who went to David’s wedding along with perishing the thought that dear denny might have fallen out of the sky on the same day – perhaps he was preparing for a fly over mission so that Aunt Fanny could pull her chamber pot from under the bed, take the throne and consider who might have been among the reported 15 family members. How jolly critical things are getting.
Please note the ‘JFRB conspiracist discourse’. You do not have to be involved in the ‘ JFRB discourse’ to be arguing it. Your comments mirror those of the group, even if you are not involved.
No I didn’t miss the point of your argument, I simply concentrated on my initial point.
Here’s some information for you:
– I don’t have a vested interest in the Bain debate (and, in fact, have generally refrained from contributing to the debate);
– I argue each issue (Bain or any other topic) on its own merits; and
– I think my comments should be assessed on their own merits, not judged by comparison with similar comments (so you say) made by others with whom you seem to have a personal vendetta.
And, yes, I think you did miss the point of my argument:
– Bain is claiming compensation.
– One element of his compensation claim relates to loss of earnings and future opportunities.
– The loss of earnings and future opportunities is said to relate, among other things, to his opera singing potential.
– The factual basis for his opera singing potential (according to the article) was a subjective assessment by Bain’s singing teacher.
– You said ” That issue was raised in court in evidence by ‘the paper boys’ singing teacher.” That’s not entirely correct. The issue was raised in evidence by Bain, relying, in part, on supporting evidence from his singing teacher.
– The singing teacher’s subjective assessment was, on Bain’s own evidence, made when he first started singing lessons in 1992. That, in my view, is relevant. It’s no less relevant just because you choose, for your own reasons, to concentrate on another point (and, in case you missed the point, one of my purposes for providing the link was to substantiate your comment).
– The article, perhaps unsurprisingly, doesn’t explain what special expertise the singing teacher has (compared to other singing teachers or opera professionals) in identifying opera singers with potential star quality. That’s not to say the singing teacher doesn’t have that special expertise. I assume the matter was addressed, one way or another, in the compensation claim.
– In any event, Bain seeks to rely on this evidence in support of this claim for loss of earnings and future opportunities.
– The evidence will presumably be assessed on the basis of normal legal principles for determining compensation – including, in this case, expectation loss.
Of course, I suspect you’ll disagree with some or all of the above, simply because you perceive me to be anti-Bain.
Nostradamus has raised the bar: critical thinking is now the prospective ‘quality’ of a voice when singing, others have also contributed
Hey Nostalgia, I don’t normally say this sort of thing, but fuck off, and come back when you learn some manners and feel able to engage in proper debate. I’m not interested in being the target of drive-by smears from the likes of you.
So, because you perceive me to be anti-Bain, you think attack is the best form of defence.
And, when you talk about all parties bursting into song, what about this?
The two jurors – a man and a woman – who were seen to congratulate Bain after the verdicts and who went to his celebratory party were the same two who spent the last three weeks of the trial paying little attention to the evidence and closing addresses. They giggled and wrote messages to each other.
Did that happen?
By the way, I suspect I know more about the law and practice of judicial review than you, so spare me the patronising tone.
So, let’s try again, did two jurors attend Bain’s celebratory party or not?
And, as for your other question, that has what to do with the judicial review process exactly?
the Bain case may now be solved by closely observing who went to David’s wedding along with perishing the thought that dear denny might have fallen out of the sky on the same day – perhaps he was preparing for a fly over mission so that Aunt Fanny could pull her chamber pot from under the bed, take the throne and consider who might have been among the reported 15 family members.
Fuck – and you call me a serious threat to sanity…
Hmmm, if you have a point to make about the blood smears on Robin Bain’s palms, then make it.
And, despite your best diversionary efforts, the opera singing prospects are relevant to the compensation claim. Otherwise why would Bain have mentioned it in his affidavit? So, in other words, quite on-topic. And it was certainly on-topic when I discussed it with Paul and Judith earlier.
Anyway, I’m happy to leave you to talk to yourself about your “Aunt Fanny” and “chamber pot” nonsense.
“If it was the mad dentist, I wish him well in his recovery, hope that the experience will be salutary, and that he will (now) actually make a careful and detailed study of all issues on which he professes to know more than a properly briefed and instructed Jury, The Privy Council, and an independent Judicial Officer of the highest international standing.”,
I now extend application of the last lines of that quotation to all of the ignorant fools who decide matters on prejudice and institutional bias.
This thread debate started because someone in Police or Corrections(probation) gave details of one of Mr Bain’s wedding guests, to at least two media outlets, in an unconscionable attempt to discredit Mr Bain, his bride and her family.
To divert attention from those appalling actions, the witchsniffers and their apologists, have sought to extend the debate into matters such as the blood smears on Robin Bain’s hands (Yep, by your lights dumbdamas Robin Bain applied them after he killed himself in order “incriminate” David Bain). Moreover, one person’s (not Mr Bain) view of Mr Bain’s potential as a singer somehow suggests impropriety on his part and, ergo, guilt of charges rejected by : …a properly briefed and instructed Jury [in record time], The Privy Council, and an independent Judicial Officer of the highest international standing. ”
Thanks for the drive-by smear. Clearly, because you perceive me to be anti-Bain, attack is the best form of defence.
(Yep, by your lights dumbdamas Robin Bain applied them after he killed himself in order “incriminate” David Bain).
Hmmm… I challenge you to show me where I have ever commented on this matter. A word search for “palm” (at the time of writing) shows four matches on this thread:
– Nostalgia-NZ (January 13th, 2014 at 10:22 am)
– Nostalgia-NZ (January 13th, 2014 at 11:28 pm)
– Nostalgia-NZ (January 13th, 2014 at 11:41 pm)
– Me (January 14th, 2014 at 12:04 am) – but only in the context of asking Nostalgia if he had a point to make, and if so, inviting him to make it.
I guess that makes you the fuckwit. Toodle-doo to you!
Regarding your point 6, there is actually easy, free and public access to raw weather data from CliFlo at http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/ Just register and start sucking it up.
NIWA have never revealed the actual calculations Salinger used in producing either the original “seven station series” (7SS) or any updates, but the point is moot since they “reconstructed” the 7SS in 2010. At that point this odd affair became more curious because, although the data and (new) workings were laid bare, NIWA, declaring their “methodology” followed international practice, strangely failed to cite a single reference to it. In other words, nobody else has mentioned or used their “internationally accepted” methods. So why do they make that claim? They practically thump the table and yell at us that their methods are internationally recognised; without evidence they persuade the judge to echo their claim; they announce it to the Herald; they do everything except give us a single instance of international recognition.
In addition, NIWA claims to use the Rhoades & Salinger method but Bob D proved conclusively that they did not. Mullan, I think it was, claimed Bob followed R&S “too strictly” — surely a laughable criticism from or of any scientist. In departing in substantial measure from the method specified carefully by R&S, how can they claim to have followed it?
Strange, even odd, but not many people seem to care so I suppose they win.
Certainly Nostradamus was not talking about blood smears on Robin’s palms I was. However, arguing about the merits of how good a singer David may or may not have been if he hadn’t been imprisoned is cart before the horse stuff. The fundamentals have to be resolved in terms of the JR – re the innocence or otherwise of David Bain in order that a decision about compensation can be made. That is on hold, so we are back to the scene of Robin’s death and the blood smears found on his palms – they being indicative, along with other evidence that he killed his family, something which goes to the guilt of innocence of David Bain. In a day where it was being considered who may have gone to a wedding, became suddenly relevant to that inquiry, along with opera singing, two members of the Jury having a drink with Counsel which Nostradamus raised, is all nonsense. The blood on the palms tells a story that singing, or what a juror may or may not have done, does not.
It appears many of the narrow minded bigots here are jealous of Paul Wilson and miffed that they missed out on an invite to Bains wedding.
Small things amuse small minds, like many of the commentators here (bar a few)