General Debate 19 September 2011

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment195

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (195)

Login to comment or vote

dime

FAKE PILOT – it was some new tv show?!?! Ben from the Bill & Ben Party. Whatever happened to Bill?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 1:52pm
East Wellington Superhero

What I have or haven’t done at whatever age is not the point. And frankly, the fact you use the term ‘get laid’ shows how much disregard you have for sex, how little respect you have for your own body, and the sexual partners you’ve had.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 1:54pm
MT_Tinman

East Wellington Superhero (291) Says:
September 19th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I’d also wager that young girls will lose out here – as vulnerable women tend to with 2nd wave feminism.

Weaker, less-confident girls tweens and teens will find themselves in situations where the more confident (and equally confused) boy persuades her that these actions “are ok because the teacher said so”.

Which world do you inhabit?

Based on the experiences gained from my own youth, my children’s youth and conversations I hear in the taxi I can assure you that at least 90% of young girls are a damned sight more knowledgeable, more confidant and more mature than the boys.

I have no opinion on the sex education thing except to note that it will almost certainly have no effect whatsoever on the young people who will, as they ALWAYS have, experiment with sex whenever they want/can.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 1:58pm
MT_Tinman

dime (3,422) Says:
September 19th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
FAKE PILOT – it was some new tv show?!?! Ben from the Bill & Ben Party. Whatever happened to Bill?

Nothing, a situation that has caused considerable angst.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:00pm
dime

Phil Goff wanted to make the age of consent 12!! Something about it being legal for a 12 year old girl to sleep with a 14 year old boy. frrrreeeaaaaakkkkkkkkk

“And frankly, the fact you use the term ‘get laid’ shows how much disregard you have for sex, how little respect you have for your own body, and the sexual partners you’ve had.”

I agree and am shocked someone would use the term.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:00pm
Lee01

EWS,

RRM amd Mike are just trying to change the focus away from the topic by making it personal. They know they do not have a good argument to make and that teaching sexual practices to a 12 year old is wrong, but rather than admit their precious liberalism has been an utter failure they are going to try and attack you personally.

Pathetic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:00pm
Scott Chris

Lee – “Sending them to be indoctrinated by liberals who teach 12 year olds sexual practices IS putting them in harms way.”

So ignoring that issue for the moment, what is your answer to the questions I posed to Chuck?

In theory, Government is socially responsible. Your right as a citizen is to help them define what that social responsibility is through democratic means, according to our constitution. Therefore, you are morally bound to do as they say, if you consider yourself a citizen of New Zealand.

This is called a secular moral contract.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:01pm
Lee01

“Phil Goff wanted to make the age of consent 12!!”

Says it all really. Liberals.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:02pm
Lee01

“So ignoring that issue for the moment, what is your answer to the questions I posed to Chuck?”

The problem is not parents who teach their children abstinence or who choose not to teach them about condoms.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:04pm
mikenmild

dime’s having too much fun on this thread…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:05pm
Chuck Bird

“And what if the parents do not effectively protect their children from harm? Hasn’t the principle of socially responsible government empowered the government to intervene?”

And who decides which parents do not effectively protect their children from harm – liberal perverts?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:07pm
mikenmild

Hey Lee, thought you had given up on me.

The teacher at the centre of this fuss certainly has it wrong, but it’s a big step from one person’s misdeeds to ‘precious liberalism has been an utter failure’.

Chuck – you have religious perverts in mind?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:08pm
Grendel

>>
Phil Goff wanted to make the age of consent 12!! Something about it being legal for a 12 year old girl to sleep with a 14 year old boy. frrrreeeaaaaakkkkkkkkk
>>

No he did not, he wanted to change the law so that if there was only a two year difference in age the police could decide to not press charges for statutory rape.

the issue was that if two 14 year olds or a 15 yr old and 13 yr old get caught having sex and one parent decides to press charges against the other kid, the police have to charge them. This does nothing for the kid, who gets charged with rape and wastes the courts time and potentially ruins the kids life, becuase one set of parents is overbearing and cannot consider the idea that their darling is having sex so it must have been rape.

if the law had been charged the cops could choose not to charge. at the moment they have to tell the parents trying to get the other kid charged that their kid will have to be charged as well, which is more of a waste of time.

It was a sensible policy decision (for a change) from labour but the fundies and those living with their head in the sands freaked so labour chickened out.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:09pm
Scott Chris

EWS

The animal part of me says, “I want to procreate”. This is natural, and not dirty.

The rational part of me says, “other people also have needs, and as other people are the same as me, it makes sense to take those needs into account.”

Being alive, and being successful in society means balancing these things in an equitable way to the best advantage of all.

Anything else, is just window dressing, and generally obstructive.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:09pm
Scott Chris

Chuck Bird – “And who decides which parents do not effectively protect their children from harm – liberal perverts?”

Society decides. Society is about compromise and persuasion. That, I suppose is the game we are currently playing. I am attempting to sell the merits of ‘least harm liberalism’ and you are attempting to sell the concept of blind trust in parental wisdom.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:14pm
RRM

East Wellington Superhero (292) Says:
September 19th, 2011 at 1:54 pm

What I have or haven’t done at whatever age is not the point. And frankly, the fact you use the term ‘get laid’ shows how much disregard you have for sex, how little respect you have for your own body, and the sexual partners you’ve had.

Oh I see, you’re a virgin…. Now this all makes sense.

I didn’t get mine until I was 22. I was quite bitter and twisted about teen sex until then, too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:17pm
Scott Chris

Lee, you are being evasive IMO
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:18pm
KiwiGreg

@ EWS you can think whatever you want. Given I already think your opinion on teenage sex is wrong, ill-informed and frankly stupid, your opinion of me means even less.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:20pm
RightNow

Luc “RightNow continues to misrepresent the science of sea level rise, even though I have pointed him to serious, peer reviewed work that illustrates the inexorable rise of sea level over decades, not withstanding repeated, short term, periods of pause or even minuscule reverse.”

I haven’t misrepresented anything Luc, I correctly said the Envisat data shows that sea level has fallen around 10mm in the last 2 years. You posted a link to a graph that you wrongly said showed sea level is still rising. For your convenience here is the link
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/UColoradoSL.pdf
and your quote “the following link presents the latest data on sea level rise. It shows that sea level is still rising, but the rate has slowed recently and this is not unusual in climatology. Most definitely, the assertion that sea level has dropped recently is untrue.”

The graph clearly shows a fall in sea level at the end. I understand how you misread it, it was a simple mistake for you to make.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:24pm
dime

Grendel – so Phil wanted to take the decision out of the parents hands? well i never!

im sorry, but if some slime ball 15yr old has sex with a 13yr old girl he deserves to face the consequences. the parents of the girl should get to press charges if they want to.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:24pm
Chuck Bird

“he issue was that if two 14 year olds or a 15 yr old and 13 yr old get caught having sex and one parent decides to press charges against the other kid, the police have to charge them.”

Can you prove that? There was a case a while back where an 11 or 12 year old got pregnant to a young man 8 years older. Despite a hue and cry from the public and as I recall Anne Tolley nothing was done. Police do not have to charge someone if the think it is not in the public interest on for just about any crime. Look at Helen Clark for example.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:26pm
dime

RRM – you didnt get laid til you were 22??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:26pm
East Wellington Superhero

Are you an animal? Interesting.
Generally animals reside is zoos, don’t wipe their arse, or design airplanes.
If you think your daughter is an animal that should just have sex with anything, then I hope such a beast never meets any of my sons.

@RRM
For what it’s worth, I’m not a virgin. If that’s the strength of your contribution to the debate that’s awesome.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:27pm
RRM

I wasn’t always the magnificent specimen you see now dime.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:27pm
Monique Watson

I see. I didn’t realise I was debating in a sandpit until now. Grow up ladies.

If you have kids and are a good parent you want to protect them from some activities until they are age appropriate. Anything else affects kids socially and mentally. It doesn’t make you frigid or a freak.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:30pm
RRM

EWS- if your son and Scott Chris’ daughter ever meet and decide they want to get it on, they are going to.

You will find evidence of such “sickening”, “lax”, “promiscuous” attitudes in modern progressive literature such as the plays of Shakespeare, so it is hardly something that this generation invented.

ALL that is within your power, is to influence whether they feel able to do it in the safety of one or the other’s home, or have to resort to some dark carpark / country lane somewhere because Dad would hit the roof. Your call, Sir…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:32pm
big bruv

“And frankly, the fact you use the term ‘get laid’ shows how much disregard you have for sex, how little respect you have for your own body, and the sexual partners you’ve had.”

Ha ha, Dime cannot remember how many sexual partners he has had, I guess it gets a bit hard to count them when the number equals the population of a town like Carterton.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:34pm
dime

rrm – were you a sack of shit? fat or skinny?

is that why youre a lefty? you know dimes theory that all lefties are damaged and want to make the world feel as bad as they do… and make up for their perceived injustices..

i lost mine to a coloured hooker at age 15…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:36pm
Griff

Lee01 from your links You are guilty of not reading them They do not prove your point in fact just the opposite

http://www.livescience.com/8080-abstinence-programs-children-work-study-finds.html
However, the results do not indicate that abstinence education is necessarily the best way to teach children about the risks of sexual behavior, nor do they suggest that other types of programs should be disregarded, the researchers say.

http://www.livescience.com/4028-urban-teens-sex-drive.html
Ompad said emphasis on abstinence-based sex education might no longer be relevant.
“Sex education and intervention programs should address the risk for the unintended consequences of sexual behaviors,” Ompad said, adding that the education should include discussion of using condoms for disease prevention and using birth control for pregnancy prevention.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/apr/08042308
“I respect the commitment and intentions of people who run abstinence-only programs. They are doing it because they care about youth and want to counter the sexual messages that are all too pervasive in popular culture,” he said. “But we will hear today from multiple experts that after more than a decade of huge government spending, the weight of the evidence doesn’t demonstrate abstinence only programs to be effective.”

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinence-works/story?id=9731048
Instead, the study took a less traditional approach, discussing the drawbacks to having sex early, such as unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Teachers even made kids list the pros and cons of having sex themselves.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:36pm
RRM

Dime – No I didn’t get interested in politics until much later…

Congratulations on your hooker thing, I feel like I’ve really missed out there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:39pm
Lee01

Scott,

“Lee, you are being evasive IMO”

No, just very, very busy. Tyring to do too many things at once.

Griff,

In fact they do prove what I said, that abistence programs can work when they are balanced and do not focus on abstinence alone. Good programs that have been shown to work when absitinence is the central but not sole focus and when they are combined with a total life philosophy are preferable to family plannings failed liberal agenda.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:45pm
Scott Chris

Monique “I see. I didn’t realise I was debating in a sandpit until now. Grow up ladies.”

Looks like Monique is adapting to the local rules 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:46pm
Batman

Seriously, what are some of you guys on about??? it appears that there is a disconnect between people commenting here and what is happening in schools and in the real world.

Lee, Joana, Monique et al, what drugs are you guys on? I want to know so that I can avoid them if at all possible.

EWS: I had sex at 14, with a 14 year old female. does that make me a paedophile? I would say no. furthermore, high school kids are not ‘kids’, they consider themselves to be 3/4 adults at least. they can and will have sex, there is no stopping it unless you chain your horny teen to their bed and ban them from leaving the house or having visitors!

as someone said above, what is your worst case scenario: (i have edited for realism and some comedic value)
“We have had sex, and used a rubber, ok?? jeeez mum/dad you are SO fucken embarrassing!”
“ummm, errm, I have AIDS/genital herpes/cervical cancer/genital warts/syphilis/chlamydia/gonorrhea”.
“I’m pregnant”
“I’m dating Quade Cooper”

While sex ed has most likely gone too far in primary schools, it is still not adequate for high school students. In Primary years 7&8 they should learn about the basic mechanicals. i.e. sperm + egg = baby, and that under no circumstance should you have sex before 16, that goes for both sexes.

once they hit high school and year 9 & 10 (3rd & 4th form), they should be subjected to a full and frank education on sex and the inherent risks, which include death and child support payments. If anything will scare a teenage boy out of sex, it will be child support and losing their social life. I certainly didn’t appreciate some of the wishy washy education they give, it was the hard and cold facts which made us (a room of boys) sit up and pay attention.
it is up to parents to be open with their teenagers and define clear rules about when they are allowed to have date/pash/have sex etc, you cannot simply imply that it is not allowed, they will do it anyway and simply not tell you and then lie if asked. don’t make it a scary subject, it may be awkward and embarrassing for them, but it is your job as the parent to facilitate a clear stance on it and if you deem them old enough and responsible enough, let them go and do it, with an armory of pills, spermicides, extra thick condoms etc etc.

In the modern world there is no sheltering teenagers from sex, either teachers and parents get in there first, or schoolyard rumour and the internet will shape your child’s view on the subject. All you can do is stop them from ruining their life with an unplanned child, AIDS, HIV et al. let them download porn if you think that will hold the wolf at the door for a while!

Some of the traditionalists, conservatives etc on here will flame me for saying this, but this is merely the no bullshit opinion of someone who has recently been a young person in a world of internet porn, facebook, cell phones with cameras, and a sex ed programme that is far too airy fairy for what teenagers are capable of.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:54pm
Scott Chris

East Wellington Superhero

My daughter is at med school at the moment, but she’s currently single. Mind you, if I try and set her up with anyone, I’ll be in deep shit, so I’ll kindly decline your offer.

She knew what penises and vaginas were at age 6, learned from her mother what condoms and STDs were at 10, and lost her virginity at 16 to a guy she thought she loved.

She’s doing very well, and is happy and talented.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 2:55pm
Grendel

Dime, who says the boy is older? my youngest sister got caught shagging a younger boy when she was 14/15, luckily for the boy he only got a stern talking to buy her stepdad and did not get charged with being a sex offender.

the parents can press charges but the police have the right in other cases to not continue them if they beleive no actual crime has been committed, currently with underage sex they do not.

would you have been ok with the hooker being done for statutory rape when you lost your virginity?

Chuck, i don;t recall exactly the case you are referring to, but iirc the parents of the girl did not press charges so the police had nothing to go on. whereas the example i am giving is when one or both sets of parents do press charges.

i mean how idiotic is it to have two 13 year olds have sex and BOTH get charged with Statutory rape?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:02pm
cabbage

Where the fuck is my sea level rise? The seas arent any higher on my stretch of coastline than they were 35 years ago. Where is my sea level rise Luc?

EWS & LEE01 – Whislt i am somewhat taken aback by the story about the 12 y/o sex ed class, I’d still prefer that both my children (a tween and teen, respectively) are up with the play on the facts of sex Before they start engaging. It’s important to me as a parent that when they become sexually active that:

A: They understand the consequences (Physical, spiritual and emotional) and
B: That they feel comfortable and secure in discussing their experiences with me or my wife should they experience confusion, anxiety or indeed simple curiosity.

Should your 15 year old decide to rebel against your moral superiority, and start having sex behind your back and without your knowledge, Just what would you do should she or he become ill with an STD, or indeed became pregnant/got a girl pregnant? I’m curious because your arguments seem to imply that this is not a scenario that seems at all possible or appliccable.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:06pm
Lee01

Now I have a ton of work piling up so I need to take a break from posting. Let me follow in the footsteps of a certain Jewish carpenter and leave you all with a parable 🙂

A liberal comes along and finds something rare and precious and full of beauty, truth and goodness. It’s called the Christian West. Not perfect mind, its a diamond in the rough, but still worthy of praise.

Now, the liberal, being sick in mind and body and full of hatred for God and for people, cannot stand the rare and precious thing he has found because it makes him aware his own shallow, meaningless and sordid existence.

So he takes a shit on it.

Then he says “Oh look, theres shit on it. Thats bad!”

He decides he better clean it up, so he calls together some other liberals and they create a state to do the cleaning.

Now being liberals, this “cleaning” really means that they all take a shit on the precious jewel.

So before long, there is shit everywhere.

So they get together and say, “Well, this society is really full of shit now, we better do something about that. Also, we dont want anyone finding out it was us that made the shit, so we better tell everyone, especially the young, that it was really evil white Christian males that made it.”

So they create state schools to spread the lie. And they find more liberals, and create an even bigger and more powerful state to “clean things up”.

And of course this just creates even more shit, so much so that the rare and precious jewel is almost totally gone.

And, of course, the liberals keep creating more and more government, and all new government departments, using the excuse that its to “clean up” all the shit.

Which just leads to…..yup, you got it, more shit.

Soon their state schools are doing the job the liberals created them for, turning out young people who go on to lead lives that create ever more shit. Which means more and more social problems, such as out of wedlock pregancies, STD’s and crime.

And of course all of this shit needs cleaning up, so the liberals create more government and state control.
But this isint enough for them. Some people are resisting and saying they don’t like the shit.

“We cannot have that!’ the liberals say.

So they start enforcing the shit even more, and calling anyone who does not like the shit “racist, homophobic, intolerant, superstitious, reactionary, fundamentalists, bible bashers” and so on.

And before long, in the name of freedom and tolerance, the liberals have created a monstrously totalitarian state, with thought police and massive survelience of citizens, all in the name of cleaning up the shit they created in the first place.

Now liberals have a name for this process.

Theu call it progress.

Bye for now 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:08pm
Scott Chris

East Wellington Superhero

I suggest you get to know your animal side. This will help you understand your base instincts, such as hunger thirst sexual desire fear happiness etc. Same things your pet cat feels.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:10pm
nasska

Batman

Thanks for your contribution. Some who read it may get a glimpse of the real world over the top of their Bibles but I don’t hold a great deal of hope. With most of the religious fanatics here it is a case of closing their eyes tightly, mumbling to God & having a bit of shuteye.

When they awake all the nasties will have gone & planet Earth will once again be full of fluffy kittens & fields of daffodils.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:13pm
Lance

@Scott
Like an overwhelming desire to lick ones own arse?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:16pm
Scott Chris

Lance

If I were that flexible, I’d probably give it a go. Once.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:26pm
Lance

LOL

And I thought the instinct analogy had limits 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:28pm
Batman

Nasska: Cheers, however don’t think i’m a raging liberal on the whole subject. they should all be waiting until they are old enough and know enough to not have awkward, fumbling sex. lord knows there is nothing worse than that!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 3:43pm
Manolo

This incompetent should be at home in the NZ Labour Party: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFICITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-18-23-33-29
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 4:43pm
chiz

Parliament to pass urgent law suspending the recent supreme court decision on the Urerewa case. It will be retrospective. link
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 5:25pm
Viking2

Disgraceful bastards.

As bad as Helen Clark and co. Indeed even worse. They have known forever the Law was full of holes and they chose to do nought.

Retrospective Law is an outrage against all New Zealander’s regardless of the consequences.
If they do it this time what’s next?
Vote the bastards out.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 5:32pm
kowtow

Helen Clark gave NZ the Supreme Court cos she’s a republican.
We were doing fine with the previous constitutional arrangements.
These politicians who force on the electorate their personal beliefs are anti democratic and are responsible for the high degree of cynicism that they and the political system is now held in by such large numbers across the wtern world.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 5:39pm
chiz

Dime:FAKE PILOT – it was some new tv show?!?! Ben from the Bill & Ben Party. Whatever happened to Bill?

Maybe Bill is off somewhere looking for young airstewardesses?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 5:45pm
F E Smith

kowtow,

While I agree with your sentiments re the old system (I remain a supporter of the idea of the PC being our final court of appeal), the concept of the SC was voted on by Parliament and was passed with a majority. That being the case, it is in no way anti-democratic. After all, NZ is not a democracy but rather a representative democracy- we entrust our representatives with the power to act on our behalf and they did.

Viking2, I agree completely.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 5:59pm
Viking2

Next they will be making the new 20 year old booze limit retrospective.

Will they change the things Kwiw’s want changed like youth rates ETS, Smacking and so on. Like fucking hell they will.

Police state in motion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:09pm
Viking2

Ok so Key now says that it will not apply to the Urewera 11. They have had their win in court. Correct.
40 more cases in line and 50 surveillances in process.Yaaah is big Bruver watching you’se

Problem is the previous cases where surveillance has been relied upon. Appeals galore and money for lawyers from the Big Piggy Bank in the Sky. (oops no in Wellington from the pig sty.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:16pm
Manolo

Retrospective legislation? WTF? Shameless National follows the worst example of its socialist predecessor.
So much for the “principled” party of individual responsibility and freedom. A pack of cowards is a more apt description of Labour lite.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:34pm
big bruv

I have no problem at all with the government introducing retrospective legislation in this case. If it means that maggots like Valerie Morse will face trial and go to prison then that is good thing.

Don’t want the government to spy on you?…don’t be a criminal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:38pm
F E Smith

V2, well, just think- if you had been convicted using unlawfully obtained evidence, wouldn’t you want your case re-opened in these circumstances?

Just don’t forget that any appeals, if there were to be any, would have to be on the instructions of the client, not on the initiative of the lawyer. Which means that most of the cases that are currently up for appeal would probably not see the light of day.

But what if appeals have already been filed? If this legislation goes through, then the government will essentially be legislating to win an appeal. Isn’t that just a little bit scary?

As a for instance, what if the police took to, say, unlawfully searching homes at random and then prosecuting on waht they found. The Courts would throw those cases out, but what if the government then legislated retrospectively to legalise the police actions? Would that be ok?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:38pm
F E Smith

big bruv,

but what if they are spying on people who are not criminals, just to see if they are? What if they are surveilling you at this time? Nothing may come of it, because, as you would (I am sure) say, you are not committing any criminal offences. At least, none that you know of. You may be committing some minor regulatory offence that has no real consequences, and then this random surveillance suddenly becomes meaningful to you.

Still ok with it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:40pm
Viking2

FES, well no, because the trial was done on the previous rulings available and thus not invalidated by this decision which is caused by the Urewera case. The technicalities were not challenged at the time as they were the rules and the case would have had its ruling. If the facts relevant to the trial were wrong then yes. If the Law relevant to the trial yes but as it stands the Law was assumed to be what it was.

Just don’t forget that any appeals, if there were to be any, would have to be on the instructions of the client, not on the initiative of the lawyer. Which means that most of the cases that are currently up for appeal would probably not see the light of day.
Plenty of under employed lawyers about who will be assisting clients to make that choice. You see I have a somewhat disparaging view of most of the legal profession.

As a for instance, what if the police took to, say, unlawfully searching homes at random and then prosecuting on what they found.

Are you saying they don’t do that now?? You know that they do and always have, just do it in a manner that no one
questions. Think car searches on the fly.

BB. BIG BRUV is always watching. All residents of this land are assumed guilty at all times. All that is required is a case for that guilt. Every policeman know’s this and will find a way if they want. Even for you.

Think parking in the wrong place and getting caught on a roving car cam.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:55pm
Viking2

Another good decision.

The Auckland High Cout ruled on Friday that the former directors of failed finance firm Bridgecorp will not be able to call upon their liability cover to help pay for their defence costs in their upcoming criminal and civil trials.

The judgement applies to the group’s former directors Rod Petricevic, Rob Roest, Eric O’Sullivan, Peter Steigrad, Bruce Davidson and Gary Irwin.

Bell Gully partner Murray Tingey, representing Bridegcorp receivers, said the court had granted an order that basically ring-fences the director’s liability cover for investors.

Receivers intend to lodge a claim arising from the collapse of the company that would seek more than $450 million in compensation.

These guys will feel their arseholes tightening around their windpipe at last.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5650584/Bridgecorp-investors-can-claim-liability-insurance
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:57pm
Viking2

Hopefully these guys won’t be far behind.

Two directors of Capital + Merchant Finance are trying to get some of the charges against them dropped on the grounds they didn’t sign all of the failed finance firm’s offer documents.

Five directors – Owen Tallentire, Neal Nicholls, Colin Ryan, Robert Sutherland and former director Wayne Douglas – face allegations that they made untrue statements in the company’s registered prospectuses and investment statements.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/5650028/Capital-Merchant-bosses-fight-for-charges-to-be-dropped
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 6:59pm
nasska

Press Release

International Rugby Board (IRB) Rugby World Cup 2011.

Following complaints to the IRB about the All Blacks being allowed to motivate themselves by performing the ‘Haka’ before their games, other nations were asked to suggest pre-match rituals of their own. The IRB Rugby World Cup 2011 organizing committee has now agreed to the following pre-match displays.

1. The England team will chat about the weather, wave hankies in the air and attach bells to their ankles, before moaning about how they invented the game and gave it to the world, but no-one appreciates them.

2. The Scotland team will chant “You looking’ at me, Jimmy?” before each of them smash a bottle of beer over their opponents’ heads.

3. The Ireland team will split into two, with the Southern half perfoming a Riverdance, while the Northerners march the traditional route from their dressing room to the pitch via their opponents’ dressing room.

4. Unfortunately the committee was unable to sanction the Welsh proposal to form a choir and sing Tom Jones’ “The Green Green Grass of Home”.

5. Argentina will unexpectedly invade a small part of opposition territory, claim it as their own “Las In-Goal-Areas”, and have to be forcibly removed by the match stewards.

6. Two members of the South African team will claim to be more important than the other 13, whom they will imprison between the posts. These two will then go about selecting the best parts of the pitch to settle on and claim they have been there for centuries.

7. The Americans will not attend until almost full time. In future years they will amend the records to show that they were, in fact, the most important team in the tournament, and Hollywood will produce a blockbuster film called “Saving Flanker Ryan”.

8. Five of the Canadian team will sing “Le Marseillaise” and hold the rest of the team to ransom.

9. The Italian team will arrive in Armani gear, sexually harass the female officials, and then prepare pasta dishes, which they will then flog to the crowd for a fortune.

10. The Japanese will shock fans by demonstrating how to capture a whale for scientific research by harpooning an opposition prop.

11. The French won’t have a pre-match display and will simply hide in fear in the dressing room for the whole match.

12. The Australians will have a barbecue on their side of the field and invite the opposition over before the game. The food and alcohol will be in abundance and, by the start of the game, no-one will remember what they came to the stadium for. After some streaking, the singing of dirty songs and the occasional chunder, everyone will go home thoroughly convinced it was a bloody good night.

13. The Moroccan team will quietly pray during the first half and then launch suicide attacks against the opposition after the break. Unfortunately, this strategy works well for the first game only, after which Morocco is forced to withdraw from the tournament due to lack of players.

14. Samoa will prepare a huge feast in the middle of the pitch by digging a large hole and filling it with burning embers. They will invite the opposition over by saying “We’d like to have you for dinner.” Only when the opposition arrive at the pit will they realise that there is no meat and that they are, in fact, the main course.

Hopefully, with these policies now in place, there will be no further problems.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:00pm
Scott Chris

I thought this one was worth repeating:

Nasska and a priest were playing golf. Nasska took his first shot missed and said, “Fuck, I missed.”
Surprised, the priest replied, “Don’t use that kind of language or God will punish you.”
Nasska muttered under his breath and lined up his second shot. Again he missed and said, “I fucken missed again. Fuck!”
The priest overheard and replied, “My son, please don’t use that language or God will punish you.”
Grumbling to himself, Nasska took his third swing, and once again he couldn’t help but yell, “Oh fucken fucken cocksuckers!!” “That’s it!” The priest thundered, “Now God will certainly punish you!”
Suddenly a bolt of lightning came down and killed the priest. In the distance a deep voice said, “FUCK, I MISSED!!!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:18pm
Scott Chris

Three rather attractive young nuns are in church on a hot day. As there is no one around they decide to strip off their robes and press their naked bodies to the cool stone floor to cool off. Before long, they are playfighting and splashing one another with holy water, having a fine old frolic.

Suddenly, there comes a loud knock at the door, bringing the now rather aroused nuns back to their senses, but alas, their robes have been left draped over the pews in the hall where the knocking is coming from, and the naked nuns have nothing with which to conceal their rather shapely and nubile, wet bodies.

With trepidation, one of the nuns with large and particularly shapely breasts with pert pink nipples inquires, “Who is it?”

“Pauleastbay, the blind man!” a voice replies.

Relieved, the three nuns decide to simply open the door because, as Pauleastbay is blind, he will be unable to see them.

Pauleastbay walks in, looks at the nuns and says,

“Nice tits! Where do you want me to install these blinds?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:21pm
Viking2

The problem, as I see it, is that we are stuck between two false options. On one side you have the moralistic types who want to scare the hell out of kids about sex. On the other hand, there are those well intentioned who tell kids how to have sex and take precautions. Between those two I’d take the latter any day.

But, what is needed, is teaching kids how to make decisions about sex. But that they won’t go into. A rational course on sex education would teach decision making and that means respecting others, taking responsibility for your actions, etc. It also implies, and this scares people, that the kids are going to be the ones who make the decision when and where they first have sex. No one wants to tackle that as adults prefer to feel they have some influence in the matter, when they have very little in fact.

I think a factually based program is fine, but I also think we need to teach kids how to rationally decide when they are ready to be sexual.

3:41 PM
Lucia Maria said…

The problem with sex education of this type is that it wears down a young person’s modesty, which then makes them far more vulnerable to early sexual activity. Personally, I’m not ok with that, so have pulled my boy out of the class. He gets to catch up on homework instead.

5:42 PM

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19962237&postID=6217038668723775442

So after homework he asks the others all about the lesson. And gets all the lurid details, maybe with real live demo’s.
Ah Lucia, you have no vision nor understanding of people. You think they are all just plain dumb and stupid.
But keep them in the dark and they will grow like mushrooms to be uneducated and vulnerable.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:35pm
Viking2

I want my money back!
“…Prime Minister John Key today revealed legal advice that almost all use of covert video surveillance by police had been rendered unlawful by the Supreme Court ruling…”

Does this include speed cameras in unmarked vehicles?

The millions nabbed by these revenue generators would make for a fairly serious crime..
.http://oswaldbastable.blogspot.com/2011/09/i-want-my-money-back.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:37pm
big bruv

Can things get any worse for Labour?

The mad butcher, a champion of the working man has openly supported John Key and the National party.

When Labour lose people like the butcher then things are really bad for them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:40pm
wat dabney

When it comes to sex education surely we must turn to the wisdom and wholesome morality of the Bible

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:44pm
Pauleastbay

Who am I.

1. Self made from modest backgrounds.

2. Idependently wealthy ( so we are told)

3. Liked by large sections of the New Zealand population.

4. Present well in the media.

5. Will have a job after November 26

Select one:
a) John Key

b) Sir Peter Leech aka the Mad Butcher

c) Both a and b

d) Phil Goff
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:46pm
Viking2

Pissing on the rule of law

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that covert video surveillance evidence against the Urewera 18 was inadmissible, because it had been obtained unlawfully. This was no surprise to the police; they had known that the use of such surveillance was unlawful, but had disgracefully gone ahead and done it anyway. But in the wake of the decision, they whined that the ruling would put other cases at risk. And today, the government gave in to that whining, announcing they would introduce legislation under all-stages urgency to suspend the ruling and retrospectively validate such surveillance.

This is not your usual case justifying all-stages urgency. The police have not been caught by surprise here. They have known for some years, at least since the Law Commission’s 2007 report on search and surveillance powers that video surveillance is unlawful. And there’s even a bill before Parliament, the Search and Surveillance Bill, which would fix it by providing a framework for such surveillance to be lawful. But the government has sat on that bill for almost a year now, preferring to progress other legislation. Parliament has not been caught by surprise; it has deliberately chosen not to act.

In such circumstances, ramming through a bill under all-stages urgency to retrospectively validate deliberately unlawful behaviour by the Police is a gross assault on the rule of law. The police violated the law, and they should pay the price. If they didn’t want to pay that price, then maybe they shouldn’t have deliberately conducted unlawful surveillance in the first place.

Update: Updated link. Also, retrospective validation means the police will be able to use the evidence against the Urewera18. So this is actually all-stages urgent legislation to change the outcome of a criminal trial. This is absolutely obscene. We would not accept such behaviour somewhere like Fiji, and we should not accept it here.

Posted by Idiot/Savant at 9/19/2011 04:39:00 PM
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:46pm
big bruv

F E Smith

Yes, still ok with it.

With the deepest of respect F E you have a vested interest in keeping things are they are, I am a person who believes that in 99% of cases the ends justify the means when it comes to capturing criminals and making sure they are locked away for a very long time.

In our liberal society we seem to want the cops to keep us safe but insist that they do their job with one arm tied behind their back, it seems that the only ‘rights’ that matter are the rights of scum like Morse and co.

The ironic thing about Morse is that she insists on her ‘rights’ while trampling all over everybody else’s.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:46pm
wat dabney

Well if no one else is going to post it then I shall:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:50pm
big bruv

I am not in the habit of giving the Labour party funded and staffed blog (the Standard) any air time but I just thought I would share with you this particular little contribution from a feral low life called Campbell Larson.

This is his reaction to the Mad Butcher endorsing John Key tonight on close up.

“Campbell Larsen 16
19 September 2011 at 7:19 pm
I wish the mad butcher would hurry up and die.
Fuck Close Up for giving this National party cheerleader a free slot in primetime.”

That ladies and gentleman is the kind of low life scum we see on the side of the Labour party, wishing the death of a great man for simply saying he was a fan of John Key.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 7:55pm
Rodders

Agreed. To wish ill on anyone suffering with cancer is the lowest of the low.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:05pm
Rodders

In contrast, I guess it was a different “big bruv” who wrote this comment
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/12/an_outright_fib.html#comment-775789
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:13pm
wat dabney

Rodders, it depends entirely on who you wish it on.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:13pm
Rodders

wat, it is an appalling thing to say, regardless of whom it is directed at.
bruv tries to defend what he says about McCarten based on what was written about Ron Trotter.
I only had the opportunity to meet Sir Ron once and he was as nice a man as you could ever hope to meet.
He doesn’t deserve bruv’s form of “defence”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:19pm
joana

PG
Family planning has its origins in American Eugenics. It is linked to Planned parenthood in the US. Read up on Margaret Sanger.
Read ”Eve’s Bite” re STDs. The figures are alarming. As I understand it almost every teenager in Northland has an STD.
The teenagers are being conned by the condom con and of course by the very dishonest min of health officials.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:23pm
Scott Chris

The kindergarten teacher was explaining the definition of the word ‘definitely’ to her class. At the end of the lesson, she asked them to use the word in a sentence.
The first student called upon stood up and said, “The sky is definitely blue.”
“At times, yes,” said the teacher, “but that isn’t entirely correct because sometimes it’s grey and cloudy.”
Another student stood up and said, “The grass is definitely green.”
“It should be,” replied the teacher, “but if it doesn’t get enough water, it turns brown, so that isn’t really correct.”
Little Johnny, at the back of the class, stood up and asked, “Do farts have lumps?”
Annoyed at the question, the teacher replied, “No, they do not, and that is not a suitable question for our discussion.”
“Then, I definitely shit my pants!” said Johnny.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:29pm
nasska

Miss Figpot brought a replica statue of Venus to show
her fifth grade glass. She asked the class, “What do
you like best about it, class? Let’s start with you,
Juan.”
“The artwork,” answers Juan.
“Very good. And you, Rodney?”
“Her boobs!”
“Rodney, get out! Go stand in the hall,” Miss Figpot
says with disgust.
“And you, Johnny?”
Little Johnny replies, “I’m leaving, Miss Figpot,
I’m leaving…”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:34pm
big bruv

Rodders

No, that was me and i stand by that statement.

Mccarten is a low life, a man who cheered at the death of Sir Ron Trotter, I do not like Mccartens politics but I did not wish the man ill because of that, I simply gave Mccarten a dose of his own medicine.

The mad butcher on the other hand is a bloody saint who has spent his life (and a not inconsiderable sum of his own money) working for those who are less fortunate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:37pm
Rodders

“Rodney, get out! Go stand in the hall”

Reading that brings back memories 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:38pm
Scott Chris

A teacher was telling her students about human anatomy in a sex education class. She took her pointer and pointed to the picture of a male and a female.
“The female has two breasts and one vagina. The male has two testicles and one penis.”
Little Johnny in the front row yelled out, “My daddy has two penises!”
Taken aback, the teacher replied, “Don’t be silly Johnny, men only have one penis.”
“Not my Dad.” Insists Little Johnny. “He has a short one that he pees with and a long one that he fucks the neighbour’ wife with!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:39pm
big bruv

“Read ”Eve’s Bite”

I did, well I did try and read it but the god bothering became sickening after a while.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:40pm
Rodders

Sir Peter Leitch is a hero of mine too, not least for his selfless commitment to many groups including the disabled.
Wishing death on anyone is the pits, regardless.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:44pm
nasska

Q: Imagine you are a child in your mother’s womb, can you detect light?
A: Only during ballet practice.

Q. What did the maxi pad say to the fart?
A. You are the wind beneath my wings.

Q: What’s the difference between toilet paper and toast?
A: Toast is brown on both sides.

Q: Why did god invent alcohol?
A: So fat women can get laid too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:49pm
joana

Big Bruv
The evolution part is tedious but the rest of it is interesting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:52pm
Scott Chris

Little Johnny asks, “Mommy, where do babies come from?”
His mother replies, “The stork brings them.”
Little Johnny, puzzled, asks, “Then who fucks the stork?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:54pm
mattyroo

If only NZ had a decent judiciary, then Ben Boyce could be double bunking with his buddy Jamie Linehan, the pedo.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:56pm
Rodders

Scott @8:39pm – I have heard a variant of that with a different punchline
“He has a short one that he pees with and a long one that uses to clean the Au pair’s teeth!” 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 8:58pm
big bruv

joana

Actually Eve’s bite has a very special place among my vast (so vast it drives my Mrs crazy) book collection.

Eve’s bite remains the only book that I have ever thrown in the rubbish bin in my entire life.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 9:00pm
Scott Chris

Sarah Palin’s Sex Education Policy:

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alledged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn. Duh!

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well-documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 9:07pm
Scott Chris

Rodders

Yes, I edited it a bit for a change.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 9:10pm
Rodders

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/5651042/Redheads-rejected-as-sperm-bank-bans-deposits
Further to Saturday’s redhead sperm story, Australia “will happily take all the redheads they can get.”
http://www.catbitches.com/workspace/uploads/nicole-kidman5.jpg

Scott @9.10pm- that’s what they all say 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 9:16pm
Rodders

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5650676/TVNZs-Harawira-story-inaccurate-but-fair

They should have simply said that he is an obnoxious racist and has a mother and siblings with a history of violent offending. No possibility of a ruling of inaccuracy on those counts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 10:00pm
Griff

nicole-kidman
reeed hheeaad
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 19, 2011 10:32pm
Manolo

A purveyor of lies (read spin doctor) must be disappointed: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5650256/John-Keys-office-loses-BSA-complaint
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 20, 2011 7:30am
Manolo

Panic, maybe? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-chapman-obama-reelection,0,622512.column
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 20, 2011 7:33am