Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Gang Influence and Corruption in the Maori Party?

Minister was warned gang would re-occupy seized HQ

Papers released under the Official Information Act reveal that Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples stepped in to try to stop any demolition because the gang pad caters for the "spiritual and cultural needs" of Maori.

The MP wrote to the Auckland City Council asking staff to ignore the illegal structures and to grant a waiver for breaches of the district plan.

At the time, the new owner was in negotiations to sell the property to a trust connected to Dr Sharples' Tamaki Makarau electorate manager, Martin Cooper.

Mr Cooper is a former Black Power president who used to own the Jolson Rd property through the Piki Mai Trust.

In the letter, the Maori Affairs Minister said he attended a hui at the Black Power headquarters in 2005 with Tariana Turia as co-leaders of the Maori Party and that "the whare catered for the spiritual and cultural needs of our hui".

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Paul Henry & 'Racism'

This whole incident I have found shocking. Not from the statement, but from the reactions. For instance a TVNZ staff member resigning over DOING HER JOB?!?! Ludicras, that is what PR people are MEANT TO DO. They have to defend whatever stupid things might happen in their company to the press/public, even if they might have personal misgivings about the situation. Or rather they are meant to make their clients look good, which is generally by defending them. Ok perhaps you can say she failed in this case due to the public reaction, but is this a significant enough failing to resign over? No.

It gets worse to then read: "while an MP went as far as suggesting New Zealand could do with multi-cultural legislation". Oh great, what MP was this? I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose this legislation he imagines would be:
a) racist legislation.
b) infringing on our right to free speech.

TVNZ PR manager offers resignation - NZ Herald News

Friday, September 17, 2010

David Garrett and the ACT Party (comments)

In recent news it has come out that David has been a naughty boy in the past. How serious is this? Naturally the press have been having a field day in going in to every little detail.

There are thought were the most interesting/insightful/amusing comments made on the articles on the website:

RichMac said: "If it's good enough for the court to discharge him without conviction and permanent name suppression who are we to conduct the witch hunt? Leave him alone."

John said: "While I may not like Mr Garrett and I certainly don't favour the Act Party, I don't condone the media and public habit of "hunting and shooting down" public figures for minor transgressions.

"Be fair, look at the specific charge in this case and the resulting $10 fine. It arguably was self defence and even though he was convicted the magnitude of the fine indicates it was not serious. Why would anyone want to put themselves forward for public service in this petty environment?"

Davedog thought the conviction had been blown out of proportion. "We are not talking about some malicious criminal act here, we are talking about a confrontation that escalated, someone's work against someone else's, and a dubious conviction in a 3rd world country."

And Hugh wrote: "We have a Minister of Work & Income who was on benefits, so why not a spokesman for Law & Order who has an assault conviction? The best gamekeepers are reformed poachers as the saying goes.

Wayne reckoned "perhaps the mindless "three strikes and you're out" law Mr Garrett was pushing for offers some help to us in determining whether he should still be the ACT spokesperson for law and order. By my count that's two strikes against him in the last day. One strike to go, David."

Ray offered a slightly different view. "Maybe David Garrett, in proposing his "three strikes", has carefully planned so as to have one up his sleeve?"

korknutt said: "That's two strikes so far Mr Garrett. Hope your policy works and can keep you on the straight and narrow from now on."

PR said:

Is the NZ Herald guilty of breaching the permanent name suppression granted to Mr Garrett?

Even if Garrett had told Parliament what he had done the suppression order would have meant that no on could have reported that? Parliament TV could not have broadcast it etc.

So do we expect to see a mass of broadcasters prosecuted for breaching name suppression order. This has since been lifted at Mr Garretts request but the media were reporting it long before that.

Are the NZ media going to continue to breach the court order and publish the name of the dead child, and add further stress to the family?

William said: "Whats David Garrets REAL indentity ? (....if hes' done it once!)"

KC said: "A leader and deputy pairing of John Boascawen and Heather Roy (the order to be voted on) will go a long way to restoring the member and public faith in the Act party. Anything less is a Rodney Hide farce and we have already seen to much of that."

overdahz said (in reference to Rodney Hide would be beaten in Epsom if National put up a strong candidate): "The obvious candidate is the National MP who lives in the Epsom Electorate - John Key."

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Milk And Cheese

These laws don’t go far enough. Dairies often sell milk and cheese and these are known to cause obesity and heart disease. The government must do something! This is what I propose:

1. Dairies be banned from selling milk and cheese, so that they can only be purchased in supermarkets. Except in tourist areas where foreigners have come to accept eating dairy products freely, where local councils we be allowed to permit dairies to sell milk, cheese, or both milk and cheese.
2. There should be special rules to allow dairies and Party Central to sell milk and cheese over the Rugby World Cup, because we don’t want the rest of the world to realise that we’re governed by miserable nanny-staters. But the cheese at Party Central must be sold in cubes with a toothpick through each in order to reduce the rate of cheese consumption.
3. Sale of cheese at Party Central be restricted to people 18 and over. Sale of cheese in supermarkets be restricted to people 22 and above. Sale of cheese in dairies (where permitted) be restricted to people 19 and over, unless the person is a tourist in which case they only need to be 17 or over. Sale of milk to be restricted to people over the age of 20 in all cases.
4. The government to tell milk manufacturers what percentage of fat they’re allowed to include in their milk.
5. Under no circumstances will supermarkets, dairies, or Party Central be allowed to sell alcohol and cheese together in case drunk people eat too much cheese.
6. Cheese flavoured potato chips will be banned. So will cheese and onion and other cheese derived flavours.
7. There will be a special tax on dairy products sufficient to cover the cost of heart disease and diabetes treatment, and to cover the cost of the milk and cheese licensing system.
8. Cheese will only be sold between the hours of 10am and 4pm, except on Fridays where it can be sold between 10am and 5:30pm. And Sunday when it can only be sold between 1pm and 4pm so that people will not be tempted to blow off church attendance in favour of cheese buying. Milk will only be sold on Tuesdays between 2:30pm and 3:30pm, because why do retailers need to be open any longer than that?
9. People will only be allowed to buy milk and cheese from one retailer each week. They’ll have their hand stamped after each purchase and council inspectors will conduct random checks outside supermarkets. Retailers will be fined up to $500,000 for selling dairy products to someone who already has a hand stamp, or outside the permitted hours.

These simple rules will certainly solve NZ’s diabetes and heart disease problem. Only child pornographers could possibly be opposed to them. Think of the children!

The cheesy sauce:

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Musings on Global Warming

Had little chat about this online, and Mat said a very common defense used by supporters of global warming:
There is general consensus among the scientific community that human activity is at least partially responsible for climate change. However, assuming we don't know for sure, isn't it better to take action now? If we are to blame, our action will abate climate change. If it is just natural fluctuations, we're not really losing anything.
Yes we are losing something... billions and billions of dollars, pushing ourselves even faster into 3rd world status. Do you really want to risk that?

You can't just say "assuming we don't know for sure, isn't it better to take action now?"

I've heard grass could damage the environment... some people regard certain types of grass as a weed!

Now of course we are not quite sure which are causing damage, or even if damage is really being done but isn't it better to take action now?

From now on I declare that NZ shall be grass-free!

I understand some people will moan and complain about that, as apparently they think grass is needed for their business?!

So for them I've came up with the GTS (Grass Trading Scheme), it is all very complex involving grass credits and research funding for grass substitutes but a rough rule of thumb is you can expect to pay a yearly tax of NZ$1 per blade of grass.

Thanks folks, and think of the good for the planet Earth!