A BLiP flap flip

A BLiP flap over accusations of John Key lying quickly flipped to accusing a Newshub update of covering up the lying.

Yesterday BLiP posted Oooops! at The Standard which showed two headlines:

john-key-hasnt-spoke-to-his-lawyer-620x328

The first from NZ Herald timed and dated Tuesday 3 May 2016 12:32 pm:

Prime Minister John Key agrees lawyer’s email was ‘sloppily written”

Speaking to reporters this morning, Mr Key said he had discussed the issue with Mr Whitney, who works at Auckland based firm Antipodes Trust Group.

He is absolutely confident my version of events is correct,” he said.

The second from Newshub times and dated Thursday 5 May 2016 8:49 am:

Key hasn’t spoken to his lawyer about email yet

Prime Minister John Key hasn’t spoken to his lawyer since it emerged he lobbied Inland Revenue against changes to foreign trust rules.

In comments a number of people accepted two non-specific news reports as gospel and as proof that John Key lied.

Lanthanide explains:

On May 3rd, Key says his lawyer agrees with him that the email was sloppily written and did not reflect what actually happened.

On May 5th, Key says he hasn’t spoken to his lawyer.

Both statements cannot be true together. At least one, most likely both, must be a lie.

Neither news report, as far as they are shown at The Standard, specify timing, nor which emails they are referring to.

Assumptions that most likely both reports “must be a lie” are not supported by anything quoting what Key said.

Magisterium went against the flow…

That’s not correct.

The Tuesday article says that Key spoke to Whitney to confirm that Key’s recollection of their conversation (“not my area, contact the Ministry”) was correct.

The Thursday article says that Key had not spoken to Whitney since it became known that Whitney had emailed the Ministry to lobby about tax policy.

These two articles do not contradict each other.

[BLiP: It is impossible for someone able to type, spell correctly, apply relatively competent grammar, and use the internet to be as stupid as you are trying to appear. For this reason, its obvious you are trolling. Banned for one week.]

…and was banned.

The New Student points out:

Perhaps Magisterium has a fair point, as it seems Satherley’s story has changed somewhat. All I can find by Satherley on NewsHub is “Key doesn’t hold a grudge against lawyer” Thursday 5 May 2016, 8.49 am. The line that’s in the above picture is nowhere to be found in this version of the article. I’m not terribly bright so you should check for yourself if I have it straight.

The quote is: “I haven’t caught up with him because look, I’ve been busy,” I can’t watch/listen to any media as I’m on crummy school computer at the moment.

From this article, the last time they “caught up” is not entirely clear. So going back to the articles on the sloppy email issue, the last time seems to have been whenever that discussion (supposedly) took place. Maybe that’s why the article has since been amended.

James also says:

Blip – you do know that the headline you are mentioning is completely gone right?

Its been completely updated. So perhaps there was a issue with the original article as opposed to Key telling a lie?

BLiP flips from accepting the word od two news reports as definitive proof of Key lying to accusing Newshub of “helping John Key cover the lie up”.

Yep, Newshub is helping John Key cover the lie up. If you click on the link you will see that the URL still contains the original headline.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/key-hasnt-spoken-to-his-lawyer-about-email-yet-2016050508

With the MSM now actively colluding with John Key in deceiving New Zealanders, it always helps to get a screen cap. 🙂

The Newshub article now has a different headline and opening paragraph (although the time and date are the same and the URL matches the original headline:.

Key doesn’t hold a grudge against lawyer

Prime Minister John Key has revealed he met his longstanding lawyer Ken Whitney at antenatal classes more than 20 years ago, when Mr Key’s wife Bronagh was pregnant with their first child, Stephanie.

Mr Key says he doesn’t hold a grudge against Mr Whitney, despite the fallout from the lawyer’s lobbying of Inland Revenue (IRD) against changes to foreign trust rules.

“I haven’t caught up with him because look, I’ve been busy,” he told More FM’s Si and Gary show on Thursday.

Non-quoted ‘Key hasn’t spoken to his lawyer’ has changed to a quote “I haven’t caught up with him because look, I’ve been busy.”

That may or may not be contradictory. Catching up with someone may or may not be the same as speaking to them.

The Herald article also has a changed headline and appears to have additional detail or is rearranged:

Email was ‘sloppily written’: Key

Prime Minister John Key says his lawyer has agreed that an email that used Mr Key’s name to lobby a minister against a crackdown on foreign trusts was “sloppily written”.

Mr Key said yesterday that his personal lawyer Ken Whitney had misrepresented him in an email to former Revenue Minister Todd McClay.

The email, sent in December 2014, said: “We are concerned that there appears to be a sudden change of view by the IRD in respect of their previous support for the [foreign trusts] industry.

“I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this and he advised that the Government has no plans to change the status of the foreign trust regime.”

Speaking to reporters this morning, Mr Key said he had discussed the issue with Mr Whitney, who works at Auckland-based firm Antipodes Trust Group.

“He is absolutely confident my version of events is correct,” he said.

“Maybe the email was sloppily written. I was certainly aware that we weren’t making any changes.”

Again, speaking with someone about a specific issue may or may not be the same as catching up with them.

I don’t think there is sufficient detail here to claim ‘Key lied!’ and then when the news story changes claim ‘Newshub covered up a lie!’.

News articles online are often changed, perhaps as more information comes to had, and sometimes due to feed back.

I have pointed out factual mistakes and as a result articles have been updated to be more accurate, not to cover up anything.

I would hope that an updated MSM article was more reliable than a BLiP on a blog flipping from taking vague reports as absolute evidence of a terrible lie to accusing the media of covering up lies when they change their content.

Leave a comment

107 Comments

  1. Iceberg

     /  6th May 2016

    It’s pretty common for a Round Earther to be banned at TS. You can sail into the distance and reappear behind them, and still get banned, probably for witchcraft.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  6th May 2016

      His defenders, who were right, were lucky they didn’t cop a ban as well. can’t be bothered following the link and reading the cant.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  6th May 2016

        Fear not, PG has done it for you. He has the skin of a rhinoceros, the patience of a saint…and no doubt all the other cliches needed to visit TS.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  6th May 2016

          I meant the cant that would have probably preceded and followed the banning, Iceberg.

          Reply
          • Iceberg

             /  6th May 2016

            Ah, right, the stuff about being a mindless moronic troll with a festering penis, that sort of thing?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  6th May 2016

              Well, that too if it’s there (the festering penis one the other day was a real hoot BTW). I meant the usual suspects with their “too right dude – Key’s actually Beelzebub” renditions.

      • Kevin

         /  6th May 2016

        Blip shows definite signs of KDS.

        Reply
  2. Gezza

     /  6th May 2016

    I commented yesterday somewhere, probably on a days-earlier thread, that I saw a TVOne segment of Key being interviewed, might have even been his speaking to the reporters referred to above. It was a profile camera angle. He looked tired and aged. He’s only 58 & he looked older than me. The stress of doing the PM’s job after so long is showing up. Maybe it’s been exacerbated recently by Labour’s continual allegations, he certainly sounds fed up, weary about the whole thing, and over it. If he wins the next election, he won’t be seeing out the full term.

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  6th May 2016

      @ Gezza – he looks to me like his mask has slipped. From the genial “John for everyone” type of guy, to the “John for himself and his wealthy mates” kind of guy.

      He lost his sparkle for me since Sabin, Flag referendum, and selling out New Zealand to foreigners while pretending not to.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  6th May 2016

        “John for himself and his wealthy mates”

        That’s a new one! Well done.

        What policy has been introduced by JK for his “wealthy mates” in the last eight years. Take your time.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  6th May 2016

          An uptick for you Iceberg .. My comment deserved to be challenged in exactly the way you have challenged it. Sorry to say it’s based on what I “sense”, rather than anything else. That should be just as concerning really, it’s probably similar to what Americans sense about Obama’s “hope and change”.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  6th May 2016

            He’s not perfect by any means Maureen, but the alternative is Little?

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              Little is not an option, nor the present Labour Party. Based on prior form, I doubt Little will be leader of the Labour Party by the time the next election rolls around.

            • Iceberg

               /  6th May 2016

              Doesn’t matter too much who it is. It will be some Socialist scumbag going up against some other Tory scumbag.

              Just keeping the memes alive.

            • Kevin

               /  6th May 2016

              @MaueenW

              He’s got the backing of the unions so I think he’ll still be leader when the next election comes around. But if Labour gets savaged in the next election (looking very likely) it will be a good opportunity for the centre-leftists in the party to take over. Then Little will be gone.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th May 2016

              Kevin: I think it is too late for the center-lefts to regain control of Labour, the small interest groups & unions have got too greater hold on the party.

              A new more centralist Labour party or a mix of NZ first/centralist Labour people (once Winston goes and say if Shane Jones took over the helm) could also be a possibility.

            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              @PDB
              I think you’re right, the Labour “brand” is tainted beyond redemption if you ask me.

            • Gezza

               /  6th May 2016

              Porno boy will never escape that label if he became leader of Labour. Besides, he’d have to figure out how to rescue Labour from the wreckage it’s become & I doubt he’s up to that. If they don’t get their act more together soon those who might be able to provide an alternative opposition could maybe bail, make some long term plans and try to start a Democrats party.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  6th May 2016

        When did John Key sell NZ to foreigners ? I don’t see any sign of this.

        I would hope that people wouldn’t keep casting that up at Shane Jones, especially if they have looked at dirty films themselves-that would be real hypocrisy.

        Reply
    • jamie

       /  6th May 2016

      “If he wins the next election, he won’t be seeing out the full term.”

      I’ve heard that before somewhere. Oh that’s right, every term since he became pm.

      I agree he seems to have lost his lustre but I don’t get a sense that NZ sees a real alternative yet.

      Reply
  3. Kevin

     /  6th May 2016

    So typical. So The Standard.

    “With the MSM now actively colluding with John Key in deceiving New Zealanders, it always helps to get a screen cap.”

    Ironic considering The Standard will cut out what someone has posted and then pretend they’ve said things that they haven’t. Helps to get a screen cap indeed and that’s what I’ll be doing if I ever decide to post there again.

    Reply
  4. Eliza M

     /  6th May 2016

    “I have pointed out factual mistakes and as a result articles have been updated to be more accurate, not to cover up anything”

    And then when someone points out that you’ve got YOUR facts wrong you ban them (Oliver).

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  6th May 2016

      Oliver didn’t know when he just being a total offensive !@#t!.

      Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  6th May 2016

      Enough with the Oliver nonsense. He had a long history of telling lies and being a dick.

      Reply
      • Eliza M

         /  6th May 2016

        [False accusations. Deleted.

        And in posting this at LF under ‘mrMan’ suggests false claims and lying about multiple identities. PG]

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  6th May 2016

          ‘Oliver’ was VERY lucky not to be banned before that – highly likely a false account (as discussed by Ben and the like on here previously) trying to ultimately cause trouble to this blog & PG.

          Apart from yourself I don’t see too many people mourning his passing…..

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  6th May 2016

            Is “auto-moderation” the same as banned?

            Reply
            • Eliza M

               /  6th May 2016

              Yes. Your email, login and IP address are placed on a blacklist and comments go to a holding bin.They can be released by the siteowner, but if they aren’t it’s as good as being banned. The IP address stops people signing back in with a new name.

          • Eliza M

             /  6th May 2016

            “highly likely a false account”
            You didn’t read the second link?

            Reply
        • I wondered when you wouldn’t resist revealing yourself.

          Oliver wasn’t banned, they chose not to comply with site requirements.

          Are you also trying to ignore site requirements and pretend you are someone else, or have you only ever commented under this identity?

          Reply
          • Eliza M

             /  6th May 2016

            I’ve said twice here already when asked that I’m posting under my real name. I’ve never posted here under another name, but I have been reading the site for a long time before I finally plucked up the verve to comment. Like I said I read what happened as it happened and like Oliver I remembered you saying you’d contacted a workplace looking for someone. What you said exactly was “the company who owns the domain name has no knowledge of the name used. Explanation?”. How do you explain that? Was Oliver lying? How would you know that a company had no knowledge of a name if you hadn’t contacted them?
            Like I said I’m bringing this up as I see a contradiction between what you say and what you do regarding the correction of facts. That, and I felt sorry for Oliver at the time, not the other person though, they were trouble.

            Reply
            • Iceberg

               /  6th May 2016

              “I felt sorry for Oliver at the time”

              That’s very moving. It’s moved me to say; that’s the most pathetic thing I’ve read today. It’s early though and you have right of reply.

            • Ok so you are a different person to ‘Lizzy M’? Or the same? If so why did you change your name?

              The likelihood of two different commenters turning up here within days of each other with the same name and using variations on the name instead of pseudonyms is extraordinarily low.

              For those watching from the popcorn seats….

              Lizzie Marvelly, renowned social critic and ardent feminist, brains behind the “My Body, My Terms” campaign which was driven dominately by what happened to JW and Social Justice Warrior du jour has, coincidentally, the same name as this commenter.

              Either this commenter is Marvelly and not disclosing her intent or agenda in flinging shit around in the most intelligent blog in New Zealand, or this person is impersonating Marvelly. Either is intellectually dishonest and such poor strategy it is surprising that this is all that could be thought up.

              If this is you Lizzie…. My grandparents respected you. I’ve been to weddings at your parents hotel (it’s fantastic and I recommend to others all the time). I have a long history with Rotorua. I also dates Carly Binding when I was younger so I know the music scene quite well. Before you come to shit on me, or us here at YNZ, remember the cardinal rule… ‘Are my thoughts my own?’. You will only discover what is real and what isn’t when you can hold two opposing points of view or schools of thought in your mind and critically evaluate which is the higher truth.

              If it isn’t Lizzie…. We are not amused 😉

            • Eliza M

               /  6th May 2016

              If you find compassion pathetic then so be it. He was an amusing character, but I speak only of his banning, not anything else he did or said. I realise he was going to be banned anyway, but being banned for remembering something Pete was trying to deny wasn’t a just reason.

            • Eliza M

               /  6th May 2016

              “Either this commenter is Marvelly and not disclosing her intent or agenda in flinging shit around in the most intelligent blog in New Zealand, or this person is impersonating Marvelly”

              Fuck you’re an idiot Ben. Outing ID’s is frowned upon heavily here, especially when you’re wrong, you know that. What kind of shit are you trying to bring to Pete?

              FWIW. Lizzy and Eliza are both contractions, M is an initial, but not for Marvelly. I changed to Eliza as Lizzy M was creating confusion/suspicion in a topic about Marvelly.

              “I also dates Carly Binding” Stop it with the incessant name dropping, it betrays a very insecure character, and it’s sad.

              “You will only discover what is real and what isn’t when you can hold two opposing points of view or schools of thought in your mind and critically evaluate which is the higher truth.”

              Well done, you held two points of truth. I’m either Marvelly or I’m impersonating her.Yet the real truth is the third point, and you’re wron twice. Fuck knuckle.

            • Iceberg

               /  6th May 2016

              “Fuck you’re an idiot Ben”

              You’ve almost redeemded yourself with that one.

              “I realise he was going to be banned anyway”

              Maybe stop flogging a dead horse then.

            • If this is Ms. Marvelly, you are welcome to debate and fling shit around here. The more ruthless commenters like Ice are acerbic as all hell but you have to shrug it off. There is nothing more powerful than putting your name on your opinions and life experience. We are a gnarly, grizzled and (some of us) ancient lot here on YNZ but we don’t bite. We just protest intellectual dishonesty and people with undeclared motives. That is dominately why Oliver got chucked… Dishonest intent. You have NOTHING to fear by owning your identity from any of us. If you stand by your political and ideological points, as someone with leadership potential (yes Marvelly, you), you should know that taking the lumps comes well before you’ll be leading anything. But I’m sure you can see the irony in you defending someone who was a sock while you’re less than forthcoming about your identity and attacking this blog sites owner? If not…. Well, nothing I say will help you see the light. Just thought to assure you that PG does not tolerate threats and the like towards commenters so it is safe for you to be yourself here.

            • Eliza M

               /  6th May 2016

              I said it just before but Fuck you’re an idiot. Plain and simple.
              I just told I’m not her.I said it just before but Fuck you’re an idiot. Plain and simple.
              I just told you I’m not her. Can you read?

              “does not tolerate threats and the like towards commenters so it is safe for you to be yourself here.”
              Is it safe when you’ve got hypocritical wank stains like you accusing people of identities and agendas.

            • You seem really upset. Make yourself a cup of tea and have a lie down. Being as angry as you are is quite unhealthy I’ve heard. I feel sorry for you. Hope you deal with your issues and get the help you need.

            • Eliza M

               /  6th May 2016

              The only issue I have Ben is your ‘intellectual dishonesty’ and ‘undeclared motives’.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  6th May 2016

              Ben, you must have forgotten when two people called Dave and David were posting from the same hotel, where, by some coincidence, they were both staying. They offered to send a selfie of the two of them, but that never arrived to everyone else’s great (???) surprise. I have forgotten the details, but they provided much amusement for everyone else. If I was going to pretend to be someone else, I wouldn’t call myself Kit Cat or Catty Kitkin and expect people to believe that these were, in fact, other people.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  6th May 2016

          When that happened I recalled the previous incident and from memory thought Pete did not say he rang the company. Obviously he had tried to email that address and it bounced. It may well have just reported the bounce by saying the name was unknown and I presumed that is why Pete denied Oliver’s accusation. It still seems ambiguous to me.

          Reply
  5. Lol. Be nice to children, get slapped. Beginning to admire the patience and character of the likes of Alan, BJ and others. Can’t lead a horse to water and all that 🙂

    Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  6th May 2016

      When you’re not wallowing in your own self pity, you’re wallowing in you’re own self rightiousness.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  6th May 2016

        Tough one – who to support in this debate? Ben or Eliza M………..both have their ‘issues’………

        Bugger it! I support Iceberg – well said!

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  6th May 2016

          You could always try reading each comment and supporting those in which you find merit.

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  6th May 2016

            I do? Hence why I gave you a downtick.

            Reply
            • Iceberg

               /  6th May 2016

              It’s interesting how the Rachinger posts end up with lots of supporting ticks on his posts and those that clearly support him. Happens every time he gets in a dust up. Not straight away, he’s too cunning for that. Games the system every time.

            • That’s an accusation you can’t substantiate.

              Obviously Ben’s comments attract attention – and some of that attention is obviously aimed at trying to discredit him.

            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              @ Iceberg
              He’s just a sensitive, misunderstood kid, didn’t you know?
              I was following the Dirty Politics threads on Twitter at the time, and, let’s just say I didn’t find his activities to be those of someone who needs protecting due to naievity.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  6th May 2016

              @Iceberg
              The other possibility is that people encounter his comments in their own good time, and agree with them (even if you don’t).
              Let’s have a review of some comments from earlier on….

              When you’re not wallowing in your own self pity, you’re wallowing in you’re own self rightiousness.

              Fuck you’re an idiot Ben.

              I said it just before but Fuck you’re an idiot. Plain and simple.

              You’re the perennial loser. And fame and glory is your sole M.O. you constantly self promote, name drop, and suck up to the ‘famous’.

              Sad fucking life you have, if this is what gave you your jollies for the week.

              Not very nice, at all. 😦 Surely a point can be made without descending in to that……

            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              @patupaiarehe
              Bit of a one-sided assessment there.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  6th May 2016

              @MaureenW
              Feel free to give your own assessment then. Try not to swear please

            • Iceberg

               /  6th May 2016

              I can however substantiate that he delivers up self serving posts, name drops, reacts narcissistically when called out, plays the virtuous victim.

              Perhaps a stronger retort PG would be “you’re wrong on that”.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  6th May 2016

              Perhaps a better reaction from those who disagree with him, would be something like what you just said Iceberg. Swearing & character assassination add nothing to an argument

            • Iceberg

               /  6th May 2016

              I’d rather see swearing Patu, than skin crawling passive aggressive

            • patupaiarehe

               /  6th May 2016

              Why swear Iceberg? I hear those words all day, every day. I come here for a break from it. If you see ‘passive aggressive’, you should realise that behavior is intended to get a violent or sweary reaction. Rise above it. Rather than call someone an ‘arsehole’, why not say “You are like a broken watch, only right for a minute, twice a day”.

            • Iceberg

               /  6th May 2016

              Patu, If you want to spend time on blogs trying to modify peoples behaviour so that you can have a Safe Space, then I’d suggest a political blog is not the place to be. There’s a risk of being told to fuck off.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  6th May 2016

              @Iceberg
              A risk of it??? You just told me to, without actually telling me. Who is being ‘passive aggressive’ now???

      • Lol I really like myself and what I’m accomplishing. Why would I pity myself? As for feeling self-righteous? I already won. You’re all children to me and what’s even better is you’re cowards who hide behind pseudonyms. I fully feel sorry for you and shudder to think what kind of shallow and vacuous lives you live. Uptick yourselves away btw 😉 Doesn’t bother me how badly you down vote me, because unlike you I don’t require fame or glory or approbation for what I do. I just do it, I win and I move on.

        Some Iceberg you turned out to be! Tsk tsk 🙂

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  6th May 2016

          @ Ben
          “….. ….. I just do it, I won and I move on.”

          What exactly did you win? Do share.

          Reply
        • Hall

           /  6th May 2016

          Spoken like a true narcissist.

          Reply
        • Eliza M

           /  6th May 2016

          But you’ve never won. You’re the perennial loser. And fame and glory is your sole M.O. you constantly self promote, name drop, and suck up to the ‘famous’.
          You certainly haven’t won anything today, you were completely wrong.
          Pseudonyms on the internet are an inherently sensible idea, I can’t find out where Iceberg lives or anything but I could with you. I won’t cos I’m not interested in the shallow and vacuous life you live, unfortunately you have no qualms about sharing it all over the internet, so much woe and dishonesty. Dreading when your court appearances are over and we have to hear all about that too. How clever you are, how mean ‘they’ are, boring.

          Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  6th May 2016

          ” you’re cowards who hide behind pseudonyms”

          Get with the program dude. You engage in the game, fully knowing the rules at the start, then you act like cry baby when you get kicked for touch.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  6th May 2016

            Just as an aside, I think it’s really nice how the system thanks you for voting.
            Gives it that little touch of warmth & and bonhomie sometimes lacking in the comment being voted on. 😎

            Reply
        • Hall

           /  6th May 2016

          Lets settle down people we may have crossed the line from constructive criticism to bullying. I wouldn’t want Ben to do something extreme.

          Reply
          • You’re a bunch of anonymous cowards desperately trying to rake shit in order for you to feel better about what despicable people you are. I haven’t smiled this much all week, even when I got the decision yesterday. You’re clearly so afraid and out of any tools you could possibly use.

            I feel sorry for you. I used to be a piece of shit like you but learned the error of my ways without the compulsion that others will be facing early next week 😉

            Have a great afternoon! I’m off to have a wonderful weekend away with friends. Enjoy your weekend.

            I hear Tuesday is going to be an interesting day 🙂

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              Sad fucking life you have, if this is what gave you your jollies for the week. MikeC thought you were wonderful, think he/she went to the Standard. Also liked to delve into “who” people really were, and were they so-and-so on another forum.
              Off ya go, the two of you could guess away to your heart’s content.

            • Hall

               /  6th May 2016

              One quick google search of Ben Rachinger and hello don’t you have a lot of skeletons in your closet….

            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              Rattle-rattle.

            • Pickled Possum

               /  6th May 2016

              @Ben Kia Kaha bro

              I for one appreciate your Honest and Open korero.
              and why some are dogging on you is another life lesson,
              You Can’t please everybody all of the time,
              but you can please some of the people All of the time? I think this is right.

              Have a Fab weekend as I intend to. 🙂

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th May 2016

              If you are unsure of what Ben is referring to it is this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/79350087/Panama-Papers-Searchable-database-likely-to-implicate-Kiwis-in-scams?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

              Considering I believe Hager has had access to this database for sometime suggests New Zealander’s don’t feature so much. But even if they did should people’s private financial details be shared with the public even though they are operating well within the law?

              This is where the left-wing are hypocritical, only SOME people (they dictate who) have a right to privacy.

            • Gezza

               /  6th May 2016

              I used to be a piece of shit like you
              Is this what c calls damning with faint praise? 😀

              I don’t really have much of a clue what all this argy bargy is about & don’t think I really want to know.

              Have a good weekend Ben. Kia ora Possum.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th May 2016

              I take it back…….new Hager book coming real soon that Labour has been briefed about (apparently not ‘dirty politics’ when they use a journalist or vice-versa)………the plot thickens.

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  6th May 2016

    I knew there was a good reason not to bother reading this post as soon as I saw it was about the Standard – it’s no use for anything apart from starting a food fight.

    FWIW, yes, Lizzie changed to Eliza obviously to remove the connection to Marvelly; yes, Oliver got banished to moderation for pissing everyone off once too often. Maybe it was harsh but it’s been much more enjoyable here ever since; Ben, you need a thicker skin and a cooler fend – sometimes (actually quite often) less is more.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  6th May 2016

      To be honest I think Ben’s true colours shone through during that little exchange……..a narcissist of the highest order.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  6th May 2016

        A young man with a sensitive history and thin skin. Cut him some slack.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  6th May 2016

          …. who’s known to like doxing people on Twitter. Thin skin? I don’t think so, more of a manipulator.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  6th May 2016

            Really? To my knowledge he did it once and regrets and has apologised for it. Do you know more?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th May 2016

              Fair point.

            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              He has other form .. try google.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th May 2016

              Above comment related to Eliza’s comment now removed. I really can’t see why that was necessary at all.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th May 2016

              @Maureen, link? I don’t see anything useful on Google.

            • MaureenW

               /  6th May 2016

              Not posting links here but if you google his name and twitter doxing, you’ll find other people complaining about his twitter activities.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th May 2016

              I didn’t find any specific allegations of incidents other than one the well-known one. The number of critics is not relevant.

            • Telling people to look something up on Google as an excuse to not back up claims doesn’t wash here. It’s too often used as a way to make unsubstantiated and attacks in social media, including deliberately false accusations..

          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  6th May 2016

            History of doxing and at the same time wanting people to post under their real names? Who’d of thought………

            Reply
  7. Hall

     /  6th May 2016

    Can anyone tell what the deal with Ben Rachinger is? there seems to be a lot of stuff about him on the world wide web. Something to do with Cameron Slater I think.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  6th May 2016

      I’m sure Ben will fill you in………best you hear his side of the story rather than sift through a whole raft of differing opinions.

      Reply
  8. Alan Wilkinson

     /  6th May 2016

    Can you explain your deletion of Eliza’s comments in this thread, Pete? Unless there is something I’ve missed, it seems to be abnormal and over the top.

    Reply
  9. patupaiarehe

     /  6th May 2016

    Well golly! It’s all rather nasty really….

    The only issue I have Ben is your ‘intellectual dishonesty’ and ‘undeclared motives’.

    So what are your motives eliza/lizzy/pot???

    I changed to Eliza as Lizzy M was creating confusion/suspicion in a topic about Marvelly

    I find it VERY interesting that you chose to first comment using ‘Lizzy M’ on a post that was about Ms. Marvelly. I suspect your intent WAS to create confusion/suspicion.

    Reply
  10. A lot out of the woodwork today. there’s a few things that I have parked and will deal with along with other things here as I get the time.

    Seems to be reverting back to personal attacks, please stick to issues.

    I know some of this just happens but there’s also obviously a few other agendas going on here, and this is likely to continue next week, especially from Tuesday afternoon (if you don’t know about it you’ll have to wait and see, and if you do know you will also know that it can’t be posted about at this stage).

    A reminder – if I’m busy and there are things I want to address I may park comments until I get the time to do that.

    Reply
    • Hall

       /  6th May 2016

      PDB said something about panama papers and prominent Kiwis re Tuesday.

      Reply
    • patupaiarehe

       /  6th May 2016

      As much as it irritates me that my reply to ‘eliza’ has gone, I see that her reply to my first comment has vanished too.

      A reminder – if I’m busy and there are things I want to address I may park comments until I get the time to do that

      Looking forward to it Pete

      Reply
  11. Ok, Eliza M. A number of things simply don’t stack up, and other things line up. This has been obvious for a while, and not just observed by me, but became more obvious today.

    Some of the explanations made sound like common troll lines.

    I think bringing up honesty is interesting. And suddenly jumping back to ‘unfinished business’ involving Lilly Franks that in turn jumps back to ‘unfinished business’ involving Mr Man is curious and unusual behaviour for someone who claims to be new, and coincidentally similar behaviour to what has been seen here before.

    I disagree with some of the claims made but I don’t have any inclination to debate it here.

    There’s more that I can’t disclose accept that there are obvious attempts to hide things but even on the surface there’s too many coincidences and familiar lines to not be suspicious with good reason of who and why.

    I’ve asked for assurances in the past of certain people but that has been ignored and attempts have been made to carry on regardless and try to find ways of trying to stir certain things up and to deliberately try and disrupt this site.

    Eliza M, being put in auto-moderation is not a ban, it’s a signal for some honest and credible assurances if you want to continue commenting here. It may be unfortunate for you but I’ve been dicked around too many times in the past by malicious people to not put the good of the site before the agendas of some individuals.

    One of the ideals aimed for here is free speech but it doesn’t give people an unrestricted opportunity for free shots.

    Reply
    • Conspiratoor

       /  6th May 2016

      There are so few commenters here that any new ones stick out like dogs balls. With all the history I’m sure we all wonder whether evil intent lies therein. Eliza sent my antenna skyward with her first random post about Maori bashing. I responded with a rebuke and waited in vain for a rejoinder. Hmmm I thought at the time. Game on again

      Reply
      • patupaiarehe

         /  6th May 2016

        Yes Conspiratoor, did something similar myself, with the same result……
        It will be VERY interesting to see what is revealed on Tuesday afternoon…….

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: