Open Forum – Sunday

2 September 2018

Forum

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.Comments from other forums can be repeated here, cut and paste is fine.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

FIRST TIME COMMENTERS: Due to abuse by a few first comments under any ID will park in moderation until released (as soon as possible but it can sometimes take a while).

Sometimes comments will go into moderation or spam automatically due to mistyped ID, too many links (>4), or trigger text or other at risk criteria.

Free speech is an important principle here but some people who might pose a risk to the site may be limited.

Next Post

57 Comments

    • Gezza

       /  September 2, 2018

      I saw on aljaz tv last night that Ivanka and Jared were there though.

    • Corky

       /  September 2, 2018

      I’m sure President Trumpy was more worried about his…golf handicap. Why, apart from McCain, would he want to be surrounded by do-nothing losers? Hell, did you see Bill Clinton at Aretha Franklins funeral? At one stage it looked like he’d fall off his chair while trying to prop his head up. Trumpy doesn’t need that nonsense.

      • David

         /  September 2, 2018

        Billy Clinton was giving Ariana Grande his fullest attention, the guy is a bloody reprobate.

        • Corky

           /  September 2, 2018

          Oh, I missed that. Obviously that adrenaline rush and what’s left of his testosterone, saved the day and his pride.

          • David

             /  September 2, 2018

            The Pastor grabbed her boob and quipped she sounded like an item off the Taco Bell menu, different sort of an event.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 2, 2018

              If that was her boob, it was in a very odd place. Most of us have our boobs in front, not at the side.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 2, 2018

              You’d have to have a very dirty mind to see a hand around a waist as grabbing a boob when the hand was not even on the boob.

            • Gezza

               /  September 2, 2018

              Perverts, Kitty.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 2, 2018

              I’ll say, Looking at boobs at a funeral is very vulgar.Fantasising that a hand is around one is seriously bizarre.

  1. David

     /  September 2, 2018

    Our fearless crusading deputy PM who has spent his career calling out dodgy dealings from MPs had a $600 a head fundraiser for the racing industry the day before the official release of his report into how much taxpayers are tipping into the horse racing industry.
    The man is totally shameless.

    • duperez

       /  September 2, 2018

      The man is totally shameless? He should front up, look directly at the camera and say, “It’s the cost of doing business.”

      I saw Simon Bridges do that a couple of weeks back. It worked.

  2. robertguyton

     /  September 2, 2018

    “But the report by Simon Upton has come down heavily against methane.

    “If New Zealand were to hold its livestock methane emissions constant at 2016 levels, the amount of methane in the atmosphere due to those emissions would level out within a decade,” Mr Upton wrote.

    “But warming from this methane would still increase for well over a century, albeit at a gradually declining rate.

    “This … is largely due to the inertia of the climate system, which is still responding to the historical increase in methane emissions from New Zealand since the 19th century.

    “It would take several hundred years of constant methane emissions before warming due to those emissions ceases to increase entirely.””
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/country/365317/farmers-face-pressure-under-climate-change-legislation

    • David

       /  September 2, 2018

      Where is the reference to the offset in carbon emissions from our pasture based system ? Uptons assessments are based on computer modelling and when was the last time one of those got it even remotely correct, always subject to the programmers bias and the chances of getting work as an objective programmer is zero.
      The taxpayer is funding research which I understand is making progress into reducing methane so why do zealot fools come in over the top with hair raising predictions of gloom and turn every moderate (90% of the population) off.

      • robertguyton

         /  September 2, 2018

        Why? Because it’s as obvious as the nose on your face: methane is significantly contributing to warming and we’re producing more than is safe.

        • David

           /  September 2, 2018

          I understand that methane is a very small contributor and breaks down pretty quickly but I am all for reducing any emissions I just dont get why everything has to be portrayed as end of days and dramatic action is needed immediately before we disappear under 10 metres of sea level rises because Bessy the cow farted.

          • robertguyton

             /  September 2, 2018

            Methane is a far more serious issue than Co2 and its use can be “reined in” by taking action immediately. I’m guessing you can’t see the irony in your claim that others are playing the “Drama” card – “dramatic action is needed immediately before we disappear under 10 metres of sea level rises because Bessy the cow farted.”

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 2, 2018

      Upton is the dick head who bequeathed us Palmer’s RMA. Now he is having a second attempt to make us poorer. More fool us if we swallow it. Cow methane is a pure natural carbon cycle. It is the epitome of sustainability. Environmentalists should love it.

      • Blazer

         /  September 2, 2018

        just as right wingers love…bull shit…au naturelle.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 2, 2018

          Cows, sheep and all animals have been farting for millions of years, Why is it causing problems now, when it never did before ?

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  September 2, 2018

            Hoof-hearted PDTs,

          • robertguyton

             /  September 2, 2018

            Because our ruminants are being fed pimped-up, sugar-high, nitrate drenched super grasses that produce methane beyond anything wild bison or buffalo make – belching, not farting (don’t buy the Fed Farmers silly hype).

  3. robertguyton

     /  September 2, 2018

    “It feels like Labour’s turned a corner. Finally, the party looks like it knows what it’s doing in government.

    Which is a weird thing to say. Because the past week and a half has been rotten for Labour. Two ministers down. Business confidence still in free fall.

    But these things happen. Things go wrong. It’s not those events that define a government as much as how that government responds.”
    HDP

    • David

       /  September 2, 2018

      It was a strange opinion piece, when Ardern went on leave things seemed to settle and were ok until this week which was a shocker. I think the response to the two cabinet ministers was the absolute minimum and hardly strong, not releasing the summer camp inquiry was weak and the speech to the business bods and appointing Luxon was just lip service.
      HDPA has been pretty tough on this government for less I am curious as to why she has gone in to bat for Ardern.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 2, 2018

      Yes, it is a weird thing to say. Presumably click bait then.

      • David

         /  September 2, 2018

        Either that or she felt that Jacinda needed some sisterly support, she appeared like she needed it and Tracy Watkins and Audrey Young had swung in already..its all quite sweet really.

  4. Corky

     /  September 2, 2018

    I see the Aussies are trialing a robot that seeks out and destroys a reef killing starfish with a dose of vinegar. Great stuff. Why not use similar technology to patrol beaches against sharks? That may save many lives.

    Quote: from article regarding this starfish.

    ”Responsible for approximately 40 percent of the Great Barrier Reef’s total decline in coral cover.”

    Hold on, what am I missing here?

    https://newatlas.com/aquatic-robot-autonomous-killer-starfish-barrier-reef/39254/

    • Blazer

       /  September 2, 2018

      do the right still want to drill the Great Barrier Reef for oil…you know it …makes sense… 😦

      • Corky

         /  September 2, 2018

        No, nice try..but that’s not what I’m missing.

      • Griff.

         /  September 2, 2018


        Anyone want to take a stab were corky is ?

        • Corky

           /  September 2, 2018

          I think you have me mixed up someone else well known on this blog. But, no, Griff. As usual you become confused by the material you post. Graphs seem to be your downfall.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 2, 2018

            I think Griff and I are on opposite ends of that graph.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 2, 2018

              Good luck with killing sharks by squirting vinegar at them 😀 😀 😀

            • Gezza

               /  September 2, 2018

              Yes indeed. Not to mention a quick observation of their relative speeds of the robot submersible, the startfish, and your average shark, suggests the idea is hopelessly doomed.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 2, 2018

              People put vinegar on chips, but I haven’t heard of it being used on fish !

            • Corky

               /  September 2, 2018

              To true, Alan.

              Alan- x( p-x)3= Zenda co-efficient of X.”It’s rather complicated, Griff!”
              Griff- Huh? Zenda is a girls name.
              Corky- You gave it your best shot,son.

            • Corky

               /  September 2, 2018

              ”Good luck with killing sharks by squirting vinegar at them 😀 😀 😀”

              Not the brightest spark in the firmament, are you Kitty. Of course modifications would have to be made. We know( well just me in this case)that many shark species hate sounds of a certain frequency.The possibility also exists to turn a drone into an electric cattle prod.(just try to grasp the basic principle). That isn’t a literal suggestion.

              ”People put vinegar on chips, but I haven’t heard of it being used on fish !”
              Well, neither have I.That makes two of us.

            • Gezza

               /  September 2, 2018

              Good point. Playing rap music at them might make them clear off.

            • Corky

               /  September 2, 2018

              A frequency different to rap music. However, my suggestion of a prod would be the way to go.

            • Corky

               /  September 2, 2018

              ”People put vinegar on chips, but I haven’t heard of it being used on fish !”

              Yes, that’s why you always put the fish to one side.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 2, 2018

      Seems to be an idiot and unable to count as well. The Aus govt seems to have shot itself in both feet and is now targeting its own kneecaps.

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  September 2, 2018

    I like this decision. The High Court rules that Immigration cannot apply arbitrary rules inhumanely. That is a welcome restraint on the excessive powers we have given to border protection:
    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/106762655/high-court-sets-aside-decision-to-deny-intellectually-disabled-woman-new-zealand-residency

    • Pickled Possum

       /  September 2, 2018

      Yes, Al that decision is soo humane.

    • Gezza

       /  September 2, 2018

      More to that case than meets the eye I think.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  September 2, 2018

        Surely Crown lawyers would have fully canvassed their case?

        • Gezza

           /  September 2, 2018

          Obviously. They must have defended it. The Immigration & Protection Tribunal is most likely comprised of lawyers too & it upheld INZ’s decision. There’s enuf in that stuff article to make me curious. The lady’s husband is not the daughter’s father. How long was she here before they were married? Was the situation with the daughter known beforehand? If they’d been a couple both applying for immigration from outside would they have been approved as the daughter would likely be a demand on scarce health services here. There’s more to that case than just what’s reported, I’m sure of it.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 2, 2018

            Yes, but that surely was put to the court.

            • Gezza

               /  September 2, 2018

              The Court found a material error had been made & referred the case back to the Minister for a decision, possibly with directions. The article is insufficient to understand the entirety of the decision. The Court has no power to decide this case.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 2, 2018

              It had the power to overturn a decision it doesn’t like so indirectly it can decide it.

            • Gezza

               /  September 2, 2018

              No it can’t. The decision will now be the MInister’s. The Court can only identify what it considers to be an error in the process & how it was decided, set that decision aside, and require that the case be considered again and say what must be taken into consideration.

              The Minister will now decide the case. The Court cannot direct him as to what that decision should be & will not have done so. The Court is most likely unable to review that decision. INZ could even decide to appeal the decision if the implications for other cases are problematic.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 2, 2018

              I think they would have to win an appeal before the Minister could deny the visas now. If he did his decision could be challenged on the same basis.

            • Gezza

               /  September 2, 2018

              The Minister will likely approve the visas, but cannot be directed to. Only to make his decision ion the case having regard to whatever other matter(s) the Court says were considered or were not properly considered. To understand the background to this case properly I would want to see the IPT decision & the High Court decision. I certainly wouldn’t take a stuff staff writer’s article as of any use for that.

            • Gezza

               /  September 2, 2018

              *were not considered, or were not properly considered

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 2, 2018

              The point the court has introduced is that rules cannot be applied inhumanely. Unless that is overturned on appeal it remains a safeguard for applicants

  6. lurcher1948

     /  September 2, 2018

    Let’s just say, Donald Trump POTUS # 45 doesn’t always write down the correct…score,
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6356838/donald-trump-golf-handicap-courses-swing/

  7. lurcher1948

     /  September 2, 2018

    SOME LIKE IT HOT…well i do