Message to The Standard

I had a wee dabble at The Standard yesterday, and was on the receiving end (again) of it’s resident dirty attacks. Some of it is so pathetic it is hilarious – at one stage I was called a liar for posting a published poll result but not linking to what eventually turned out to be a completely irrelevant poll – that is with ‘adam’ here.

Other dirty activists had attacked as usual – in particular the regulars ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ and Robert Guyton who happen to be Green supporters (and have been doing it for years), and also the ever bitter ‘marty mars’ who doesn’t seem to have a party extreme enough to support these days.

So I responded, and as ‘weka’ (another Green supporter) is likely to waste her time doing something in response I’ll also repeat it here.

I think it’s worth repeating this (in Open Mike 06/08/2017) here, a response to marty mars: (on another thread where it happened):

“contributes to a toxic environment for the left here with his incessant fault finding and attack posts against the left”

Very funny – or do you actually believe that?

I only occasionally post here. You and a few others frequently post here, creating a toxic environment of the left, attacking many people you judge to not be suitably left, or something.

You (collectively) deter far more people from voting left than i ever will, because they are not the right sort of left for you, not left enough, or just that you make an ill-informed judgement.

I first came to The Standard thinking it would be a good place to join in the rebuilding of Labour after Clark lost in 2008 and then departed Parliament. I was mistaken. This has been a toxic, small minded, dirty unwelcoming place.

There are good people here, and interesting comments at times, but it has been dominated by persistent petty regulars who burn off anyone deemed some sort of enemy.

It has changed, probably because more moderate centre-ish people have been driven away or can’t be bothered with the toxicity.

What is obvious now that, while there may be a few Labour try-hards, the dirty politics here is now dominated by non-Labour supporters like marty mars, OAB, Robert Guyton, who all regularly and persistently attack anyone deemed some sort of enemy.

It’s pathetic, and it’s counter productive. Even if there is some intent to drive off potential Labour voters that is cutting off your nose to spite your face, and certainly won’t encourage people to vote Green or Mana.

This is a toxic environment without me, I just pop in occasionally to see if anything has changed. Obviously not.

I’ve voted both Green and Labour, but I and I think many others who pass by here certainly wouldn’t encouraged to do so again by the bitter and twisted attack dweebs who dominate threads here.

Ardern and Davis have given the first sign in a decade that Labour may be able to climb back into prominence again. But it looks like they will struggle to get any help here with so much toxic self destruction further to the left going on.

If Labour supporters (and anyone genuinely wanting a change of government) want to do something positive to rebuild the party they should stand up more to the crap perpetuated by a few spoilers here.

Standard abuse, same old

Only at The Standard – yesterday I engaged in a bit of discussion (with a Standard moderator) there about the Roy Morgan poll, and OAB jumped in with a typical and deliberately disruptive attack, a game they play often.

One Anonymous Bloke 


Not fucking your pet goat would be a start.

I quoted site rules “What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.”

That intolerance is very selective.

One Anonymous Bloke

Step away from the goat and pull your pants up.

It’s a metaphor for your relentless weasel negativity and rank nauseating hypocrisy.

Typical irony, given OAB’s record of weasel negativity and hypocrisy.

Then Weka stepped in as moderator and gave OAB some advice on being attacking better.

[I know you see yourself as the frontline rapid attack dog against the RW trolls, but when you start scaring away the cats who are here for the debate (or to play with the mouse), or when you are leaving your dogshit lying around, then there is a problem. You are quite capable of ripping apart RW arguments, so how about you put some effort in.]

And I was told off for responding…

[did you see the moderator warning to you yesterday? By all means engage in escalating a fight with OAB (or anyone) and see how I feel about wasting moderator time – weka]

..and got blamed for ‘escalating a fight’. So I replied:

Weka – I saw your ‘moderator warning’ and responded. So you are blaming me for “escalating a fight” because I pointed out the site rules you asked me to check out yesterday?

Are you suggesting that if attacked here people should do nothing about it?

“in escalating a fight with OAB”, warned about wasting moderator time “don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out” and banned for a day. OAB was also banned for a day but had achieved their objective with weka’s support they have both openly discussed baiting and banning people they don’t like.

Te Reo Putake also tacitly endorsed OAB’s attacks and put the blame on me:

[Give it a rest, Pete. You’ve been around long enough to know you’re heading rapidly toward self martyrdom. No more, please. TRP]

And weka went further, banning me.

[no Pete, I’m saying don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out. If you don’t know what that means then err on the side of caution. You can now take the rest of the day off – weka]

I thought The Standard may have improved a bit but this shows their selective moderation is as bad as ever – some of their moderators are a part of the game. They’re enforcing a ‘don’t complain about being harassed or we’ll ban you’ rule.

TRP is a Labour supporter, weka is a Green supporter. They seem to have a Memorandum of Understanding with OAB that personal attacks are moderator supported behaviour at The Standard, and if you react you will be blamed and may be banned.

This had followed me commenting the previous day on Labour’s conference and their use of social media. Again I had engaged in a discussion with a Standard moderator when weka stepped in.

[There seems to be an implication there that The Standard is connected to the Labour Party organisation. As you well know it’s not, and I don’t care what you now assert about your comment, the implication is still there. Given your substantial history of asserting that there is a connection, and your history of walking the edge of the commenting rules here, I’m going to err on the side of caution and make this a warning. Have a think about the site rules, including the bit about wasting moderator time. – weka]

I responded:

Weka – you are reading something into my comments that wasn’t there. There are usually posts here about Labour conferences so I thought there might be something here about it – as there later was.

There are often posts here about specific Labour Party matters, like conferences. Some of the authors and some of the regular commenters have obvious and open links to Labour. That doesn’t make this a Labour Party website, it’s not, but it’s well known as one with some Labour content. And Green content, and Mana content, and other content.

If a moderator chooses to waste their time they can pretty much pick on anything they like to warn or ban. That’s your call of course. To clarify, are you warning me to not mention Labour here in case someone interprets it as something more than it is?

After yesterday’s exchange weka came back to this:

[no, I’m suggesting you grow some social intelligence and understand that your long history here affects how people interpret your comments, including your history of implying and/or telling lies about the connections between the authors, the site and political parties. IME, you are an expert in riding the edge of the rules to avoid bans but still manage to substantially disrupt the community. But thanks for pointing me back to this from the other thread, more than happy to moderate on the basis of self-martydom so I don’t have to deal with this shit for another week (and a day on top of the other ban) – weka].

Social intelligence – funny.

She accuses me of telling lies but makes things up. I don’t intend to ‘disrupt the community’. There is a history of ‘the community’ – of which weka has been a prominent player – creating disruptions as an excuse to give moderators an excuse to ‘waste their time’ so they can justify a ban. She’s a bit vague but that looks like an extended ban.

Petty and pathetic but that’s how some of them keep playing  it. And the credibility of The Standard as a serious political forum suffers, as does the credibility of the parties associated with those nasty and exclusionary practices.

Standard practice at The Standard.

I think that the bans are, in part at least, preventing any defence of their attacks. Weka is  making things up, and doesn’t have to courage to allow any challenges.

Chester Borrows charged

National MP for Whanganui Chester Borrows has been charged with had been charged with careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury to two people following an incident in March where Borrows ran over the foot of a TPP protester – see Foot runneth over.

Stuff: MP Chester Borrows charged over protester incident

Former police officer and National MP for Whanganui Chester Borrows is being charged over allegations he drove into a group of protesters.

Under section 38 of the Land Transport Act, the maximum penalty for careless driving causing injury is three months’ jail, or a fine of up to $4500.

An MP must resign from Parliament if convicted of a crime with a maximum penalty of two or more years’ jail time

So whatever the outcome it won’t force a resignation.

Borrows’ first appearance would be on Tuesday, August 2, in the Whanganui District Court. 

“Mr Borrows intends to defend the charge and says he will be making no further comment as the matter is before the court,” a statement from him said.

There’s been some interesting comment on this at The Standard in Borrows charged for injuring protestors.

Some of the comments are typically ridiculous, like the lead comment by ‘One Anonymous Bloke’:

Hard not to be cynical about the fact that the charge makes a by-election unlikely. Or is it more a case of no-one who has a public difference of opinion with Oravida Collins is above the law?

I can play at insinuations too. The post was under the authorship of ‘Natwatch’. One Anonymous Bloke was quick off the mark, first to comment, and had a lot of interest in the discussion, posting 30 of the 103 comments (to date).

A debate about the right to protest versus the right of free passage came up, with OAB prominent both in dumping on Borrows but also in abusing people who challenged their messages. Like:

One Anonymous Bloke:

Observation isn’t your strong point: the protesters were on a footpath (yes, they were). I suggest you remove your bullshit-smeared right wing facemask and have a look at the photos.

Even if they’d been on a road, the police response to the TPPA protests – ie: to allow them – shows exactly how grounded in reality your lickspittle opinion is.

Psycho Milt:

Being on a footpath and/or being a protestor doesn’t magically endow you with the right to obstruct a vehicle entrance or other public way. That’s why the cops will come along and tell you to fuck off. Also why they’ll drag you out of the way and arrest you if you don’t. Borrows’ offence was more serious than the protestors and resulted in injury, which is presumably why he’s been charged, but both parties were committing offences.

Seems like a fair comment and seems to sum up the situation well.

One Anonymous Bloke:

@Psycho Milt: I’d like to see the argument in court. They weren’t obstructing a right of way they were expressing their disapproval of government policy.

Borrows and Bennett aren’t Joe Public going about their lawful business. They’re ministers of the Crown ripping the guts out of this country.

They have every right to expect hostility, obstruction and contempt wherever they go. Diddums.

Further on Psycho Milt addresses the law:

they are standing on the footpath- look up rules about cars and footpaths

Yes, do look up the rules, for instance the Summary Offences Act 1981:

“22 Obstructing public way

(1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any public way and, having been warned by a constable to desist,—

(a) continues with that obstruction; or

(b) does desist from that obstruction but subsequently obstructs that public way again, or some other public way in the same vicinity, in circumstances in which it is reasonable to deem the warning to have applied to the new obstruction as well as the original one.

(2) In this section—

obstructs, in relation to a public way, means unreasonably impedes normal passage along that way

public way means every road, street, path, mall, arcade, or other way over which the public has the right to pass and repass.”

A further exchange with William:

But the protesters haven’t been charged with an offence under the Summary Offences Act, so that’s all irrelevant.

Possibly the police examined whether that would have been a goer but observed the constable didn’t warn them to desist, he merely ushered them to the side. They were moving there when silly old Chester drove on through before the way was clear.

Psycho Milt:

It’s not irrelevant to the implied claim in 5.1 and 5.1.1 that the protesters had the right to block the footpath – the Summary Offences Act makes it clear that they didn’t.

And just in case that particular logic fail comes up again: no the fact that the protesters were illegally obstructing a public way doesn’t imply Borrows had a right to drive into them.


Read the section of the act you quoted. It doesn’t create an offence of blocking a public way, only of unreasonably blocking it. The corollary of that is that it is possible to block it in a reasonable manner, which is not an offence.

Watch the video, the blockage lasts no more than 15 secs before they’ve moved aside. I don’t envy you arguing in a court that they created an unreasonable blockage.

Psycho Milt:

The concept that you have a right to obstruct a public way if you want to is as bizarre, if not quite so scarily insane, as the Kiwiblog commenters’ view that you have a right to run people over if they’re in your way.

For future reference, no it’s not “reasonable” to deliberately obstruct other people, regardless of how long you do it for or what you personally feel about the people you’re obstructing, and yes you can be arrested for it.

For a different take Te Reo Putake is a tad contrarian (the the standard bashing):

If I can be a tad contrarian , I can see a couple of points worth making about the debate so far.

First up, the protesters were not pedestrians. They weren’t using the footpath for the purposes of travel. Having been on about a zillion protests and pickets (and having organised a good percentage of the same), I can assure readers that blocking driveways isn’t legal. But it is terrific fun.

Secondly, Borrows is actually one of the better Tory MP’s. He’s an old fashioned kind of Nat and tries to behave decently. He’s also publicly anti-racist. That combination possibly explains why he has never been given senior posts by Key and Joyce.

If the Whanganui seat was redrawn to reflect the wishes and needs of the town and district, he wouldn’t be the MP. The excellent Hamish McDouall would be instead. But the electorate is gerrymandered so that the urban majority are disenfranchised in favour of the Taranaki rump. So, a by-election would be likely to return a Nat MP, which is a boost I don’t think they deserve, So lets be careful what we wish for there.

For all of the above, Borrows has broken the law and deserves a conviction. However, I wonder if he’ll be offered diversion, as I imagine this will be his first serious offence (other than a speeding ticket a few years ago)

A good comment despite a bit of political snark, and quite a contrast to the OAB approach.

OAB abuse and harassment continued

The Standard Rules begin:

We encourage robust debate and we’re tolerant of dissenting views. But this site run for reasonably rational debate between dissenting viewpoints and we intend to keep it operating that way.

What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.

But ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ seems to be exempt from rules there. This is from just one thread yesterday:

Norway, you tiresome fuckwit.


Yes: social democracy is the most successful political system that has ever been tried. Your flaccid attempts to smear say something about you and nothing whatsoever about your targets.

It’s worthless and tiresome and a perfect expression of everything the National Party represents.


Your allegation is a smear, motivated by hate, which has left you so twisted by bias you can’t even find a list of social democracies.

Irony that OAB may be oblivious to.

That’s funny, coming from someone whose fatuous smears are copied directly from Gosman.

More irony.

When did you stop pashing Augusto Pinochet’s corpse?

You see how this works? Shall we have a “debate” according to your witless point-scoring wank system? You seem to think you can demand answers of people, and I’m here to tell you that Pinochet pashers like you deserve jack shit.


How typical of a Pinochet pasher to hate a system that increases literacy and decreases child mortality. I guess literate healthy people are harder to abduct and torture to death.


It’s very simple: do you support throwing people out of helicopters into the sea? And when did you stop fucking your pet pig?

Is this witless pigfucker argument the best you can do, Pinochet-pasher?

Speaking of cancelling election results, ECAN. Do you support the anti-democratic actions of the NZ Prime Minister? You do, don’t you: so you’re in no position to be looking askance at Venezuela, because you support a government that appoints cronies, cancels elections, and can’t even get literacy and child mortality right. You poxy hypocrite.

Meanwhile, the NZ Left has lots in common with social democrats the world over, and you haven’t got an answer to that other than to support torturers.


I’ve got nothing to say to a Pinochet pashing, election cancelling torture lover like you.

And the targeted harassment spreads across multiple posts. Also from yesterday:

One Anonymous Bloke

Possibly you’re a delusional lying piece of shit who thinks nothing of casual defamation.

This type of persistent harassment and abuse from OAB is typical, with impunity from the site rules. “What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others” – except that they are prepared to accept this behaviour on an ongoing basis.

But perhaps OAB attacks aren’t pointless – the whole point of their presence at The Standard seems to be to with the intention of “excluding others”.

That’s sad, particularly as The Standard is one of the most prominent left wing forums.”We’re tolerant of dissenting views” is contradicted by regular behaviour to the contrary, particularly from One Anonymous Bloke.

It’s a bad look for left wing politics in New Zealand.

One Abusive Anonymous Bloke

One Abusive Anonymous Bloke, one toxic forum, a poor advertisement for ‘the labour left’.

There were generally some very good discussions at The Standard on Little: Labour to Defy TPPA.

However one of the most negative aspects of The Standard was also on display – one of their resident trolls, ‘One Anonymous Bloke’. They (their gender is uncertain) have a history of persistent personal attacks that are a major factor in The Standard being seen as an abusive toxic forum weighted heavily in favour of long term abusers.

‘One Anonymous Bloke’ chose to target one person, as has been their habit for years.  In one thread here are all their responses to ‘acrophobic’


Liar – the GST increase more than clawed back the income tax cut.

Why do you tell so many lies?


Something can be highly unlikely because it’s prevented by the Greens’ rules, to whit: Green Party members would have to forget that the National Party is a slow civil war upon New Zealand in order to go into coalition with them.

I expect you to fail to understand that, like a:

a: failure or,
b: liar.

Which is it?


Yes, by removing the first part of my comment, you can produce a quote that makes it look as though I said something different.

Are these sort of Kindergarten pratfalls the best you can do?

Yes, they are.

“By removing the first part of my comment, you can produce a quote that makes it look as though I said something different” is very ironic given OAB’s habit of doing just that.


Misrepresenting what Weka said too, eh Wormtongue.


Too funny: fish, meet barrel.


Labour controls the weather. You need to get out more.


Of course there isn’t, you dimwit, since the TPPA is not in force all we have to go on is informed opinion (which doesn’t include yours).

The lying Prime Minister says the government (ie: taxpayers – again not you, you’re a drain on society) will fund the extra costs to keep the retail price of medicines unchanged.

If you had a clue you’d know that, and you don’t.


I have plenty of clues, moran, not that you’ve provided any. For example, Northshoredoc is a better source on this subject: a better wingnut than you’ll ever be.


Are you dense as well as dishonest? What part of all we have to go on is informed opinion are you having trouble with?


You can call it what you like, and that says something about you. You Tory wankers want to restrain my trade to satisfy your Yankee crush: do it on your own dime, shitheel.


Criticising National Party sycophancy is not xenophobia.

If you don’t know how the TPPA restrains trade you haven’t been paying attention.


Please explain why you’re contradicting your lying Prime Minister. Do you think the lying Prime Minister is lying, or are you:

a: Lying or,
b: Running off at the mouth in incompetent ignorance for which you will demonstrate no personal responsibility.

Which is it Glibertard?


I am, liar.

Why do you tell so many lies? Can we charitably assume that you tell so many lies because you’re utterly devoid of original thoughts or opinions, or are you in fact a mendacious wretch, like the Prime Minister?


Your rote-learned lies (all of them) on the Greenhouse Effect are lies. Your rote-learned lies on Lab5’s economic competence are lies (note that I’m not saying Lab5 were economically competent, just that the rote learned lies you tell on the subject are lies). Your rote-learned lies about poverty, are lies.

Your rote-learned lies about the TPPA, are lies.

Even Bill English contradicts your rote-learned lies. Even the lying Prime Minister contradicts your rote-learned lies when it suits him.

Why is that?


I already have, multiple times, on multiple threads. “This is the rainy day the government has been saving up for” ring any bells?

Your lies about welfare have been debunked so many times by so many people – check out Werewolf’s ten myths about welfare and see how many boxes you tick – pretty sure it’s all of them.

Your lies about the Greenhouse Effect come straight from the list of denier lies, as can be seen by cross-reference with Skeptical Science.

I’m inclined to be charitable and assume that you believe these lies because you’re biased and stupid, rather than that you’re deliberately mendacious, but really, who cares: kids are still dying while you tell them.


For example: “many living in poverty do so because of poor choices”

All you’ve offered in support of this vile hate speech is to confess your disgusting betrayal of people who’ve turned to you for help.

Lie number one. I’ve referred to others above.

This is typical behaviour of ‘One Anonymous Bloke’, targeted personal attacks and attempts to discredit someone they choose to try and drive away. I’ve seen them do it frequently and have been on the receiving end.

They have been allowed to continue like this for years with little or no challenge from Standard moderators. It is accepted behaviour, it’s even encouraged. And it is onbe of the main reasons why The Standard is seen as a toxic forum that reflects poorly on ‘the labour left’ and by association, on Labour.

At the end of the thread One Anonymous Bloke’s behaviour was challenged:


Easy to tell when [deleted] has been proved a liar…it gets very abusive.
Good on you doubt you will get slapped with a ban shortly for a few inconvenient truths however.

[You’re a sad wee misogynist, Mark. People don’t get banned here for inconvenient truths, and even if they were, I don’t see much truth in anything acrophobic has written anyway, so if a ban comes, it won’t be on those grounds. TRP]

You have some assumption about a word I used?
OAB gets to abuse anyone exposing his/her/it’s nastiness & lies, anyone else gets a petty little telling off.
The utter failure, nastiness, hypocracy & dishonesty of the Left exposed in just a few comments.

[Two words, Mark. I left the word “it” undeleted, just so the readers can get an idea of how you see women. TRP]

TRP targets the use of ‘it’ while supporting OAB’s persistent personal attacks. Unfortunately this is also typical of The Standard standard.

And under protection of site moderation One Anonymous Bloke continued:

My challenge to Acrophobic is very simple: to produce evidence – not personal anecdotes or assertions – of the right wing dogma they have learned so well.

Where Bill English and the Prime Minister contradict their assertions, I feel confident in calling them lies. Where the academies of science of every country that has an academy of science contradicts the right wing dogma they have learned so well, I feel confident in calling them lies.

When Epidemiology contradicts the right wing dogma they have learned so well, I feel confident in calling them lies too.

If you don’t like that, get some personal responsibility and rebut my criticisms. Why am I obliged to tolerate or be polite in the face of lies in politics?

acrophobia responded:


1. You think lied because I apparently contradict something John Key says yet you call John Key a liar?
2. You think I lied because I question some notion you have of scientific consensus. You do realise that challenging scientific theory is not only an exercise in free speech it is also part of the scientific method? Would you have accused Galileo of ‘lying’ for opposing the prevailing consensus that the earth was the centre of the universe?

If you made any criticisms of worth I would be happy to engage. Instead you resort to ad-hominem almost from the get-go, accompanied by a flurry of irrational diatribe.

My challenge to you is simple. Quote a single instance where I have lied. Just one.

One Anonymous Bloke #17:

For example: “many living in poverty do so because of poor choices”

All you’ve offered in support of this vile hate speech is to confess your disgusting betrayal of people who’ve turned to you for help.

Lie number one. I’ve referred to others above.

It’s ridiculous to call that a lie, but that’s how One Anonymous Bloke ‘argues’ against things they (presumably) disagree with, repeated accusations of lying.

This disagreement by abuse is sadly common from the left and on The Standard.

One Abusive Anonymous Bloke sadly sums up the state of left wing debate. It is also one of the most negative aspects of The Standard and it has been their trademark for years.

How responsible is the Government for ‘safe’ houses?

Cold damp houses and deaths of people, particularly infants, have caused a lot of consternation. Some go as far as directly blaming the Government for deaths like this.

How responsible is the Government? They can’t be blamed for every death from any cause.

A guest post at The Standard looks at The Responsibilities of Government.

The death of Emma-Lita Bourne is not just a personal tragedy for the family: it is an event that should make New Zealand angry with the powerful people in our society who control the purse strings. They are responsible for condemning thousands of children to life-threatening conditions. And they are doing it in our name.

The reliable public health evidence is clear: poor housing conditions cause premature mortality. Our policy makers know that; those who decide on where public money should be spent know that; and yet too many of us simply shrug, express our heartfelt sympathies, and leave it at that. Well, we should be angry and we should be insistent on speedy change.

Fair enough to debate how much more should be done and how much more should be spent on safer housing. Alongside safer roads, safer workplaces, better medical and hospital care etc etc.

Politicians of the last few decades have presided over a significant increase in the wealth of the nation. As a result we have a very comfortable middle class. But a nation that harps on about its vanguard role in socially progressive developments in legal frameworks and its egalitarian ethos has become very unbalanced in its distribution of this considerable wealth. Those at the poorer ends of society have in fact gone backwards. Result: children die in mouldy and uncarpeted houses owned by us.

Some of this is questionable. For example carpeted houses can be less safe for some people than un-carpeted houses as carpets can harbour allergenic material.

I haven’t seen anyone analyse the state of housing now compared to say fifty years ago, when insulation was rare. Housing must surely be better generally for most people than it was a hundred years ago.

But we need to look at things as they stand now, and how we can do better.

It is time to recall one of the socially progressive developments where we were leaders rather than followers. New Zealand played a major role in ensuring coverage of economic and social rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This totemic document of the United Nations, designed as the blue-print for the rebuilding of societies destroyed by eugenic ideas that some people were of lesser worth, sets out in Article 25 that all people have the right to an adequate standard of living. It’s a right with a purpose: to allow people to provide for the health and well-being of themselves and their family.

It’s all very well saying “an adequate standard of living” is a right but perfect living conditions for everyone cannot be provided, even if it could be defined.

What about the right to let people choose their own standard of living? People can’t be forced to comply with certain living standards.

In fact, it isn’t just a matter of economic rights. It is actually a matter of the right to life.

That’s idealistic. We have certain rights to life but can’t have guarantees, except for the guarantee that we will all end up dying.

The state obligation is to take steps whenever it is aware that death is risked that can be avoided.

That is totally unrealistic. Should we ban anything that risks death? Ban mountaineering? Ban swimming and boating? Ban all sports and recreation? Ban all unsafe workplaces? Sitting in an office all day is supposed to have health risks.

It’s totally unrealistic to expect we can have 100% safe roads.

It’s also unrealistic to expect we can have 100% safe houses.

Even basics like coldness and dampness on houses have significant problems. My house is cold if i don’t heat it enough. It is damp and it gets mouldy if I don’t ventilate it enough.

So our officials cannot just stand by. Safeguarding the many children like Emma-Lita Bourne is not just in the nice to have basket: it’s in the need to have basket. Any avoidable and entirely preventable death is an absolute tragedy. But when it reveals a situation which we have promised will not be allowed, we should damn well be angry about it. So how should we respond? Well how about we insist on being true to our obligations and, given our proud record of being at the forefront of social progress, true to our values.

Kris Gledhill

Our officials haven’t been just standing by. They generally do as much as they can with as much budget as they can get.

Cold and damp houses haven’t just been created in the last few years. Improvements have been happening – insulation has increased significantly over the past decade.

It’s a very complex issue that can’t be quickly and simply solved. For example you can’t force people to heat and ventilate their homes.

We should be looking at what can be done to improve housing safety more. In a reasonable way.

One of the worst ways to encourage the Government and officials to address it better is to blame and shame them.

But that’s what’s happening. The post by Kris Gledhill means well, with some naivety, but some of the follow up comments are negative, unnecessary and counter-productive.

One Anonymous Bloke:

Arrest those responsible and extradite them to Holland to stand trial at The Hague. Send a message to the centre-right that for human rights abusers, there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

There is no alternative: until they face personal consequences they will keep on killing children.


Their plan this time appears to be to dump social housing on to charities with insufficient resources, and trust that they will leak into the market that way.

Thus causing the mass exodus of families into their cars and trailer parks to die because of the irresponsibility of ministers with no moral compass.

I don’t think that we need to send Nick Smith to the Hague. I’m pretty sure we could deal with him here. I don’t care if we have to pass laws to deal with such people ignoring their direct responsibilities retroactively

Prentice is suggesting retroactive responsibility – does that go back as far as the Clark Government? The Bolger Government?

The Government cannot be held responsible for every death, and it isn’t fair to blame the Government for individual deaths, as sad as those deaths are.

We have a problem – not a new problem but one with new political focus – and we need to look at how we can deal with it better.

But if we prosecute and imprison all MPs whenever anyone dies it’s hard to see how we will make any progress.

Abusing and blaming is one of the most ineffective ways of getting politicians to listen and to act.

The Government has a responsibility to do as much as it can, but that involves juggling priorities. Those who dump on them don’t have to worry about the realities and real difficulties on getting a reasonable balance.

But no matter what the Government does they cannot ensure everyone heats their house adequately, or ventilates their house adequately, or keeps their carpets and beds relatively free of allergens, or budgets effectively, or the many other things that can contribute to a family’s well-being.

A pseudonym protection fallacy

There’s various reasons for maintaining a degree of anonymity online by using a pseudonym but there’s also some far fetched claims about the protection it provides.

One Anonymous Bloke at The Standard claims:

Once authors identities were known, they would be attacked physically and by other means. Abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation, and assault. Attacks on their employers and places of business.

Pseudonymity provides a measure of protection against centre-right thugs.

Lanthanide points out:

Given that a good number of the authors are already publicly known, surely if your claim here is correct, they will already have been suffering physical attacks, abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation and assault?

So, r0b, Lynn, Micky, ever had any of the above happen to you, or is OAB just takings things too far, as usual?

I’ve had more personal abuse and attempts at character assassination from OAB and others hiding behind pseudonyms than from people who openly identify themselves.

I think there’s far more of a problem online from anonymous and pseudonymous abuse than there is of people who’s identities are known.

It’s ironic considering OAB’s record of extensive harassment, lying and attempts to discredit people who comment openly under their identity while they hide behind their pseudonym.

A suggestion to OAB or anyone using a pseudonym – respect the privilege of reasonably free speech and conduct yourself as  you would if writing under your own name.

Be aware that at some stage your identity may become known and that your history could be linked to you.

And don’t be a hypocrite claiming you deserve protection while blatantly attacking others.

What now for waitresses and waiters?

Now that John Key seems to have adequately dealt with his hair pulling embarrassment what now for the focus of the issue, the way waiting staff are treated by customers and by employers?

One waitress has spoken out, but in doing so she created a political shit fight. And she became the target of an offensive defense that tried to paint her as the problem, not the victim.

Sometimes amongst the noise and sheep herding there can be interesting discussions at The Standard.

Mandy Hager’s post Pull the other one… ponytails, minimisation and male privilege is worth reading as a fairly feminine perspective. Perhaps a bit too feminine good/masculine bad but she makes some points worth debating.

On this post is a good comment thread, started by Colonial Rawshark (who’s name is still promoting the hacking of political opponents but that’s another story).

So, after several days of ongoing disgust, outrage, screaming and shouting, what courageous and concrete steps has the Political Left proposed to empower vulnerable and poorly paid service employees and contractors who find themselves in bad work situations?

What gutsy legislation, regulation, unionisation and other changes with real teeth has the Left proposed to enable vulnerable workers to fight back hard against bad treatment by customers, employers and media organisations?

Indeed has there been anything more substantial and concrete than ‘that’s disgusting, disappointing and an indictment of entrenched male power and privilege in our society’? No?

The Left couldn’t even get its shit together in the first day or two after the original story broke to protect the young cafe worker in question. Pitiful.

And IMO it’s exactly why, despite all the quite legitimate anger and indignation expressed, the self proclaimed Left is increasingly irrelevant to voters.

Initially this was attacked in the usual way, albeit moderately to a long time Standard leftie.

Stephanie Rodgers tried to dictate what should be talked about, as she often does.

Speaking of “both obvious and unavoided”, congratulations on completely erasing the key aspect of gender from the issue. On a post about how this issue is explicitly gendered, even!

Why not get outraged about the Left failing to take concrete steps to overthrow male entitlement? What about empowering vulnerable women, wherever they work? (The Roger Sutton case rather aptly showed how sexual harassment in the workplace isn’t limited to cafes.)

But I guess that would be terrible, no-one-cares-about-your-side-issues identity politics, wouldn’t it?

And then there was a branch that attacked Colonial Rawshark for not doing enough about what he was talking about himself. A common ‘attack the messenger’ practice.

But then there was some actual addressing of the issues raised. Redlogix:

Well expressed CV. By allowing the debate to be solely framed in misogynist terms, the Right easily fences the issue off into the feminist ghetto of NZ politics.

Which is sad. It’s way more important than this.

I’ve read Mandy’s excellent OP several times now with care. It’s a powerful piece, it emphasises, not just the idiocy of the PM’s behaviour, but the sickening response of so many to not only minimise it, but to attack the victim as well.

And then like you I’m left wondering ‘what next’? Why is the Left so powerless to act? Why when even something as tiny as Cunliffe expressing shame as a man for the violence perpetrated on women – why was that so readily ridiculed and belittled?

When Mandy writes:

There are also the online comments, proof (as if we needed it) that there is a deep seething underbelly of misogyny out there – and that issues of appropriateness, sexual intimidation, abuse of power and minimization of women’s complaints are not only misunderstood but carry no weight at all to a significant proportion of our population.

I am quite certain this is a subjective truth and reality for Mandy, yet when you are effectively telling half the population that they ‘hate women’ – something has gone badly wrong. This is not a vote winner if nothing else.

After 40 or more years of feminism, why is there so much misunderstanding, suspicion, and downright loathing in some quarters, between the genders? As this incident and it’s attendant blowback has demonstrated – it doesn’t seem to have taken us anywhere constructive.

There’s a good discussion on that, but it includes more attacks and diversions:


“effectively telling half the population that they ‘hate women’ ”
Quite the contrary. I find the article to be one of the more empowering messages on this blog for sometime. Reminding all of us, regardless of gender, politics or circumstance, we are all responsible and necessary as part of the solution, every day

Marty mars:

sadly what tends to happen now imo is that the discussion will be moved, in oh so reasonable and soft tones, into the other areas – this is, imo, cv and reds way of showing they care about the issues raised in the post itself /sarc and of course they get to talk about themselves and their experience which is just so riveting and important /double sarc


Your attempt at silencing and shaming is disgusting.

You’re tactics are no different, and lower than those being used by the Henry’s and Hosking’s of this world.

It’s not often that the common attempts to shut up and shame get called, but as an author Redlogix can get away with it. But not without being challenged:

One Anonymous Bloke:

It’s the violence inherent in the system. You’re being oppressed!


No – marty was doing the derailing thing. Oppression is something altogether different.

But make a joke of it – have a bit of a ‘horse around’ if you like.

Marty mars:

untrue red – I posted a comment to another comment not to you or cv – I did that because I didn’t really want to engage and encourage you to begin the calm dissemination of what you think – I’m not interested, I’d rather hear and learn from women.


Marty was spot on in naming a dynamic that occurs here. Thanks btw for confirming it, by misusing Bailey’s experience of sexual harrassment by the PM as if that in any way has anything to do with marty commenting to you here. It’s inconceivable to me that you cannot see the power differences, so that just leaves your politics.

The shame is already on you for how you’ve brought yourself into this conversation in the way you often do. Marty just pointed it out.

One Anonymous Bloke, marty mars and weka are frequent members of the shut up and shame brigade.

Back to Colonial Rawshark’s first paragraph.

So, after several days of ongoing disgust, outrage, screaming and shouting, what courageous and concrete steps has the Political Left proposed to empower vulnerable and poorly paid service employees and contractors who find themselves in bad work situations?

The diversions, messenger attacking and shutting up has again prevailed (so far) as that remains unanswered.

It seems that waiters are frequently the target of poor customer behaviour.

Some on the right (it’s been rife at Kiwiblog) have tried to play this down by attacking and trying to discredit the waitress.

And some on the left have failed to address an important issue the hair puling raised.

Political activists are too active trying to wreck their opponents and too often fail to do anything practical to address the problems ordinary people, like waitresses, have to deal with day after day.

What now for waitresses and waiters?

UPDATE: another word from Colonial Rawshark:

My contention is that the Political Left has come forward with plenty of outrage and disgust, but it has not come forward with concrete proposals for change for empowering vulnerable workers victimised by customers or employers (regardless of whether that change is based on gender or on class).

And weka, one of the chief derailers of threads she doesn’t approve of, responded:

I’m sure it is CV. Pity you chose to bring it up in a way guaranteed to derail the thread and track it along the class politics vs gender politics path then.

I have no idea what you mean by the Political Left, but can only assume you are referring in part to authors and commenters here on ts. I’m seeing lots of activism and response to what has happened. Besides, I’m pretty sure that some legislation already exists to protect Bailey (and was ignored by the PM), and that the left wing parties already have policy that would give even more protection.


So take it to OM. This post and thread is about gender.

If the gender police speak then one mustn’t stray from their narrow path of discussion. How not to achieve anything outside one’s bubble.

Another promising discussion squashed. That has happened during the time I put this post together.

Prentice proves himself wrong, and more

Ok, I know this sort of post bores the hell out of some people but I like to put things like this on record so that next time people like Lynn Prentice try to claim I have lied it’s easy for me to produce proof to the contrary.

And I think it’s useful to challenge and expose the way New Zealand’s standard bearer for the Labour left operates – under a culture of lies and abuse. While it’s on a lesser scale to what Whale Oil was The Standard persistently practices dirty attack politics, promoted and protected by Prentice.

One of the most ridiculous aspects of Prentice’s April Foolish outburst is he proves himself wrong. He says:

So lets see you find evidence to the contrary in previous bans. Go and find any instance on this site where you have been banned where this site got upset at “…being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.”, as opposed to being kicked off for violating an existing rule on our site that you either walked too close to, ignored or disliked.

I already checked while writing the post and there are none. I have provided explanations each time for why you were banned framed in terms of OUR policy. So show me one where that isn’t the case.

I’ve already provided Proof that Prentice is wrong on a past ban, and there’s more examples. He must not have had time yet to post his apology (based on his past record he’s more likely to launch another fact-less rant).

He also proved himself wrong with his latest rant and ban. He posted:

You have consistently lied here and on other blogs about why you were banned. You have been banned from other blogs and then lied about why you were banned. In my opinion, you are a toxic blogger who seems to lie. In all cases you appeared to lie to play the victim.

To give you an incentive – you are banned for a year for lying about this site – unless you can provide one by the end of easter.

Bizarrely with this ban he proves himself wrong. He hasn’t kicked me off “for violating an existing rule on our site that you either walked too close to, ignored or disliked“. He hasn’t referred to anything I have done or said since returning from my previous ban.

He has quoted something I posted last month here on Your NZ that obviously got up his nose as the reason for the ban.

So beware, under Prentice’s new application of his make-them-up-as-he-goes rules if he finds something anywhere in social or mainstream media he doesn’t like he can and will ban someone for it if he chooses. That’s a new level of ridiculous blog moderation, more so than the Cameron Slater/Pete Belt and Martyn Bradbury levels of paranoia at being criticised.

And it’s especially ridiculous because a blog moderator can ban anyone they like any time they like for any reason, it’s their blog, their rules. At least Slater/Belt and Bradbury don’t go to thios amount of bother  to come up with erroneous ‘rule’ breaches as an excuse, they just do it (albeit secretly to not draw attention to their  controlling of their messages).

But wait, there’s more.

All high comment blogs have rules which you expect to follow when you are on those sites. They are there to minimize the amount of work that the moderators have to do. But Pete often doesn’t follow the rules as can be seen in this comment to an author that got him banned.

Thanks for the reminder about your deliberate dishonesty.

And thanks for the opportunities to keep demonstrating your dishonesty. So far you’ve managed to keep that out of your authoring (that’s been promising) but you’ll find it’s difficult to keep the two separate – lying at one level will end up impacting on another.

He attacked one of the new authors directly and personally, which is something that I can do but he is very limited in what he can do. That is against the policy about attacking the site or authors. That policy is in there for a particular reason. It is hard to get authors to write for nothing on a site. So we tend to protect those people who give up their time to do so because this is the authors site.

This relates to Te Reo Putake who is a long time commenter at The Standard, and has a history of persistent lying and abusing and breaking Standard rules with impunity – I can recall Prentice defending his behaviour, typical of his double Standard.

This incident began with a comment from one of TRP’s stalker apprentices, One Anonymous Bloke, who said:

No, I mean none of your false interpretations, Racist George, and I haven’t the slightest inclination to explain it to you.

Why weren’t you at the Pegida rally?

That, as is common with OAB, breaks Standard rules but that’s allowed for some. I replied:

You always seem to duck for cover when challenged to back up your rhetoric. And you’re off topic on this thread.

“Why weren’t you at the Pegida rally?”

Because it was on the other side of the world. I thought even you would have worked out something obvious like that. Why weren’t you at the counter protest?

But I’ve backed Newcastle Unites from here. Have you?

OAB frequently attacks people (not just me) and rarely backs up his attacks with any facts, and as he does here he refuses to support his attacks. This is against the rules but again, usually impunity.

Te Reo Putake joined:

Wow! Only distance prevents racist Pete from marching with the fascists. Thanks for the unintended honesty, schmuck.

And that’s when I responded (as per above), to TRP as a commenter. This was on Open Mike where TRP had no involvement as an author. But he tried to protect himself with author status.

You acknowledge I’m an author, yet you call me a liar. The TS policy is pretty clear about abuse of authors. Would you please withdraw and apologise.

I responded:

I made it clear you’re a liar as a commenter, not as an author and re-emphasise that. A persistent liar that pre-dates your authoring. You can’t hide behind a higher status for your low commenting.

[That is a distinction that I do not recognise. Tone it down – MS]

And so it went on until later lprent stepped in and banned me because I “attacked one of the new authors directly and personally”. Because that long time commenter had attacked me directly and personally. But because that commenter has just become an author his abuse and attacks can’t be confronted.

Back to lprent’s April foolish post where he also said:

But what got him banned was not that directly. It was that he managed to make a whole long comment thread about this purported “dishonesty” and didn’t provide ANY examples. Not one link. No referenced quotes to point to it. Nothing…

OAB and TRP and a number of others contributed significantly to making “a whole long comment thread “. That’s what they frequently do, and they’ve also often then accused me of disrupting threads. Standard practice.

OAB and TRP didn’t provide ANY examples. Not one link. No referenced quotes to point to it. Nothing…

And lprent even acknowledged that TRP had provoked things (a frequently broken Standard rule “we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks”):

But banned one month only because TRP was winding you up.

While the comments thread now doesn’t show this because moderator comments aren’t time stamped apparently on reflection  lprent later acknowledged:

lprent: It is a valid point. But FFS phrase the responses better. I don’t like cleaning up reaction messes.

Except that it wasn’t a ‘valid point’, it was deliberate pointless personal attack.

After the ban I requested a right of reply, which I was given.

Can I exercise a right of reply?

But I really find it objectionable to see it when the idiot critic (ie you) neither links to an example of whatever they are moaning about nor explains what it is so that I can look at the issue. That is lying by omission in my book – something that in my mind characterises your usual writing style.

I’ve explained here a number of times – and have specifically pointed that it was TRP lying by omission. Which he has continued to do.

He claimed to have quoted me but hadn’t, and then when called on that repeatedly part quoted me, lying by omitting the whole quote.

If you support that sort of tactic from one of your authors then so be it, it’s your blog.

Don’t ever target my authors again with unsubstantiated and unlinked smearing as a tactic. To me that appears to be what you are doing here.

It’s pretty obvious that this began and continued with TRP “with unsubstantiated and unlinked smearing as a tactic” and continuing doing that.

If you don’t allow any response to that sort of tactic you’re being as bad as Bradbury and Slater in the way you censor out things that show up your crap.

That’s a bit sad isn’t it, especially after you claiming the high ground on comment control in your spat with Bradbury.

Yes he wound you up. Complain to me or in general. Don’t target authors personally because I really really need them more than I need you.

FFS. He and others try to wind me up all the time. As if you hadn’t noticed. And then get wound up when I call you on it. You sound wound up now. Tch tch.

The next time that I see you do this kind of deliberate targeting, I will boot you off for a year.

You’re accusing me of deliberate targeting. Very funny. But somehow I suspect you don’t see the joke.

But banned one month only because TRP was winding you up. ]

I’m not questioning that, I’m happy to have a month off. TRP et al with have to find someone else to try and wind up.



As I (think) I probably said. I don’t have time to trace every previous discussion and I lack the ability to read minds remotely. So I look at the comment based what is in it and have a brief look at the conversation around it. Which is why TRP got a public warning and a private discussion about future behaviour. Which is a bit unusual because I generally rap knuckles on authors using the back channels.

It appears that he jumped in and banned me, then had a proper look at it and gave TRP a rap on the knuckles for being at fault. Standard double standard.

But treat authors differently. Link to supporting info when having a go at them because the balance of the moderation shifts for them. I don’t treat them as commentators anymore simply because we need to retain them to write conversation starters for this site. With authors I balance my need to retain authors against ‘fairness’. But the supporting information had better be in the comments I am looking at because I won’t go looking for it. I simply don’t have time with the numbers of comments that flow through here. ]

So commenters need to dot their ‘i’s and cross their ‘t’s with supporting comments and stil get banned but authors can personally attack and then make things up that were demonstrably false – I provided supporting information despite lprent claiming I didn’t.

Now lprent et al can do whatever they like at The Standard. Their blog, their lop-sided rules often ignored rules and double standards.

And I can point this out here, putting the way they operate on record.

And I can also point out that this is a very poor look for the main New Zealand forum representing ‘the Labour left’.

And I’m not the only one pointing out the dogs breakfast of standards at the Labour left Standard led by the mongrel who’s all bark, lprent.

There’s been lengthy and on-going (up to yesterday) examinining the culture at The Standard with no involvement from me, that amongst other things has discussed things like authors abusing their status, imbalance of power and the use of bans – Murray Rawshark was banned much to the consternation of supporters, some of whom have gone on a comments strike for the duration of his ban.

This began on a post Winston takes Northland by author . Murray’s comments from here:

“But unfortunately Winston didn’t tell anyone about his plans to run until very late in the game – a luxury of being a one-man band who doesn’t have pesky party-democratic processes to deal with.”

Yeah, Labour really knows how to work with other parties. Step 1: insult them.

Winston and his party have succeeded in rocking Key, so what does a good Labour social democrat do? Give the credit to Andrew Little. Way to make friends and influence people.


Yeah, it’s not an official party statement. It is however a statement from someone perceived as being aligned with them.

Stephanie’s response/warning:

I am a member, but Murray’s comment is still rather too close to the line about ascribing posts on this site to official Labour statements.

Murray – don’t do that again.

And don’t tell me who I can give credit to. Winston clearly ran a good campaign but he got there with significant help from the Labour (and Green, and probably Mana too) voters of Northland.

Murray responded:

Sorry for having an opinion. I will never ever comment on one of your posts again. Have a nice life. By the way, I didn’t tell you what to do at all. I said what I thought of what you’d done. Also forbidden, I see.

So he voluntarily opted out of commenting any more on any of Stephanie’s posts but was still slapped with a ban.

[Stephanie: You said it two comments above: “Labour really knows how to work with other parties”, referring to my post. I am not the Labour Party, and you’ve commented here long enough to know that there are very simple rules about insinuating that this blog represents Labour. Pretending that you’ve been warned for “having an opinion” is just rubbish. But if you want to be a martyr so badly, take two weeks off.]

A lengthy discussion ensued, and later continued from Murray’s right of reply statement here. The Standard is not a happy place.

The Standard proclaims it is a forum for the Labour left, and most of the named author posts are from Labour party activists, but for some reason they are super sensitive about being seen to be associated with the Labour Party.

The more they make a fuss the more attention they bring to it.

Prentice in particular goes to great lengths to stomp on on any suggestion of any party influence in Standard posts. His super sensitivity is curious, as is their secrecy.

If The Standard openly and honestly promoted Labour Party interests, and if they applied even handed moderation on personal attacks and lies (that would cramp lprent’s style), they could be a great standard bearer for the Labour left.

But they choose to be anal and abusive. That’s a real shame.

Not all of them. Greg Presland and Anthony Robins do the bulk of the author attributed posts their at the moment and they mean well, do a fairly good job usually, and keep clear of most of the dirt. But their credibility is dragged down by the general culture of The Standard. That’s also a shame.

But they choose to operate within the culture and at least tacitly approve of it. Presland gets drawn into the double standards less than he used to still dabbles at times.

Prentice leads from the bottom and a number of other regulars lead frequent often abusive attacks on anyone and anything they disagree with or deem an enemy is some way, under Prentice’s example and protection.

And that’s the impression many casual visitors to The Standard will get of how the Labour left operates.

And as hard as he tries Prentice can’t separate the Labour left and the Labour Party in many people’s impressions.

They keep shitting in their own nest, led by Prentice with his verbal diarrhoea.

(And I’m aware that offering advice like this to The Standard is a ban-able offence – I’ve been banned for it before for doing it at The Standard but new rules of anywhere apply – so lprent may use this as an excuse to slap an extended ban on me. Funny in a sad sort of way.)

How. Tragic. Is This?

I’m about halfway through a month long ban at The Standard but the obsessive dissing of a few resident stalkers continues without me.

A week ago I posted Norman versus Key, collection versus surveillance which was transcript and video link of a question time exchange in Parliament. It’s something I commonly do with the aim of making things I think might be of interest more easily findable and available.

It turns out that Glenn Greenwald found the post and included a link in a post of his at The Intercept.

By itself, common sense should prevent any of these governments from claiming that sweeping up, storing and analyzing much of the Internet — literally examining billions of communications activities every week of entire populations — is something other than “mass surveillance.” Yet this has now become the coordinated defense from the governments in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It’s nothing short of astonishing to watch them try to get away with this kind of propagnadistic sophistry. (In the wake of our reports with journalist Nicky Hager on GCSB, watch the leader of New Zealand’s Green Party interrogate the country’s flailing Prime Minister this week in Parliament about this completely artificial distinction.)


Whether I agree with the point Greenwald is making or not doesn’t matter, that he found a use for the post is good to see.

And his post has been reposted by various people half a dozen or more times. Including in part by at The Standard in Surveillance newspeak.

So this is how blogging works, information and opinion is built on links.

Despite being their promoted post yesterday their post didn’t attract much comment. And the first comments weren’t about the substance of the post at all.

Several numpties had a hissy about there being a link to a post here in the Standard post, and two even went to the trouble of providing alternative or anonymous links so people could avoid linking to here.

One Anonymous Bloke 1

Fuck! I just followed a link to Yawns.

  • Jim Nald 1.1

    “watch the leader of New Zealand’s Green Party interrogate the country’s flailing Prime Minister this week in Parliament about this completely artificial distinction”

    Instead of the current link being used (I assume it is the link to Norman asking the PM about mass surveillance in the House on 10 March 2015), it would be an idea to refer to the link on the Greens’ website ( or directly to the link on the official website (

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1

      *Hangs head in shame at being too lazy to find those myself*

      Thanks Jim.

      • Jim Nald

        All good, OAB.
        Thanks for the heads up. I would have just clicked on to the links after scanning through the piece but saw your comment which was the first. And I got curious and ran my mouse over each link.

        So now (and I take it that it was not OAB who posted this), whoever posted the piece or a moderator can consider replacing the link :-)

  • weka 1.2

    watch the leader of New Zealand’s Green Party interrogate the country’s flailing Prime Minister this week in Parliament about this completely artificial distinction.

    Yawns alternative link,

Such is their apparent animosity towards me. I have no idea why they are so obsessed.

But how pathetically petty is that? That’s the degree some Standardistas go to try and shut me out of anything there – except that it just draws attention to me and highlights their pettiness. And it makes the Standard appear to be a petty blog.

And their efforts are futile. The author and moderators at The Standard have ignored their pleas to change the link away from here. And weka’s do-not-link link provides another opportunity to link here, although stats show that far more clicked the direct link than her alternative (which shows in stats despite her belief that it won’t).

It’s kinda ironic that the thought police at The Standard ignored the Orwellian thrust of the post and instead chose to try to control thoughts and links in yet another petty attack.

In order to remove any possibility of creating martyrs, whose memories could be used as a rallying cause against the Party, the Thought Police gradually wear down the will of political prisoners in the Ministry of Love through torture, conversations, degradation, and finally, Room 101. The methods are designed to eventually make the prisoner genuinely accept Party ideology, and come to love Big Brother, and not merely confess. After being released back into society for a short while, they are re-arrested, charged with new offences, and executed. All people who knew them forget them through crimestop, and all records are destroyed and replaced with falsified records by the Ministry of Truth. Their bodies are disposed of via cremation.

One Anonymous Bloke and Weka are unlikely to get anywhere near Government control but they seem to see themselves as the Thought Police of The Standard, trying to eliminate all record of me or YourNZ.

That’s tragic. Especially for The Standard’s credibility as a serious forum for the left.