Re: NZ Politics Thread
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:43 am
pretty much my entire opinion on the majority of parliamentDark wrote:talk about completely closed minded and having piss poor arguments
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
pretty much my entire opinion on the majority of parliamentDark wrote:talk about completely closed minded and having piss poor arguments
The committee's report was due to be released on Tuesday afternoon, but Justice Minister Andrew Little told media on his way into caucus in the morning that the committee had no major changes recommended.
"I have read the reports and I think it is one of the best commentaries on a piece of legislation that has come back to the house that I have read - very clear, very succinct, but the committee couldn't agree on any substantive changes," Little said.
Seymour himself has suggested some changes to the bill during the select committee process that tightened the bill to only cover those with terminal illness, increase access to palliative care, and to make the bill contingent on the result of the referendum - a promise he made to NZ First to get them over the line into supporting the bill during first reading.
Enzedder wrote:I deliver meals on wheels once a week. One of my deliveries is to "Pete" - the poor bugger is terminally ill and in agony - he really struggles to get to the door and I am his only visitor for the day so it is always locked and I can't help. He constantly states that he wishes euthanasia were available now - God, I feel like helping the poor bugger as his life is such a misery and drugs cannot help him any more.
My dad was also one wanting to push a button but there wasn't one there - it was only a week but what a hell of a week; and thankfully the hospital let him overdose on morphine.
So, for the Pete's of this world, my vote is for. No bugger should be able to tell me when I can and can't check out.
That sort of experience would sway me to your view Guy. Sorry for your loss/hardship. May your mother rest in peace.guy smiley wrote:I spent 3 months watching cancer eat my mother's face. It was inoperable, irreversible and terminal. The radiotherapy she'd been treated with had cooked her optic nerves so she was effectively blinded. She was brave beyond belief and the medication kept the pain away... but she wanted to go. She was miserable about the indignity, the loss of control of her bowel through morphine, the 'interruptions' from home assistance staff and their horrible foreign accents ... in her words, this isn't living son, this is being tortured by the wait. Her GP, a marvellous lady from Scotland who gave her amazing care was in tears after house visits because she couldn't help and all of us knew what and how and why.Enzedder wrote:I deliver meals on wheels once a week. One of my deliveries is to "Pete" - the poor bugger is terminally ill and in agony - he really struggles to get to the door and I am his only visitor for the day so it is always locked and I can't help. He constantly states that he wishes euthanasia were available now - God, I feel like helping the poor bugger as his life is such a misery and drugs cannot help him any more.
My dad was also one wanting to push a button but there wasn't one there - it was only a week but what a hell of a week; and thankfully the hospital let him overdose on morphine.
So, for the Pete's of this world, my vote is for. No bugger should be able to tell me when I can and can't check out.
I will treasure that time with mum for the rest of my life but there is no way she should have had to go through all that simply because the law says she isn't allowed to decide. F**k that.
Similar to meguy smiley wrote:I spent 3 months watching cancer eat my mother's face. It was inoperable, irreversible and terminal. The radiotherapy she'd been treated with had cooked her optic nerves so she was effectively blinded. She was brave beyond belief and the medication kept the pain away... but she wanted to go. She was miserable about the indignity, the loss of control of her bowel through morphine, the 'interruptions' from home assistance staff and their horrible foreign accents ... in her words, this isn't living son, this is being tortured by the wait. Her GP, a marvellous lady from Scotland who gave her amazing care was in tears after house visits because she couldn't help and all of us knew what and how and why.Enzedder wrote:I deliver meals on wheels once a week. One of my deliveries is to "Pete" - the poor bugger is terminally ill and in agony - he really struggles to get to the door and I am his only visitor for the day so it is always locked and I can't help. He constantly states that he wishes euthanasia were available now - God, I feel like helping the poor bugger as his life is such a misery and drugs cannot help him any more.
My dad was also one wanting to push a button but there wasn't one there - it was only a week but what a hell of a week; and thankfully the hospital let him overdose on morphine.
So, for the Pete's of this world, my vote is for. No bugger should be able to tell me when I can and can't check out.
I will treasure that time with mum for the rest of my life but there is no way she should have had to go through all that simply because the law says she isn't allowed to decide. F**k that.
Enzedder wrote:I don't get the whole CGT negativity (or positivity) at this stage. We have a whole lot of ideas, some dumb and some not but no policy or proposals to get exited or bitchy about yet. Just a whole lot of chicken-licken media beat-up at this stage.
I see that it pays not to be an "emotional junior staffer" in the National Party when scapegoats are needed.
This man suffers from foot in mouth disease I reckon.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... IE5_6TKliU
I think the real problem for Jacinda and her Govt is that she thought that by engaging supposed tax 'experts' to deliver a CGT they'd get the best result and come up with a CGT that is acceptable and palatable to the majority of the general populace in delivering a 'fairer' tax system. Instead Cullen and the other boffins on the TWG have come up with such an unwieldy, complex monstrosity of a system that fucks with everything from baches to shares, farms, businesses and Kiwisaver that it has triggered a massive backlash and is totally unpalatable for a significant proportion of the electorate.Enzedder wrote:I don't get the whole CGT negativity (or positivity) at this stage. We have a whole lot of ideas, some dumb and some not but no policy or proposals to get exited or bitchy about yet. Just a whole lot of chicken-licken media beat-up at this stage.
I see that it pays not to be an "emotional junior staffer" in the National Party when scapegoats are needed.
This man suffers from foot in mouth disease I reckon.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... IE5_6TKliU
That is kind of the pointguy smiley wrote:All of that based, as Enz pointed out half an hour ago, on nothing.booji boy wrote:I think the real problem for Jacinda and her Govt is that she thought that by engaging supposed tax 'experts' to deliver a CGT they'd get the best result and come up with a CGT that is acceptable and palatable to the majority of the general populace in delivering a 'fairer' tax system. Instead Cullen and the other boffins on the TWG have come up with such an unwieldy, complex monstrosity of a system that fucks with everything from baches to shares, farms, businesses and Kiwisaver that it has triggered a massive backlash and is totally unpalatable for a significant proportion of the electorate.Enzedder wrote:I don't get the whole CGT negativity (or positivity) at this stage. We have a whole lot of ideas, some dumb and some not but no policy or proposals to get exited or bitchy about yet. Just a whole lot of chicken-licken media beat-up at this stage.
I see that it pays not to be an "emotional junior staffer" in the National Party when scapegoats are needed.
This man suffers from foot in mouth disease I reckon.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... IE5_6TKliU
In the meantime the Govts silence on the issue has created a vacuum that the scaremongerers have been happy to fill. This plus Winston's antipathy towards a CGT has created a nightmare for Jacinda who probably thought she could just smile and gush her way to a successful CGT implementation.
There is no policy.
Why not wait until there is before judging it.
Mate, I almost have tears in my eyes as I post this. My sister in law died from breast cancer almost two years ago in London. I stayed back in NZ but my wife travelled to London to support her sister who she thought was undergoing treatment for her cancer. When she arrived she discovered to our dismay that she was much worse than she had lèt on and was actually in palliative care. My wife spent two weeks with her before she slipped away but she will always treasure that precious time with her baby sister. So young to pass away (41) with so much more life to live. This doesn't really belong in a euthanasia discussion because my baby sister in law wanted so much to live. We think the cancer had gotten into her brain and she really wasn't aware she was dying in those final weeks. Which in some ways was a blessing as even in her final days she was talking about holidays she was looking forward to when she got better.guy smiley wrote:Thanks mate... it may sound weird but it was a privilege and a treasure to have that time together. I left home angry and spent years harbouring a perception about her. Now I have a memory of who she really was, brave, dignified, as funny as f**k in the face of death. She wasn't perfect but she absolutely did the best she could... so I gained through the experience as horrible as it was.booji boy wrote:
That sort of experience would sway me to your view Guy. Sorry for your loss/hardship. May your mother rest in peace.
I think a lot of people are against the idea of euthanasia until they experience something like I describe. It reduces you, it strips away illusion about what life is, perhaps it teaches you humility. I truly believe we should be able to make our own choice, fully informed, counselled and respected. Especially respected.
You both have my sympathy. Both shite situations to go through. And both relevant examples given that one of the main concerns about euthanasia discussion is the safeguards that need to be in place to make sure that those who want to live and fight on don't get pressured into accepting euthanasia.booji boy wrote:Mate, I almost have tears in my eyes as I post this. My sister in law died from breast cancer almost two years ago in London. I stayed back in NZ but my wife travelled to London to support her sister who she thought was undergoing treatment for her cancer. When she arrived she discovered to our dismay that she was much worse than she had lèt on and was actually in palliative care. My wife spent two weeks with her before she slipped away but she will always treasure that precious time with her baby sister. So young to pass away (41) with so much more life to live. This doesn't really belong in a euthanasia discussion because my baby sister in law wanted so much to live. We think the cancer had gotten into her brain and she really wasn't aware she was dying in those final weeks. Which in some ways was a blessing as even in her final days she was talking about holidays she was looking forward to when she got better.guy smiley wrote:Thanks mate... it may sound weird but it was a privilege and a treasure to have that time together. I left home angry and spent years harbouring a perception about her. Now I have a memory of who she really was, brave, dignified, as funny as f**k in the face of death. She wasn't perfect but she absolutely did the best she could... so I gained through the experience as horrible as it was.booji boy wrote:
That sort of experience would sway me to your view Guy. Sorry for your loss/hardship. May your mother rest in peace.
I think a lot of people are against the idea of euthanasia until they experience something like I describe. It reduces you, it strips away illusion about what life is, perhaps it teaches you humility. I truly believe we should be able to make our own choice, fully informed, counselled and respected. Especially respected.
Anyway, re the time with your mum, I totally hear ya buddy.
Top post.guy smiley wrote:I spent 3 months watching cancer eat my mother's face. It was inoperable, irreversible and terminal. The radiotherapy she'd been treated with had cooked her optic nerves so she was effectively blinded. She was brave beyond belief and the medication kept the pain away... but she wanted to go. She was miserable about the indignity, the loss of control of her bowel through morphine, the 'interruptions' from home assistance staff and their horrible foreign accents ... in her words, this isn't living son, this is being tortured by the wait. Her GP, a marvellous lady from Scotland who gave her amazing care was in tears after house visits because she couldn't help and all of us knew what and how and why.
I will treasure that time with mum for the rest of my life but there is no way she should have had to go through all that simply because the law says she isn't allowed to decide. F**k that.
Pretty bad the PM would get involved in the name change argument tbfguy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.
On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".
"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.
The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.
He demanded the organisation take responsibility.
"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."
"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."
Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".
"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.
"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."
When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.
"So why was the story in the Herald then?"
Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.
"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
I hope it's true and the PM and Sports Minister have not been involved at all. I think it is time for cool heads to prevail and I hope the Crusaders fans, board, media etc take their time to consider all the issues and don't needlessly change the team name in a rushed, knee jerk reaction to the tragic events of 15/3.guy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.
On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".
"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.
The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.
He demanded the organisation take responsibility.
"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."
"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."
Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".
"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.
"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."
When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.
"So why was the story in the Herald then?"
Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.
"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
Damn, that's irresponsible journalism. How the hell did the editor allow that unsubstantiated rumour to get published?guy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
Except for when it isn't, which is kind of the whole point.booji boy wrote:What's the general bored view on euthanasia?
I'm kind of on the fence but probably lean towards the anti euthanasia view if anything. Life is precious and all that.
But with the right checks and balances in place I can see a place for it.
Same with the Mrs father in the rest home. It's basic humanity imo. Better that than dying in agony. I fail to see why it's even a debate really.Enzedder wrote:I deliver meals on wheels once a week. One of my deliveries is to "Pete" - the poor bugger is terminally ill and in agony - he really struggles to get to the door and I am his only visitor for the day so it is always locked and I can't help. He constantly states that he wishes euthanasia were available now - God, I feel like helping the poor bugger as his life is such a misery and drugs cannot help him any more.
My dad was also one wanting to push a button but there wasn't one there - it was only a week but what a hell of a week; and thankfully the hospital let him overdose on morphine.
So, for the Pete's of this world, my vote is for. No bugger should be able to tell me when I can and can't check out.
I hope it's true that you weren't involved in that unsubstantiated bullshit I heard you were involved in today either.booji boy wrote:I hope it's true and the PM and Sports Minister have not been involved at all. I think it is time for cool heads to prevail and I hope the Crusaders fans, board, media etc take their time to consider all the issues and don't needlessly change the team name in a rushed, knee jerk reaction to the tragic events of 15/3.guy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.
On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".
"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.
The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.
He demanded the organisation take responsibility.
"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."
"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."
Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".
"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.
"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."
When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.
"So why was the story in the Herald then?"
Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.
"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
Tehui wrote:Damn, that's irresponsible journalism. How the hell did the editor allow that unsubstantiated rumour to get published?guy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
What was that then?RuggaBugga wrote:I hope it's true that you weren't involved in that unsubstantiated bullshit I heard you were involved in today either.booji boy wrote:I hope it's true and the PM and Sports Minister have not been involved at all. I think it is time for cool heads to prevail and I hope the Crusaders fans, board, media etc take their time to consider all the issues and don't needlessly change the team name in a rushed, knee jerk reaction to the tragic events of 15/3.guy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.
On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".
"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.
The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.
He demanded the organisation take responsibility.
"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."
"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."
Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".
"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.
"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."
When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.
"So why was the story in the Herald then?"
Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.
"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
booji boy wrote:What was that then?RuggaBugga wrote:
I hope it's true that you weren't involved in that unsubstantiated bullshit I heard you were involved in today either.
Well I heard about Jacinda and Robertson forcing the Crusaders to change their name on yesterday's 6am news headlines on the radio. Just wondering where RuggaBugga and Enz heard the 'unsubstantiated bullshit' about me?guy smiley wrote:It's nothing short of an utter disgrace and further proof, if any were needed, that this place is headed for disaster.Enzedder wrote:booji boy wrote:What was that then?RuggaBugga wrote:
I hope it's true that you weren't involved in that unsubstantiated bullshit I heard you were involved in today either.
Yeah, I heard about that too.
Enzedder wrote:booji boy wrote:What was that then?RuggaBugga wrote:
I hope it's true that you weren't involved in that unsubstantiated bullshit I heard you were involved in today either.
Yeah, I heard about that too.
Fair enough. I'm still curious what they heard though.guy smiley wrote:It doesn't matter where, the thing is that they heard it.
It does seem to be going a bit far.Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.
It was one dude from Aus ffs
Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.
I heard a lawyer interviewed on the radio this morning and he is against the bill in it's current form as he feels it is very poorly drafted and full of holes. He gave the example of 'granny bashing' where the children want to euthanize a parent in order to get their grubby mitts on their house/inheritance.RuggaBugga wrote:Except for when it isn't, which is kind of the whole point.booji boy wrote:What's the general bored view on euthanasia?
I'm kind of on the fence but probably lean towards the anti euthanasia view if anything. Life is precious and all that.
But with the right checks and balances in place I can see a place for it.
God botherers eh?
The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.booji boy wrote:It does seem to be going a bit far.Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.
It was one dude from Aus ffs
Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.
She hasn't though. Which is the whole point about the article being baseless and the reason it was withdrawn.Dark wrote:Pretty bad the PM would get involved in the name change argument tbfguy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.
On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".
"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.
The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.
He demanded the organisation take responsibility.
"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."
"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."
Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".
"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.
"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."
When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.
"So why was the story in the Herald then?"
Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.
"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
Went to uni with a guy who was paralyzed in a rugby accident.booji boy wrote:I heard a lawyer interviewed on the radio this morning and he is against the bill in it's current form as he feels it is very poorly drafted and full of holes. He gave the example of 'granny bashing' where the children want to euthanize a parent in order to get their grubby mitts on their house/inheritance.RuggaBugga wrote:Except for when it isn't, which is kind of the whole point.booji boy wrote:What's the general bored view on euthanasia?
I'm kind of on the fence but probably lean towards the anti euthanasia view if anything. Life is precious and all that.
But with the right checks and balances in place I can see a place for it.
God botherers eh?
A truly awful state of affairs but I have seen a real life example recently where this could have been the case. An elderly woman I know through family passed away and her daughter moved into her house ostensibly as a care giver to her ailing dad. She treated him like an absolute bitch and it was clear to us that she was just in it to get her hands on his money as well as eyeing up the house for herself. An absolute lowlife character and I'm sure if the system would enable it she'd be happy to kill him off early to get the house and the cash. I'm sure she just viewed him as a nuisance having to care for him.
Poor old soul has passed away now and the bitch of a daughter is battling with her brother over the house. Heinous person.
Fat Old Git wrote:She hasn't though. Which is the whole point about the article being baseless and the reason it was withdrawn.Dark wrote:Pretty bad the PM would get involved in the name change argument tbfguy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.
On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".
"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.
The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.
He demanded the organisation take responsibility.
"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."
"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."
Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".
"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.
"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."
When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.
"So why was the story in the Herald then?"
Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.
"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?
Very poor journalism, if you can even call it that.
.......And this would still happen if the bill went through.merlin the happy pig wrote:Went to uni with a guy who was paralyzed in a rugby accident.booji boy wrote:I heard a lawyer interviewed on the radio this morning and he is against the bill in it's current form as he feels it is very poorly drafted and full of holes. He gave the example of 'granny bashing' where the children want to euthanize a parent in order to get their grubby mitts on their house/inheritance.RuggaBugga wrote:Except for when it isn't, which is kind of the whole point.booji boy wrote:What's the general bored view on euthanasia?
I'm kind of on the fence but probably lean towards the anti euthanasia view if anything. Life is precious and all that.
But with the right checks and balances in place I can see a place for it.
God botherers eh?
A truly awful state of affairs but I have seen a real life example recently where this could have been the case. An elderly woman I know through family passed away and her daughter moved into her house ostensibly as a care giver to her ailing dad. She treated him like an absolute bitch and it was clear to us that she was just in it to get her hands on his money as well as eyeing up the house for herself. An absolute lowlife character and I'm sure if the system would enable it she'd be happy to kill him off early to get the house and the cash. I'm sure she just viewed him as a nuisance having to care for him.
Poor old soul has passed away now and the bitch of a daughter is battling with her brother over the house. Heinous person.
He had respiratory complications and the doctors advised the parents to turn off life support.
They didn't, he survived and graduated with a BSc in computer Science.
Agreed this is not strictly euthanasia, but simply highlighting that the area is so fraught it needs to be done with care.
FWIW I support the idea if done well.
After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosquemerlin the happy pig wrote:The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.booji boy wrote:It does seem to be going a bit far.Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.
It was one dude from Aus ffs
Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.
The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?
Rubbish, and if this is the case please show us your sauces because this is the first I'm hearing of it! Sounds a lot like closing the proverbial.BillW wrote:After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosquemerlin the happy pig wrote:The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.booji boy wrote:It does seem to be going a bit far.Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.
It was one dude from Aus ffs
Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.
The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.
Personally think that is a load of pantsBillW wrote:After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosquemerlin the happy pig wrote:The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.booji boy wrote:It does seem to be going a bit far.Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.
It was one dude from Aus ffs
Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.
The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.
I think he's ok to you because you like his politics - his articles in tandam with his wife are comedy gold sometimes. I don't get to hear him much but I'm currently in NZ and listening and I've decided that all talkback hosts are like that drunk opinionated uncle at a party who wont shut up even though 90% of what they spout is bullshit. I'm unsure if it is worse now, because I used to listen to talkback exclusively when I lived here.booji boy wrote:Thanks, good article.Maniototo Man wrote:Bryce Edward's column and the articles* it links to are worth a read.booji boy wrote:Not ruling out Kiwisaver was just insane but nothing surprises me coming from that smarmy cnut Cullen. The irony being that he established Kiwisaver to ensure New Zealanders save for their retirement and wouldn't have dreamed of applying a CGT to it when he was in Govt. But pay him a $1,000 a day to pontificate on it and he'll come up ways to tax us from every angle.Dark wrote:CGT seems to be going down like a cup of cold sick.
Think Labour might have painted themselves into a corner with this.
Given the Kiwibuild fiasco, they kind of can't not do it, but it might end up so watered down it costs more than makes.
Not ruling out kiwisaver being part of it in the remit was slightly dim. By slightly I mean idiots
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -poll.html
As for Labour painting themselves into a corner their out might be NZ First refusing to support it. Listening to Winston being interviewed it's clear that if it goes through at all it will be an extremely watered down version of the complex monstrosity the TWG have proposed. He has said repeatedly 'the law must be simple and not create an industry for valuers and accountants'. So in other words no valuation day. That rules out CGT on businesses. Maybe rental property and baches will still be in the firing line as we have valuations based on govt valuations. I'm hoping he'll go a step further and introduce grand fathering where the tax is only applied to property acquired in the future, after the introduction of the CGT.
Come on Winston, my man, you know you want to, it is the only way!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12220797
* (Not including Hosking's rant.)
It's funny re Hosking. There was a time when I absolutely couldn't stand the plum. But recently I've started enjoying his breakfast radio show. I find him and his offsider (technical producer?) quite entertaining. Whatever you think of him, and he is f**king opinionated and fairly right wing, but you have to admire his grasp of the detail. Quite clever.
I never watch his rants though. Like Stu Wilson, the only thing worse than listening to him is when you can actually see him!
Jesus Dark, we know you hate Jacinda but WTF are you doing here?Dark wrote:Pretty bad the PM would get involved in the name change argument tbfguy smiley wrote:Media lies.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html
That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.
On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".
"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.
The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.
He demanded the organisation take responsibility.
"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."
"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."
Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".
"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.
"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."
When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.
"So why was the story in the Herald then?"
Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.
"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."
How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?