My Picks For 2010

I am now a futurist!

The Herald yesterday ran an article about what life in 2030 will be like. The story included an interview by a well-known “futurist”.

There have always been futurists. But once upon a time they gazed at the entrails of sheep. Nowadays they specialise in predicting new trends or technologies.

So if I want to become a futurist how do I get me some of that? Is there a futurist school? A degree in futurism?

Perhaps it’s one of those things you just decide one day to put on your business cards. Therefore I am now a futurist*.

However, I don't want to get carried away with myself. So I'll stick to next predicting the events of 2010. I am confident most of these picks are good ones.

• Spaceships: Yes, that's right. We'll all be flying to work in space craft. Well you won’t. Because as part of the new environmental protection laws to be passed in April, you will become a burden on society. You will be given a month to reduce your net emissions, failing which you will be liquidated.
• Pestilence: Thankfully an influenza plague will finish you off before you are despatched.
• World War Three: But by December the rest of us will be living a feeble existence in a post-apocalyptic world. The few hundred ragged survivors of the nuclear catastrophe will be looking for a leader, and I will conveniently turn up with a battle-truck.
• John Key will still be smiling.

* I also have an interest in history, but “pastist” doesn’t sound quite so compelling.

Nothing Tastes Better

There’s nothing more enjoyable of a hot summer’s day than a refreshing glass of schadenfreude.

The Herald reports:

The internet blogger charged with breaching name suppression orders says he will defend the charges.

Police say Auckland's Cameron Slater, who writes the blog Whaleoil, broke name suppression by posting pictorial clues identifying the individuals in two high profile sexual offence cases.

One case involved an Olympian and the other a well-known entertainer.

Slater faces five charges, relating to breaching court orders suppressing the names of the accused and one of the victims.

It is the first time a New Zealand blogger has been taken to court rather than just warned.  

Slater said he would defend his actions because the laws which protect people's identities need changing, the Dominion Post reported.

He believed suppression laws were out of date and if acquitted he would publish the blogs again.

So it appears Slater is going to attempt martyrdom.

He ought to contact Vince Siemer and ask how that’s working for him. Meanwhile I think I’ll have another glass.

Cheers.

Please Have A Christmas

Only one more sleep now until the jolly fat man comes visiting. Although I'm not sure where Gerry Brownlee is spending Christmas this year.

I hope you all get to spend an enjoyable Christmas with your families and friends, even imaginary ones. And if you have a wife or girlfriend my ardent Christmas wish is that you spend time with her repairing the damage done when Tiger Woods last came to town.

I won't be blogging much for a few days. There is food to be consumed, booze to be taken care of, and over-hyped children to deal with. But frankly, if you have time to check this blogsite out during Christmas that makes you a bit of a sad git, doesn't it? Well someone had to break it to you.

And now some safety messages:

If you're driving over the summer break make sure you have a vehicle, otherwise you won't get very far.

And if you're thinking of having a few drinks before getting behind the wheel, don't do it - because weaving back and forth between lanes wastes more gas.

Don't leave food out for Santa. The dude already has type 2 diabetes. Do you really want your kids to find a fat dead guy on your living room floor tomorrow morning?

Finally, I wish you a Christmas. It can be merry if you want it to be. Or if you prefer to wallow in your own misery that's cool too.

See you again soon.

The 2009 Imperator Fish Awards - Vote Now or I Kill You!

It’s that time of year when we start to review the events of the last 12 months.

And because I'm the Christmas grinch, I've decided to go negative. It's always easier to slag someone than to praise them, especially when the good work done by our leaders often goes unnoticed.

And one too many Christmas functions means it's just too much hard work to write anything approaching insightful analysis. I don't get paid for this gig.

So from villains and fools to mere windbags, allow me to introduce to you the people who have annoyed, irritated or disgusted me during 2009.

So tell me what you think. You can vote on the right hand side of the page. And if you don’t agree with my nominees, tell me why in the comments below.

Here are the categories and the nominees.

2009’s Most Villainous

Which of the below people or organisations has disgusted, offended, aroused or incited you?

Tiger Woods – For maintaining a squeaky clean image while living a life of debauchery that would have made a Roman Emperor blush.  Apparently some people care about this kind of thing.

Hone Harawira – He will always have Paris, but we will always know him for that expletive-riddled email that many called racist.

Clayton Weatherston – Mr Stabby was Public Enemy Number One for many weeks. Has he faded from our nightmares yet?

Brian Tamaki – For services to culty pledges.

Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson – These Hanover Finance bosses continue to live the high life while investors, many of them elderly, struggle to cope with their financial losses. At least Hotchin has faced up to investors at public meetings. Where is Watson?

The Church of Scientology – In the news a lot this year for various cover-ups, deceptions and all-round nastiness.

2009 Worst politician award

The minor parties are well represented this year. And National does well too. Labour's been mostly quiet, with only one nominee.

Hone Harawira – For almost destroying the Maori Party, and for email abuse and general bad behaviour.

Anne Tolley – Easily the worst performing of the Cabinet ministers, which is impressive when you consider the Cabinet includes Maurice Williamson.

Melissa Lee – A walking disaster who should never be allowed to talk to the media ever again.

Richard Worth – Another walking disaster, now gone from politics.

David Garrett – Never in the news for the right reason. An embarrassment to his party, which is saying something.

Chris Carter - Too much travel. Too much playing the victim. His "is it 'cos I is gay?" defence didn't find much sympathy. Comparing the PM to Mussolini was probably not the smartest move.

2009 Most deserving of a smack award

These nominees were all victims of violence this year. For one victim it was a fatal but well deserved blow.

Rod Petricevic – The former Bridgecorp high flyer was roughed up by a disgruntled investor outside a restaurant. He still drives around in a Porsche and lives the high life, despite the poverty his company has inflicted on many.

Silvio Berlusconi – If ever a man deserved to be smacked on the chops with a statue, it is this odious little politician.

John Boscawen – Together with Heather Roy he represents the “non-batshit-crazy” wing of the Act caucus. During the Mt Albert by-election someone stuck a lamington on his bald head. Being a good sport, he continued with his speech. A lamington wasted?

Barack Obama’s housefly – This nominee paid the ultimate price. A fly buzzed Obama during a TV interview, and Obama snapped it. Dead. Don't mess with this Kenyan commie tyrant.

2009 Fossil of the year

This award recognise those who continue to live in the past. Their views are old fashioned, often tedious, and never remotely relevant.

Joanne Black – There's a reason her Listener column is on the back page. Because although you've thrown the magazine down in disgust within a few moments of beginning that Black column, you've already read the rest of the mag. Her column template comprises a whinge about her children or their school, an attack on bureaucrats, and general bemusement at new trends.

Don Brash - The world has changed since the 1980s. Nobody told Don. His 2025 report went down like a turd on the ballroom floor.

Garth George – The quintessential '50s "little New Zealander" rails against the evils of our godless society on a weekly basis.

2009 Fool of the year award

This is the supreme award. And this year's candidates are an impressive lot.

Michael Laws – For week on week nuttery.

Paul Henry – For incoherent ranting and making disparaging remarks about others on air.

David Garrett – The Act Party MP can’t keep his mouth shut. Still, it's hard to when your foot's always in it.

Orly Taitz – For continuing to insist Barack Obama is Kenyan born, for heroic resistance in the face of reality, and for general legal ineptitude.

Andrew Williams – For late night texting, idiotic comments, and for embarrassing the good folk of the North Shore.

Cameron Slater – Too many reasons to list. If you need reminding just read his blog. Better still, just don't go there.

Now vote, or I'll steal the presents from under your tree,
unless you be Jewish
or a grinch like me.

Walk Towards The White Light And Hope It's Not The Fridge Door Left Open

The Manawatu Standard reports:

The person lying on the bed was covered in a grey sheet folded down to his shoulders. His mouth and eyes were closed, his hair was combed, and it looked like his hands were clasped together at his waist.

From his vantage point, floating near the ceiling, Trevor James realised he was looking at his own body.

Three figures dressed in surgical or mortuary gowns and caps, swathed in misty grey, appeared in the room.

Mr James recognised them as his long-dead parents and his brother. They stared at the figure on the bed, their mouths opened, but there was no sound. They beckoned.

Mr James was entranced by the sliver of brilliant white light he could see in the gap at the bottom of the door. He did not move toward it, and after a while, the figures melted away.

Mr James woke up alive next morning.

He was wearing the clothes he lay down in the previous evening. The sense of great peace and harmony had gone. He was disoriented and afraid.

There was no landline where he was living on the outskirts of Feilding, so he managed to stumble out and call for help.

An ambulance came. His vital signs were very low, his pallor deathly white. The eventual medical explanation was that he had had a stroke.

Two years on, the 69-year-old has tried to explain away the experience, but can't.

I try hard not to comment on the writing style of others ('cos I ain't no literary talent), but that was painful to read.

Anyway, back to the report. There are two possibilities here.

• Some kind of supernatural event occurred.
• He was hallucinating.

Being a sceptic when it comes to these things*, I’m inclined to chose the second option. It’s not that I'm unwilling to accept the possibility of the supernatural. But I want to see evidence. That is my attitude towards all such matters: ghost sightings, UFOs, psychic powers, whatever.

When science can explain something adequately, and when there is no firm evidence of the supernatural, I prefer science.

In this case, we know that people hallucinate. Many others have reported these experiences happening during surgery or while in hospital. But we also know that drugs and anaesthesia can do weird things to the brain.

Still, I can see that having that kind of vision would be a bit of an eye-opener.

* My late mother was very much into this stuff, was a practising clairvoyant (by which I mean she gave consultations and made a living from giving readings), and very much believed in the supernatural. I am told by some that she had "the Power”. I don’t. Even when I was younger and wanted to believe in “the Power” I felt nothing. As I grew older and wiser(??) my mother’s beliefs became an issue I generally just steered clear of.

Gift Ideas For Christmas

If you're still struggling to find that perfect present, I may be able to help.

Maybe that special someone loves to read. Buy them a book. The Irish edition of Sarah Palin's new book is now out.

Or maybe that special someone's looking forward to a visit by Santa. This gift will keep that special little person entertained for hours.

But sometimes that important person just wants a night away from the stresses of life. Why not treat them to a luxury meal?

No, don't mention it. I'm happy to have helped.

Wednesday Night: Robert F Kennedy Event

On Wednesday night I attended an event at the Hyatt entitled "A Night with Robert F Kennedy Jnr".

Kennedy

Robert F. Kennedy Jnr (son of JFK's brother Robert) is a lawyer and environmentalist. He has been involved with a number of major court cases in the US, acting against large polluters. Despite having some issues with his voice on the night, he spoke well, and the passion he displayed for the environment was admirable.

With any kind of partisan speech like this one you have to be careful about what you believe. And yet Kennedy's speech was impressive and stacked with detail. I'm no expert on US politics, but he was certainly convincing.

The picture Kennedy paints of the US political scene is a depressing one. Corporate lobbyists work constantly to pressure the government to change the rules, and as a result environmental protection laws are often changed to exclude the polluting activities of the big coal and oil companies. Under the Bush presidency these companies almost always got their way.

Kennedy exploded the myth that the free market is bad for the environment. Kennedy argues that for every big polluter you will find evidence of a major subsidy. To illustrate this point he used the example of the coal mining industry and its claims to provide power that is cheaper than any other source. Kennedy argues that these claims are false, because of the other costs to taxpayers of mining activities. These include the additional infrastructure costs (such as damage to road and rail networks caused by shifting coal), health costs (the mercury poisoning of waterways may be causing illness and cognitive impairment in children), and the costs needed to clean up dirty or destroyed environments. In many cases the polluters don’t pay for these things. But those businesses who don’t have powerful lobbyists don’t get the same special concessions. So the US taxpayer subsidises polluters. If the free market system truly applied these companies would have to pay for the negative outcomes of their activities, just as others do, and everyone would be subject to the same rules.

Kennedy, a lifelong Democrat, is an admirer of Barack Obama, and believes Obama is working hard to reverse the eight years of environmental destruction wrought by the Bush regime. He has no time for ideologues on the right who preach the virtues of the free market. Kennedy believes in the free market too, but for him it is a tool, not a religion. He compared the free market to a hammer: a hammer is a useful tool, but you you'd be mad to worship it.

He spoke in detail about the benefits of renewable energy sources: particularly wind and solar power. The national grid in the US is a mess, and it is currently difficult for a new company to plug a renewable energy source into it. But the momentum for renewable energy is growing. He compared the costs of building a huge solar farm in the desert with the costs of building a coal plant. Both cost about the same to build, but once you have built the solar plant you have virtually free power. Once you’ve built a coal plant your costs have only begun – you still have to get the coal out of the ground.

Kennedy appears optimistic about the prospects of renewable energy sources. He believes they are cheaper and more efficient, and less damaging to the environment. He says Obama is currently moving to change the rules so that polluters are no longer being subsidised.  The deregulation of the telecommunications sector is a good example of what can happen when everyone in a market is under the same rules. In the US and other countries (though perhaps not so much in New Zealand) costs to consumers have plummeted, and companies have invested hugely in new technologies.

Kennedy believes the energy sector in the US could be transformed in just a few years for about the same amount of money as has been spent on the Iraq War.

The rest of the night

The event was a fundraiser for a charity set up by former PM Mike Moore, School Aid. The night included a charity auction that raised tens of thousands of dollars, thanks to some obscenely wealthy people being present and throwing money about like we were back in the '80s.

One of the items up for auction was a lunch at Great Mercury Island with Mike Moore, Michael Fay and Robert Kennedy Jnr. Had I been obscenely wealthy and had a spare $8000 lying about I might have been tempted to bid, if only to allow myself the opportunity to get tipsy and commence a tedious monologue about the crimes and misdemeanours of two of my three lunch companions. It might have been fun, although I might have ended up having to swim home.

And I must say the sight of that great robber-baron Fay on stage telling us we should all dig into our wallets, just about drove me to commit a heinous act. It was also a surprise to learn Fay has a place on Great Mercury Island. I always assumed he lived inside a volcano.

I think it was during the Fay auction that one of the attendees got up and grabbed the microphone, and proceeded to abuse the audience for being so stingy - using some rather foul language in doing so. I am told the person may have been a prominent Auckland restaurateur who runs a well-known establishment in the Viaduct. He clearly thinks $8000 is small change. Next time I hear how badly restaurants in the Viaduct have done during the downturn I may feel less sympathy. The gentleman managed to make a complete fool of himself.

Naturally we were required to listen to Mike Moore, though I am pleased to report I don't remember a single thing he said.

The event was packed, with several hundred attendees. Many of the good, the great and not so great were there, including notable politicians (past and present), TV celebrities and business leaders. I thought Don Brash was brave to show his face in public, after the roasting he'd recently received in most circles. And North Shore mayor Andrew Williams was at the table next to mine, but he didn't appear to be furiously texting. Intriguingly, Williams and Len Brown were in the outside lobby for some time deep in discussions. Plotting?

Anyway, it was a late night, and I've got another one tonight - my firm's Christmas party. No dancing on tables allowed. I suppose next they’ll be banning snorting cocaine from the thighs of strippers. Bah humbug!

The Full Weight Of The Law

The English Law Society Gazette reports:

A Norfolk solicitor who admitted charging clients by the weight of their file is to be struck off after a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Trevor Hobden, a former equity partner at the now defunct Canada House Partnership in Norfolk, told the SDT he had not been properly trained to cost work and that he calculated how much to charge the estates of dead clients by weighing the files in his hand.

The tribunal heard that Hobden charged almost three times the proper fee and billed for thousands of pounds of work that he had not done.

He was found guilty of taking money from a client account in respect of costs without delivering a bill, taking money that was not properly due to him, overcharging a client, and failing to give clients proper information. He was cleared of having compromised or impaired his integrity.

Hobden will be removed from the solicitor’s register on 8 December 2009.

What an innovative solution to billing. Maybe I ought to stop printing double-sided.

So Pipe Beatings Aren't OK?

The Taranaki Daily news reports today:

An 80-year-old man believed he was following the Bible when he used an alkathene pipe to punish a child for stealing $1000 from him.

The man, who has interim named suppression, yesterday pleaded guilty in the New Plymouth District Court to two charges of assaulting a child and assault with a blunt instrument between November 1 and December 7.

When arrested, the man told police that he was frustrated by the child's behaviour and had been "seeking to correct him in the manner described in the Bible".

His lawyer, Paul Keegan, said the incident was out of character for the man.

"He is a Christian man and believes firmly in traditional methods of discipline," he said.

This case is yet another example of the mad PC culture we have in this country. Whenever I beat my children with a pipe (no more than six or seven times a day, otherwise it hurts my back), I refer the police to Hebrews 12:5-11:

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord by means of an alkathene pipe, nor faint when thou art half beaten to death by some old codger: For whom the Lord loveth he savagely beats, and scourgeth every son whom he discovers has been nicking his stuff or giving him lip. If ye endure chastening with a blunt instrument or a pipe, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not, other than one who can go through life with some hope of not bearing horrific mental and physical injuries? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers (for the Lord loveth a group beating, though stonings are His favourite), then are ye stupid bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us with pipes, and we gave them reverence (even if behind their backs we cursed their evil, and would have called the cops if we hadn’t been so afraid): shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure (and for their own pleasure); but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous, except for those who get off on that kind of thing: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness and severe injury unto them which are exercised thereby.

Amen to that!

Section 92A Proposals Might Just Work

A Cabinet paper has been issued by Simon Power, the Minister of Commerce, dealing with the s92A Copyright Act issue.

And it looks as if most of the proposals made by the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) in July will be adopted.

History

The Cabinet paper follows on from work done by the MED to propose a system that would enable rights holders to stop people on the internet from infringing copyright.

The original provision inserted into the Copyright Act, section 92A, was considered too draconian by many ISPs and internet lobby groups. It required ISPs to adopt and reasonably implement policies to provide for termination of the internet accounts of repeat infringers. The Prime Minister announced earlier this year that the section would not come into force and that the Government would look further into the matter.

The MED then did some work on the matter and issued a proposal document in July (and see my post on the topic here). Under that document a three stage process was proposed:

1. The rights holder would issue a warning notice to an alleged infringer, via the alleged infringer's ISP. If there is a further infringement the rights holder would then issue a cease and desist notice.
2. If a further alleged infringement occurred, the rights holder would apply to the Copyright Tribunal to obtain an order requiring the ISP to provide the name and contact details of the alleged infringer.
3. The rights holder would then register an infringement complaint with the Copyright Tribunal. The Copyright Tribunal would have the power to award damages, issue an injunction, make an order for an account of profits, order the subscriber to pay a fine, or order an ISP to terminate the subscriber’s internet account.

The new proposal

The Cabinet paper outlines a similar process to that proposed by the MED, but with some critical differences.

The most notable features of the proposals outlined in the paper are:

• Infringement notices must be based on "reasonable evidence”, to be prescribed by regulation.
• ISPs will be required to retain data about subscribers and infringements, and will be required to undertake certain processes to identify IP addresses when required. 
• Rights holders cannot sit back and do nothing about an infringement, only to then issue a string of notices. Action must be taken within 20 working days of the alleged infringement.
• Rights holders will have to pay a notice fee to the alleged infringer's ISP. The amount of the fee will be set by regulation.
• No sanction will exist for rights holders who submit notices that are false, misleading, vexatious or incorrect. The Minister believes the imposition of a fee for each notice will deter people from abusing the system. However, if the fee is set too low that may not be much of a deterrent. It seems obvious that some sanction should exist to discourage people from abusing the system. I wouldn't be surprised to see something added to the bill to deal with this.
• Claims must be for $15,000 or less to fall within the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal. This is in line with the jurisdictional limit set for the Disputes Tribunals. If the amount claimed exceeds $15,000 the matter will have to be dealt with by the District Court.
• Monetary penalties for infringement will be prescribed by regulation. Penalties are to be paid to the rights holder. I expect the debate over what the penalties should be will be fierce. NZFACT and other rights holder lobby groups will undoubtedly seek harsh penalties for infringement, but the Cabinet paper makes it clear the penalties are to be compensatory in nature, not punitive.
• The Copyright Tribunal will have no power to suspend an internet account. Only the Court will have that power, and the maximum suspension period will be six months. And the Court will be required by regulation to consider a number of factors before ordering an account suspension, such as the effect on other users or on a business. This is an entirely sensible proposal, as judges will be able to look at all the facts when deciding whether suspension is appropriate. 
• Rights holders do not have to use the Copyright Tribunal. They can still go "old school" and get a Court order. The power of the Court to order a suspension will be added to the range of remedies currently available to a plaintiff (e.g. an injunction, damages, or an account of profits).
• Appeals to the Copyright Tribunal will be on matters of law only, and will be to the High Court.
• The ISP definition would be changed for the purposes of P2P filesharing infringement matters only. That is necessary to ensure that only those ISPs who have the systems and capabilities to comply with the notice regime are bound by it. The current definition of ISPs is extremely broad and probably includes a lot of workplaces.
• A safe harbour provision will protect ISPs from copyright infringement if they have complied with the notice provisions.
• Mediation will not be included as an option within the system. Mediation was included in the July proposal document.
• The notice system will only apply to P2P copyright infringement matters. The provisions of section 92C (dealing with infringing material stored by ISPs – e.g. caching) will continue to apply for other types of infringement.
• The paper acknowledges the current uncertainty about the status and outcome of the ACTA negotiations. Nobody (other than the officials) really knows what the negotiations involve, but any treaty would probably contain filesharing copyright infringement measures, and possibly a notice system. Any changes to the Copyright Act will need to be consistent with the outcome of those negotiations.

The process will now be for a draft bill to be prepared, and for the usual select committee process to take place. No doubt many of the same arguments will be revisited during the submission process, but it seems unlikely there would be much change. This matter has been so thrashed about it is hard to imagine any radical departure from the Cabinet paper proposals.

The aim is to have legislation enacted by July 2010, and the Cabinet paper proposes a six month implementation period after that. So the new system may be in effect by the beginning of 2011.

But there is still an enormous amount of detail to be worked through. The content of the regulations that will be required to make this system work will be critical.

The proposals appear to have addressed most of the worst fears of the internet community (e.g. the risk of being disconnected). On the other hand, many rights holders may feel the original proposals have been so watered down that the notice system will be of little value.

This is the type of legislation nobody will be entirely happy with. Nevertheless, I believe the proposals fairly balance the interests of all of the main parties concerned.

An Evening with Mike Moore - Updated

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog about Mike Moore. I awarded him the coveted “Imperator Fish Fool of the Moment”, and said in my post:

It has always been an ordeal to read anything written by former PM Mike Moore.

I’m glad I limited my attack to Moore’s written words, because tonight I’m going to an event where he will be speaking.

Moore is one of the speakers at “An Evening with Robert F Kennedy Jnr”, which ought to be interesting, because I’m told Kennedy is passionate about environmental issues, whereas Moore is not.

I am hoping Moore’s spoken words will be more sensible than his written ones.

As for Kennedy, I know almost nothing about the guy. Hey, the night should still be fun – good food, fine wine etc etc.

And it could be worse. It could have been “An Evening with Don Brash”.

Update: Don Brash was there! And my opinion of Mike Moore remains unchanged. What a waffly fool. But Bob Kennedy Jnr was electrifying. More later.

Lawyers Lament - Why Does Nobody Like Us?

I’ve been told that up to 80% of journalists working at the Herald could be deeply corrupt.

That’s an outrageous statement – and of course it’s complete nonsense. But had I written a report on the news media that included that statement, the Herald’s Patrick Gower and his colleagues would have been loud and furious in their condemnation of me and my work.

But apparently when lawyers are the subject of a vicious slur we ought to sit back and take it. That’s certainly Gower’s view.

You may recall that the Bazley Report had this shocker in it:

I have also been told that up to 80% of the lawyers practising in the Manukau District Court could be gaming the legal aid system.

Gower thinks lawyers are being unreasonable and obstructive towards the Bazley report, and that they have to accept responsibility for the failings of the legal aid system:

Sometimes it is worth pleading guilty and getting it over. Then you can move on and make amends.

Lawyers should know this better than anyone.

What are they pleading guilty to? Being corrupt? Why doesn’t Gower just say so?

He doesn’t think it’s a big deal that Bazley tarnished the reputations of a large number of Manukau practitioners:

Bazley’s Dame Margaret may have been loose on a couple of points and extra sharp with some of her criticism

So it doesn’t really matter that she accused a large number of legal aid lawyers of being dishonest. Get over it, lawyers. It’s no big deal, guys. So you’re corrupt. Move on.

Bazley’s “loose” language was of course seized upon by the news media, who were more than happy to stick the boot into the legal profession.

The Law Society then inevitably stepped in to defend its members from the outrageous slur. This unavoidably drew some of the public focus from other aspects of the report. But what else could the Law Society have done? Allow a public servant to issue a report accusing large chunks of the profession of corruption, and not bite back?

Gower clearly believes lawyers have no right to defend themselves when they’re accused of corruption. That is an attitude I have a problem with.

And, for the record, the Law Society has welcomed a number of Bazley’s recommendations.

So what is Gower on about?

Pirate Flags To Fly Over Government Buildings Next Year

Cabinet yesterday approved plans for pirate flags to fly on many government buildings on September 19 next year.

The Jolly Roger will fly from the Auckland Harbour Bridge, the Beehive, Parliament, and other important sites, Prime Minister John Key and Aotearoa Pirate Party leader Captain Jack Barbarossa announced yesterday.

The Prime Minister told the press at his weekly post-Cabinet media conference that National had been in talks with the pirates for several months.

“We recognised the importance to Piratedom of the black flag, but we wanted to give the pirates time to consult on what was the most appropriate symbol for them.”

Key admitted that negotiations with the pirates over the issue had been difficult.

“We had a few setbacks along the way, but we got there in the end,” he explained. “These things aren’t always easy, but hey that’s politics.”

Key refused to confirm that the first negotiating team sent by him had been abducted, robbed, and thrown to the sharks.

Aotearoa Pirate Party leader Captain Barbarossa said that former National Party MP and sea captain Richard Worth had been instrumental in bringing the deal together.

“Arrr, he be an old salty sea dog, that one! Cap’n Worth an’ his crew of scurvy dogs made a deal we couldn’t refuse. Treasure, rum and women! We was all three sheets to the wind in no time.”

Barbarossa confirmed that flag negotiations had been tense at times.

“Avast! We fired a shot across the bows, then boarded her fast. Before they knew what hit ‘em the lads were emptying their purses and feeding ‘em to the fishes. They be with Davy Jones and his locker now. Now weigh ye the anchor and hoist the mizzen, before I have ye swingin’ from a hempen halter!”

However, other pirate groups have spoken against plans to fly the traditional Jolly Roger flag. Pirates of Penzance Party leader Captain Sam Hawkins, yesterday called Captain Barbarossa a “bilge rat” and demanded that the Government fly a red flag instead. When asked to explain why Captain Hawkins would only say “Arr! Arr! Arr! Arr!”.

Shortly afterwards an official from the Pirates of Penzance Party, known only as Polly, clarified the party’s position.

“The word ‘Roger” comes from the French word ‘rouge’, which means ‘red’. The original Jolly Roger flag was red. Now who’s a pretty boy then? Polly want a cracker! Pieces of eight! Waarrp!”

The Red Flag of the Pirates of Penzance Party

The decision by Key has dismayed some former Royal Navy admirals and sea captains. Retired RN captain Jack Aubrey said he was incensed by the move.

“Damn their eyes! That blackguard lubber Key and his blasted cabinet! A pack of infernal scrubs, all of ‘em! Belay! Belay I say! Flog the villains round the fleet!”

We Hates Brainy Folks

Sometimes it takes an outsider to highlight what is wrong with this country. But it takes a brave person to do it, because we often react badly when we’re told by an overseas person that we’re not a perfect pavlova paradise.

Lord Robert Winston is in New Zealand at the moment, and has spoken about how we are as a nation obsessed with celebrities and sports stars.

From the Stuff website:

Lord Winston believes Kiwis do not value intellectuals and ignore the worst behaviour of our sports stars. "New Zealand celebrates attributes which really aren't that important," he said.

"You do it with sportsmen and you don't do it particularly with intellectuals, for example. In New Zealand, being an intellectual is slightly disadvantageous and is often seen by the press as being something which is rather well, not to be celebrated.

"On the other hand, if you are a great rugby player, maybe parts of your private life which are pretty appalling, will go ignored.

"It is a society which tends to be driven by sailing, by the All Blacks and by the Bledisloe Cup."

Celebrity worship was "a very good example of the lessening of genuine values in society", he said

He is right. We are not the only country where celebrity and sports news have such prominence, but we do celebrate our sporting successes rather more than we ought to. And when we fail (e.g. repeatedly at Rugby World Cups) we descend into a national gloom. But, really, it should make no difference at all to our society whether or not we’re great at rugby.

It takes a brave person to admit to being an academic or intellectual in this country. Far too many people can’t even say the word “academic” in a sentence without also adding “ivory tower”. For such people experience and wisdom are gained in the “real world” – as if the world academics and intellectuals haunt is anything but real.

Many other countries have public figures whom they celebrate as intellectuals. Robert Winston is one such figure. Who do we have? The only “big ideas” person I can think of is Kevin Roberts – and that thought leaves me feeling cold, because his big ideas are all about how to sell stuff.

The generally poor standard of our media, and the ongoing “dumbing down” of the news, suggests there is no quick fix, and that this cultural trait may be with us to stay.

The Climate Can Wait Until After Dinner

You're the PM. You're in Copenhagen for the climate change conference.

You can either deliver a speech to the conference, or you can delegate the job to someone else and go off and have a feed with someone famous.

Should you:

1. Give the speech and take the opportunity to show the world that New Zealand does care about the issue and isn't a fossil when it comes to taking meaningful steps to address climate change?
2. Have a feed?

To be fair, I am being somewhat disingenuous (okay then, I'm being entirely disingenuous) when I attack John Key for leaving Nick Smith to give NZ's speech while Key has dinner with the Danish Royal Family. Because apparently none of the other world leaders are talking either.

But Key appears to be intent on showing New Zealand is simply a follower, not a leader. We are dragging our heels when it comes to climate change, and the world is waking up to the fact that our clean green image is just that - an image, devoid of substance.

If Key had spoken at the conference it might have sent a message that he gives a damn.

North Shore's Text Pest

Mayor Williams is New Fool

Seriously, what is this guy on? From the Herald:

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams has hit back over revelations of his late-night "obnoxious" texts to John Key, implying the Prime Minister is thin-skinned and that he himself is the victim of "tall poppy syndrome".

Tall poppy? I don't think the erratic mayor of North Shore will ever reach that high.

Mr Key had described texts from Mr Williams as "aggressive" and "obnoxious". They were sometimes sent as late as 3.30am.

Yesterday, Mr Williams released a statement saying he took issue with Mr Key's description of his texts as "aggressive".

"Politicians need to have thick skins and I certainly get plenty of pointed messages, texts and emails on different subjects but that goes with the territory."

But it's not just the PM:

Dr Mapp said he had received many texts from Mr Williams and agreed they could be aggressive in tone.

"The Prime Minister is entirely accurate. I know that Andrew feels strongly about issues. Let us put it this way, if you receive a text that is largely in capital letters with multiple exclamation marks, you are reasonably confident that the person sending it is feeling particularly aggrieved about the point."

If someone texts me at 3.30am it had better be bloody important. However, Williams has a reputation for late night communication faux pas.
Of course, every Auckland region mayor has his "issues". With Napoleon Banks where would we even begin? Bob Harvey thinks the sun shines from the backside of Brian Tamaki.

And Len Brown is a shameless attention seeker. He even had the audacity to collapse on stage during a major public event. Couldn't he have had his massive heart attack off-stage?

My message to Mayor Williams is this: dude, stop it. You're forcing me to agree with Cameron Slater. That makes me feel dirty and unclean.

Williams has been on the verge of fooldom for some time. But this has tipped the scales.

Andrew Williams, you are now the current Imperator Fish Fool of the Moment

Battle Of The River Plate: 70 Years Ago Today

The Battle of the River Plate was seventy years ago today. We remember this World War Two naval battle because a New Zealand ship played an important part.

It is easy to get swept away with the importance of the event, because of our involvement. But it was not a decisive battle. The loss of a single German ship was never going to critically alter the fortunes of World War Two. On the other hand, the scuttling of the "pocket battleship" the Admiral Graf Spee provided a much needed propaganda boost for the Allies.

The Admiral Graf Spee was at sea when World War Two began. She spent a couple of months in the Atlantic searching for British merchant vessels, and she sank several. The Royal Navy assembled a number of warships to hunt for the German ship, and on 13 December 1939 a British cruiser force located her.

The engagement in the South Atlantic between the Admiral Graf Spee, and three Allied cruisers (the British heavy cruiser Exeter, the British light cruiser Ajax and the New Zealand light cruiser Achilles) was tactically a draw, but the lighter British ships took more of a beating. Exeter was left crippled and was knocked out of the battle. Had the Germans not lost their nerve and run to a neutral port, Montevideo, the battle would probably have been a major defeat for the Allies, and our own Achilles may well have ended up on the bottom of the South Atlantic.

A chart showing the action on 13 December

The decision by the German captain Hans Langsdorff to scuttle his ship still baffles historians. It appears he grew convinced that an overwhelming Allied naval force was waiting outside Montevideo harbour. In fact, the only Allied ships on hand were the two light cruisers Ajax and Achilles, and the heavy cruiser Cumberland. Had the Graf Spee gone out to fight she may well have fought her way to safety.

International law meant that the Graf Spee had to either leave Montevideo by 17 December, or face internment. So on 17 December the Graf Spee set sail, only to be scuttled on Langsdorff's orders. He did this because he believed the Germans were doomed, and he wanted no further loss of life - except for his own. He shot himself two days later.

The scuttling of the Admiral Graf Spee

The Battle of the River Plate was probably the most memorable naval engagement New Zealand forces have been involved in. That we won - even if only because the Germans lost their nerve - is no doubt one of the reasons for this.

It's also almost unique among the battles we remember from the World Wars , because it didn't involve huge numbers of New Zealand dead. The New Zealand casualties were light - only two dead out of 72 Allied losses.

Is There Broadband In Prison?

Tedious blowhard blogger Cameron Slater, aka Whaleoil, has finally done something interesting.

And it might be his undoing.

Slater's decision to reveal the name of a person accused of rape and abduction, and who has name suppression, may end very badly for the potty-mouthed one.

He didn't reveal the person's name directly. Instead he put up a number of pictures on his site as clues - not very subtle clues. It took me about ten seconds to work out who the person was. I won't link to the site, as I don't want any part of Slater's potential law-breaking.

Slater thinks he is above the law. But his "fuck you" attitude won't impress a judge. If he wants to know what happens to people who attempt to defy the legal system, he could talk to Vince Siemer (here is a Wikipedia article on Siemer, but it appears to have been written mostly by Siemer supporters). Siemer is still fighting away in his various pointless crusades, but has spent time behind bars.

And Slater can't claim inadvertence or error. His actions were deliberate and designed to provoke a reaction.

No person is above the law. Name suppression exists for a reason. This includes the protection of victims. Slater's actions were callous and stupid. If a judge throws the book at him it will be what he deserves.

Patents Add Value

A recent Australian survey conducted by the Melbourne Institute for Applied Economic and Social Research, and the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, shows that patented inventions are likely to make more money than non-patented ones.

The 2007 Australian Inventor Survey organisers sent questionnaires to every inventor who filed a patent application in Australia between 1986 and 2006. The survey results indicate that the existence of patent protection for an invention may increase the commercial return on that invention by up to 47%.

Of course, for any survey to be reliable it must have a sound methodology. In this case inventors who did not try to get patent protection were not questioned. So the survey has its limitations. But the results cannot be easily dismissed.

And just because the average premium is 47%, that doesn’t mean all inventions are worth more if they are patented. A good IP lawyer will be able to advise an inventor what the best strategy is for an invention. Sometimes the best strategy is to keep the invention as a trade secret. Sometimes it will be to file a patent application. Sometimes there are other, cheaper options available (e.g. filing a registered design, or relying on copyright). Inventors need to understand their options and get advice early, and not disclose their invention to anyone before they have got that advice.

But the survey confirms what so many in the innovation game already know – a patent can add considerable value to an invention.

If There Is A God Can It Be Me?

(Picture from http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign/photos)

Oh good, this will stir up some much-needed/needless* controversy:

An atheist campaign plans to raise $10,000 to run controversial slogan advertisements on New Zealand buses.

The adverts, which read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life", created a storm when they ran on the London Underground and British buses earlier this year.

The campaign was launched here yesterday. New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign spokesman Simon Fisher said it would provoke discussion on religion and take away the stigma of atheism.

I'm not a critic of the campaign. In fact, if there was a pay TV channel devoted to filming the feathers of religious folk being ruffled, I would buy a subscription.

It's about time the atheists and doubters stood up for what they don't believe in.

My favourite quote on religion is by Douglas Adams:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

* You decide.

Orly Taitz Fights On

You can say many things about Birther Orly Taitz, but she is not a quitter.

In October Judge David Carter threw out a lawsuit by Taitz and others challenging the right of President Obama to issue orders to military personnel.

In his ruling Carter was scathing of Taitz:

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules... Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel...


Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.

While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

The allegation of suborning perjury hasn't gone down well with Taitz. So on 2 December she filed a motion requesting that Judge Carter investigate the misconduct of others involved in the proceedings.

In that document she accuses other of perjury, and makes further allegations about the alleged Kenyan birth of Obama and his possible Communist indoctrination.

On top of that she says she has been the subject of regular death threats, and implies that Obama and his attorney general Eric Holder are either behind those threats or are deliberately ordering the FBI and police not to investigate them.

The attachments to Taitz's application are dazzlingly random at best, and appear mostly to be bits and pieces she found on the Internet.

The application is a masterpiece in incoherent rambling, and a textbook example of how not to plead a case.

She will fail, inevitably.

Why Do We Hate Phil Goff?

Why is it that the performance of the Labour Party leader draws so much media focus? Our economy is in a rut and we face enormous economic challenges just to maintain our standard of living. And we lack strong and visionary leadership from our Government.

So why aren't we asking more questions of John Key? And, seriously, what were the Trans-Tasman staff drinking when they came up with their politician ratings? How does John Key get a 9 out of 10? What has he achieved?

Almost every day I see questions in the media about Goff's leadership. Why is that? He's been Opposition leader for barely a year. Sure he's made mistakes,  but I can't think of anything he has done that matches Key's bumbling over Richard Worth or the Rugby World Cup TV rights debacle, or Key's apparent inability to keep a rein on his ministers. And let's not forget that Key is an embarrassment on the national stage - remember that goofy grin on Letterman?

Most Labour supporters would agree Goff has not performed as well as they might have hoped. But it seems clear that some news outlets are creating news, as opposed to reporting it. Ask enough questions about the performance of a politician and the public will start to lose confidence. I hate to suggest there is a media agenda, because I don't believe in that kind of conspiracy nonsense. But why does the media love Key and disdain Goff?

Is it simply because Key's so approachable and easy-going? His "everyman" personality no doubt wins many votes, but we should expect our journalists and political commentators to look beyond such things. I don't care if Key's a nice guy. I want someone who can lead us out of the crap we're in.

But let's not just blame the media, because the Left is adept at shooting itself in the foot.  It would be nice just for a change if certain forces on the Left wouldn't pick over every Goff utterance in the search for hidden meanings or messages, like a Roman priest peering at the entrails of a dead sheep. Because most voters don't give a shit.

I Can Fix It

Part One – Global Warming

In a debate between economist Gareth Morgan and climate change denier Ian Wishart on Close Up the other night, 77% of viewers decided Wishart made the better argument on whether global warming exists.

And climate change deniers claim that the leaked emails from prominent climate scientists prove global warming is a fiction – a conspiracy invented by the scientific community for their own gain.

I expect many of you will be thinking these two events merely go to prove how gullible people can be. But don’t be so quick to judge, because I see an opportunity. After all, we create our own reality. So maybe climate change can be arrested if we simple pretend it doesn’t exist.

Here’s what we need to do to make this work:

• Next time you hear a scientist speak about how the melting polar icecaps will submerge many countries and doom millions, just stick your fingers in your ears and go “la la la la!”
• Vote for a political party that doesn’t have the heart for the climate change fight. If you’re in New Zealand, you’re already in luck!
• Every time you read or hear an expert discussing global warming, go outside and start a fire – preferably a big dirty one. Tyres are perfect, but any rubbish will do. Tell your friends and neighbours to do the same. When climate change scientists realise that their arguments are contributing to global warming, they’ll shut up and the problem will go away.
• Buy land in Hamilton. Pretty soon it’ll be coastal property and you’ll be able to relax at the seaside reading Air Con while enjoying the feel of the waves lapping at your feet.

Coming Soon: Part Two – Death and Taxes

Hanover Boss: “I Feel Your Pain”

Hanover Finance director Mark Hotchin attended a meeting of the company’s investors yesterday, and spoke about how the company’s plight had affected him personally.

Emotional and struggling to hold back tears, Hotchin told the gathered investors about the pain he felt.

“The recession has left me financially devastated,” he explained. “I feel your pain. I really do.

“My plans for a dream home have been all but destroyed”, he said, referring to the opulent mansion being built on Paratai Drive. "I’ve had to make so many compromises that my heart’s not in it anymore.

“The grand staircase was meant to be lined with 24 carat gold and encrusted with diamonds. I’ve kept the gold, but I’ve had to downgrade to sapphires and rubies. It’s just not the same. And I have had to scrap plans for the enormous golden dome that was supposed to rival St Peter’s Basilica for size.

“Worst of all I’ve had to abandon plans for the special toilet-paper to go into each of the 34 bathrooms. You’ve no idea how hard that has been to deal with. Once you’ve felt the softness of Italian silk nothing else will do.”

Asked if he thought his plight could be compared with the suffering of those who had lost everything, he replied: “I feel for them. But I’m a victim too. Every time I see Graeme Hart’s super-yacht I burst into tears. Some days the pain’s so bad I can barely get out of my enormous golden bed.”

Hotchin’s tale of misery has clearly moved Hanover investors. Jim Smith, 74, a retired Nelson pharmacist, says he has over $200,000 tied up in Hanover. “The guy’s genuine” Smith said. “It broke my heart to listen to his story. I just wanted to give him a big hug.

“I had dreams too. My wife and I were going to use some of the money to fly to the UK to see our children, but that’s on hold now. She’s sick anyway, and the money would have been useful to help pay the medical bills. At our age, I’m not sure if we’ll see the family again.

“Still, imagine having to abandon plans to build a bejewelled palace the size of the Taj Mahal. He must be devastated.”

The Perils Of Defeat

Quintili Vare, legiones redde!

The news that the All Whites have drawn a “relatively easy” pool in next year’s World Cup will be a great relief to their coach Ricki Herbert.

His relief must be similar to the relief felt by Roman proconsul Marcus Licinius Crassus in 53 BC as his legions faced the Parthian armies at Carrhae. “At least we’re not up against the Germans,” he probably thought, just before his army was cut to pieces.

Although an upset is always possible. We play the Italians in our pool. They’re the current champions. But they were also top dogs in 9 AD. That would have been little comfort to the Roman general Publius Quinctilius Varus at the battle of Teutoberg Forest, as hordes of Germanic warriors overwhelmed his legions.

Don’t lose your head

Let’s not expect too much from our coach and his players.

According to Cassius Dio, Crassus, famous for being the richest man in Rome, had molten gold poured down his throat. His head was later presented to the Parthian king.

Varus killed himself after his defeat, and his head was also presented to a king – the king of the Marcomanni, a Germanic tribe.

Around these parts we only demand heads roll when All Black coaches lose tests.

Here endeth the lesson.

Is That All 15 Minutes Of Fame Gets Me?

When I found out I was going to be the Herald on Sunday’s blogger of the week, I was naturally elated. I couldn’t help but dream of the fame and vast riches that would come my way as a result of the media attention.

I sometimes imagine myself as the Susan Boyle of the blogosphere. Okay, so my blog’s a bit rough around the edges, but I feel sure people will be entranced by the purity and beauty of my message, if only they’d stop to hear me.

So much for that. Since Sunday I’ve had not one request for an interview from either the Herald or Dominion, and John Campbell hasn’t called.

It also appears Woman's Weekly may not want to do a full exposé on my life. I was expecting “my year from Hell” or “family heartbreak for genius blogger”, or some similar drivel (drivel they’d pay me for!), but I’m still waiting for the call.

I don’t even have one hate site aimed at me, nor do I have a stalker.

Paul Henry won’t go on air calling me a retard, because he doesn’t even know I exist.

And just where exactly are those groupies? Calling all the good time girls! Hello!?

Oh fame, you are such a fickle creature!

In Which I Rage At Blogger.com

**UPDATE: No more raging. Comments have returned. Saved!

I thought I'd be real clever and get my own domain name. Finally no more "blogspot".

Apparently when this happened I managed to delete all of the comments ever made on my site.

Don't ask me how or why. I'm a Luddite, and right at this moment I feel like ramming something heavy and wooden into my computer's inner workings. Even though it's probably Google's fault, my computer is getting the blame.

Thankfully I have a glass of Pinot Noir at hand, and am hopeful that my insane rage will be mellowed by the delights of Bacchus.

I'm sorry if anyone felt attached to a particular comment - it has been lost in the endless interwebs.

2025 Taskforce Issues Revised Report

The 2025 Taskforce today issued a revised version of last week's report, after the original report was widely panned.

The Taskforce was established as part of the National-Act support agreement following last year's election. The Taskforce's purpose is to recommend ways in which New Zealand can close the income gap with Australia.

Taskforce head Don Brash was initially defensive after last week's report received a drubbing.  But on Friday he admitted the Taskforce had got it wrong.

"We misread the mood of the public," said Brash in a Taskforce press release. "There really is no appetite for the types of reform we were proposing."

The press release went on to say "The Taskforce members now accept that our original recommendations were wrong, and that the radical reforms we initially proposed would, if anything, widen the income gap with Australia. For that reason we have decided to issue a revised version of the report."

The initial reaction to the revised report has been largely positive. Prime Minister John Key said last night: "This looks good. I'm confident that if these recommendations are implemented we'll be on our way to catching up with Australia."

Even Labour leader Phil Goff admitted the revised report was impressive. "It's hard to argue against the findings, really. If the Taskforce's plan is followed we'll have parity with Australia within five years, ten years tops."

The main recommendations of the revised Taskforce report are:

• Australia to slash government spending
• Australian tax rates to be sharply reduced
• abolish Australian compulsory superannuation
• Australian state assets to be sold
• Spending on health and education in Australia to be sharply reduced
• take a hatchet to Australian federal and state red tape and regulation.

Government officials in Australia were unavailable for comment.

Another Dumb Petition

Well this is a bit silly.

A group of Robin Bain supporters has launched a petition calling on Justice Minister Simon Power to deny his son David Bain's application for compensation for the time he spent in jail after being convicted of the murders of five members of his family in 1995.

Advertisements were placed in major papers today, calling for people to sign up to the petition at www.davidbain.counterspin.co.nz.

By midday, just over 300 people had signed up.

Whether Bain gets compensation or not should have nothing to do with public opinion. My understanding of the compensation procedure is that if it can be shown on a balance of probabilities that Bain is innocent, he will be entitled to compensation.

So what are the petition organisers afraid of? If Bain's guilty as sin (and I assume that's what is behind the petition), how will he ever pass that hurdle? So what have they to fear?

I would be interested to know if any of the petition organisers are relatives who benefited from the estate of Bain’s parents. Bain lost his inheritance because he was found guilty in 1995 of the murder of his parents. I don’t know whether he would have a claim against those relatives now. But an award of compensation might give Bain the funds he needs to fight any legal battles over his inheritance. This is pure speculation, by the way. For all I know, his relatives might be of the view that if Bain is compensated he may be less likely to chase his inheritance.

Anyway, the petition's still dumb. Bain’s been tried and acquitted. One could make a strong argument that Bain should be given compensation even if it isn’t shown on the balance of probabilities that he didn’t kill his family. Why? Because he was locked up for 13 years for something ultimately the Crown failed to prove he did. Anyone who is imprisoned and subsequently acquitted should be entitled to compensation for time spent in prison. Otherwise, doesn’t it send the message that even though someone’s not guilty, they still deserved to be punished? That’s not how our justice system should work.

I’ve never formed a firm view on Bain’s guilt or innocence, and I find the ongoing did- he/didn’t-he speculation both pointless and boring. Critics of the Bain acquittal abound, and I’m sure the anti-Bain petition will attract many signatures. But so what? Are we really going to conduct a public poll each time there is a legal issue to be determined? The only poll that matters is the one taken in the jury room.

Maybe next time I get a speeding ticket I’ll start a petition.

Bye Bye Huckabee

So another prominent US Republican finds his future political prospects in tatters.

It turns out that Maurice Clemmons, the guy who killed four Washington cops a few days ago, was one of numerous felons that Mike Huckabee pardoned as former Arkansas governor. Huckabee ran for the Republican nomination in the last US election, and was thought to have been a strong prospect for 2012.

Salon's Gene Lyons writes:

Although he posed as a conservative hard-liner, when it came to crime and punishment, the glib, self-deprecating Huckabee proved as softheaded and gullible as the woolliest sociology professor in the faculty lounge.

During the former Baptist minister's decade as Arkansas governor, it appeared that no matter how heinous an inmate's crimes, all he had to do for a pardon was drop to his knees, praise Jesus and persuade some preacher known to Huckabee of his newfound holiness. "Everybody knows that Mike Huckabee makes up his mind what to do by what God tells him to do," said one minister who gained clemency for a prisoner serving 100 years for the strong-arm robbery of elderly neighbors.

Making the governor's personal acquaintance also seemed to help. Inmates competed to be assigned to do yard work at the Governor's Mansion. "If you do a good job raking the governor's leaves," Pulaski County (Little Rock) prosecutor Larry Jegley complained bitterly, "you can go free."

Altogether, Huckabee commuted 163 inmates' sentences, including a dozen murderers. Several have already ended up back in prison. Indeed, given Huckabee's track record, Maurice Clemmons probably won't be the last to earn notoriety. We must pray that he ends up being the worst. Only a strong public outcry in 2004 prevented the governor from freeing a Lonoke County killer who'd beaten, raped and run over a pregnant woman with his car, only to get religion in the penitentiary.

You don't get far in the Republican Party if you're soft on crims.

Another rival to Sarah Palin falls.

Have You Pummelled A Finance Company Boss Today?

Shareholder Association head Bruce Sheppard is never short of a strong opinion, and today's blog post on Stuff is especially provocative.

Sheppard mentions the beating Bridgecorp boss Rod Petricevic took after he turned up at a swanky restaurant and was told to get lost. Sheppard jokingly suggests that these finance company bosses all deserve a pummelling, but what he really would like to see is these guys being subject to ridicule:

But seriously, a bit of a whacking doesn't really hurt them that much. What will really hurt is causing these guys economic loss, public isolation and ridicule. Hey Hell Pizza, produce some more of those bill boards! And while you're at it, why don't you produce a Hanover Pizza? One with no toppings and just an outside crust with the middle missing.

Maybe you could offer one of these little dozeys in exchange for $1000 of first ranking debentures stock in Hanover? And if the deal with Allied Farmers goes though, one for every 100,000 Allied shares? With a bit of luck you could take the company over with your Hanover hole in the middle, no topping pizzas.

Perhaps KFC could introduce a chicken neck grill? Nice and healthy, no fat, no meat, lots of bones to gag on. Call it the Hot Hotchin. How about some chicken beaks mixed in the coleslaw? Call it the Watson Waldoff. Seriously, take the piss out of these guys. Have their names on everybody's lips, epitomise them as greedy, shallow guys who strip out all value and leave the plate bare.

Sheppard is now promising a naming and shaming of those who have contributed to the Hanover situation:

My next blog was going to be a list of the people Watson and Hotchin have had working for them and who presumably are happy to help them on their ways. Birds of a feather flock together. The challenge for those who have aided and abetted this travesty is to confess the crimes and go to the regulators and deal to their master. If they don't want to do that, then start vilifying them too. Names and addresses shortly.

However, my next blog will instead be on Mark Cooper and his allegations of fraud against Hanover. My review of his files does not indicate fraud. But if investors do have remedies against Hanover directors personally, those remedies will be lost if they vote for the Allied deal.

Sheppard is probably right to attack the Allied deal. I'm no high roller or slick corporate, but the plan to acquire Hanover sounds like a really really dumb thing to do. Still, it is almost Christmas, so what better time to buy a turkey?

LSA And Law Society To Work Together?

It was heartening to hear the new head of the legal Services Agency, former High Court judge John Hansen, indicating he would talk to the Law Society about the deficiencies in the legal aid system.

The Bazley Report found that the relationship between the LSA and Law Society was dysfunctional, with neither side willing to take action to deal with problems. It appears that the two bodies may be going to sit down and sort out some of these problems.

Some of Bazley's more colourful comments (e.g. the comment that up to 80% of Manukau's legal aid lawyers may be "gaming" the system) have thrown the Law Society onto the defensive. Rather than dealing with the issues raised in the report, it finds itself having to defend the reputation of its Manukau members.

Today this email went out to members of the Law Society:

Dear fellow practitioners

You will have been concerned to read the media reports of the Legal Aid Review by Dame Margaret Bazley. Dame Margaret finds that there is a small but significant number of criminal legal aid lawyers who are incompetent or are "gaming the system". She also refers to anecdotal reports that some of these lawyers are demanding "top-up payments" from legal aid clients. Some of the lawyers practising in the Manukau District Court are singled out as a particular problem.

The NZLS takes the issues raised in the review very seriously. However, the statements are based on anecdotal evidence and we need factual information before we can deal with any problem lawyers through our complaints service. I ask members who are aware of any unacceptable practices to let the Law Society know, and provide us with details. We will be using other avenues to obtain this information as well, but we can take action only when we have evidence. There is, of course, an ethical obligation on all lawyers to make a confidential report to the Law Society where there are reasonable grounds to suspect another lawyer of misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct. This is covered (along with our duties in regard to privileged communications and confidential non-privileged information) in Chapter 2 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care.

Dame Margaret's criticism of the quality of the service that some criminal legal aid lawyers are providing to their clients is a further cause for serious concern. Clearly, quality standards must be improved, and in September this year the NZLS Board adopted a competency assurance programme which will bring in mandatory continuing legal education, an expanded 3-day Flying Start programme including courses in ethics, advocacy skills and court etiquette. We also resolved that lawyers require three years' experience before being able to practise as barristers sole. These steps will help improve quality standards, but clearly each one of us needs to focus constantly on keeping up with the law in our areas of work. Quality of legal aid lawyers will also be ensured by a new accreditation system which was proposed by the Law Society and is recommended in the report.

We have been very concerned at the imbalance in the media reporting of the review. It has focused on the problems with a relatively small group of criminal legal aid lawyers, and the impression has been left that all legal aid lawyers, including family lawyers who are not criticised at all, are poor performers. This, of course, is totally wrong. The great majority of legal aid lawyers are people of integrity who provide quality services in difficult circumstances and for inadequate remuneration. It is grossly unfair for them to be tarred with the same brush.

Because of the nature of this media coverage, I released a further statement on Tuesday 1 December pointing out these things. It has received wide coverage. A link to this statement is provided at the end of this email.

I was particularly concerned at the statement in paragraph 330 of the report, where Dame Margaret says: "I have been told that up to 80% of the lawyers practising in the Manukau District Court could be gaming the system."

First, this statement is a clear breach of natural justice. It seriously damages the reputation of all Manukau lawyers and, indeed, the whole profession. The comment recorded is from an unnamed person. It is anecdotal hearsay evidence. It was not put to the Manukau lawyers for comment.

Second, I am quite sure it is incorrect. Yesterday, I went to the Manukau Court. I saw first hand the very difficult and stressful circumstances these lawyers work in. I spoke to about 20 legal aid lawyers, a senior Public Defence Service lawyer and a Crown Prosecutor. There was general outrage at this statement, which all agreed was a gross exaggeration. Having met those lawyers, I fully agree with them. However, we cannot discount the possibility that there may be a small number of Manukau lawyers who may be acting improperly to maximise legal aid payments. If there are, those lawyers must be identified and dealt with as I have noted above.

I have also given many media interviews on this issue and a link to my Morning Report interview this morning is also provided.

The Government will be acting quickly to implement the report and we will be working with it and Sir John Hansen, the new Chair of the Legal Services Agency, to ensure that the legal aid system is improved and provides access to justice for all those who are eligible. There will be major changes and these have been flagged for some time. Bulk funding will clearly be introduced and the Public Defence Service expanded. There is recognition in the report of the vital role of senior lawyers in the legal aid system, and of the fact that low rates of remuneration and problems with the Legal Services Agency have contributed to the current problems.

The Law Society has been given two years to resolve the quality and competence issues, and to deal with the alleged corrupt practices and gaming of the system by a few lawyers who bring the whole profession into disrepute. If we fail, we are under notice that the Government will step in and strip the profession of the regulatory role we have under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. That outcome would strike at the very heart of a strong and independent profession. It would damage our capacity to promote the proper administration of justice and to defend liberty.

These are very serious matters for all of us, whatever our fields of practice. It is crucial that we work together now to preserve and enhance our hard-earned reputation for honesty and integrity.

With kind regards

John Marshall QC

President

New Zealand Law Society

Attached links:

• John's 1 December media release

• Morning Report interview (this link may not work on all computers)

Let us hope that the more unhelpful and unsubstantiated claims in the Bazley Report don't end up distracting the main players from working to improve the system.

Look At Me

This site hit something of a milestone late last night. According to Sitemeter I've now had over 10,000 visitors.

This is not intended to be one of those awful "haven't I done well" posts that make the reader want to puke up their stomach contents. Just a quiet reflection on how weird this blogging thing is.

I'd been a blogosphere lurker for a few years, but never bothered to post comments on any of the main sites, and I never dreamed of having my own blog. I don't recall exactly why that changed in April. I had been growing frustrated, however, with the scarcity of blogs in New Zealand that discussed topical matters without being highly partisan*. At the time I thought "this will last a week, then I'll get bored." I'm still going.

Most of my blogging is done early in the morning or in the evening. My day job (evicting orphans, helping evil corporates destroy the little people, sucking the wealth from the poor, and helping clients commercialise their inventions) keeps me pretty busy. And my family also demands attention. Which is why so many of my posts are short and (if I'm to be honest) usually quite shallow. Hey if you don't like 'em you don't have to be here...

Anyway, not a bad effort for a site that's only been going since April. Although that sounded like shameless self praise. Oops, sorry.

* That doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions on some matters. But my starting point is never "the Nats are all righhtwing bastards" or "that's what you'd expect from a pack of dumb socialists". Still, what would you expect from such a wishy-washy confused liberal-conservative-social-democrat-fascist-commie?

The Demjanjuk Defence

89 year old John Demjanjuk is on trial in Germany, accused of being a camp guard in the Sobibor death camp, and of being an accessory to the murder of some 27000 Jews.

Memorial at Sobibor Camp, from Wikipedia (Author: Jacques Lahitte)

According to the indictment, Demjanjuk was a former Red Army soldier captured in 1942 and who then served as a camp guard under the SS.

The absence of eyewitnesses, and the relatively thin evidence, mean the case is probably going to be a hard one for the prosecution to prove. Interestingly, Demjanjuk is possibly the lowliest person put on trial for Nazi war crimes.

Demjanjuk denies he was ever at Sobibor.  But if the court doesn't believe him he will be hoping his alternative defence impresses the court. That defence is controversial to say the least. From the Guardian:

Demjanjuk's lawyer shocked the courtroom by claiming that his client was just as much a victim as those imprisoned in the camp. Gasps came from the public gallery when Ulrich Busch compared Demjanjuk's situation, as a Red Army soldier who was taken prisoner by the Germans, to the victims of Sobibor.

Busch listed camp guards more senior than Demjanjuk, some of them members of the SS, who had been tried in the 1970s for their roles at Sobibor, or at the guards' training camp, Trawniki, but who had either received minimal sentences or been exonerated of any wrongdoing.

How, Busch asked, was it possible that a "subordinate", who had been forced to work for the Nazis as a prisoner of war, was standing trial? "He is as much a victim as those people who were imprisoned in the camp but he is being treated as if he was a mass murderer," he said.

If Demjanjuk was at Sobibor, does what he did, assuming it was done under orders, become justifiable?  Daniel Finkelstein, a Jewish columnist for the Times, thinks not.

Finkelstein writes about the famous Stanford social experiment in the 1960s and 1970s, where ordinary people were tested to see how easily they could be made to behave in abominable ways towards others:

“In a naive moment some time ago, I once wondered whether in all of the United States a vicious government could find enough moral imbeciles to meet the personnel requirements of a national system of death camps of the sort that were maintained in Germany. I am now beginning to think that the full complement could be found in New Haven.”

A few days after beginning his famous obedience experiments at the end of the summer of 1961, Stanley Milgram wrote these words in a letter from his office in Yale University to his fellow social psychologist Henry Riecken.  

He told Riecken how his subjects had proved willing to administer what they had every reason to think was a fatal electric shock to a complete stranger. They had kept turning the dial up, ignoring the victim’s screams (which they did not realise was just play-acting), just because a man in a white coat had told them to. The “torturers” were ordinary New Haven residents who had been told they were testing the impact of pain upon learning. A large proportion obeyed orders, even when they thought they might be killing someone. The results, Milgram wrote, were “terrifying and depressing”.

That experiment was followed by a "prison" experiment, where people designated in the experiment as "guards" fell easily into the habit of displaying sadistic behaviour towards "inmates". Some people argue these experiments prove ordinary people will revert to cruelty if the situation seems to require it, for example if someone orders them to be cruel. This is due to a desire to conform.  The Stanford experiments have been used in part to justify the behaviour of some of the camp guards at Abu Ghraib prison.

Finkelstein rejects this defence:

Does this idea — that decent human beings can behave in an evil way just to conform — justify the Demjanjuk defence? Of course it does not.

And:

In any case, it seem inherently unlikely that the goodness of people’s basic nature is invariable. And countless studies of the links between behaviour and genes support this. Why would we be the only animal whose behaviour was not evolutionary and genetic?

Yet this makes the problem of the Demjanjuk defence worse rather than better. People have even less control over their personality than over their situation, after all.

Which leaves us with this. Whatever their nature or their circumstances, human beings retain a moral choice. The ability to judge people by the choices they make is the cornerstone of civilisation. The very basis of human co-operation is our insistence that others behave to us as we would to them. The progress of mankind involves ensuring that this standard is continually raised.

The ability, therefore, to distinguish between perpetrator and victim is one of the most fundamental abilities of all. Without it there can be no such thing as society.

The Demjanjuk case is an interesting one. Not just because it appears to be unprecedented for someone so relatively "low level" to be tried, but because of the moral dilemma the case potentially poses. Should you be held responsible for doing beastly things if you do it to save your own skin?*

* Of course, he may well have been a quite willing participant in mass murder. The trial may reveal to what extent he was coerced, if he was at all.

The Blog Post Where The Title Is About Three Times As Long As The Content

Tiger Woods.

Who cares?

We Need Some Economic Enhancement

We've all been worrying about how far behind Australia we are slipping economically.

And the 2025 Taskforce's recommendations, if implemented, would see us fall further behind.

So are we doomed? Not at all! Because there's one industry where we're world leaders. And our prospects for growth are phenomenal.

It turns out we are master spammers (okay so one guy got caught - let's not let that disrupt our march towards spamming domination). We're good at it. We can clog the internet with our ads for dodgy pharmaceuticals.

But there's danger ahead. Our business leader hero Lance Atkinson, the man behind this success, has moved to Australia. Typical of the Australians to exploit our success.

If we want these brave business champions to remain in New Zealand we need to celebrate their successes. Because we need them to stay and work their magic. Our economy is flaccid and needs an enormous boost.

Blame Canada

There's something rotten in the state of Canada.

And I don't just mean Celine Dion's singing.

The Guardian/s George Monbiot is one of the most renowned environmentalists on the planet. So disgusted is he at Canada's refusal to do its bit to tackle climate change, that he has broken his vow not to fly and gone to Toronto.

So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.

Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

Ouch. Those nice polite Canadians won't like that.

Monbiot explains that Canada is pushing against any kind of deal on climate change, because any such deal will harm Canada's dirty fuel industry. He describes a particularly unpleasant oil extraction process:

Canada is developing the world's second largest reserve of oil. Did I say oil? It's actually a filthy mixture of bitumen, sand, heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals. The tar sands, most of which occur in Alberta, are being extracted by the biggest opencast mining operation on earth. An area the size of England, comprising pristine forests and marshes, will be be dug up – unless the Canadians can stop this madness. Already it looks like a scene from the end of the world: the strip-miners are creating a churned black hell on an unimaginable scale.

To extract oil from this mess, it needs to be heated and washed. Three barrels of water are used to process one barrel of oil. The contaminated water is held in vast tailings ponds, some so toxic that the tar companies employ people to scoop dead birds off the surface. Most are unlined. They leak organic poisons, arsenic and mercury into the rivers. The First Nations people living downstream have developed a range of exotic cancers and auto-immune diseases.

Refining tar sands requires two to three times as much energy as refining crude oil. The companies exploiting them burn enough natural gas to heat six million homes. Alberta's tar sands operation is the world's biggest single industrial source of carbon emissions. By 2020, if the current growth continues, it will produce more greenhouse gases than Ireland or Denmark. Already, thanks in part to the tar mining, Canadians have almost the highest per capita emissions on earth, and the stripping of Alberta has scarcely begun.

So remember, people, blame Canada. Have you kicked a Canadian today? They won't mind. They're too polite to complain.