When divorce is the wiser option

updated
No Right Turn has blogged on a report of a study conducted by Professor Kelly Musick and Dr Ann Meier of Cornell University on warring families whose parents have not yet split up because they still have kids at home - so divorce is the wiser option. Well, The Independent pretty much said that, so he uncritically accepted it. The news report actually said that the research was conducted among parents who stay together for the sake of the kids. "Stop Jimmy's mum and dad splitting, and Jimmy will be more likely to stay in school, on the right side of the law, and off drugs".

The research report - a revised 2008 report initially written in 2006 (which is perhaps why The Independent didn't link it, it's old news), noted that parental conflict does not appear to be associated with college attendance or early cohabitation. The report, Are Both Parents Always Better Than One? Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-Being never implied that divorce is the wiser option, nor does it state that the parents interviewed were together purely for the sake of the kids.

It was actually a report on parental conflict, and in some instances compared two parent families with sole parent families. It was not research on whether parents plan to divorce because of that conflict. The report did, however say that children in two-parent families in the higher end of the conflict spectrum are often no better off than children in sole parent families. Unlike No Right Turn, the report did not say that these kids were considerably worse off, nor did it suggest that conflicting parents would be better to divorce.

Note to Idiot Savant at No Right Turn: Don't believe everything you read in The Independent, especially when it is opinion. Then you'll be less likely to report it as fact.

Barnardos asks kids about smacking, and lies about the research

Barnardos have been interviewing children by phone to see what they think about getting smacked. The question they asked

Do you think that adults who are taken to court for hitting a child should be let off if they say they were disciplining the child?

Well, of course they shouldn't unless they were their caregivers. The kids had to push 1 if they should be let off 2 if they think they should not be let off, 3 if they don't know and 4 to hear the question again. Just over half said they should not be let off. Many probably didn't understand what " let off" meant- left off convicting is the assumption.Nor is it clear whether "adults" included strangers.

They interviewed stressed kids who called the Whats Up hotline, a hotline for kids to talk about anything they wish, including abuse. While the kid was waiting to speak to a real person, they were given an automated message with the above question. That's a little like asking turkeys on the 15 December whether they are looking forward to Christmas. There was only a 10% valid response rate.

Barnardos' media release says it asked kids about whether adults should be able to claim a legal defence for assault.

They lied. They asked if adults should be let off.But if these adults are not parents or caregivers of the smacked kid they never had a legal defence, ever. Let off means a case is dropped or they're discharged without conviction - not merely being found not guilty. The release also says:

Importantly, many of the callers suggested that parents should be let off with a warning or community service if they perpetrated low levels of violence against children.

How many? well,just one actually. The report provides all comments provided by the kids - quoting just 10 children, although it does provide some statements that counsellors said the kids had made. But only one said parents should be let off with a warning, and none said parents should be charged, let alone prosecuted or have community service.

Barnardos should really stop lying to the media. Imagine if they had asked this question.

If a child was having a tantrum in the supermarket, knocking down tins in the process, and a parent gave them a smack to cut it out, should that parent be let off if they are taken to court?

My response - which no doubt wouldn't have been one of the options:why should they even be charged and prosecuted let alone taken to court if they haven't broken the law sufficient enough to warrant sanctions?

More here

Michael Jackson dies of heart attack

Michael Jackson has died. He was 50.He was rushed to a Los Angeles hospital after suffering a fatal heart attack. More info over here.

Legal defence for criminal activity

Bob has a child. He is misbehaving. Bob has visitors and the child is yelling and just acting up. Bob can't hear his visitors talk. The boy is told to be quiet and an attempt is made to continue the conversation. But the boy keeps yelling to the point where conversation is getting pointless. As Bob wants to communicate with his visitors, he wants the boy to stop being so disruptive. Telling him to be quiet hasn't worked so he smacks him. The boy stops.

But one of Bob's visitors works for Barnardos, and although she is happy that she can now converse, she later reports the smack to the police who prosecute Bob for assault.

Bob rings you as you are his lawyer. What would you do once you hear Bob's story?

Here's the legislation.

Not exactly a luxurious life

I wouldn’t get too concerned that the government is planning to stick 7000 unemployed people into McDonalds. The scheme is over a five years period, equating to 26 per week on average. That is if the 7000 figure is reached. What if they only get 4000 into McDonalds – that’s about 15 per week.

And that is about how many people are being employed at McDonalds every week anyway, due to the high staff turnover. But this deal is not driven by a desire to get people work. It is driven by a desire not to pay so much money on benefits, as John Key explains:

When we spend a lot on benefits it means there are a lot of New Zealanders not really earning a lot. Life on a benefit is not exactly a luxurious life.

When lots of people work at McDonalds, it means there are a lot of New Zealanders not really earning a lot. Working at McDonalds is not exactly a luxurious life.

What if they were to offer a McDonalds fulltime position - 30 hours a week in WINZ language - to a main unemployed breadwinner with children? If they were to get $15.00 an hour, they`d get $450 a week ($23,400 a year), compared with a benefit payment of $18,850 a year before tax. That's an extra $87.50 a week.

Beneficiaries can earn $80.00 each week and retain the benefit. Effectively squared up. But the person in this example will be spending money on transport to get to work so he is worse off by working at McDonalds.

Would you do it?

Simple, really

Was Jetstar plane full - and why did it take 30 minutes to fill?

I've been corresponding with Sonny Shaw, an an All Black fan who travels regularly and got on the Jetstar plane that Mike Earley missed on last Saturday. Shaw's details were given to me. He was in seat 12F and noticed no empty seats on the plane. Perhaps the plane was full. If so, who took Mike Earley's seat - and the other seven who missed out?

Shaw said that the passengers started boarding 10 minutes before the time on the boarding pass and the plane left 20 minutes late - after 4pm. He says

I could not understand how we started to board 10 minutes before the time printed on boarding pass and still left 20 minutes late. Five minutes before takeoff the purser made an announcement "this plane is VERY full can you put any small personal items under the front seat so there would be room in the overhead lockers". The hostesses where up and down the aisle I got the impression they were checking how many empty seats were left then they would go to the front and more passengers would arrive.

The purser's announcement was made 15 minutes after scheduled departure time. I asked Shaw why he thought the plane left 20 minutes late. He said that Jetstar kept allowing passengers to board "My feeling was just to make sure the plane was full."

If so, that's concerning, given that some missed out on checking in. Jestar's rules that there is no check ins 30 minutes prior to the scheduled flight time. Furthermore everyone must be ready to board 25 minutes before the scheduled flight time. Is that so they can board early - which is apparently what happened. Assuming those checked in were ready to board, they would have to be in the departure lounge. So why were more passengers getting on the plane 20 minutes after scheduled departure time when they were in the departure lounge for up to 45 minutes?

Meanwhile Jetstar spokeswoman Simone Pregellio acknowledged having issued incorrect information initially about how late some passengers arrived, but insisted they were all too late.

She said they arrived 22 minutes late, and eight minutes before departure time. Now she is saying that they arrived eight minutes late, and 22 minutes before departure. Tomorrow she may say that 22 people arrived eight minutes before the check in deadline.

But if the plane departed 20 minutes late, she is still wrong. Maybe she meant eight people missed out and it left 22 minutes late.

It doesn't take 30 minutes to fill a plane - unless you are Jetstar.

Mallard gets kicked out of the House, blogs, then deletes comments on his post

Yesterday Trevor Mallard got kicked out the house and was almost named. He was so annoyed he blogged about it here.

I told [John Key] his nose was growing. He lied to the House and quoted me as calling him a liar. Speaker Smith required me to withdraw and apologise for saying something I did not say. To do so would have been to admit saying it. Smith did not allow me to say that I had not made the comments and tossed me out in probably the most blatantly biased decision of the year.

Well, being accused of lying is worse than telling lies.Mallard told Key his nose was growing. It wasn't. So that was a lie. Key said that Mallard accused him of being a liar. Mallard said he didn't. The speaker told him to withdraw and apologise. He didn't. He attacked and defied the speaker instead. That was why he was tossed out. Simple. Then he said 'for gods sake.... that is the worst decision you have ever made".

Mallard is wasting his time calling John Key a liar on his blog post and deleting comments because he doesn't like them. And has effectively repeated his comments outside the house by making it clear that he thinks Key is a liar.Mallard's not just got an anger problem, he has got a bigger nose than Key,too.
Update you can watch the video of Mallard's outburst here.

Christine Rankin and child abuse

Have been away for a couple of days but was listening to Morning Report this morning. They mentioned that Christine Rankin has spoken up in an Investigate Magazine article against the anti-smacking legislation. How dare she! John Key has said that Rankin was appointed to the Families Commission because she was a good advocate and could speak up on child abuse. John Armstrong says Key's dictum is that Rankin confine her public comments as a Families Commissioner to her expertise on child abuse "and nothing else".

But I'm sure I heard that Jan Pryor, chief families commissioner saying that it is unlikely that Rankin will have a role on the Families Commission that has to do with child abuse. Which begs the question. Rankin was appointed because of her advocacy on child abuse, why is the commission saying that her role will not involve speaking out on child abuse?

update yep. Interview here

Jetstar rules

This post has been updated
No, Jetstar does not rule. But it does have rules.

Many people have been complaining that they have booked flights with Jetstar and the airline is not letting anyone check in 30 minutes before boarding time. But these are the rules, and the rules are on every ticket,including mine.

The problem is that the ticket discusses arrival time.

If you are not checked in at least 30 minutes before the scheduled departure, you will not be able to check in for your flight. Arrival after this time may result in you forfeiting the entire fare paid.

Arrival where? To the airport, check in, queue to the check in? What if you "arrive" at the queue 35 minutes before the scheduled departure time and there is a six minute queue at the checkin?

You don't fly. Nor do you get a refund.Legally, I believe you should get a refund, if you have "arrived" after "this time." i.e. stood in a queue 30 minutes before scheduled departure. I also happen to believe that if you arrive before that time you should also be checked in.

Jetstar needs to get its administration into gear to effectively administer these rules in such a way that everyone gets on the plane. Given their recommendations that everyone aims to check in 1 hour prior to scheduled departure, this means checking everyone in during a 30 minute period.

If they can't do that, the rules are worthless, and their recommendations meaningless. I suspect that people are turning up 10 minutes before the check in deadline - which they can do. Jetstar should up its administration and/or staff levels quick smart so it can meet its own rules and check everyone in 30 minutes before departure if that's what it wants to do.Or else not be so stringent and maintain that everybody must be at the boarding gate 25 minutes prior to departure merely to sit around and wait. This means that if you are last at the checkin you must be able to get to the boarding gate within five minutes. Hope you don't want to go to the toilet. But Jetstar has had problems in Aussie, too as A QC writes in Crikey: "Jetstar: They lied and stole my money".

Anyway, was in contact with Mike Earley, the subject of the highest rating story in today's Herald. He was the one who kicked up a fuss and got on Twitter. He has told me that a middle aged man who was behind his group in the queue was served - perhaps it was deadline time and it was easier to get an older man on before the deadline than checking in a group of young people - or else the airline had overbooked people. Earley has already complained to the Commerce Commission.

Jetstar: All day, every day, waiting in transit - after changing your flight times before you get to the airport

I'm supposed to be flying to Auckland with Jetstar in the not too distant future after it offered really cheap flights - perfect for students. I've already had two e-mails instructing that my flight times have been changed.

Of course, the idea of cheaper flights is that you get to your destination as well. I am wondering if I`ll be able to check in let alone board on time after reading this.

I decided against Flying Pacific Blue after I got to my destination at 2:30am because the flight was delayed by several hours, but Jetstar passengers have been turned away from their flights. Mike Earley was one. He threatened to go to the media, so Jetstar dared him to, so he did and you can read the report here. But Earley was also twittering about it . When Jetstar realised he was taking pics they called the cops and wanted to ban this one from becoming public.

But I find that more than half of Jetstar - should be Jesters - flights have departed late. But although my flight is a couple of months away, Jetstar sent me an email changing my flight time and asking me to confirm that time on their website and then instructing me not to contact them. Then the same thing happened again. Another email advising the flight time was changed. I checked and it was changed to the same time it was initially changed to. But I had to confirm it again on Jetstars website and not ring them. I might just have to. I might also have to join this Facebook page after being invited last week.

I guess the publicity means that fewer people will be flying Jetstar. Must check to see if my flight is full- and whether it will actually leave. Or change airlines.

Update They did this last weekend too. They cut off boarding half an hour before the flight, including stopping serving people who had been in the queue. The plane just flies off half-full but with everyone's money.

Did Goff lie or was he deceitful?

Last week I wrote a post detailing a conversation a talkback caller had with Phil Goff on Radio Live last week in which he denied all knowledge of wannabe Labour MP Neelam Choudary's immigation scam, for which her husband was subsequently convicted. You can listen to the interview here or over here. The following is the transcript:

Caller: Look Phil, the NZ Herald reports that, um, Labour Party member and, and, your friend Neelam Choudhary contacted you prior to her first meeting with Dr Richard Worth…
Goff: That’s correct.
Caller: ...at Sylvia Park on the 26th of November of last year. You advised her to take someone along to that meeting, she did so and took her husband along who sat out in the carpark, while she had the meeting. Why did you gave her this advice? Did you know that her husband was facing serious immigration scam charges in the court and in fact he was convicted the next week…
Goff The answer to that is no I didn’t know at that point that that was the case, why did I give her that advice, because, if, ah , you know, I suppose, uh, along with most other New Zealanders, ah, if the minister wants to have a private meeting and is offering a job to someone that he knows is in the oppositions camp, ah, I though, ah , fairly early on that there might be an ulterior motive, didn’t have any evidence for that, but I suggested that – actually I would have suggested that she took someone else into the meeting with her unfortunately she didn’t do that, ah, I think it was for her own protection that I made that recommendation

We have about as much evidence as the deleted texts that Worth offered Choudary two jobs.Although Choudary said that Worth offered her a job at the cafe meeting, Goff said he offered advice as Worth was to offer her a job. But how did Goff know that, given the offer had not been made? Did he know he was going to offer her two jobs, as Choudary has claimed?[ Incidentally how well does he know Richard Worth's "korean friend"]

Surely Goff knew of Choudary's husband's immigration case. He certainly knew 12 days after the Worth meeting when he read this in the paper. And on 5 June - when most National insiders knew the nameless immigrant was Choudary - Goff he said he had kept in contact with the woman and her husband last year - when the texts started happening.

Five days later Goff said that he had met Choudary's husband just once, implying the one contact.That was the day this blog was one of two that outed the identity of Choudhary, and Goff may have know that she'd be on the TV news that evening.

The weird thing about this whole saga is that Neelam Choudhary claimed that Richard Worth offered her jobs that she didn't take up, while the following week her husband was convicted for sending out letters offering jobs that didn't exist. But it was also Neelam Choudary that reportedly received money for the scam. I wondered why she was always dressed so nicely.

But it wasn't until 6 May months after Goff was aware of the texts - that he phoned John Key and told him he "had a problem, a woman had come with a complaint that she had been offered particular positions under the portfolio of Dr Worth... that the offer of those positions was as the basis to developing a sexual relationship".

Like, five months later he's just been told a Minister has been texting a woman "dozens and dozens" of times to develop a sexual relationship and it's such a problem he has to suddenly ring the PM at 9:30pm and tell him right away, purely because the poor Indian migrant had only been in New Zealand long enough to get approval of her application to be a member of the Labour Party.

Sue Bradford's smacking dilemma solved

Green MP Sue Bradford says some parents who are about to be asked a question in a referendum, "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" are facing a dilemma. What if they don't think a smack is part of good parental correction and also should not be a criminal offence? Do they answer Yes or NO?

That's simple. If they don't think a smack is part of good parental correction, they will concentrate on whether it should be a criminal offence, because the question is asking an opinion of legislators who have the power to decide on such matters. Otherwise they`ll effectively be answering, "Should a smack be part of good parental correction?", and their answer to that is NO.

If they don't think a smack is part of good parental correction, they`ll answer NO.

If they don't think smacking should be a criminal offence, they`ll also answer NO.

Sue Bradford has just given people two reasons to vote NO. And after this interview.

Neelam Choudary is in hiding

Phil Goff's strikingly beautiful confident migrant is too scared to show her face, thanks to Phil Goff, after he advised her, used her, and churned her out.

After Goff's pimping, not only is Choudary's Facebook page down, she has taken all her photos off the Grassroots Labour site and taken down her profile photo. Only her personal email address and cellphone numbers are public. I`ll have more on Choudary and Goff this weekend.

Wonder who that guy in the photo is...

Smoking and smacking

Person A: Advocates the decriminalistion of light drugs such as cannabis (although not heroin), so that people who possess a light amount of drugs are not prosecuted.

Person B: Advocates for criminilisation of light smacking such as a tap on the bum (although not child abuse), so that under law parents who lightly smack are criminals and can be prosecuted.

What if Person A was also Person B?

Now, take a minute to look at the Green Party policies.

Man helps woman to see in dark kitchen

The wife wondered why the light wasn't working in the kitchen. She asked me if the the light bulb could be blown? Could I change it?

I changed it the previous day so it surely can't be the bulb. Could the light socket be stuffed? I suggested that a good idea may be to turn on the light switch relevant to the said bulb.

Problem was that the kitchen has three light switches and she was unsure which one to turn on. I switched on the one that was relevant to the said lightbulb. Guess what. It worked! Problem solved. Lucky I was home.

Thank God for males.

Today's questions

If you break the law, are you committing a criminal offence?
If you are in possession of cannabis, are you breaking the law?
If you commit a criminal offence, are you a criminal?

Update: Replace "in possession of cannabis" with "smacking your kids", ask the questions again, but don't ask Sue Bradford for a straight answer.

Why? As she told Sean Plunket this morning if you give your kid light tap on the bum you are a criminal, meaning you have broken the law.

Initially she said smacking is not a [criminal] offence (so it can't be against the law - so why are you a criminal if you smack?).

But she also said smacking is outlawed (so it IS a criminal offence).

Then she implied that a very light smack is not illegal (so it's not a criminal offence, but you are a criminal if you do it because it is outlawed, although not illegal ).

She also said a person who gives their kid a light tap on the bum was a criminal (now I'm REALLY confused, given that she just said it wasn't an offence, because it wasn't illegal, although outlawed ).

But she then implied the law is "very clear".

All in a couple of minutes.

If Sue Bradford can't explain the implications of her own law, how does she expect anyone else to?

[More on the referendum over here.]

Greens draw up their own anti silly questions bill

The Greens are designing a bill that will stop citizens having silly questions approved in referendums,in line with Green MP Sue Bradford's demands.

Ms Bradford says her bill will amend the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, legislation that condones the use of silly questions for referenda.

"We want to end the situation where there is a legal right to have silly questions approved for referenda."

Ms Bradford said she was deeply concerned that people would be answering referenda questions against her wishes. New Zealand has not changed the law which allows people to have silly questions approved for referenda..

Ms Bradford said today citizens have used the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act to get away with not only writing silly questions, but misleading and ambiguous questions as well.

"I can't understand why the Government does not want to do anything about the Citizen's Initiated Referenda Act at all. The integrity of our democracy is too important to put on hold."

Ms Bradford, Green Citizens Initiated Referenda Spokesperson, said it was the inalienable right of referenda to be free from any form of silly questions.

"Citizens are supposed write good questions, not silly questions and, and should feel totally safe in signing petitions based on good questions. the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 adds to the whole culture of abuse of referenda that is still so rampant in New Zealand society."

[With reference to this]

The bill is available here. Spot the glaring error. If the Green Party is going to draft bills, it should at least get its facts and wording correct.There are at least three errors in the explanatory note alone.

The question " Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand"

Is now officially irrelevant.

The Government is unlikely to change the child-discipline law regardless of the result of a $9million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says.

What Key wants to do is not shut down debate, but send hints for a low response rate. Key would prefer that nobody returned their referendum papers. He would prefer that because then he`d be able to say he is listening to the people and the people didn't want a referendum.

This also gives a message to parents: The Government's position is that it is OK for you to smack your kids even though it is against the law. Just don't pressure it to change the law - or its sanctions - so you can abide by it. Democracy and representation don't have a bearing. What you think about this issue is irrelevant to the Government.

In opposition Key said this:

The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power.

Now, not content with riding over the top of the wishes of some of her MPs, she wants to ride over the top of the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders...
The Prime Minister also knows that she has been caught out saying one thing about the smacking ban before the election, and giving a different answer afterwards.
This is arrogant and cynical government at its very worst.

Representation means acting for the interests of the represented in a manner responsive to their wishes. Key wants to be responsive to the wishes of voters only if it is not politically inconvenient. In this case, although it does not reflect public wishes, the government thinks it is in the public interest for people to disobey the law if they want to lightly smack their kids in this country. So does the opposition.

Chris Knox II

For those who want to keep up with progress on musician Chris Knox, who suffered a stroke last week, there a blog set up here.

NO Right Turn is truly an idiot today, and way off the mark

The anonymous blogger at NO Right Turn does not appear to have had a decent coffee after getting up this afternoon. He has a few clues on most things, and is one of the better bloggers around, but on the subject of the upcoming referendum on physical discipline he is just plain pig-ignorant, and lets himself down.

Why? He claims that people like Jimmy Mason, who punched his kid in the face, and a person who beat her young son with a soup ladle – and not only beat her, but bruised him all over his body would have been able to successfully claim a reasonable force defence had the law on parental discipline not been changed.

This is just a stupid claim to make. Never mind that, like most irrational people, he does not see the difference between a beating when a kid is cowering on the floor and a light smack for correction. But you think he’d criticise CYFS for supporting bail for the parent. But no, he doesn’t.

Furthermore, he says that anybody who supports a defence of reasonable force for correction are people who wish to abuse children themselves. It is irrelevant to him that any defence – if used - would fail in cases like this every time and that no lawyer would even suggest such a defence.

I don’t particularly like the referendum question, and was very tempted to cross out both options or not vote at all, but this kind of misinformation has made me determined to vote NO.

So, after reading this post I have today decided that I am going to vote NO at the referendum next month. I encourage you to read the post at NO Right Turn too and vote NO also.

The forms should be out this week. I’m voting NO not because I think a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence in New Zealand, not because parents should have a choice in whether to lightly smack naughty kids, but because I am making a stand against misinformation from people who should know better.

Media provides clues to the identity of Richard Worth's Korean woman

Not too long ago, the NZ Herald may well have inadvertently provided a clue as to the identity of the Korean woman who spent the night with Richard Worth and, I was told, apparently had a karaoke session with him at A Taste of Korea.

This report notes that the Korean woman was part-owner of several companies. One of these companies was put into liquidation this year, at the request of creditors who were owed $245,000 A private investigation firm had wanted to serve court documents on the woman relating to mortgage non-payment to the Bank of New Zealand for four homes, each valued at around $600,000. That's well over $2 million.

The woman was also a subject of an investigation after a run in with another man, a Korean business leader. This news was reported in a Korean newspaper at the time. The Korean newspaper also published this article on the Worth hotel liaison the same weekend as the NZ Herald article and mentioned her surname and the fact that her friend went the the police station with her to lodge a complaint, and according to this report, also went to National list MP Tau Henare so he could inform John Key. Worth subsequently resigned as a minister and then from parliament.

A check of the Companies Office records under the woman's surname as listed in the Korean article provides a record of a certain businesswoman who is part-owner in a number of companies, one of which was put into liquidation in February of this year with arrears to a number of suppliers. I was advised that this woman's business partner is apparently fairly well-known in the Indian community. His last known address is a pretty comfy place; but two, not one, of his companies were placed in liquidation - one last year as he was unable to pay a $1 million loan and an $800,000 liability. He was the sole director of the trust that held the shares in both companies.Both him and his female Korean business partner are currently running companies.

To date nobody has publicly named the woman. Neither will I. Its not in the public interest. But Richard Worth seems to get involved with some dodgy people.....

update .... like Labour activist Neelam Choudhary, who with her husband also owned companies - one of which the latter signed off as director after he got convicted, but David Farrar has covered this.

Chris Knox

Now that that the by-election is over - which Labour would have won even if the animals in Auckland Zoo were the sole campaigners - and given that Mrs K, unreportedly the Korean woman associated with Richard Worth cannot be named, let's write about something that actually matters.

Musician Chris Knox is unable to speak or walk at the moment after a stroke. He is currently in Auckland hospital. He has had surgery, but doctors anticipate that at best he will be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He may recover his speech after speech therapy.

I first met Knox, I think, in the late 1980's. He was wearing a "happy flowers" shirt and jandals - the latter and shorts being his standard performance garb.

If you have never heard of Chris Knox, he is a man who has written what was judged the 13th best Kiwi song of all time - Not Given Lightly.

Kiwi Party candidate jubilant after Mt Albert by election "victory"

Simonne Dyer, Kiwi Party candidate for Mt Albert said she was a bit puffed - she meant chuffed - as she celebrated a joint with joint place getter Dakta Green of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party after the recent Mt Albert by-election provisional results.

She was stoked and jubilant as she edged out United Future candidate Judy Turner in a close contest by three votes. United Future got 82 votes with the ALCP and Kiwi Parties both getting 85 votes - or 0.425% of the vote. It was the first time in any election anywhere in New Zealand that a former MP got less than 0.42% of the vote.

Fifth place getter Ben Boyce from the Bill and Ben Party - the party that would have held the balance of power in the 2008 general election had there been no 5% MMP threshold - said he was a bit pissed off that he was not invited to take part in the backbenchers debate earlier in the week, as had he been there he may have got the extra 793 votes, thus overtaking the John Boscawen, from the ACT party.

Dyer was encouraged that more than 50% didn't even bother to vote. She said that the low voting turnout could have been because Saturdays are busy days and kids get a bit naughty and sometimes need a smack. And you are not allowed to smack kids in polling booths, dissuading non-Labour voters. So it was no wonder Labour won. At a joint press conference with Dakta Green, she suggested that the next by-election could be held by postal or internet vote to avoid this problem. This would increase turnouts in future elections, by ensuring people stayed at home to turn out provided they had an internet connection. Green agreed because his supporters had a similar problem: It is illegal to smoke a joint at a polling booth.

Green said that a petition would be drawn up to that effect to force a citizens initiated referendum. Dyer suggested the question: "should smacking a good joint and smoking an offensive kid be part of parental correction in criminal Aotearoa?"

Green roared with laughter. And gave Dyer another joint.

Mt Albert by-election

Today’s the day we find out if Mt Albert gets an electorate MP who is not already in Parliament. To do this, Labour would haveto win the by-election. Pity though that of the top four contenders, none live in Mt Albert, so can’t vote.

We should know the result about 10pm tonight. They`ll be posted here. If you like lamingtons, go to John Boscawan’s party. If you don't want Labour door knocking at your house today with a plug for Labour, go to the police when they do.

I suspect most of the country don’t even know there is a by-election today. It's been such a boring by-election. Richard Worth should have been a candidate. That would have been fun especially if he had have won. Resign from Parliament one day, get elected the next.

UpdateWell, 80% of vote counted, Shearer has 62% of them. Jackson Wood has eight. Thats eight votes, not 8%. Will he reach double figures. Doubt it. Cannabis Party, Kiwi Party and United Future neck and neck on 80. Soooo exciting! That's the real contest.

If a cat called Ed Pussy stood for Labour he'd have got more than half the votes too. Do the people in Mt Albert have no brains?

update 2 It's over. Shearer wins with 63% of the vote with an increased majority in terms of proportion of the vote at the 08 Election. Jackson Wood increases his vote by 22.2% over 5 minutes - biggest late increase of them all. He got 0.045% of the vote, nearly twice as much as Rusty Kane. Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party ripped ahead of United Future by three votes. 85:82. They`ll be having a celebratory joint right now with the Kiwi Party candidate as we speak,as that candidate also got 85.

Gee, that was an exciting close by-election. Meh.

Did Phil Goff lie on Radio Live today?

I was telephoned today by a person who chatted on talkback with Phil Goff today. Goff said on talkback this afternoon that back in November he did not know Neelam Choudary's husband was facing fraud charges for an immigration scam. He did not know about the scam. After Richard Worth texted Choudary on November 26, Goff advised her that it would be prudent to take support person to her meeting with Richard Worth at Sylvia Park Cafe.When asked why on air, Goff refused to provide a clear answer.

Perhaps, as this person told me, it may well have been because there were legal ramifications to the discussion if it was related to Choudary's husband's court case the following week.

If that was the discussion Goff had with Choudary and/or he was aware of the court case, Goff obviously knew of the charges. But Goff said today he did not know of the charges at that time. Yet he would surely have known Choudary was candidate for Botany prior to the election. Other Labour people appeared to know of the charges, as a well-connected and key Labour Party member writing for the Standard says:

I suspect the husband’s conviction was a reason she wasn’t chosen for Botany, a seat Labour would never win anyway....of course the local Labour party would have known that this woman’s husband was [facing fraud charges] when they chose the candidate.

So why did Goff claim today that he didn't?

If Goff did know about the scam or was told by Choudary prior to the November meeting, and the talkback discussion today is how it was relayed to me, there is only one conclusion: Goff is lying.

Given that Worth had only been appointed a minister the week prior to the November 26, he would hardly be in the position to appoint advisors - and then offer people board positions over the telephone.

It's time Goff came clean about his naive and strikingly attractive "migrant to this country" and declare what he knows because he has all the markings of a pimp.

update: Listen to the audio of the interview

Richard Worth has resigned

Richard Worth has resigned from Parliament. You could say that the old National vehicle is worthless but is getting a new Cam soon as Cam Calder will be the next MP.After him its Conway Powell, who will be an MP if Melissa Lee wins the Mt Albert by-election. The following two on the list are former MPs who represented parties other than National.

Worth's statement is here.

I could spend the future bemoaning the unfairness of a campaign which has Labour's fingerprints all over it. But that is not my nature. The campaign has been run against me by people who are unable or unwilling to back their claims with credible evidence of criminal activity.I wish only to restate that I have not committed any crime, and I remain confident that when the true facts are established I will be cleared of any and all allegations of criminal conduct. I will steadfastly defend myself in respect of those allegations.

But it is impossible to defend oneself in the public and political arena against hearsay, character assassination and scuttlebutt.My conscience is clear. Those who have chosen to try to ruin my reputation should perhaps now examine theirs.

Meaning Phil Goff.

I wonder if the name of the Korean woman will be made public -and whether she has worked with Worth in a professional capacity. If Richard Worth hadn't hidden behind his PR company, but came out and told the full truth when asked, he may still be an MP. I guess Richard Worth has harshly discovered the distinction between a parliamentarian and a politician.

Neelam Choudary: Goff admits that Worth didn't mention see through clothing

Phil Goff is looking more and more like an idiot by the hour now we see his attempts to get political gain have backfired.

Goff claimed that Richard Worth sent text messages to Neelam Choudary regarding a transparent garment.

These texts were several invitations to go swimming, late-night texts to go out to dinner, an invitation to go on holiday in India with Dr Worth, and to wear see-through clothing.

Now Goff says Worth actually used the term ‘zardosi’. The statement tabled in Parliament that Goff relied on and no doubt approved was actually written by a Labour staff member, who listened to Mrs Choudary by phone and did not even take the statement down word for word. The statement never mentioned that Goff knew about the initial cafe meeting between Choudary and Worth, or even that it took place. It didn't mention any late nigh dinner invites nor invites to go on holiday in India. In fact she was in India for a period of time she was texted.

The statement was tabled in Parliament more than a month after John Key was informed by Goff about the texts. In other words Goff did have a bit of time to get it right.

The statement did mention a transparent garment. But no texts or phone calls were made regarding a transparent garment - the word zardosi was used. Goff has interpreted zardosi to mean a transparent garment because it sounds salacious. Zardosi is not very transparent, actually. Zar means 'gold' and dosi means 'embroidery. Garments are made of such material and are often used in bollywood films, of which Worth is a fan of. Zardosi is in fact defined as:

an intricate hand embroidery using gold, silver or multi-colored wire on a variety of fabrics. Traditional garment from India.

No wonder Goff didn't want to get that particular text out in a hurry. Did Goff ask Choudary if it was deleted? Also did Goff ask Choudary to take down her Facebook page. Here's the cache of that page. If you want to read more on this drama I'm not stopping you.

Does David Shearer see himself as a lesbian?

Ha. Trust Whale Oil to find this.

Labour's Mt Albert candidate David Shearer is a member of the Labour Women group in Grassroots Labour. WHaleoil calls him a woman. I say he's one of the better looking ones, too.

So why didn't WhaleOil say that Shearer sees himself as a lesbian, given her membership of Rainbow Labour?

PJ O'Rourke speech

In April, PJ O'Rourke delivered a lecture in Auckland titled "Invisible Hand versus Visible Fist."

The speech has been online for a month or so and you can watch it here.

Phil Spector shows some skin

Phil Spector is in prison. He is unable to wear his wig after being sentenced last month to 19 years to life for killing actress Lana Clarkson. Instead hes wearing a skull cap.

Richard Worth's Korean woman

Well now that Neelam Choudary's name is in the public domain as the Indian woman that Worth was texting, who is the Auckland Korean woman who was, shall we say, also friendly with Richard Worth?

Reports have said that she is a 45-year old Korean businesswoman who came to New Zealand in 2000, studied, and went into property development. She is a mother of three children, divorced and a prominent member of the Korean community. She is part-owner of several companies.Both her and Worth were at the Government's Commonwealth Day Observance reception in Wellington on the evening of March 9.

Some questions:
Did this mysterious Korean woman meet the Korean Ambassador on 5 March? Was Richard Worth anywhere near?

Did she attend last year's Korean Film Festival, of which the Korean ambassador is a patron?

If so, was one of the films she watched called Seducing Mr Perfect?

Does she she know the vice-chairperson of the trust that co-ordinated the film festival as well as Richard Worth does?

As a businesswoman, does she have any association with any of the businesses in the Korea New Zealand Business Council?

Neelam Choudary hoped to remain anonymous

So Phil Goff was trying to ensure Choudary's name remained anonymous Why? Because Choudary has been campaigning and canvassing for the Indian vote for the Labour candidate for the Mt Albert by-election to be held on Saturday.

A person who is known for seeking nomination as an candidate fir a general election while her husband was scamming people is not really the sort of person Labour wants to be associated with in a by-election campaign.Which is also why she was not the Labour nominee for Botany in the last election. Just ask someone who is involved in the current Mt Albert campaign. Like this woman.

So why did Goff she was "strikingly beautiful"? To uplift her given that her husband was strikingly criminal?Why now that Choudary is outed does Goff want to move on?

Update And Goff knew about the meeting in the cafe between Worth and Choudary last year all along before one text message was sent.

What I saw

I was looking at this profile of a Labour activist last night and wondered how " strikingly beautiful" she would appear to a certain person who is one of her Facebook friends.

Then I saw this.

One was a married woman who had stood unsuccessfully for selection as a candidate for Labour Party nomination in last year's election, so presumably knows which way is up.

Then this.

After the meeting Koro Tawa was warmly congratulated by Labour List candidate, Mr. Raymond Huo and by fellow nominee, Neelam Choudary.

Even my wife things she is strikingly beautiful.

Then I saw this from Whale Oil. He beat me to it.

Also a Neelam Choudary is married to a Kumar Akkineni Choudary who was found guilty of an immigration scam last year. Neelam Choudary was also in the know and you can read about that here. Is this the Neelam Choudary Richard Worth has been sending text messages to, if she is married to Kumar, Worth has hit on a woman who tried to get selection as a Labour candidate into Parliament while her husband was conducting an immigration scam.

update Here's an article about Choudary's sari demonstration.

Red is regarded as an auspicious colour and is commonly worn by brides because it has several emotional, sexual and fertility-related qualities.White is regarded as pure. black is the colour of sorrow and ill omen while yellow is traditionally regarded as the colour of religion and asceticism.

Anybody know Richard Worth's favourite colour?

More on the story here.

On parental correction

Phil Goff has said that a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence in New Zealand.

This explains what a criminal offence is. It is an act or a mission with the necessary state of mind that is a crime. A crime is committed when someone breaks the law. A smack as part of good parental correction is against the law, and therefore it is a criminal offence. Goff thinks that it should not be a crime in this country, despite passing a law making it so with a disincentive to obey it.

So will he vote NO in the country's first postal non-binding citizens initiated referendum next month? Probably not, if this letter he signed is anything to go by. The law has not conclusively been a factor in judicial criminal sanctions. Behaviour considered harmful to the moral, political, economic, or social well-being of society is defined as criminal and thereby worthy of formal state sanctions. Goff does not think all smacking is harmful [so why is he happy that it is criminal], whereas the people he wrote to disagree. In this country normal parental physical correction is not worthy of formal state sanctions.

But such behaviour is worthy of investigation by Police as it is against the law. Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence worthy of laying charges for prosecution? That was the question that Goff should have been asked. If Goff was to give a similar answer, he would agree that any laws like this should be amended to instruct police not to prosecute, instead of exercising discretion. And of course if you can’t prosecute, there's no discretion in laying charges.

This citizens initiated referendum next month is this country‘s fourth. Labour MP Lianne Dalziel said she may register an informal vote by deleting both options. Maybe Goff will too.

Hager v Crosby

The defamation case between Nicky Hager and Lynton Crosby has now been resolved. Radio New Zealand was also sued Nicky Hager explains how it happened, what he did and how it was resolved. It is a long, but must read. In short, Lynton Crosby, of Crosby/Texter, sued Hager and Radio NZ after Hager repeated comments he wrote in a newspaper article a year ago. The newspaper concerned wasn't sued.

However, Crosby gave up after intimidating Hager for 11 months because he couldn't win. They even wanted Hager to disclose his sources that led to the leaks. Hager did admit, however a slip of the tongue in mixing up the name of Lynton Crosby and Mark Texter by calling Crosby Mark Crosby, which is no big deal and hardly defamatory. Crosby, through his lawyers, even warned that the legal letter was not for publication. Hager has published part of the letter.

hat tip The Standard.

If you are on a visitors permit, pregnant, and want a student visa, have an abortion first

Last week a heavily pregnant woman graduated from university. I witnessed her graduation. She must have got pregnant while studying.

If she was pregnant now, as is this Korean woman, intended to give birth and was studying on a visitors permit she would be refused a student visa as, according to the Minister, the express purpose of a student permit is to enable study. Also, for such a student to give birth would put a strain on services.

Is that the reason we have that policy? I.Don't.Think.So. So why doesn't the Minster tell us what the real reason is - ie: we don't want all and sundry coming in for a holiday and have kids who become citizens the instant their parents do,and collect family support as soon as they become residents, instead of all this tosh about students and overloaded services.

Because the implication the Minister gives is that pregnant students who are immigrants can't study very well and are therefore not entitled to an education unless they have arranged an abortion to minimise the time they are pregnant, yet pregnant refugees and residents can get student allowances and an education.

Isn't that a little discriminatory? Why can't the Minister just be honest, rather than discriminatory.

Rodney Hide’s cost-cutting proposals for local government – ignore the public

This Cabinet paper explains how Local Government minister Rodney Hide wants to amend the Local Government Act 2002 to cut costs by focusing on core services,possibly opening other services to private sector,and selling assets, and all without consulting the public.

There will be no public consultation on Hides proposals,specifically because “public views are well known”. Not only that, Hide wants to water down the public consultation obligations in the Act itself, which is what this post also focuses on.

Local government is going to run under a tight “fiscal envelope”, meaning it will be difficult to conduct business outside “core services”, hence possible private sector input. Hide wants to minimise compliance costs – and therefore, apparently, this would control costs and lead to rates decreases. Interestingly one of the reasons why there is high costs associated with local government, according to the Cabinet Paper,is because “media scrutiny of local government is weak compared to central government”.

Really?Like, that's a reason so significant to put in a cabinet paper?

So, no public consultation on consultation processes, private sector involvement, or anything else. Instead Hide wants to conduct “targeted consultation” on his proposals meaning that the Government will consult with the people it agrees with - like Local Government groups and the Business Round Table - to make sure they are not annoyed. It intends to pass legislation and will ignore non-government parliamentary parties.

What decisions? Well, firstly, the Local Government Act 2002 provides a requirement to consult. Unfortunately the Act doesn’t define what that consultation is or should be, nor does it specify groups that must be consulted. It is up to local authorities to determine this. Therefore few formal mechanisms have been introduced to apply this principle as each local authority does what it sees fit.

Or in Hide’s words: “it is questionable whether tools in the Act have allowed for the most effective implementation of these principles”.

Therefore, instead of proposing mechanisms to strengthen this principle, for example mandated partnerships, Hide would rather the public at large not be consulted at all in case they suggest improvements that are in opposition to his ideology and agenda. The Cabinet Paper said that more proactive tools are needed so ratepayers can guide council decisions. But of course strengthening consultation -or mandate - wasn't one of them. Incidentally there is no mandate for Hides proposals, either.

The oligarchy intends to pass legislation to amend the Local Government Act after 31 August. Only then can the public have a say via the select committee process. Any decisions on the above would apply to the Auckland super council 'unless there are sound reasons for it not to'.

In other words, if Rodney Hide does not think they should.

That narrows it down a lot

Apparently a businessman is offering money for the identity of the awoman whose identity Phil Goff is trying to protect. So far we know she is an Indian Labour activist and “strikingly beautiful”. Richard Worth obviously thinks so.

The latter description should narrow it down. There must be more Indian female Labour activists than strikingly beautiful ones. Wonder what the ugly women in Labour think of Goff’s comments about a woman’s appearance.

Imagine if Key has said such a comment. The media headlines the next day would be "Goff slams Key for sexist comment". Sunday tabloids would say "Worth slams strikingly beautiful woman".

Imagine if Helen Clark said that a Labour Party activist she was trying to protect the indentity of was a “spunk”. Everyone would assume he or she was gay.

David Bain found not guilty: should get compensation

David Bain has been found not guilty. He has been wrongfully imprisoned. He should get compensation for more than 12 years of wrongful imprisonment but unfortunately National have earlier stated its refusal to do so because his innocence has not been "proven".

But in court he never had to prove his innocence. The Crown had to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown spent millions of taxpayers money on its flawed case and failed to do so. That amount does not includes salaries. A public jury effectively said the police had got it wrong all along.

Chief Bain supporter Joe Karam deserves a knighthood for pushing this case, now that this most high profile and most expensive trial in this small country has ended.And I'm not saying that because I'm related to Karam, either. I also know David Bain's cousin. He's been watching this trial fairly closely. Indeed, New Zealand is a small country.

If David Bain did not do it someone else did. Nobody has been - or will be - held to account for the murders, apart from someone who has been acquitted for not doing it, after being earlier found guilty.

The fact that the Government had already said David Bain would not get compensation is the real miscarriage of justice. Why should he have to prove his innocence to the Government on a higher test than the balance of probabilities when the courts have found him not guilty?

Note: Lets be clear. It is irrelevant who murdered the Bain family. What is relevant is the fact that the legal system - rightly or wrongly - has decided that Bain is innocent of associated charges. Courts look at evidence, not facts.

Political spectrum

I've taken the political spectrum test. I have left in the link, in case others want to do it.
Left: 4.91, Authoritarian: 0.87

Political Spectrum Quiz


Here's where I used to be a few years ago [H/T NRT].
Update I see that ScrubOne has seen this post and taken the test too. I understand that he's considering compiling a compass for political bloggers. If you want to be included, do the test and flick your results to him. It would be interesting to see how many are in the top left quadrant. I'd guess not many..

Gay scientists isolate the Christian gene

Gay researchers at the Pink Tiger Research unit, working for years to determine what it is that makes people Christian, have isolated the gene which causes the ailment. They hope to use this finding to cure people of their Christianity.

We've already prevented this rat from being born Christian, and hopefully humans will follow.

The controversial research may end the long running debate about the cause of Christianity. The parents of one Christian have welcomed the news with relief. "We always worried that if we'd done something different our child would not have ended up a Christian."

But converting the research into a commercial cure may take years. The wait leaves many families frustrated. "We have sent our children to camps to cure them, but no matter how many times we play them Pet Shop Boys they just come back talking about Jesus," said one gay parent.

Every university graduate has a laptop: Bill English

I don't know about you, but Bill English thinks anyone should be able to pay off their student loan anywhere in the world because they can do internet banking via their laptop.

For any other service you just go on your laptop and they've got their pirated movies, and they've got their music downloads and they've got their email from mum.
"It's all there - so why aren't their student loans there? Then they'd repay them

I'm a graduate - although currently studying because English et al have no jobs policies for people like me - and I haven't got a laptop. My computer screen is borrowed and the computer is a second hand one off Trade Me for $400 that replaced one I borrowed that had a 3G hard drive. Yes you read it correctly. Three gig.Before that I had a 286. I do have a bank overdraft though. But no pirated movies on my hard drive. Mum has never sent an e-mail in her life.

Perhaps if English got his government to hurry up with their lump sum student loan payment legislation we'd pay off our student loans faster. It would also help if English acknowledged that as well as student loans, many students who do have laptops have have bank overdrafts to pay back because they had to get a loan for expenses - including, perhaps, a laptop. But, for many graduates, the credit card debt has to be paid off first so as to save up for a deposit on a house.

If English wants to give me a laptop, I`ll pay off $300 of my student loan next week. With some money left in my bank overdraft, provided there is still some there that is not spent on paying bills.

Misleading Incorrect claims from The Yes Vote

The Yes Vote is a site for people who believe that a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in New Zealand. In its defence for the evils of light smacking, it runs stories about how the pain of smacking is sexually stimulating and can directly lead to suicide attempts.

No, I’m not kidding. There will be a story on how a smack caused someone to have an abortion next.

According to the site, a recent UMR survey showed that 37% of the population oppose the use of physical discipline. Meaning 63% don't. This survey was used by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to establish a benchmark for monitoring attitudes to physical discipline.

But then the Yes Vote had this: “only 20 percent of people oppose the Child Discipline Law” based on that same survey. Righto, 63% are not anti-smackers, but even more are not opposed to the legislation.

The 20% figure is inaccurate because it is not the figure provided by the survey. Just for a minute, put aside the fact that the sample is not representative of the population and then reports as if it transferable, while conflating smacking and assault. Forget the under sampling of ethnic groups more likely to smack. How did the Yes Vote get it so wrong? They either lied or made the 20% figure up. The report says 28%.

According to the survey, 30% thought a misbehaving kid should be given a smack. But even more - 58% according to the survey - think it is alright to smack kids in certain circumstances. Just 20% disagreed. Given that 80% did not disagree, that is the benchmark. Therefore, they do not think a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence. To its credit, the survey actually reflected current polling on the issue in that 80% of the population actually oppose the law. You didn't hear that from the Children's Commissioner, though, who was replaced with a temp a few months after the report was issued.

But according to Yes Vote logic, the figure is probably about 88% who will vote No in the upcoming referendum. The figure is based on the Yes Vote unique eight percentage point scale system.

update Someone in comments pointed this out.

UMR found that 21% of those polled strongly supported the amendments to Section 59

That's nice - 79% didn't.

The report was done as a benchmark on attitudes to physical discipline not attitudes to the law change. You can't get valid stats when you ask questions conflating light smacking with horrific child abuse, while saying that those surveyed don't necessarily do so but reporting it as if they do.

Richard Worth investigated for being a nuisance towards women

Well, this will give the feminists something to discuss. Richard Worth resigned as a minister last night but nobody would say why. He said he resigned for “ personal reasons”. John Key said had he not resigned he would have been sacked.

Now we find out that Key investigated an allegation that he was a “ nuisance towards women” - which Phil Goff told him about - and is currently under investigation by the police for another matter. The Herald doesn’t know what that matter is and wants the public to tell its reporter so that reporter can be the first to tell the public. It is not the only media outlet wanting to know.

We should be told - and quickly. Cam Calder could still be an MP . Worth is a list MP - but perhaps not worthy of being one.

Update Newstalk ZB political editor Barry Soper says it is clear from what John Key says, that it involves a woman. The complaint was made two weeks ago.

Te Puni Kokiri word of the day: whakapaua

Classic! The Te Puni Kokiri word of the day is whakapaua = spent.

Or as the site explains: "I whakapaua katoatia tōku putea" - or translated: "I spent all of my money". We do know that Te Puni Kokiri spent $240,000 in staff conferences in less than a year. Wonder where the money went recently?

George Tiller: US abortionist's killer may have links to anti-abortion group

It was not the intention to do two abortion related posts back to back but late term abortionist George Tiller was shot and killed while ushering at his church in the weekend. He was America's most well-known abortionist.

The suspect, Scott Roeder, 51, may have links to Operation Rescue, a conservative US group opposed to abortion. In fact Tiller has been shot before, outside his abortion clinic by Shelley Shannon, who was later jailed. Roeder visited her in prison. You can read more about that here.

The Operation Rescue website is down at the moment , but here's the cache which has this entry:

Scott Roeder Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Bleass everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp.
Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.

Being pro-life and killing someone to prove your point is hardly the way to go, is it.