Who am I?

Guess who the mystery person using the 3 clues. Include in your comments how the clues relate to the mystery person

who am i top banner

Read more »


The good old days of quality television


Speeding is less dangerous than changing lanes


Daily Roundup

Whaleoil Backchat

Backchat logo 1Good evening, welcome to Whaleoil Backchat.

You don’t have to stay “on topic” in these posts like you do in all others. Feel free to share your own stories, discuss other news or catch up with friends. If you haven’t tried it before, signing up for a Disqus account is free, quick, and it is easy.

New commenters should familiarise themselves with our Commenting and Moderation rules. Thank you.

>> Trouble commenting on Whaleoil? Read this first. You can receive free help. Do not email via the Contact Page.


RUGBY: New Zealand vs Australia, Bledisloe Cup game 2


You know the rules.  Game starts at 19:35 local time.  No game chat of any sort in Backchat (or else).

Put your score guesses in before the games starts.

2016 Reality contradicts 40 year old legislation

Guest post

The bizarre outcome of not being able to grow your own medicine when chronically or terminally ill because of out-of-step laws made in 1975, is absolutely farcical. Especially when juxtaposed against the social carnage and hypocrisy of alcohol and tobacco laws. For the chronically ill person, this feels like a deliberately inflicted, malicious “road block” by the Government-of-the-day to returned health for the person suffering. A deliberate blockage cruelly left in the way by successive law makers. Don’t believe me? …just listen to the pleas from Martin Crowe & Helen Kelly & anyone else with a life threatening terminal or chronic illness, who are forced into “criminal behaviour” to secure a medicinal herb they could otherwise grow in their garden with their parsley.

Not to mention all the risks and angst created today in 2016 as a result of those 40-year-old laws – that forces the sufferer into either becoming a criminal for growing an organic herb, or forces them/their supporters to turn to the costly, illegal, and often dangerous black market for the medicinal herb.

The insult to today’s 2016 common sense, heaped upon the loss of dignity one has to go through trying to avoid nasty black market criminals …and the police …and the resulting judiciary – during the lowest possible health ebb in someone’s life – is tantamount to deliberate, needless and cruel suffering – deliberately inflicted by successive law makers each day they choose the status quo to remain. Read more »

Hide on the King turning the left in politics upside down

King Tuheitia Paki is calling for Maori to have a share in New Zealand’s sovereignty by 2025.

[…] The details remain sketchy. It could be as simple as King Tuheitia and Queen Elizabeth having turn about. That would be easiest. In fact, we could just make King Tuheitia and his successors the Crown and dispense with the Governor-General. We could have our own ready-minted monarchy.

But I suspect the King Tuheitia means shared government. That’s far trickier.

One obvious way of achieving shared government is through a dual Parliament. Setting up and running such a system would be complicated and difficult. It would mean deciding and then establishing the proper roles and functions of the two parliaments.

For example, would they be side-by-side or would the Maori Parliament operate a veto?

Alternatively, there could simply be reserved seats in government for Maori. That’s how it’s been done in the management of waterways and catchments under “co-governance” arrangements.

Maori could well have seats perpetually in government voted in by those on the Maori roll. That would certainly be easier than a dual parliament. The issue would be the number of seats. I sense that shared sovereignty means half and half.

In the end, we don’t know what they mean until they tell us.  I suspect it will be predicated on some degree of self-determination, including a parallel police force, courts, education, health and social welfare system.  None of those are new concepts as they have already existed or been tried out under various names.  Read more »

Matt Nippert gets shamed by someone that likes him

You know what would be amazing? It would be really amazing if the news media applied the same gimlet-eyed standards it rightly uses on matters involving the private sector – in cases where a company isn’t running a prison too well, say – when a local council has been left in charge of a town’s water supply that ends up getting contaminated and sickening thousands.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen. It’s just a fantasy. You were asleep just now. And so you wake from your slumber, realise it was just a dream and go back to whatever it was you were last reading in the news.

That’s why more and more people are flocking to alternative news sources.  They can’t stand the hypocrisy.

Chances are, what any business readers may have been looking at before nodding off may have been to do with the high and mighty report published in the New Zealand Herald about the private sector’s dastardly “unethical” investments.

The report, sententiously headlined “Dirty Secrets of KiwiSaver,” was put together by Matt Nippert, somebody I know a bit and quite like. It would have been right at home in the student media where Mr Nippert began his energetic career. But in the downtown press, where it has attracted a bit of attention over the past week, it seems a bit odd.

It’s not just odd, it is cringeworthy.  Only weeks ago Matt Nippert was lecturing companies on their dodgy tax affairs… while working for the NZME/APN company infamous for… dodgy tax affairs. Read more »

Porn up, sex down

Is it legal to watch pornography?

For the most part, however if it falls under “objectionable material” then it’s not legal. Objectionable is defined under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 as: “a publication…(that) describes, depicts or expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.” All objectionable material is banned. Anybody found “knowingly” in possession of objectionable material can receive a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. Anybody who knowingly makes or knowingly trades, distributes, or displays an objectionable publication via the internet can receive a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.

What if I come across objectionable material accidentally? 

Leave the site immediately. You can fill out a Content Complaint Form or notify the Department of Internal Affairs’ Censorship Compliance Unit.

What are the consequences of revenge porn?

In 2010, Judge Andrew Becroft made legal history in New Zealand when he sentenced a man under the Morality and Decency section of the Crimes Act for posting a photo of his ex-girlfriend naked on Facebook. Becroft said he was adapting an old print law for the internet age. “Technology can’t be used in this way,” he warned. “You would do incalculable damage to someone’s reputation.”

Do young people know porn isn’t representative of real-life sex?

A Swedish study found most young people under the age of 20 acknowledged pornographic sex was different to sex in real-life relationships, although girls were somewhat concerned that boys would want to enact some of the things that they watched, such as anal sex. Read more »