Mark Sainsbury

No one likes a Boag-un

Yesterday Michelle Boag attacked me on Radio Live.

Mark Sainsbury wanted to get to the bottom of her allegations and I had 6 or so minutes to have a crack back at her outrageous lies.   Read more »

Slater: Losing is like kissing nana and she slips the tongue in

1422125932188

This morning I was on Radio Live with Mark Sainsbury to discuss my upcoming boxing match with Jesse Ryder.

Read more »

Is this the real reason for TVNZ “Personal Grievance” issues?

We covered this story earlier, but media commentator Regan Cunliffe at Throng has looked at the numbers

The headline in this morning’s Sunday Star Times read “Personal Grievances at TVNZ Double”.

TVNZ spent almost quarter of a million dollars to settle a doubling in personal grievance cases in the past financial year.

The payments cover employment action taken by 10 staff and total $246,000 – up $182,150 on 2012, during which there were four settled personal grievances.

In 2011, TVNZ paid out $82,000 following four grievances, and in 2010 the figure was $86,250 following five complaints against the network.

Let’s crunch these numbers.  This equates, on average, to 4 people being paid $20,500 in 2010, 5 people being paid $17,250 in 2011, 4 people being paid 15,692.50 in 2012 and mysteriously, 8 people being paid $30,750 each in 2013.

That settlement trend was heading down until 2013, the year Seven Sharp replaced Close Up. One large, single settlement could easily bump up those numbers without creating any cause for concern over other issues of grievances at TVNZ.   Read more »

Willie and Whale?

Rachel Glucina has raised an interesting conundrum about what is happening in radio:

Last week’s radio survey results yielded little groundbreaking news with both networks spinning their own positive picture about their commercial and talkback stations.

MediaWorks announced RadioLive increased its listeners by 14 per cent nationwide and golden boy Duncan Garner had a 141 per cent increase on his drive show.

That’s a huge coup. However, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere, whose show precedes Garner’s, made few gains.

Sources in radio circles say their afternoon talkback show is likely to be rejigged now Tamihere is plotting a political comeback.

RadioLive bosses told The Diary there are no immediate changes afoot, but “it’s no secret John has never got politics out of his system and who knows what could happen down the track”.

So, who could fill the void alongside Willie? Here are our picks:   Read more »

“A dyke, a bore and a clown”, is this a call to bring back the muppet?

Bruce Russell has caused outrage this afternoon on holiday talkback by asking caller if they thought the changes at 7pm on TVNZ to replace Close Up and Mark Sainsbury with a new show called Seven Sharp and hosted by Alison Mau, Greg Boyed and Jesse Mulligan.

I was listening in the car when he asked callers about it…as best I can recall, I haven’t managed to get the audio yet but I believe he said something along the lines of the show is “populated with a dyke, a bore and a clown” and indicated it wasn’t something he would be interested in watching and asked caller what they thought.

Well it went off…the txts started flowing and Dannews was the first to tweet about it:  Read more »

Who Will Replace Close Up?

TVNZ have canned a show that pulls double the ratings of left wing apologist John Campbell.

Campbell is stuck in a depressive rut discussing poverty and feeding children all the while Labour MP’s are scoring an own goal proving how adults can live off $2.25 a day so why can’t they feed their kids when New Zealand has one of the most generous welfare schemes in the world?

Mark Sainsbury is leaving, which is really was not surprising given he’s been rumoured each year for at least the past five to be given the arse card, all the while Campbell moans away with half the ratings and the left wing spin machine fawns over his show.

“Maybe we do need something that’s more openly funny and entertaining. In saying that I do not exclude that it will be serious current affairs, even if it’s comedy – serious doesn’t have to be dour.”

Any suggestions for replacement shows?

ABC. Anyone But Campbell.

The Boo-Hoo Buffoon

Mark Sainsbury had a real sook on Close-Up last night because Anne Tolley fronted, but wouldn’t debate with a so-called “expert” on drug and alcohol counselling.

What Sainsbury didn’t point out during his tears and whining was that this “expert” – Roger Brooking – is a grassroots Labour activist. True to form this tool hijacked the interview to push his ideological opposition to private prisons.

If Sainsbury had bothered to look at Brooking’s Twitter account, rather than repeat crap he heard on Moaning Report, he would also have seen personal attacks on Tolley.

Good on her for not treating this left-wing low-life as an equal.

Close Up looks like a lame horse waiting for the final shot. No wonder the pressure is getting to Sainsbury.

Muppet

Apparently TVNZ is launching a muppet doll of Mark Sainsbury.

I always suspected that Close Up was the muppet show

Is Comeskey in hiding now?

SST journalist Jonathan Marshall keeps delivering the goods. Today’s victim is Chris Comeskey and I just bet he is on the run tonight.

The main part of the article is about his dodgy dealing with legal aid, but the second half outlines a little bit of history and some revelations that my contacts tell me have quite possibly put Chris Comeskey on a list.

Waiouru Medals theftDESPITE THE fact his role in returning the war medals catapaulted Comeskey on to centre stage, many close to him believe it was the worst thing that happened to him. “The fact of the matter is he accomplished what no one else could, and that was getting those medals back,” says a friend. “Instead he was pilloried.”

The public welcomed the safe return of the national treasures but bristled at the fact it was achieved by paying the culprits a $200,000 reward.

Comeskey’s role in the negotiations cast him in an unfavourable light to many, highlighting his extensive underworld connections and unsavoury contacts, raising a question mark for some over his integrity.

The lawyer made no secret of his displeasure at being uninvited from the official ceremony marking the return of the medals. But he has been less transparent about what benefits, if any, he stood to gain.

The official amount is $200,000, but my understanding from my sources is Comeskey only coughed a hundy to the gang connections and told them that the media reports were wrong. Now Jonathan Marshal has documents to show that Comeskey cut a deal for $200,000 for the crims and $15,000 for himself.

In February 2008, he dismissed an on-air suggestion by Close Up host Mark Sainsbury that he should have got a slice of the reward money, saying: “I would not have wanted to benefit from it. In fact, if there wasn’t a reward, I would have been quite happy to fund the return of the medals myself.

The Sunday Star-Times has obtained a two-page contract between Comeskey and Police Commissioner Howard Broad that shows the lawyer was to be paid a fee for his services up to $15,000 for returning the medals, something that came as a surprise to Hirschfeld. “I had no idea of that at all. He never gave the impression he benefited financially.”

Whoopsy, caught lying. Strike one, lied about his fee. Does that mean he lied about how much the Commissioner coughed too?

On TV3 that same evening, Comeskey had told John Campbell: “I never once asked for immunity, I didn’t want to place the police in that position…I made it plain to the people I was dealing with that I could not advise them on how to avoid or escape detection.

But official documents quote Detective Senior Sergeant Chris Bensemann, the officer in charge of the case, saying Comeskey “suggested various possibilities in exchange for the return of the medals, including immunity from prosecution and ceasing the investigation”.

Whoopsy, caught lying again. Strike two, lied about the immunity, perhaps he lied about the amount as well?

My sources in the crime world tell me that Comeskey might well find himself on a list he really would rather not be on. Stiffing gang members of their rewards isn’t the smartest thing in the world to do, even if you are their lawyer. The police don’t take kindly to fraud and the gangs even less so.

Asian Perspective on the EFB

Lincoln Tan: Freedoms in the balance – 10 Dec 2007 – Opinion, Editorial and reader comments from New Zealand and around the World – nzherald

Lincoln Tan puts an asian perspective on the Electoral Finance Bill and what a perspective it is!

He talks about his living in fear for speaking out in Singapore.

[quote]There is an element of fear in Singapore politics, and when growing up, I was constantly reminded of how not supporting Lee Kuan Yew and his Peoples Action Party was not only a bad thing, it could also be potentially dangerous. Political discussions were often done in hushed tones, and most definitely not in public.

What has any of this got to do with New Zealand? Well, with the contentious Electoral Finance Bill, everything. Because this is the slippery slope our democracy could be headed for.

The current freedom we enjoy in New Zealand has allowed me to express myself in ways that I could only dream about if I was still living in Singapore. Like organising the anti-racism march in Christchurch calling for stronger legislation on race-hate crimes.

Or getting invited to press interviews with leaders of all the political parties before the last elections, and being able to tell Winston Peters to his face what I thought of his remark that the racial mix on Queen St was not the right colour for New Zealand.

Organising the march in 2004 was straightforward but should the Electoral Finance Bill become law, organising the same rally next year would border on the impossible.

Not only would we have had to register as a third party, but we would also be required to file declarations about who our supporters and donors were and keep an account of expenses, making sure it did not exceed $120,000.

The topic of Asians and immigration is always grist for juicy debate in election year, a time when Asians are used for political football by some parties.

I shudder at the thought that rebuttals to any attacks will have to be restrained because, under the new law, they could be seen as encouraging people to vote or not vote for a type of party or a type of candidate.

Politicians aside, I cannot see how anyone else can say with a straight face that the Electoral Finance Bill is not a threat to democracy and freedom of speech.

The big difference between Singapore and New Zealand is this: Singaporeans are prepared to accept their brand of democracy, along with the clamping down of political activism, in exchange for security, stability and the economic gains that come with it. Are New Zealanders willing to sacrifice their freedom just to support a political party desperate to stay in power?[/quote]

Powered by ScribeFire.