Posts by ScottY

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    Or publishing revolutionary socialist newsletters?

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    The Companies Office would have no grounds for a challenge, unless the names were considered offensive.

    Actually, that could be a problem...

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    A childish prank that could easily backfire on the Whale, if one were inclined to register any of the company names in NZ (they're all available):

    - Cameron Slater Ltd
    - Whaleoil Ltd
    - Cactus Kate Ltd
    - Gotcha NZ Ltd.

    Oh to have a few hundred dollars to waste and a petty streak...

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Hard News: The conversation they want to…,

    There was a good article in The Guardian recently by Simon Jenkins, who describes the war on drugs as "immoral idiocy":

    America spends a reported $70bn a year on suppressing drug imports, and untold billions on prosecuting its own citizens for drugs offences. Yet the huge profits available to Latin American traffickers have financed a quarter-century of civil war in Colombia and devastating social disruption in Mexico, Peru and Bolivia. Similar profits are aiding the war in Afghanistan and killing British soldiers.

    The underlying concept of the war on drugs, initiated by Richard Nixon in the 1970s, is that demand can be curbed by eliminating supply. It has been enunciated by every US president and every British prime minister. Tony Blair thought that by occupying Afghanistan he could rid the streets of Britain of heroin. He told Clare Short to do it. Gordon Brown believes it to this day.

    This concept marries intellectual idiocy – that supply leads demand – with practical impossibility. But it is golden politics. For 30 years it has allowed western politicians to shift blame for not regulating drug abuse at home on to the shoulders of poor countries abroad. It is gloriously, crashingly immoral.

    It's hard to argue with much of his analysis.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    Kate's public explanation for using Belize instead of NZ still doesn't make much sense from a legal point of view, but then I'm not fully aware of her financial affairs, and frankly they're of no interest to me, other than as entertainment. The fact that she's reacted so rabidly suggests she's a sensitive soul.

    But I've enjoyed the exchanges. Why Kate didn't say "mind your own f**ing business" from the very start I still don't know. If she'd done that the issue would have died and this would have been a very short (and less entertainng) thread.

    The first rule when anyone asks you about your financial affairs (unless you're a politician or public figure): tell them to piss off.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    I pedicted on my blog this morning that Gotcha would be shortlived. But wow, what a collapse! I guess poor Slater's left to turn the lights out.

    So that's at least two blogs that fellow Spondre has been booted from/departed in the last month.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    unlike NZ companies there's minimal administration required so no additional cost

    It is dirt cheap to set a company up in NZ (NZ$160 all up in fees). And the cost to maintain a company in NZ is nothing, as all you have to do is file an annual return each year. Everything is online. We're one of the easiest places in the world to do business.

    Kate may be referring to financial reporting obligations, but even then they're minimal to non-existent for small NZ registered companies owned by offshore residents.

    So again very intriguing. And again really none of our business. But isn't it fun to speculate?

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    New Zealand is technically an "offshore" jurisdiction (you can google that for research as well) and has an offshore industry right in your own back-yard. It too has companies and trusts that are used for offshore structuring by NZ non-residents. There's nothing spookier than a non-NZ resident using a Belize coy than a NZ one.

    I suspect Kate is being disingenuous. Most offshore residents don't use NZ entities to structure their affairs unless there is some NZ connection, such as property or assets in NZ. NZ is not expecially known for its favourable tax treatment of offshore residents.

    And Belize is a well-known tax haven.

    Anyway, it's fun to speculate, though I understand why Kate thinks it's none of our business.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Gotcha?,

    I was interested in reading their "copyright/IP policy" page, but it seems to have gone (or there is a fault at my end).

    The whole thing looks like a shambles.

    I assume defamation law is the reason why the site was registered overseas. I'm not sure whether people can actually say anything they like if their site is registered overseas, but that is the only thing I can think of.

    And frankly Slater needs all the defamation protection he can get. Though I'm not sure Cactus Kate would have been much use - she's not a defamation lawyer as far as I know, and probably wouldn't have the time to study up on the law. She's probably too busy planning putting poor people in cages

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Hard News: The next bylaw will ban irony,

    I suspect Laws actually enjoys offending people, and thrives on the publicity. His is an ego out of control.

    This unfortunately gives the voters of Wanganui the impression he gets things done. Which is why they keep voting the clown back in.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 30 31 32 33 34 80 Older→ First