The Dim-Post

April 20, 2016

Looks like Labour screwed up again

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 2:10 pm

As everyone on the left never tires of pointing out, we had thirty years of neo-liberalism in New Zealand. But we don’t seem to have an abundance of capitalism. On the contrary:

Oravida is exporting millions of litres of New Zealand water to China, and the Green Party says it is wrong that they are paying practically nothing for it, while potentially making hundreds of millions of dollars.

Oravida pays about $500 a year to draw up to 400,000 litres of water a day from the Otakiri Aquifer in Bay of Plenty.

This will allow the company to take up to 146 million litres a year from the aquifer until 2026.

An Environment Bay of Plenty spokesperson said Oravida had paid a total $1503 for the consents since 1992, and last year paid $526 dollars in compliance costs.

Oravida managing director Julia Xu has been quoted in media reports saying that the company sells its water in China for $1.60 a litre. If it sold all 146 million litres of water at that price, it would make sales of $233 million a year.

We have endless crackdowns on benefit fraudsters to make sure they’re not scamming a few extra dollars from the state, and at the same time we’re literally giving away almost a quarter of a billion dollars a year in commodities to a company with close links to the National government. Tell me more about what a business genius Key is, and how fiscal and dour and prudent and sensible Bill English is while they hemorrhage valuable resources away for nothing.

If there’s a gap in the political spectrum anywhere in New Zealand its here. You could start a political party that stands for what the National Party pretends to stand for – markets, individual freedom, democracy, equal opportunity – and its manifesto would be to do the exact opposite of everything Key, English, Joyce and McCully have done in the past eight years.

67 Comments »

  1. You are too subtle for me. What’s the link between the headline and the copy?

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — April 20, 2016 @ 2:46 pm

  2. You are too subtle for me. What’s the link between the headline and the copy?

    Key’s inevitable response to everything whenever his government gets caught doing anything.

    Comment by danylmc — April 20, 2016 @ 2:47 pm

  3. Danyl, are you suggesting that Orivida is doing something illegal? Because I’m confused by your assumption that NZ is not inherently a free society.

    Comment by Robert Singers — April 20, 2016 @ 2:56 pm

  4. Ah. I thought it might have been that while Little is chasing Ardner’s father over Niue, here is a scandal that has been going on for years that Labour could have used to attack government, including its failure to put a price on water.

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — April 20, 2016 @ 2:56 pm

  5. Danyl, are you suggesting that Orivida is doing something illegal?

    I’m pretty confident that this company which has a very close relationship with the government that writes the laws is not doing anything illegal.

    Comment by danylmc — April 20, 2016 @ 2:59 pm

  6. They’re all the same.

    Comment by Barbara Grieve Cullen — April 20, 2016 @ 3:28 pm

  7. The left hates the idea of the nation earning money out of natural resources such as minerals and fossil fuels, so I don’t see why you think water is any different. Personally, I think the nation should be clipping the ticket the same way we do with natural resources.

    My question was more around why you naturally come at this from a totalitarian viewpoint, assuming that everything is banned unless it’s deemed a social good.

    But to your last answer, Oravida Waters was incorporated last year. The RMA was passed under Bolger. Can you please tell us more the time travelling that must have happened for Oravida Waters to shape the RMA for its benefit. In a dark Iain Banks style would be nice.

    Comment by Robert Singers — April 20, 2016 @ 3:45 pm

  8. A party WAS set up to cover this stuff. It was called ACT. But it was a bit shit.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 20, 2016 @ 3:51 pm

  9. What does Key and English have to do with the consent process at BOP Regional Council ? And how does sales of $233 million equate to a mountain of free money to Oravida. All the costs for these sort of thing is in the supermarket and marketing at the end point. Then there is transport to China. Then they would be the same deal for any bottled ‘spring water’ in NZ.

    By my quick check, if they have a piece of land of 1Ha or 10,000m2 at Okatiri ( near Edgecumbe) the rain that falls on that patch alone will be about 450 million litres per year
    What was the max quantity they could take per year again?
    Thats right about 33% of the water that would fall on a small paddock is taken from aquifer.

    Why is it Greens go all unscientific when the word aquifer is mentioned.

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — April 20, 2016 @ 3:53 pm

  10. “giving away almost a quarter of a billion dollars a year in commodities”
    Hyperbole much?
    If you assume the cost of bottling, production, distribution, marketing, and retailing a bottle of water are $0 and the cost of the water itself makes up most of the $1.60 then you might have a point. But it is a somewhat bold assumption.

    In other news: I am starting to feel like a total freeloader – by your maths I had an $88 shower this morning but I paid a just cents for the water (which I purchase by the cubic metre) and most of that cost is the capture, filtration, and treatment and delivery not the resource itself which I am apparently ripping off the nation by getting basically for free…

    Comment by Richard29 — April 20, 2016 @ 3:54 pm

  11. This is pretty slimy danyl. And it just adds to the list of racist attacks that is a feature of the current left. No doubt there will be much guffawing and self congratulation as you share a good pinot around the green strategy table tonight.

    They’ve been extracting water and selling it for 20 years but you’ve only just noticed because it is going to China oh and JohnKey or something. Oh and coincidentally it’s owned by a guy with a chinky name.

    Funny how you didn’t notice a company doing similar stuff run by noeline, robin and carl (marsdeninternational.co.nz) or McKenzie (mckenziegroup.co.nz). That is of course also a complete coincidence.

    Maybe they all have close links to the government too that gives them the inside running on All that free water.

    Of course the word corruption would never ever escape your lips. No need when you throw a chinky name in the mix.

    Comment by insider — April 20, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

  12. @ghost

    1ha is 100m@ or 10,000sqm.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 20, 2016 @ 4:02 pm

  13. oops apologies ghost – got mixed up.
    It is of course 100 x 100 mtrs.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 20, 2016 @ 4:06 pm

  14. And it doesn’t seem to be realised by the Greens that selling water to China cuts out those nasty cows crapping all over the place.
    Win,win.

    Comment by Mick — April 20, 2016 @ 4:15 pm

  15. Im only worried if they steal the sunshine as well, right after they can children laughter.

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — April 20, 2016 @ 4:37 pm

  16. So, the Greens now want a price on water? That’s a radical step and really should be the headline. Or are the Greens against any commercial use of water at all or just by foreigners or just those with Chinese names? Perhaps this post is the first example of the long awaited Labour/Greens collaboration that was beginning to look as rare as unicorn sightings or rocking horse droppings. What’s next – a joint post from Rob Salmond and Danyl or Phil Twyford and Danyl?

    As you undoubtedly know, the issue of putting a price on water is not a particularly partisan one for the one and a half main parties . Both Labour and National know that it is the best way to allocate the resource where it is scarce. But they also know that as soon as they announce a policy change a number of groups will go to the High Court and/or the Waitangi Tribunal in a bid to have the Maori interest in water recognised in law so iwi can negotiate with the Crown for all or part of the newly priced resource. Neither the left nor the right really want to manage that political issue. This might happen eventually but it won’t happen soon. It;s a bit like the saying about pilots – there are successful old pilots and successful bold pilots but there are no successful old and bold pilots. Ditto for politicians.

    Comment by Tinakori — April 20, 2016 @ 5:05 pm

  17. So, the Greens now want a price on water?

    I have no idea. But if you could take a look around their web site and get back to me with a summary of their water policy that’d be mildly helpful.

    Comment by danylmc — April 20, 2016 @ 5:16 pm

  18. @ tinakori

    They also don’t want to have to explain to grandmothers and parents of teens that their water bills have jumped because of the moral ambivalence of the green party to trade, particularly with north asia

    Comment by insider — April 20, 2016 @ 5:26 pm

  19. I don’t blame the Greens for being opaque on this one. Its really an issue only the most adept politicians should try and handle. While they may be capable as individuals the Green Party in Parliament would be like a rhinoceros on roller skates trying to manage the commercialisation of water.

    Loved the headline by the way.

    Comment by Tinakori — April 20, 2016 @ 5:39 pm

  20. Some posters have gone off message (if that’s the right term). IMHO, it is not about a price on water but something else.

    I read the Dimpost today as bringing to our notice the enormous profits Oravida will make out of BOP water rights. For which local farmers pay for water at some cost to their P&L.

    I would dearly love to know what BOP farmers pay for water rights as I understand there are more water rights by volume than available water (regardless of rainfall onto bare land.

    BTW, once the bottling plant is erected there will be less bare land to feed the aquifer as it does not percolate through concrete and buildings. Most will go to the local government wastewater plant via the grey water system (drains, sumps etc). So perhaps ghostwhowalksnz (#9 above) should recalculate.

    Comment by Spitfire — April 20, 2016 @ 6:26 pm

  21. The Greens arent being opaque at all. Their talking points exactly mirror Danyls lines. Surprise not.

    “Green MP Catherine Delahunty joined Ashburton locals today calling on the Ashburton District Council to stop the sale of land including a resource consent to extract 40 billion litres of artesian water for a water bottling plant.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/greens-support-ashburton-locals’-call-end-water-bottling-plans

    Its billions I tell you billions. The media dont have the time or resources to do detailed look at the resource consents around the country, so someone has done it for them. That would be various Green activists.

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — April 20, 2016 @ 6:29 pm

  22. “I’m pretty confident that this company which has a very close relationship with the government that writes the laws is not doing anything illegal.”

    Applies broadly.

    Comment by Sacha — April 20, 2016 @ 6:40 pm

  23. From Oravida water
    “A TASTE OF 932
    We source draw our water at a location hydrologists have designated “932”. It’s artesian, which means it travels to the surface under its own pressure; in this case an upward journey of more than 200 metres. And we bottle at its source. This means Otakiri water is only exposed to the air at the moment it goes into the bottle..”

    Fancy that Okatiri gets a factory for their ‘stolen water’ That must be stopped too. But its worse, theres is another bottle plant in the local area. Living Water , obviously they too are taking what is not theirs. But since they arent Chinese its not worth mentioning

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — April 20, 2016 @ 6:48 pm

  24. “Key’s inevitable response to everything whenever his government gets caught doing anything.”

    I also spent some time scanning the post with a furrowed brow trying to find where it mentioned Labour. I guess I also missed the satirical nature until I got to this comment. To be fair to me though there have been a lot of posts in the past here that basically amount to ‘Labour screwed up again’ so it didn’t seem particularly dim to expect another one.

    Comment by Ortvin Sarapuu — April 20, 2016 @ 7:56 pm

  25. What would happen to the water if Oravinda didn’t take it? Probably flow out to sea. At least it is creating some employment this way.

    Comment by RossM — April 20, 2016 @ 8:27 pm

  26. What’s the connection between rain falling on the land and water springing from an aquifer below?

    Only some number of centuries.

    Comment by paritutu — April 20, 2016 @ 8:56 pm

  27. I wonder how much the Council charges others for this water? Is it the same? I think it should be – unless you think we’re being cheated because someone has figured out how to make a (big?) profit from the same standard resource?

    Also, their infrastructure to bottle and ship the water should be a lot less than just about any other industry or agricultural process – which probably means it’s a better use of water, or if you like a more efficient use of resources.

    Given the global demand for clean water perhaps this has a got a bigger future as a NZ export industry than dairy or other things. In which case Labour-Green should propose an SOE. I suggest “Transwater” because I’m sick of “Kiwi…..”.

    Comment by Tom Hunter — April 20, 2016 @ 9:11 pm

  28. Delahunty is worried that if the water is exported it means it won’t be there ” when we may need it in the future.”

    Maybe she could support building a big thing that could store up water in a sort of reservoir, I dunno something like a dam http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10063617/Drop-Ruataniwha-Dam-project-Greens

    Oops, maybe not

    @ paritutu

    Or a year or two. It just depends on a whole lot of things

    Comment by insider — April 20, 2016 @ 9:22 pm

  29. Easy solution to such crony capitalism: blow up the bottling plant.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 20, 2016 @ 9:22 pm

  30. Except, of course, that the consent process and costings for water have barely changed since the RMA was instituted. Labour had 9 years to change this.

    Comment by macdoctor01 — April 20, 2016 @ 9:48 pm

  31. Naive questions:
    – who owns Oravida?
    – does the bottling part of the company employ many people in NZ?
    – is it likely to pay a significant amount of tax in NZ?

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — April 20, 2016 @ 10:13 pm

  32. A few factoids:
    – Oravida has a consent to take lots of water, but they only plan to take a small proportion of the consented amount in the short to medium term
    – They are increasing their workforce in NZ
    – They got the consent by buying into an existing water company – not sure if that company was NZ owned – if so then that would have brought some money into NZ
    – I’m not clear who owns Oravida but the founder is a dude of Chinese origin who has lived here for over 10 years
    – It is Green party policy to put a price on the commercial use of water.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — April 20, 2016 @ 10:35 pm

  33. It would certainly be possible to charge more for the water on the basis that it’s so profitable.

    Problem is, you’d either have to create a special legislative framework just for this company (or companies like it), or charge much more for companies that use water but don’t make such huge profits. Which would have a lot of negative externalities that I won’t bother listing here.

    Comment by Ortvin Sarapuu — April 21, 2016 @ 12:46 am

  34. @Ortvinn

    Negative externalities like killing off a whole bunch of dairy farms? I’d have thought the Greens would be pretty cool with that

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — April 21, 2016 @ 1:29 am

  35. Or to be fairer: they’d see water charges as pricing in an existing negative externality, rather than creating new ones. Which does seem like an economically orthodox view on the face of it.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — April 21, 2016 @ 1:49 am

  36. Spitfire , you do realise ‘water rights’ dont exist in the way you suggest. The council has a charge for consenting and monitoring thats it. They can only see it as a resource, so if the aquifer is being depleted then the take up is restricted for all users.
    The calculations for the rain that falls, is only to show how small the maximum amount to be taken is. of course the aquifer is 200m deep at their location so the rainfall wont being going back down , just to the local groundwater.
    The strange thing is this is a poster child for ‘clean green jobs’ and in rural areas that dont have a lot., They arent polluting the water like the big paper mill not that far away in Kawerau.

    Comment by dukeofurl — April 21, 2016 @ 7:02 am

  37. Dukeofurl, I used the term water rights as it has been much in the news recently re Ashburton where Stuff said “Controversy has been sparked by the Ashburton District Council’s decision to sell a property, with rights to extract 40 billion litres of water over 30 years, to an overseas company.” I also know about the loss of aquifers in California over the past decades, aquifers that have contained water over millions of years old. So that leads me to think aquifers can be quickly emptied and then what is the LG responsibility for those purchased water rights? On the other hand, the USA experience may not apply here but it could.

    Comment by Spitfire — April 21, 2016 @ 7:50 am

  38. “If there’s a gap in the political spectrum anywhere in New Zealand its here. You could start a political party that stands for what the National Party pretends to stand for – markets, individual freedom, democracy, equal opportunity…”

    You’re describing the Labour Party under every leader from Lange till Clark.

    Doesn’t exist anymore.

    Been taken over by the regressive left.

    Comment by unaha-closp — April 21, 2016 @ 9:32 am

  39. By the way, how were any of those principles (“markets, individual freedom, democracy, equal opportunity”) contravened by the Oravida deal?

    Comment by Antoine — April 21, 2016 @ 9:45 am

  40. “So that leads me to think aquifers can be quickly emptied ”
    Sure, if you drill down to them and pump the water up (is that a bore, dunna, I live in a city). But this is a SPRING at the surface: they take the water that dripples, trickles, rushes out. They don’t go down after it. They are not mining for water.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 21, 2016 @ 11:11 am

  41. @Antoine “– who owns Oravida?”

    You could look up Orivada on the NZ company register if you want to know that.

    There’s both an Orivada NZ Ltd. and an Oravida Waters Ltd.

    Both lead to long ownership chains of trusts (plus some named individuals at various points). You can also discover the directors the same way, if that is of interest to you.

    Comment by RJL — April 21, 2016 @ 11:26 am

  42. The water that you buy from the petrol station can retail for $9 a litre and that comes straight out of the tap. I think they advertised themselves by showing dehydrated folk as being stupid; spot on the money there. Commodification of water is already here in Auckland at $50-70 a month for the privilege and most Regional Authorities have installed water meters.

    Things will get ugly when farmers and horticulturalists struggle in drought years while companies like Oravida flourish by taking away the fundamental element of our primary industries.

    Comment by Neil Miller — April 21, 2016 @ 11:29 am

  43. The fact that these companies are making money from exporting water grabs people’s attention, but there’s actually far more consumption of water in irrigated dairy farms (a common estimae is 1000 litres of water to make one litre of milk). If we need to limit the extraction of water (which we do in canterbury, because the aquifers are being depleted), the logical thing would be to charge both the farmers and the water bottlers for the amount of water they extract, to encourage the most profitable use of the limited supply of water. I suspect it wouldn’t be the water bottling industry that would lose profitability from this.

    Comment by Can of Worms, Opened — April 21, 2016 @ 11:37 am

  44. Can you lot please stop distracting the Bard of the magical kingdom of Te Aro, he has a story to tell us about the evil time travelling righties.

    Comment by Robert Singers — April 21, 2016 @ 11:56 am

  45. BTW there were a couple of studies recently that showed horticulture requires more water than agriculture, but I didn’t pay too much attention so I can’t tell you where they are.

    Comment by Robert Singers — April 21, 2016 @ 12:01 pm

  46. ‘They don’t go down after it. They are not mining for water’ Thats not case. You put a bore down ( 200m for this place), the water pressure means its not pumped. But definitely not a spring. They would turn off the tap when they go home at night.
    The real reason is that the bottling numbers are tiny and unlikely to deplete the aquifer ( there is another bottling plant a few km away)

    To put it in context the Kawerau mill has consent for up to 170,000 m3 per day. ( for the greenies who like to scare with big numbers its 170 million litres per day)Mostly if not all from the river.

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — April 21, 2016 @ 12:30 pm

  47. if no one owns water, how can you sell it?

    does that mean we can all go down to the shops and have a swig from a bottle? – after all the water doesnt belong to anyone and all thats being sold is the plastic container

    Comment by framu — April 21, 2016 @ 1:04 pm

  48. …all thats being sold is the plastic container

    And the bottling infrastructure, distribution, marketing etc.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 21, 2016 @ 1:21 pm

  49. Gregor W — April 21, 2016 @ 1:21 pm – yes well, all that stuff as well.

    but if they arent selling the water itself whats to stop anyone from helping themselves as long as they leave the bottle behind?

    and if i have to damage their bottle – say by breaking some sort of seal on the cap – isnt that a restriction on access to something that they dont own

    yeah – okay, im being a little bit of a smart ass – but its a concept that is yet untested.

    is their any sort of “ownership via the commons” (or some other rather english sounding thing) in NZ law? (if no one owns it then by default we all own it)

    Comment by framu — April 21, 2016 @ 3:12 pm

  50. To put it into another context, the 8 ha property my wife and I own on the Wairau Plains near Blenheim has consent for 130 m3 (130,000 litres) per day, though we use more like 80 m3 per day, and with that we grow 70 tonnes or so of sauvignon blanc and 10-20 tonnes of olives. We are by no means a large producer in Marlborough terms. Like any farmer, we don’t pay for the water as such, but a predecessor had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to sink the well and we pay a fee thousand a year to pump the water.

    In that context, the Oravida consent has much more symbolic significance than any resource management significance.

    Comment by Mark — April 21, 2016 @ 3:41 pm

  51. True, Oravida may not drain the aquifer on its own, but in the traditional Kiwi way the next two dozen water bottlers to set up in the BOP, will and the sweet aquifer water will have been made saline.

    Comment by Neil Miller — April 21, 2016 @ 4:26 pm

  52. “Commodification of water is already here in Auckland at $50-70 a month for the privilege and most Regional Authorities have installed water meters. ”
    This is exactly what green-type people want. They think we “waste” water, so must have it rationed. The fact that they’ve used the pricing mechanism to ration is funny.

    I hear on the National Radio reasonably regularly ” the world faces water shortages” which of course is a load of fucking shit: we live on a water planet, and the water’s not going anywhere. In fact, what we often have is a lack of infrastructure. There are a group of people (you could call them The Club of Rome) who want us to think that there’s a shortage looming in all sorts of things. Fuck only knows why they want us to live in a state of fear and panic. Some suggest it’s because they want control of the world’s resources (most of which they have anyway). Others suggest that they really just don’t like the riff-raff, the independent thinking blue collar folk who just want to raise a family, drive a decent car or pick-up, live in safety and who refuse to doff their caps. These types also seem to have managed to get themselves into a position where they can travel a bit, cluttering up the place for the right-thinking section of the population.

    Apologies for the language, but folk who manufacture scares in order to gain power make me a more than just a little angry. The right do it with the crime waves, the left do it with shortages [perhaps they genuinely don’t understand the power of the market to provide]. And EVRY cunt seems to be doing it with cAGW.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 21, 2016 @ 6:17 pm

  53. “the world faces water shortages” which of course is a load of fucking shit:”

    you sure you didnt think about the HOW its used thats the cause here – not that its magically disappearing?

    and pray tell – how will the market provide in this case?

    Comment by framu — April 22, 2016 @ 7:36 am

  54. and pray tell – how will the market provide in this case?

    If for instance there is a shortage of clean fresh water in a country (let’s call it China), then the market will source water from a country where it is plentiful (let’s call it NZ) and export it to where there is a shortage.

    Comment by unaha-closp — April 22, 2016 @ 9:51 am

  55. Uh what? The technology to create clean water is hardly new or hard to come by. It’s actually just a question of how much energy that you expend doing it. They’re selling NZ’s reputation as a safe food source in China, rather than the water.

    Comment by Robert Singers — April 22, 2016 @ 12:16 pm

  56. “you sure you didnt think about the HOW its used thats the cause here”
    So HOW am I using water in a way that’s contributing to a shortage? Have you heard the one about peak oil?

    “and pray tell – how will the market provide in this case?”
    Should we “run out of water” I’ll subscribe to an IPO for a desalination plant. Or, even better, we could just build another dam and stop the rain water running off to the sea.
    And should I have to start paying real $ for water (most of the cost in the water rates is for the fixed cost, I believe, there’s not a great deal of marginal or variable cost in producing water for Wellington) then I start catching my rain water. Of course, I’ll have to hope that WCC aren’t one of the councils that seems to be a bit funny about it’s ratepayers using tanks. If I must, I’ll buy bottled water to drink.

    And there’s composting toilets and recycling the grey water if you want to go full off-grid like the hippies.

    Have you ever wondered how Singapore gets its water?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 22, 2016 @ 12:23 pm

  57. Well the WRC is promoting people installing tanks. See http://www.emergencywatersupply.co.nz/

    Comment by Robert Singers — April 22, 2016 @ 1:21 pm

  58. Councils generally in larger urban areas dont allow roof rainwater tanks for drinking- its Ok for toilets, gardens etc. Too much pollution from cars that gets into the water

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — April 25, 2016 @ 9:04 am

  59. re: https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/interlude/#comment-150807

    But I wanted to hear more about the god-like shirtless man!

    Comment by Phil — April 26, 2016 @ 2:49 pm

  60. Speaking of which, I apologise for my alibi crack, which was in bad taste. I am glad that you (Danyl) had a good time out, and thanks for bringing the new track to our attention.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — April 27, 2016 @ 4:50 am

  61. Since Antoine has apologised, can we have comments back on for the new posts please….

    Comment by Xerious — April 28, 2016 @ 3:04 pm

  62. Danyl, I think you’ve left commenting disabled after you turned it off for the trail blog, so nothing is possible on your two most recent ones – this is the first place I can message you about it😦

    Comment by Joe-90 — April 28, 2016 @ 9:11 pm

  63. You need to sit on the naught step and reflect boys.

    Comment by Richard Williams — April 29, 2016 @ 2:29 pm

  64. Oh dear danyl’s gone all idiot savant over a small number of relatively innocuous comments.

    Where are we going to get our fixes of sanctuary’s class outrage delivered from the shade of a seaside tapas bar on the Costa Blanca? (did anyone notice he was in Spain. Only 80 years late for the civil war but at least he made the effort, and I’m sure he went economy)

    Comment by insider — April 29, 2016 @ 3:59 pm

  65. Insider, you win this weeks irony award of a discarded plastic bottle with QED written on it in permanent marker.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 1, 2016 @ 12:17 am

  66. I now divide my time between Carol Kaye and Lenny Susskind on YouTube. I feel much better mentally for it.

    Comment by NeilM — May 1, 2016 @ 9:23 pm

  67. I go on holiday for a week and I come back to find you’ve broken Danyl. Nice going guys.

    Comment by Robert Singers — May 2, 2016 @ 12:49 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: