Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The best blogger there never was

196 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Re: David Garrett. Rodney Hide should be very thankful I'm not the Prime Minister, because I'd be thinking very seriously about running away from the circus ACT has become.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Crikey - I assumed Danyl was only satirising.

    From Garrett's statement to Parliament - and interesting in light of yesterday's legal judgement about suppression:

    I was also granted permanent name suppression. My reluctance to answer media questions was due to my uncertainty regarding the extent of coverage of the suppression order. My preliminary legal advice is that for this reason neither I nor anyone else may comment further on this matter outside of the house at this time. I am now seeking advice on whether the name suppression order can be varied or waived so that I may take media questions.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    As I thought. Couple of people on Twitter seem less sure.

    I think what's confusing is that the permanent name supression means he's breached the court's order by talking about it. However, he's said, in his statement, that he sought advice before making his statement that said the statement itself does not breach the order. If the statement is not in itself a breach, I would assume that any quoting or reporting of the statement is covered by qualified privilege. Your Legal Beagle might wish to comment further.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Grant McDougall,

    I suspect there are considerable quantities of both roflnui and schadenfraude in Heather Roy's office right now.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 760 posts Report Reply

  • philipmatthews,

    David Garrett in ... Day of the Jackass.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2007 • 656 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Heh, that would be amusing, if name suppression actually applied to the person whose name is suppressed. I wonder if that's ever come up before. Certainly it's a creative defense and it also sounds like complete BS.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Crikey - I assumed Danyl was only satirising.

    An entirely understandable error.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    @ Philip M. I was pleased to see your Press feature on the Chch earthquake reprinted as a full-page feature in the Waikato Times.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Heh, that would be amusing, if name suppression actually applied to the person whose name is suppressed. I wonder if that's ever come up before. Certainly it's a creative defense and it also sounds like complete BS.

    No, if someone protected by an order wants to talk to the news media and have what they say reported, they need to apply for the order to be lifted.

    Also, I see Graeme has just said on the Dim-Post that it's not covered by qualified privilege until the order is lifted. Oops. Well, there are bigger targets ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • philipmatthews,

    @ Philip M. I was pleased to see your Press feature on the Chch earthquake reprinted as a full-page feature in the Waikato Times.

    Cheers Geoff. And it led to this juxtaposition on Stephen Stratford's blog, where I found myself linked to an endorsement of John Key ... But Stratford is right: few other NZ PMs could have told that story without making it sound like something their spin doctors dreamt up.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2007 • 656 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Hmmm. So far, the Herald, Stuff, One News, 3 News and Newstalk ZB are reporting Garrett's statement -- and Radio NZ isn't.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    *I'm assuming I can report this to you as it's been aired by him in the House.

    So if an MP names a person protected by a suppression order, in the house under parliamentary privilege, then the media can report that? I am not so sure.

    *edit, note to self. Reload page before posting.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I see Graeme has just said on the Dim-Post that it's not covered by qualified privilege

    Danyl's satirical response cracks me up:

    I’m making a bold moral stand. Also, I hear voices and can’t control myself and it’s a binary image, not a publication.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Garrett's problem is now news in Australia too.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Well Heather Roy stayed in the house until the end of Question time. The last Act MP to leave today and am I just cynical thinking there was a glint in her eye along with that smile on her face. :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Yes, Sofie, I believe you might be on to something there.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Hmm. So how does the next list MP if Garrett resigns get on with her?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    And Radio NZ has joined the party and is reporting Garrett's statement.

    They're generally very cautious on these matters. I imagine there must have been some lively conversations in the newsroom.

    Prize line from that story:

    Mr Hide says Mr Garrett can see both sides of an argument because he has dealt with the law.

    I'll leave the jokes to y'all.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    In update to Herald story (scroll to bottom), Garth McVicar declares that Garrett is entitled to a second chance. And like Hide he knew full well about the convictions when brokering Garrett's entrance as an MP.

    Whole lot of that 'taking public decisions into your own hands' stuff going around.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Heather W.,

    Even today, he's bragging that the exposure will make him a shoo-in for the Albany local board seat he's standing for

    Isn't it Albany ward and therefore potentially Auckland (SuperCity) Council rather than a local board?



    ACT party list for 2008 General Election (first 15 of 61)

    1 HIDE, Rodney
    2 ROY, Heather
    3 DOUGLAS, Roger Owen
    4 BOSCAWEN, John
    5 GARRETT, David
    6 CALVERT, Hilary
    7 TASHKOFF, Peter
    8 ORMOND, John
    9 du PLESSIS, Colin
    10 TAN, Shawn
    11 SCOTT, Ron
    12 KEOWN, Aaron
    13 KEARNEY, Nick
    14 MURPHY, Lyn
    15 OLSEN, David

    North Shore • Since Nov 2008 • 189 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Isn't it Albany ward and therefore potentially Auckland (SuperCity) Council rather than a local board?

    Yes, worked that out later. He's up against Andrew Williams for the council seat.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    In update to Herald story (scroll to bottom), Garth McVicar declares that Garrett is entitled to a second chance.

    I got nothin'.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    1. Qualified Privilege is a defence to a claim in defamation.
    2. It's not a defence to a charge of breaching name suppression.
    3. It doesn't even apply in defamation if the publication is prohibited (e.g. by a court order).

    The Legislature Act 1908, and the Bill of Rights 1688 protect David Garrett for what he said in the House, but those protections don't go very far. Parliament's Privileges Committee doesn't even think the live broadcast of Parliament is protected (.pdf).

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    I got nothin'.

    You know it was a three strikes law, right?

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I got nothin'.

    Time for a sing-song, bitches!


    Isn't it rich?
    Are we a pair?
    Me here at last on the ground,
    You in mid-air.
    Send in the clowns.

    Isn't it bliss?
    Don't you approve?
    One who keeps tearing around,
    One who can't move.
    Where are the clowns?
    Send in the clowns.

    Just when I'd stopped opening doors,
    Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours,
    Making my entrance again with my usual flair,
    Sure of my lines,
    No one is there.

    Don't you love farce?
    My fault I fear.
    I thought that you'd want what I want.
    Sorry, my dear.
    But where are the clowns?
    Quick, send in the clowns.
    Don't bother, they're here.

    Isn't it rich?
    Isn't it queer,
    Losing my timing this late
    In my career?
    And where are the clowns?
    There ought to be clowns.
    Well, maybe next year.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.