Hard News: Claims
431 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Altogether now: I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
Although I'm not sure what "it" is any more.
-
I mean: all together now. Jeez I'm becoming illiterate these days.
-
i've a suspicion that idour may well have left the nzl police for a more glamorous role.
the keystone cops. wishart is the other one on the wagon.
-
All together now: I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
If it wasn't for you pesky kids the ski lodge/chicken farm/moral high ground/unbridled moral panic over animal husbandry/whatever/ would be mine . . .
-
merc,
Crystal? No Craig I havn't got a clue what you're going on about, something about a conspiracy? All I want to ask and I'm quite entitled to, is where he get's his funding from, ifyou don't like that so be it, don't go all potty mouth and threatening. And if I want to drag the EB's in I will, you get that, crystal?
-
Slightly OT, but anyone belittling the effect of D Bain's sentence needs to look no further than to watch him on the News tonight. A totally different person.
For so long he's been in this time capsule of a 22 year-old; now he's 35 and looking pretty middle-aged. All those years wasted...
(On the bright side, at least he's sorted out his fashion sense while behind bars) -
merc,
And while I'm still on me horse Craig, don't condescend to me with "The Readers Digest" version of events, I've always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for RB's sake really, don't let me down. I think you may have to haul one of your special apologies out because I have never sniped at you and you seem to be sniping me, quite simply, I don't like your tone.
-
For so long he's been in this time capsule of a 22 year-old; now he's 35 and looking pretty middle-aged. All those years wasted...
That's what struck me too.
(On the bright side, at least he's sorted out his fashion sense while behind bars)
That too ...
-
And while I'm still on me horse Craig, don't condescend to me with "The Readers Digest" version of events, I've always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for RB's sake really, don't let me down. I think you may have to haul one of your special apologies out because I have never sniped at you and you seem to be sniping me, quite simply, I don't like your tone.
Ooh ... my first theatre call. Look, I can see what you're both saying, and also the spiral into which this is descending. Nuff, please.
For my part, I actually don't think Investigate requires additional funding. 60,000 readers and a high cover price is just fine for the sort of budget enterprise Wishart is running. Investigate gets ads because it has readers and is on glossy paper. Media buyers aren't all that fussy.
-
(On the bright side, at least he's sorted out his fashion sense while behind bars)
I disagree. I and many others desire replicas of those cardigans very much.
-
I and many others desire replicas of those cardigans very much
and John Wayne Gacey's water colours are also much in demand.
m, Craig's high moral standards for how people should behave in this forum only apply to others, never himself.
-
But apparently the David Bain case is linked to all of this as well? WTF??
The intersecting worlds of Karam and Wishart. Bain might be innocent and Karam may have started out well meaning but his campaign to prove Bain's innocence morphed into a vendetta against the Police (as well as the entire justice system).
For Karam, Bain was not just the victim of a miscarriage of justice but of a Police conspiracy to frame David Bain. Now, such a conspiracy needs a motive - since why on earth would the Police go out of their way to frame David when the evidence, supposedly, pointed so compellingly to the father. So what better motive than someone involved in the investigation being linked to Laniet Bain.
How convenient.
Wishart has such good timing. Either that or I could think of a number of conspiracy theories myself.
-
merc,
RB, so Craig get's to decide what I want to say here or not, calling conspiracy on me sucks, then going all potty mouth further sucks. I'm happy to call him on his tone and get banned for it, I think the guy has issues with those with whom he disagrees with and if I laid into him with the sort of snark he laid into me, would I be covered, crystal my ass.
And this ain't THEATRE! this is Craig shutting another commentet down, like he did with Deborah and I'm arrogant enough too think that you can't call me on ever snarking Craig. -
I and many others desire replicas of those cardigans very much.
being a big skinny bloke, i own a couple of them. muted colours, but.
and, i also think craig should pull up a bit. we've already lost one regular commenter, be a pity to lose more.
i can't see what's particularly conspiratorial about suggesting that a fundamentalist might get some additional funding for a pro-fundamentalist magazine.
hell, you could easily label that "advertising money".
-
RB, so Craig get's to decide what I want to say here or not, calling conspiracy on me sucks, then going all potty mouth further sucks. I'm happy to call him on his tone and get banned for it, I think the guy has issues with those with whom he disagrees with and if I laid into him with the sort of snark he laid into me, would I be covered, crystal my ass.
And this ain't THEATRE! this is Craig shutting another commentet down, like he did with Deborah and I'm arrogant enough too think that you can't call me on ever snarking Craig.All right. I'm sorry. As I said, I can see what you're both saying. And it somewhat mystifies me that you can't both just disagree.
Craig, do me a favour and be less aggressive in defense of your position. I think it's possible to do so without getting up people's noses like this.
-
Theatre call? Nice one. Can't we all just get along? Spleens....empty. Discussion....reboot.
-
i can't see what's particularly conspiratorial about suggesting that a fundamentalist might get some additional funding for a pro-fundamentalist magazine.
It's just that there's no evidence that that's the case, and on that basis it's speculation. The sad fact is that Wishart does well enough to support the kind of operation he runs. He's not employing name writers and guys like him don't have the swimming pools and fancy cars.
-
RB ~ truth be told most of us just skip those exchanges because they're 'too hard' and make no real sense ...
-
merc,
I didn't make any call I just wondered how he was funded. This is a pattern. Ben I didn't not get along with Craig, he sniped me, a pattern when he doesn't like what he's reading. NI, nice one I try to call Craig on calling me a conspirationalist and you think it makes no sense?
And RB, we didn't disagree, I didn't even have a position to disagree with Craig on.
And RB, please, evidence I wasn't looking for evidence I just posed the question and speculated on the circulation, readership means nothing.
So you have done another nifty Craig defence, well done, but I repeat I never snarked im, argued with him or otherwise addressed im directly until he got snide to me, and then I kept it above board, you'd do him more favours if you let him stand for himself. I reckon Craig is inflated and thinks he bullet proof now, and who wouldn't when you always compensate for his bad behaviour? -
It's just that there's no evidence that that's the case, and on that basis it's speculation. The sad fact is that Wishart does well enough to support the kind of operation he runs
yeah, but i tried to construct something like an argument about it... which wishart seems to avoid.
anyhow. maybe he could run that story as the cover of next months edition!
"new zealand magazine funded by secret sources!! tell all inside!!"
-
__He doesn't know if his father killed them because he didn't see it either. The only way David would know who the killer was was if he was the killer, or saw the killer.__
You're missing one simple point. Either David or Robin is the killer. Therefore, if David knows he isn't the killer, he must know that Robin is, or vice-versa.Not necessarily Ron. A third person could have done it. We weren't there so we don't know. And I don't know every bit of evidence gathered or presented so I can't say otherwise - or who I think did it. Unless you insist __I take a punt ...
I lean towards the father doing it, but I'm troubled by the computer message. Why kill the whole family but spare David? What did he do to deserve leniency? Others have said the position of the rifle means the father couldn't have shot himself; but I'm willing to accept that either the cops moved it by accident or David did when he returned home but was in a fuzz and can't remember doing so.
I'm glad David got bail. I also think he should be retried so that his guilt or innocence can finally be proved (since all the new evidence the defence couldn't present at earlier trials finally can). I know this is expensive but if David is innocent he should be compensated but I don't think he should be until proven innocent.
If the Crown decide not to retry then there will be many who say he should be compensated for his 12+ years inside -- but how can he when he hasn't actually been found innocent? __But of course if he is retried and again found guilty I'l probably one of many looking at the jury and thinking WTF?
-
So you have done another nifty Craig defence, well done, but I repeat I never snarked im, argued with him or otherwise addressed im directly until he got snide to me, and then I kept it above board, you'd do him more favours if you let him stand for himself. I reckon Craig is inflated and thinks he bullet proof now, and who wouldn't when you always compensate for his bad behaviour?
I've said sorry to you; please don't make me have to go back through several pages of the thread and try and work it out (and by that please don't take the impression that I'm dismissing what you say). I've publicly asked Craig to tone it down.
The comment about evidence wasn't a "Craig defence", it was a response to Che. I honestly think that, sadly, Wishart does alright. FFS, even 'Uncensored' is a commercial success.
-
NI, nice one I try to call Craig on calling me a conspirationalist and you think it makes no sense?
Yes, I'm a bad parent. When two children start yelling at each other I just tell them both to shut up, when I should really listen to each of them explain themselves and then judge who is in the right.
Seriously, what I meant by my comment is that when two people go at eachother most people (not involved) have a look-see but then move on. If you think the rest of us are going to follow every comment like its a novel then you are mistaken; more so if you think we'll actually bother to click back a few pages to see how this brouhaha started and who's right. Most will just think 'I like Craig' or 'I like Ben' and support who they want.
Or not. It could just be me that's that shallow. I'm off to make dinner now. Mmmmm Chicken ....
-
Mmmmm Chicken ....
Please, please don't tell us it had a stuffing ....
-
Merc, Craig can be confrontational. It's your choice if you want to up the ante and turn it into a flame war. I think you shouldn't because it's always a waste of time. Not taking sides, just saying 'rise above it'.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.