Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli
408 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
You’re just there to organise the strike action.
Heh. You know how we keep banging on about 'negotiation'...
-
Lilith __, in reply to
WHERE IS THE FAVOURITE BUTTON?!
Your comment will do quite nicely. Thanks! :)
Perhaps the Ladies' Sewing Circle could sew on some buttons while we're here.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I'm sorry to "trigger" your pain about her untimely death.
But I just find it amusingly ironic at so many levels that a right-wing middle aged, middle class male is using these buzzwords to try and shutdown criticism of another similar person and his similarly opinioned but not related son.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
I’m sorry to “trigger” your pain about her untimely death.
So... you're doubling down on really painfully obviously not knowing what the fuck you're talking about? Good to know.
-
Danielle, in reply to
I’m sorry to “trigger” your pain about her untimely death.
Is there a point at which you stop being rudely dismissive and patronising about theory with which you are clearly crushingly unfamiliar, or do we just continue like this ad infinitum? Because I've got all day.
-
Craig, while I agree that shots at Slater snr (or jnr) about their family relationship are completely out of order, I also think rudman makes a fair point. Albiet in a brutal fashion.
John Slater was the campaign manager. If a campaign activist was planning to drop this bomb he ought to have known. Any activist ought to have felt that doing this solo would be the end of their activism. Cameron also should have known that doing this as a black op would be an appalling thing.
And yet John Slater says he didn't know. If that is true, then John Slater wasn't doing his job of running a tight campaign in which nuclear bomb level black ops might explode via campaign activists feeling they could set them off. freestyle.
So we take John Slater at his word, and he's running a campaign in which all this went down without his knowledge.
-
Heather Gaye, in reply to
For starters that's an offensively one-dimensional depiction of Craig, especially given how open he's been about his background around these parts. Secondly, he's not shutting down criticism, he's rightfully calling you (and someone else, originally) out on some crass ad hominem being thrown around. We've already got SO MUCH ammunition with which to bludgeon Whaleoil, why the hell are you defending your right to insult other people in the process?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
We’ve already got SO MUCH ammunition on Slater, why the hell are you defending your right to insult other people in the process?
The way things are going, they're already doing a good enough job blowing themselves up with their own political grenades.
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
Because I’ve got all day.
And pretty inexhaustible back up.
-
B Jones, in reply to
I can take the 8pm to 10pm shift.
-
I dunno I don't think John Slater can dodge this as lightly as "grown up son nothing to with me", when quite clearly it is a lot to do with him, and he really is looking pretty fucking sleazy right now.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
looking pretty fucking sleazy
Sadly I suspect a large proportion of his target market think sleazy is a good thing.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Because I’ve got all day.
All weekend too.
-
Sacha, in reply to
jolly well done
+1
-
I think "hand-made Frankenstein" is a marvellous insult to pere et fils, hilarious invective, and well-deserved.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Without knowing too much, would it have looked weird if he didn’t agree to be her referee? If I had worked with a Mayor on anything I’d expect to get mileage from it in job applications.
IANAL, but it was my understanding that giving a reference is something previous employers are required by law to do, and they can't say anything bad. Might be wrong about that...anyone know?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
John Slater was the campaign manager. If a campaign activist was planning to drop this bomb he ought to have known. Any activist ought to have felt that doing this solo would be the end of their activism. Cameron also should have known that doing this as a black op would be an appalling thing.
Which, miracle of miracles!, is a point you’ve actually made without being an utterly foul douchebag. Well done. And I think it’s perfectly fair comment to ask whether Rudman’s going to grow a spine and turn that “brutal” invective on his own employers. I’m far from impressed by the sight of The Herald’s “Auckland issues” columnist posturing atop a moral high horse choking in its own shit.
Then again, I really shouldn’t be surprised because it’s hardly the first time The Herald has pulled a bait-and-switch dsitraction from it’s own active participation in gutter politics. Transparency and accountability are for everyone else, it seems. Again.
But I just find it amusingly ironic at so many levels that a right-wing middle aged, middle class male is using these buzzwords to try and shutdown criticism of another similar person and his similarly opinioned but not related son.
OK, Rich. How about some good old Anglo-Saxon? Fuck off back under your bridge, because troll season is over.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
And yes, as others have pointed out, she is a player in this saga, and yes, there are legitimate questions about her motives to be asked, but I just don’t get the difference in degree of scrutiny the various players are being subject to.
I think the scrutiny is about Bevan because it is actually her story. The story has been assembled , played out and disassembled with her contributing at every point being made. One of the first comments I read that she had said was that she didn't find him that attractive except that his power was to her. I guess that would have spiked interest from the start. The images that the News channels have put forward are promiscuous to those who are of the "thou shalt not commit adultery" camp and therefore the concentration again peaks, the fact that she was naked in a public place/council building also peaks interest although I bet she's not the first person to do so. It is because she has started the ball rolling.
Len Brown has played his cards the best way he could in handling all media interest by telling his wife before the elections then fronting on TV once it was made public. His wife knew once it went public and has handled herself well also. because for them it is a private matter between themselves to resolve. I can only suspect the kids supporting their dad publicly is probably a sign of their own maturity in understanding that extra marital affairs are quite common and by publicly acknowledging their dad and continued support for him is their way of putting things to rest personally. I am continuously impressed with our youth of today and their capacity to understand the bigger picture. I've seen a fantastic example of kids confronting their parent over their indiscretion and it was one of the most mature attitudes I have seen. They know it's common.
Further back someone was interested in what left leaning types of my gender thought , I think , it was probably fun for her while it lasted, (sex actually is if you are doing it with the guy you want imo,) she was then silly enough to mention the affair but knew it would create interest, then some arseholes took advantage of her. I think she will have learnt a very valuable lesson this week. I suspect she wont be so foolish in the future. That alone makes her superior to John Banks hands down ! Jeez ain't sex a funny thang? -
Russell Brown, in reply to
So we take John Slater at his word, and he’s running a campaign in which all this went down without his knowledge.
Tomorrow morning's Herald may shed considerable light on this issue, if not with respect to Slater Snr, then certainly wrt John Palino.
It was unnecessary for Rudman to imply that Whaleoil's behaviour is his father's responsibility -- it clearly is not -- but I don't think it's at all unfair to consider John Slater's role as the manager of a campaign that is starting to look like it was knee-deep in this whole business.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
It was unnecessary for Rudman to imply that Whaleoil’s behaviour is his father’s responsibility – it clearly is not – but I don’t think it’s at all unfair to consider John Slater’s role as the manager of a campaign that is starting to look like it was knee-deep in this whole business.
Yeah, funny how Rudman’s written two columns without any mention of his own paper’s role in this whole business. Or tomorrow, are we going to get a five page exclusive where Shayne Currie reveals his traumatic hostage experience as he was forced by the evil right wing conspiracy to run this story for day after endless day?
Yeah, I know I'm started to sound like a stuck MP3, but I'm just sick of the way the media act like they're passive bystanders -- even had one NZH journalist seriously try to convince me they were "forced" to publish Whaleoil's claims -- rather than active participants. It's a self-serving abdication of any editorial responsibility, and I just don't understand why the media are allowed to get away with it over and over again.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
One of the first comments I read that she had said was that she didn’t find him that attractive except that his power was to her. I guess that would have spiked interest from the start.
We don't really know the context in which she said, how strongly she felt it, whether it was offhand, in response to a question, or what.Given the striking difference between her reported words on Whaleoil and in the Herald, I'd say it was largely there to heap as much humiliation as possible on Brown.
I think that's actually been a tactical error on Slater and Cook's part. What was published was so vile, intrusive and humiliating that it went way, way beyond anything relevant to arguing a breach of duty on Brown's part. Indeed, the only things that raise real questions about his professional conduct -- the reference and the free hotel rooms -- have come in the Herald's follow-up reporting. They were too vile for their own good, basically.
The images that the News channels have put forward are promiscuous to those who are of the “thou shalt not commit adultery” camp and therefore the concentration again peaks, the fact that she was naked in a public place/council building also peaks interest although I bet she’s not the first person to do so. It is because she has started the ball rolling.
She is not the first, I can tell you that.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
even had one NZH journalist seriously try to convince me they were “forced” to publish Whaleoil’s claims
To be fair, I also have to note the same person said, strictly off the record, that there’s *cough* considerable internal unease about how this story’s been handled, but don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone to say so publicly. Not in this economy. And certainly not with the treatment dished out to Jock Anderson for going off-script fresh in everyone’s mind.
Suspect Albert Street isn't the only media workplace that has similar stories-behind-the-story to tell, but who's going to tell them? John Drinnan? Mediawatch - because, let's face it, Radio New Zealand isn't exactly spotless.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I know I'm started to sound like a stuck MP3
time off to recharge your batteries
-
The relationship between Slaters senior and junior would make an interesting read. Most likely full of angst and disappointment rather than pride and respect.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
His name’s Dave. I know that.
There’s a lot of Daves… might have to cull the list a bit to narrow it down?
It could even be your uncle. George Carlin explains.....
(lots of swearing for sensitive peeps)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.