Hard News: In the nicest possible way
248 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
You give people the most extraordinary latitude sometimes.
Sigh ... I give up.
I didn't even link to the post. My comment when Craig did was to observe that if it was true (and it could be cleared up in a second), Key would be putting himself in a difficult position.
And then I just felt a bit weary at being browbeaten for failing to display the correct degree of outrage at the blog post's very existence in the universe. You have a moral certainty I cannot find within me.
-
You have a moral certainty I cannot find within me.
It would seem the opposite of moral certainty to me, given that The Standard is on my political corner. I'm just suggesting we apply the same standard of evidence across the board. I get that Key could kill all speculation simply by being open about the process, but the fact that he isn't doesn't make all speculation instantly credible.
On the other hand, I'm off antibiotics and planning to get plastered - so chances are I won't remember any of this tomorrow.
-
On the other hand, I'm off antibiotics and planning to get plastered - so chances are I won't remember any of this tomorrow.
So you'll wake up in the morning believing that Eddie's a bloke. No wonder these party hacks play us for fools.
-
What are you gonna do?
-
planning to get plastered
Do keep posting..
-
What are you gonna do?
Is there a <mob-voice> tag or is that a gratuitous slur on your ethnic heritage?
-
What are you gonna do?
Oh, a bit of substance abuse. Who knows, if I manage to trash my remaining brain cells I might join a political party.
-
Is there a <mob-voice> tag or is that a gratuitous slur on your ethnic heritage?
Can't hear over the sound of these spicey meatballs that I'm chewing.
-
Can't hear over the sound of these spicey meatballs that I'm chewing.
nahnanananah.. gettin' al' jiggy wuth it.
-
Sigh ... I give up.
Like I said "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate"I will do what is unprecedented in my posts and reiterate.
"Public interest" as well we know, is oft misunderstood. The way Key used it was, imho, "in the best interest of the public"
So, what was so disruptive to the Nation as a whole in the actions of Mr. Worth?. Was it purely that we, as the public at large, need to have such confidence in our Ministers that their dismissal becomes secondary to our confidence in their leader to the point that we should not question his motives?
The notion that we should not "bother out little heads" about such trivia seems a little demeaning to me and i feel, just a tad, insulted.I'm with Russell on this. It is Key's refusal to explain that is the problem.
I, personally, ask Mr. Key to explain why we should not know why he sacked a minister. If his party is so fragile that the truth will destroy them then we should know. It has gone too far for him to brush us off with platitudes.
It is not about credibility of a blogger, it is abut the credibility of our Prime Minister.
Get that up yer. -
It is not about credibility of a blogger, it is abut the credibility of our Prime Minister. Get that up yer.
And have you stopped beating your wife yet, Steve? But thanks for the indirect answer: The Standard will get a pass not extended to Farrar or Slater because you don't like their preferred target. What goes around comes around, dear.
-
And have you stopped beating your wife yet, Steve?
No, I am just too competitive at scrabble.
The Standard will get a pass not extended to Farrar or Slater because
Well, just because, eh?.
you don't like their preferred target.
I adore their preferred target. You know, those that care as much for others as they do for themselves.
What goes around comes around, dear.
Its your round.
;-) -
By the way, here's a little Derailing for Dummies hint. Truculently scolding people for not sticking to your chosen topic is, potentially, somewhat counterproductive. :)
-
It is not about credibility of a blogger, it is abut the credibility of our Prime Minister.
Get that up yerI think we can question the credibility of our Prime Minister better if we don't latch on to baseless hack-concocted scenarios, no? That's all I was saying really - leave the Standard article alone in that it adds nothing to the discussion. I stand behind that, in between sips.
Hic.
-
Personally I don't give a toss about the likes of a spoilt brat blogger.I have never liked his style of writing (very seldom can I stomach it) but I do care that our PM is dismissive of our interest in knowing the facts. I believe that Dr Worth has the right of every person in this country who has been subjected to an ostracization, being, a fair and just hearing.What we got was, well, a whole lot of speculation. Key knew why he let him go. The public wants transparency . Remember?That's what this lot campaigned on. Until that happens, anyone can blog what they want and anyone can believe who they want, so personally if Eddie was in my lounge, I'd be ok with that. If CS was, I would have my friends remove him, why, because it comes down to an empathy thing.Jus' sayin'
-
I have now read the Standard story and its tedious comments secton.
Last Monday, John Key said you, the people of New Zealand, don’t have the right to know why a minister in your government was sacked.
We think you do have that right. And so do others. We have been told the reason from sources in and around the National party.
That seems a pretty confident assertion about the source of the information, and we are now told it is made by a senior Labour comms person who might plausibly have access to moles in National.
That does not mean it is true. That also does not make it equivalent to the vapid or vicious witterings elsewhere, and protesting so would suggest other motivations at play. However, I really do not care. As you were, chaps.
-
I prefer addled insights from our drinking friend.
-
sips.
Hic.
Cheers ears :)Here's to a bit o' liver damage
-
And I shall put my money where my mouth is by joining him in spirits shortly.
-
That seems a pretty confident assertion about the source of the information, and we are now told it is made by a senior Labour comms person who might plausibly have access to moles in National.
There's this guy called Eklund who blogs on ice hockey and has an enormous following (much larger than the Standard's I would think) in spite of the fact that essentially he makes shit up as he goes along. But he keeps talking about sources in and around teams, things that 'arrive on his desk', strong noises being made about this or that possible trade. He has even devised a rating of the likelyhood of a trade going down, from E1 to E5. One of his very many critics explained it as follows:
E1: he made it up
E2: he made it up with his wife
E3: his neighbour made it up
E4: another reporter made it up
E5: he read it on TSNAnd he's right, this guy has the credibility of a... something or somebody that is not very credible at all. Yet people lap it up.
All because he asserts confidently.
-
The fact that "The Standard" claims that the issiue was Mr. Worths alledged adultery is, really, beside the point. The fact remains that our Prime Minister has taken it upon himself to not inform us of his reason for sacking one of OUR ministers (do you like that Craig? you know, the OUR bit? you know, the possibility that those Ministers of the crown are just as much ours as they are the personal possessions of our dearly beloveds leader? EH? EH? That one who let it be known to the poor souls that voted for him that he would be transparent, you know, see through, glass like in his veiwthroughiness?
like a fishbowl without the spectral aberrations? do you/... do you?)John must fess up, I can't live with this not knowing, I can't I tell you. I just can't.
sob sob sob... -
What we got was, well, a whole lot of speculation. Key knew why he let him go.
Personally I can't find myself up in arms that I don't know why a Minister has been sacked.
I could get up in arms if the minister hadn't been sacked, and I didn't know why. Then a lack of transparency would concern me.
But he's been made as accountable as John Key can make him. Anything more most likely involves the police and they've looked at it. So I suspect we've got the right result, despite not knowing the process.
The only way I could get concerned about it if there were lingering effects of his activities (say he had been bribed or blackmailed and signed stuff or agreed to things as a result, or if there were other people involved who should also be brought to account. It doesn't sound like either of those things are true does it?
Any desire to know the full story beyond that feels like gossip.
-
Number of previous NZ Ministers of the Crown sacked without public explanation: zero.
How hard would it be to say something generic like "lack of moral standards" or "he lied to me" and leave it at that. I do not want gosspiy details but it sets a pretty dangerous precedent if our leaders think they can get away with shit like this with no repercussions. Cheney for PM?
-
And I wouldn't be easier on any other PM, regardless of party or whatever. Genuine conservatives must be watching uneasily.
-
Sorry, Russell, but you're seriously telling me that Farrar or the Herald wouldn't be getting a serve from you if they claimed that Goff sacked someone "for adultery", on a pretty flimsy basis?
If the circumstances were the same, and I'd rather not go through them yet again, I might equally be thinking "Well, if that's true then Goff has solved his problem but he's made a rod for his own back." Seriously.
And then I daresay I'd get on with my day.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.