Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading
234 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It’s quite a peculiar document. It looks long and complete, but reads like a stream of consciousness by someone trying to tell a very long and boring story to avoid answering a few simple questions.
That's a very good description. I just kept thinking to myself "this is weird" as I read it.
-
ChrisW, in reply to
Key -
"I will be recommending to the Governor-General that [Collins] be granted use of the title 'The Honourable' for life."
He and she can try, but people will continue to snigger, or find other ways to diss the dishonourable.
-
And meanwhile, Graham issues a press release celebrating the "exoneration" of his client.
It's quite a bizarre document.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Mind you, it's hard to expect more when they state in there:
As to the first matter, the Inquiries Act does not refer to the standard of proof that should be applied by an inquiry. In Re Erebus Royal Commission; Air New Zealand Ltd v Mahon the Privy Council observed with reference to the Erebus Royal Commission:
... The first rule is that the person making a finding in the exercise of such a jurisdiction must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative value in the sense described below.
...
The technical rules of evidence applicable to civil or criminal
litigation form no part of the rules of natural justice. What is required by the first rule is that the decision to make the finding must be based upon some material that tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be disclosed, is not logically self - contradictory.A pretty low bar. It's hard to think how much different it could be, though. Basically, they just need to make up a story and tie it to some facts of their choice and not be actually logically contradictory in doing so, and the standards of proof are satisfied.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
“Reputation management today involves utilising all sources of media, especially social media platforms that allow enhanced control over the message delivery,” said Mr Graham.
Oh, yes.
It's ALL about control.
-
The Deep State....in full view but hardly understood at all.
There are influences within public office that have agendas at odds with what we know as democracy.
You know it's true, even when the proof is vanished.
''All people make sense all the time''
Think about that, if it's not a provocative statement then you're not thinking.
What could the likely goals be for these actions to make sense.
Wake up New Zealand, your country is less yours than you think.
Wildsilver in the B0P
-
Matthew Hooton, in reply to
Yes. He's violated the Public Records Act.
I don't think Ede has at all. He was aways employed, as I understand it, by Parliamentary Services, in the Office of the Leader of the National Party. His emails are no more subject to the OIA or similar laws than Matt McCarten's. Which raises the question, of course, of why he didn't just use his parliament.govt.nz account.
-
Danielle, in reply to
Finished? By whom? How?
Of course he won't be, and no amount of wishful thinking makes it so.
Seriously. If he gave a soupçon of a shit about his government being corrupt he would have done the mea culpa months ago. He doesn't care AT ALL and there's no one actually capable of holding him properly to account. Failing a real popular uprising (which, let's face it, is about as likely as me becoming a fan of Rush), we're stuck with him.
-
What a wonderfully bracing blast of fresh air and honesty has hit the land over the past week. There's going to be quite a few people rushing to get a coat!
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Which raises the question, of course, of why he didn’t just use his parliament.govt.nz account.
a) Because he would not have been able to delete the emails from the system and b) that would have constituted "misuse of a computer system" if it could have been shown that the actions undertaken were against the law, which he was obviously concerned they were.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
What a wonderfully bracing blast of fresh air and honesty has hit the land over the past week. There’s going to be quite a few people rushing to get a coat!
I suspect the agitator is still turning. Remember, Rawshark said he had turned the dump over to journalists...
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Remember, Rawshark said he had turned the dump over to journalists…
Pray tell, what would our esteemed journos be waiting for then? Ooops there you go, OIA requests. Proven to be fat chance there then unless of course Key wants you to have it. They got it sewn up. As Elbow would sing: "The fix is in. The jockey is cocky and vicious..."
-
BenWilson, in reply to
He’s violated the Public Records Act.
Which part, btw? It's quite a long Act.
-
Which of Key's own MPs and allies are likely find all these shenanigans distasteful? How much would it take for them to start plotting?
-
Why isn't it Friday today?
-
John Armstrong has penned a fairly damming response in the Harold.
Dirty politics? Well, that is arguable. Cynical politics? Without question.
The Key administration has plumbed new depths of arrogance and contempt for the notion of politicians being accountable for their actions in its response to today's hugely embarrassing report by the independent watchdog who maintains oversight over the Security Intelligence Service.
Rather than take the findings of the report by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn on the chin, National sought to bury the report.
-
Dean Wallis, in reply to
John Armstrong has penned a fairly damming response in the Harold.
Faintly damning, hardly no-holds-barred smackdown.
-
John Armstrong: National’s response not good enough
I was surprised to see this from him…
Edit- I see I was beaten to it... same as above.
-
Armstrong has written plenty of similar pieces, and no doubt they are sincere. He does care about this stuff. Trouble is, they're usually followed by a later column extolling Key's political brilliance. The worse the wrongdoing, the more kudos Key gets for surviving it intact. It's twisted logic, but it's commonplace among the commentators.
It's as if they can't help channeling Dick Emery: "Ooh you are awful ... but I like you!"
-
SHeesh!! Anyone watching Little going into orbit in the House??
-
Sacha, in reply to
in a good way, unlike foaming Blinglish.
-
At least the Urgent Debate was granted.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
I don't think Ede has at all. He was aways employed, as I understand it, by Parliamentary Services, in the Office of the Leader of the National Party. His emails are no more subject to the OIA or similar laws than Matt McCarten's. Which raises the question, of course, of why he didn't just use his parliament.govt.nz account.
So that would mean we have him for misuse of official information (which he had no right to access) then. Which do you prefer?
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Which part, btw? It’s quite a long Act.
I'd assume the bit about not chucking out any document (physical or not) that might even vaguely be related to public interest and public roles, for a ridiculously long time. Can't quote you a paragraph, am going from own workplace training, not legal expertise :)
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Post your response…
This topic is closed.