Hard News: Never mind the quality ...
319 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I’m guessing it was a Downfall?
You are correct Sir.
Puzzled as to why it was removed, uploader threatened by the “Powers that be”? -
Grant McDougall, in reply to
Craig, thanks for clarifying that. It amazes me that Slater has kept his grudge for so long and is simply unable to respect a basic democratic process.
I'd assumed there'd been some sort of major incident between them and / or their friends, but Slater really is being a sore loser if that's what it's all about.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Puzzled as to why it was removed
copywrong
-
Michael Savidge, in reply to
What’s more none of them are looking forward, they are all blindly heading into the future towards something beyond their reach, attention fixed backwards to the lightweight in the stern calling the shots
Such a flaccid cox...
-
Moz, in reply to
but meat hooks are S shaped, not C shaped. That cartoon is wrong!
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Such a flaccid cox…
well, as I was going for meta-foreplay
I should have said 'calling the stroke...'
;- )...but seriously, I found this photo from the future, it's of National's Rowing Eight (+cox) after Key sold the 'shell' out from under them and left them high and dry...
...honest!
;- 0< Warning: contains deliberately incorrect information for satirical purposes, will settle for a cheap laugh>
-
This really interesting: David Fisher on dealing with Slater, then deciding to step outside the tent.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
This really interesting: David Fisher
It is.
-
He launched a personal assault with what I believed were threats of violence and created an atmosphere in which I was personally and professionally denigrated. Those who post comments on his website made awful slurs. It is as horrible an online environment as you will find anywhere.
Among the slurs were claims my behaviour showed I was suffering withdrawal symptoms associated with alcohol and drug addiction.
The Key/Farrar line (both use the same phrase repeatedly, surely no coincidence) is to describe Slater as "a force of nature". To Radio Live and Newstalk ZB, he is merely a political commentator, a regular guest.
How did we sink so low?
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
He launched a personal assault with what I believed were threats of violence and created an atmosphere in which I was personally and professionally denigrated
How is this even legal?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
How is this even legal?
On the legality bit, although totally off the Fisher/Slater debacle.
Forging a signature on a document, as Collins allegedly did, carries a max 10 year jail term, instant dismissal from Parliament as the jail time is over 2 years. -
SteveH, in reply to
This really interesting: David Fisher on dealing with Slater, then deciding to step outside the tent.
Very interesting.
I wonder how much the abuse Fisher and others has received has made other reporters reluctant to report anything negative about Slater. It must have a chilling effect.
Key's failure to condemn Slater's behavior is very telling. It amounts to tacit approval and I'd like to see more attention paid to that.
-
Michael Homer, in reply to
You're allowed to be elected after you get out. Your seat automatically becomes vacant upon conviction but you could even run in the by-election if you're not actually imprisoned at the time.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
that he was sentenced to two-and-half-years in jail on fire arms charges.
Nothing to see. He did his time for the disgusting Tuhoe raids with possession of guns unlicensed and consequently he is perfectly able to stand for Parliament. Just as it was nothing to do with KDC that a shareholder of Mega has had assets seized (so far with no charges) .The insinuations were just too good for TV3 though.
-
simon g, in reply to
Plunket has apologised to Gower on air this morning. Says he "was out of line".
"I then questioned him about [false claims] live on air without having any evidence whatsoever to support the claims. These claims were based on comments from listeners that I did not check and I have since discovered there is no basis for the claims."
Talkback listener makes false allegations, which are not checked, but repeated - by a guy who cheerfully slags off Nicky Hager for not providing evidence. Yes, it's pretty clear who has the higher professional standards here.
-
Some decent commentary from Anne Salmond.
They must take urgent steps to clean up politics in New Zealand, and to restore democratic checks and balances to the political process. It must adversely affect the lives of politicians, and make them wonder what happened to their own ideals, and how they became complicit in such a dirty game.
It would be nice if at every electorate candidate meeting this year, someone asks each candidate if they would promise not to engage in negative attack politics whether by proxy or not.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Unfortunately, it's a mere symptom of Plunket selling out some time ago. When he was with Fair Go, he was more like Nicky Hager or Andrea Vance.
-
izogi, in reply to
It would be nice if at every electorate candidate meeting this year, someone asks each candidate if they would promise not to engage in negative attack politics whether by proxy or not.
Maybe, but I don’t think that’s enough, personally. If they were asked last election or the election before, then everyone would have promised that. Most probably would have been truthful, too, and anyone actually planning to use these types of tactics wouldn’t have been expecting to be found out.
I’d rather know what candidates intend to do so this can’t happen to the same extent in the future, no matter who’s elected.
I like the tone of Anne Salmond’s writing, though. An Inquiry or a Royal Commission? Sure, as long as it’s given power to actually investigate what needs investigating without political intervention, and as long as its findings are treated seriously instead of the government of the day just picking and choosing what it likes.
Sometimes politicians define the terms of reference on these things so that they exclude whichever lines of inquiry might reflect badly on those politicians, even though that seems to be a significant part of the issue here. Even if National’s voted out, you can bet there will be MPs in other parties with a few things they’d prefer weren’t “discovered”.
This is really a constitutional thing. Ministers and their staff, as a rule, need to have accountability that goes beyond the election cycle and is immune to political conflicts of interest. I get that they need a certain amount of freedom and privacy to do their job effectively, but only being accountable to others with political motives is a recipe for bad judgement and failure to follow the rules and expectations (wherever they even exist) to be encouraged or overlooked, instead of dealt with above board.
Saying that it’s up the the public to vote them out isn’t enough. The public has so many conflicting issues to consider when choosing who to vote for, plus it’s dependent on a suitable alternative presenting itself as an opposition.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
I’d rather know what candidates intend to do so this can’t happen to the same extent in the future, no matter who’s elected.
Yes, although from my observations, the more scope left for a complex answer results in wriggling and evasion.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.