Hard News: The best blogger there never was
196 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
This is bizarre - I can't see Graeme's statement reporting Garrett's statement is not covered by qualified privilege at Dimpost but Labor's blog saying it is not. Yet, as you note, all media are covering it. Perhaps it's an issue of who'd have standing to apply to have the order enforced? If only Garrett, then it is reasonable to assume his comments in Parliament suggest he'd not be apply (but then I'd guess a breach of the Court's order would be enforceable regardless who breached it).
The Clerk or the AG should sort this out so that there's not confusion.
-
As I typed, he showed up and neatly explained matters - thank you Graeme.
-
2. It's not a defence to a charge of breaching name suppression.
Which occurred to me subsequently, when I recalled that MPs have tried to do this in the house.
I do feel some chagrin that my only defence is that all the big kids were doing it.
-
I got nothin'
Naturally he's not consistent
-
I do feel some chagrin that my only defence is that all the big kids were doing it.
And I'm sorry I put you wrong too.
-
Ok Craig, two can play at that...
I got nothin'.
And plenty more where that came from...
I got plenty o'nothin' and nothin's plenty for me
I got no car, got no mule, I got no misery
Folks with plenty of plenty, they got a lock on the door
Afraid somebody's gonna rob 'em while they're out a'makin' more
What for?
I got no lock on the door, that's no way to be
They can steal the rug from the floor, that's OK with me
'cause the things that I prize, like the stars in the skies, are all free
Say, I got plenty o'nothin' and nothin's plenty for me
I got my gal, got my song, got heaven the whole day long
Got my gal
Got my love
Got my song
<lengthy instrumental>
I got plenty o'nothin' and nothin's plenty for me
I got my gal, got my song, I got heaven the whole day long
Got my gal
Got my love
Got my song
-
Garrett's previous scrappy tendencies brought this reassurance from Key:
"In the end the management of the people in the ACT party is the responsibility of (leader) Rodney Hide and certainly from what I've seen in the past is he's taken that responsibility seriously and acted promptly where he's had information."
Where "acting" obviously means something different than most of us expect. Oh, and h/t MeganWegan for that one.
-
I'm assuming if there's any doubt that one of the media organisations will apply to have the suppression order lifted, or at least revised to allow reporting of what Garrett has said.
I also expect the AG's appetite for chewing up bloggers has been sated for the time being, so I wouldn't expect bloggers to be pursued for reporting what Garrett said. But then I'm not a media law expert.
-
I know I'm late to the party, but the brawl in Tonga story contains one of the most awesome sentences in the history of print journalism and it would be a crime to let it go unnoticed:
"He was fined $10 for that incident, in which he had his jaw broken in two places after being hit from behind by a top psychiatrist."
-
@Sacha: Hide's "acting" on info might not be expected ... except that it's exactly what we do expect as regards ACTing.
-
Indeed Gio, how do you break someone's jaw from behind and what could you possibly do to wind up a psychiatrist to the point of violence?. I suspect the psychiatrist was the one being smart, something I wouldn't accuse Garret of being.
-
Perhaps it's an issue of who'd have standing to apply to have the order enforced?
The Police, just as they did with Mr Slater.
-
I also like:
"Twenty-six years ago while living a very different life"
Could somebody please ask the honourable member if "living a different life" can be used to reset one's strikes clock?
And:
"The regret I feel at the hurt I unwittingly caused the family of the deceased child is something I carry with me today and will continue to carry for the rest of my life."
Unless he tripped or something, unwittingly doesn't mean what he thinks it means. I believe the correct word is "callously".
-
In spite of every news organisation leading with the Garrett story, Trevor on Red Alert is diligently deleting every reference to any possible link in case it breaches priviledge.
-
Well Graeme, so we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for the cops to show up to burglary or whatnot, they have got their work cut out going after all the bloggers and media organisations then?.
-
Am I the only person who thinks what's sauce for Heather Roy should be sauce for David Garrett -- even allowing for ACT's usual shamelessness, how can he credibly be their law and order spokesthing?
-
Media law guru Steven Price has posted on this, and seems happy to relate details of what Garrett revealed.
-
The Police, just as they did with Mr Slater.
Sure, however the Police prosecuted Slater as a third-party who breached a name suppression order. Why would the Police wish the courts to apply a suppression order breached by the party who was protected by it?
-
...will continue to carry for the rest of my life."
Oh, which life?
Callous disregard is the term for that sort of behaviour but then that is a qualification needed to be a member of ACT -
I'd like to know which professions confer political immunity.
* Oil-rigger - Clearly.
* Sawmiller? - Possibly.
* Truck driver? - Owner-operators probably qualify as upstanding independent capitalists. Contractors, maybe not.
* Railworker - Too union affiliated.
* Meatworker? Too many Maori and Pacific. -
how do you break someone's jaw from behind
A hook would do it. But this is all how Garrett tells it. It could have been to-and-fro, and he just came off second best.
what could you possibly do to wind up a psychiatrist to the point of violence?
Something to do with the psychiatrist's wife, was what Garrett said.
-
Garrett's problem is now news in Australia too.
And it's being talked about just about anywhere - there's even a thread on /. - we in general are looking a bit stupid right now
-
The Police, just as they did with Mr Slater.
Yes, but the police there were stepping in to protect a the person who the order was protecting - the victim of the crime.
Given that this order is protecting Garrett, and he's chosen to announce it to the world, and is asking lawyers how it can be lifted, it would be a farcical prosecution.
-
Maybe the psychiatrist was trying an old fashioned treatment on Garrett: smacking some sense into him.
Didn't work.
-
"He was fined $10 for that incident, in which he had his jaw broken in two places after being hit from behind by a top psychiatrist."
I can't look at that crazily constructed sentence without laughing. Tears of mirth are actually coursing down my cheeks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.