Hard News: Why we thought what we thought
287 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
stever@cs.waikato.ac.nz, in reply to
Whoever said the rich have no style (was that me just then?? :) ) was spot on, clearly.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I think I can see a pattern here and it ain’t no fucking butterfly. More like roadkill.
Rorschach's journal, September 1st 2014: Whale carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach.
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
'Necessary, reasonable? Public domain?'
Check his twitter feed. It seems that Matthew thinks that his self disclosed alcoholism is what John Key was referring to in the 'problems Matthew has' comment.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
__I am ignorant of the law, but I would have thought that if there was anyone with the resources and legal authority to require the logs from the third party in this (Facebook) for a conversation at a known time and date, it would be the Inspector General of the SIS investigating the leaking of classified documents. In fact, if everyone denies everything, I would say this is a logical step in a thorough investigation.__
Good God, David, are you taking the piss? These are strange days indeed, but Public Address is the last place on Earth I expected to read that. Be very careful what you wish for…
Agreed. The idea of extraordinary powers being deployed to identify leakers is not good for democracy. But remember, Peter Dunne resigned his ministerial post last year because he refused to fully cooperate with the inquiry into the leaking of the Kitteridge report on the GCSB. The inquiry had already identified emails between him and Andrea Vance -- the metadata -- which Dunne refused to hand over.
The head of the inquiry, David Henry, also tried to get access to Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance's phone records -- thank goodness for Parliamentary Services' refusal to play ball -- and she was surveilled within Parliament. So it's not like there hasn't already been serious overreach.
The SFO and FMA matters covered in Matt Nippert's story are different. That looks like a deliberate attempt to undermine law enforcement agencies for the benefit of a paying client -- with a little frosting of witness intimidation and misuse of evidence.
That's criminal behaviour and I would be surprised and disappointed if there wasn't a criminal investigation. That investigation should have, and should use, powers to obtain evidence in private communications.
-
And as if on cue, Labour has asked the police to investigate various matters.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
PM’s Pinot has been around for a few years, so I don’t think that’s been much of a secret. But the blind trust is evidently only blind in one eye
Why though? PM has mentioned the Pinot often albeit not lately. How blind can the blind trust be if he chats about what’s in it. Is that how he maintains his stance in his office? “It’s not me ,it’s my office” means “I know everything but nothing”?
I was thinking about his smugness in the house about David Cunliffe having blind trusts. Did Jason Ede mention that to him? I mean, he knew and was laughing about it. Kept rubbing it in. Modus Operandi was to discredit Cunliffe about blind trusts and donors. Key lead that. -
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Agreed. The idea of extraordinary powers being deployed to identify leakers is not good for democracy.
See I didn't think identifying the leakers was what was being suggested.
I don't have any problem with the investigating parties pulling facebook chat records (if they exist, via normal legal channels) to definitively prove whether or not the released chats are forgeries. That doesn't feel like overreach and privacy violation to me - just normal investigative functions as a response to denial of the accuracy of the evidence.
I wouldn't expect the investigating parties to then publish what they find, just to tell us whether Judith is lying (again).
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
3 monkeys…
…remember, Peter Dunne resigned his ministerial post last year because he refused to fully cooperate with the inquiry into the leaking…
If it works once try it again, now Dunne
is refusing to read Dirty Politics
What a representative!
Ohariu and environs must be so proud of him
and his principled stand for wilful ignorance! -
Alfie, in reply to
The thlot pickens! An interesting little item on stuff reports that the purchaser of Hotchin's monument to self-regard on Paratai Drive is the NZ CEO of Orovida...
Here's the link (on Stuff):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8981806/Hotchins-mansion-on-brink-of-sale -
Sacha, in reply to
the ‘problems Matthew has’
which explains some of Boag's comments as well. Who needs enemies..
-
I am getting paranoid now . Been reading about spin doctor techniques
This
The most recent email release that lead to the PM sacking Collins as a minister was released by Slater - via Cathy Odgers in league with the PMs dept as a reverse straw man diversionary tactic.
This is how it rolls : One email released - PM fires Collins - PM sets up (limited) Inquiry - Don't worry folks we got rid of the evil one - Can't talk about this now while inquiry under way - Election - inquiry finds no evidence ( or Slater says opps I made that one up ) - Collins comes back - Dirty politics forgotten. -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...his self disclosed alcoholism is what John Key was referring to in the ‘problems Matthew has’ comment.
Whereas Key continues in denial of his own 'problems'
Anyway, what they tell you when you give up drinking is 'you feel better, you sleep better and you have greater clarity of thought . . .
"So, after three weeks what I tell you is that's bulls***.- dry drunks can be so bitter!
-
Richard Aston, in reply to
So, three things: 1. Long time lurker, first time caller: please be gentle.
You fool! Now they know you’re here!
Welcome Teej
Yes welcome Teej and as NZ Lemming said, you are now tagged.
You know that bit when the dictator takes over and they round up the intellectuals to be sent off to labour camps or killed.
Thats us . -
Brent Jackson, in reply to
3: it’s about now presumably that Collins (and hopefully Key) is busily recognising that metadata is actually kinda intrinsically related to the content it describes, and that its collection and use for investigative purposes is actually something to be concerned about
A wry observation
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
which explains some of Boag’s comments as well. Who needs enemies..
Indeed. I didn't know this background and the mention up thread seemed a little unnecessary.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
- dry drunks can be so bitter!
Akshully, when I think about that, I can't recall, because that's what the people of New Zealand want, they want economy and I refute that,,,,,, hic.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
I don’t have any problem with the investigating parties pulling facebook chat records (if they exist, via normal legal channels) to definitively prove whether or not the released chats are forgeries. That doesn’t feel like overreach and privacy violation to me – just normal investigative functions as a response to denial of the accuracy of the evidence.
Given that Slater and Collins are both outright denying all/any facebook discussions, it is likely to be necessary to use legal channels to check validity/veracity here.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11317550 -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Whereas Key continues in denial of his own ‘problems
’
"Anyway, what they tell you when you give up drinking is ’you feel better, you sleep better and you have greater clarity of thought . . .So, after three weeks what I tell you is that’s bulls***."- dry drunks can be so bitter!
Or is that a blatant plug for the Liquor Industry? nudge nudge ;) ;)
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Given that Slater and Collins are both outright denying all/any facebook discussions, it is likely to be necessary to use legal channels to check validity/veracity here.
Agreed, the fb leaks are a new front unsupported by Hagers book - need someone to tell us whether we can just ignore all the fb ones as forgeries, or if it really is as bad as they make it out.
Also, the timestamps are a thing - are ministers really able to stay up past midnight chatting all the time and still do their job?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the fb leaks are a new front unsupported by Hagers book
Are you sure - I thought his book had plenty of Facebook-sourced evidence?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Agreed, the fb leaks are a new front unsupported by Hagers book – need someone to tell us whether we can just ignore all the fb ones as forgeries, or if it really is as bad as they make it out.Also, the timestamps are a thing – are ministers really able to stay up past midnight chatting all the time and still do their job?
Hager said he asked for the political emails. He left the rest with/to rawshark so it makes some sense if the other stuff is not noticeable in the book. I'm still on a list for my copy so if anyone knows where some copies are around aux??
You are being coy about the time stamps aren't you? -
Also, the timestamps are a thing – are ministers really able to stay up past midnight chatting all the time and still do their job?
Kinda depends on how you define their "job". (Nobody told me that wasn't part of the job! I utterly refute that! Let's talk about policy...)
-
Thanks to all for good information on this thread.
Has anyone else noticed that as time rolls on, and the back-room players start retreating, leaving front man Key alone and blinking in the lime-light, that he's sort of making less and less sense? (I mean, even less than usual) Phrases like:
"It's a bit soul destroying people don't believe me ..."
"When I lose a poll like that ..." (on a question about whether you believe him or not)
These words just don't sound engaged, informed or remotely germane to the issues he's fronting.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Agreed, the fb leaks are a new front unsupported by Hagers book – need someone to tell us whether we can just ignore all the fb ones as forgeries, or if it really is as bad as they make it out.
No – this is a very widespread misconception. The conversation is quoted in Hager’s book, on page 46. It’s noted as “Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Judith Collins, 11 September 2011.”
-
Just read the personal statement from Matthew Hooten.
It reads a bit like an example of Stockholm Syndrome. National and Act have both been naughty but he's voting for them anyway.
Although it got me thinking: it feels like there just aren't enough credible centre-right parties around. If I had wanted to cast a blue vote but decide that National is too tarnished by these allegations, what other options are there? Winston First? The Peter Dunne Party? Conservatives? None of those are particularly credible either.
So if a right-leaning voter such at Matthew Hooten were to defect from National, where's he going to go? He's not likely to cross the fence to Labour or the Greens, is he?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.