Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Good point. Which outlet will be first?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0URHZmGijbk

"Mr Key’s honestly held views at that time"

What on earth does that even mean?
He honestly believed he was lying?
He honestly believed he was being victimized by a vast left wing conspiracy headed by Mr Ambrose.
I dont think our PM has held a simple honest... anything... in his mind for a very long time.

"Honest" has a different meaning to Mr Key, There are so many examples of him saying things as PM that are not true, that I cannot trust almost anything he says.

“Mr Key’s honestly held views at that time”
....What on earth does that even mean?

He held those views under his 'Prime Ministerial Hat' at the time?

But more likely he just believes everything he says himself...

I suspect this is a reference to the defence of honest opinion, and intended to tell us that the PM intended to rely on that defence if the matter went to trial. Of course, whether that defence could or would have succeeded, we'll never know now.

It's far from a foregone conclusion that Ambrose would have won if the proceeding went to trial. But for the PM, the prospect of being subjected to cross-examination in front of the media and a jury possibly during an election year would have been very unattractive.

The PM has described the monetary settlement as "a small amount".

Obviously the exact figure is confidential, but I'd love to know what a ballpark figure for this amount is.

Does the PM mean "a small amount for a multi-millionaire like me, so $50, 000" or does he mean "a small amount like $1000" ?

Any punts on a figure, please ?

Has anyone who was interested in this scandal not already heard it? I heard it like the day after it happened.

It wasn't very interesting. IIRC, the only fun bit was where both parties winked and nodded about what funny old fool Don Brash is.

Key has backed down from having taxpayers pay for his folly. Farrar Polling quickly?
And how come the taxpayer is however payeing for the preparation of his defence?
Personal vendettas should come out of Key's pocket.

And how come the taxpayer is however paying for the preparation of his defence?

And all those police raids...

Police are expected to descend on media organisations today in pursuit of material related to the "teapot tape", while Prime Minister John Key digs his heels in and stands by allegedly defamatory statements about cameraman Bradley Ambrose.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767545

Key has backed down from having taxpayers pay for his folly. Farrar Polling quickly?

Backdown. And yes, that's what I suspected too.

Backdown. And yeas, that's what I suspected too.

I'm surprised he even suggested it to begin with. If the amount's really as small as is being implied, he could probably have added it to his private grocery shopping list without making a dent in the bank account, and looked better in the process. Maybe the colleagues didn't want that precedent of personal liability being set.

Maybe the colleagues didn’t want that precedent of personal liability being set.

Steven 'Pretty legal' Joyce might be getting nervous about Eminem's lawyers and who'll pay the damages if he loses - hubris is eating the National Party!
http://www.smh.com.au/world/nz-nationals-wanna-break-it-down-with-eminem-20160309-gne8v6.html

Eminem’s lawyers and who’ll pay the damages

The Taxpayer…. of course...

The Taxpayer…. of course…

Not for that one. Seriously, if you've evidence that's the plan, then release it. That would be outrageous.

That would be outrageous.

It would but then Mr. Key is thinking we should meet his deformation expenses..
If they can they will. If they can;t they will try.
No evidence is needed, its just the way they play...

Hi Graeme.

Not for that one. Seriously, if you've evidence that's the plan, then release it. That would be outrageous.

What's the point of difference, given that they both trace back to Party campaigning?

Am I right in thinking that it's that the soundtrack was entirely about a Party campaign ad (so taxpayer not liable), whereas the Teapot case was more specifically about something the PM said outside of a Party campaign stunt?

What’s the point of difference, given that they both trace back to Party campaigning?

Mostly, because it's the National Party is being sued, not John Key or any other Member of Parliament.

Now I’m confused.
In the teapot case, was Key sued for defamation as a Member of Parliament?

In the teapot case, was Key sued for defamation as a Member of Parliament?

Key was sued. He was a member of Parliament at the time.

Mr. Key is thinking we should meet his deformation expenses..

Perfectly happy to.

- Sorry couldn't help myself :)

crowdfunding a large mallet should be a breeze

deformation expenses..

Now using Googles new improved Auto-incorrect...

;-)