Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sacha,
To be fair, it's your spat with Pete that's swamping the conversation at the moment ...
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Pete George,
Mr Dotcom claimed in court Mr Key had heard about him because Mr Banks told him he had told the Prime Minister about a New Year’s fireworks display being put on by Mr Dotcom.
- their claimed recollection of a conversation two and a half years ago that was a second hand account of another conversation they didn’t hear themselves.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s a clincher either. On the other hand, you might think Key had heard of a very rich German businessman, who lived at a very well-known property in his electorate and who had shelled out for a giant New Year fireworks display for his mate Banksie. I certainly had. The Herald on Sunday published its first story about Dotcom’s background and business in February 2010, nearly two years before the raid.
A series of stories in 2011 involved one about Key’s own ministers, Simon Power and Maurice Williamson, declining Dotcom permission to buy the Coatesville mansion.
Was Key innocent of that too? What the hell does he does with his days?
The closer you look, the more implausible Key’s claim to have not heard of Dotcom until the day before the raid looks.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sacha,
- but the programme never made any such “claim”. You only have to actually watch it and be able to listen.
It's also nonsense on the facts of the matter. Fletcher was back working for the sunny state of Queensland while the surveillance took place. It would be more plausible to suppose they wanted to clearly separate him from Operation Debut, by having him start work two weeks after the raid.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Paul G. Buchanan,
I remain of the opinion that there was more than copyright issues involved in this case, hence the weirdness.
Thanks for swinging by, Paul. You may well be right, and I could have been clearer in saying that I'm not dismissing what you say. It would certainly explain a few things.
Here is a suggestion for you and other journalists now that I have put the thought of something else driving the Dotcom case into the public domain: why not ask Dotcom directly if he or his minions were ever approached by the US government with regard to installing backdoors on his servers?
Excellent question. I will ask it.
-
Access: Your Relationship With Disability, in reply to lesley maclean,
Hi Lesley. Great to see you here.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to MxDEJ,
Random thought crossed with a genuine question: Was there some pressing reason to move Mateparae out of NZDF, even if it meant bouncing him in and out of the GCSB?
I'm not sure if it quite amounts to that, but Mataparae was certainly under pressure over his responsibility for the handing over of Afghan prisoners to torturers. At the time Jon Stephenson's 'Eyes Wide Shut' Metro story was published in 2011, he had moved on as head of the Defence Force, via the GCSB and was GG designate. The question at that time was whether it reflected on his moral fitness to be Governor General.
Steve has helpfully embedded the Media7 interview with did with the guy Mataparae replaced in both his last two jobs, Sir Bruce Ferguson.
-
Question 1 today:
-
Key has just been pressed on the issues at Question Time.
- He has admitted that *both* meetings with Fletcher were organised by his office.
- But he insists he didn’t discuss the GCSB role at all with Fletcher at the breakfast meeting.
- Asked about his false statement that Rennie came to him with the proposal to hire Fletcher: "that was my recollection at the time".
- He “can’t be sure” whether DPMC briefed him about Kim Dotcom on December 14.
The last one is absurd. He’s been repeatedly pressed on his foreknowledge of Dotcom and insisted he’d never even heard of the guy until January 19. Now he says he hasn’t even checked to see whether he got a briefing on Dotcom from his own department?
How on earth does he get away with this stuff?
-
Hard News: The problems inherent in the system, in reply to Craig Young,
I certainly think that there’s a case for decriminalisation of cannabis, but I’m somewhat uneasy when the same argument is applied to P/crystal meth.
Decriminalisation is still an option even when you really don’t want a substance in the market. If it’s that dangerous and damaging, why re-victimise users?
The two drugs have vastly different pharmacological and toxicological properties, so I think the best way to go is probably streamlining the Misuse of Drugs Act and abolishing the Class C category altogether, albeit with an R18 age limit. Some Class B substances may be best governed by harm minimisation and risk reduction.
You’d still want to think about what you wanted to decriminalise and what you would approve for commercial supply. The Misuse of Drugs Act is quite a mess in that respect. Morphine’s Class B and psilocybin, thanks (I think) to an early 80s moral panic, is Class A.
Reserve the interdiction and hardline prohibitionist policies for Class A drugs, where they might be justifiable. Methamphetamine psychosis does exist, and it is far more severe than the limited effects of similar adverse reactions to cannabis amongst particularly susceptible individuals.
And yet, almost everyone who uses amphetamines recreationally doesn’t suffer psychosis or even any significant harm. They’ve been used recreationally in New Zealand for around 60 years. They’re fun!
You could say inhaled methamphetamine is a special case. It hurts more people more badly than any other kind of speed, in my experience -- I saw people who'd always kept it together lose their shit with P. On the other hand, Ritalin is also an amphetamine and that’s pretty benign when used as a party drug.
-
Hard News: The problems inherent in the system, in reply to BenWilson,
No, they’re not. And I’m having it, aren’t I? Do you want me to stop? It seemed like just the place to be talking about this, but your call.
No, I don't want you to stop. I appreciate your point, but I'm puzzled by the way you've dismissed harm reduction, when it largely seems responsible for positive change.