Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OK, for anyone wondering about the http://rnbxclusive.com takedown, it’s genuine: I’ve just rung SOCA, and they’ve confirmed it…
http://rnbxclusive.com/ if you want to try it but they will record your IP address.
EDIT: Oooh, I see I can just type the URL and Cactus automagically makes it a link. Is that new?
-
Ditto to Mikaere
What really got me annoyed was the idea that you would put wheelchair ramps in to enable access to the building, but not enable access to the debate. I know for a fact that closed captioning parliamentary tv has been raised a number of times with the Clerk of the House ever since they started broadcasting, as has live access to Hansard (even if it is “uncorrected”). Parliament, unfortunately, is its own little fiefdom in many respects and it’s very difficult to make them do anything.
Edit: It has been pleasing, however, to see that most commenters are seeing the issue along the "how unfair" and "how ridiculous" lines - the few pricks like Leighton Smith and one or two others in Stuff comments ("why should she get anything different? moan moan Taxpayer dollars") are indeed few.Lockwood may be technically correct to say that the law doesn't allow him to just order up new staff for an MP (and, in fact, closed captioning tv would not be that but would be an improvement to an already operating service), but his manner of saying it makes him look like a complete tosser. The wheels are getting a bit shaky on this government already.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Hadyn Green (@hadyngreen) tweeted something in a similar vein yesterday:
After seeing what MPs were actually saying in the debates, Mojo Mathers has decided to not bother with the translation service.
-
Legal Beagle: It's (almost) never that simple, in reply to Kumara Republic,
I believe it might.
-
Speaking of accessibility, the Mojo Mathers saga is a classic case of government/public agencies not taking disability seriously.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Kiwiiano,
I just opened CERA in Safari and copied a page into TextEdit
There are always ways around anything, but should we *have* to find them?
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Kumara Republic,
I suspect it could also lead to an increase in involuntary leaks.
You could well be right. I do know a lot of honest public servants who are fed up with some of the actions the Government has made them take on ideological grounds, rather than evidence-based.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Andrew E,
There was just one problem with waving this red rag in front of the media bull: it was desperately easy to compare it with the annual budget for the Central Office of Information (Whitehall’s publicity and advertising agency), which was approximately 10 times larger.
Bwahaha. As the lawyers say, never ask a question if you don't already know the answer ;-)
I'd be curious how NZ's first 7 years compare with the UK's, allowing for population differences. I wonder if there's any research on it anywhere?
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Andrew E,
One blog has just published 366 examples of disclosures resulting from requests made via the ‘What Do They Know’ tool.
Just glancing through that, a lot of those requests would be LGOIMA here. Lumping them all together looks expensive but the costs would actually be spread across multiple local bodies.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Andrew E,
Good point about the churnalism and declination to pay. But I'm not convinced that increasing charges would be good for transparency.
