Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Sam F,
Awesome! I missed that thread at the time but I will treasure the concept of proletarian falafel forever!
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Key's right that it's not spin doctoring - it's spin fucking butchering!
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I hope you've instituted a good training regime for your knee, Craig. In an election year, rapid, repeated jerking could be dangerous.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Keith Ng,
Apart from time value of money arguments, I can’t see how you can argue against this logic.
It's very powerful ;-)
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
This is based on Security in the Government Sector from NZSIS, which is NZ's security clearance bible.
Sure, as I said, it's been 5 years. But going by that book, Wilce should not have been cleared. As to the US, they may have changed that since 9/11 but it wasn't the case preciously.
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Rich Lock,
Nah – pretty sure Ben’ll get what I mean, especially being an Akidoka. It’s intended as a compliment.
Jeez, did I have to put a smiley on that?
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Not much chance of Walter Mitty's secret life being exposed when he's probably vetted by his own kind. It was the SIS-affiliated Special Investigation Group that paid and encouraged the deluded provocateur Rob Gilchrist to spy on NZ activists.
Hmm, well... I can only comment on the process, not the quality of the outcome ;-)
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Rich Lock,
Your Zen wisdom is strong like water, Wilson-San.
Are you saying Ben's all wet?
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Going to the trouble of interviewing two (or more) referees and not interviewing the subject? Whatever their other failings, I can't see that one happening.
You need to look again, then. It's your reputation that they're checking.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Ross Mason,
From this….ummm…..if I am not mistaken, it appears they did not interview him……oh dear
Having held a Top Secret clearance now and again, I can confirm that the SIS do not customarily interview the subject as part of the vetting.
New Zealand’s approach to security clearances is not like the US. When you get a clearance here, it is at the request of the CE of the agency for the duration of the job, i.e. if you shift agency, the clearance officially lapses and you have to get a new one (unless they’ve changed it in the last 5 years). Of course, the SIS may recycle the ground work, but they usually touch base personally with the referees again. In the US (as I understand it) they go over you with a microscope once and you hold that clearance for life, unless someone raises a flag on you.
What seems odd to me is that the SIS interviewed any of his referees and didn’t get a sniff of his short-comings (even though he nominated them himself). Even Momentum, had they bothered to check, should have picked that up. However, their failure is not a matter of national security – that of the SIS is.