Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
...I'm half crazy an offers th' votes to you...
(it won't be a stylish marriage!)As in a Kardasian marriage!
-
At the risk of doubling up, Gavin Ellis's commentary on Nine to Noon is interesting particularly insofar as Ellis says the Herald should not publish.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
But I guess that would require some good judgement and strategic nous; two qualities I’ve seen precious little evidence of from that quarter.
That might be a little unfair, what about this as an alternative. Asset sales are a key part of Labour's alternative to National. ACT have made clear they'd prefer to sell them all or at least more of them and faster than Key has indicated. ACT's support for National is critical to their electoral chances. Enquiring as to what National and ACT might have agreed regarding this or other matters is a legitimate issue to be exposed to the public.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Sacha,
the quotes above are enough.
Possibly, but that's a matter first for the Police and then the Courts.
I might've misunderstood Russell's point, my point was the disclosure alone isn't a matter the Police would likely prosecute as (a) the HoS claim the recording was inadvertant and (b) the existence of the conversation was in no way a function of the recording, the parties themselves said it was to happen.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Russell Brown,
So if the recording is deemed unlawful, the HoS seems to have already committed the offence.
Not necessarily.
"where any person discloses the private communication, or the substance, meaning, or purport of the communication or any part of it
The courts would need to decide if the Herald's published stories discloses the recorded conversation's content. But I read the next bit separately:
or discloses the existence of the private communication if he knows that it has come to his knowledge as a direct or indirect result of an offence against s216B Crimes Act
Disclosing its existence is an offence only if the HoS knew it was obtained in breach of the Crimes Act... they've said that the reporter didn't know the recording device was live so the disclousre of its existence itself is not necessarily an offence.
Graeme, at least, will correct me if I'm wrong on my reading of the section of the Crimes Act.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Russell Brown,
"I wasn't able to get a shot so I backed off and while I was backed off trying to get other shots we were basically hustled out of the room, told to get out."
If this is confirmed as a fact and Steven Price's analysis is correct, and I've no reason to think it isn't, then the HoS are in a strong position to defend the complaint and publish.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to BenWilson,
maybe the conversation was banal, and he's refusing on principle, hoping to lure opposition into focusing on it. Then he can authorize the release and it will be about Coro St, which tea to order, etc. Then once again opposition will have lost valuable time playing the man rather than the ball.
That's not likely given the HoS commentary having heard it (even allowing for the fact that they'll talk it up a little).
Then again, it may be that they actually discussed something of substance. That would be a truly idiotic thing to do, quite frankly, since it's not like neither of them has ever heard of a telephone, or that they can't meet in actual private. I can't put it past either of them to be a little bit idiotic, but that would really take the cake.
That's much more plausible. Possibly Key provided a frank and critical appraisal of Brash and Banks agreed?
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Craig Young,
Ideas, attitudes and visage frozen in the past... makes sense
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Tom Semmens,
i think it is a telling comment on the state of our media that the HoS even asked for permission to publish. What a rum state of affairs that is! Is that what our newspapers have been reduced to? Meekly asking permission from the governing party to publish a story?
I don't agree. I suspect the tactic was (a) get their assent or not = story (b) claim to have a right to publish = story (c) publish or not = story. Repeat = story.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
It could also be argued that high profile journalists (expecially on TV) have no expectation of privacy, and a little light stalking after beer o'clock on a Friday night is in the public interest.
According to Price, only if they'd issued a media release inviting the media to attend their beer o'clock musings. Otherwise, no.
I think the case law on what a reasonable expectation of privacy actually means is important to any analysis of this.