Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Politics of Absence, in reply to Russell Brown,
Perhaps, but while I like Simon a lot I don’t think his legacy as Justice Minister is that much to be proud of. The right to silence should never have been under threat. Ever.
Amen to that.
I know of some good lawyers and law students who have a very, very poor opinion of Power. He's viewed as a provincial conveyancing lawyer out of his depth in the portfolio.
I think I'm suffering from not being the country as I'm not sure what this refers too?
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to NBH,
Craig, it's probably too late now since you've left the thread, but just to be clear, like Paul I'm not claiming that you're lying and my apologies if I created the impression that I did - we clearly disagree on this issue, but I don't think you're in any way purposely trying to mislead anyone.
For the sake of clarity, what you've said fairly reflects what I said/meant also.
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to Lilith __,
This experience and the surprising show of support has made me appreciate the role that I have as a commentator in a media dominated by bland baby boomer pundits and hard right wing opinion masquerading as middle of the road NZ.
Yeah, it sounds like he's learned from the experience although he still seems to see things in binary terms with only himself on the correct side... that's a bit, um, immature.
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to DCBCauchi,
How about Clark’s response to Hager’s GM book?
Craig might've meant that; she did front that interview, she just thought it was about something else (if I've recalled this correctly). She might also have avoided Campbell for a time after that too, whether that was justified or not...
-
It's not necessary to call you a liar to disagree Craig.
I simply think you're wrong. I'm certain Clark will have refused an interview with NatRad and or some other major news outlet at various points in time, I'm simply saying she didn't do it on a regular basis and was not known to be wary of scrutiny. In my opinion, Key avoids them in preference for other formats.
Well, there’s no point in continuing this since you’re convinced I’ve lied. Repeatedly. In extreme bad faith.
No Craig, again I disagree, it might be bad faith though to set this discussion up in these terms. It's only in Parliament where a Members word cannot be questioned.
I'm simply saying I have a different recollection from you (and have been clear about that in this brief exchange).
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
No I don’t, Paul as I think you’re perfectly well aware.
Craig, I'm not. I don't recall Clark avoiding media or being criticised for avoiding media. I don't think you're right.
By contrast, I do think Key has a clear strategy of (a) not recalling (b) not having the detail (c) not been present for whatever the discussion might've been about (d) or not being available for questioning.
He does simply not perform well under close scrutiny.
is a pretty pernicious one that needs to be stamped out. It's particularly concerning given that it frames doing these things as 'business as usual', and so future governments will feel more comfortable continuing such practices.
Totally agree.
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Balls - Clark was pretty damn good at being "unavailable for comment" when there was no possible advantage for her getting pummeled for five minutes on Morning Report
I don't think that's correct Craig, I can't recall Clark dodging interviews on any significant issue but it was a while ago (perhaps you mean speeding tickets or paintings rather than substantive matters).
-
Field Theory: The Cup Continues, in reply to Ross Mason,
This was specifically discussed this morning on NatRad with former AB doctor John Mayhew and former coach John Hart. Mayhew says there's no causal link; says freak injuries (about 1 minute in).
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to Lilith __,
I often agree, up to a point, with his views, but he seems to go out of his way to be hyperbolic and antagonistic. If he'd be more moderate and less hectoring he could be a force to be reckoned with.
Agreed. I think his approach appeals only to those who agree with him, in which case, it's pretty indulgent IMHO.
-
Hard News: Dropping the Bomber, in reply to 3410,
1. We don't prefer National, because
2. We don't take sides.
3. And anyway, we prefer Labour.In the 3 news item, I understood, their explanation to be that ratings agencies rate governments, not parties.