Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Good grief! What planet does Judith Collins live on?
Planet expedience?
Its close orbit exerts a strong pull - strong enough to offset the entropic effect of ACT for at least another year or so.
-
But we don't legislate to condemn hypocrisy. That will happen at the ballot box.
Fair point and I sincerely hope so. I've got family in Epsom, I will be encouraging them to remember that Hide knew all this when he recruited Garrett.
-
The original crime... no, even though it was a detestable thing to do. The failure to admit it, to the public, by someone who opposes the Clean Slate legislation? That's the problem.
Again, I slightly disagree.
The original crime is a serious offence, as Graeme's pointed out at the Dimpost, punishable by ten years under the current Act. His defence was clearly accepted, in 2005, that it was a frivolous action. I suspect it was, but it's commission today would see him turfed from parliament immediately. Quite apart from this though, I agree with Phil Goff's comments this morning that it must have been agonising for the victims to be unable to disclose that the very man campaigning for harsher penalties and more transparency had been so leniently and secretively treated.
-
Politics aside, hard for me to do, I think he should resign for the sake of the decency of parliament. Stealing the identity of a deceased child is disgraceful. His subsequent behaviour, campaigning for transparent justice, only serves to amplify the offence (and must surely further distress his victims).
-
That's a toxic meme we'd be well rid of.
Actually, I disagree. It should be valid, it's bloody tragedy it's not.
-
This is a great piece Damian. I share your general dislike of the bloke and think he's shown a significant error in judgment by not disclosing elements of his past that are entirely relevant to his current role. That said, any plurality of representatives must include people who've done something they're not proud of. Not every misdemeanor is relevant, of course, but these were and he and Hide were entirely wrong to conceal them. Yes he's just human, and his past is his past; but there's no way he can remain in his current role having not been honest from the start.
-
The Police, just as they did with Mr Slater.
Sure, however the Police prosecuted Slater as a third-party who breached a name suppression order. Why would the Police wish the courts to apply a suppression order breached by the party who was protected by it?
-
I do feel some chagrin that my only defence is that all the big kids were doing it.
And I'm sorry I put you wrong too.
-
As I typed, he showed up and neatly explained matters - thank you Graeme.
-
This is bizarre - I can't see Graeme's statement reporting Garrett's statement is not covered by qualified privilege at Dimpost but Labor's blog saying it is not. Yet, as you note, all media are covering it. Perhaps it's an issue of who'd have standing to apply to have the order enforced? If only Garrett, then it is reasonable to assume his comments in Parliament suggest he'd not be apply (but then I'd guess a breach of the Court's order would be enforceable regardless who breached it).
The Clerk or the AG should sort this out so that there's not confusion.