Posts by merc
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to BenWilson,
I'm pretty sure "but" is a conjunction, not a negation.
Yeah nah.
Try it out some time, fail safe in most truth distorting situations. Used often by media trained people. I was there and it may have happened but I cannot remember if it did.
I hear what you're saying but I can't answer. You're logic is irrefutable but I cannot understand why you say that.
And so on but your understanding may be at odds with mine. -
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Tom Beard,
Yep, sadly pretty much the default attitude from those who should serve us. Things are so broken this could be a wonderful opportunity to rebuild from the ground up - evidence from Christchurch says no.
And no harm no foul when you have a 600+k a year CEO to fall on their swords for you because as you and I know, no one from Cabinet going to be ousted for anything this millennial cycle.
I applaud in a twisted way this Govt. that it has so twisted the democratic landscape to such a catastrophic fail level and yet still retain their grip on power and all it's perks - pure awe.
Oh and the creepy thing? I almost feel a little worried writing this, yes, they are that creepy. -
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to BenWilson,
Take from it what you will, I saw a backhanded smear running against the flow of her first comments...remember "but" negates everything before it. This person is dangerously close to dissociative.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to BenWilson,
Ben, read the last sentence.
"You can take from that what you want to.''
We are dealing with a mentality that knows no personal sense of responsibility to others. Good in a soldier, not so much in the Minister Tasked With Assisting The Disadvantaged -
Oh what a tangled web she weaves,
Ms Bennett said the issue of Ira Bailey asking about some form of payment in return for the information before he went to Ng was only a "side issue'' and she had bigger problems to deal with.
She said Mr Bailey and Ng had ultimately done the department a favour.
"I feel no ill-feeling towards any of them. At the end of the day, it's not their fault there is such a security flaw in the system and that is quite frankly the responsibility of the ministry. The main issue is that people were able to access information they shouldn't have been able to access.''
Asked if she believed Mr Bailey had tried to 'blackmail' the Ministry of Social Development in return for his cooperation, she said she believed he was asking for a 'reward.'
"You can take from that what you want to.''http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10840860
Minister Bennett, have you at any time seen any reference to the security flaw in the kiosk system prior to this latest revelation? -
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to ScottY,
Agreed. Yes but you have to prosecute it in order to get any redress. The main thing I am going to watch for is how the Govt. gets away with total negligence, once again.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Sacha,
I thought answered that. I'm talking about before not after the fact. If Govt. has no legal ramifications for not providing duty of care (notified in law), then why should they bother, and it appears, they don't.
Hence why Bennett can out a person's file with impunity...needless to say there appears to be a problem with Police deciding prosecutions, ref Key teapot tapes and so on.
It's not a sophisticated argument, it's really about what we are actually voting for. -
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Sadly I think, way too far down the chain. If the Dept. has a legal requirement to perform to described duty of care practices there would be no need for further down the chain buck passing that frankly you and I could not afford.
Interesting that BORA is not enshrined in law no? All this is heading in one direction for me. -
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Matthew Poole,
This Govt. has proven time and time again that they feel no need to assess costs. This time it is so glaringly obvious that no one is thinking about the very people they are supposed to be helping that no review of costs is going to change the simple fact that the problem is demonstrably Govt. unbounded, unchecked and un-checkable.
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I think they think that the 'duty' bit means a tax of some sort...
Heh. I think it is timely we ask the real simple questions of our Govt. as to what they consider adequate duty of care for our most vulnerable, don't you?