Posts by Russell Brown

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Matthew Hooton,

    Not at all Paul. I made it public on Facebook so fair game for anyone in a sense, although disappointed the PM appeared to bring it up in his press conference – just a little higher profile than I expected! – which is why I did a brief press statement on it.

    Best wishes with it, Matthew.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to James George,

    Everyone seems to accept that the Maori Party are firmly tucked into National’s back pocket come hell or high water. Is this a solidly based perception or would continuing revelations unglue them from their colonial masters?

    The Native Affairs polls -- which consistently show that Maori electorate voters would strongly prefer the Maori Party to go with Labour if there is a choice will presumably not be lost on them.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Angela Hart,

    Once again Winston is able to take advantage of events to raise his profile and attractiveness to voters http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10450053/Peters-bottom-line
    We need the inquiry he’s demanding.

    I tend to think this is quite significant. The highly evasive Peters has put down a bottom line that seems very likely to guide his choices after the election. Labour would be delighted to organise a Royal Commission and National would not want a bar of such a thing. It would be a massive dead rat to swallow.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Greg Dawson,

    Agreed, the fb leaks are a new front unsupported by Hagers book – need someone to tell us whether we can just ignore all the fb ones as forgeries, or if it really is as bad as they make it out.

    No – this is a very widespread misconception. The conversation is quoted in Hager’s book, on page 46. It’s noted as “Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Judith Collins, 11 September 2011.”

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Why we thought what we thought,

    Attachment

    And as if on cue, Labour has asked the police to investigate various matters.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    __I am ignorant of the law, but I would have thought that if there was anyone with the resources and legal authority to require the logs from the third party in this (Facebook) for a conversation at a known time and date, it would be the Inspector General of the SIS investigating the leaking of classified documents. In fact, if everyone denies everything, I would say this is a logical step in a thorough investigation.__

    Good God, David, are you taking the piss? These are strange days indeed, but Public Address is the last place on Earth I expected to read that. Be very careful what you wish for…

    Agreed. The idea of extraordinary powers being deployed to identify leakers is not good for democracy. But remember, Peter Dunne resigned his ministerial post last year because he refused to fully cooperate with the inquiry into the leaking of the Kitteridge report on the GCSB. The inquiry had already identified emails between him and Andrea Vance -- the metadata -- which Dunne refused to hand over.

    The head of the inquiry, David Henry, also tried to get access to Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance's phone records -- thank goodness for Parliamentary Services' refusal to play ball -- and she was surveilled within Parliament. So it's not like there hasn't already been serious overreach.

    The SFO and FMA matters covered in Matt Nippert's story are different. That looks like a deliberate attempt to undermine law enforcement agencies for the benefit of a paying client -- with a little frosting of witness intimidation and misuse of evidence.

    That's criminal behaviour and I would be surprised and disappointed if there wasn't a criminal investigation. That investigation should have, and should use, powers to obtain evidence in private communications.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Why we thought what we thought,

    The Herald's Business editor Liam Dann writes this morning:

    It is odd to have to make a declaration but given the intense focus of the past few weeks it is worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, the Business Herald has never traded information or sourced stories from Cameron Slater, Cathy Odgers or Carrick Graham.

    We've consciously avoided this stuff and tried to chart a path through the finance company fallout as diligently as the lawyers will allow.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to DeepRed,

    And the whole sordid affair has also made the UK/AUS Spectator, courtesy of the Lower North Island’s wowser-in-chief Karl du Fresne. It’s not quite Poe’s Law territory, but I’m mildly amused by the ‘barbarians at the gate’ vibe of the article.

    Sigh. This:

    ... as demonstrated by a YouTube video showing Dotcom, looking like a cross between a gangsta rapper and the Führer at Nuremberg, inciting a youthful crowd chanting “F–k John Key” at a Christchurch rally. This is not politics as New Zealanders know it.

    In reality, of course, Dotcom does not look remotely like either in the video. Du Fresne's a clown.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to tussock,

    and if some random guy sees the internet chanting “fuck John Key” and puts up his song to match it

    He invented "Fuck John Key!" too, just quietly.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Earning Confidence, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,

    I lay the blame on both Hosking and whoever set the format with ad breaks. Hosking’s inability to stop them talking over each other so much and the short time available per answer gave little incentive to dwell on specifics.

    I thought the structure was odd: they seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time circling around land/immigration/investment. It leaves a lot for next week’s debate to cover.

    Cunliffe did do more of the talking-over, and I'm sure it wasn't an accident. It actually worked fairly well for him.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18725 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 1868 Older→ First