thanks for solving the last present problem Russell :)
Damn, he and his band knock out some great covers
At the Wine Cellar gig Laurence told the crowd that the band were doing a residency as the house covers band at the Golden Dawn in December.
So much yes to this.
oh god this is my fault isn't it... I've uncooled my entire suburb...
More seriously, this is visible in the inner West. I spent my student days around Ponsonby/Grey Lynn when it was super-studenty and quite grungy. No more. Where I live is possibly the only mixed income pocket of Freemans Bay left, but only because about 1/3 of the housing stock is rented, some from HNZ or a housing trust.
And thank goodness for all the students in the CBD, the place would be dead without them.
So, do we know what security clearance Mr De Joux has?
dude check yourself. I haven't seen one bit of ad hominem criticism directed at you. On the other hand, today you made "jokes" about checking Giovanni's papers and how feminists are oh so sensitive. If you listened more carefully you might have understood how that would go down.
Key is saying any data contributed by the GCSB would have been obtained by a warrant.
Information about New Zealanders supplied by the GCSB to the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network was limited to that gathered under a warrant.
"You could not gather information about New Zealanders without a warrant," he said.
Okay. The GCSB legislation seems to be specific about when information gathered legally can be retained and shared.
- section 23 says irrelevant material must be destroyed.
- section 25 sets out when "incidentally obtained intelligence" can be retained and shared. But incidentally obtained intelligence is "obtained in the course of gathering intelligence about the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign organisations or foreign persons". Not pursuant to warrants to intercept communications of NZ citizens or residents.
What I can't find in the legislation is any authority to share with any other person or agency information or intelligence obtained pursuant to a warrant. I understand that generally speaking evidence seized pursuant to warrants is not able to be shared willy nilly - there must be some kind of positive authority.
So, is what Key describing still illegal?
(any actual experts in the field please jump in now...)
I do not recommend you take anything about that site at face value. The author has a huge, huge grudge against the legal system in NZ. A bit more googling might fill you in.
I remember it, and I was only 8. The full page picture of the new Labour members was proudly pinned up in the loo, and gradually defaced as time went on...
Because defamation litigation is hard, long, expensive and uncertain. A quick smack round the chops from the press council would be a better strategy, if it's an option.
as far as it goes, I doubt they'd win a case against Liu (who made no defamatory allegations) or the Herald (qualified privilege). The only people who've done the defaming (cash for access etc) is National and particularly Key. I think going all Colin Craig on the Prime Minister is bad strategy.
RNZ reports Labour considering legal options.
This is a very dumb idea.
Media types, any mileage in a Press Council complaint on this?