At least Rudman seems able to string a few thoughts together without making shit up.
Meh... in the interests of general amity, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree there and move on. I wouldn't be too upset if both of them were put on gardening leave for a while, because their signal-to-noise ratios have been moving the wrong way for a long time.
For some reason people seem to think you can have the benefits of a city without having to pay for them.
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die first? Who hasn’t been there – but I really enjoyed a week of deliciously unseasonable warm spring weather in London a couple of years back. A week that was made all the more delightful because, following the “Great Stink” of 1858 an enormous amount of money was invested in a modern sewage system for Central London. Joseph Bazalgette’s scheme was completed 140 years ago, but the people of London are still enjoying the benefits of not having a giant open sewer and disease incubator running though the middle of the place they live and work.
I’m also enormously annoyed by The Herald (and everyone else) running the “Len Brown’s a lying liar who’s dancing naked around a bonfire of YOUR money” line.
Last time I looked, there is no local authority in this country where budgets are set by Mayoral fiat. Perhaps folks like Mr Orsman would be a little clearer on that if they got professional help for their obsession with Len Brown’s penis, and started taking fact-based reporting of local government seriously again.
I actually didn’t realise Gavin Ellis had made such a complete ass of himself.
Eh... this is the former editor of a newspaper that has a long and shabby history of rape culture enforcement. I wish it surprised me even a little bit, but it doesn't.
Every time he says “what are the odds” it becomes clearer that he has no grasp at all on what “odds” actually mean.
Well, what are the odds that Mr. Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail would have long since had an appointment to mount a defense against the prosecution's case if he hadn't scuttled out of the country under the skirt of diplomatic immunity only to have this turn into a major - and very public - political embarrassment for the Malaysian Government as well as New Zealand's?
One-hundred-frigging-percent by my estimation.
Politics isn't the place where "He's a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch" comes into play disconcertingly often.
I have long wondered if this is the real reason that Simon Power resigned. He was Justice Minister through all this and also well informed (unlike the PM) of what was afoot.
Well, apply salt and tequila to taste, but the “real reason” I heard was infinitely more prosaic, kind of sad and not actually a matter of legitimate public interest regarding his actions as a minister or MP.
It is suggested in the House that she must hold something big against Key Co.
Usually by people who, quite rightly, roll their eyes and laugh mirthlessly when the Government benches start predicting David Cunliffe will be rolled by lunchtime. Trolling was a fine art long before the internet. :)
Quite - David Fisher and Andrea Vance have a lot more leg work to do (and are capable of it) before I buy the vast Hollywood-driven residency honeytrap narrative Dotcom's selling. And if Kim's actually got hard evidence of this, I think the media and everyone else should say this "wait until five days before the election!" fan dance isn't really on. Among much else, Internet Mana should be asking themselves whether they're a serious political party that wants to work in the public interest, or a cudgel in a pissing match between Bob Jones 2.0 and John Key.
And there’s also the possible wildcard of the lawsuit-happy Graham McCready getting two Johns in a row.
M'kay, probably a question for another time and thread but how seriously should anyone be taking this?
The case, brought by serial litigant Graham McCready, will use a DVD of Hollywood movie The Wolf of Wall Street as part of the evidence against Mr Key.
The activities depicted in The Wolf of Wall Street were "very relevant" to the case, as they reflected Mr Key's actions, he said, branding the Prime Minister a "rogue currency trader" who had applied his "practices to his daily dealings in Government".
Mr Key had aided and abetted Mr Banks' declaration of a false electoral return by "wilful blindness", he said.
He was confident Mr Key would appear in court to defend the charges.
I'm even more confident Key -- and every other politician with two brain cells to rub together -- will be staying as far away from that movie night as possible.
Actually no. This June 2011 story by David Fisher refers to his intention to settle in New Zealand. He’d been back and forth on visits from Hong Kong, once for two months, but he may well not have settled had his residency not been granted.
This is something else that’s been bugging me about this story. There’s probably someone out there who knows the relevant law better than I do, but as far as I’m aware the bilateral extradition treaty between the United States and Hong Kong is still in effect. Why would anyone give the proverbial rat’s arse whether they were lawyering up in Hong Kong or New Zealand?