Are you trying to get some sort of award from the Royal Society for the Wilfully Obtuse?
He's competing with James Bremner for that award.
I read the lot earlier. It seemed about 2-1 supportive, perhaps a little more.
Sure, but that's just amongst those who could be bothered writing a comment, and whose comments were printable (I've never figured out what will and won't have a comment fail Your Views' moderation). Any schmoe can "like" a comment, but you have to register to post. Because of that, I considered it more instructive as to reactions to see two unsupportive comments with nearly 100 and just over 100 likes, against about 50 likes for the top-rated supportive comment.
I skimmed the front page for the highest-ranked comments and left it at that. The ignorati who read Your Views aren't going to get any better on subsequent pages.
along with (mostly) supportive reader comments.
The two highest-rated (by far) comments on the front page are not supportive. Which I think is more indicative of positions on the matter.
your silence will be taken as assent.
First they came...
It is a very, very poor response from Eden Park, and deserves to be decried as such. Sadly, though, they will probably draw a lot of support from the usual talkback suspects and wave that around if challenged by cooler public heads. They certainly won't get a dressing-down from John "gay red shirt" Key or anyone else who might carry sufficient weight to make a public slapping stick.
It would be nice if NZRFU came out against the response, but I really cannot see that happening. "PC Police", etc.
pictures of Key in panties. .... Given he’s at the end of his political career anyway, it could be something rather minor, that he just happens to find very shameful.
The mind boggles!
You're suggesting something will come out that contradicts the leak investigation report's assertion that the Kitteridge report was merely marked as "Sensitive"? One would hope that such a basic fact would be correctly reported from the outset.
Or do you think that the classified appendices were leaked in contradiction of the investigation report's findings? There's no suggestion that such material has been made public, leading no doubt to the report's findings that those appendices remained held in accordance with their classification.
ETA: I am basing this on having read the leak investigation report, not just on what's made it into the media. Feel free to cite a more authoritative source.
Given the extraordinary level of security level accorded to what was a rather mundane report
Que? Aside from some appendices which were classified, the report was merely marked as “Sensitive”. That’s not a classification, in the sense of “national security threat”. The investigation report itself spells out where “Sensitive” fits in the pantheon, and it’s not even at the same level as the plebian “Confidential” (access to which one can gain on the strength of signing a couple of lightweight forms and submitting to the same criminal record check as is accorded to, for example, teachers and nurses).
Ignore Winston and his bloviation, because what he’s claiming about Dunne having broken the law isn’t supported by the facts that are in the public arena in the investigation into the report’s leaking.
It seems like a step forward.
Well, it will be if National can butt out and let Auckland find its way. Current rumblings don't give me much hope, though.
You have to take positive steps to encourage intensification, and that means density and building restrictions in areas where intensification is desired have to be loosened.
You mean many of the things that are proposed for the Unitary Plan, then? The Council is not demanding intensification without providing the tools to enable that intensification to happen.