Perhaps you can find some way to construe that as “here’s a great new razor!” but I really don’t have time to further entertain your silly fit of contrarianism.
I'm sorry you feel that way. All I was saying was that when I saw the Media3 interview with Whale, I read it a different way. I didn't think he was admitting as much as some others thought he was admitting. That's all.
Can you actually point to any likely advertorial content on Whaleoil?
He says he asked for one. They gave him one and then he blogged on it. They even gave him some to give away. I got one of them. I quite like it. Not saying he was paid - I very much suspect he wasn't - but if he was, why not?
Also, the reason I asked the question was because I had in fact seen correspondence in which Slater demanded money to take a certain line on a current news story.
Publish it. I'd be interested in seeing it. All I'm going on is what he said on Media 3. And I did not see the claim as starkly as you did. That you had additional information provides a proper basis for our differing interpretations of what was said. I do not think that, based on what was said on your show, that there was an admission that Whale has sought money to run lines on a political story. Indeed, it's possible you agree. The reason you think Whale has sought money to run lines on a news story is not really what he said on your show, but because you've seen correspondence where he sought money.
On Media3 …
Me: “Have you ever demanded money from PR companies on the blog in return for running certain lines?”
Cameron Slater: “Absolutely.”
Me: “You have? How often does this happen?”
Slater: “I’ll tell you why. They get paid.They’re getting paid to put a message out.
Mostly, I took that to mean advertorial stuff. Whale has been asked by a company to say something nice about a product, and essentially to give them free advertising. He replies that he'll do it if they pay him. The PR companies doing the asking are being paid, so why shouldn't he?
It may be more than that - in the Colin Craig sense, I have no idea - but I don't think you can point to what Whale said on Media 3 and conclude that it is more than that.
Even if the source could not be compelled, the absence of any information about the source means that the evidence is useless, and his truth defense would fail.
no. Truth is about the claim. If I claim, based on something XYZ told me, that BenWilson is also Redbaiter, it doesn't matter how credible XYZ is if I can prove that BenWilson is also Redbaiter.
That claims here are basically that someone is a crook. If Whale can prove that that someone is a crook, it doesn't matter whether the person who provided that information to Whale initially was credible and informed, or just really lucky.
For a by-election to be cancelled, I assume the PM has to make an announcement of the election date, or the last possible date needs to be less than six months away?
Yes. And then Parliament needs to agree by a vote with at least 75% support.
So if Banks is convicted by the 6th June or the election date is brought forward, there would be a by-election with presumably the new Act candidate standing.
If the election date is brought forward, that makes it less likely there would be a by-election in the event of a conviction.
And isn’t it very likely that the lesser time-limited charge would have been sustained?
Not particularly more likely than the more serious charge e faces. Banks' principal defence is that he did not know that Dotcom and SkyCity made the donations to him. This is an element of both the summary and the indictable charges that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The additional element that must be proved in the more serious charge is that (in addition to knowing of the donations), Banks also knew they were incorrectly recorded.
And since we’re talking about something as fundamental as the integrity of our electoral system, one would hope that they’d be rather less conservative about, at the least, putting the evidence before a judge and seeking committal for trial.
In this case it's the integrity of our local electoral system .
And the course taken in this instance was very much against the norm. There is now very rarely any chance to test the evidence before trial. Police file statements, and committal happens automatically, without any assessment of the evidence. Indeed, under changes that took effect earlier this year, committal doesn't happen at all.
I wrote something a number of years ago that looked at the making of charging decisions following complaints against MPs and police, and others for whom a police investigation has particularly heightened concerns about interference etc.
Banks has announced his retirement from politics because this is going to trial. Not because he thinks he's guilty or done anything wrong, but because it's going to trial. Politically, that a decision that is likely to happen most of the time if an MP is charged with a serious-ish imprisonable offence. I do not want police charging people, even MPs, simply so that the courts can sort it out.
You’d hope they’re reviewing their processes in light of this situation (also, credit to McCready).
To be honest, I'm actually pretty happy with the police investigation here. They did exactly what I want them to do in all the other cases. They conducted interviews or took statements from those involved, including with Banks. They basically formed the view that they could have charged Banks with the summary offence, but didn't think they had the evidence for the more serious offence. From start to finish, the investigation took about three months. It didn't start until late, because no-one who knew about the donations knew they hadn't been declared in order to make a complaint to police. If we get this sort of prompt investigation of all electoral law allegations, we can be rather pleased.
Still a bit of a gap from there to being able to use it in court, but.
No. This could easily be used in a prosecution in respect of a prosecution for any charge these boys might face. I'm just suggested that it wouldn't provide evidence that they were "found" on the property, which is an element of the offence being discussed by police.