John Roughan has updated his Key hagiography with some startling news.
It really is quite bizarre. "Yeah I know who it is. Can't say because I'm not hundy percent sure, but y'know... at the end of the day..."
Do tell me more about the homogenous nature of your space.
Well I wasn't the one saying that non-Labour people shouldn't be having their say on the Labour party, so perhaps you confused me for... you.
I get that IM and Greens voters have ideas about what Labour should be.
And there's plenty of places where only Labour people can express their opinions and vote etc on the party and the leader, and this isn't that space.
A lot of this would go away if agencies published everything unless there was a good reason not to.
I was thinking this same thing as I watched the show last night. If the default was "we publish data", and then you provided reasons not to, then many OIA requests would become irrelevant - you'd simply direct them to the place that all the data got dumped.
It is worth taking stock of just where the battle is actually at. People of the Left have actually pretty much dominated the direction of social policy. But they’ve lost all control over the direction of economics. It’s been a great win for the Right to de-politicise economics, conveying the impression that it’s a boring science well in hand. Neoliberalism is, bizarrely, a compromise position.
Bill Clinton and Obama won two terms, Tony Blair and Helen Clark won three.
I'm not sure if Tony Blair is any model I want to see the left use. "War criminal" gets thrown around a fair bit in relation to his name these days in the UK.
Shame we cant say the same thing to TeamKey. “Just a regular meeting"… my arse. As Phil Goff puts it, “Political spin”. More lies from the Emperor.
I might have found myself yelling at him on the TV last night.
Without referring back to the letter of the law, who defines what a terrorist organisation is?
It would seem quite relevant to refer to the letter of the law in a discussion about terrorist laws.
I guess I can’t tell the difference cognitively. Walks like a Nat, quacks like one.
The hair is very right wing as well.
Yes, your argument out of context looked to me like Pascal’s Wager, but in context it makes sense. The missing bit was “And we also have good reasons in this case to think that I am right”.
Exactly my point. It always comes back to "how likely do we think that police are corrupt". Pascal's wager analysis doesn't really provide any useful answers as that basic point would be in dispute.
This search will probably be found to be illegal, in the mean time it is clearly unjust and damaging to journalism and free democracy.
It's a warrant signed by a judge in pursuit of evidence to identify a known criminal. Unless he's forgotten to date it, the legality of the warrant will be fine.