Agreed, the fb leaks are a new front unsupported by Hagers book – need someone to tell us whether we can just ignore all the fb ones as forgeries, or if it really is as bad as they make it out.
No – this is a very widespread misconception. The conversation is quoted in Hager’s book, on page 46. It’s noted as “Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Judith Collins, 11 September 2011.”
__I am ignorant of the law, but I would have thought that if there was anyone with the resources and legal authority to require the logs from the third party in this (Facebook) for a conversation at a known time and date, it would be the Inspector General of the SIS investigating the leaking of classified documents. In fact, if everyone denies everything, I would say this is a logical step in a thorough investigation.__
Good God, David, are you taking the piss? These are strange days indeed, but Public Address is the last place on Earth I expected to read that. Be very careful what you wish for…
Agreed. The idea of extraordinary powers being deployed to identify leakers is not good for democracy. But remember, Peter Dunne resigned his ministerial post last year because he refused to fully cooperate with the inquiry into the leaking of the Kitteridge report on the GCSB. The inquiry had already identified emails between him and Andrea Vance -- the metadata -- which Dunne refused to hand over.
The head of the inquiry, David Henry, also tried to get access to Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance's phone records -- thank goodness for Parliamentary Services' refusal to play ball -- and she was surveilled within Parliament. So it's not like there hasn't already been serious overreach.
The SFO and FMA matters covered in Matt Nippert's story are different. That looks like a deliberate attempt to undermine law enforcement agencies for the benefit of a paying client -- with a little frosting of witness intimidation and misuse of evidence.
That's criminal behaviour and I would be surprised and disappointed if there wasn't a criminal investigation. That investigation should have, and should use, powers to obtain evidence in private communications.
The Herald's Business editor Liam Dann writes this morning:
It is odd to have to make a declaration but given the intense focus of the past few weeks it is worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, the Business Herald has never traded information or sourced stories from Cameron Slater, Cathy Odgers or Carrick Graham.
We've consciously avoided this stuff and tried to chart a path through the finance company fallout as diligently as the lawyers will allow.
And the whole sordid affair has also made the UK/AUS Spectator, courtesy of the Lower North Island’s wowser-in-chief Karl du Fresne. It’s not quite Poe’s Law territory, but I’m mildly amused by the ‘barbarians at the gate’ vibe of the article.
... as demonstrated by a YouTube video showing Dotcom, looking like a cross between a gangsta rapper and the Führer at Nuremberg, inciting a youthful crowd chanting “F–k John Key” at a Christchurch rally. This is not politics as New Zealanders know it.
In reality, of course, Dotcom does not look remotely like either in the video. Du Fresne's a clown.
and if some random guy sees the internet chanting “fuck John Key” and puts up his song to match it
He invented "Fuck John Key!" too, just quietly.
I lay the blame on both Hosking and whoever set the format with ad breaks. Hosking’s inability to stop them talking over each other so much and the short time available per answer gave little incentive to dwell on specifics.
I thought the structure was odd: they seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time circling around land/immigration/investment. It leaves a lot for next week’s debate to cover.
Cunliffe did do more of the talking-over, and I'm sure it wasn't an accident. It actually worked fairly well for him.
Nah, that dog’s not going to hunt. You just don’t get to have it both ways, Sofie – perhaps I’m naive, but I expect party leaders to be able to clearly articulate the details of their own policy especially when (let’s be honest) they’re hardly missing an opportunity to call the other bastards liars who couldn’t organize the proverbial piss-up in a brewery.
As I understood it at the time, the only was he could have come up with the exact number Hosking was demanding was literally to make it up.
It wasn't as if he didn't have quite a bit of detail on the policy.
Saw bits and pieces, while sitting around with our hosts and the television on the background. Seems to me both Key and Cunliffe should be reasonably happy about how it turned out – nobody came up with a soundbite gaffe that will haunt them for the rest of the campaign. Key wasn’t goofy, and Cunliffe did a pretty good job of avoiding that slightly patronizing tone he can slip into to.
Cunliffe benefited from having taken a couple of days to prepare -- something Key publicly dismissed as unnecessary. And I was quite surprised by what Brent Edwards said: that Cunliffe had a crew in the audience and was consulting with Rob Salmond during the ad breaks, and Key seemed to have no one with him but his DPS staff.
Key wasn't bad, but Cunliffe got in a couple of good speeches and stopped Key from getting his own narrative on. I thought it was tactically astute.
Cool to put a face to Jolisa and to see you again Sacha. Nice work Russell and co.
Thanks. It was was very seat-of-the-pants, but it worked pretty well. It helped that the director, Matt Barrett, was our director for most of Media7 and Media3, so we kind of knew each other's rhythm. And I only discovered afterwards that while I could hear him (mostly) he at no point was able to hear me. He just cut on what he could see.