Posts by nzlemming

  • Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    Also people don’t seem to be buying this- but some of the comments are classic trademe.

    Does the book discuss the time Key swam with the Dolphins off Maui?
    Yes but the dolphins don't remember it.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    E-Day isn’t about the politicians, and the pollsters and the media. It’s about the electors.

    This.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    In case any Chchch folk missed Murray Horton’s CAFCA Talk at the WEA on Wednesday, new dates have been announced for the suburbs in July:

    Who’s Running The Show?
    And In Whose Interests?

    Phonetically speaking, that's so appropriate.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: He Panui: Media Take, in reply to Brent Jackson,

    Because the Department of Inland Revenue taakes your money.

    Which is exactly the spin we used to put on it, when I worked there.

    Shit, did I say that out loud?

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Labour's Fiscal Plan:…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    And also, consider this: they are allegedly going to buy 60 new hybrid buses,

    Which, incidentally, haven't been invented yet. Insanity.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Radio New Zealand: changing…, in reply to Ben Austin,

    Well am I wrong in understanding RNZ is principally run of Wellington? Or is this some wider comment about quality?

    You're not altogether wrong, although they do have a major Auckland component and other smaller branches around the place. Sacha was just indulging his snark, which appears to have put on weight.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The Big Chill, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    if Dotcom does not get the information from Fisher and hand it over to the defence will he be able to use the same information in his suit?

    Any info KDC uses in his suit will have to be shared under discovery with the defendants. If he uses the same information that Fisher has, even if hasn't asked for it, he will have to provide it to the A-G. All the judgement states is that there is no legal impediment to KDC asking Fisher for the information, as he (KDC) had claimed that there was. What is still fuzzy (to me, anyway) is whether that information can be definitively construed to be under his control while it's in the possession of a third party.

    Also, if we're playing the "intellectual property" game (and regular denizens will know how I feel about that ), does the information amassed by Fisher while researching his book somehow become his property, even if it's about someone else?

    This one's got a lot of legs to run on yet, with quite a lot at stake. Get your bulk order for popcorn in now.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The Big Chill, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Can we say that Justice Winkelmann has been played?

    I would not go so far as that. I suspect an attempt has been made, but I think her judgement has been written in such a way as to a) highlight a gaping hole in the law and b) leave sufficient room for appeal that will come from the correct party (i.e. Fisher, backed by every journo in the country with 2 brain cells to rub together).

    In the meantime, she hasn't ruled that Fisher must give up anything to anyone apart from Dotcom, and then, only if KDC asks for it under the Privacy Act. Remember, it wasn't KDC who asked the Court to rule on this, it was the Attorney General. If she had ruled against the A-G, the appeal level fall-out would be political and could be toxic, albeit that she heads the relevant Bench, and have a whole bunch of even worse unintended consequences.

    At present, the A-G can do precisely nothing to get the information that he's demanding under discovery. There is no actual compulsion on Dotcom inherent in the judgement to ask for that material, in my admittedly light read of it. What she's said is that there is no impediment under the Privacy Act, as cited by KDC, to him doing so. It's now up to his lawyers to argue whether being able to access someone else's information amounts to "control", as attested by the A-G

    Para [78] contains the crux of the matter, to me:

    I make clear that Schedule 1 information, once obtained by Mr Dotcom,
    is only to be discovered if it falls within the r 8.7 categories.

    There's no doubt that the judgement, if it stands as it is, creates difficulties for journalists, writers, researchers, editors and publishers. I suspect that it will fail on appeal and that the Court of Appeal/Supremes will clarify the interpretation of "news medium" and strengthen the protections for journalists.

    Judges may be many things: venal, petty, vain, perhaps even corrupt in some cases. One thing they are not is stupid.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The People's Poet is dead!, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    How they think Fieldays works is beyond me?

    It's a field, eh?

    </hat_and_coat>

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1768 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 177 Older→ First