Forgive me if I’ve got it wrong, but aren’t the people of Epsom being mustered into voting for this wannabe seatwarmer? Whatever useful idiot status Whyte currently enjoys will surely have evaporated by xmas
I'm really hoping all the non-Nats vote for Goldsmith. That would screw up National's plan.
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.
E-Day isn’t about the politicians, and the pollsters and the media. It’s about the electors.
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.
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?
And also, consider this: they are allegedly going to buy 60 new hybrid buses,
Which, incidentally, haven't been invented yet. Insanity.
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.
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.
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  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.