Hard News: In the nicest possible way
248 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Cheney for PM?
Of course, Sacha, just like Helen Clark is exactly like Robert Mugabe in geisha makeup and drag. (And I tried and failed to let some fresh air into that room over at Kiwibog.) It is a bit early in the morning for popcorn, but if we're going to the theatre there are traditions that must be upheld...
If the circumstances were the same, and I'd rather not go through them yet again, I might equally be thinking "Well, if that's true then Goff has solved his problem but he's made a rod for his own back." Seriously.
Fair enough, but I also hope you'd be expecting Farrar to bring a little more evidence to the table than "sources tell me". I can bitch and dish as energetically as anyone, but I also hope there are qualitative distinctions between a political blogger with pretensions towards being taken seriously and Perez Hilton.
-
You give people the most extraordinary latitude sometimes.
And you don't half rain down judgement sometimes.
David Fisher admits looking with a telescope through the office windows of the editor of a rival paper ...
I have actually thought about the criticism there. What I should have done was try and get a copy of the document Cook had been circulating, excerpted that and quoted Fisher's statement about it. But was Friday afternoon.
I don't really know Fisher: I've met him once in person, but Fiona had a lot of time for him as a workmate, I admire his work and he's never misquoted me in a story. (Cook, on the other hand, has a very troubling record.) He was taking something of a risk by giving me the statement.
Cook's claim was that this had been "the most extraordinary incident of industrial espionage in new Zealand newspapers" or something: that, under the direction of the HoS editor, a junior reporter had been moved in opposite Cate Brett's office, given a telescope and then ordered to feed information back to his employer.
Fisher's response was that none of that happened, the telescope was his and they were playing sillybuggers over a beer or two. You hardly have to admire him for it -- it sounds pretty silly -- but it's hardly the conspiracy as alleged.
... but says there was no malice in it, therefore there was no malice in it.
If you mean that I took Fisher's word for it, considering all the circumstances, yes. That is what I did.
-
So I suspect we've got the right result, despite not knowing the process.
The only way I could get concerned about it if there were lingering effects of his activities (say he had been bribed or blackmailed and signed stuff or agreed to things as a result,
But you will never know because it has been turned into allegations and speculations and gossip already which was my point for transparency.Worth is probably worse off than ever due to the actions of our PM.
-
And you don't half rain down judgement sometimes.
That I do, and may I interest you in some stone tablets?
like a fishbowl without the spectral aberrations? do you/... do you?)John must fess up, I can't live with this not knowing, I can't I tell you. I just can't.
sob sob sob...I thought I was the one who was supposed to be drinking.
-
Still?
-
Still?
Oh Sacha, why must you think the worst of people?
-
Still?
I got stuck doing something that required me to be sober, so I'm thinking of converting to the Italian Mean Time and applying myself to the task properly now.
-
Watch out, everyone! I just heard it's going to be Mean Italian Time from now on!
-
Yo, Stephen...
-
Oh Sacha, why must you think the worst of people?
The best, you mean. Was admiring the commitment level.
-
so I'm thinking of converting to the Italian Mean Time and applying myself to the task properly now.
And I'm stuck two hours behind the conversation... I show up and I swear all the funny and pertinent things I was going to say have been said... honest!
But back to the issue, I agree with Russell, Key's set himself up by not simply saying why he's sacked Worth. In the Dover Samuel's sacking, which I think was the first of Clark's many, didn't the PM make some pretty frank statements about him (though she subsequently rehabilitated him)?
-
In the Dover Samuel's sacking, which I think was the first of Clark's many, didn't the PM make some pretty frank statements about him (though she subsequently rehabilitated him)?
Um, you mean "his position is untenable while there are allegations swirling around him" -- but when the allegations stopped swirling and people asked when Samuels was going to get his warrant back, it was time to move on? That's frank?
-
You mean after the Police ceased the investigation? Yeah.
I still think Clark's handling was superior to Key's. Samuels was stood down for known transgressions. This meant the public could determine the quality/reasonableness of the decision.
This is the difference in the Worth matter. Worth resigned etc but didn't say why. He didn't stand down or get stood down. The PM accepted his resignation and commented that he'd not have him back in his government. He even wondered out loud about his future in the caucus.
Key's made this matter bigger than Ben Hur but we still don't really know why... if it is, as Eddie says (and I'm inclined to believe) 'cause he's indulged in extra-marital dalliances then that's a new standard for Ministerial behaviour (since, regardless of our view on this, it doesn't go to his performance of his public duties).
-
Samuels was stood down for known transgressions.
Paul -- no. He was stood down because "The Minister cannot be effective in his job in a flagship government programme while allegations, controversy, and public debate swirl around him."
If you want to dump on Key, you really shouldn't re-write history while you're at it.
-
Craig, I didn't get too forensic in my review of the case, I relied on my memory. Iappreciate you linking to the release.
My view is that it serves to highten the contrast between the cases. Clark's made clear she's stood him down, not sacked him, until the matters - which were well known (they were the subject of an extended item on the news from memory) - were resolved.
In Worth's situation, we don't know what the matters leading to the resignation were, we only know Key won't have him back in caucus... that's quite different and an awkward precedent.
-
From the Samuels link, this very much seems to cover the detail of the transgressions:
I am not prepared to let that happen. Last week allegations were put in the public arena about teenage pregnancy and the issue of the imbalance of power in a relationship. Today there are allegations of an abusive relationship, and assault, and a threat to shoot.
My uncertain memory tells me another problem was his failure to note these episodes on his candidate form.
-
"The Minister cannot be effective in his job in a flagship government programme while allegations, controversy, and public debate swirl around him."
It occurs to me that given the charges against Worth have now been dropped, Key could reinstate him... that'd be decisive. Clark did, in the end, largely rehabilitate Dover... why did Key go so much further in his comments about Worth?
-
Wait, does all this talk about the integrity of 'Eddie' mean that John Key isn't building a giant rollercoaster?
-
I was thinking more about the kinds of shit Farrar would catch around here if he ran presented as fact (under a blazing headline) entirely anecdotal 'evidence' from a hardly disinterested source.
-
I really don't get what's particularly egregious about the story compared with many others. Unless you can prove that Eddie's claims of a National party source are wrong, Craig, then we're in the same position with your "claims" here aren't we? And with mine and anyone else's.
Got to have some faith in people's ability to sniff out agendas - which is not that hard with the main blogsites surely. I note some backing down on the assertions that Eddie is the Labour comms person identifed earlier, but that's not hard fact either.
I tend to read these things as conversations rather than utterances - or is that a bias in itself?
-
I was thinking more about the kinds of shit Farrar would catch around here if he ran presented as fact (under a blazing headline) entirely anecdotal 'evidence' from a hardly disinterested source.
The EMA survey was news on the radio this morning, and I presume the author has seen the CTU one. I don't get what's wrong with reporting their findings per se.
-
I do not want gosspiy details but it sets a pretty dangerous precedent if our leaders think they can get away with shit like this with no repercussions.
I just fail to see what he's got away with. Key fired Worth. If there isn't anything more than that (other people involved, lasting implications), I don't think there is an overwhelming public interest in knowing the details. People still have a private life and maybe if they resign or are fired they should be entitled to keep it.
But you will never know because it has been turned into allegations and speculations and gossip already which was my point for transparency.Worth is probably worse off than ever due to the actions of our PM.
Well maybe. But that's their problem if they've made it worse for themselves. That's not an argument for us all knowing the details "because it would be better for you".
-
presented as fact (under a blazing headline) entirely anecdotal 'evidence' from a hardly disinterested source.
I believe Fran's "Mood of the Boardroom" would qualify all too well. Seductive lighting, candles and all.
-
I was thinking more about the kinds of shit Farrar would catch around here if he ran presented as fact (under a blazing headline) entirely anecdotal 'evidence' from a hardly disinterested source.
Perhaps, but Eddie's claims are only sustainable to the extent that Key's pronouncements created a vacuum. Again, it's is Key's mishandling of the situation that's the issue, not the connections or otherwise of activists.
-
But Paul, surely Phil Goff is somehow to blame?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.