Posts by Ben McNicoll
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The judge is not helping, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
You know, this could be a fascinating precedent. So, how many times does a journalist or media outlet have to (say) end up issuing a partial or full retraction of a story before they don't count any more? How about a newspaper that ends up sacking a reporter for printing stories that were entirely fabricated -- that's about as abusive, unprofessional and prick-like as a journalist can get in my book.
Yeah. What he said.
-
Hard News: The judge is not helping, in reply to Keir Leslie,
gesturing towards a reasonably good principle that if you’re an abusive unprofessional dickhead, you can’t shelter yourself and your sources behind a profession you aren’t part of.
One mans abusive unprofessional dickhead is another man's....?
Nope. Got nothing.
I think that the subjectivity element of the argument is troubling... plus the fact that we're discussing old oily really gums up the old thinking gears.
-
@Rich & @Paul
Yes I can see the difference.
I was rather clumsily trying to respond to the idea that he shouldn't (morally) be allowed to argue whatever point suits him in the courts - it's the nature of an adverserial system that he's pretty much obliged to - with about the same amount of tongue in my cheek that I suspect Russell had (ETA: who is free to correct me on that score).
ETA: my position, to be clear, was that it's not *necessarily* hypocritical to make both arguments, and that even if it were, he gets a pass because you get to defend yourself on technicalities exactly like you'd be convicted on them.
ETA2: And also, I genuinely wanted to know what his argument was previously, so, thanks.
-
Hard News: The judge is not helping, in reply to Russell Brown,
A lawyer has pointed out to me that Slater had previously tried to get a decision that bloggers were not publishers for the purposes of disseminating suppressed names -- and now he's trying for the reverse!
Was his previous argument successful?
And if he lost that argument, shouldn't he win this one?
(OUCH. That hurt my brain to type... too close to almost sticking up for him)
-
Playing with black and white after a gig last week.
Very high ISO, so a bit noisy. I need a faster lens.
A bit of tweaking in post.
-
And, what's a Police warning worth, then?
Seems to me that telling them that what they're doing is illegal, but not following it up with enforcement, or "and while we can't prosecute you yet, here's what we're going to do to stop you" would just be emboldening.
Is basically saying "Yeah, we know, but we can't catch you" likely to have the desired effect? Ever?
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Shane Jones' dog-whistling is odious, and a style of politics I would prefer confined to see eliminated, but the right can have it if they want it.
ETA: which is a remarkably good indicator of where Jones sits on the spectrum within Labour I would posit.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Russell Brown,
EDIT: Oops, not quick enough. Russell already quoted Jacinda's tweet.
Removed as redundant.
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Russell Brown,
It is sometimes hard to believe that the people waving through the GCSB bill are the ones who totally lost their shit over energy-efficiency standards for lightbulbs in 2008.
Yeah, but now it's not a woman bossing me around, so nanny-state no longer applies, right?
That, and of course that nanny state was a talking point meme specifically chosen by the right media operatives (I'm aware of how that's loony language, but how else can you describe them) to dogwhistle for the sexism, but they're in power now, so it's "shut up about the government, harp on about Shearer's lack of support/competence."
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it's pretty sickening how effective it seems to be.
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to BenWilson,
True, but there is no need for them to be those parties.
Yes, it is true that there is no need for them to be those parties. But I would suggest that any new parties forming at local level would be at a serious disadvantage in name recognition and tribal supporters/organisers/activists, and would thus be far less likely to be successful against a "name brand".
