Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to UglyTruth,
Which is why those giving evidence in court, or in any other analogous process, have the opportunity to affirm, and have done since 1695.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393905.html
-
It's this cargo cult of wanting to pour as much concrete as possible in the hope it'll attract money.
Christchurch Airport - finished, at no doubt huge expense at a time when the builders could have been fixing the city, so that people can marvel at its huge, echoing halls of emptiness.
Even the Greens have been dragged in. I'm sure that if we had a spare $500mln, a light rail system for Wellington would be a swell idea. But we don't have that money going begging, so why not do something much cheaper, quicker and probably nearly as effective, like buying more buses and hiring more drivers?
-
You want my based-on-nothing theory? Someone in GCSB doesn't like Tories. After the "feral" post, they used their bugging-fu to find out who was running the DDOS attack and then sent them a little package with Slater's traffic on a memory stick.
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
Yes, they all will be because the candidates are all running for component parties, so Hone Harawira is a Mana candidate and Chris Yong is Internet Party.
Any seats they win count against the party vote for Internet Mana.
It's all by design.
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
No, they are a party with component parties as provided for by s.127 of the Electoral Act*
Electorate candidates can be Internet Party or Mana Movement, but there is a single list. The number of list MPs will be the quota of MPs proportionate to the party vote, minus the total of electorate MPs from either the Internet Party or Mana Movement.
* I'm not sure, but suspect this provision may have originally been put in to incorporate the Rātana Labour members?
-
On one side, you have a government that helps its mates to avoid justice for stealing money from old people.
On the other, you have investigative journalism.
If you can't see the difference.
-
I actually think this has gone beyond "dirty politics" and into outright corruption.
The UK police distinguish between cops who are "bent for the job" (those who use illegal and unacceptable practices to pursue those they honestly believe to be guilty) and those who are "bent for themselves" and protect criminals for personal gain. Of course, one often tips over into the other.
I think there's a similar thing in politics. The right is intrinsically "bent for the job" - they seek to promote the interests of the wealthy as a group through "legitimate" policy settings and laws. But this has, as can be expected, tipped over into being "bent for themselves" and taking money from individuals for privileged treatment (ranging from a photo with the Minister through to escaping prosecution for large scale fraud).
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Phil Wallington,
I think the traditional threat of "we know where yer live" is regarded as unlawyerly, even in Belfast.
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to A C Young,
Labour or the Greens could also do this.
-
So basically, a bunch of finance company directors stole money from NZ investors, and their mates in the National Party were complicit in bullying the SFO to help them wriggle out of their accountability for this. Not to mention several of these National Party people taking money to help out.
I wonder how this will play with the fleeced investors, most of whom will be lifetime voters for that very same National Party.
Labour and or the Greens should be promising legislation to make finance company directors retrospectively accountable and watching National standing up for their mates and contributors against ordinary NZers.