Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I don’t. So, I can “dispel the impression” that I’m a liar by saying something I don’t actually believe? M’kay…
Well, that's the problem. Because she wasn't remotely questioning the integrity of the EC. Please quote evidence that she was.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
If you’re happy for them to hand wave off any criticism or tough questioning from the media as the work of Cameron Slater finger-puppets, and passive-aggressively impugn the integrity of electoral agencies who can’t respond, well be careful what you wish for.
Once again, she did not impugn the integrity of the Commission, but the integrity of the minister overseeing it. This is not the same thing and I'm equally tired of you pretending it is.
Further, "tough questioning" has to be more than talking over answers you don't want to hear, which happens continually with Ferguson. Harre made excellent points about how RadioNZ and other media were continuing to respond to Slater in just the way he wants, amplifying his smears. You, yourself, have accused him of being a fantasist, as Harre does at 00:05:40.02, so it's perfectly legitimate to ask Ferguson why RNZ is taking his 'revelations' seriously. Ferguson is worse than Simon Mercep was, as an interviewer. She wants sound bites that make her look perceptive rather than answers to her questions.
As to the false equivalency charge, I stand by that. You segued from John Key's trainwreck to Harre's nowhere-near-trainwreck as "not the only cringe inducing interview" and never bothered to differentiate.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Transcription - Harre-Ferguson RNZ 20140818.txt
As I said up thread, Judith Collins can take whatever slings and arrows come her way. But I think all politicians might want to think really hard about bringing electoral agencies into campaign argy-bargy in any way, shape or form.
Right. After our exchange on Twitter I sat down and listened to it again, as, while I had thought it wasn't a great interview, I hadn't picked up what was so incensing you. To my surprise, I found that the crap aspect of the interview was (once again) Suzie Fergusson and that Harre, when unimpeded by being talked over made the very succinct point that Fergusson was falling into exactly the trap that Hager outlined in his book, of taking Slater's smears and amplifying to the non-blogreading public. So I transcribed it (attached). Your indignation is completely misplaced. Let me quote the only paragraph that mentions the Electoral Commission:
[00:01:18.22] Suzie: And so, as a result of that, what then do you think should happen with Judith Collins?
[00:01:23.20] Laile: Well, I think there is no doubt that any Prime Minister who was leading a government, um, that gave a moral compass to New Zealand would have removed her a long time ago. The, um, the evidence provided in this book, ah, shows clearly that she should be removed. This is the woman who is part of a strategy to reduce voter turnout in the election and she is the minister in charge of the Electoral Commission, our public body charged with engaging voters, enrolling them and ensuring that they turn out to vote. She should go.
Nothing there impugns the Commission, it's all about Collins and whether she is fit to be the minister in charge of it, which recent events and revelations might call into question. It's absolutely relevant for anyone to question the probity of a minister who has been shown repeatedly to lie when caught out manipulating public opinion, not to mention public money. If you don't think a minister can have influence over the work of a government agency either by direction or managing funding through the Budget process, you're either naive or willfully stupid, and I've never thought of you as either of those.
Take your rosette off and really look at what these people are doing to your party, and to the country. And stop reading what you want to hear into what politicians are actually saying.
-
Umm, does someone other than Fran O'Sullivan run her Twitter account?
-
She's running scared. Such body language. Can anyone identify the staffer who's recording the interview on her phone?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Bevan Shortridge,
Guy Espiner’s RNZ Morning Report interview with John Key At The End of the Day
I thought that this:
[Key] "anyone who knows Cameron Slater knows that he's a force unto himself".
was interesting as it was almost exactly what Farrar was claiming last week. These guys need better writers.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
He is a diseased silverback engaged in a truly ugly ‘gorilla war’…
And all he’s got for ammunition is his own sh*t!
Tosser…Lovely imagery, Ian.
-
Speaker: Confidential information: the…, in reply to tussock,
Here it seems you can try to show a reasonable doubt that the crime would’ve happened. As Slater and co. talk great volumes of borderline criminal shit on a daily basis, but are actually just sad little internet trolls (takes one to know one), that would provide some doubt.
True, but some professions are bound by their codes of conduct as tightly as any law, and they have special responsibilities because of their professions. For example, an accountant on a school's Board of Trustees can be found to be liable for someone tampering with the accounts even if he/she is not the Treasurer simply because of their professional training and standing.
IANAL, but if Nicky Hager can produce a verifiable email from Odgers even threatening some form of law-breaking, that's a pretty solid breach as an officer of the NZ courts, even if she plies her trade from Hong Kong, simply because she holds an NZ practising certificate, at least as I understand the law. Felix? Graeme? Can you clarify?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Joe Wylie,
If he’s doing it to seek some kind of absolution then he has a way to go
True dat.
-
Speaker: Confidential information: the…, in reply to Felix Geiringer,
And re: Cactus Kate – https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-the-community/search-register-of-lawyers/lawyer-details?pi=MjQwMTE=
Thanks Felix. I see I was looking in the For Lawyers section, rather than the Community section (The website could do with a UI review. My rates are only mildly larcenous ;-) ) My bad.
From this, I take it that she is then subject to the rules of the NZLS as to appropriate behaviour as exemplified on the Complaints and Discipline page?
