Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have to say, it's nice to see a flurry of articles in the HoS that are less-than-complimentary about Key. Some of them even question his record on actually answering questions about policy - over 100 approaches by RNZ have been declined by National - as opposed to his sudden interest in doing so.
I'm waiting for publication of my two excoriating comments on how the media have made themselves the bad guys with the "sudden" attack on a man who they've spent three years fawning over. If they'd done their job properly for the last three years this would just be another episode inholding the PM to account, as opposed to what looks like the dog attacking the master.
-
Hard News: Media7: Not your usual conference, in reply to Steve Withers,
If the National Party has an outright majority after the election and doesn’t need support from the Maori Party, I am skeptical that Maori TV will not go the same way a TVNZ 7: funding cut.
Yup. Though, that said, I could see MTV surviving by hitting up the various iwi corporations for support. It runs on the smell of an oily rag, and there's some hefty money floating around in the various iwi. Not entirely sure what its annual budget is, but $10m/year from each of the three biggest iwi would surely be enough and their annual revenues are all sufficient to not be impacted by such payments.
-
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Last night, I had a discussion with a very dear friend of mine who is a fire officer – a public service job, one would think a traditional labour stronghold and they’re on strike for pete’s sake – and he expressed great dismay at comments made by some of his subordinates, young men, who had voiced admiration for the PM.
I’m actually not at all surprised. Career fire fighters are, despite being the last stronghold of fervent unionism in the country (well over 90% are union members, and their president makes O’Connor look rather tame), quite a conservative bunch. It’s still a deeply male career choice (I believe there are 38 career fire fighters in NZ who are female, out of about 1400), quite heavily white, quite middle-class in terms of family origin, and the nature of the recruitment panels encourages conformance to that profile; for reasons not least of which is the informal preference given to the sons of past or current career firies. Given the low pay (base rate on graduation from Rotorua is something like $32k) many of them have second jobs, mostly in the trades because it’s easier to work that around the shift pattern.
Right now National are effectively engaged in a battle with the entire NZ Fire Service, volunteer and career on different fronts, The battle with volunteers has largely been hidden from public view, but if National win on Saturday I’ll be expecting that to change. I’m disappointed that there’s significant support for National, but not surprised. The comprehension of cause/effect is just as detached from reality within NZFS as it is within any other segment of the country. Hell, look at the beneficiaries who think that National’s policies will help them get off the benefit! -
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Just realised I cited the section slightly incorrectly, it’s S216A(1), part (b) of the definition of “private communication”. But that’s only a minor mistake in this context.
ETA: “interception” is also pretty broad, being defined as: hear, listen to, record, monitor, acquire, or receive the communication. Which pretty much makes the case a slam dunk, given that the conversation could be monitored by any camera or person on the other side of the glass, or listened to by the staff and the other patrons.
-
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
I am not sure what the precise point the court is being asked to rule on
S216A(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961 is the precise point. Namely, that a “private communication” cannot occur in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so.
If the judge rules that the circumstances could not give rise to a reasonable expectation that the conversation would not be overheard, the law cannot have been broken because a private communication could not take place.ETA: IANAL, but my understanding is that this would fall into the realm of being a question of law rather than a question of fact.
-
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
Also there is a recent Supreme Court authority that says it’s not appropriate for cases where facts are disputed
Yes, that's true, but the facts of the case relate to Ambrose's intent. There's no dispute that Ambrose made a recording. The dispute is whether or not he intended to record the conversation.
The judge could have declined to hear the application on the grounds that it's a question of fact, not law, as to whether or not the circumstances of the conversation lend themselves to a reasonable belief that it was private under the law, but he hasn't. Which suggests that the court is open to being persuaded that it's a question of law, and if it's a question of law there's nothing inappropriate in the judge ruling on it before the investigation is completed. If he rules that it was a private conversation, that doesn't prejudice any factual questions about Ambrose's intent. -
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
Interesting development, but I really doubt a civil proceeding of this kind is the appropriate procedure
It's entirely appropriate. The very possibility of charges being brought hinges on whether or not the chat qualifies as a "private communication" under the Act. To seek a statutory declaration is to validate or otherwise the continued investigation.
A judge must rule on this question at some point, whether it's now or before a trial commences in the event that the investigation goes to completion and charges are laid. Getting a judge in now potentially saves everyone a whole lot of bother, or confirms that the Police will be able to bring a prosecution that won't get thrown out at the first hearing when a judge rules that, no, the conversation wasn't private and, thus, it was impossible for Ambrose to have broken the law. -
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to linger,
are crime rates decreasing?
Yes, they are, and have been for a lot of years. An ageing population tends to do that, because males aged 15-45 are the majority of criminals. As the Boomers age out of that bracket, crime rates reduce. It’s a trend right across the western world.
-
Hard News: On Science, in reply to Islander,
But, hey, at least we’ve got a metric fuckload of bovines.
Which, regrettably, are prone to extremely contagious & easily spread diseases.
Choir. Preaching. etc.
I've said several times that we're one foot-and-mouth outbreak away from economic catastrophe. It'd make Christchurch look like a minor blip on a very large financial radar by comparison. -
Hard News: On Science, in reply to Rich Lock,
now all that NZ gets to keep is the patent licensing revenue.
I’d argue that this is precisely the sort of business model that NZ needs to be aiming for in many situations.
Except that we could've kept the entire company in NZ ownership and just licensed the manufacturing elsewhere. That way we'd get both the licence revenue and the patent revenue. We don't have to manufacture locally (though goodness knows we need some more high-tech manufacturing within the NZ economy) in order to get more money than just patent licensing revenue.
Ultimately I'm against any sale of NZ companies that develop high-tech, because it's a continuation of the the race-to-the-bottom that's defined our monocular focus on primary industry uber alles. This example is just a confirmation that we're selling stuff to foreign companies that could've been kept in NZ hands for the long-term benefit of our scientific and manufacturing industries.
But, hey, at least we've got a metric fuckload of bovines.