Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Chris Waugh,
that freelancer who wrote about NZDF activities in Afghanistan whose name I can’t remember right now
Jon Stephenson
-
Hard News: The Big Chill, in reply to Moz,
Destroying notes is a silly suggestion, for a raft of reasons.
Can you please explain why for the benefit of dummies like me?
For one thing, if someone tries to sue you for something said in the book, those notes may be the only way to support a defence of truth.
"I didn't say that! You have defamed me through that misrepresentation."
"Ah, but you did. Here, listen to this recording of our first interview, from which I transcribed the quote. And our second, where you repeated it."The treatment of Jon Stephenson and its exposure could only have been supported by notes taken at the time: who he was meeting with, when, where, how he got there, etc. Without those notes, the lies of NZDF would have stood with no chance of reputable challenge.
-
Hard News: The Big Chill, in reply to Steve Curtis,
the best way to make these things go away, is do what the GCSB did, and 'age it off your computer'. This is techno speak for deleting it.
Easier said than done. For one thing, the moment Fisher got served with papers for this claim he became legally obliged to preserve all material related to the claim or risk penalties for contempt of court. Being so close to publication, he's unlikely to have wanted to have no records to fall back on in case anything arose from the publication.
Also, for academics such as Dr Gilbert, they need to preserve their original research to defend publications as well as serve as building blocks for any future research. Going back and re-conducting all their investigations on a sub-culture just to get started on a new piece of work would make it pretty much impossible to do any additional research beyond what's already published.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Snap
-
The plot thickens further:
[Labour Party President Moira Coatsworth says] while the Herald on Sunday had reported the fundraiser at which Liu bought the wine was on June 3 2007, "[Labour] have found no record of any fundraiser held on that date''.
-
This smells rather bad.
-
Hard News: Sectarian Bloodlust 2.0, in reply to BenWilson,
The rhetoric at the time always played fast and loose with what a WMD actually is.
Driven primarily by the US, where a pressure cooker filled with black powder and nails is a WMD, by law.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Russell Brown,
But we seem to have a situation where the government gets the information immediately and can make use of it while a journalist is made to wait nearly a month before being refused.
But, but, neutral and impartial public service!
-
Oh, I just found a bug, Russell. I edited my response to Bart and now it says I was replying to myself.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Matthew Poole,
If work pays for it and he does work then it’s a business trip. If some businessman pays for it and he does no apparent govt business on the trip it’s a junket. If work pays for it and he does only a token amount of work on the trip it’s a junket.
It wasn’t the first one unless we’ve been mislead. It wasn’t the third one unless we’ve been mislead. If it was the second one, there ought to be the appropriate declaration in the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament; and there’s not (for 2007 or 2008). So either Barker failed to declare a very material interest, or it was a personally-funded holiday.
ETA: So either Barker is lying through his teeth, and broke Parliament's rules in a big way to boot, or it wasn't a junket. Which is it, Bart? Because there isn't a third option.