Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I wouldn’t put it passed them, would you?
It is, in fact, easier to create a false record “electronically” than a paper one, especially when you, or the GCSB, have the tools to do it. This thing just stinks of “convenience”Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So we're now into political shenanigans where GCSB (and NZSIS?) at the behest of the PM forge and deposit electronic copies of documents that also exist as physical copies in the archives of a public agency? Wow.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Steve Barnes,
is it even real, what exactly is its provenance?
It's definitely real. A copy was found in electronic files of a former staff member of Cunliffe's electorate office. Unless you're going to posit a truly cunning (and criminal) stitch-up job that involves planting a fake Word document along with a physical document?
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Ianmac,
Surely Mr Cunliffe could have signed the letter without ever meeting the man?
You'd have thought so, particularly since the letter was written by an office staffer of Cunliffe's and, IIRC, the approach came from an immigration agent rather than directly from Liu. It's entirely possible Liu has never set foot in any of Cunliffe's offices.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
categorical denial of any interactions
Cunliffe said he couldn't recall meeting Liu, or writing a letter for him. He was only certain that he hadn't advocated for him, and whether asking Immigration to clarify the time-frame on a decision constitutes advocacy is splitting hairs in comparison to Williamson phoning the cops about a mate's domestic violence strife.
I'm certainly confused as to how "I don't recall" has suddenly become certain and unequivocal.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Chris Waugh,
I think serious questions should be asked as to the precise nature of his visit to Liu in Chongqing. One does not often visit factories belonging to business people looking to move to and invest in one’s own country while on holiday.
One is not normally a minister who makes decisions about such things, so “normally” is a pretty foreign concept to you and I in this context.
Unless Liu paid for his trip, it’s not a junket. If Liu did pay for the trip, there ought to be a paper trail in terms of the Register of Members’ Interests, since even cheap return airfares NZ-CN are above the de minimus for declaration.Barker having overridden Immigration’s advice is a story. If Barker got a paid-for trip from Liu, it’s a story. Barker having visited Liu’s businesses whilst on a self-funded holiday is not a story.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Rick Barker's junket
So a politician who goes on holiday is on a junket? I see.
-
had Cunliffe not stoutly denied any contact with Liu
But he didn't "stoutly deny" such contact. He said he couldn't recall such contact. That's about as far from a "stout" denial as one can get short of saying that such contact occurred.
The only "stout denial" was that he'd "advocated for" Liu, and after reading that letter it's a big stretch to call it advocacy. Certainly in the context of Williamson ringing the cops about someone with whom he had a personal relationship it's not advocacy of any sort. -
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to b.douglas,
if itd been a fire i hate to thnk what mightv hapnd.
To be a little flippant, it's much easier to find a fire than a burglar :P
More seriously, I'm disturbed that landlords considered clear house numbering to be an unreasonable imposition.
As for curtains, without them it doesn't really matter how good the heating system is because all the heat gets lost to the cold glass.
-
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
I’d assumed that the removal of depreciation meant a total removal of depreciation – interesting to see it’s still available for chattels.
Nope. Houses no longer depreciate at a specified rate, but the chattels still do in accordance with IRD's published depreciation rates.
This article does a pretty good job of explaining the transition: landlords who were doing a depreciation claim on house-plus-chattels prior to 1 April 2011 cannot retroactively separate out the chattels and claim depreciation on them going forward. If, however, they were depreciating the chattels separately and/or they buy new chattels after 1 April 2011 they are entitled to claim the depreciation at the published rates.
That's fair enough when one considers that chattels don't (as a nearly-universal general rule) appreciate so they will eventually need replacing from a value of $0. It was a nonsense to depreciate something with a potentially indefinite life - subject to adequate maintenance - and a likely appreciating value, but the stuff inside it wears out and needs replacing and that's exactly what depreciation is for. -
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to Sacha,
we’re battling the same mentality that exports logs and milk powder
And considers them to be the height of export success, to boot.