Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Bristol Freighter
Otherwise described as "Ten thousand rivets flying in close formation" according to a former flatmate.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
The consequences of cargo shifting in flight can be utterly catastrophic so there's a lot of attention paid to keeping things completely in their intended place.
Where it ends up after it's left the plane, however, is a whole different story. -
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Looking at that inflight pic:
they sure have a lot of faith in their strapping…Belt and braces. If you read the article Paul linked, the trailer is palletised for air cargo. That means it's run in on tracks and then secured with locking pins. Air forces around the world do pallet-loaded freight all the time, and they know how to keep stuff in place even when doing deliveries into less-than-friendly areas.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to william blake,
And why did James Clapper fly in in one of these and not just fly in business class?
You know spy etc….Because you don't get a full suite of secure communications equipment in business class. That plane's connections into the US national security communications network will be on a par with the planes colloquially known as Air Force One (AF1 is the callsign for a USAF plane with POTUS aboard, not for the pair of 747s), and given Clapper's role that's entirely expected. He's still working, and it's a hell of a long time to be totally off-line.
Plus, there'll be some very nice accommodation inside that plane; proper beds, showers, etc.He's not a "spy", he's the Director of National Intelligence; the spy master. There's nothing whatsoever covert about his job, so why muck around with commercial flights that put him on someone else's very flexible schedule and take him out of the intelligence loop for a day?
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sacha,
The Policing Act 2008 says that the Minister may not exercise command/control over police employees in the execution of their duty. That's it on the topic.
The GCSB Act 2003 is a bit different in terms of language, but the rough gist is that the Minister controls the functions of the Bureau but there's no provision for the Minister to direct operations. The only difference of real substance is the involvement of the Minister in signing interception warrants.
The bigger difference in the oversight is that the Minister heads the ISC whereas Tolley has no part in the Justice Select Committee. Still doesn't change the relationship with oversight to the level of getting muddy hands.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
You are confused about being "the head" with responsibility for "operational matters" and being the responsible minister. Their duties and the expectations of their level of knowledge of day-to-day operations are very, very different. You didn't say whether you expect Anne Tolley to know the shoe size of every beat constable, and her relationship with the police is exactly the same as Key's relationship with the GCSB.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Look carefully at that section of the law you just quoted. Specifically, the date it was inserted into the law. At the time, Key would have been entirely correct to have used precisely the wording I proposed.
ETA: Good of Key to tidy up after himself.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
And Key should have an interest because oh…y’know, he’s the friggin head of said GCSB! It was his “operational matter”
In the same way, I suppose, that Anne Tolley is meant to be across every police raid on every meth lab and gang headquarters?
Key is the Minister, not the head. It's a very significant distinction. As Minister it is unlikely to the point of severe improbability that he would be briefed in detail on any given operation. However, it stretches belief that he knew absolutely nothing about information sharing with the US regarding a person resident in NZ who was being investigated by the FBI for intellectual property infringement, at the same time as lining up a new GCSB head whose background was not military but, rather, intellectual property.
-
Key's handling of the Fletcher appointment at the time could have blunted so much of what's come out subsequently. If he'd said at the time "The law makes it clear that the appointment of the head of the GCSB is entirely my prerogative, and lays out no process. I have appointed the person I consider to be best for the role, as is provided for by the law," that would have been the end of it. There'd have been grumbling about his arrogance, and about his not following "process", but it would have avoided the need for all this tiresome lying and fudging. There'd be no story if he'd just fronted on his absolute legal right to appoint bloody Blanket Man if he'd so desired.
-
OnPoint: Why does the top 10% paying…, in reply to WH,
Do the IRD's figures include capital gains (such as increases in the value of investments) as income?
No, because capital gains aren't income. If they were, they'd be taxed.