Posts by DPF
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Russell is wrong to say the HRC support the year long regulated period. They explicitly have stated support for the current 90 days.
-
It was good popcorn, thank you very much.
I'll actually defend Clark a bit on the issue of backing the Police. If people are going to prejudge the cases and have protest marches, and condemn the Police non stop, I don't have a problem with the PM saying that the alleged facts in these cases are very disturbing.
It would be better if neither side was commenting, but that is not going to happen.
However what is intriguing is why Clark is now getting more robust in her defence of the Police. She absolutely refused to comment for the first week or so. Has she been briefed by the Minister (who gets briefed by his Police secondee) as to the strength of the evidence, and she now thinks there is less risk in backing the Police?
-
Air NZ did tell people - it was in their monthly magazine a couple of months ago.
-
John: No I'm not. All I was saying is D4J is bad enough at the best of times, without deliberate provocation to really send him over the top.
Emma: Sadly you may win that bet. Most people though have responded quite well to the concept of a longer suspension each time, and generally it seems to work - except I'm not using them enough.
Che: Heh. They'll get paid double what I get paid :-)
-
I've probably banned more people for comments over the pale than any other blogger. But when comments come in some days at around 50 - 100 per hour, you're smoking crack if you think I have time to censor or even read every comment. I am also currently doing the equivalent of two fulltime jobs and trying to kill the Electoral Finance Bill in my spare time.
D4J has just had his 4th ban with each one doubling in size - so this one is for two months. To be fair to D4J, those who provoke him and bring up his kids are like people who spread petrol at a bonfire.
And now I am on wordpress, I do plan to appoint some moderators to try and take care of the worst offenders. I just need time to draft a clear updated moderation policy as a guideline for them.
-
I am still laughing.
-
The Dominon used to have such a column but weekly not daily. They used to joke the columnists were hired for their attractiveness and that after they kept exposing the paper to defamation, the column was finally dropped.
I can't even recall what it was called anymore.
-
A few comments:
1) Broad does not do himself any favours by saying if it happened today there would be some sort of internal disciplinary action. The better response would be that the officer who purchased and screened the video would be charged. The current law has jail terms of up to ten years for offences related to objectionable publications.
2) The involvement of Idour can only ring huge warning bells in relation to credibility. He is a proven liar.
3) Broad has asked the PCA to investigate the allegations. That is an appropriate course of action.
-
John F - I agree. But he has just blogged copies of sworn statements and correspondence around one allegation. As it happens though I think it shows the MPs did not conspire or hide anything. I think they just did not believe the complainant was credible and hence did not act on it.
However one thing which struck me was her description of being forced to have sex with a Dunedin detective and how similar it sounded to the Rotorua cases. But having said that she did not sound that credible. I'm hoping that there is a record somewhere of who did investigate her allegations and why they were found to be unwarranted and that it was not a John Dewar type investigation.
I understand its readership Che is in five figures but not 100%. I recall being very surprised myself when I saw the figures.
-
Danyl - I have absolutely no doubt that Mr Wishart will publish similiar stories against National MPs at some stage. That doesn't affect the way I treat his stories which is on their merits.
I have been critical of some of Investigate's stories in the past (esp the Clark/Davis ones) and have thought others raised legitimate points.
I certainly don't think that there has been an active conspiracy with Labour MPs to cover up paedophile rings. I have in fact been careful not to focus at all on the MPs aspect of it. My suspicion is they had similiar allegations to those in Investigate made to them, and just chose not to follow them up as they thought they were not provable or false. That is not a conspiracy.
But I do think there are legitimate questions to be considered about Dunedin Police conduct. Allegations of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, animal cruelty etc are not something one should ignore. Now if they have been investigated and found false all the better. Russell's blog post provides some useful info on that.
Don - if someone stated in a magazine with tens of thousands readership I sexually assaulted the daughter of a former police commissioner and I was a current senior police officer, I would be suing for defamation. Wouldn't you?
People allow their hatred of Wishart to black their ability to apply critical thinking to the situation. Imagine this:
Ian Wishart breaks a story alleging that a group of cops gang raped a series of teenage and slightly older girls over a period of 15 years with near impunity, and that one of the cops was now an Asst Police Commissioner who was fast tracked by the Police Commissioner to be the first Maori Commissioner, and details of these allegations are well known to senior Police and even the PM.
How many here would have laughed the allegations off? Said they could not possibly be true?
I note for the record that the gang rape allegations have not led to guilty verdicts, in case anyone suggests I am defaming Rickards. I am using his case as an example.
Joe Karam seemed quite sure a Dunedin police woman had been raped by a colleague also. It would be nice to have someone able to assure us that this did not happen.