Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Farewell Keith... have enjoyed your postings...
DPF speculates that it's a job in the PM's office...
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/07/congratulations_keith.html#comments
1 Commenter says "so it's a temporary posting, then?"
Another "So he'll be blogging at The Standard then?"Both pretty funny really.... even the sewer isnt 100% septic.
-
1861? :)
-
I believe the "intestinal fortitude" was an intentional over-complication (for comedy value) of the term "guts"
being brave = having guts. guts are intestines.... etc.
Just like "testicular fortitude" gets exchanged for "having balls".
-
-- but it does not say it would do so at current levels. In the absence of such an assurance, a suspicious person might fear budget cuts.
I asked Coleman if he'd like to add the words "at current levels" and he agreed that he would.
Ah, just to be pedantic... agreeing you'd like to add those words is not the same as adding those words, or being allowed to add those words
So that's settled, then.
Unless John Key decides either his shadow minister was misquoted or doesnt know the actual policy? :)
-
shall we settle on what an official source says?
That would be ideal... but in the absence of that (what with medical records being private, etc.) how about we read between Veitch's lines...
veitch has said he was under the impression that he had caused bruising until later corrected,
So, thats an actual admission that whatever it was, was in-fact not bruising, but something worse than that.
It was also made several days AFTER the publication of un-attributed statements that several vertebra were cracked (or similar)...
So, it definitely worse than bruising, and he's not denying or clarifying something widely attributed.... that would have been the ideal time to do that wouldn't it?
Its not concrete proof, or outright admission... but if you add two and two... you'll end up with something between 3 and 5.... if reality was 1 or 7 there'd be strong denials or lawsuits.
-
If this report is true, then the HoS interview is starting to look very, very bad. Obscene, you might say.
Obscene enough to warrant a complaint to the press council ?
Apart from the obvious self serving slant and complete lack of any real answers (how could there be without any real questions?)..... the fact that the "interview" was done by the guy who offered PR advice to help write the "mea-culpa" as poor as it was, is surely some sort of breach of ethics?
Surely it should have been published with some sort of disclosure statement? It just wasnt journalism, but was presented as such...
-
Not a word of anything the paper reported has been denied, despite the staging of a press conference, which one would think would be the ideal place to do so.
As I recall, In the press conference, Veitch did say that "some" of the reported details were incorrect, but offered no further clarity...
-
If the scant public details were not true wouldn't his lawyers have got injunctions and stopped further publication?
In general I agree....... but for maybe two possible exceptions..... If reality is actually WORSE than the rumours, you might tend to stay silent.....
Or, more likely, if reality is bad, and the rumours are "close enough", you might prefere to live with the rumours staying just rumours than by refuting them in a legal setting.....
"I'm going to sue you for saying I kicked her five times..... " doesnt look so good when the court testimony is " I only kicked her 3 times".... You might win the defamation case, but confirm publicly just exactly how much of an arsehole you really are...
A slight change to an old saying...
"Better to remain silent and be thought a dick than open your mouth and remove all doubt." -
Sofie... cheers for that.
It always helps to be exposed to both sides of the story....
Now while I'm sure there's spin on both sides, That version is probably much closer to the "truth" than mine.... :)
-
Also... on the "fines are easy for rich people" front...
I recall some years ago, seeing a story about one of the Scandinavian countries(?) where due to this factor, they decided to hand out speeding fines as a percentage of income rather than fixed amounts..... it made overseas news because some excecutive was being fined tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeding.