Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media3: Watching the Fourth Estate, in reply to Russell Brown,
the very political purpose of tracking down leaks to the press.
Indeed. It'd be one thing if it was the cops conducting a criminal investigation for the leaking of a classified report, and the PM's CoS ordered cooperation rather than demanding a warrant (though I suspect that, as a matter of t-crossing-and-i-dotting, the police would show up with a warrant in the first place), but that's not what happened. It's purely political.
Franks has been interesting to listen to. Says he always assumed that his email was public property. Katherine Ryan made the interesting observation that a lot of email responses from ministers are now coming from @parliament.govt.nz addresses rather than the Ministerial Services mail system, presumably in a misguided attempt by the ministers to avoid those messages being exposed under the OIA because of the Ombudsmen's acceptance that communication between MPs and constituents (as opposed to ministers) is confidential by default.
-
Hard News: The future: be careful what…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Does anyone really trust the Govt to get this right?
They're already mostly there with i.govt.nz. It's the interface that will be presented to the private sector that intrigues me, because the government has demonstrated a wide-ranging, comprehensive inability to secure systems that are available to external parties.
-
Hard News: The future: be careful what…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
one company sells MY right to choose where to buy something to someone else
Your mistake is thinking that you have a right to competitive supply of copyrighted material. You don't. Never have. It's not even particularly unreasonable that you have no such "right". You don't have a right to competitive supply of anything, in fact, copyrighted or not.
-
Hard News: Not good enough, Eden Park, in reply to Danielle,
Are you trying to get some sort of award from the Royal Society for the Wilfully Obtuse?
He's competing with James Bremner for that award.
-
Hard News: Not good enough, Eden Park, in reply to Russell Brown,
I read the lot earlier. It seemed about 2-1 supportive, perhaps a little more.
Sure, but that's just amongst those who could be bothered writing a comment, and whose comments were printable (I've never figured out what will and won't have a comment fail Your Views' moderation). Any schmoe can "like" a comment, but you have to register to post. Because of that, I considered it more instructive as to reactions to see two unsupportive comments with nearly 100 and just over 100 likes, against about 50 likes for the top-rated supportive comment.
-
Hard News: Not good enough, Eden Park, in reply to Danielle,
I skimmed the front page for the highest-ranked comments and left it at that. The ignorati who read Your Views aren't going to get any better on subsequent pages.
-
Hard News: Not good enough, Eden Park, in reply to Russell Brown,
along with (mostly) supportive reader comments.
The two highest-rated (by far) comments on the front page are not supportive. Which I think is more indicative of positions on the matter.
-
Hard News: Not good enough, Eden Park, in reply to Emma Hart,
your silence will be taken as assent.
First they came...
It is a very, very poor response from Eden Park, and deserves to be decried as such. Sadly, though, they will probably draw a lot of support from the usual talkback suspects and wave that around if challenged by cooler public heads. They certainly won't get a dressing-down from John "gay red shirt" Key or anyone else who might carry sufficient weight to make a public slapping stick.It would be nice if NZRFU came out against the response, but I really cannot see that happening. "PC Police", etc.
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to BenWilson,
pictures of Key in panties. .... Given he’s at the end of his political career anyway, it could be something rather minor, that he just happens to find very shameful.
The mind boggles!
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Sacha,
You're suggesting something will come out that contradicts the leak investigation report's assertion that the Kitteridge report was merely marked as "Sensitive"? One would hope that such a basic fact would be correctly reported from the outset.
Or do you think that the classified appendices were leaked in contradiction of the investigation report's findings? There's no suggestion that such material has been made public, leading no doubt to the report's findings that those appendices remained held in accordance with their classification.
ETA: I am basing this on having read the leak investigation report, not just on what's made it into the media. Feel free to cite a more authoritative source.