Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
he’s comfortable with that…
And relaxed no doubt.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Matthew Poole,
I would say one full front-page piece about Granny’s appalling journalistic standards, with the following six days required to carry a front-page above-the-fold reminder that they are fucking hacks.
Now who is living in fantasy land?.
;-) -
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Chris Waugh,
As for the firing of ministers:
We he wasn’t known as the “Smiling Assassin” for nothing.
John Key – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key
Some co-workers called him “the smiling assassin” for maintaining his usual cheerfulness while sacking dozens (some say hundreds) of staff after heavy losses …
New Zealand National Party – Helen Clark* – Prime Minister of New ZealandWorst boss ever.
* Don't ask me why or how but putting “Smiling Assassin” into Google gave me that as a first hit. Although I can’t see Helen Clark as a National Party member I do wish she was still Prime Minister. -
So that is why the Herald has been slack on the job of being a proper newspaper, they are concentrating on John Key's deification, or is that defecation?
"I want to be able to look down the camera 100 per cent and say, 'I don't have a clue what I own'."
he says, without a hint of irony after saying the same thing about so much else, it seems he doesn't even know about money, which was his big thing.
Perhaps that is why he feels no qualms about selling us out to the US, he must think hegemony is the money you have in a hedge fund -
Correct me if I am wrong but if evidence is not produced in discovery can it not be used by the litigant?’ so if Dotcom does not get the information from Fisher and hand it over to the defence will he be able to use the same information in his suit?
Presumably the material that Fisher has would be knowledge to Dotcom in any case so this digging by the defence on discovery grounds is for what good purpose?. -
Like I have been saying all along, they just made it up.
When real people do shit like this and do the kind of damage that the Herald and the National Party, especially John Key, have done to the Labour Party and hence Democracy they are held to account.
I am WAITING....
I will be waiting for a while I fear. -
The police and GCSB lawyers argued that because Fisher’s research, including interviews with Dotcom, is potentially available to Dotcom under the Privacy Act 1993, it is within Dotcom’s “control” and therefore should be subject to discovery. They seek to have Dotcom forced to request the material from Fisher under the Act so he can then be compelled to turn over relevant material to the defence.
It is the assumption that the material is potentially available that confuses me. The material, presumably, is the property of Fisher and as such even if it is potentially available Dotcom has no right of law to demand it, he can ask but not insist. He can just refuse.
Section 44Reason for refusal to be given
Where an information privacy request made by an individual is refused, the agency shall,—
(a)subject to section 32, give to the individual—
(i)the reason for its refusal; and
(ii)if the individual so requests, the grounds in support of that reason, unless the giving of those grounds would itself prejudice the interests protected by section 27 or section 28 or section 29 and (in the case of the interests protected by section 28) there is no countervailing public interest; and
(b)give to the individual information concerning the individual's right, by way of complaint under section 67 to the Commissioner, to seek an investigation and review of the refusal.And section 29.. (reason for refusal)
(ia)the request is made by a defendant or a defendant's agent and is—
(i)for information that could be sought by the defendant under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008;The spirit of the law, if I am not mistaken, is that if you can demand the information under the Criminal Disclosure Act then there is no need to request it under the privacy act as the CDA overrides the privacy act but if the litigant, Dotcom, is not in possession of the information then, surely, the CDA request should be to Fisher directly, if not, why not?.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
It’s a bit rich for Key to be asking Donghua Liu to now show something that Key himself has been ‘spruiking’
Mark my words…
Key is putting this back in Liu’s lap because he can then absolve himself from being labeled a liar. When the truth is told he will say… “I can’t tell you about that but I can tell you this. I trusted Mr. Liu as I trust many people in business, you have to have trust to do business and you have to have trust to run a country, that is why the people trust us and not Labour”
It will happen.
He has already started..."Both parties have got options available to them if they want to test the veracity of the statements that have been made or refute those. That's a matter for those guys," Mr Key said yesterday.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
the barbarians aren't at the gates, they’re settling in with a drink…
Hemlock one would hope. Yes, the barbarians have come to roost in Christchurch with a vengeance, the flooding is due to the copious amounts of spittle drooling from their ravenous lips as they devour the last remnants of a once wealthy city.
You guys need a Labour Govt. like a orphan needs asylum lest the beast consume your souls... -
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to BenWilson,
getting it right more often than getting it wrong is way, way less than good enough.
Otherwise bang goes the rational behind banning capital punishment. If we are to accept that our Prime Minister thinks this way and that he is BFF with the USofA and some sates consider the death penalty justifiable, can we expect a return to barbarism under a future John Key led government?.