"Unlike Barclay, she didn’t brazenly lie to journalists."
So misrepresenting the truth is not lying?
Perhaps it is more accurately behaviour identified by of the head of the UK civil service in the Spycatcher case - She was economical with the truth
"Unlike Todd Barclay, Metiria Turei never treated those around her badly. Unlike Barclay, she didn’t brazenly lie to journalists."
You might consider checking this out with people who work in Parliament who are not Greens.
Media bloodlust is apolitical
After a Moore press conference in his office - when he was leader of the Opposition, - John Campbell said that it was like listening to a reading from Finnegan's Wake.
This also caused difficulties for radio journalists. An RNZ reporter complained after another press conference that it was very, very difficult to get a usable piece of audio from Moore because he never finished a thought but would simply leap from part thought to part thought in an almost unstoppable stream of consciousness.
In the RNZ interview he is lot more coherent but still has a tendency to leap from part thought to part thought without an effective segue..
Well civilian control is about the parameters civilians place around their overall operations rather than operation by operation micro-management. I wouldn't expect any civilian involvement in the details of an operation like that. Certainly the politicians are going to end up being accountable for the results but being involved in the implementation of an operation is well outside their capacity. Smart ones will recognise that.
Telling the truth is a generic issue applicable to any job, in the military or elsewhere and all organisations face similar difficulties in finding out what happens or happened at lower levels.
I'd be interested to know, for example, if any of the sources for the book were on the operation itself. Military people can - internally - be extremely harsh in their judgements about their colleagues, and not always right.
Dany's review is very well written as ever but is also typical of him in certain frames of mind where he sets the terms of debate that can really only result in one conclusion. He seems to be particularly prone to this approach when the subject matter is the military or the secret world.
I think the use of the SAS is less because they have colonised the armed forces than because with limited capability we have a small range of things to offer in joint work with other nations. They are by far the easiest to deploy because they can respond quickly and operate on a small scale. The logistics of supporting them are far easier than if we sent the limited range of other options. The Navy is not much use in a land locked nation, using any part of the airforce would reduce local capability too much and the conventional army is very vulnerable in the extreme conditions. The SAS is a lower risk option and its positive impact is potentially disproportionate to its size.
Kevin, it is interesting you have such a strong reaction to the warrior culture. Until recently in very affluent countries like NZ this was extremely strong, remains so in countries that do a lot of fighting like the US and is utterly common place in much of the rest of the world. I think that our warriors - men and women - need to have more of a warrior culture than not, just as I would prefer our doctors to have a doctor culture and electricians to have an electrician culture, ballet dancers to have......etc As long as warriors remain under civilian control they need to be what they are otherwise they are flying under false colours and not much use to the rest of us.
"But your unwavering defense of our PM is admirable."
As is your touching faith that officials or English's office know (or can know) the full story.
The rate of positive tests for beneficiaries is relevant only to the beneficiary population. What about the positives for non-beneficiary applicants and also those beneficiaries and non beneficiaries who avoid jobs where they know they will be tested?
There are plenty of occupations where you are not at risk of drug testing and people will take themselves out of the pool for some jobs simply because they do not want to be included in the tested population. For much of the first decade of my working life I would never have passed a recreational drug test but I was only driving a typewriter. Why NZ Rugby want to add to their burdens by assuming responsibility for their employees' recreational drug use - that is also largely irrelevant to their professional performance - beats me.
So you are conceding that English was told these things by employers. Therefore he wasn't lying when he said so. Thanks for that. The rest of your argument is more appropriate for a representative of the Society of Jesus than someone employed as a scientist.
Really? How do you know. Are you a mole in English's entourage who monitored his each and every encounter?
Politicians - left right and middle - circulate widely in our communities and get told stuff by people of every political persuasion, including the politically agnostic. When they get told stuff repeatedly they start to think there might be something to the claims.
It is also a common claim, especially in the regions.
The substance of the claim may be true, partly true or baseless but I very much doubt that English or any other politician would say that employers were telling him this if they were not.
David Shearer's clumsy claim about the honourable Rufus Painter is the exception that proves the rule.