The webs tell me it was about a two women (both sex workers) who go on a killing spree. Killing men. I'm sure if it was about a couple of dudes who were killing women, there wouldn't have been such a fuss.
If I recall correctly, the fuss was mainly to do with the graphic rape scene (the women being raped by men).
Using purely anecdotal data ("My grandmother always voted Labour, but can't stand Cunliffe") to make decisions seems like a sure way to make a poor decision. Surely there's a better way?
Hacking' would be a serious offence and require resignations and potential police action. Accessing an open directory because a configuration was screwed up isn't hacking. It might be dirty politics but it's not 'hacking'
I think you may find NZ law disagrees with you:
252 Accessing computer system without authorisation
(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system.
(2)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.
All that is required is that the access was done 'knowing that he or she is not authorised'. This would include taking advantage of a poorly configured server to reveal documents that are clearly not meant to be publicly available.
...I don't give the proverbial rat's rectums who does it to who...
Sure, whatever. But other people do care who does it - there will always be idiots hacking into others' computer systems, but if it is being done by those directly linked to top-level politicians (even if it is simply taking advantage of a poorly configured server), it is a much more serious issue.
Danyl nominates the hacking of Labour’s computers
I think the key part that you appear to have missed is "by the Prime Minister’s office". I'm pretty sure that if the office of the Labour leader had been implicated in the hacking of Slater or Brash, it would have been a big deal as well.
The emails clearly say that "INZ have enough on his criminal history to not give him PR". And then it turns out that he is a person of interest in an FBI investigation, which should ring further alarm bells. So why on earth is he was he given residency? It certainly wasn't in NZ's interest to do so - as we have seen, he's cost the justice system a lot of money, and all the trouble could have been avoided if they had simply used the available grounds to deny him residency.
My point makes no sense because your point made no sense. I thought you were trying to highlight circumstances in which everyone was telling the truth (i.e. Banks and Key had a conversation, which was relayed to Dotcom via Banks). If your actual point was that Key might have been lying, you could have just said so explicitly.
Never mind, it is a pointless conversation to have. Everyone can make up their own minds based the information at hand.
So we have a report saying that:
Mr Key said he had "no idea what John Banks said to Kim Dotcom but all I know is he has never spoken to me about going to fireworks."
And Pete George said that these would have been possible conversations between Banks and Key:
Banks: Do you want to come to Dotcom's fireworks display?"
Key: "Nah, I'll be in Hawaii".
Banks to Dotcom: "Our friend John can't make it".
It could have been:
Banks: "Would your family be interested in fireworks at New Year?"
Key: "Nah, we'll be in Hawaii".
Banks to Dotcom: "I mentioned fireworks but he'll be out of the country".
Do you realise, Mr George, that if these hypothetical conservations were true, then Key would have been lying when he said that "all I know is he (Banks) has never spoken to me about going to fireworks."?
What a funny thread. On the one hand we have a woman praising what the next Labour MP, Kelvin Davis, said about trying to end violence against women. On the other hand, we have men (more than one) saying how they wives and other women won't be supporting Labour because of the way the new Labour leader dresses.