Hard News: Moving right along?
288 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Imagine a world in which “family values” were compassion, love, and inclusiveness. Instead of judgment, prudishness, and hypocrisy.
Google "hate is not a family value", and it's out there. Unfortunately such a campaign seems a bit scattershot, compared with the fundy elements.
-
DexterX, in reply to
I am pretty sure you get it – a person can behave in a stupid way regardless of any other characteristic or attribute they possess – I am pretty sure you understand that as a concept that is without contradiction.
The actions of Brown and Banks do, to me at least, reveal their character – perhaps you are Ok with “it” – but I am not.
-
That the Police didn’t seriously consider prosecuting Banks yet a private prosecution produces a case for Banks to answer, which is now picked up by Crown Law, whereas the Police on the other hand hound and get heavy with the journalists and the media with the Tea Pot Tapes Saga speaks volumes about the state of democracy in NZ and the Police being free from key political influence.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
It's worrying I agree. Living in Sydney, or anywhere in Australia for that matter, there's a level of acceptance of police corruption that I'd never experienced in NZ. It would be enormously troubling if the integrity of the Police was being compromised by undue political influence.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Living in Sydney, or anywhere in Australia for that matter, there’s a level of acceptance of police corruption that I’d never experienced in NZ.
I know what you mean, legacy of the penal colony & all, but it's not nearly as blatant as it was in the 70s. Then again, NSW has ICAC, which would presumably have taken an interest in Banks's case by now if it had happened there.
-
david kinniburgh, in reply to
Made a big mistake this PM - sneaked a look at WOBF .. where our hero is now frenetic with his attacks to ensure that Len Brown resign. Anything and everything. It rare in my experience to see such unveiled hatred clothed in such moral self righteousness.
Contrast that with the hapless Kent Parker who made much milder remarks about Joe Karam and ended up being savaged by the theatrical Micheal Reid QC in the High Court.
I am starting to wonder if there is something badly wrong with our so called 'free press'
-
Sacha, in reply to
legacy of the penal colony & all
I wondered about that influence #guv
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
living in Sydney, or anywhere in Australia for that matter, there’s a level of acceptance of police corruption that I’d never experienced in NZ.
Was quite gobsmacking to me when I lived there for a year or so in the mid-90's. Although I'm not quite sure if 'acceptance' is exactly the right word. While most people live with it, they don't like it. That's partial, but not full, acceptance.
Thre was an article on police corruption in Brisbane a few years back in (I think) The Listener. Can't find it on line. Partly written as a response to the 'it's better over there, why don't we move' attitude of many Kiwis.
-
SteveH, in reply to
I am pretty sure you get it – a person can behave in a stupid way regardless of any other characteristic or attribute they possess – I am pretty sure you understand that as a concept that is without contradiction.
Yes, but that's not quite what you said in your previous post, or at least not how I understood it. In that post you seemed to be talking about a person being stupid, not just making a single stupid decision or action. If a person's stupidity is independent of their other characteristics then the revelation of their stupidity cannot tell you anything about their other characteristics (i.e their "true nature").
But I think you were meaning simply that their recent stupid decision(s) (and I still don't concede that Banks' decision was stupid as opposed to morally bankrupt) shows that the are fundamentally stupid. I don't believe that a single stupid action/decision defines a person as stupid - I doubt anyone can honestly claim they've never done something stupid.
-
Thought this was concise, written by Paul Thomas at te Harold .
-
There's still a few days left to listen to last week's episode of The Human Zoo on BBC Radio 4, on the subject of why people get into scandals.
-
A piece by Kirsty Johnston in the paper this morning (Oct 28), head-lined 'Chuang feels 'much better' now', had, hidden half-way through, what I thought was a startling piece of news:
Wewege admitted yesterday that he passed on the information about the affair to blogger Cameron Slater, who employed journalist Stephen Cook to write a story. He also released intimate photos of Chuang, in what Cook says was insurance in case she didn't co-operate. -
Lilith __, in reply to
Wewege admitted yesterday that he passed on the information about the affair to blogger Cameron Slater, who employed journalist Stephen Cook to write a story. He also released intimate photos of Chuang, in what Cook says was insurance in case she didn’t co-operate.
That's really appalling.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
That’s really appalling.
More than that, does it constitute blackmail? Graeme could fill us in on that.
-
More than that, does it constitute blackmail?
My thoughts exactly. And if so, Graeme...?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
More than that, does it constitute blackmail?
Could explain the hasty departure from the country of Wewege.
And if so, Graeme…?
IANAG, but the punishment, if it is blackmail, can be up to 14 years in prison. It's a very serious crime.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
IANAG
LOL!
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Could explain the hasty departure from the country of Wewege.
But he's done nothing wrong! He said so, repeatedly, in that hideous Herald interview. #tui
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
More than that, does it constitute blackmail? Graeme could fill us in on that.
I'd need more information, I'm afraid. Blackmail is defined by section 237 of the Crimes Act:
37 Blackmail
(1) Every one commits blackmail who threatens, expressly or by implication, to make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), to disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person with intent—
(a) to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
(b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.(2) Every one who acts in the manner described in subsection (1) is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss, unless the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
But he’s done nothing wrong! He said so, repeatedly, in that hideous Herald interview.
I loved the bit about how the DC friends were so shocked and disgusted that it could have rebounded on him. Because Washington spin doctors are such an unimpeachable source of moral guidance.
-
81stcolumn, in reply to
>8-( Hmmmm he isn't so there!
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Because Washington spin doctors are such an unimpeachable source of moral guidance.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Up to a point. :)
-
Thanks Graeme. I hope the journalist, who produced the interesting factoid and then glossed over it, is still investigating and there's more detail to come.
-
The Doug McKay quote I have from today's Herald is:
"I have received an assurance from both the mayor and his chief of staff that no mayoral office funds were used in relation to the mayor's relationship with Ms Chuang," he said last Thursday.
"However, I have agreed to independently review this to confirm that is the case."
Given that the mayor heads the council that employs the Chief Executive of the council, I don't imagine how any investigation by him could be called independent. Power over etc.
Not an electorally significant population – it’s more that journalists give these sites more credence than they deserve.
Not electorally significant, but in terms of National Party activists, a significant proportion of them follow one or both sites. Watching bits of the party gut itself must be disheartening, and activists are important come next year.
Either Cook is exaggerating for effect, or he really has no idea what he’s doing.
Porn producers would never lie/underpay/screw over the talent etc. 100% respectable bunch of people.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Given that the mayor heads the council that employs the Chief Executive of the council, I don’t imagine how any investigation by him could be called independent. Power over etc.
The review is being conducted independently, by Ernst & Young, and the terms could hardly be broader:
* Any use of council resources within the Office of the Mayor, in respect of the Mayor’s relationship with Ms Chuang, that contravenes council policies (eg payments and procurement).
* Any improper preferential treatment in relation to Ms Chuang’s engagement as an employee, contractor or an advisor within the Auckland Council Group.
* Any other issues that the reviewers or chief executive considers relate to, or arise out of, the above matters.
I guess it could have been referred to the Auditor General, but I can’t see any evidence that the investigation is being constrained.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.