Island Life: Good on ya, Paula
491 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
excuse me if I roll my eyes at solo mothers becoming a new class of Angels of the Hearth.
Roll them all the way back around to the front, dude. Like Danielle said, you're Evil Knievel revving up to jump the Grand Canyon there.
"Not demonising" doesn't equal "canonising" except in a particularly fevered imagination. Should we pass the smelling salts?
-
I don't have time to go back through the Close Up interview right now, but I think so, yes.
Again... have not checked, but that is my distinct recollection... I immediately asked my wife "Did she just say 'teach them a lesson'?"
-
I would like to see some of those beneficiary bashers try to do nursing or teacher training while having sole responsibility for dependent children. Apart from several thousand dollars of course fees, there are also expensive texts books and IT equipment to buy, transport and childcare to organise to go on section (and nursing shifts do not coordinate with public transport or school days), uniforms etc. All while being solely responsible for the family - sick children, school relationships, whatever happens.
Of course this helps makes people who have been on the DPB particularly good nurses and teachers etc because they know about family stresses. As fully qualified professionals and a potential work life or several decades, and having raised the next generation, they will be paying back way more than a few years of DPB payments.
-
Wow, 3410, thanks for the verbatim quote. You betcha that syntax is pure Palin, also.
-
With all due respect Graeme, aren't you a little tired of "After nine... long... years..." and "When Labour was in power..."? I mean, really how long is a year? Isn't it National who should be accountable for their own actions now?
What Graeme said: I thought the context that the previous government leaked this stuff (in a quieter way) interesting. Particularly given the righteous indignation that Labour has displayed over this incident.
-
Paula Bennett did not appear on Morning Report today. Is it because she was worried about being "Benson-Poped" by Sean Plunket?
Yesterday, John Campbell asked her about the advice on the Privacy Act that she took before releasing the women's details:
JC: "Where did you get that advice from? Did you get it before or after you released the information?"
PB: "I certainly took advice before I did it."
JC: "Who from?"
PB: "From my office. I've got people there to give me this sort of advice and I took that advice, and I certainly was told that it had been done before and I certainly saw the piece that came off the website."
Which is kind of interesting, because when questioned in the House earlier, she had made no mention at all of this advice.So, apart from looking at a website, what "big steps" (her words) did the Minister take? Who - apart from a computer - gave her advice?
(full interview on TV3/Campbell Live website: sorry, I'm an embedding novice, feel free to do so) -
I suppose it's a bit of a lesson for what happens when you go out there and put your story and put what you, you know, perceive to be for everyone the full information that sometimes they do.
Sorry, wait, is that a sentence?
I think we need William Shatner in here to reinterpret it as a poem. (See here, in case you've been under a web-rock this morning.)
-
3410,
It was good journalism.
I wouldn't say that. Sainsbury never asked her for the legal justification for her action, and Campbell just let it drop when she said - surprise, surprise - that she "[didn't] have it in front of [her]."
Jolisa,
It was Snake River Canyon. :) -
3410,
Sorry, wait, is that a sentence?
In her defence, I'm sure you'd have trouble forming a coherent sentence after 5 minutes of talking to Mark Sainsbury... and such like.
-
(But Evel's son Robbie jumped the Grand Canyon, breaking his leg in the process! I did not know that.)
-
(See here, in case you've been under a web-rock this morning.)
Ha, I sure have been - that's grand
-
Sorry, wait, is that a sentence?
It has a verb. That's enough for me.
-
Providing confidential information in confidence to a journalist is leaking.
Shades of grey, but I disagree. If a staffer in a Labour government gives a journalist confidential information for a story then yeah, that's leaking - but I can't remember this ever happening with people's individual records. Happy to be corrected on this point if someone can link to a prior incident.
But if a press sec does the rounds of the gallery during a story and tells people off the record, 'yeah, the guy attacking us on issue X is angry at the government because of confidential reason Y but the privacy act prevents us from saying so in public', then are they leaking?
-
It was good journalism.
I wouldn't say that. Sainsbury never asked her for the legal justification for her action, and Campbell just let it drop.
I was talking about the news. Not the current affairs follow up.
-
if a press sec does the rounds of the gallery during a story and tells people off the record, 'yeah, the guy attacking us on issue X is angry at the government because of confidential reason Y but the privacy act prevents us from saying so in public', then are they leaking?
Yes. I don't see why a leak has to be for publication. Doing it publicly may be a bigger leak, or a more egregious breach of the Privacy Act, but that's a question of degree.
-
As was pointed out, Dalziel and the legal papers regarding the girl that was deported? For which resigned of course.
-
3410,
Shatner does Palin
Oh, God, I'm coughing my lungs up with laughter.
-
It was Snake River Canyon. :)
Gah - and it's Evel, not Evil. I stand (astride my throbbing stunt motorbike) corrected.
Actually, no, I'm scrabbling in the lingerie drawer for a new corset, having bust the old one watching Shatner do Palin. OMFG. Thank you Danielle!
-
I tried to look at the close-up video on-line, and cant get more than an introductory 12 seconds, so I'll just assume 3410's transcription is correct.
" I suppose it's a bit of a lesson for what happens when you go out there "
Well, it looks like I mis-remembered Paula's words, so I unhesitatingly withdraw my accusation of suggesting "teach them a lesson" passed her lips.
But really.... She released the info, she wasnt being vindictive, she didnt intend for them to be vilified by the public, and "I suppose it's a bit of a lesson for what happens"....
What exactly is the lesson?
That when you speak up, your private details will be released?
That when your private details are released, they will be commented on, possibly unflatteringly?It seems Ms Bennet is the one who should be taking lessons.
-
Given that journalists may only know of the practice from personal experience (having been confided in with personal information relating to a particular story) it may be difficult to find good example they could use with their obligations of confidence.
The failure to disclose that the information in a story has come from, say, a political party research unit, is a bugbear of mine. I think journalists should be much more wary of entering such confidences in the first place.
But if, say, (and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what happened) the Herald follow-up on Bruce Burgess had been sourced from the government, I wouldn't really have a problem with that.
The fact that Burgess and his wife owned two other properties and the fact that Burgess wouldn't have been a story had not Phil Goff touted him to the press are both relevant.
This case isn't like that. The women did not lie or withhold information about their circumstances, and they approached the minister in good faith about a policy change that harmed them. If the Opposition taking up a genuine grievance makes those bringing it fair game, I think we have a real problem.
-
Personally, I do think Bennett didn't have to go anywhere near as far as she did, and if she's found to have breeched the Privacy Act then I'd probably sack her. But pardon me if I find the Muldoon in drag analogies rather hard to take very seriously.
I'd've been surprised if you said otherwise Craig, I figure you to be reasonable and I can't see how Bennett's actions are justified. But I agree that's for Shroff to finally determine. Key is therefore in a difficult position having already indicated he's fine with her actions.
-
The fact that Burgess and his wife owned two other properties and the fact that Burgess wouldn't have been a story had not Phil Goff touted him to the press are both relevant.
Also that information is something any journalist could have got in about 5 minutes, from public sources.
A piece of paper saying "here is how much this person gets in benefits and why" you can't access publicly. Best you could do is make an estimate based on what you know about them.
-
As was pointed out, Dalziel and the legal papers regarding the girl that was deported? For which resigned of course.
She resigned for lying about it, not for the disclosure itself.
-
She resigned for lying about it, not for the disclosure itself.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Bennett gave two versions of the story yesterday: one to Parliament, and a different one to TV3.
-
I just love Bennett's justification that the information was released in order to "round out" the debate, as if she is some disinterested chairperson sitting above the partisan side-taking.
In fact the only reason she could have had for doing it was to bolster the argument that those whining women have enough money already and should just shut up already.
And then, having opened a big can of whup-ass on their privacy rights she now comes over all "You Go Girl!" with them.
Oh Paula...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.