Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: A GCSB Roundup, in reply to Chris Waugh,
But my WTF?! is two-fold: What is a US Embassy employee doing taking photos of Kim Dotcom at a select committee hearing? And why are we expected to believe he was there in a private capacity? … So would the US Embassy care to tell the truth, or at least come up with a more credible lie?
It’s not a lie. Sean is a freelance reporter and photojournalist. He won a 2010 QANTAS Award, and some photojournalist thing from the time he worked at The Aucklander(?) and has also previously worked as a media person for the Green Party. He’s currently a media person for the Embassy. I’m not sure how long his contract is.
I believe the mention in the story arises from a tweet I sent out during the hearing, where I thought it would be funny to mention that role when he was there taking photographs, which he was doing because he considered it was a good opportunity to get portfolio pics of a talking-head political scene. Stories with this sort of spice don’t come up often.
You can view some of his photography work here http://www.seangillespie.org/ and the Herald has a supermoon pic from him in their gallery here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/image.cfm?c_id=2&gal_cid=2&gallery_id=133713#11523822 (it’s the last one). Pretty sure that was in his own time too :-)
I’m pretty sure the Embassy hasn’t said anything about this at all, Claire Trevett asked him via Twitter. You can follow his exploits (and frequent photographs) here: @SeanDG, and you can even read his comments on Public Address – he goes by the username Sean Gillespie.
-
The talking part of the evening will be a racy debate
This wasn't how it was pitched :-)
-
Legal Beagle: MPs' Pay, in reply to linger,
better than the lower social classes
We’re talking about a system without class distinction where everyone earns the same no matter how much work they do or if they do any work at all – a completely flat income distribution – I think that change in incentives would make a pretty big difference for a lot of people.
Whether that would manifest as people playing X-box, or parents spending worthwhile time with their kids, or in other better or worse ways, I do think it would change a lot! And in ways that lowered the income of government achieved through taxation (although I assume it requires that there are no private companies?).
-
Legal Beagle: MPs' Pay, in reply to BenWilson,
they’d say that some difference between rich and poor should still exist as an incentive for … um….something.
To not sit at home on the xbox expecting others to work to put a roof over your head and earn the money to educate your children and pay your doctor's bills?
-
Hey! I won!
Well, a lot of it, anyway.
-
Up Front: An Open Letter to the Labour…, in reply to Hebe,
Another possibility is John Kelcher, who stood against Cosgrove in Waimak (costing Labour the seat), and who lives nearby.
You're going to need some pretty solid evidence to back up this claim. Why is it you believe Kelcher supporters would have gone over to Cosgrove if the Greens had stood someone else, or no-one at all? 11% of Green Party voters in Waimakariri voted for Kate Wilkinson, would some not have voted for someone else, or the National candidate, or not at all?
I'm not ruling out that you are right, but your implicit claim that the 1197 people who voted for John Kelcher rather than Clayton Cosgrove, knowing that their choice couldn't win, and knowing that Clayton Cosgrove might not win if they didn't support him, really wanted Clayton Cosgrove to be their MP that much more than they wanted Kate Wilkinson doesn't strike me as obviously true.
-
Up Front: An Open Letter to the Labour…, in reply to Hebe,
The jockeying by parties in boundary redraws is part of the process, though the commission obviously has the final say.
National and Labour have actual members on the Boundaries Commission.
-
Up Front: An Open Letter to the Labour…, in reply to Emma Hart,
The by-election will be on the old boundaries* ...
*I was told this in a pub.
I can confirm this.†
† is someone confirming it on the Internet really an advance on pub talk?
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Matthew Poole,
Not unreasonably, either, when it’s a matter that intersects with operation of statute law.
I thought it was blindingly obvious that the Speaker was referring to advice from the Office of the Clerk.
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Ianmac,
I don’t know how to find Hansard, but I think the Speaker might have used “legal advice” in his earlier comments yesterday, though thereafter he used just “advice” meaning I suppose “Jerry Advice.”
Yesterday's wasn't up in written form when I checked a few hours ago, but you can watch the video on inthehouse.