Nicky Hager

[Oscar]

It does not matter that it was accessible, when it is not supposed to be accessible and they knew they should not have been able to access it.

Best leave it a jury or judge then.

As innocent as John Banks.:tugger:

"Not supposed to be accessable"?
So you've seen the website in question and know exactly what happened then?

But you KNEW that it was wrong and now you're saying that it's best left to a Judge or Jury?
My comment stands then - if he's innocent until proven guilty, then the comment was slander.

[mada]

"Not supposed to be accessable"?
So you've seen the website in question and know exactly what happened then?

But you KNEW that it was wrong and now you're saying that it's best left to a Judge or Jury?
My comment stands then - if he's innocent until proven guilty, then the comment was slander.

I don't need to its all up on his blog..:face palm:

I'm sure we will be seeing everyone suing Hagar for slander too won't we??? :girlfight::girlfight:

[SPman]

Has anyone actually read the f**king book? :killingme

[puddytat]

I think the Nats are digging themselves a really big hole.......we'll be able to start throwing the first shovels of dirt on their grave on the 16th of September.

[MisterD]

It does not matter that it was accessible, when it is not supposed to be accessible and they knew they should not have been able to access it.

It was on the web. Google had indexed it, the word you're searching for to describe what Labour had done with their donor list is "published".

[buggerit]

I think the Nats are digging themselves a really big hole.......we'll be able to start throwing the first shovels of dirt on their grave on the 16th of September.

Best when you find yourself in a hole stop digging.

[pritch]

Has anyone actually read the f**king book? :killingme

Yes thanks. Sorta sad though that so many feel qualified to comment on a book they haven't read. Like f'rinstance the Prime Minister? :whistle:

[pritch]

Speaking of slander...
My understanding is that the Labour Party system wasn't hacked.
It was left open in error and the party had to apologise to those who had info on it.

Selective morality in full play here? :-)

It was accessible to be sure, but if you had left your door open and somebody walked in and took your wallet, is that not still theft? Or is that not theft in your book? :whistle:

The apology was for not looking after the information better.

Please don't confuse me with a partisan political supporter, I despise the whole fucking lot of them. But I do try to keep both eyes open.

[MisterD]

It was accessible to be sure, but if you had left your door open and somebody walked in and took your wallet, is that not still theft? Or is that not theft in your book? :whistle:


If you want to go with a wallet-based analogy, then the parallel would be me leaving it on a table by my front gate and someone having a look through, taking some photos of it and running around with them taking the piss out of me for my stupidity. No?

[pritch]

If you want to go with a wallet-based analogy, then the parallel would be me leaving it on a table by my front gate and someone having a look through, taking some photos of it and running around with them taking the piss out of me for my stupidity. No?

Not really.

[pete376403]

I'm really unsure what the significance of that letter is, given that it states that the PM was informed that Goof had already been informed, therefore the decision had already been made and not by the PM?

I see, amidst all the hoo-hah and attempting to find John Key's finger prints on this, it's now been realised that he was still on holiday in Hawaii, following a visit to the US.

Sure Key may have been in Hawaii on holiday but I can't believe that he wouldn't be getting at least one daily call keeping him advised of whats been happening. Taking a break from being PM is not quite the same as taking a break from a shop assistants job - he can't just walk away and hope the place keeps running in his absence. What the holiday gives Key is plausible deniability - pity no reporters actually asked him if he had had any calls from the PMs office while he was away

[Woodman]

I don't remember every email or memo or letter that crosses my desk, and you can bet JK gets a fuckload more.

[pete376403]

I don't remember every email or memo or letter that crosses my desk, and you can bet JK gets a fuckload more.

If you got a memo about putting a major competitor out of business - you'd probably remember that

[oldrider]

Sorta sad though that so many feel qualified to comment on a book they haven't read. Like f'rinstance the Prime Minister? :whistle:

Not half as sad as the fact that he had to write it in the first place and even sadder is the fact that there was material there for him to play with!

Thats what opposition is all about though ... things would get right out of hand without guys like him having nothing better to do with their time!

Besides that he probably has kids to feed and a wife to support ... there used to be a lot of that when I was a kid .. The TRUTH and The STANDARD etc!

They used to be some of the left wing whatchdogs of the day ... I used to have to run and buy them for my old man to salivate over FFS! .. It will pass. :wait:

[mashman]

If you got a memo about putting a major competitor out of business - you'd probably remember that

He'll be trained to forget those ;)

[oldrider]

Yep .... when all else fails say something ..... anything .............. and repeat repeat repeat .................. until the cows come home .... works every time! :corn:

[mashman]

Yep .... when all else fails say something ..... anything .............. and repeat repeat repeat .................. until the cows come home .... works every time! :corn:

You will vote for an R.B.E. at the next election... You will vote for an R.B.E. at the next election... You will vote for an R.B.E. at the next election... You will vote for an R.B.E. at the next election...

http://thebrewbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Brew-Buzz-351.gif

weeeeeeeell it's better than a hypnotic swirl of some form.

[Woodman]

He'll be trained to forget those ;)

It depends on who asks.

[Oscar]

Selective morality in full play here? :-)

It was accessible to be sure, but if you had left your door open and somebody walked in and took your wallet, is that not still theft? Or is that not theft in your book? :whistle:

The apology was for not looking after the information better.

Please don't confuse me with a partisan political supporter, I despise the whole fucking lot of them. But I do try to keep both eyes open.

There's lots of selective morality.
We're talking about a book that uses stolen emails to make accusations and innuendoes about, amongst other things, stolen emails.

[Oscar]

I seem to remember reading that the person who accessed the Labour party site expressed relief that he wasn't caught.

Sounds to me like he knew he shouldn't be doing it.

According to our medical friend, reading it would constitute recieving stolen goods.

[oldrider]

There's lots of selective morality.
We're talking about a book that uses stolen emails to make accusations and innuendoes about, amongst other things, stolen emails.

Good on yah Oscar ... our "unbiased" media conveniently overlook the fact that a crime has been committed here! :shifty:

[mashman]

It depends on who asks.

heh, if that's the case then they deserve to be out on their ear. Stick to the story, even if it's the missus, and you'll never go wrong.

[mashman]

There's lots of selective morality.
We're talking about a book that uses stolen emails to make accusations and innuendoes about, amongst other things, stolen emails.

There is no morality where the law is concerned... and given that being immoral means diddly to anyone, because the law says so, ya getz what ya payz fer.

[mashman]

Good on yah Oscar ... our "unbiased" media conveniently overlook the fact that a crime has been committed here! :shifty:

Hard, snigger, to overlook and no crime... as requested ;)

http://thebrewbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Brew-Buzz-351.gif

[Katman]

We're talking about a book that uses stolen emails to make accusations and innuendoes about, amongst other things, stolen emails.

Yeah nah, that argument doesn't wash with me.

If the government were in secret negotiations to sell the entire country (and all us citizens along with it) to the Chinese and that deal was exposed by stolen emails would you be questioning the morality of the emails being stolen?

[oldrider]

Shake shake shake .... OK Gordon .... yah got me ... all that "repeat" shaken goin on I'm convinced! ... see, it works! :corn:

[Oscar]

Yeah, that argument doesn't wash with me.

If the government were in secret negotiations to sell the entire country, and all us citizens along with it, to the Chinese and that deal was exposed by stolen emails would you be questioning the morality of emails being stolen?

But that isn't what we were discussing.
The issue was Whaleoil hacking the Labour Party website.

[yokel]

Yeah nah, that argument doesn't wash with me.

If the government were in secret negotiations to sell the entire country (and all us citizens along with it) to the Chinese and that deal was exposed by stolen emails would you be questioning the morality of the emails being stolen?

Stop using logic or you'll just start upsetting people

[Woodman]

Stop using logic or you'll just start upsetting people

Logic??? Using an extreme example to justify something minor. Thats not logic, its paranoia.

[oldrider]

Yeah nah, that argument doesn't wash with me.

If the government were in secret negotiations to sell the entire country (and all us citizens along with it) to the Chinese and that deal was exposed by stolen emails would you be questioning the morality of the emails being stolen?

Normally works like that in the NZ courts ... insubmissable evidence etc! Anyway thats a bit more substantial than this nit pickin shit by Hager!

All of them are just the same it's just that your left wing parties are desperate at the moment and the media have no other circusses to play with!

... It's passing already! :wait:

[Katman]

But that isn't what we were discussing.


You're right, what we seem to be discussing here is the integrity and morality of Nicky Hager.

The fact is though that the morality of Nicky Hager (and for that matter, the morality of Cameron Slater) is of little importance.

What matters is the morality and integrity of the government who formulate policy on our behalf.

[Katman]

Thats not logic, its paranoia.

No, it's using a hypothetical example to express a concept.

And the fact is that you're only aggrieved by the discussion because you're a National party supporter.

If it was Labour that was being exposed by a similar investigation you'd be all over it like a rash.

[mada]

But that isn't what we were discussing.
The issue was Whaleoil hacking the Labour Party website.

Actually I think that was just one smidgen of the discussion as that is only one of the issues at play. Just like the other issues such as Judith Collins leaking a public servants name, getting preferential treatment for OIA's and abuse of govt. power etc. you appear to see no wrong doing. Do you really think this shit is healthy for democracy? Don't give me the "everyone does it" bullshit, that's no excuse - and if it was every criminal would be able to get off in court because everyone else is stealing, thieving, raping etc.

Latest news from today is that your mate is being prosecuted by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings for breaching someone else's privacy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11312691

I'm sure you'll be able to point out how they are wrong.:tugger:

[Oscar]

I'm sure you'll be able to point out how they are wrong.:tugger:

Why would I bother arguing with an unpleasant arrogant fucker like you who is so sure that he's right?

[mada]

Why would I bother arguing with an unpleasant arrogant fucker like you who is so sure that he's right?

Classic, you think whaleoil is great. Everyone else who challenges what he does as unpleasant or scum. :tugger:

[Oscar]

Classic, you think whaleoil is great. Everyone else who challenges what he does as unpleasant or scum. :tugger:

I think Whaleoil is a nasty piece of shit actually.
But please, continue making up my opinions to suit yourself.

[Woodman]

No, it's using a hypothetical example to express a concept.

And the fact is that you're only aggrieved by the discussion because you're a National party supporter.

If it was Labour that was being exposed by a similar investigation you'd be all over it like a rash.

Not aggrieved at all. Try amused.

[Katman]

I think Whaleoil is a nasty piece of shit actually.


Me too.

So it makes me wonder about the sort of person who would form a close working relationship with him.

[Banditbandit]

You're right, what we seem to be discussing here is the integrity and morality of Nicky Hager.

The fact is though that the morality of Nicky Hager (and for that matter, the morality of Cameron Slater) is of little importance.

What matters is the morality and integrity of the government who formulate policy on our behalf.

Yes. Attacking Nicky Hagar is an avoidance strategy.

The basic question the book raises is: Do we want a Government that resorts to these sorts of tactics to get it's way, to stifle opponents, to reward mates and to get re-elected?

And don't tell me "they all do it' . If that's the case, then I want NONE of them in Government.

[yokel]

Not aggrieved at all. Try amused.

Male or female? I'm not sure?

[yokel]

Yes. Attacking Nicky Hagar is an avoidance strategy.

The basic question the book raises is: Do we want a Government that resorts to these sorts of tactics to get it's way, to stifle opponents, to reward mates and to get re-elected?

And don't tell me "they all do it' . If that's the case, then I want NONE of them in Government.

Yip, they all do it.
that's why I'm voting for no cunt

[Oscar]

Yip, they all do it.
that's why I'm voting for no cunt

Is he the Chinese candidate?

[yokel]

Is he the Chinese candidate?

Ha, I see what you did there.
Hey if I see "no cunt" on the party list then that will be getting my vote

[SPman]

Yes. Attacking Nicky Hagar is an avoidance strategy.

The basic question the book raises is: Do we want a Government that resorts to these sorts of tactics to get it's way, to stifle opponents, to reward mates and to get re-elected?

And don't tell me "they all do it' . If that's the case, then I want NONE of them in Government.
Of course, they don't "all do it", but, unfortunately, a section of them do do it, and to them, seems to have accreted the power and decision making in this (and other) countries!There are politicians on all sides of the spectrum, who docare about the place and would be appalled at this sort of behaviour....a pity they don't speak up a bit louder when they see it!

The only way to get rid of this toxic crap, is to investigate it, expose it, root it out. This is where investigative journalists are so important, and, like him or not, Hager is a brilliant, dogged, investigative journalist, easily of the calibre of people like Seymour Hersch, Greg Palast, etc.

To do this though, you do need a populace who are, at least to a moderate degree, politically and morally aware - this sort of sludge can only thrive and grow in an atmosphere of intimidation and secrecy (any wonder that as governments get more authoritarian, they get more secretive....)

To quote Thomas Jefferson

- Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.

- Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

- If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

[Woodman]

!There are politicians on all sides of the spectrum, who docare about the place and would be appalled at this sort of behaviour....[/I]

Just because they are a bit sneaky and use some questionable tactics, doesn't mean they don't give a fuck about the country.

Nicky Hager used questionable tactics to expose it, so by your reckoning, does he give a fuck ?or not give a fuck?

[yokel]

"what's good for the goose is good for the gander" I say

the blue team supporters are just shitting themselves that the red and green machine is getting some traction.
It's almost enough for me to vote just to keep loopy left out, but nah fuck the lot of them.

[Ocean1]

This is where investigative journalists are so important, and, like him or not, Hager is a brilliant, dogged, investigative journalist, easily of the calibre of people like Seymour Hersch, Greg Palast, etc.

So, you can dislike the targets of Hager's largely unverified smear campaign, and yet in publishing it the man himself is a journalist of calibre?

Hypocritical innit? Just slightly?

And for the record, Hager isn't a journalist, history shows him to be a radical socialist activist. I can see you're well taken with his every utterance, but that doesn't make him worth the shit off the heel of a proper trained, impartial journalist.

Whereas his political history and habit of publishing exclusively shit that just happens to fit his own political ends would tend to indicate pretty much anything he has to say should be regarded with suspicion at least, if not outright derision.

Really, dude, with such lopsided drivel you're approaching the same level of fiction. At least Hager makes it pay, what's your excuse?

[pritch]

Whaleoil is a nasty piece of shit.


And so say all of us.

Key is claiming that the current goings-on are a left wing smear campaign. Actually, it's a right wing smear campaign which blew up in his face. The plotters: Slater, Lusk, Collins, Ede, etc were all National Party. Karma can be a bitch.

Key describes Hager as left wing. I bet Helen Clarke didn't think Hager was left wing when he derailed Labour's election campaign with his book "Seeds of Discontent".
Hager could probably be fairly described as an investigative journalist, but we have had so few of those for so long now we may not recognise one when we see it.
Those who like to denigrate Hager might consider why, if what he prints is untrue, he has never been successfully sued. The fact is that, like him or not, he has been consistently on the money.

To his credit Hager was in possession of a lot of personal/family information about the people mentioned in his book. He did not use that.

National's plan to run a presidential style campaign relying heavily on Key could yet come unstuck. Be interesting to see what Glenn Greenwald is bringing with him from the USA. It's a long way to come with bugger all.

If I seem to be taking undue pleasure from the plight of National it isn't because I like Labour. I dislike them all, they piss me off continually for three years, at election time I get to watch some of them being pissed off. Pardon me if I enjoy it.

:corn:

[yokel]

So, you can dislike the targets of Hager's largely unverified smear campaign, and yet in publishing it the man himself is a journalist of calibre?

Hypocritical innit? Just slightly?

And for the record, Hager isn't a journalist, history shows him to be a radical socialist activist. I can see you're well taken with his every utterance, but that doesn't make him worth the shit off the heel of a proper trained, impartial journalist.

Whereas his political history and habit of publishing exclusively shit that just happens to fit his own political ends would tend to indicate pretty much anything he has to say should be regarded with suspicion at least, if not outright derision.

Really, dude, with such lopsided drivel you're approaching the same level of fiction. At least Hager makes it pay, what's your excuse?

Think I'll agree with you on that one Ocean1, Hager is a dirty rat like the rest of them.
the timing of the release of the book and labours lead up to when the book was released leaves a bit to be desired.

I was thinking before all this shit was "vote positive? is labour trying to loose this election?"

[Ocean1]

Key describes Hager as left wing. I bet Helen Clarke didn't think Hager was left wing when he derailed Labour's election campaign with his book "Seeds of Discontent".

I think Labour and National are indistinguishable from as far left as Hager is.

A radical green apprenticeship tends to do that.

[Winston001]

Ah so if you used a computer at an internet cafe and left your bank account details logged on - fair game.

Well yes but once I realise I'm looking at some strangers bank account, I would log out and not take screen shots or copy data.




Or if you leave your door open to your house and someone walks in = not burglary.

Yeh right.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM330430.html



Did Whaleoil Intentionally access it? Yes.
Did he have authorisation? No.
Did he know he did not have authorisation? Yes.


I don't think entering the Labour site was quite like that. It wasn't hacking - it was cracking, meaning going through an obscure door.

Its more like entering a large public building (school, library etc) and opening doors to look around. If a small door in a stairwell leads into offices with documents scattered around, you won't necessarily know you are in private areas. You could then take a few pics with your phone but not actually remove anything.

This would be unlawful however if the stair door had a big Staff Only sign on it.

[Winston001]

I think Whaleoil is a nasty piece of shit actually.


Actually I do too. In fact watching him talk on tv gives the impression he might have a degree of Aspergers. He's an odd fellow who does have mental health problems but intelligent and erudite.

Its just occurred to me I'd describe Nicky Hager much the same way.

[SPman]

Actually I do too. In fact watching him talk on tv gives the impression he might have a degree of Aspergers. He's an odd fellow who does have mental health problems but intelligent and erudite.

Its just occurred to me I'd describe Nicky Hager much the same way.
Hager does have a BSc in Physics and a BA (Hon) in Philosophy, for what it's worth.

[SPman]

And for the record, Hager isn't a journalist, history shows him to be a radical socialist activist. I can see you're well taken with his every utterance, but that doesn't make him worth the shit off the heel of a proper trained, impartial journalist.


So...to be a journalist, you have to go to Journalism school do you, and be trained in the proper, respectful way of writing about your betters and your elders, - what a crock of fucking shit!

Most investigative journalists of any worth have come into it from outside, bringing their particular skill sets, but, more importantly, their passion for what they are writing about and a desire to shine light on things people in power don't want light shone on! - eg Greg Palast - ex Forensic economist for the IMF who specialises in tracking down scams and corruption in high places.

A good journalist has a point of view, a purpose - this impartial bullshit spouted by all you mediocre arseholes who don't want to offend those whose arses you are trying to crawl up is just that - crap! Impartiality is the wail, the shreik,the excuse of those who don't want to engage, of those who are satisfied with a cosy story that doesn't offend their sensibilities! Impartial....Hitler.......don't see too many articles balancing his good points with the bad! Stalin! Pol Pot! Everything written about them is worthless because it isn't.....impartial! Watergate - oh dear, they weren't impartial enough so it's not worth the paper it was written on!

Where lives, morality and emotions come into play, impartiality is the universal blanket thrown over information to suppress and sideline it - particularly by fucking brain dead wankers of the left and right persuasion! What matters are the facts, the truth of a situation - you don't like it? Tough! Denigrate and attack the messenger as much as you like - it doesn't make you better, or them inferior!

...Hager's largely unverified smear campaign Are you on Key's payroll?

[mstriumph]

:calm: tea and biscuits anyone?

[SPman]

Just because they are a bit sneaky and use some questionable tactics, doesn't mean they don't give a fuck about the country.

Nicky Hager used questionable tactics to expose it, so by your reckoning, does he give a fuck ?or not give a fuck?Questionable tactics to expose it! Oh dear me diddums! So - he should have used the OIA to request his information, should he. And Keys, Collins and Blubberoil's tactics are less questionable, how? All they give a fuck about are their own egos - the country figures well down their list of priorities!

[Woodman]

Hitler has been mentioned............

[Ocean1]

Everything written about them is worthless because it isn't.....impartial! Watergate - oh dear, they weren't impartial enough so it's not worth the paper it was written on!


What makes you think they weren't impartial?

'Cause their "story" wouldn't have been worth a pinch of shit if they had a history of calling wolf as long and as partial to extreme left politics as Hager has.


Where lives, morality and emotions come into play, impartiality is the universal blanket thrown over information to suppress and sideline it - particularly by fucking brain dead wankers of the left and right persuasion! What matters are the facts, the truth of a situation - you don't like it? Tough! Denigrate and attack the messenger as much as you like - it doesn't make you better, or them inferior!

Truth doesn't give a shit whether you're talking lives, morality or fucking teapots, the accuracy inherent in any "report" from someone partial to the results of that publication should always be treated with scepticism in direct proportion to his personal interest in the results of his work.

And mate Hager's history is one of professional sabotage against any political entity he dislikes. He's demonstrably extremely interested in this particular outcome, the timing of the publication alone demonstrates that. His propositions and theories therefore can't be trusted as far as you could throw him. End of fucking story.

[Grumph]

What makes you think they weren't impartial?

'Cause their "story" wouldn't have been worth a pinch of shit if they had a history of calling wolf as long and as partial to extreme left politics as Hager has.



Truth doesn't give a shit whether you're talking lives, morality or fucking teapots, the accuracy inherent in any "report" from someone partial to the results of that publication should always be treated with scepticism in direct proportion to his personal interest in the results of his work.

And mate Hager's history is one of professional sabotage against any political entity he dislikes. He's demonstrably extremely interested in this particular outcome, the timing of the publication alone demonstrates that. His propositions and theories therefore can't be trusted as far as you could throw him. End of fucking story.

I've been watching this with great enjoyment....but your last para nearly made me fall off my chair laughing...if you can't trust hagars propositions just where in the trust spectrum does the current party in power come ? In my book, well below Hagar as he's up front in what he's doing....

[pritch]

And mate Hager's history is one of professional sabotage against any political entity he dislikes. He's demonstrably extremely interested in this particular outcome, the timing of the publication alone demonstrates that. His propositions and theories therefore can't be trusted as far as you could throw him. End of fucking story.

Two things: the timing of this book was done to maximise sales, and it would appear to have worked since a repirint was ordered about the same day it went on sale.

His "propositions and theories" can largely be assumed to be correct. If they weren't correct, the targets of them would have sued his arse. So far nobody has that I'm aware, certainly nobody has done so and won.

You may not like the messenger, but it's hard to deny his message. Even John Key hasn't tried that, he just keeps saying he hasn't read it. His office did though.:whistle:

[Oscar]

You may not like the messenger, but it's hard to deny his message. Even John Key hasn't tried that, he just keeps saying he hasn't read it. His office did though.:whistle:

Actually, if you use enough phrases like "may have" or "probably did", you can libel any politician you like.
They're not gonna have a crack at him during an election based on his innuendo.

[MisterD]

Two things: the timing of this book was done to maximise sales, and it would appear to have worked since a repirint was ordered about the same day it went on sale.

I bet the first run was pretty small to ensure they could run that spin.




His "propositions and theories" can largely be assumed to be correct. If they weren't correct, the targets of them would have sued his arse. So far nobody has that I'm aware, certainly nobody has done so and won.

We'll see what happens if he doesn't retract his slurs against Farrar. It seems quite clear to me that what might be a bit bigger than a molehill, has been blown up to mountainous proportions by Hager, but then that's the trick with conspiracy theorizing.

[Ocean1]

I've been watching this with great enjoyment....but your last para nearly made me fall off my chair laughing...if you can't trust hagars propositions just where in the trust spectrum does the current party in power come ? In my book, well below Hagar as he's up front in what he's doing....

Would I believe JK regarding fiscal policy outcomes from an given policy change? Not without looking at his track record in similar pervious claims.

A sceptic always discounts the likely accuracy of information depending on it's source. You'd be an idiot to believe a salesman at face value, for example, he's got a direct and immediate interest in his story. Many do though. People who unquestionably believe information because it agrees with their preconceptions and without genuine regard for the source of that information are simply seeking to reinforce their own beliefs. In doing so they've got little or no interest in the veracity of that information beyond the fact that it serves their own purpose.

It's very human behaviour, you could almost say we're hard wired for polarised opinions. It's absolutely correct to say that we all enjoy being told we're right in our beliefs and tend to look for holes in any information that we're wrong in our beliefs.

I try to be genuinely sceptical with any new information, if only because no other behaviour allows me to learn.

Now that I've read your book, for example, I'm better able to qualify your opinions regarding the current party in power...


Two things: the timing of this book was done to maximise sales, and it would appear to have worked since a repirint was ordered about the same day it went on sale.

His "propositions and theories" can largely be assumed to be correct. If they weren't correct, the targets of them would have sued his arse. So far nobody has that I'm aware, certainly nobody has done so and won.

You may not like the messenger, but it's hard to deny his message. Even John Key hasn't tried that, he just keeps saying he hasn't read it. His office did though.:whistle:

I do dislike the messenger. But that's because my experience of his behaviour indicates that his motives are not those consistent with reporting any unbiased view of events. Any rational observer could only view any of his "reports" as politically motivated, (in the negative sense of the word) which reveals him to be without question a hypocrite. I mean, really, revealing poor behaviour in intercepting another party's data by intercepting the target party's data?

Sorry, Ron, with a history of exactly that type of hypocrisy and heavily biased "reporting" behind him how can you take anything he says about politics seriously? In particular, how can you believe that the release of his latest commercial enterprise is anything other than politically motivated? It might not look like a weasel, (well, actually in this case it does bear a striking resemblance) but if it behaves like one who then fucking cares, if you treat it like one then you can't go far wrong.

[Katman]

A sceptic always discounts the likely accuracy of information depending on it's source. You'd be an idiot to believe a salesman at face value, for example, he's got a direct and immediate interest in his story. Many do though. People who unquestionably believe information because it agrees with their preconceptions and without genuine regard for the source of that information are simply seeking to reinforce their own beliefs. In doing so they've got little or no interest in the veracity of that information beyond the fact that it serves their own purpose.

It's very human behaviour, you could almost say we're hard wired for polarised opinions. It's absolutely correct to say that we all enjoy being told we're right in our beliefs and tend to look for holes in any information that we're wrong in our beliefs.

I try to be genuinely sceptical with any new information, if only because no other behaviour allows me to learn.


The greatest irony of this post is that you probably don't even recognise the irony that's just come out of your own gob.

[mashman]

A sceptic always discounts the likely accuracy of information depending on it's source.

What? 100%? A sceptic will judge for themselves, irrespective of the source. If you don't understand that, then you've misjudged an awful lot of people. None of your bullshit can convince me otherwise on that.



You'd be an idiot to believe a salesman at face value, for example, he's got a direct and immediate interest in his story. Many do though. People who unquestionably believe information because it agrees with their preconceptions and without genuine regard for the source of that information are simply seeking to reinforce their own beliefs. In doing so they've got little or no interest in the veracity of that information beyond the fact that it serves their own purpose.

You're not Cameron Slater are you?



It's very human behaviour, you could almost say we're hard wired for polarised opinions. It's absolutely correct to say that we all enjoy being told we're right in our beliefs and tend to look for holes in any information that we're wrong in our beliefs.

That may well be, but you can thank your gods of marketing and advertising for that one. People can change and are not limited to that which they currently hold true. I agree that some will read it and believe a lot of it. I haven't read it, but I believe a lot of it given the behaviour, internationally, of those who claim to represent me and the wider world. Their behaviour is fuckin abysmal. They are malevolent children at best. Their fighting is, well, inhuman.



I try to be genuinely sceptical with any new information, if only because no other behaviour allows me to learn.

:killingme... you can't be if you instantly discredit material based on its source. And ironically enough, taking such a position raises a rather serious bias, so much so, it's laughable and tragic at the same time.



I do dislike the messenger. But that's because my experience of his behaviour indicates.................

Your experience is not my experience and is not the experience of every other human being that is interested in what has been written. Seems a bit off the mark to consider that those who agree with the books' contents are suckers wouldn't you say?

Like, are you Cameron Slater?

[pritch]

Actually, if you use enough phrases like "may have" or "probably did", you can libel any politician you like.
They're not gonna have a crack at him during an election based on his innuendo.

My guess is that you didn't see those phrases in the book? Maybe you should actually read it?

[Grumph]

Now that I've read your book, for example, I'm better able to qualify your opinions regarding the current party in power..

Interesting - if and when i write one, I'll ensure you get a copy...

If you mean those opinions I have put forward here on KB, then sure I'm vehemently, maybe rabidly anti Tory....I grew up under a succession of tory governments and NEVER want to see that shit again. The only good thing about MMP is that we're highhly unlikely to ever see a totally Tory government again. But the current bunch of ministers have shown just how overconfident, not to mention promoted past their competency level, a second term Toryish government can be. Give them a second term and they immediately cry "mandate" and start acting like despots in their departments....And that's written from experience in Govt and quasi Govt departments.

Most of what has come out so far looks like people who should have known better thinking they could get away with actions which were highly questionable just because they were in government....

[Ocean1]

Interesting - if and when i write one, I'll ensure you get a copy...

If you mean those opinions I have put forward here on KB, then sure I'm vehemently, maybe rabidly anti Tory....I grew up under a succession of tory governments and NEVER want to see that shit again. The only good thing about MMP is that we're highhly unlikely to ever see a totally Tory government again. But the current bunch of ministers have shown just how overconfident, not to mention promoted past their competency level, a second term Toryish government can be. Give them a second term and they immediately cry "mandate" and start acting like despots in their departments....And that's written from experience in Govt and quasi Govt departments.

Most of what has come out so far looks like people who should have known better thinking they could get away with actions which were highly questionable just because they were in government....

When it comes to political parties I see only behaviour justified by dramatically polarised opinion. I don't, in general expect them to conform to my own ideas about how they should behave, because politicians long since stopped representing their constituents in the traditional sense and for many years have simply bought their votes wholesale.

I don't, in particular expect the front line troops of any such polarised, necessarily confrontational group to behave other than exactly that, combatants. It's nonsense to suggest that any one party behaves differently in that respect to any other, have you forgotten the very similar odour of the later Clarke govt?

It's fine that you don't like your picture of Tory politics, I probably wouldn't either, was it mine. And your use of the Tory label alone hints at the shape of your own picture. But you must be aware that your picture is quite different to others', and that as a rationalising human your picture is no more likely to be accurate than anyone else's.

Which was all I was saying, really, all of us have a picture that's less than perfect, and we always interpret information in ways that conform to our picture. So having established years ago that Hager's own picture is one of the extreme political left and that he expresses that picture in almost exclusively anti-right terms I can't see any reason to attribute any more credibility to him than I would any other obviously political activist. Including those of the right.

Of which I'm not a member, by the way. :laugh:

[Littleman]

Spman: Hager does have a BSc in Physics and a BA (Hon) in Philosophy, for what it's worth.

Spman: So...to be a journalist, you have to go to Journalism school do you, and be trained in the proper, respectful way of writing about your betters and your elders, - what a crock of fucking shit!

You.
Are.
Retarded.

[mashman]

Spman: Hager does have a BSc in Physics and a BA (Hon) in Philosophy, for what it's worth.

Spman: So...to be a journalist, you have to go to Journalism school do you, and be trained in the proper, respectful way of writing about your betters and your elders, - what a crock of fucking shit!

You.
Are.
Retarded.


Pot... Kettle... Artichoke.

[Robert Taylor]

Spman: Hager does have a BSc in Physics and a BA (Hon) in Philosophy, for what it's worth.

Spman: So...to be a journalist, you have to go to Journalism school do you, and be trained in the proper, respectful way of writing about your betters and your elders, - what a crock of fucking shit!

You.
Are.
Retarded.

It doesn't matter what qualifications he got at communist finishing school, he is only useful for low quality dogfood.

[mashman]

It doesn't matter what qualifications he got at communist finishing school, he is only useful for low quality dogfood.

Yeah, but what about the information imparted?

[Robert Taylor]

So who is this mystery hacker? Why doesn't he have the intestinal fortitude to disclose who he is and his political affiliations? ( Similar scenario to snipers on forums hiding behind their forum names ) And why when clearly EVERY political party has dirt has the National party and its leader ONLY been targeted and very close to the election? The answers are obvious.
With this going on and also the actions of that obese and obnoxious Hun we could be headed towards a ''Government'' composed of a motley grouping of left wing and racist agenda parties devoid of any sense of fiscal responsibility. That will clearly show just how stupid we can be.

[dinosaur]

......why when clearly EVERY political party has dirt has the National party and its leader ONLY been targeted and very close to the election? The answers are obvious.
With this going on and also the actions of that obese and obnoxious Hun we could be headed towards a ''Government'' composed of a motley grouping of left wing and racist agenda parties devoid of any sense of fiscal responsibility. That will clearly show just how stupid we can be.

"don't panic Mr Taylor .... don't panic" lol i don't think labour have a shit show
dude I didn't realize you were so Right leaning - if people bothered to look at the authors history you find he attacks the then government, he doesn't hide the fact he's left leaning, however his previous books have attacked the government of the day - left and right governments, not the opposition parties
He believes in holding them to account in their standards - no matter what side of the middle ground they are
I don't believe for a minute labour is clean or above all this

Robert: if you had an employee who sat around most of the time gossiping, upsetting people, emailing their mates and passing on info to them .... going to china for dinner with their partners mates ..... rather than doing the job you employed them for, you'd sack them
Question is; what do we pay their salaries for? not for all this bullshit they're up to

Message for politicians; get on and do the job of the government and stop spending so much time and resources on all this negative bullshit

[pritch]

dude I didn't realize you were so Right leaning

Golly! That is what he is famous for, second only to the quality of his suspension work of course.

If Maggie Thatcher was alive he'd be following her on Twitter. :whistle:

[Ocean1]

Golly! That is what he is famous for, second only to the quality of his suspension work of course.

Now, I wonder what the correlation is between one's political leanings and the quality of one's work... :shifty:

[pritch]

Now, I wonder what the correlation is between one's political leanings and the quality of one's work... :shifty:

Probably none but then there's this:


While working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbours stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.
During our friendly conversation, I asked their 12 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be Prime Minister someday.
Both of her parents who are Labour supporters were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed with pride!
"Wow! what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that!" I told her.
"What do you mean?" she replied.
So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the National Party."
Her parents aren't speaking to me, anymore.

[Banditbandit]

When it comes to political parties I see only behaviour justified by dramatically polarised opinion. I don't, in general expect them to conform to my own ideas about how they should behave, because politicians long since stopped representing their constituents in the traditional sense and for many years have simply bought their votes wholesale.

I don't, in particular expect the front line troops of any such polarised, necessarily confrontational group to behave other than exactly that, combatants. It's nonsense to suggest that any one party behaves differently in that respect to any other, have you forgotten the very similar odour of the later Clarke govt?

It's fine that you don't like your picture of Tory politics, I probably wouldn't either, was it mine. And your use of the Tory label alone hints at the shape of your own picture. But you must be aware that your picture is quite different to others', and that as a rationalising human your picture is no more likely to be accurate than anyone else's.

Which was all I was saying, really, all of us have a picture that's less than perfect, and we always interpret information in ways that conform to our picture. So having established years ago that Hager's own picture is one of the extreme political left and that he expresses that picture in almost exclusively anti-right terms I can't see any reason to attribute any more credibility to him than I would any other obviously political activist. Including those of the right.

Of which I'm not a member, by the way. :laugh:

"You must spread ..." .. all too true ..

[Banditbandit]

Golly! That is what he is famous for, second only to the quality of his suspension work of course.

If Maggie Thatcher was alive he'd be following her on Twitter. :whistle:


Naaaa .. Maggie was a little too liberal for our Robert ..


Now, I wonder what the correlation is between one's political leanings and the quality of one's work... :shifty:

See your own previous post - that would depend on which picture of the world they are being judged against would it not?

[R650R]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11313962

[mashman]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11313962

Sounds like a great bloke.

[Ocean1]

See your own previous post - that would depend on which picture of the world they are being judged against would it not?

It would certainly colour their opinion regarding their performance, but why bother asking their opinion?

It's not difficult to quantify in actual numbers, gross income would be a close indicator.

[Banditbandit]

It would certainly colour their opinion regarding their performance, but why bother asking their opinion?

It's not difficult to quantify in actual numbers, gross income would be a close indicator.

:killingme :clap: :rofl:

Gross Income is only a measure of performance in some worlds ... in a Marxist one gross income is an indicator of the lack of work of a capitalist overlord .. not an indicator of productivity. In a capitalist world it certainly is a measure of productivity - the capital being the productive force, not the labour of the owner of the capital ...

[Ocean1]

Gross Income is only a measure of performance in some worlds ...

In a free market it's a perfect measure of performance. Which, unfortunately, we don't have.


in a Marxist one gross income is an indicator of the lack of work of a capitalist overlord .. not an indicator of productivity. In a capitalist world it certainly is a measure of productivity - the capital being the productive force, not the labour of the owner of the capital ...

Yeah? Who provided the capital in the first place?

Or are you one of the moronic left who can't quite work out how those rich pricks got so rich but it's something to do with capital, so that's bad?

[Banditbandit]

In a free market it's a perfect measure of performance. Which, unfortunately, we don't have.


NO we don't despite the claims to the contrary .. I'm not sure that you would really like a true free market ...


Yeah? Who provided the capital in the first place?

Or are you one of the moronic left who can't quite work out how those rich pricks got so rich but it's something to do with capital, so that's bad?

No, but see, and this is my point, there are many ways of seeing the world .. I have a pretty radical left version .. which is not as naïve and moronic as you seem to think. I don't belong to any of the radical left groups because they are naïve and moronic ..

I am not against Capital as such .. but a capitalist system such as we have exploties people and removes their humanity, treating them as functions within an economic system ...

We are human beings, not just workers, or beneficiaries, or taxpayers or consumers .. those are all positions within the economic system, positioned in relation to monetary functions ..

[Ocean1]

NO we don't despite the claims to the contrary .. I'm not sure that you would really like a true free market ...

Where everyone got what they paid for and paid for what they got?

Pretty sure I'd like that just fine.


I am not against Capital as such .. but a capitalist system such as we have exploties people and removes their humanity, treating them as functions within an economic system ...

Codswallop. An economic system doesn't "treat" people like anything, it's not a sentient entity. A capitalist economic system rewards productive performance more consistently than other systems, it's there for you to exploit, it doesn't work the other way around.

If you see the failure of the system to reward those that don't perform as exploitative then all I can say is tough shit, it's the highest performing economic system for everyone, including to poor. Expecting everyone else to forgo the opportunities it represents so that you can feel less inadequate is just a little bit selfish ain't it?


We are human beings, not just workers, or beneficiaries, or taxpayers or consumers .. those are all positions within the economic system, positioned in relation to monetary functions ..

Fine, you're human, act like one. That means using the tools at hand to improve your lot. If you're failing to make that work with the superb economic tools available today then I'm not surprised if you feel a bit less than human.

[mashman]

HELL NO

http://media.giphy.com/media/fy7Du6o8HHPEI/giphy.gif

[Swoop]

Hey if I see "no cunt" on the party list then that will be getting my vote
There's an Asian guy on the Act billboards, so perhaps that's him!;)

Also, speaking of their billboards... After Nigel Latter's programme last night they had better rethink their "Tough on crime" motto/stance.

[Banditbandit]

Where everyone got what they paid for and paid for what they got?

Pretty sure I'd like that just fine.



Codswallop. An economic system doesn't "treat" people like anything, it's not a sentient entity. A capitalist economic system rewards productive performance more consistently than other systems, it's there for you to exploit, it doesn't work the other way around.

If you see the failure of the system to reward those that don't perform as exploitative then all I can say is tough shit, it's the highest performing economic system for everyone, including to poor. Expecting everyone else to forgo the opportunities it represents so that you can feel less inadequate is just a little bit selfish ain't it?



Fine, you're human, act like one. That means using the tools at hand to improve your lot. If you're failing to make that work with the superb economic tools available today then I'm not surprised if you feel a bit less than human.

Fuck - this was not about me - but you made it so with your bullshit assumptions .. I do happen to earn (as I keep pointing out) in the top tax bracket and pay top tax rates .. How does that indicate I have failed to use the economic tools or how does that indicate I feel a bit less than human?

Don't go jumping to your bullshit conclusions ..

[puddytat]

Nicky Hagar should get some kind of award for what he's brought forth. Yet there are those fuckwits among us who think he is somehow on the same level as the main characters in this fiasco ,who are only involved to better their own ends.
Whereas, he is doing this for the sake of our country.
If you don't think so, then look at those other countries where corruption is rife, endemic & the norm in politics & business....Imagine how more fucked up this country would be if we let that kind shit become the norm.

Don't let it happen New Zealand.:nono:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/01/the-depth-of-the-national-rot-and-the-compliance-of-our-news-media/

[Ocean1]

Fine, you're human, act like one. That means using the tools at hand to improve your lot. If you're failing to make that work with the superb economic tools available today then I'm not surprised if you feel a bit less than human.


Fuck - this was not about me - but you made it so with your bullshit assumptions .. I do happen to earn (as I keep pointing out) in the top tax bracket and pay top tax rates .. How does that indicate I have failed to use the economic tools or how does that indicate I feel a bit less than human?

Don't go jumping to your bullshit conclusions ..

No conclusion required:


a capitalist system such as we have exploties people and removes their humanity, treating them as functions within an economic system ...

So you're tolerably well off. Congratulations. Wasn't that difficult, was it?

So why do you feel the need to bleat about the "system" treating people inhumanely? Anyone that wants to succeed can do so more easily now than at any time in our history, and yet all I ever hear is how the "system" is to blame for people's failure.

There's no end to the quantity of wrong attached to that particular piece of bullshit.

[mashman]

http://www.ravepubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/00243_00122.jpg

[mashman]

Jennifer Lawrence Responds To Leaked Nude Photos (https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/jennifer-lawrence-responds-to-leaked-photos-96341586631.html)

"The 24-year-old ‘Hunger Games’ star, whose personal information appears to have been hacked from iCloud and then published online via the image-posting messageboard 4chan, issued the following statement through a spokesperson:

“This is a flagrant violation of privacy. The authorities have been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos of Jennifer Lawrence.”"

Some people take their privacy way too seriously.

[MisterD]

Whereas, he is doing this for the sake of our country.

Bullshit. He's doing it for the sake of how he thinks the country should be, which is exactly what Slater is doing, holding Phil Goff to account for his lies.

Hager has taken selective bits and pieces and stitched them together to spin the story he wants to spin. If he'd wanted to do a proper investigative job on attack politics, he'd have included stuff with the various Labour factions trying to discredit each other, I'd love to know what the ABC club were leaking to Slater..

[SPman]

,.. I'd love to know what the ABC club were leaking to Slater.. Interesting.......hadn't thought of that side of things...national lite are bound to have some dirt in there.......

[scott411]

Nicky Hagar should get some kind of award for what he's brought forth. Yet there are those fuckwits among us who think he is somehow on the same level as the main characters in this fiasco ,who are only involved to better their own ends.
Whereas, he is doing this for the sake of our country.
If you don't think so, then look at those other countries where corruption is rife, endemic & the norm in politics & business....Imagine how more fucked up this country would be if we let that kind shit become the norm.

Don't let it happen New Zealand.:nono:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/01/the-depth-of-the-national-rot-and-the-compliance-of-our-news-media/

Bullshit, he did it for money and fame the same as slater does it,

[oldrider]

Bullshit, he did it for money and fame the same as slater does it,

Yep it's what they do FFS! :yes:

[dinosaur]

Bullshit, he did it for money and fame the same as slater does it,

You're just shit stirring right? I would never put him in the same category as Slater slime ball :facepalm:
I don't agree with everything in the book, and we all know from his past political life that he is left leaning liberal - which I am not
But he has never been sued or found to be wrong yet - after a bunch of investigative books

I bet most people spouting off about him had never even heard of him prior to this book! Have you ever read one of his books, do you know what he does for a living, do you know what his last book was, what about the book prior to that?
people have a habit of shooting the messenger, basing your intel on a 'feeling' you have :sleep:

He earns more from his lecturing at Uni (considered Australasia's foremost expert on Journalism) than his books
He has degrees in both physics and philosophy - but of course some people dismiss that because they like to bash tall poppies and educated people so they feel better about them-self, and he does look a bit weird in a David Bane kind of way ......... obviousley something wrong with him based that alone ....right :weird:
Considered by the European Parliament as the worlds leading expert on the ECHELON worldwide electronic spy network
Endorsed by former New Zealand Prime Ministers, including David Lange and Jim Bolger

look up;
The Center for Public Integrity (CPI)
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
He has and is accepted as having integrity beyond most journalists in the country - but of course to the TV educated you will believe everything the media feeds your underdeveloped brains

Un like most of our jouno's he does not have to come up with stories daily, he is not working in an office where they are understaffed and put to a deadline; resulting in them becoming puppets of bloggers and politicians instead of taking the time to investigate facts and being independent

[Banditbandit]

So you're tolerably well off. Congratulations. Wasn't that difficult, was it?

No - in fact I just wanted to be a drop out - but people keep offering me well-paid jobs ...


So why do you feel the need to bleat about the "system" treating people inhumanely?

Because I have a social conscience pea?



Anyone that wants to succeed can do so more easily now than at any time in our history, and yet all I ever hear is how the "system" is to blame for people's failure.

No - I disagree - it is harder now - especially as people have to pay their own tertiary education fees. Wasn't like that when I first went to tertiary education.

We have also made it harder by fetishizing qualifications, so now jobs people would have got, and done very well at, with no quals, now need a certificate. Jobs that once needed a certificate now need a diploma and jobs that once needed a diploma now need a degee. (And people who would have got those jobs in the past, especially the no-quals jobs, and done them very well are struggling to sit in classrooms and pass - and if they don't pass they don't get the jobs they would be very good at - so they sit on the dole .. The system, at that level, just kee3ps some teachers in jobs .. and achieves bugger all else .. )

There are inequities built into our system ... I am not sure if it is possible to have a system that is free of inequities - but they do exist in our system.

Now, I don't blame ALL failures on the system - people are just people and some fuck up and some make bad choice and some are lazy ... I agree with al that - but there are also inequities inherent in any system.

[Oscar]

Un like most of our jouno's he does not have to come up with stories daily, he is not working in an office where they are understaffed and put to a deadline; resulting in them becoming puppets of bloggers and politicians instead of taking the time to investigate facts and being independent

So printing innuendo and conjecture using stolen emails is investigation now, is it?

[Banditbandit]

So printing innuendo and conjecture using stolen emails is investigation now, is it?

It always has been - go back and read what Woodward and Bernstein did to remove an 'merikan president ... lying, cheating and stealing ..

As I used to teach my journalism students - "what are YOU prepared to do to get the story?"

Now - I'm not longer prepared to do al that crap to "get the story" ... so I no longer work in the industry (haven't for more than 20 years ) ..

[dinosaur]

So printing innuendo and conjecture using stolen emails is investigation now, is it?

You didn't read the book did you :second:
That's just what you've heard on TV




I caught my ex cheating - hacked her emails and checked her phone, bloody glad I did. Not a good way to do things but sometimes when surrounded by this level of coruption and dirty shit - the cause justified the means

[Banditbandit]

You didn't read the book did you :second:
That's just what you've heard on TV




If you have few expectations of people here, then you will not be disappointed ..

[Oscar]

You didn't read the book did you :second:
That's just what you've heard on TV




I caught my ex cheating - hacked her emails and checked her phone, bloody glad I did. Not a good way to do things but sometimes when surrounded by this level of coruption and dirty shit - the cause justified the means


After I read Gordon Campbell's review, I would no more buy that book than I would bother looking at Whaleoil.
Campbell is a big fan of the book and Hager, yet in this paragraph he has to modifiy his statements six times to avoid libel.


One’s level of tolerance for this sort of thing will vary from reader to reader, but on the evidence presented by Hager, Key’s press officer Jason Ede played some part in the hacking and/or use of material hacked from the Labour Party’s computer system in election year 2011. On a regular basis, it also seems that Ede would contact Slater when an OIA request was about to be released to the media or to the Opposition parties; allegedly, Ede would invite Slater to lodge a request for the same information and then release it to Slater first, so that Slater could help to nullify the story. On another occasion, Ede allegedly primed Slater to request certain SIS secret documents, which were then speedily de-classified on the understanding that Slater would use them to humiliate Labour leader Phil Goff. Ede may also have assisted Slater with the framing of OIA requests in order to enable Slater to attack MFAT staff who were opposed to Foreign Minister Murray McCully’s programme of reforms at the Ministry. And so on.

Campbell then tried to justify the use of stolen emails as "whistle blowing", he says:


The motive is to disinfect politics, and to better inform the public about the nature of those people standing for re-election to higher office.

This is very noble on the face of it, but when put in context (five minutes before an election) it is also very cynical.

[dinosaur]

This is very noble on the face of it, but when put in context (five minutes before an election) it is also very cynical.

I agree - that does let the side down somewhat
Iwould've preferred to get rid of Collins a lot earlier

[Ocean1]

No - I disagree - it is harder now - especially as people have to pay their own tertiary education fees. Wasn't like that when I first went to tertiary education.

We have also made it harder by fetishizing qualifications, so now jobs people would have got, and done very well at, with no quals, now need a certificate. Jobs that once needed a certificate now need a diploma and jobs that once needed a diploma now need a degee. (And people who would have got those jobs in the past, especially the no-quals jobs, and done them very well are struggling to sit in classrooms and pass - and if they don't pass they don't get the jobs they would be very good at - so they sit on the dole .. The system, at that level, just kee3ps some teachers in jobs .. and achieves bugger all else .. )

There are inequities built into our system ... I am not sure if it is possible to have a system that is free of inequities - but they do exist in our system.

Now, I don't blame ALL failures on the system - people are just people and some fuck up and some make bad choice and some are lazy ... I agree with al that - but there are also inequities inherent in any system.

OK. The reason tertiary education is no longer "free" is that it resulted in a large number of people qualified to do no job anyone particularly wanted done. Yes yes the world needs art history experts, but half a dozen is about it, not fucking hundreds of new ones every year who's only hope of gainful employment is making more of the same.

Fuck that.


And if you can see that it now takes an order of magnitude higher qualification to gain entry to a particular job then why can't you see that it's because the qualifications in question produce applicants an order of magnitude less capable of doing that job. What they've been taught has been significantly depreciated by tertiary institutions providing as little as possible for the fees they're paid. If you doubt that try putting exams from 30 years ago in front of modern graduates.


Inequities. Yup, there'll always be some. But as long as you address most of the inequities of opportunity and as long as you restrain yourself from fucking with so called inequities of outcome then you'll be as close to "fair" as it's possible to be.

What threatens that currently is unprincipled vote buying aimed solely at gaining power by giving the lowest 51% producing citizens more than they earn by taking it off the 49% highest producing citizens.

And you know what? In spite of the huge disincentive for citizens to bother producing much that imposes the most productive will still be the most productive. Change the rules all you like, "equify" outcomes as much as you like, and those that overachieve will continue to do just that, and those that can't be fucked will still be "disadvantaged".

[oldrider]

Anything "free" simply means that someone else is paying for it, in our case, the taxpayers!

Why should people be robbed at gun point and made to pay for something that "They" don't want and will never use or participate in anyway!

Enter ... "user pays" ... let those who want it ... pay for it!

Many professional service providers took the free education and then charged those who covered the cost through tax ... through the bloody nose for their service!

Simplistic but that was the way the Labour government that brought in "user pays" explained it at the time! :yes:

[mashman]

:corn: ...........

[Banditbandit]

:killingme I think we disagree less than we both think we do ...


OK. The reason tertiary education is no longer "free" is that it resulted in a large number of people qualified to do no job anyone particularly wanted done. Yes yes the world needs art history experts, but half a dozen is about it, not fucking hundreds of new ones every year who's only hope of gainful employment is making more of the same.

Fuck that.

Yeah - I can't disagree with that - and the six art historians would all be members of the British Royal Family or their retired soviet spies!!! there are certainly a lot of people qualified in garbage (my Bachelors degree is in Religious Studies ... I could probably be one of them ...)

But I also think that education is a social good ... yes there are personal benefits, but much greater social benefits .. and while it may never be possible to provide completely free education loading graduates with huge debt BEFORE they even start work makes an impossible situation ...

And the fact that they do not pay it back indicates that it is effectively free anyway and the loan is simply an accounting exercise.



And if you can see that it now takes an order of magnitude higher qualification to gain entry to a particular job then why can't you see that it's because the qualifications in question produce applicants an order of magnitude less capable of doing that job. What they've been taught has been significantly depreciated by tertiary institutions providing as little as possible for the fees they're paid. If you doubt that try putting exams from 30 years ago in front of modern graduates.

Hmm - I certainly put in front of my students exams similar to ones of thirty years ago ... I'm not convinced that standards have dropped - that's the complaint of every generation abo the next generation - our parents certainly said it about our generation ... (tho' I was stunned and dismayed to be told yesterday that some students entering a post-graduate programme could not write properly, let alone write well ... How the fuck did they graduate at bachelors level let alone get accepted into post-grad!!! Strong words were said and action wil be taken ...) ... fuck knows .. maybe you're right ... (I really hope not or we're all fucked ...)



Inequities. Yup, there'll always be some. But as long as you address most of the inequities of opportunity and as long as you restrain yourself from fucking with so called inequities of outcome then you'll be as close to "fair" as it's possible to be.

Yeah - I get that - I'm interested in equities of opportunity - there is no such thing as equities of outcomes - that's up to people's individual choice .. you can lead a horse .. etc ... as long as there is water there, then the horse can do what it likes .. and accept the consequences ..


What threatens that currently is unprincipled vote buying aimed solely at gaining power by giving the lowest 51% producing citizens more than they earn by taking it off the 49% highest producing citizens.


Hmmm .. I am certainly in favour of having a safety net to assist people who need it - and I'm especially concerned about the effect of poverty on the children of the poor ... I do not see anything wrong with a little income redistribution to help that ... But I don't see benefits as a lifestyle, except for the old ...


And you know what? In spite of the huge disincentive for citizens to bother producing much that imposes the most productive will still be the most productive. Change the rules all you like, "equify" outcomes as much as you like, and those that overachieve will continue to do just that, and those that can't be fucked will still be "disadvantaged".

I don't accept equities of outcomes as anything real - I'm with you - I will not accept that argument .. and yes, there will always be high achievers and underachievers (I'm probably more in the latter than the former .. but then I don't see that sort of achievement as worthwhile - no critique of others - I'd just rather be a drop out and go fishing - but I need to work to pay for the boat and the fuel and the bikes .. hookers (sorry, high maintenance women ...) )

People HAVE to have the freedom to choose .. and the opportunity to put their choices into practise (except bludging - no excuse for bludging .... that's not a valid choice ...)

[dinosaur]

Inequities. Yup, there'll always be some. But as long as you address most of the inequities of opportunity and as long as you restrain yourself from fucking with so called inequities of outcome then you'll be as close to "fair" as it's possible to be.

What threatens that currently is unprincipled vote buying aimed solely at gaining power by giving the lowest 51% producing citizens more than they earn by taking it off the 49% highest producing citizens.



:killingme I think we disagree less than we both think we do ...
I'm especially concerned about the effect of poverty on the children of the poor ... I do not see anything wrong with a little income redistribution to help that ... But I don't see benefits as a lifestyle, except for the old ...
People HAVE to have the freedom to choose .. and the opportunity to put their choices into practise (except bludging - no excuse for bludging .... that's not a valid choice ...)
So you're both voting NZ First this election?

[Banditbandit]

So you're both be voting NZ First this election?

As much chance of that as a snowball in hell ...

[MisterD]

I'm especially concerned about the effect of poverty on the children of the poor ...

I'm an Evil Right Winger (because that's by definition, right?) and I'm concerned about children growing up in poverty. However, before we start to argue about what the government should, or shouldn't do to fix the assumed problem, we need to be able to measure it. Otherwise, how do we know if what we're trying, is working?

[Banditbandit]

I'm an Evil Right Winger (because that's by definition, right?)

No. I would not attribute any level of "evil" to a point of view ... good or evil is not for me to judge ...


and I'm concerned about children growing up in poverty. However, before we start to argue about what the government should, or shouldn't do to fix the assumed problem, we need to be able to measure it. Otherwise, how do we know if what we're trying, is working?

No - that's a sidestep and an avoidance technique ...

We know there are children going to school hungry and therefore not that well equipped to learn .. we know there are children who are not getting proper health care because their parents can't afford it (and there are parents who fuck up and won't spend the money on anything but drugs and alcohol). We know there are children growing up in substandard housing, cold, damp ...

Why do we need to "quantify" that before we act?

his is not the children's fault .. they all deserve to grow up fed, clothed and housed .. we will know what we try is working because all those things will reduce - there will be fewer children at school hungry, fewer living ion cold and damp houses and fewer with health issue.

[MisterD]

Why do we need to "quantify" that before we act?

Child poverty is no different from anything else you want to change the amount of, if you can't measure it, how the hell do you know if what you're trying is working?

Poverty in this country is defined as below 60% of the median wage, so if I make a lot of middle class people a lot worse off, I've solved "child poverty" and made no a blind bit of difference to any child currently arriving at school hungry.

Do we put up the dole? Which makes jobs less attractive. Do we create a tax-free earnings threshold to boost low-wage take home pay, which makes getting a job more attractive. Do we provide free shoes to kids that qualify? What are the qualifications?

There's far to much "We must do something, this is something therefore we must do it" in this country already. It's practically the Green Party manifesto, apart from the bits which are "Our policy is to have nice stuff"...I digress.

[oldrider]

Why do we need to "quantify" that before we act?

Because that what gets "measured" gets "done"! :niceone:

[Banditbandit]

Child poverty is no different from anything else you want to change the amount of, if you can't measure it, how the hell do you know if what you're trying is working?

No .. I don't quite buy that ... we went to the moon without measuring it in that way - we knew we got there when we got there ... I'm no disagreeing with you because I don't get your position enough to understand it to disagree with it ..


Poverty in this country is defined as below 60% of the median wage, so if I make a lot of middle class people a lot worse off, I've solved "child poverty" and made no a blind bit of difference to any child currently arriving at school hungry.

Yeah .. but naaa .. I don't agree with that definition of "poverty" .. it's a middle class bullshit definition ..

If the point is to make it so that every child goes to school fed, then we will know when we have succeeded because NO chld will arrive at class hungry .. do we need to know how many hungry children there are now or do we need to know when there are NO MORE hungry children ...


Do we put up the dole? Which makes jobs less attractive. Do we create a tax-free earnings threshold to boost low-wage take home pay, which makes getting a job more attractive.

Those are all aimed at the parents - NOT the children. It's only a hope that such measures mean children get feed and live in warm dry houses ... and I would have to admit that would mean some parents have more money for drugs and alcohol and the children would nto get fed.



Do we provide free shoes to kids that qualify? What are the qualifications?

This one is aimed at the children ... but putting shoes on their feet won't feed them .. The qualification? Turn up to school often enough without being fed ..


There's far to much "We must do something, this is something therefore we must do it" in this country already. It's practically the Green Party manifesto, apart from the bits which are "Our policy is to have nice stuff"...I digress.

I get where you are coming from - but you are wrong. Quantification is a typical right-wing demand and an active avoidance strategy ...



Because that what gets "measured" gets "done"! :niceone:


I can measure the size of any man's dick ... how does that get anything done (and by word of avoiding an apology, that comment is not an attack on anyone or their dick ...)

[oldrider]

I can measure the size of any man's dick ... how does that get anything done (and by word of avoiding an apology, that comment is not an attack on anyone or their dick ...)

75 years of life history suggests to me that if you get to doing the measuring ... it's gonna get done! :buggerd: But hey ... your secret is safe with me! :lol:

[MisterD]

If the point is to make it so that every child goes to school fed, then we will know when we have succeeded because NO chld will arrive at class hungry .. do we need to know how many hungry children there are now or do we need to know when there are NO MORE hungry children ...

I think the one dead cert of a policy like that, is that the number of children needing to be fed will increase as borderline feckless parents realise there's one less expenditure that needs to get in the way of their booze money. They we'll have the increasing uptake of free breakfasts held up as evidence that moar money needs to be thrown at a problem that we still don't actually know exists.

If we know that a proportion of people really don't have enough money, then we can find ways to help. If we know that actually they're just not very bright and make rubbish choices, then perhaps we're better to increase the available budgeting support services.

It's cliched management speak, but we get cliches because they tend to be truisms, "You can't manage what you don't measure."

We currently have people claiming that poor people are fat because they can't afford to eat healthily - which is also bullshit. Seven Sharp the other night had some booze industry / anti-"health" tax lobbyist that they tried to catch on that - McD's $34 versus Chicken stir-fry $18.00. People who are fat through too much crap takeaway food aren't poor, they're lazy.

[SPman]

I think the one dead cert of a policy like that, is that the number of children needing to be fed will increase as borderline feckless parents realise there's one less expenditure that needs to get in the way of their booze money. .Why do some people always come up with this bullshit demonisation of a majority that applies to a small minority, as an excuse to prevaricate, isolate or just ignore problems that don't usually affect them? It's the same as the "increase the minimum wage and there'll be more unemployment" bullshit argument, that has been proven to be bullshit, time and time again, but, every time it's proposed, out come the cliches!.

Small minded people with small ideas and no research, that they think will affect THEIR pocket, personally! We'll "punish" those who are worse off than us, no matter how badly off we are. Struggling to clothe and feed the kids because the 2 shit pay jobs you managed to get only brings in a smidge more than the unemployment benefit - tough. Suffer you lazy bastard!

Authorities are good at this - divide and rule - governments seem to be based on the assumption the average citizen is greedy and stupid.....and most of them wouldn't be far wrong!

McD's $34 versus Chicken stir-fry $18.00. People who are fat through too much crap takeaway food aren't poor, they're lazy Not lazy - just stupid and, victims of foods with ingredients that have been shown to have an addictive effect, combined with continual advertising that reinforces this.

[MisterD]

It's the same as the "increase the minimum wage and there'll be more unemployment" bullshit argument, that has been proven to be bullshit, time and time again,

Citation needed.

Increase the cost of something, you end up with less of it. Economics 101. Why is it that lefties are soooo keen to apply taxes to "carbon" on this basis, yet seem to think it won't apply to jobs?

You don't want actual measures of the reality of poverty because it'll force you to abandon the hand-wavy justifications for access to other peoples' money.

[Banditbandit]

I think the one dead cert of a policy like that, is that the number of children needing to be fed will increase as borderline feckless parents realise there's one less expenditure that needs to get in the way of their booze money. They we'll have the increasing uptake of free breakfasts held up as evidence that moar money needs to be thrown at a problem that we still don't actually know exists.

You are focussing on adult behaviour - there is certainly an issue with adult behaviour ... forget the adults for the moment ... look at the hungry child who is not learning properly at school. Can you do that???n Can you look at the child and not the adult???


If we know that a proportion of people really don't have enough money, then we can find ways to help. If we know that actually they're just not very bright and make rubbish choices, then perhaps we're better to increase the available budgeting support services.

Still focussing on the adults here .. look at the CHILD ...


It's cliched management speak, but we get cliches because they tend to be truisms, "You can't manage what you don't measure."

Not asking you to manage anything - I'm asking you to look at the hungry child - How do we feed the hungry child???


We currently have people claiming that poor people are fat because they can't afford to eat healthily - which is also bullshit. Seven Sharp the other night had some booze industry / anti-"health" tax lobbyist that they tried to catch on that - McD's $34 versus Chicken stir-fry $18.00. People who are fat through too much crap takeaway food aren't poor, they're lazy.

Sure - I agree ... adult behaviour - six year olds do not make those choices ADULTS do .. can you look at the hungry child and not the adult behaviour???

[Banditbandit]

Citation needed.

Increase the cost of something, you end up with less of it. Economics 101. Why is it that lefties are soooo keen to apply taxes to "carbon" on this basis, yet seem to think it won't apply to jobs?

You don't want actual measures of the reality of poverty because it'll force you to abandon the hand-wavy justifications for access to other peoples' money.

Hang about - the cost of milk increased .. did we end up with less of it???

The cost of petrol increased ... did we end up with less of it???

Why does the right pull out arguments like that to suit themselves??? The right needs lower wages so they earn more money (profits) and the workers get screwed ... the jobs still need to be done ... if we have fewer jobs than the rich are earning less money ... because their profits disappear ... because there are less good produced to sell, or fewer services to make a profit from ...

Threatening that there will be less jobs is empty bullshit - cutting jobs cuts production which means lower profits ...

[MisterD]

You are focussing on adult behaviour - there is certainly an issue with adult behaviour ... forget the adults for the moment ... look at the hungry child who is not learning properly at school. Can you do that???n Can you look at the child and not the adult???

Do you understand the difference between a symptom and a root cause? My kids' school has a "Breakfast club" where weetbix and milk is provided to all FoC (so my boys have a second breakfast on some days) and most parents make a nominal donation to cover the costs of supervision. Band-aids are easy. Green parties promising $millions to fix child poverty is stupid if there's no way of assessing effectiveness.

If we don't address the root cause, we'll have the kids of those kids in exactly the same position in about 14 years time.

[oldrider]

It's the same as the "increase the minimum wage and there'll be more unemployment" bullshit argument, that has been proven to be bullshit, time and time again, but, every time it's proposed, out come the cliches!.

Fact: Helen Clark's government forced the minimum wage upon IHC in their workshops ... almost "all" the jobs that firms gave to the workshops have dried up!

Now they sit around in the workshops fiddling about with meaningless activities because they don't have any meaningful jobs to do!

There is fuck all cliché about that so I suspect there is probably some substance to the bullshit that you are complaining about! :rolleyes: I do not profess to know! :no:

[Banditbandit]

Campbell is a big fan of the book and Hager, yet in this paragraph he has to modifiy his statements six times to avoid libel.



The New Zealand libel laws mean that YOU have to prove statements you make ...

Campbell is himself unable to prove what is in Hagar's book - Hagar may well be able to, but Campbell cannot ... he simply does not have the evidence.

So for John Campbell to repeat what Hagar says opens him up to a libel charge .... which he would not be able to defend ...

TV3s lawyers would have been all over what he said and made sure TV3 was protected ...
The fact that Campbell qualified his statements in this way say more about our libel laws than it does about the truth or falsity of Hagar's book ..

[Banditbandit]

Fact: Helen Clark's government forced the minimum wage upon IHC in their workshops ... almost "all" the jobs that firms gave to the workshops have dried up!

Now they sit around in the workshops fiddling about with meaningless activities because they don't have any meaningful jobs to do!

There is fuck all cliché about that so I suspect there is probably some substance to the bullshit that you are complaining about! :rolleyes: I do not profess to know! :no:

That may have been true for a shot while - but it is no longer true ... many IHC workshops are tendering for contracts - and winning them .. and the people are doing better work than they ever did under the old regime ..

[oldrider]

Why does the right pull out arguments like that to suit themselves???

For exactly the same reasons that the left pulls them out of their ass to justify their own arguments! :doh:

[Banditbandit]

For exactly the same reasons that the left pulls them out of their ass to justify their own arguments! :doh:

:killingme Yeah .. I asked for that didn't I ... that's true ..al true ..

[oldrider]

That may have been true for a shot while - but it is no longer true ... many IHC workshops are tendering for contracts - and winning them .. and the people are doing better work than they ever did under the old regime ..

I am quite closely involved with IHC workshops (Idea services daybase) and I have seen little evidence of that! :no: I will look closer! :shifty:

[MisterD]

The fact that Campbell qualified his statements in this way say more about our libel laws than it does about the truth or falsity of Hagar's book ..

So what does the fact that Hager himself has couched everything as "may have", "could have" say?

[oldrider]

So what does the fact that Hager himself has couched everything as "may have", "could have" say?

Same reasons why alternative medicine always has to guard itself against the wrath of allopathic medicine by saying may or could have etc! :whistle: Lawyers! :brick:

[buggerit]

I am quite closely involved with IHC workshops (Idea services daybase) and I have seen little evidence of that! :no: I will look closer! :shifty:

You work for Parlimentry Services?

[Banditbandit]

Do you understand the difference between a symptom and a root cause? My kids' school has a "Breakfast club" where weetbix and milk is provided to all FoC (so my boys have a second breakfast on some days) and most parents make a nominal donation to cover the costs of supervision. Band-aids are easy. Green parties promising $millions to fix child poverty is stupid if there's no way of assessing effectiveness.

If we don't address the root cause, we'll have the kids of those kids in exactly the same position in about 14 years time.

Yes .. See - now you are looking at the child ... and actually doing it ... and I bet you didn't measure anything before you did it ... and it wasn't that hard was it ... and you still haven't measured anything have you .. because you know it's working ...

I don't give a fuck whether it is a band aid or not - we now have children who are not hungry, are in class and learning and will do better in the future .. that's the important outcome.

Whether a hungry child is a symptom or not is irrelevant ... the child is hungry either way .. and has to be fed ... saying they are a symptom goes no way at all to feeding the child (but hey, you're already doing that ...)

OK root causes .. yes, I agree and we need to look at the root causes (once we have fed the child) ... (I would also like to ask why you consider root causes here, but most right wing people would not look at root causes of crime ... but that's another issue - but possibly the same root cause ... )

No, I don't believe that throwing money at parents will be effective ... it's a middle class liberal bullshit response ... this is part of the intergenerational project - feeding kids now is part of that because they will grow up having done better at school and, hopefully, will lead better lives than their parents.

Nor do I believe that increasing pay rates (work or benefit) is appropriate - more money for drugs and alcohol not food ..

In some ways I'm with Pol Pot .. shoot the root causes, but I know my "fellow travellers" and other left leaning muppets here will throw up there hands in horror .. and disown me ..

Which is why I don't belong to any of the left leaning muppet groups ...

[bluninja]

The New Zealand libel laws mean that YOU have to prove statements you make ...

Campbell is himself unable to prove what is in Hagar's book - Hagar may well be able to, but Campbell cannot ... he simply does not have the evidence.

So for John Campbell to repeat what Hagar says opens him up to a libel charge .... which he would not be able to defend ...

TV3s lawyers would have been all over what he said and made sure TV3 was protected ...
The fact that Campbell qualified his statements in this way say more about our libel laws than it does about the truth or falsity of Hagar's book ..

This Hagar?http://thecomicspage.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/51974_hagar.gif

[Banditbandit]

I am quite closely involved with IHC workshops (Idea services daybase) and I have seen little evidence of that! :no: I will look closer! :shifty:

Maybe I was thinking of a different sheltered workshop type arrangement - I went to look and couldn't find what I thought was there under any IHC type search ...

I do remember a Campbell Live (?) story about how well such a workshop was doing in Chch ... following the apparent "loss" of some contracts ... good chance my memory is faulty as to which organisation ran it ..

[Banditbandit]

So what does the fact that Hager himself has couched everything as "may have", "could have" say?

No idea .. I haven't read the book and have no intention of reading the book .. it would bore me silly (or make me angry ...) either way I'll avoid that shit ...

I do not need to learn again that politicians lie and cheat, shuck and jive ...




This Hagar

Freudian slip perhaps ???

But no - I can't spell in any language ...

[Swoop]

I think the one dead cert of a policy like that, is that the number of children needing to be fed will increase as borderline feckless parents realise there's one less expenditure that needs to get in the way of their booze money.
Interesting. I know of a woman who went into a WINZ office north of Auckland recently, demanding $$'s to get to a "Tangi". Eventually she was handed fuel vouchers.
Shortly afterwards she was seen offering them to members of the public at the petrol station...

So what does the fact that Hager himself has couched everything as "may have", "could have" say?
That he couldn't make a living as a "real" journalist?
In fact, what does he actually do for a real job? We know slater lives with mummy, so has an easy life with which to pump out his "blogs"...

I do remember a Campbell Live (?) story about how well such a workshop was doing in Chch ... following the apparent "loss" of some contracts ...
You are referring to the loss of the RSA contract for the ANZAC day poppies.

[oldrider]

You work for Parlimentry Services?

No, I have a handicapped family member who lives and works with Idea Services!

[Ocean1]

But I also think that education is a social good ... yes there are personal benefits, but much greater social benefits .. and while it may never be possible to provide completely free education loading graduates with huge debt BEFORE they even start work makes an impossible situation ...

No it doesn't. Thousands of graduates, the vast majority in fact use their qualifications to earn the money to pay their student loans with no huge difficulty. Those that don't can usually look to their choice of studies and their perception of it's value to blame for being stuck with what is really no more complex than the result of any other poor investment.

The fact that there's a lack of professional advisors there to tell them about the benefits of various qualifications speaks volumes on the general lack of comprehension of the link between effort and return at senior academic level.

As for the rest? Yes, some tertiary education has social value over and above the financial value to the student. Even a small, all but indiscernible monetary value to society. And given me druthers in charge I'd be selecting qualifications that directly benefit society and paying for as many of them as possible.

Civil Engineer? Certainly, sir, have a wedge of dosh and be here the first Monday next term. Underwater basket weaving? Sir should join that queue over there and be aware that the nice man at the other end will require two metric wedges of dosh at upon your arrival.

Fuck, this growing the economy lark is easy, what the fuck's all the fuss about?

[mashman]

No it doesn't. Thousands of graduates, the vast majority in fact use their qualifications to earn the money to pay their student loans with no huge difficulty. Those that don't can usually look to their choice of studies and their perception of it's value to blame for being stuck with what is really no more complex than the result of any other poor investment.

The fact that there's a lack of professional advisors there to tell them about the benefits of various qualifications speaks volumes on the general lack of comprehension of the link between effort and return at senior academic level.

As for the rest? Yes, some tertiary education has social value over and above the financial value to the student. Even a small, all but indiscernible monetary value to society. And given me druthers in charge I'd be selecting qualifications that directly benefit society and paying for as many of them as possible.

Civil Engineer? Certainly, sir, have a wedge of dosh and be here the first Monday next term. Underwater basket weaving? Sir should join that queue over there and be aware that the nice man at the other end will require two metric wedges of dosh at upon your arrival.

Fuck, this growing the economy lark is easy, what the fuck's all the fuss about?

Don't tell people what they can spend their money on... but they should take a productive job and forget anything that they would choose to do with their life. In fact, just in case they do try to follow their own heart, make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to do it. :shit:

[Ocean1]

It's the same as the "increase the minimum wage and there'll be more unemployment" bullshit argument, that has been proven to be bullshit, time and time again,but, every time it's proposed, out come the cliches!.

I must have missed that blog.

Now, the only way you can claim there's no limit to minimum wage is to contend that there is no link between the value an employee generates and the cost to employ him.

Typical left wing cliché?

Otherwise there must be a value commensurate with any employee's work, and therefore a value at which ~n employees aren't employable.

Which, I can assure you is how employers in the real world see such things. In detail. Every fucking day. Usually well after the crew's gone home, when the timesheets on the desk look to add up to rather a lot more than can possibly be invoiced. Again.

[Ocean1]

Don't tell people what they can spend their money on... but they should take a productive job and forget anything that they would choose to do with their life. In fact, just in case they do try to follow their own heart, make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to do it. :shit:

I'm not telling anyone what to spend their money on. Quite the reverse, I'm saying that if you borrowed money to pay for courses that don't provide the means to pay for the loan then it's nobody else's fault but your own.

A lesson probably worth the cost all by itself in the long run.

[mashman]

I'm not telling anyone what to spend their money on. Quite the reverse, I'm saying that if you borrowed money to pay for courses that don't provide the means to pay for the loan then it's nobody else's fault but your own.

A lesson probably worth the cost all by itself in the long run.

You could read it again with satire specs on if ya like.

What? Once bitten twice shy?

[Banditbandit]

Civil Engineer? Certainly, sir, have a wedge of dosh and be here the first Monday next term. Underwater basket weaving? Sir should join that queue over there and be aware that the nice man at the other end will require two metric wedges of dosh at upon your arrival.

Fuck, this growing the economy lark is easy, what the fuck's all the fuss about?


Errr .. the problem with that is, and I agree we need more civil engineers, is that potential students are not interested in that. Brownlie tried to force Auckland Uni to train more engineers - but they could not get the students enrolled that Brownlie wanted .. the potential students made other choices ..

At present all TEOs submit an Investment Plan to TEC (the organisation that actually hands out the money to pay for the courses) .. and TEC either approves or otherwise that plan. It is not up to the institutes to decide what courses to offer - it is primarily central government. What TEC look for is community demand for the courses - and the community is the employers ... And too many bullshit courses will not get approved and funded by TEC. So currently central government does control the funding and puts it largely where the employers want it to go, not the TEOs.

A TEO that does not meet the investment plan has to pay back money received

http://www.tec.govt.nz/Resource-Centre/Frequent-questions/Providers/What-is-an-Investment-Plan/


Don't tell people what they can spend their money on... but they should take a productive job and forget anything that they would choose to do with their life. In fact, just in case they do try to follow their own heart, make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to do it. :shit:

Yes ... education has a much wider role than job training.


I'm not telling anyone what to spend their money on. Quite the reverse, I'm saying that if you borrowed money to pay for courses that don't provide the means to pay for the loan then it's nobody else's fault but your own.

A lesson probably worth the cost all by itself in the long run.

Yes - that too ... but education has a much wider role than just job training ... Look at our politicians .. plenty of education .. but not a lot of job training to prepare them for Parliament ..

[angle]

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the National Party."

The irony is that the real National policy is for this little girl to say that she will do the work, then go to the homeless guy telling him that he is so lucky that there is such a great opportunity for him to earn $5 by doing all this work. So he does it, the little girl pays the homeless guy his $5 and keeps $45 for doing sweet 'f' all.

[mashman]

Yes ... education has a much wider role than job training.

Jobs are a money gain, education is a money drain. Shit, I'd love to have a crack at some form of structural engineering, but I simply can't afford to have no salary for 3-x years. I often wonder how many people would like a change in career, potentially something a damned sight more challenging than they thought they were capable of or would enjoy 10/15/20 years ago. Accompanying that wonder is what we're losing in terms of creativity/ingenuity/innovation etc... because we have a system that is too inflexible to get the best out of any person at any age without adding extra expense and pressure.

[bluninja]

Jobs are a money gain, education is a money drain. Shit, I'd love to have a crack at some form of structural engineering, but I simply can't afford to have no salary for 3-x years. I often wonder how many people would like a change in career, potentially something a damned sight more challenging than they thought they were capable of or would enjoy 10/15/20 years ago. Accompanying that wonder is what we're losing in terms of creativity/ingenuity/innovation etc... because we have a system that is too inflexible to get the best out of any person at any age without adding extra expense and pressure.

Many people do change career....get off your arse and do what needs to be done. If you want it bad enough you will make it happen, your career, and your life is your responsibility. There's self study, part time study, night classes....etc etc. Find someone who does the role you think you want and take some holiday to work alongside them for free (not that you seem to want money :bleh: and you are getting your holiday money). Or you could wait for someone to pay you to change career and make it all so easy......hmmmm I really fancy a spot of underwater basket weaving...where do I go for the free course and the benefits to cover my income whilst I change to a more creative career?

I wonder if Nicky Hager is a frustrated wannabe underwater basket weaver and that's really the reason behind his book....clearly a cry for help in career transistioning :innocent:

[oldrider]

The irony is that the real National policy is for this little girl to say that she will do the work, then go to the homeless guy telling him that he is so lucky that there is such a great opportunity for him to earn $5 by doing all this work. So he does it, the little girl pays the homeless guy his $5 and keeps $45 for doing sweet 'f' all.

Fair enough it's called free enterprise! :niceone: ... Under a socialist government he would say gimme $500 or fuck off cause I will lose my benefit for doing 'f' all. :(

[mashman]

Many people do change career....get off your arse and do what needs to be done. If you want it bad enough you will make it happen, your career, and your life is your responsibility. There's self study, part time study, night classes....etc etc. Find someone who does the role you think you want and take some holiday to work alongside them for free (not that you seem to want money :bleh: and you are getting your holiday money). Or you could wait for someone to pay you to change career and make it all so easy......hmmmm I really fancy a spot of underwater basket weaving...where do I go for the free course and the benefits to cover my income whilst I change to a more creative career?

I wonder if Nicky Hager is a frustrated wannabe underwater basket weaver and that's really the reason behind his book....clearly a cry for help in career transistioning :innocent:

If it was just me it'd be a no brainer, but with dependents it ain't so easy as I'd rather, because it is by far moire important, spend the time ensuring that my kids grow up well and supported... along with spending time with my wife, friends etc... I was merely pointing out that a change of career can bring on many unrequired pressures that can rip family's apart or change standard of life or indeed send one down the gurgler if the "gamble" doesn't pay off or destroy any financial security for the future of the family blah blah blah. It's harder than it needs to be imho. If you want to do underwater basket weaving, vote NOW ;).

lol... nah, I reckon he's right where he needs to be and should be forced to stay there instead of doing anything that he may choose to do.

[bluninja]

If it was just me it'd be a no brainer, but with dependents it ain't so easy as I'd rather, because it is by far moire important, spend the time ensuring that my kids grow up well and supported... along with spending time with my wife, friends etc... I was merely pointing out that a change of career can bring on many unrequired pressures that can rip family's apart or change standard of life or indeed send one down the gurgler if the "gamble" doesn't pay off or destroy any financial security for the future of the family blah blah blah. It's harder than it needs to be imho. If you want to do underwater basket weaving, vote NOW ;).

lol... nah, I reckon he's right where he needs to be and should be forced to stay there instead of doing anything that he may choose to do.

Interesting. What are you teaching your kids then? Be safe even if you aren't fully happy? that financial security and coming home at night and weekends is more important than pursuing your dreams? (whatever they are)? That you enjoy the status quo, and talk about changing it to a better future? Be the change! It starts now! but not with NOW :cool:

[mashman]

Interesting. What are you teaching your kids then? Be safe even if you aren't fully happy? that financial security and coming home at night and weekends is more important than pursuing your dreams? (whatever they are)? That you enjoy the status quo, and talk about changing it to a better future? Be the change! It starts now! but not with NOW :cool:

:rofl:. I'm hoping that they'll realise that my dreams are less important to me than they are and I fully intend to see that my kids grow to make their own minds up irrespective of what they're taught by anyone and irrespective of any examples they witness. If they turn out even close to that, it will still have next to nothing to do with me. However if I'm off making money or studying or doing something with my time other than keeping an eye on how they're doing, then they could end up growing up to me nothing more than one of the billions of idiotic voters that roam this planet, or even worse, national voters. Ya can't offer them anything if you aren't there.

I am the change already and it is because of NOW :headbang:

[angle]

Fair enough it's called free enterprise! :niceone: ... Under a socialist government he would say gimme $500 or fuck off cause I will lose my benefit for doing 'f' all. :(
It is indeed called "free" enterprise although only select few are allowed to take the role of that little girl, and it is stringently controlled. Give people the option of bypassing the 'little girl' and I doubt they will ask for much more, I'm not taking the completely useless and lazy arses into account. In most official socialist states it is illegal not to work, unless you're a cripple.

[Banditbandit]

You are referring to the loss of the RSA contract for the ANZAC day poppies.

Yeah - that's the one ..

[angle]

... because we have a system that is too inflexible to get the best out of any person at any age ...
Key words in my opinion! No pun intended.


If you want it bad enough you will make it happen, your career, and your life is your responsibility. There's self study, part time study, night classes....etc etc.
Life does not need to be this difficult. It is also beneficial for the entire society when the majority of its members do productive work that they enjoy.

[Banditbandit]

I must have missed that blog.

Now, the only way you can claim there's no limit to minimum wage is to contend that there is no link between the value an employee generates and the cost to employ him.

Typical left wing cliché?

Otherwise there must be a value commensurate with any employee's work, and therefore a value at which ~n employees aren't employable.

Which, I can assure you is how employers in the real world see such things. In detail. Every fucking day. Usually well after the crew's gone home, when the timesheets on the desk look to add up to rather a lot more than can possibly be invoiced. Again.

The value of a human being is NOT the value of the goods they produce ...

The value of an employee (a position in an economic system) is directly related to the value of their production (the Marxist point is that the capitalist do not add value and are therefore not entitled to profit -I know the counter argument too you do not need to state it). So the value of the employee is less than the market price of the goods produced - the rest covers the other costs of production and the profit to the capitalist employer ...

If the costs of production (worker pay, electricity, rent, materials, machinery etc) add up to more than the produced goods can be sold for, then yes, the business goes under ..

There is no left wing cliché - there are muppets on the left who have no idea ... but the real left know differently ... and we would radically change things IF it was worth it - but in GodZone at present it is not worth it ..

The basic issue for me is that there is a differentiated labour scale that values some forms of labour over other forms of labour - that's bullshit - labour is labour - "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" (with apologies for the sexist language which is a) old and b) Not mine ... )

[bluninja]

Life does not need to be this difficult. It is also beneficial for the entire society when the majority of its members do productive work that they enjoy.

For the vast majority it isn't, but sometimes shit happens or your aspirations change. Perhaps people just need a paradigm change and just be happy with the life and career they were given by the circumstances they were born into. Or you do the things you don't like to do to get the things that you really want.

Some people enjoy the training and the challenge of the fight. Some want the medal placed round their neck for turning up and not breaking sweat.

[mashman]

For the vast majority it isn't

Oh... so you've asked everyone then?

[bluninja]

Oh... so you've asked everyone then?

Of course, he's my best mate. BTW it's spelt Every Juan

[mashman]

Of course, he's my best mate. BTW it's spelt Every Juan

No. No. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[SPman]

Chris Trotter (who I often don't agree with, but.....) sort of sums up the attitude to NH here



Ever since the publication of Hager’s second book, Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign, he has been the sworn enemy of the powerful public relations firms which play such an important role in rendering the most distasteful government and/or corporate policies more or less palatable to the general public. The representatives of these firms – like the man who appeared on television the night Dirty Politics was released, telling New Zealand there was “nothing in it” – have never lost an opportunity either in public, or behind the scenes, to attack both Hager’s credibility and his character.

I well remember crossing swords with a young journalist in the Green Room at TVNZ after she blithely dismissed Hager as an inveterate conspiracy theorist and looney lefty.
I asked her if she had read any of his books. She Hadn’t.
I asked her if she was aware he had won international prizes for investigative journalism. She wasn’t.
It hadn’t stopped her from casually defaming him, however.
It never does.
When John Key dismissed Dirty Politics as the work of “a screaming left-wing conspiracy theorist”, he knew there would be many thousands of Kiwis who would accept his characterisation without experiencing the slightest pang of doubt.

[bluninja]

Chris Trotter (who I often don't agree with, but.....) sort of sums up the attitude to NH here

So what's this US Investigative Journalism award then? All I can find is a reference on his own page to an award in 1996. Perhaps my Google searching skills aren't too good. Or maybe the award(singular, can't even find a mention of awards from Nicky Hager himself) isn't all it's cracked up to be when exposed to scrutiny.

An interesting view from another "journalist" sums up things for me. Be clear this does not mean I believe or disbelieve Hager.

Dirty Politics is not journalism.

As a journalist, the most basic principle we must uphold is that of fairness. That is not to say that what we write or broadcast is always fair, but that whomever we are challenging on an issue is given the opportunity to respond. Some choose not to comment. But they are at least given that choice.

Hager did not corroborate a single accusation in his book. He did not seek comment on the accusations. He did not give his targets a chance to defend themselves, provide context or refute his allegations. Had he, he knew the courts would have likely granted an injunction and the book would not have been published.

[oldrider]

In this Hager case the "authortities" should be focussing their efforts on "THE CRIME" irrispective of the "GRIME" which is/was stolen private material! :Police:

[Ocean1]

The value of a human being is NOT the value of the goods they produce ...

Of course not.

But we're talking economic value, and the value of the goods he produces is set by those he's selling them to, nobody else.


The basic issue for me is that there is a differentiated labour scale that values some forms of labour over other forms of labour - that's bullshit - labour is labour - "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" (with apologies for the sexist language which is a) old and b) Not mine ... )

Then you should buy your shit only from suppliers that you're happy pay their employees according to your ideology. But don't expect many others to work twice as hard in order to be able to afford to do so.

In the meantime let your fairy story die with it's author, it's not something that actually represents a viable, fair or even altruistic objective.

I mean, really, if you had a situation where each actually did provide according to his ability then he wouldn't have needs to be met by someone else, would he? It's a nonsense excuse for a perfectly human adolescent tendency to expect someone else to provide, and the solution is as it always has been: Grow up.

[Motu]

Never read this thread, not interested. However, last night I was in Hamilton Library browsing at 10.45pm (love my Kobo) and came across Dirty Politics, and got it out. (and Muldoon's biography). It doesn't look anyone on this thread has read the book. The Kobo says I'm only 20% into it, but very interesting reading so far. Scary how the public can be manipulated.

[ellipsis]

Never read this thread, not interested. However,

...after very speedily zipping through the last couple of pages I come to the conclusion that you all need fucking...some gently, some violently... whether you like it or not is entirely up to the individual...whatever you leak...later...:eek:

[oldrider]

Nicky Hager is part of the same conspiracy that his book is about, they are all self serving in their objectives! :sick:

[Banditbandit]

Of course not.

But we're talking economic value, and the value of the goods he produces is set by those he's selling them to, nobody else.

I don't quite agree. A worker, employed by someone else, is not selling anything except the labour ... (and yes, employment contracts put a price on that labour) and I would make a distinction between the price of the goods and the value of the goods - as you say - value is set by the purchaser .. and if the purchaser is not prepared to pay the asking price then they don't buy ...

The owners of the goods (the factory owner for instance, not the worker) sets the price based on cost + profit ... that could bee seen as the price of the goods ... which may well b separate from the value assigned by a potential purchaser ..



Then you should buy your shit only from suppliers that you're happy pay their employees according to your ideology. But don't expect many others to work twice as hard in order to be able to afford to do so.

No. Nice idea - but in the modern world barely possible - though I do try to purchase from ethical employers .. but who the fuck really knows ..


In the meantime let your fairy story die with it's author, it's not something that actually represents a viable, fair or even altruistic objective.

I mean, really, if you had a situation where each actually did provide according to his ability then he wouldn't have needs to be met by someone else, would he? It's a nonsense excuse for a perfectly human adolescent tendency to expect someone else to provide, and the solution is as it always has been: Grow up.

Well yes - which is why anarchy remains a philosophical ideal and utopian aspirational aim ... but most real anarchists I know agree that the utopian dream will never be possible in the foreseeable future ... I do see it as providing a fairer society ...

And no, it is not an expectation that someone else will provide - it is an expectation that work is rewarded ... it is not an expectation that someone else will provide .. Within this politico-social philosophy "from each according to their abilities" goes hand in hand with "to each according to their needs" ... but work is rewarded at the same level - why should a street cleaner get paid less than an academic? (The medieval plagues of Europe prove that street cleaners are important - without them our urban environments would be fatally unhealthy - but without academics people can still be fed .. yes I know I'm an academic ... a pragmatic one)

Non-workers get subsistance only - bread, water and cracked wheat cereal ... dormitory housing and communal washing ... shorts and t-shirts .. If a person doesn't contribute why should the expect to get anything apart from survival needs? (And I could be persuaded to even drop that - give nothing then get nothing ...)

[SPman]

.... It doesn't look anyone on this thread has read the book. The Kobo says I'm only 20% into it, but very interesting reading so far. Scary how the public can be manipulated.
The public have always been manipulated - it's just that everyone is just more blatant and seedier about it. and due to better?..more instant communications, more people know about the shit that goes on......unfortunately, not enough people it seems. PR firms have got a lot to answer for......
'Tis interesting reading - even when you know what's coming up......(the Kindle version was out a couple of days after release, so it joined the other 100+ books on my phone)

[pete376403]

Never read this thread, not interested. However, last night I was in Hamilton Library browsing at 10.45pm (love my Kobo) and came across Dirty Politics, and got it out. (and Muldoon's biography). It doesn't look anyone on this thread has read the book. The Kobo says I'm only 20% into it, but very interesting reading so far. Scary how the public can be manipulated.
I've got the book on kindle and read it 'cover to cover'. So there's at least three of us.

[SPman]

In this Hager case the "authortities" should be focussing their efforts on "THE CRIME" irrispective of the "GRIME" which is/was stolen private material! :Police:
Whose crime?

Slater's? Collin's? Ede's? Teflon John seems to have kept himself just far enough away to say it wasn't him, or he doesn't remember.......

And, as I assume you're referring to the emails Hager got, as opposed to the dozens provided to the Slater - were they used for criminal activities and was it in the public interest? (this has a large bearing on matters)

[Motu]

Ede?

Who?...? ''Oh, he doesn't work here anymore.'' says JK - end of story. This guy just stepped off the page and doesn't seem to exist anymore....suspiciously missing from any media interviews. Interesting there is a National Party IP address going into the Labour website, that seems to be ok too.

[Ocean1]

I don't quite agree. A worker, employed by someone else, is not selling anything except the labour ... (and yes, employment contracts put a price on that labour) and I would make a distinction between the price of the goods and the value of the goods - as you say - value is set by the purchaser .. and if the purchaser is not prepared to pay the asking price then they don't buy ...

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.

A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market.

And you've got the rest arse about face too. An employer will pay his people whatever his clients are prepared to pay for that employees contribution to the value of his product.

The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work. And attempting to make it so by demanding that the end user of that work / product pay whatever someone else says they should is simplistic bullshit so obviously bereft of intrinsic fairness it amazes me that anyone would ever suggest it let alone pretend it may be a required element of some sort of social justice.

[mashman]

Well yes - which is why anarchy remains a philosophical ideal and utopian aspirational aim ... but most real anarchists I know agree that the utopian dream will never be possible in the foreseeable future ... I do see it as providing a fairer society ...

Ain't nuffin wrong with aiming for utopia as we all know that we'll never get there, but it has nothing to do with government structure or lack of for some. If a govt is required and voted for by the people, then cool... if the people don't want a govt, then cool too. What really changes? Like the purchaser controlling the price, tis "us" who decide the way ;).



And no, it is not an expectation that someone else will provide - it is an expectation that work is rewarded ... it is not an expectation that someone else will provide .. Within this politico-social philosophy "from each according to their abilities" goes hand in hand with "to each according to their needs" ... but work is rewarded at the same level - why should a street cleaner get paid less than an academic? (The medieval plagues of Europe prove that street cleaners are important - without them our urban environments would be fatally unhealthy - but without academics people can still be fed .. yes I know I'm an academic ... a pragmatic one)


I did the street sweeper v doctor argument with my 10 year old daughter. She agrees that the street sweeper is more important. Still, she has a long life of brainwashing before her, she'll change her mind soon enough.




Non-workers get subsistance only - bread, water and cracked wheat cereal ... dormitory housing and communal washing ... shorts and t-shirts .. If a person doesn't contribute why should the expect to get anything apart from survival needs? (And I could be persuaded to even drop that - give nothing then get nothing ...)

Is that like straight from school fuhrer?

[oldrider]

It is so much more easy to fool people than it is to convince those same people that they have been fooled --- Mark Twain!

Ole Mark used to visit this country, wonder what he would think of the place if he was here on a visit right now? :scratch:

[angle]

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.
Do lawyers or politicians supply highly skilled labour? Higher than a master carpenter?


A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market. So what you are saying is that we do not have a free market?


The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work.
This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is based, in theory at least, on allowing all people to reach their full potential.

[Banditbandit]

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.

See - as I keep saying - I eanr good money - I'm not complaining ...


A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market.

Oh ... markets .. but see I place no value what so ever on a Buell .. but clearly you do because you ride one ... so value can be a variable from person to person, but not price ...


And you've got the rest arse about face too. An employer will pay his people whatever his clients are prepared to pay for that employees contribution to the value of his product.

Yes - and equally an employee can say "I won't work for that money ..." and if enough do that, then the employer has no production ...


The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work. And attempting to make it so by demanding that the end user of that work / product pay whatever someone else says they should is simplistic bullshit so obviously bereft of intrinsic fairness it amazes me that anyone would ever suggest it let alone pretend it may be a required element of some sort of social justice.

First of all, I disagree that is the basis of socialism ... and I'm not even sure I would accept it as a true statement.

And secondly, having previously said that an anarchy is a utopian ideal, I accept pretty much all of the rest of what you say within the current capitalist democracies that we operate under - that doesn't mean I can't actively work to change things for the better ..

But I do fail to see how the ideas can be bereft of intrinsic fairness .... work is work .. tell me why one person's work should be valued more highly than an other person's work ..

[Ocean1]

Do lawyers or politicians supply highly skilled labour? Higher than a master carpenter?

If their clients agree to pay them more, yes.


So what you are saying is that we do not have a free market?

Correct.


This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is based, in theory at least, on allowing all people to reach their full potential.

Really? The concept of govt control of production and distribution is supposed to result in people reaching their full potential?

No wonder there's fuck all socialist states left, history has obviously consigned them to the scrap heap as a dismal failure.

In fact distasteful as you may or may not find it; capitalism has proven far more effective in allowing people to reach their full potential. You can tell, all of the alternative systems inhabit the third world where potential of any sort is rendered utterly irrelevant by the struggle to remain alive.

[Ocean1]

See - as I keep saying - I eanr good money - I'm not complaining ...

Didn't suggest you were. I was suggesting that your comment that everyone's work was of the same value is manifestly incorrect. Even leaving aside the absolute right of the guy paying for the work to decide what he should pay for it the contention that everyone produces work of the same value in any given day is utter rubbish.


Oh ... markets .. but see I place no value what so ever on a Buell .. but clearly you do because you ride one ... so value can be a variable from person to person, but not price ...

The fact that you don't value a particular product doesn't affect it's market value very much though, does it? So the fact remains: in a free market the value of any product is the price it will sell at.


Yes - and equally an employee can say "I won't work for that money ..." and if enough do that, then the employer has no production ...

And if the product was in fact priced to meet market demand then the employer will simply decline to pay any more. You sound like a life-long labour supporter, convinced that employers can and should pay their employees more at will. It's drivel, a hangover from the bad old union days, you remember them doncha? When whole industries were destroyed by that particular piece of bullshit?

Next thing you'll be insisting that higher minimum wages won't cost jobs.

[oldrider]

I wonder if Hager is taxed as a seasonal worker? :shifty: A topical production every three years! :doh:

[Banditbandit]

And if the product was in fact priced to meet market demand then the employer will simply decline to pay any more. You sound like a life-long labour supporter, convinced that employers can and should pay their employees more at will. It's drivel, a hangover from the bad old union days, you remember them doncha? When whole industries were destroyed by that particular piece of bullshit?

Next thing you'll be insisting that higher minimum wages won't cost jobs.

No - I'm not a lifelong Labour supporter - I haven't voted Labour for 30 years (and if you can do the maths you will probably work out why)


No, I don't think that employers should just increase pay at will ... my point is that the cost of labour plus the other production costs, plus profit = PRICE. IF the cost of labour is too high (and this is set by the workers) then the price of the product will not be favourable to the purchasers and they will not buy .. that's simple market economics .. we have the right to set the price of our labour, just as manufacturers set the price of their products.

In our current economy, unemployment artificially keeps the cost of employment down because the price of labour is not set by the workers .. (If you don't like the wage, someone else will take the job - or get forced to by WINZ.) You may accept the concept of a free market, but there is in reality, no free market for Labour - there was in the 1960s when there was over-employment, but we have not had that for many years .. and we do not have a free market in the employment area ..

So - if you REALLY want a free market, that has to apply to the price of labour as well.

[MisterD]

but there is in reality, no free market for Labour - there was in the 1960s when there was over-employment, but we have not had that for many years .. and we do not have a free market in the employment area ..

So - if you REALLY want a free market, that has to apply to the price of labour as well.

Eh? Whether there is an under or oversupply of a commodity has nothing to do with whether the market for it is free or not. Price in a free market (and Mashie is going to disagree, but really, RBE is a crock) is the best ay of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

The reason we don't have a free market for labour is that regulations set a minimum price, and we have statutorially-supported cartels and protection rackets (Unions) who set other restrictions on anyone's right to negotiate.

[Ocean1]

we have the right to set the price of our labour, just as manufacturers set the price of their products.

In our current economy, unemployment artificially keeps the cost of employment down because the price of labour is not set by the workers .. (If you don't like the wage, someone else will take the job - or get forced to by WINZ.) You may accept the concept of a free market, but there is in reality, no free market for Labour - there was in the 1960s when there was over-employment, but we have not had that for many years .. and we do not have a free market in the employment area ..

So - if you REALLY want a free market, that has to apply to the price of labour as well.

Bollox. You have an uncanny knack of reversing cause and effect. Labour can not "set" the price of their work and manufacturers can't "set" the price of their products. Both would be examples of provider driven markets, and that's a term used synonymous with market failure, a classic positive feedback mechanism.

In reality the only functional price setting mechanism is that driven by the purchaser, demand driven economics. It's self-regulating and stable. Anti-free market adherents have all sorts of reasons why they should have some say in what you pay for shit, and outside of the fact that it always represents theft at one or two removes it destroys that stability.

Labour can negotiate their price with a manufacturer, but they don't have a right to arbitrarily force the employer to accept it, a purchase can only ever be made by the buyer. You're correct in suggesting we don't have a free labour market, but only because of the substantial interference in the market favouring employees. Unemployment is simply a function of the percentage of potential workers incapable of earning an employer the bare minimum required to pay minimum wage.

[Robert Taylor]

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.

A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market.

And you've got the rest arse about face too. An employer will pay his people whatever his clients are prepared to pay for that employees contribution to the value of his product.

The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work. And attempting to make it so by demanding that the end user of that work / product pay whatever someone else says they should is simplistic bullshit so obviously bereft of intrinsic fairness it amazes me that anyone would ever suggest it let alone pretend it may be a required element of some sort of social justice.

Very well said. Those who are motivated get to the top of the parapet, only to often get their head shot off for having the temerity to reap greater rewards. Thank god we didn't get a Cunliffe led ''Government'' with huge input from the Snifter party. Theyd tax small business out of existence thereby costing jobs. I think most people actually got that

[Winston001]

Okay lads much fun but I sense we have strayed off-point. The thread originally raised the topic of Nicky Hager and his book - Dirty Politics. I intend to read it just in case he is correct in a few places.

But the main issue right now is that Nicky Hager not only had no effect on the election with his explosive book launched three weeks out, it appears he actually helped the current government. :bleh: Fair go. That is weird.

Either Kiwis are too dumb to understand high minded investigative reporting or they see right through it as vague finger pointing which has no importance for everyday life.

Take your pick.

[avgas]

I think the election result + lack of book sales proves that no one trust Nicky Hager.

Hang on let me check the stats.
http://www.booksellers.co.nz/book-news/nzs-bestsellers/nielsen-weekly-bestsellers-lists-week-ending-saturday-6-september#nz-non-fiction-adults

Nope - just turns out no one likes voting or reading.
Perhaps if there was a movie - people in NZ would give damn.

[mashman]

Either Kiwis are too dumb to understand high minded investigative reporting or they see right through it as vague finger pointing which has no importance for everyday life.

Take your pick.

Or they don't give a shit because it's nothing new... which would be my pick.

[avgas]

Or they don't give a shit because it's nothing new... which would be my pick.
Give or take a shit. Really the same thing when you think about it.

[mashman]

Give or take a shit. Really the same thing when you think about it.

lol, likely simultaneously.

[Stylo]

Don't think it's over yet ....


Dirty Politics author Nicky Hager has had his home raided by police searching for the hacker Rawshark.

In a 10-hour search of his house, Hager said computers and papers were seized in what appeared to be an attempt to discover the identity of the person who provided information used in the Dirty Politics book.

The book was an election bombshell based on hacked email and social media material belonging to WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater.

The person contacted the Herald and Fairfax using the identity Rawshark while using the Twitter handle @whaledump to release information publicly.

Hager said five officers came to his Wellington home last Thursday with a search warrant.

He was in Auckland at the time the police arrived giving lectures at the University of Auckland.




"Soon after the police arrived, the lead detective stated that I was not a suspect in their case, merely a witness." Hager said he told the detective there was nothing in his house which held information that would uncover the source.

"Nonetheless, he and his four colleagues seized a large collection of papers and electronic equipment belonging to my family, including computers, drives, phones, CDs, an IPOD and a camera."

Hager said the search and seizure of the material was a "fishing expedition" carried out by officers who had no idea who they were looking for, hoping for a lucky break.

"I am confident that the police took nothing that will help them with their investigation."

Hager said he would not cooperate with police in any way to reveal the Dirty Politics source - or any other source. "I believe the police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand.

"It matters to all people working in the media who could similarly have their property searched and seized to look for sources. People are less likely to help the media if the police act in this way.

"The police want people to respect their role in society; they should in turn respect other people's roles in society."

He said he was speaking to his lawyers about challenging the police action.

A police spokesman confirmed police had removed computers and related items under search warrant from a Wellington address as part of its ongoing investigation into alleged hacking of Cameron Slater's emails.

"Police encourages anyone who believes they may have information relevant to the investigation to come forward. Alternatively, information can be provided anonymously through the organisation Crimestoppers."

[SPman]

"Meanwhile, its also highly illuminating about police priorities. Break electoral law, and they do nothing (http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/confirmed-police-dont-care-about.html). Pervert the course of justice (http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/will-police-investigate.html), and they look the other way. Rape underage girls, and its too hard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roast_Busters_scandal). But embarrass the Prime Minister, and they're kicking in doors. You'd almost think they were the jackbooted thugs of the powers-that-be, rather than neutral enforcers of the law..."

[oldrider]

[Quote] "I believe the police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand.[Quote]

That could also read: "I believe that journalist actions are dangerous for New Zealand". :sick: :facepalm:

[Ocean1]

You'd almost think they were the jackbooted thugs of the powers-that-be, rather than neutral enforcers of the law..."

They've obviously taken Hager's lead wrt the application of "neutral".

[Akzle]

They've obviously taken Hager's lead wrt the application of "neutral".

hahahahahaha.
I just had this mental image of a five year old girl 'awww but he started it'
way to run a country champ.

[Motu]

National appear very concerned about who hacked Slater's computer, but don't seem to be interested in the identity of the person who used a National Party computer to hack into the Labour Party computer. Lenin and Stalin would be familiar with the tactics.

[R650R]

"Meanwhile, its also highly illuminating about police priorities. Break electoral law, and they do nothing (http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/confirmed-police-dont-care-about.html). Pervert the course of justice (http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/will-police-investigate.html), and they look the other way. Rape underage girls, and its too hard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roast_Busters_scandal). But embarrass the Prime Minister, and they're kicking in doors. You'd almost think they were the jackbooted thugs of the powers-that-be, rather than neutral enforcers of the law..."

Perhaps a whistleblower might come forward and trigger the next scandal, it does seem out of proportion to similar level offending in cases not involving the govt...
But I don't blame the police, this is clearly directed from a govt office to expend this much resources given that national did freeze the police budget for this year.
There's a saying that the fastest way to expose a corrupt dictatorship is to force them to act like one... its a worry that our western govts are acting more like the third world countries that we shook our heads at and invaded.

[pete376403]

[Quote] "I believe the police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand.[Quote]

That could also read: "I believe that journalist actions are dangerous for New Zealand". :sick: :facepalm:

What, telling the truth about the sort of shit that they'd (TPTB) would prefer you not be aware of?

[Oscar]

National appear very concerned about who hacked Slater's computer, but don't seem to be interested in the identity of the person who used a National Party computer to hack into the Labour Party computer. Lenin and Stalin would be familiar with the tactics.

Stalin hacked computers?

[oldrider]

[QUOTE=oldrider;1130777972][B][Quote] "I believe the police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand.

What, telling the truth about the sort of shit that they'd (TPTB) would prefer you not be aware of?

That would be nice if thats only what they did ... there are plenty of dishonest twisted journalists out there! (like everything else) :yes:

[SPman]

Journalists! What clown wrote this, I wonder.....
Bianchi, 25, was taken to Mie University Hospital, 10 miles from the Suzuka circuit, under a police escort. He will be taken to insensitive care after his emergency surgery.

That's granny Heralds standard of reporting........:facepalm:

[Banditbandit]

Stalin hacked computers?

Don't be a twat Oscar - 'cause I know you aren't ...

[Banditbandit]

Putting aside the issue of whether Nicky Hager was right or wrong in what he did, right or wrong in what he said, putting all that partisan crap aside ...

A true democracy NEEDS a free press (or as much a free press as we can get) ... and police action like this endangers that free press - endangers and important plank of our democracy - endangers all of us.

I will fight and die to preserve the rights of people to say what they think, and to have a free press - even when, or especially when, I disagree with what they say ...

We should all be concerned about these encroachments on our freedoms ...

"they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist...When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat....then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew...

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Martin Niemoller

Many of you are not simply not speaking out - you are actively supporting the actions of the state against our freedoms ... and you rely on that same freedom to have the right to your views.

We equally have the right to our views and the right to express them.

We would fight for your right to speak and think - but you deny our right to speak and think. Think about it people.

Who will be left when they come for you?

[MisterD]

National appear very concerned about who hacked Slater's computer, but don't seem to be interested in the identity of the person who used a National Party computer to hack into the Labour Party computer. Lenin and Stalin would be familiar with the tactics.

Nobody "hacked" into the Labour Party computer. They fucked up and effectively published their donor list on a web-facing server with no security. The page had been indexed by google, ferchrissakes all that anyone needed to do was to type the address into their browser.

**edit**

Plus, all that anyone did with the information on the Labour server was say "Ha ha, look how incompetent these muppets are!"

[MisterD]

and police action like this endangers that free press - endangers and important plank of our democracy - endangers all of us.

No. A crime has been committed, the Police should investigate and gather evidence. If there's a defence of public interest, that should be argued in front of a judge.



When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Martin Niemoller


"They came for the martial arts enthusiasts, but I wasn’t a martial arts enthusiast so I did nothing
They came for Eamonn Holmes and I think I’m right in saying I applauded
They came for the fire-eaters, but I wasn’t a fire-eater so I did nothing
They came for Dani Behr, I said she’s over there, behind the wardrobe

Turn a blind eye, sometimes it's best to" - Half man Half Biscuit "Turn a blind eye"

[bluninja]

Stalin hacked computers?

No but he had friends with ice picks that hacked opposition politicians biological computer :lol:

[carbonhed]

A comment shamelessly hacked from Kiwiblog...

"This search is a gross breach of Hager’s privacy. He will have personal emails and documents on those seized computers, and now someone else will be going through them and able to read what he had written. A privacy violation of this scale is unheard of since, well… since Hager did the same thing to someone else but without a warrant."

[Trade_nancy]

Queer how some regard it freedom of the press and fair play to grab peoples mail without their consent - but the same people squeal when police and government seek to do the same.
No freedom of access for those that are supposed to run the country and provide security and protection...all power to those that skulk and steal information in defence of their own self-righteousness.

[Banditbandit]

No. A crime has been committed, the Police should investigate and gather evidence. If there's a defence of public interest, that should be argued in front of a judge.



"They came for the martial arts enthusiasts, but I wasn’t a martial arts enthusiast so I did nothing
They came for Eamonn Holmes and I think I’m right in saying I applauded
They came for the fire-eaters, but I wasn’t a fire-eater so I did nothing
They came for Dani Behr, I said she’s over there, behind the wardrobe

Turn a blind eye, sometimes it's best to" - Half man Half Biscuit "Turn a blind eye"


I am sure that the Nazis considered the Communists to have committed a crime

I am sure that the Nazis considered the Jews had committed crimes ...

In the modern world, I am sure that the Iran Government has locked up many many people and killed and tortured them for exactly the same reason - they have committed a crime as defined by their Government ...

Does that make such actions right?? "Legal" and "Ethical" are not the same thing.

"Public Interest" is a very important plank of our democracy and WE should decide on that, not he judicial system, which has no mandate to consider such an issue on the level it needs to be considered.

As I said, (and I can recommend a good course on "Reading with comprehension" close to where you live) putting aside whether Nicky Hager was right or wrong in what he did, right or wrong in what he said, putting aside al that partisan crap .. .. " But you seem unable to do that and look at the bigger picture ...

I don't carer whether you quoted that dickhead in an ironic, humorous or funny way - that's just bullshit ..

[Banditbandit]

Queer how some regard it freedom of the press and fair play to grab peoples mail without their consent - but the same people squeal when police and government seek to do the same.
No freedom of access for those that are supposed to run the country and provide security and protection...all power to those that skulk and steal information in defence of their own self-righteousness.

That is a misrepresentation of what I said .. and of my position on this.

[SPman]

A comment shamelessly hacked from Kiwiblog...

"This search is a gross breach of Hager’s privacy. He will have personal emails and documents on those seized computers, and now someone else will be going through them and able to read what he had written. A privacy violation of this scale is unheard of since, well… since Hager did the same thing to someone else but without a warrant."
And when whaleblubber and his minions hacked several computers and put what they found online - don't see them being raided by the police - although there is a civil court case proceeding against the arsehead by someone whose life he did fuck up! The level of faux outrage at Hager is sickening to see. Obviously bought into the whole government narrative.

[oldrider]

Hager took his chances ... gambled and ? ... Well we will see sooner or later whether he won or lost but rest assured he knew what he was doing! :yes:

[Ocean1]

That is a misrepresentation of what I said .. and of my position on this.

It's a fucking sight more accurate and relevant though.

[Ocean1]

And when whaleblubber and his minions hacked several computers and put what they found online - don't see them being raided by the police - although there is a civil court case proceeding against the arsehead by someone whose life he did fuck up! The level of faux outrage at Hager is sickening to see. Obviously bought into the whole government narrative.

What makes you think the police didn't investigate that incident?

And I rather suspect that "outrage" is in fact at the blind hypocracy of someone "exposing" bad behaviour by stealing and selectively publishing someone else's private correspondence.

[MisterD]

As I said, (and I can recommend a good course on "Reading with comprehension" close to where you live) putting aside whether Nicky Hager was right or wrong in what he did, right or wrong in what he said, putting aside al that partisan crap .. .. " But you seem unable to do that and look at the bigger picture ...

The bigger picture is that it is illegal to hack into other peoples' private data, but in your world it's ok if you don't like the person being hacked. In case you missed it (or failed to comprehend the report in the paper) the police told Hager that he's a witness and not a suspect. Imagine the wailing if Ian Wishart had written a similarly slanted hit job on the Greens or Labour.

We have plenty of protections for proper journalists, whistle-blowers and activists committing criminal acts in our legislation - something that those muppets that attacked the Waihopai dome demostrated quite well - and a court of law is exactly the place for those things to be tested. It's why we have an independent judiciary.

[Banditbandit]

The bigger picture is that it is illegal to hack into other peoples' private data,

Yes, I accept it is illegal.


but in your world it's ok if you don't like the person being hacked.


Nowhere have I said that - and the implication in my statements is exactly the opposite of that.

I did and do have an issue with the way that Hager got the data. I respect privacy more than I respect the law, and yes, I think it was information unethically obtained ... Having been given it Hager made his choice - to make it all public. The wider picture here is the exposure of dirty dealings amongst our politicians .. whatever colour flavour or sexual preference they are .. I would never argue that the ends justify the means ... and I am troubled by Hager using hacked information ... that doesn't mean that he should not use what he was given - it was his responsibility to use it or not and I support his decision - he is responsible, he made the decision, he lives with the results.

I am equally unhappy that the police raided his house and removed so much computer technology and now have their hands on a whole lot of stuff that they do not need for their investigation - and material that belongs to the rest of the family, not just Nicky ..

Very heavy handed. They could have just put him before a judge and asked him who his source was, then jailed him for contempt if he refused to answer .. you seem to like the judicial answer .. it should have been used here.




In case you missed it (or failed to comprehend the report in the paper) the police told Hager that he's a witness and not a suspect. Imagine the wailing if Ian Wishart had written a similarly slanted hit job on the Greens or Labour.

The flavour of the party has nothing to do with it ... If Wishart can construct such a piece, then I saw let him go for it ... the distasteful and unethical politicians need to be exposed ..


We have plenty of protections for proper journalists, whistle-blowers and activists committing criminal acts in our legislation - something that those muppets that attacked the Waihopai dome demostrated quite well - and a court of law is exactly the place for those things to be tested. It's why we have an independent judiciary.

Some of us do not have your faith in our system ... and if I went to look would I find on KBer any criticism from you of the courts system?

I will go and look ..

[Banditbandit]

It's a fucking sight more accurate and relevant though.

Don't go off half cocked and knee jerk on me now ... I know you are better than that.

[MisterD]

Some of us do not have your faith in our system ... and if I went to look would I find on KBer any criticism from you of the courts system?

I will go and look ..

I would imagine there's some criticism of the decision on the aforementioned Waihopai case...

[imdying]

I would never argue that the ends justify the means ... and I am troubled by Hager using hacked information ... that doesn't mean that he should not use what he was givenNiggers like you with your fucking weasel words. I don't know why lefty cunts like you need to have a buck each way. No fucking spine I expect.

[Banditbandit]

Niggers like you with your fucking weasel words. I don't know why lefty cunts like you need to have a buck each way. No fucking spine I expect.

Fuck off ..

[oldrider]

Fuck off ..

Appropriate response. :yes:

[SPman]

The bigger picture is that it is illegal to hack into other peoples' private data, but in your world it's ok if you don't like the person being hacked. There is, however, the test of "is it in the best interests of the public" And if it's illegal - you'd better tell the government that - they are quite happy to access all your data and changed the law to enable them to do so - after being told, it was illegal.
In case you missed it (or failed to comprehend the report in the paper) the police told Hager that he's a witness and not a suspect. If he's a "witness", why spend 10 hrs at his place trawling through everything and carting it away?
Imagine the wailing if Ian Wishart had written a similarly slanted hit job on the Greens or Labour. They should be used to it given the general tone of the MSM in this country...or maybe they don't have so much shit to hide! Hager has already written a "hit job" on Labour in the past, which is conveniently forgotten by you conservative muppets!


We have plenty of protections for proper journalists, whistle-blowers and activists committing criminal acts in our legislation - something that those muppets that attacked the Waihopai dome demostrated quite well - and a court of law is exactly the place for those things to be tested. It's why we have an independent judiciary.But, only on selected cases, involving those who criticise the government - those who back the government , or, if there is a case that could embarrass senior figures, it is quietly swept away......

[imdying]

Yes, heaven forbid you actually make a decision... oooh but it's hard... I like that he tried to attack the government, but I know the information came from an illegal source... wah wah. Fuck me what a woman.

[Swoop]

That's granny Heralds standard of reporting........:facepalm:
Yes. We have been telling you Australians this, for some time now.


They should be used to it given the general tone of the MSM in this country...
In Australia?

[MisterD]

There is, however, the test of "is it in the best interests of the public"

Which is something that a judge should decide, not the police.


And if it's illegal - you'd better tell the government that - they are quite happy to access all your data and changed the law to enable them to do so - after being told, it was illegal.

They changed the law to make it legal for the SIS to assist the police, if a warrant was granted. There was nothing in the slightest bit illegal about what the police were doing, "spying" on Dotcom, at least until the bit where they got all starry-eyed about the FBI and broke out the helicopters.



If he's a "witness", why spend 10 hrs at his place trawling through everything and carting it away?

Because they know he knows who the hacker is? His statements in the media have been as conflicting as all get out on that subject. Now Nicky says "honestly I know nothing", and the cops are supposed to say "oh right, nobody we've ever spoken to has ever said that before, we'll leave you alone sir"?


conservative

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Katman]

A true democracy NEEDS a free press (or as much a free press as we can get) ...

As you're probably aware, the Australian government are currently introducing legislation that will seriously smother free press in their country.

Then you have this.....

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/ripa-police-inquiry/?tw=dd

[Stylo]

Surprised at his naivety, what a cock



Mana leader Hone Harawira has filed for a recount of the votes in the Te Tai Tokerau electorate.

He lost the seat on election night to Labour's Kelvin Davis by a margin of 739 votes, and has refused to concede defeat since. His party has concerns about votes that were rejected.

Harawira admitted on TVNZ's Marae programme that his refusal to concede defeat was a tactic to stretch out the use of his parliamentary perks and pay packet.

"One of the good things about not conceding, for those of you in politics, is if you concede on the night all your travel benefits stop at 12 o'clock," Harawira said.

"If you don't [concede], you get to fly round the country and go and see all your people for the next two weeks."

But a spokeswoman for Parliamentary Services confirmed declaration day was typically the date at which parliamentary travel entitlements were cut off for former MPs, regardless of whether they've conceded.

"Travel benefits cease for former members on the day they resign or on polling day, if they do not stand, or on declaration day if they stand and are unsuccessful," she said.

Declaration day was Saturday, when the commission announced the formal election result with the count of the special votes.

Harawira has not responded to requests for comment.

A spokeswoman for the Electoral Commission confirmed Harawira filed a request in Kaitaia District Court today for a recount.
She said the recount would be supervised by a judge, and that would take place over the next few days.

"From our end, that means we can't return the writ until that recount has been done," she said.

"The judge who will be carrying out the recount, will decide how and when it proceeds, but it will be starting tomorrow morning and previous recounts that were done in 2011 took between three and five days."

Tomorrow is the deadline to file for a recount.

Mana general secretary Gerard Hehir said the party had some concerns over the way some votes were discounted.

"Particularly around special votes," he said.

"We understand almost 1000 special votes have been rejected and we've just got a lot of concerns irrespective of whether it changes the outcome or not.

"It's particularly around how the enrolment status of those votes was evaluated, and how our understanding is that the recount process will actually allow a judge to look at not just counting the votes, but also the status of those votes."

Meanwhile, the commission has referred MediaWorks to police after a George FM broadcaster urged people to vote for the Green Party on election day. A Christchurch community group has also been referred to police for distributing a leaflet.

[mashman]

Niggers like you with your fucking weasel words. I don't know why lefty cunts like you need to have a buck each way. No fucking spine I expect.

Nah, they're simply more considerate when it comes to what they put in their mouth, let alone swallow (or vice versa).

[Woodman]

And when whaleblubber and his minions hacked several computers and put what they found online - don't see them being raided by the police - although there is a civil court case proceeding against the arsehead by someone whose life he did fuck up! The level of faux outrage at Hager is sickening to see. Obviously bought into the whole government narrative.

So if Whaleoil was raided and not Hager, would that be more right?

[Katman]

So if Whaleoil was raided and not Hager, would that be more right?

And no doubt you're totally incapable of imagining the hidden hand giving the police a gentle nudge in the back over this.

[carbonhed]

Appropriate response. :yes:

Absolutely :wacko:

[Woodman]

And no doubt you're totally incapable of imagining the hidden hand giving the police a gentle nudge in the back over this.

And are you capable of imagining that something is not influenced by government.

[carbonhed]

And are you capable of imagining that something is not influenced by government.

There's no arguing with the voices in his head.

[Ocean1]

Don't go off half cocked and knee jerk on me know ... I know you are better than that.

No,no, what I'm doing is slapping idiots who try to pretend that the worlds least corrupt country is a dangerous totalitarian state.

And pointing at socialist fuckwits bleating about inequities in the worlds most egalitarian nation and laughing.

Fuck me, you live in the most benign paradise the world's ever known, live it well or slit your wrists but shut the fuck up.

[Winston001]

National appear very concerned about who hacked Slater's computer, but don't seem to be interested in the identity of the person who used a National Party computer to hack into the Labour Party computer.

The National government if that's who you mean have been silent on this issue. Nicki Hager's book won them the election so I can't see any rational reason for the government MPs attacking him at this stage. In fact they are probably proposing toasts to Mr Hager.

[Winston001]

Just a couple of things:

Helen Clark despised Nicky Hager which IMHO says much about the man and his ethics.

The other thing is Hager has been sued despite saying nobody has sued him. Hager's explanation is he never had to face a strong case but nevertheless settled out of court. Right there is a Tui moment. Yeah right...

[Winston001]

Ok, leaving all the rights and wrongs of hacking websites and emails aside, I am with Bandit on this.

I have little time for Hager because I think he has a deeply flawed agenda, but sometimes we have to realise that unlawfully obtained information serves a greater public good. Ministers of the Crown like Judith Collins should not hang out public servants to dry. That is simply wrong.

Much as it chokes me, Hager raises important questions and we should look hard at our political appointees, and hold them to much higher standards than currently evident.

[Banditbandit]

So if Whaleoil was raided and not Hager, would that be more right?

No it would not ... Woodlice has as much right to have his say as anyone ... I think he's a slimeball - but slimeballs have the right to free speech .. I think he's been used and abused by dirty politicians .. but slimeballs are vulnerable to that ...


No,no, what I'm doing is slapping idiots who try to pretend that the worlds least corrupt country is a dangerous totalitarian state.

And pointing at socialist fuckwits bleating about inequities in the worlds most egalitarian nation and laughing.

Fuck me, you live in the most benign paradise the world's ever known, live it well or slit your wrists but shut the fuck up.

:rofl: We do not live in a dangerous totalitarian state - and yes we probably do live in one of the world's most egalitarian states - it may be benign, but it is not a social paradise and it is not perfect by any means. We need to resist ANY and ALL encroachments on our freedoms ...

[Oscar]

Ok, leaving all the rights and wrongs of hacking websites and emails aside, I am with Bandit on this.

I have little time for Hager because I think he has a deeply flawed agenda, but sometimes we have to realise that unlawfully obtained information serves a greater public good. Ministers of the Crown like Judith Collins should not hang out public servants to dry. That is simply wrong.

Much as it chokes me, Hager raises important questions and we should look hard at our political appointees, and hold them to much higher standards than currently evident.

Collins is a scumbag.
Collins got sacked.

What else came out of the book or emails that is proven and hasn't been acted on?
And by proven, I am mean accusations that don't contain the qualifiers "may have" "apparently" and the like.

[SPman]

Publishing Dirty Politics
Let’s start with Hager. He claims that the book is based on thousands of pages of emails between Slater and others which were leaked to him out of the blue by an unnamed person or persons. He says the emails were obtained during an attack on the Whale Oil site following Slater’s comment “Feral dies in Greymouth, did world a favour.” There is no suggestion that Hager was himself involved in the hacking of the emails so the question is: was Hager entitled to publish the emails he published?

The answer is yes, as long as the public interest in the emails outweighs the competing rights of those who wrote them. So how do we work that out? There is a pretty good argument that material in Dirty Politics is in the public interest. The public interest is particularly strong where information relates to the behaviour of elected politicians. Dirty Politics is making some serious allegations about that behaviour and it’s arguable that the public should hear them.


People also have no right to keep secret communications which reveal wrongdoing. This “iniquity” defence could justify many of Hager’s disclosures including, for example, the alleged exchange in which Slater and political commentator, Matthew Hooton, provide details of Hager’s address to lawyer, Cathy Ogders, who wants it made available to “vicious” individuals whom she appears to believe will have it in for him.

On the other side, though, are the emailers’ rights to privacy and confidentiality. There can be little question that the emails were confidential and that anyone reading them would have known that. Slater, Collins etc would probably also have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in respect of the emails’ contents.

But how heavily does that weigh in the balance? The breach of privacy/confidentiality here is significant – the need to protect correspondence is widely recognised – but it is not at the worst end of the scale. Hager has not published information about the emailers’ health, sex lives, family lives, or financial position. And the emails disclosed were written by the parties in their professional capacity. This is not as serious as disclosing emails between, say, John Key and his wife or between David Cunliffe and his kids.
In light of that, my money would be on the public interest prevailing.

Accessing Labour Party donor lists and supporters
So what about Hager’s allegation that, following a tip-off, Slater, Ede and others accessed sensitive information about Labour donors and supporters via a loophole in their website? Does that account, if accurate, reveal wrongdoing?

Accessing a computer without authorisation is a crime under section 252 of the Crimes Act 1961. It says:
(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.



“Access” and “computer system” are defined pretty broadly and so the provision would seem to catch the activity allegedly undertaken by Ede and Slater. The question is whether Ede and Slater knew or were reckless about whether their access was unauthorised. Slater and Ede might be able to claim that they assumed that their access was “authorised” because they got the information via a publicly available website.

But there are lots of ways such an argument could be refuted. Its success might depend, for example, on how easily Slater and Ede got hold of the information – if a person needed a tip off and/or sophisticated computer skills to get at the donor and supporter lists, it would be hard to argue they thought they were for general consumption.

And what about other indications that the information was not intended for Ede and Slater’s eyes? Might the structure of the website have made this clear? Or the nature of the information itself – a court might say it is obvious, for example, that members of the public weren’t meant to be seeing donors’ credit card details.

Ede and Slater’s subsequent comments are relevant here too. According to Hager, Ede writes an email expressing relief that Labour didn’t realise he’d accessed their material. And Slater wrote a blog post talking about “Labour’s Leaks”. These comments could undermine any argument that they thought they were allowed the material all along.

Labour might also have a claim for damages against the hackers. The strongest claim here is in breach of confidence. Recent English case law (Tchenguiz v Imerman) says that it is a breach of confidence simply to access confidential information which is stored on a computer, even if you don’t publish it. It is not clear yet whether New Zealand will follow that decision but if they do, the two key questions would be: was the donor and supporter information confidential, and if it was, should Ede and Slater have known that?

The answer to the second question is probably yes – for the reasons set out above. The first question is trickier. Information can’t be confidential if it is widely available. So Ede and Slater could argue that, given it could be obtained via a public website, the donor and supporter information is not confidential. This argument could run into trouble though if the information was not easy to get. Again, if individuals needed inside knowledge and/or sophisticated computer skills to obtain donor and supporter lists then they probably remained confidential.

The Whale Oil hackers
That leaves the question of the conduct of the hackers who obtained Slater’s emails. It seems pretty likely that their behaviour was both criminal and a breach of Slater, Collins, Ede etc’s confidence and privacy. However, since we don’t know exactly what they did or how they did it, it is difficult to comment further.




Dr Nicole Moreham is Associate Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington

[Banditbandit]

Yes exactly ... I agree with Dr Moreham's points.

[oldrider]

Everyone involved is as dirty as each other ... no moral high ground available to be claimed! .. They all had "dirty" agendas IMHO! :sick:

[Katman]

Yes exactly ... I agree with Dr Moreham's points.

Yeah, but who's she compared to the Kiwibiker Brains Trust?

[Woodman]

Yeah, but who's she compared to the Kiwibiker Brains Trust?

She is probarbly one of "them". Unless you agree with her then she is a fine upstanding never to be questioned absolute authority on all things, no matter how ludicrous they may seem.

[Katman]

She is probarbly one of "them". Unless you agree with her then she is a fine upstanding never to be questioned absolute authority on all things, no matter how ludicrous they may seem.

Yeah, Victoria University has always let any old whack-job lecture there.

[Woodman]

Yeah, Victoria University has always let any old whack-job lecture there.


Yes, you are correct, the mainstream educational facilities are always right and never ever corrupted by governments or corporates.

[Winston001]

LOL don't know about that Woody but Vic has always been a left wing university. No problem. :D

[oldrider]

LOL don't know about that Woody but Vic has always been a left wing university. No problem. :D

They all are but once out in the "real world" most of the students mature and drift towards sanity by default! ... or otherwise! :shifty:

[oneofsix]

They all are but once out in the "real world" most of the students mature and drift towards sanity by default! ... or otherwise! :shifty:

I'll finish that for you. Or otherwise we would live in a better world without enforced poverty and homelessness :corn:

[mashman]

I'll finish that for you. Or otherwise ... they would leave the world class university institution as a highly qualified, exceptionally well balanced individual and by default .... we would live in a better world without enforced poverty and homelessness :corn:

Huzzzahhh... fixed a bit ;).

[oneofsix]

Huzzzahhh... fixed a bit ;).

I'm OK with that but might be a bit much for the old fellow to digest :lol:

[SPman]

LOL don't know about that Woody but Vic has always been a left wing university. No problem. :D What - it encourages people to observe and think.....well well well, who'd a thunk it.....strange how most people who actually use their brains and have empathy, tend to be classified "left".
The old adage that people get more conservative as they get older, John? Reality does bite, but reality is now not what it was - I find myself and other friends getting more radical as we get older........
I see there have been attempts to shut down the Hager donation fighting fund by people who think it shouldn't be allowed and who have threatened the person who set it up - I think I'll go and donate some more.....