Collins’ attack on Pullar continues

58 comments on “Collins’ attack on Pullar continues ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   26 March 2012 at 9:12 am

   I am wondering at the end game here.  It must be related to the jockeying for the position of next leader of the National Party.
    
   Having a pretty good idea of the internal machinations that occurred during the Labour leadership struggle I must say that Labour’s were a pale insignificant comparison to what is happening in the National Party.
    
    
   • Anne 1.1

     26 March 2012 at 9:40 am

     Collins is one by one eliminating all future opposition to her leadership ambitions?
     • RJL 1.1.1

       26 March 2012 at 11:36 am

       Maybe, but I don’t think it was thoroughly thought through like this.

       I think that Pullar’s details were leaked purely to discredit Pullar, and this was done in ignorance of the fact that there was potential to inflict collateral damage on Smith.
       • mickysavage 1.1.1.1

         26 March 2012 at 1:57 pm

         It will possibly depend if the Smith ACC letters were themselves leaked.  Although I am not sure what Collins’ concern was.  She was not the Minister when the original loss of information occurred or when the Boag – Pullar – Senior manager meeting occurred.
         • RJL 1.1.1.1.1

           26 March 2012 at 3:15 pm

           It seems plausible that some of Pullar’s details — like the fact that she allegedly tried to blackmail ACC — were leaked to attempt to minimise this story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/acc/news/article.cfm?o_id=3&objectid=10792157

           The spin presumably being that while the privacy breach was bad, the actions of Pullar were so much worse, and therefore she rather than ACC / the government is the real villain that we should all be concentrating on. Fits the general MO for Bennett, Brownlee, et al.

           And to the extent that we have been distracted from the original ACC privacy breach, it was a well executed plan!
2. ACC insider 2

   26 March 2012 at 9:34 am

   Four questions Minister Collins needs to be asked:

   Has the Minister run an IT sweep of her office for the email relating to Bronwyn Pullar that was leaked to the Herald on Sunday. If not, why not?
   Is the Minister aware that emails and attachments can be tracked, including when these are opened and the ISP address of where they are opened?
   Did the Minister or her office provide a copy of the memo regarding Bronwyn Pullar to Cameron Slater or any of his ISP’s?
   Did the Minister or her office encourage Cameron Slater to provide the memo regarding Bronwyn Pullar to the media?
   • mickysavage 2.1

     26 March 2012 at 11:00 am

     And the cruncher who if anyone did she send Boag’s email to and who did they send this email onto?
3. Pete George 3

   26 March 2012 at 9:40 am

   “Both sides are scum.”

   “…when Key’s finished making a dick of himself and pathetically trying to get some of Obama’s glow to rub off on him…”

   ACCPullarSmithBoagCollinsgate deserves a lot more scrutiny, like some that’s raised here, but I think you will preach more effectively beyond the converted if you raise the tone of attack above the scumminess. Trash talk doesn’t make a good argument.
   • Bored 3.1

     26 March 2012 at 9:49 am

     Hmmm, it is morning tea on Monday, lots going on..quick glance at the Standard reveals the following comment….“Both sides are scum.”.

     Yes, the world is still rotating, the comment is accurate from my viewpoint. Trash talk? Hey we are talking about trash which I define as people desperate enough to do any number of nasty things to each other.
4. Sarah 4

   26 March 2012 at 9:50 am

   Potentially new things you can gamble on at Ipredict:

   Police compliant laid against Collins over Pullar email
   Collins resigns as Minister of ACC
   Police investigation of Minister’s office
   Collins charged under the Crimes Act
   • Hami Shearlie 4.1

     26 March 2012 at 11:41 am

     Mind you, she’s not called Crusher for nothing – she’ll think that she can crush all opposition, like a giant rolling pin and she’s already looking slightly green in hue! LOL
5. ianmac 5

   26 March 2012 at 9:51 am

   Mickey: “It must be related to the jockeying for the position of next leader of the National Party.” Wondered about that. With the flow of events unhelpful to National leadership it may be a cause or an effect for setting up for those who want to become the Boss.
   Collins v Joyce?
   The MSM should be suggesting possible infighting, misquotes, rumours and advice to Collins and Joyce.
   They did so for the leadership for Labour didn’t they?
   • Tom Gould 5.1

     26 March 2012 at 10:06 am

     @ ianmac, but that would cost the MSM bosses money, and some of their flunkies too. There was a time when they made their money from reporting the news.
     • bbfloyd 5.1.1

       26 March 2012 at 11:34 am

       tom.. which lifetime were you living when that was happening?

       who has always owned the presses?
6. Sarah 6

   26 March 2012 at 9:53 am

   Has the Minister run an IT sweep of her office? If not, why not?
7. tc 7

   26 March 2012 at 11:17 am

   cage fight time….cue PG’s indignation but I bet he’d watch it with glee.
8. Sarah 8

   26 March 2012 at 11:23 am

   Is the Minister aware that technology exists to track emails and attachments to any recipients ISP, the pathways of communication, and the ISP address where they have been opened or printed?
9. Sarah 9

   26 March 2012 at 11:24 am

   Is the Minister of ACC going to turn up and answer questions?
10. Sarah 10

    26 March 2012 at 11:26 am

    Will the Minister be gone by lunchtime?
11. Sarah 11

    26 March 2012 at 11:26 am

    Can the Minister trust the staff in her office not to squeal?
12. ianmac 12

    26 March 2012 at 12:34 pm

    A new Act makes it possible for a “journalist” to be compelled to hand over the source.
    Whaleoil is a sort of journalist who has published some unfortunate stuff about Pullar.
    If there was an Enquiry could Whaleoil be compelled to reveal the source of his email?
    • Kotahi Tane Huna 12.1

      26 March 2012 at 12:42 pm

      Surely Whale’s legal aid lawyer could argue that “Mr. Oil’s output does not constitute “journalism” in any meaningful definition of the word.”
      • felix 12.1.1

        26 March 2012 at 4:55 pm

        Hasn’t the Slater child been arguing for a while now that he and his ilk ought to be granted proper press credentials?
        • Robert M 12.1.1.1

          27 March 2012 at 12:09 pm

          Well why not, the cameron rag is sometimes amusing and informed. Unlike people like Michelle Boag , Bill English and Nick Smith, the Slaters clearly belong in something that would be a recognisable National Party or any other legitmate right centre party like the Australian liberal party or the UK Tory Party.
          I find the Michelle Boag performace intolerable and unbelievable. How this women who fronted for New Zealand finest, most brilliant and effective and ideological new right businesspeople and accountants and lawyers like Micheal Fay and David Richwhite sit in the same party as such pathetic left wing wets as Nick Smith and Bill English who in their gutlessness and betrayal are doing unlimited damage to the NZ economy and our society every day.
          I am sure Fay and Richwhite would never have defended a mindblowing rort like ACC in which numerous people known to every kiwi and every street got mindblowing take and bread of about 90,000 dollars a year for decades with very little wrong with them other some minor injury which supposedly derailed them from doing some specific technical job they had done for a year. Compared with any DPB living on a pittance and doing the outrageous crime in the view of the very stupid of actually enjoying sex and leisure, pleasure – Michelle Boag and Puller really take the cake. But then of course like me Michelle Boag has always the morals of an alley cat, after all she was the press secretary for Muldoon and Bolger. Rob Muldoon always had admiration for alley cats of a wide variety of types-ie hot women, criminals and gang members.
    • Cactus Kate 12.2

      26 March 2012 at 2:29 pm

      Whaleoil made it perfectly clear Bronwyn told him (rather unwisely) several years ago the information he has published thus far. Therefore she appears the source for what he has published.
      • felix 12.2.1

        26 March 2012 at 5:11 pm

        The Slater child is also on record saying there’s no such thing as the truth except whatever he decides it is at the time.

        So there’s that too.
      • mickysavage 12.2.2

        26 March 2012 at 10:40 pm

        Cameron and friends seem to be very sensitive to this particular issue.  Could it be that he has wittingly or unwittingly been caught up in an internal Cabinet gunfight for the future leadership of the National Party?  And he thought he was just giving Boag a hard time?
13. tsmithfield 13

    26 March 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Eddie, you appear to be making totally unsupported assertions in your article. Mere plebs, such as me, would probably get banned for making similar statements.

    The article you link to only refers to an e-mail from Boag. It says nothing about who it was sent to. So, to say it was Collins is a complete stretch as there doesn’t appear to be any evidence in the article that the e-mail was sent to the government at all.
    • Lanthanide 13.1

      26 March 2012 at 2:16 pm

      The double standards that go on around here do rather rankle me, as well.
      • Clashman 13.1.1

        26 March 2012 at 2:21 pm

        +1
      • tsmithfield 13.1.2

        26 March 2012 at 2:33 pm

        I know we have substantial disagreements in politics Lanth. But I have seen you take a principled approach to a number of issues now, and have high respect for you for that.
      • lprent 13.1.3

        26 March 2012 at 9:50 pm

        A. The post inferred it, it did not assert it. In other words it is clear it is speculation by the author. Where commentators and sites get into trouble is when they assert it as fact without offering proof.

        B. The Lange vs Atkinson decision means that considerably more speculation can be used about politicians in the public interest than can used for private individuals, companies and unions.

        C. Similar limits exist around the criminal law and what we can do in those areas.

        If there are double standards then they appear to pervade legal system because that is our boundary.

        Many of the critics here don’t really appear to understand the nuances of the legal limits that the authors routinely work around. Personally, I’m always impressed about how much finesse that the authors use and how little I have to worry about getting hauled into court.

        And of course our own internal ‘law’ is pretty straight forward. It is hard enough motivating ourselves to write, moderate, keep servers going, and the software operating. If someone has been around for an instant and wants to waste our time with stuff about the site we have heard a thousand times before, don’t listen when warned, then we presume that they would really prefer to be elsewhere where they don’t waste our time.
        • tsmithfield 13.1.3.1

          26 March 2012 at 10:44 pm

          I don’t know if my e-mail to the site has managed to get me unbanned. However, I trust that this post will get through.

          Thanks for the thoughtful answer BTW. Your explanation helps.

          I guess we could debate whether what Eddie has said is assertion or inference. Anyway, that is not really the point.

          Its your site. So, obviously, you can decide what you allow or disallow. Probably my beef is that, from my perspective, I have been banned for similar instances as what I see in Eddies post above. I guess if you want others to behave in a certain way, it would be good for those posting articles to set the example of what is expected. Otherwise, it can seem rather arbitrary and unfair when people get banned for similar behaviour.

          [You said Ambrose had committed an offence – no caveats, just a bald statement that he had committed an offence. That’s defamation, because it is clearly not true on the facts and cannot not be reasonably be believed to be true on the known facts. I said that Collins was imitating her cabinet colleagues in using personal information held by the government to intimidate opponents of the government. That isn’t defamation thanks to Lange v Atkinson, and arguably honest opinion – in that my opinion is honestly held and can be reasonably extrapolated from the known facts. – As I’m in a good mood and you’re taking this well, I’ll waive the ban. Eddie]
          • tsmithfield 13.1.3.1.1

            26 March 2012 at 11:13 pm

            Thanks for that.

            I have deleted my reply to MS below. It was probably OK, but is now unnecessary given your comments.
    • hawk 13.2

      26 March 2012 at 2:17 pm

      I agree TS.

      It seem that a few days ago people were getting banned for not providing links to info they were suggesting over the MUNZ bullying lockout etc.

      Yet he have a blanket statement “it’s clearly her, ACC wouldn’t do it” with no link at all. Apart from the fact that it follows a link to the fact that she has been paided out privately.

      So to me a clear case of “do what we say not what we do ” by the Standard.

      In no way has Collins been shown to be linked to a leak expect from the thoughts of EDDIE. Total fail for being a fair and unbias site. Interesting that the right aligned comment do get harsher moderation.
    • mickysavage 13.3

      26 March 2012 at 10:47 pm

      TS obviously Eddie may be privy to more information than he is letting on.  And if he is right will you apologise?
      
      [My post makes no mention of the letter from Boag. It is simply about who leaked Pullar’s name. If Pullar’s name wasn’t leaked by Collins then she should launch an investigation to find out how it was leaked. Because Pullar claims ACC leaked it and they deny that. Eddie]
      • tsmithfield 13.3.1

        26 March 2012 at 11:08 pm

        deleted
14. Cactus Kate 14

    26 March 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Bronwyn negotiated a confidential settlement with her private insurer, while The Herald reported this as a fact, it did so off Michelle Boag’s email to Crusher. If you read the misleading piece again slowly it was the Herald that claimed it was over $1million, not Boag and not Crusher.

    The only people who would have known the settlement figure were indeed Bronwyn and anyone she has told. Which I doubt would include ACC but given Whaleoil actually published the number a week before the Herald, clearly includes him. I didn’t know the exact number and I knew her well at the time it was settled. I never asked.

    ACC themselves have stated that the settlement does to form part of their calculations for eligibility to ACC.

    Therefore Bronwyn herself appears to have been the “leak” to Whaleoil who blogged it.. Nothing at all to do with Crusher.
    • Ross 14.1

      26 March 2012 at 2:34 pm

      Nevertheless, Collins hasn’t disguised her intense dislike of Pullar. Would she resort to releasing private information ala her colleague Paula Bennett? I have no doubt she would.
      • Cactus Kate 14.1.1

        26 March 2012 at 2:51 pm

        Yes but Crusher didn’t. Read above. Bronwyn has spoken to anyone who will listen to her concerns about ACC well back into the Labour government years. If you want privacy you must keep your information private, she hasn’t.
    • mickysavage 14.2

      26 March 2012 at 2:49 pm

      What about the Boag email itself Kate?  I am sure this was a private Nat activist to Nat activist but it appears to have made its way to ACC and was then transmitted somehow to Slater.
       
      Care to comment on this?
      • Cactus Kate 14.2.1

        26 March 2012 at 2:55 pm

        Why? Too many insane conspiracy theories here already.
        Boag was clearly lobbying the incoming Minister by the sounds. And again, want privacy, be private.
        • Bored 14.2.1.1

          26 March 2012 at 4:53 pm

          So Prickly One, who benefits (the most)….whats the real score according to the inside tequila? (I would lay a bet on your version being close to the mark).
          • Cactus Kate 14.2.1.1.1

            26 March 2012 at 8:24 pm

            Interesting question FINALLY on The Standard

            Who benefits most from what has happened?
            I suspect Bronwyn.
            Hello, who is going to cut her ACC off after this?
            Boag and Smith are the losers.
            Crusher has been inconvenienced with the kerfuffle.
            Reporters have had a weeks great copy.
            And Winston mentioned the word sex in Parliament so his ratings driven by conspiracy have increased.
            • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.1.1.1

              26 March 2012 at 9:09 pm

              Who benefits most from what has happened?
              I suspect Bronwyn.
              Hello, who is going to cut her ACC off after this?

              I bet some people are looking at filing criminal charges against Bronwyn. Misuse of private information for personal gain and all that.

              And Winston mentioned the word sex in Parliament so his ratings driven by conspiracy have increased.

              How can it still be a conspiracy if the detail is all coming out in the open?
              • felix …

                26 March 2012 at 9:12 pm

                Odgers is just trying to divert attention away from the political machinations, as the Slater child has been doing.

                Pullar is a dupe and a patsy, neither here nor there in the big picture.

                Who benefits politically?
15. William Joyce 15

    26 March 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Has Crusher developed a new career advancement plan? – Link
16. Ross 16

    26 March 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Pullar’s list of gripes with ACC is longer than my arm. Isuggest the ACC minister might like to improve the performance of her ministry rather than shoot the messenger.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6631240/Full-list-of-Bronwyn-Pullars-complaints-to-ACC
    • ianmac 16.1

      26 March 2012 at 3:05 pm

      Phew! Somewhat repetitive but no wonder ACC is fed up! Smoke. Fire?
      On Morning Report today it was suggested that the obsessiveness of some can be credited against certain types of brain injury.
17. felix 17

    26 March 2012 at 4:59 pm

    I note that an old drunk lady upthread keeps calling Judith Collins “crusher”.

    Has she actually crushed any cars yet or is this just another bit of desperate and pathetically transparent meme generation?
    • deuto 17.1

      26 March 2012 at 9:14 pm

      Interesting that she continually uses Crusher – but after her first two comments on the post, my instinctive reaction was “the ‘lady” protestive too much” – not correct wording but you get the drift. Playing interference by chance?
      • felix 17.1.1

        26 March 2012 at 9:19 pm

        Hmm yes, 5 prickly comments in this thread, containing 5 instances of “Crusher” and none of “Collins”.

        I think the idea is to make Collins sound strong and formidable, but really it just makes Odgers sound sycophantic and crawly.
    • David H 17.2

      26 March 2012 at 11:03 pm

      I think she might have got one. I saw a piccy of it, and I would not even want to get in it. It was a Toymotor Coroda 1988 vintage with more coroda than toymotor.
18. Adrian 18

    26 March 2012 at 5:17 pm

    It’s not fair to compare the car that Collins crushed to Nick Smith. As TV3 showed when the authorities turned up to take it away, it was a broken down empty stripped out shell long past it’s use-by date, ohh……
    • felix 18.1

      26 March 2012 at 5:19 pm

      So she has actually had a car crushed?

      Is it just the one so far?
      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1

        26 March 2012 at 9:20 pm

        Yep, just that one. As Adrian mentioned it was already an immobile wreck. Probably did the landowners a favour, taking it away.
19. Sarah 19

    27 March 2012 at 12:02 pm

    How many people is Collins going to knock off to cover her arse?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6644194/ACC-chairman-called-to-Beehive
    Is John Judge next?
    Who’s going to squeal??!!
20. Sarah 20

    27 March 2012 at 12:12 pm

    One thing that can be confirmed now is either ACC or the Minister is lying!
    Which one?
    How can anyone have trust and confidence in ACC and their integrity when we don’t know if it’s the Corporation or the Minister that’s lying?
    Maybe they both need to go?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS