Comments on: Exclusive: New evidence shows Lee lied about NZ on Air funding

By: felix

felix — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:36:55 +0000

Or at least learn more than one trick.

By: Tigger

Tigger — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:49:48 +0000

Personally it’s a lot like watching a small dog doing tricks – amusing after a while but ultimately you just want it to stop yapping.

By: Sandy Mamoli

Sandy Mamoli — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:15:40 +0000

RT @publicaddress: The Standard has a pretty good OIA scoop on Melissa Lee's dealings with NZ On Air: http://bit.ly/6xxi8q

By: Russell Brown

Russell Brown — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:42:15 +0000

The Standard has a pretty good OIA scoop on Melissa Lee's dealings with NZ On Air: http://bit.ly/6xxi8q

By: snoozer

snoozer — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:15:30 +0000

Well, Key could ask her to resign, yes.

By: Tim Ellis

Tim Ellis — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:48:28 +0000

The National story is that she claimed something to the PM that is contradicted by the facts. That has got to be bad behavior.

Where did you get this LP?

By: Russell Brown

Russell Brown — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:41:10 +0000

Personally, I’m finding Tim Ellis’s rationalisations hugely entertaining.

By: Juha Saarinen

Juha Saarinen — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:19:46 +0000

RT @publicaddress: The Standard has a pretty good OIA scoop on Melissa Lee's dealings with NZ On Air: http://bit.ly/6xxi8q

By: lprent

lprent — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:44:54 +0000

Does raise an interesting question about list MPs.

I’ll take a bet that National has some clauses about behaviour. If they dump her from the party, then I think that there is waka jumping legislation? After all she is an MP because of the national list. The Nats would be out one MP.

The National story is that she claimed something to the PM that is contradicted by the facts. That has got to be bad behavior.

By: Zorr

Zorr — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:25:58 +0000

She is a List MP. She wasn’t personally elected to the position she currently holds and has been sworn in to Parliament as selected by National as a result of voting, not by the voting of an electorate for her. So she can actually be sacked and replaced without subverting the democratic process.

By: Chris C

Chris C — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:14:19 +0000

“If you’ve ever been through a financial audit you will know this is pretty common, and mistakes of interpretation happen all the time.”

No they don’t. There are no “mistakes of interpretation”, because an audit sets the terms of interpreting the accounts. That’s what an audit is for – to define the terms by which financial peformances and accounting methods will be judged. There is no interpretation except what the auditors interpret it as. That’s why we have GAAP and IFRS.

If someone uses the term “mistakes of interpretation”, then an auditor’s ears will prick up. Interpretation isn’t a word often used in an audit.

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:19:18 +0000

On Red Alert
Idiot/Savant says:

December 6, 2009 at 9:55 pm
or whether he has the backbone to sack her.

Sack her from what? She’s not in Cabinet, she’s just an MP. And the Prime Minister doesn’t get to sack them.

Poor old Trevor Malard.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:55:55 +0000

What is a Kangaroo Court? Seems to be a lot of insulting by todays Standard Judges?
Oh sorry, I asked two questions, please do not get confused

By: felix

felix — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:12:02 +0000

I think he’s describing how the post makes him feel.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:05:04 +0000

Evidence of outright corruption by ministers of the present government and you call it desperation on the part of the people bringing it to the public’s notice?