I quite agree. The National Party should stop lying to the electorate.

Who stood to benefit? Who repeated “extracts’ in the house?

What’s with the scare quotes? What are they meant to be telling us?

Who stood to benefit? Who repeated “extracts” in the house?

(And if you don’t like my reasoning, don’t grizzle to me.)

1. It was NOT a private conversation. By definition it cannot have been because neither English nor Smith can remember WHO they were talking to.

2. There were multiple people present, anyone of whom could have heard.

3. The environment was uncontrolled, otherwise the Nats would merely have to go back through their invite list to identify the person concerned. It was not a closed meeting.

4. A trespass does not occur until AFTER someone is asked to leave a premise.

So loose the ‘taping of a private conversation’ line. It was not private.

Would I have a problem with a Labour person being recorded without their consent? Probably not. Mike Williams and John Tamihere were both crucified over recordings made without their consent, but I’m don’t recall the left resorting to this line as their primary defense.

I do concede that it is good manners to ask if you are going to tape a conversation; but that then begs the question of why anyone, especially a politician who on the face of it should always be pleased for the attention and publicity, would object to being recorded.

So let me guess this right then, you guys are all for secretly taping a private conversation at a National party convention,

The recording was made by some person currently unknown.

The statements on them were the responsibility of English and Smith.

The publicising of them was done by news media.

You have no linkage to “us guys’ whatsoever.

The conversations were NOT private, they were being held in an uncontrolled environment with multiple persons present. Moreover it is NOT illegal to record a conversation to which you are a party.

The only possible ethical objection is that the conversation was recorded without the consent of all present. On the other hand as you rightly point out, various agencies routinely do this kind of thing. The police and media often do, as can private citizens if they believe their interests are best served in doing so. It is good manners to ask for consent to record, but it is neither legally necessary, nor an absolute principle.

For instance the TV program Target routinely films tradespeople without their consent; justifying this intrusion with the reasonable argument that the public interest is served by it.

We are frequently recorded in both public and private locations, by all manner of agencies, employers and operators without our consent. Indeed one of the ironies here is that the person who made these recordings may well be identified because he in turn was being recorded without his consent.

And I cannot help but recall that when taped conversations of Tamihere and Williams, obtained without their explicit consent surfaced in the media, I struggle to recall any outrage from the right about using that material to embarrass them.

If Labour had planned any of this, and Aunty Helen knew about it, she should be in jail.

Well the first time I met Matthew at a social function about six weeks ago, he appeared to be in the company of a very attractive yooung lass.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

Most people would think “hell yeah I could do with a couple of wives/husbands” – only bigoted 17 year-old reactionaries would actually think OH YUCK! How is the 18th century going for you anyway?

And I still have no idea what you’re on about because you’re still incoherent. Can you type less, but with a bit more effort? Where’s this ‘policy’ then, give me a link.

“Hey but we wont do Herceptin Ohh perhaps we will now because National has said it will”

I bloody hope not. Just because National want to interfere with the functioning of an independant impartial body and manipulate health funding in a sop to some peoples’ emotions (and to look good to complete idiots like you) I would hope that labour keeps right out of it – screw whether it would get them votes, stick to being honest and principled, unlike National. Trust you to be one of those fools to be sucked in, you mindless bigot.

Maybe in six years, when you are at the heady age of 23, you might learn to think for yourself.

Not everyone no, but you certainly sound like one. Hey, have a read of this, knock yourself out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland

Not everyone that disagrees with you and your Government and its Social Engineering agenda is a Bigot. As mentioned why hasn’t Ruth discussed her policy with the Nation of having three parents/ partners or four parents/ partners written in Law. Yup you got it because she and Heather and Helen know that most people will go OHH YUCK!! what a depraved lot!! when will it ever end. Could be bad for the votes lets just keep it quiet and do it when we get back in if we do. After all we never told the voters we would fund sex change operations did we. Hey but we wont do Herceptin Ohh perhaps we will now because National has said it will. Lets see Ruth proudly put this up on the Party Website for all to see. Go out to the Newspapers and show them her great new policy, Hey wait a minute isn’t there a lot being said about Child Poverty in New Zealand at the moment. Oh Ruth don’t worry about that got to get laws through for your mates first!!

I just get sick of comments that are genuinely indecipherable. Abuse the Queen’s English, mutter mutter…