As if she didn’t know that would happen. As if she didn’t know that releasing this information…

That’s a huge assumption to make, Zetetic, and one I think is wrong.

There’s a lot of things Paula Bennett doesn’t know. After all, she didn’t have a clue that acting like a power-cazed bully, hectoring and intimidating people with what ought to have been confidential information, would sink her Ministerial “career”.

It’s not like foresight is one of her strong points…

(Or finesse. Or common sense. Or an understanding of the Cabinet Manual. Or a grasp of her portfolio. Or an ability to think on her feet during interviews. Or…)

Why the hell is Matthew Hooten so stupid?

Why can’t he see that “but they did it too!” isn’t a defence?

Why is he probably getting paided for this?

Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law – Sophocles

Yes yes yes – applies to all politicians. I agree.

This superficial approach might sell papers but it totally skews any debate.

Take eligibility for the dole as an example. The current system is incredibly mean, but this issue was lost completely in a public frenzy over whether one man with several investment properties should be eligible. The fact that around 68% of our unemployed CAN’T get the dole and vast majority of them have no investment properties at all was just lost.

Now, once again, we have become immersed in an argument over two women, who are just a microscopic part of the entire picture.

Journalists, politicians, editorial writers are all guilty of the same approach. Far from not being able to see the wood for the trees, most wouldn’t recognise a forest if it fell on their silly heads.

I don’t think there is any doubt that Work and Income, not naturally a profiligate government department since being burnt by the Christine Rankin scandal, fairly assesses and calculates the amount needed in each beneficiaries case.

The semi-permanent DPB beneficiary is a mythical dragon brought out to slaughter by the righteous St. George talk back caller – i.e. it only exists in their head.

“Go Paula, you are awesome, these scum have had their snouts in the trough too long and need to get off their lazy babies-for-business arses and get a job”.

The obvious idiocy of these bigots is that Paula was once in a virtual carbon-copy situation. Unless Bennett loathes herself, and it is evident that is not the case, I very much suspect she is genuinely affected by those comments.

Which brings us to naivety. Any fool would pick the reaction of Joe Bigot to her disclosure. Ms Bennett seems to have overlooked that, somehow, or knew it would happen but did so anyway.

If she overlooked it, it would appear she has some glaring inadequacies, if she knew and went ahead anyway then I consider her actions more disgusting – knowing the abuse that would be directed at these people through her initial abuse of power and plowing on regardless.

I wonder how it feels “bringing balance to the situation” now, Paula. Those supporting you are at the same time calling you scum.

But I’ve been in the law long enough to have seen many seemingly open-and-shut cases get chucked out. So I’m usually reluctant to make a call on something like this.