Written By: - Date published: 1:02 pm, April 30th, 2010 - 230 comments
Categories: benefits, corruption, national/act government -
Tags: paula bennett
Update2: IrishBill: The facebook email has been released:
Things went really well she wasn’t that scary I dropped the tears a few times and she felt sorry for me wont put me back in the media and get me hurt again and willing to talk settlement. I’ve got a tough choice to make have two days to come up with what I want as a payment I don’t want to sound greedy but its hard to put price on what iv been through
As Danyl points out over at the DimPost this doesn’t look like a joke so much as a breach of a confidential agreement that needed to be passed off as a joke. I only hope Fuller got a decent payment after what was done to her.
[Update: TV3 now admits its 'emails' were a Facebook exchange between Fuller and a friend and Fuller says she made up about the money. For fuck's sake, TV3, you can't run a story based on someone's Facebook comments. Still, Bennett should not have been meeting with a complainant just before the report is due out. It's clear she is looking to avoid an embarrassment]
Yesterday I thought I was going to write a piece on the advisers Paula Bennett has appointed to the Welfare Working Group. There’s Peter Saunders, a man who says there is a link between “low average intelligence and low class position” – that people are poor because they are dumb – and that the DPB makes welfare dependence attractive (Saunders is in high company on that belief – “breeding for a business” Key called it). And then there’s ex-ACT President Catherine Issac who wants a “competitive market for sickness, invalid, and unemployment insurance” – profit-seeking parasites taking a slice of the welfare budget.
Or how she has her ministry writing to Kiwis asking them to spy on their neighbours who are getting a benefit. This goes far beyond an invasion of the privacy of people who are entitled to assistance when they fall on hard times. It’s the nasty turning of neighbour on neighbour that reminds us of East Germany, Orwell’s 1984, or Thatcher’s Britain.
But her attempt to bribe Natasha Fuller into silence overrides those issues, for now.
You’ll remember how Natasha Fuller was one of two DPB mums who dared to question why Bennett had canceled a training allowance designed to help DPB mums get off the benefit – an allowance that Bennett herself took advantage of. For their trouble, Bennett released their private benefit information unleashing a torrent of bigotry on these poor women that was so vicious Fuller had to move house and get counseling.
Now, we learn that Bennett had a meeting with Fuller on Wednesday and, according to Fuller, offered her money to drop her complaint with the Privacy Commissioner (which raises questions about why the second DPB mum, Jennifer Johnston, suddenly dropped her complaint after meeting Bennett).
With Palin-esque implausibility, Bennett refuses to confirm or deny meeting with Fuller. [overtaken by new facts as above]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Out of all of this there does seem to be a universal dislike of this Minister. Much may be down to a partisan position but I don’t think that many other Ministers would be such a target. We did believe that she was capable of underhand tricks as her original action showed.
The other good thing is that Ministers might be a bit more cautious about mis-use of power- perhaps.
Hang about Ian, Not sure that there is a universal dislike, maybe between the 25 or so apparatchiks that frequent this blog there is.
But get out and meet the real working person whose taxes are funding the likes of Fuller et al, and there most certainly is not a dislike of Bennet, but people thrilled with her MO.
Why didn’t TV3 take the very simple step of checking with Fuller before going to air last night? Basic basic basic.
damn straight. I thought they had from the last night’s story
It was my understanding they tried but Natasha Fuller was pretty much not talking yesterday.
We know why now.
If this whole thing wasn’t behind closed doors (like everything with this government) we wouldn’t be having these problems.
Privacy Commission meetings usually are behind closed doors. Insinuating other wise would be disingenuous
Sorry but i simply dont buy your ‘its not my fault cos tv3 said it’ line. Authors on this blog constantly complain about the unreliability and sensationalism in the media. But when that sensationalism suits you, you’re happy to use it as a source.
If his was about a labour MP and Farrar was saying what you’ve been saying, you wouldnt shut up about it for weeks. Double standard.
There’s still something fishy about this whole business though. Don’t you think Nick C?
sub standard more like it
Peter Johns. You’re a guest on this blog. If you’re not going to say anything other than insults, you won’t be welcome.
and we know how this site treats ‘guests’ sometimes.
Eddie, you are a idiot, relying on blogs for your info.
Except he used TV3, not a blog.
does not say much about TV3 then, less factual than Winston Peters
The stupid, it burns.
What metric exactly are you using to judge TV3 on? Because it seems to be one that doesn’t involve actually checking empirically the ratio of bullshit to reality, which would probably make Winston look rather more untrustworthy than TV3, though against say FOX news, he’d probably come off much better.
i.e. you’re a complete idiot.
It was on the TV3 website and Campbell Live. Do you think those are blogs? It is linked in the posts. Can’t you read?
You usual ill-informed and frequently just strange commentary hasn’t improved. Too many toxic chemicals?
Nick C. We’re entitled to rely on the media’s statements of facts. The fact that we know the media gets it wrong sometimes doesn’t change that.
Thats one of the silliest statements Ive ever heard
You don’t get out much do you? Otherwise you’d have seen far more stupid things, such as people claiming HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that homoeopathy/[insert flavour of alt.med here] works, that the earth’s less than 4.2 billion years, or my current bugbear, that 1080 doesn’t break down and minuscule, non-toxic concentrations of fluoride are teh evil.
Also, hypocritical much? Given you probably rely on media information as much as the rest of us, and no, non-traditional sources are also prone to fuck-ups all the way to being lying sacks of shit.
Come on Eddie, just say “I am sorry, I fucked up”
Not that hard to admit a mistake is it?
As Whale says “you own your own shit”
Of course we’re talking a guy who’s also a massive hypocrite and all round douche nozzle here, so probably not the brightest example to use.
Yes NickS, hello? head out of the sand please
Sense, make it, or get back to the sewer.
I relied on a media organisation’s facts. Nothing wrong with that.
‘cept it was TV3 that fucked up. Are you asking Eddie to own someone else’s shit? I’m still waiting for your shining example to own his own shit; he’s not a great example.
“For fuck’s sake, TV3, you can’t run a story based on someone’s Facebook comments.”
Keep in mind, the original story relied, in part, on people’s Trade Me message board comments. The right went to town on these comments, dined out on them for weeks.
Heads must roll. At TV3 for one. But remember, Bennett’s release of personal information was still wrong and TV3′s fuck up doesn’t change that – she still has to go.
Paula’s mistake was not making the comments under Parlimentary privilage.
She still has more balls than the collective male population in parliament.
Eddie, don’t beleive everything you read.
ha ha ha
Armchair Critic said
So you’ve seen the Privacy Commissioner’s report then have you Armchair Critic? Or are you hoping that’s what the finding will be?
I’ve no problem making up my own mind, based on the evidence at hand. How difficult can it be? All the laws are available online. The Privacy Commission has a reasonable website. The issue is one of whether making private information public was appropriate, so by definition the information is available.
I don’t care what the Privacy Commissioner’s findings are, because Commissioners can and do get things wrong. I have no confidence in the government and wouldn’t put anything past them.
Jesus Christ. You righties are beating up on Eddie for relying on information from TV3, then updating as new information came to light… All the while right-wing nut hero David Farrar is slurring a Labour MP (all the while running more of National’s homophobic campaign) based on information coming from Cameron Slater.
How many of you are over there setting him straight? The word hypocrisy comes to mind.
Bennett got lucky. She shouldn’t have met with Fuller and the privacy commissioner is either a fool or a coward for suggesting the meeting as the standard for a minister of the crown is far higher than the standard for an average citizen (or else Richard Worth would still have his job).
Once again I’d note that Rebbecca Wright broke the story and she’s the TV3 journo that took over from Sia Aston. Aston is now Bennett’s press sec.
The good news for Bennett is this has taken the edge off any deliberation from the privacy commissioner. Which is a shame as what she did was a gross abuse of power.
The Commissioner was following standard procedure from which, I’d argue, a Minister ought not to be exempt. In fact I’d applaud if more watchdogs forced Ministers to sit down, listen to disgruntled constituents, and try to reach a resolution satisfactory to both.
That’s a lot better than the look-down-the-nose we get from them under normal circumstances.
However I think the crucial passage in Shroff’s statement is this:
I think it’s important we know whether there was someone present from the Commission at that meeting. If so, I’d say they’ve behaved okay. If not, I’d agree with you IB.
But there is still the matter of a minister of the crown breaching the privacy act.
What reconciliation or settlement the Minister reaches with the subject of that breach is one thing, the Cabinet Manual is another.
This is now on Key.
The privacy commissioner doesn’t have the job of deciding what is acceptable behaviour for cabinet ministers, but if John Key is comfortable with senior Ministers misusing the information that is available to them as Ministers in order to silence citizens then that tells us something.
Rex, I assumed that there wasn’t a member of teh office there. If there was then I concur.
PB, this isn’t on Key because regardless of Bennett’s behaviour or the commissioner’s deliberation this is now all about the sideshow. TV3 has handed Bennett a misdirection on a plate.
Yeah I know it won’t be on Key, but it should be. That’s what a media is for, innnit?
Political editors get paid enough, shouldn’t they care enough to mention the actual governance issues?
I don’t remember Eddie giving a link, and now Eddie posts an update blaming TV3 for comments on Facebook.
Come on Eddie, say that you fucked up
Lawl:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/corrupt-2/
The link’s right in there, and it was on the TV3′s 6 o’clock news broadcast.
The bit that is getting least comment is the bit that interests me most, which is the writing to private citizens asking them to spy on their neighbours. That really is scary behaviour that flies in the face of notions like citizenship and democracy. Anti-spam word: followed.
Pretty consistent with singling out citizens who speak out against unfair policies and making their details public.
Yeah, given that this has gone pear-shaped in a dozen different directions, I hope a Standardista salvages that, and the bit about appointments, and puts up a fresh post. Please?
Its friday night, and I really don’t trust myself to write at present (Palmer was right). Besides, the half written one I have is about a crappy journo
Ummm whats on the queue…
Contact details for TV3..
You can write to them at:
TV3 Auckland
3 Flower Street
Eden Terrace
Auckland
Private Bag 92624
Symonds Street
Auckland
Or ring by phone and blast them at:
09 928 9000
I will be sending an email later tomorrow when I have a couple of minutes.
This is piss poor reporting at best. If TV3 have any brain’s they’ll run a story
on their own mistake, and say sorry to Paula for the error. Probably not….
Eddie, I think an apology is called for.
For the record, I don’t partlicularly like Paula Bennett’s policies, but you crossed a line and got it badly wrong. It isn’t enough to blame the media for the error. You accused someone of bribery and corruption on the basis of flimsy evidence.
TV3 did more damage to Fuller than Bennett ever has.
Eddie: “I relied on a media organisation’s facts. Nothing wrong with that.”
Eddie, the problem is that “media” and “facts” are an oxymoron.
Are you going to address the matter of whether it’s appropriate for a minister of the Crown to breach the privacy act?
And Fuller had to change her phone number after that privacy breach, remember that and remember that she has kids.
Pascal, at the time I would have felt a lot more sympathy for Fuller had she not been bragging about her situation through various internet sites anyway. As I recall it, there was opinion from some authorities that this self-disclosure legitimized what Bennett did in disclosing the information, since the cat was already out of the bag by Fullers own actions. Having said that, by and large, I don’t like these sorts of disclosures.
What TV3 did was a lot worse because it has portrayed Bennett to the whole of NZ as a liar. Given that she was making those statements in a context that she would have felt safe in making them, I felt it was entirely wrong for TV3 to publicize the statements, especially without checking with her as to whether she stood by them.
I don’t think Eddie can really defend himself by claiming he was relying on media “facts” because it has been proved time and time again that the media doesn’t have the “facts” when it all boils down.
I am actually despairing of the media. I am starting to think more like a socialist in this respect. I am not sure that competition is good for accuracy of reporting as it is now much more like infotainment than actual news. I am starting to think in favour of a single national broadcaster for the news. At least provide more balanced, accurate, less sensationalized news.
The victim has nothing to do with it smith. Neither does your sympathy. Nor your ‘likes’.
I wouldn’t have much sympathy for an axe murdering psychopath who after being acquitted on a technicality was in turn killed by a hit squad sent around by a hypothetical Minister of Police “dirty harry”
I would still think it an outrage, and would still think the minister had to go. That’s because it is never about the identity or even the actions of the citizen. It’s always about the actions of the Minister. Always.
So, for about the gazillionth time, is it acceptable for Ministers of the Crown to misuse information about citizens for political reasons?
If not, what next for the Current Minister of Welfare who seems to have done just that. Plenty of righties are crowing because a shitty media story might let her get away with it, where do you stand?
If she breached the act, should she resign?
Should the PM be informed of the terms of any settlement so that at least he will know whether they contain an admission of breaching the act?
PB: “So, for about the gazillionth time, is it acceptable for Ministers of the Crown to misuse information about citizens for political reasons?”
Ordinarily I would say no, PB. However each situation needs to be judged on its own merits. In this case there were a number of factors for consideration:
1. The women were campaigning publicly about a change in government policy that allegedly meant their income was no longer adequate while studying. Since the public were only getting one side of the story, the information was released as a matter of balancing the debate.
2. The women were very happy to publicly discuss the matter anyway. Since the women had put the information in the public arena anyway, it is more difficult for them to argue for privacy. An example here is TV3. They have used information that Fuller has made public on facebook. Their journalistic standards were shocking, but, should they be prosecuted for breach of privacy?
3. The women are being funded by the public, so there is an argument that the public are entitled to know about where their money is going anyway. For instance, we know what politicians are paid, who are also publicly funded individuals.
On the balance of it, in this situation I think it is quite probable that the Privacy Commissioner would have found in favour of Bennett. It appears that the complaint has been settled, and no money has changed hands. This would suggest to me that Fuller herself has withdrawn the complaint because she sees the writing on the wall and wants to avoid further negative publicity. It seems likely to me that the Privacy Commissioner had advised her that a decision would go against her if she chose not to withdraw. However, we may never know that.
On the balance, then, I see the minister as bearing some of the blame in that it has not been a good look. Therefore, Bennett should be given some re-education on the matter of privacy (she may have already got this) rather than an outright sacking.
Your 3rd point is quite offensive and shows your contempt for and feelings of superiority to our democratic society, smith, as have been some of your other remarks about this matter. You’re showing your nasty side lately.
The comparison with politicians is entirely spurious. Beneficiaries haven’t been hired to perform a publicly accountable job like politicians are – accountability is to their case manager at WINZ and it’s none of your or anyone else’s business.
If you think it is your business then come out and say it – don’t be a coward and hide behind “there is an argument”. Stand up for what you believe – the question is a relatively simple one:
This has nothing to do with Natasha Fuller btw, I’m addressing your 3rd point which has nothing to do with information being already in the public arena.
1) This was well worked over, and is irrelevant. There was no need to release the selected personal details that the Minister released. To ‘balance the debate’ she could have released the general details about how much people on the dpb get. Instead she chose to release a raw stat without going in to why they were getting what they did. she knew the effect that this would have. Indeed, she was quite open, initially, about why she did so. ‘Lessons’ needed to be learned.
As a result of those utterly predictable effects Ms Fuller felt the need to change her phone number. Lesson learned, I suppose.
2. This is Bennet’s ‘implied consent’ excuse. there is nothing in the legislation or the Cabinet manual to support her view. TV3 does not have any obligations under the privacy act with regard to things on Facebook. It was utterly shit journalism, but was no breach of the act.
3) There is a difference between payments to public officials and a private citizen’s entitlements.
I see the minister as bearing some of the blame in that it has not been a good look.
That doesn’t seem to make any sense. It looks like a retreat into post modernist wankery to tell the truth. The question is “Is misusing information about private citizens for political purposes acceptable for a Minister”. Your answer appears to be ‘sometimes’.
Bennett should be given some re-education on the matter of privacy
Why? You seem to claim in your comment that what she did was justified by 1-3 and that while ordinarily breaching the act would be a problem, these circumstances made it ok. So why the need for any education?
In summary I think you realise that saying breaching the act is ok is untenable, but you don’t think any actual wrongdoing occurred on a moral level so feel the urege to explain why she shouldn’t be sacked. This, to me, is the nub of it. It’s a rule of law issue.
You think breaking the law is ok for a minister if you feel the victim doesn’t deserve the protection of the law, for reasons 1-3.
This is known, essentially, as feudalism.
Tsmithfield is not able to reply as he has been banned for a month.
TS; it is now much more like infotainment than actual news. I am starting to think in favour of a single national broadcaster for the news.
Goodness. And congratulations on your candour and/or enlightenment. To hurry you along on this salubrious train of thought, may I recommend that you cast your mind back and compare the hysterical media treatment of such heinous crimes as signing a painting for charity, sitting in the back seat of a speeding car, “anti-smacking”, Winnie possibly lying, lightbulbs, the EFA (what?) “Death of Democracy” red front page Lenin/Helen graphics, with the current treatment of various government actions exhaustively described on this very forum – including the summary dismissal of a council of elected representatives – which have necessitated such ongoing, elastic and thoroughly entertaining philosophical acrobatics from your good self.
The “Media” of this fair land lost any claim to the authority born of independence and accuracy with which its founding fathers endowed it long, long ago. Sold for a pottle of jam and pissed up against the wall, almost literally; the most senior political political reporters on our largest outlet (Garner and Espiner) hitting the tiles with the Smiling Hologram – and having the gormless gall to admit it. With impunity.
The privately-owned media’s monopoly on the political opinion of the crucial swing voter is the sole bogey to progression. Welcome to the light, Tarquin freezingworks.
“I am starting to think in favour of a single national broadcaster for the news. At least provide more balanced, accurate, less sensationalized news.”
Doesn’t Radio New Zealand come pretty close?
Mauler Benefit and the Fly
Can I come into your parlour
lisped the Basher to Natasha,
there’s a Process to these things you see
but oh my God! you’re just like Me!
oh yes, yes please, do you have camomile?
and of course I’ve seen the rest of your file.
Do listen, young sis – can I call you Tash?
the trick of my Trick is the size of the pile
of gold at the end of a crocodile smile
for us wee gels in the tory boys’ game
fleeting and few as we be.
So Hush, sweet Tash, and play the Jack
It’s Honey, my dear, or the rack.
It is a relief to hear that Bennett has not bought off the complaint. There should be more information and transparency about the process because the matter is not just a private one between two citizens but is of considerable public interest as it is between a Minister of Crown and a citizen. TV3 has, with this example, very pointedly displayed the substandard quality of journalism and reporting we have generally been unhappy about and they must pull up their socks. As for Eddie, we should expect nothing less than rigorous questioning and sharp comments in a robust and healthy democracy with people like him to draw attention to breaking news and also modifying his posts as the news reveal more.
It is a relief to hear that Bennett has not bought off the complaint.
Oh quel relief. Orgasmic really, Jim – she didn’t rape or murder either, just splattered, for naked political purpose, the bare and misleading details of her income to all and sundry, to be repeated by Fairfax this very day. Mauler Benefit. Monster.
Like most lynch mobs you lot got it completely wrong.
The only one coming out of this with any credibility is Paula Bennett.
tsmithfields last 2 post puts the situation in its correct perspective and any shock, horror, outrage of what Paula Bennett may or may not have done is nothing but the usual hysteria by the standards pet trolls
It’s pretty clear there’s been a confidential payment made. Bennett could have said “any discussion of payment is confidential” but she didn’t she lied outright knowing confidentiality would ensure it couldn’t be proved that she lied.
Jesus Bill, you really have no idea when to stop digging do you….
So you don’t think there was a payment?
No, and frankly you look more and more desperate by suggesting that there has been.
This type of arrogance is what will keep Labour in opposition for a very long time.
Of course there has been. If you’re really naive enough to believe there hasn’t then I know of a Nigerian prince that could make you rich if you help him out with a temporary cash flow problem.
oh
Have you got a source to backup these allegations?
Only Fuller’s published emails, Bennett’s dodgy response and a lot of experience with confidential settlements.
You’d have to be very naive to think otherwise.
Irish, you are barking up the wrong tree here.
If Bennett was aware that a financial settlement had been reached, she likely would have fallen back to the “not discussing issues that are with the privacy commissioner” defence. After all, she, if anyone, would know the potential for information to leak out. So, telling outright lies was a very dangerous strategy.
Most confidentially agreements are tied to that; confidentiality. Why would Fuller risk losing her “payment” by breaching the confidentiality agreement and publicizing the information as she did even if it only was on facebook? Her admission of making up stories is much more credible if that can be said of someone who has just admitted to lying.
The facts available now are:
1. Bennett has denied making a payment.
2. Fuller has said she lied about her statements.
Deese are da facts Mun.
Wouldn’t be the first time that someone has naively put info on facebook overlooking the fact that it does not carry the privacy of a telephone conversation.
Thoughtlessly slapping down conversations containing sensitive info is way too common in today’s environment where facebook etc have replaced ( or expanded on) deniable telephone and face to face conversations for many people.
Meanwhile, for improved context, I’d like to see the pieces of the conversation that come before and after the quoted text. Anyway.
Deese are da facts Mun.
…is that supposed to be some comical pisstake of a black faced negro lawyer ?
EPIC FAIL !!!
lawyer?
EPICER FAIL !!!
lawyer?
EPICER FAIL !!!
Huh…watchu talkin’ bout willis ?
ha ha funny. speaking of bait, gotta go catch a fush…
Why should it be considered a piss take? It wasn’t intended that way. I actually quite like that accent.
Oh right you are then Tarquin old chap…toodle pip eh what ?
@tsmithfield
/smirk
And being as unaware of your privileges as you are, you’ll never likely grasp why the accent you use is so pathetic it’s funny.
Go read so people of colour blogs kid, and to boot feminism 101…
Not exactly up to the same standard of proof you require when you ban others is it
Since you haven’t produced a link when asked, show no signs of doing so, and haven’t withdrawn, you’re banned for a week for bad behaviour in the debate – see the policy. ]
The threshold for getting banned by me is whether you’ve pissed me off or not. I’m glad to see from your inability to directly respond to my statement that you agree a payment is the most likely explanation.
Your statement that “a payment is the most likely explanation was so unlikely” That I asked you for a source, in other words “Proof”
Using the standards that you apply to other posters on this site, if you cannot supply a source,link of proof then you must be bullshitting . I think you are!
So you do agree that payment is the most likely explanation. Good.
What Part of “I think your Bullshitting” Do you not understand
It seems clear to me that you realise that the most likely scenario is that Fuller was paid off, broke confidentiality and then freaked out about losing the settlement. The fact that you are so determined to misdirect only underscores this.
All I am trying to do IrishBill is to hold you to the same standards of proof as you apparently require of other posters to this site As below:
Since you haven’t produced a link when asked, show no signs of doing so, and haven’t withdrawn, you’re banned for a week for bad behaviour in the debate see the policy. ]
If you cannot prove your allegations you should withdraw them or ban yourself
lol. I’ve never banned anyone for not producing a link. I ban people because I feel like it and because I can. Asking me for a link to prove my analysis of the situation and then bleating on about how I should “ban myself” (oh noez!) is the kind of desperate and dumb tactic people employ when they know they’re wrong.
You know there was a settlement. If you didn’t you wouldn’t be backing down with a comment that starts “All I am trying to do” which is a pretty bad attempt at reframing the debate away from the main point.
I’m glad you’re willing to tacitly admit you think there was a settlement.
Now we’ve got that out of the way, how do you feel about a minister being able to buy her way out of trouble like this? Doesn’t speak to personal responsibility much does it?
[lprent: I'm the one that bans people for not producing links. IB is constructing an argument - quite different. ]
@Feral
wtf?
Joe Bloggs was banned for not producing a link to the NZ Herald article he claimed proved Fuller had denied meeting Bennett, what IB’s doing is building an argument via inference about a possible settlement based off the somewhat non-transparent actions of Bennett over this situation. Something rather different, but this does point to you having failed the critical reading part of NCEA/School Cert english, of course it could be that you don’t understand basic rhetorical technique and thus think you’re being smart here.
When instead you come off looking utterly stupid.
Dear IB
I’ve just had a quiet moment to review all the postings. There seems to be a few more pieces of the jigsaw that are yet to be uncovered. Quite right that you are raising the questions and legitimately so that you are pursuing other lines of inquiry. But some of the postings here by particular folks are fast lowering the tone and standard (yes, that is a pun too) and creating noise that may be a put off for others to contribute and comment. Perhaps their postings are meant to be a deliberate distraction.
Given this is your website, or you have a stake in it, it would be most welcome if you exercise your bans and suchlike functions quite liberally. Neoliberally, if you wish. You don’t have to give a reason (or just refer to a link with a standard response to those who whinge).
Alternatively, there can be some kind of setting where those who have a record of contributing reasonable comments have their postings uploaded (almost) right away and, for those who don’t, have theirs be delayed until moderated or screened off.
Sometimes I think most from the Left are far more polite and scrupulous and try to be a bit more balanced and fair, perhaps a bit too much and quite unnecessarily so. If the boot is on the other foot, I’m quite sure a rabid right website would be much quicker to remove the annoying and nuisance postings.
Kind regards, J
[lprent: We do exercise the stakeholder rights reasonably liberally when it is appropriate. But it tends towards fighting off flamewars and the like (check back in the archive to posts in late 2007 to mid-2008 to see what we want to avoid). People who comment here regularly get a lot of leeway. Newbies coming in to troll don't get those chances. Different moderators work on different processes. I'm usually pretty discriminating about behaviour I ban for. Irish will ban because he is sick of reading twaddle. Keeps commentators on their toes. ]
Jim – I think you’ll find DPF applies bannings far less frequently than the combined might of Eddie, IrishBill and lprent
Which is why the sewer is largely unreadable if you’re not in the ‘in’ crowd of bullies (like yourself). Offering dissenting opinions there merely gets you verbally beaten up.
People make ridiculous assertions and aren’t pulled up on them which makes the comments section there rather pointless to read. It is the faithful preaching to the faithful where moderates are pilloried as being extremists, by the nutter fringes of society.
I can see why you fit in there well….
If Inventory2 were to do unto DPF what he (presumably Inventory2 is a prick rather than a bitch) he is doing here, he would single-handedly multiply lone DPF’s statistics a hundredfold as compared with the combined figure that he alleges can be attributed to the collective effort of Eddie, Irishbill and lprent.
captcha: left
Bloody Hell “Your Dumber then a bag of Hammers
Nope. You’re just transparent. I’d also suggest you work on your spelling and punctuation before you start casting aspersions on other people’s intellect.
sounds like y’all need to meet up behind the gym after school and sort this out like real kids…
captcha : assembly
Still, it’ll be interesting to note if Fuller has a sudden cash windfall soon.
Spelling and punctuation, who cares We all get lazy with the spell checker. Maybe you should look at your own spelling in your posts. Get over it.
I do not realize that the most likely scenario is that Fuller was paid off,
I am not willing to tacitly admit I think there was a settlement.
And if as NickS posts “what IB’s doing is building an argument via inference about a possible settlement based off the somewhat non-transparent actions of Bennett over this situation.”
Isn’t this what TV3 did.
“It’s pretty clear there’s been a confidential payment made” This is not an argument, This is an assertion and I am simply asking for proof
It doesn’t matter whether you’re willing to tacitly admit anything because you have tacitly admitted you think there was a settlement. In fact you just did it again by using the phrase “not willing” to evade having to say you don’t believe it. Lol!
I think I’d like to see some kind of proof that I made an assertion of fact rather than an assertion of opinion. Please prove with a link or I may have to ban you.
Yeah Right! When all else fails you just ban.
I stated ,you made an assertion. I didn’t say whether it was an assertion of fact or an assertion of opinion.
You’ve failed to answer a quite reasonable request to prove your assertion so I can only assume it is simply not true.
[lprent: Assertions of fact are the only thing that you can try to 'prove', and in fact what I look for is simply a reasonable attempt.
However, you don't make the rules here (start your own blog if you want that privilege) and if you persist in trying to make 'rules' here then I'll be happy to ban you. Does that clarify the limits to your behaviour? ]
You don’t even realise I’m taking the piss out of you! Classic.
Would you like to explain how I am supposed to provide a link to prove my assertion of opinion?
GOTCHA
Whose taking the piss out of who is debatable
You seem to be floundering, trying so many different tact’s
A great many of the posts on this site banned in the past , for not providing links could also have been assertion of opinion?
[lprent: Very few, and most of those have been things that the race relations or human rights commissioners would have been interested in.
Statements of opinion are easily distinguished from assertions of facts. They contain phrases like "In my opinion", "I believe", "It is my recollection", "I understand", "If we speculate", etc etc. Assertions of fact baldly state that something is true.
Opinion can be argued about. Assertion of fact requires proof because otherwise it usually degenerates into the flame when the asserter doesn't offer substantiation of their claim.
Anyway, my toleration of you trying to make the rules here is wearing very thin. Next time I have to waste time on this subject I'll make the problem go away. ]
Nope. You mean “who’s” by the way.
and he meant “so many different tacks”
that was doubly bad
Who cares Your arguments totally sunk
your still floundering
Sunk? But you agree with me that Bennett probably paid a settlement. You are a very confused troll aren’t you.
@Feral
/facepalm
Except you’re quoting mining IB, when instead what you should be doing is reading his posts and examining and critiquing the arguments he makes that lead to the statement you “quote”.
It’s a basic essay writing skill that you should’ve picked up in 3rd form/year 9…
So get back to highschool and learn thy self some basic critical reading and writing skills.
I admire your persistence IB, but the fact that none of the main papers or their websites are running the story today suggests that it is a non-starter. TV3 got duped by Ms Fuller; they only had to go back and read some of the stories from around August-September last year to realise that they should have been very sure about checking any “facts” she gave them.
Of course it’s a non-starter. That doesn’t mean it’s not clear to everyone how it’s played out.
So when is the privacy commissioners report due out?
If it doesn’t appear ,can we then assume that a settlement of some kind was reached,and if so how do we find out what that settlement was?
Confidential in this case would only cast doubt on what really happened.
captcha careful
Reading some of the comments above, it looks like some contributors are trying to build fantasy castles higher than the one that Fuller appears to live in. Be careful. If you build them, you might end up living there.
Let me reiterate:
On one hand we have a strong denial of an allegation. That denial has remained constant and has not be retracted.
On the other hand we have someone who has admitted publicly to making up porkies.
Seems a fairly simple choice to me.
On one hand we have a strong denial of an allegation by someone who knows anything other than a denial is the end of her career. That denial has remained constant and has not be retracted.
On the other hand we have someone who has admitted publicly to making up porkies but would be highly likely to lose thousands of dollars she really needs if she didn’t make such an “admission”.
There you go TSmith. I’ve fixed it for you.
Keep building that castle, Bill. It looks like you’ve nearly finished it. So, what you are saying is that if Fuller has not been telling the truth about lying, she has been lying about telling the truth, and that her ability to be truthful depends on how much or how little she is being paid. Not a very credible witness, do you think? Not a very complimentary picture you’re trying to paint of her either.
So, which part of your additions to my statement are anything more than completely unfounded speculation?
Of course it’s speculation. I’ve not got access to the details of the confidential meeting. Personally I think Bennett got lucky because of a confluence of personal motives. I’ll guarantee that most of the gallery will be thinking the same thing.
On one hand Natasha is in a more powerful position because Paula depends on Natasha denying that money was offered.
On the other hand Natasha is in a weaker position because she has contradiced her own story. Less credible. Though she is not a professional politician just an ordinary Kiwi with frailities.
However again perception is everything in politics. The doubt is present because the Facebook does have a credible ring. Paula, to some of us, is a dodgy unscrupulous person. Would she try and protect herself with clever denials? Yes. I think so. So no matter what if anything transpires, Paula has probably been damaged.
She certainly has been damaged and the more the right get all excited about press complaint and the like the harder it will be for Bennett to put it to bed and move on.
Bill, you clearly have a much lower opinion of Fuller than I do to support your admitted unfounded speculation.
1. You think she is too stupid to realise that publishing the “facts” on facebook would be a violation of confidentiality.
2. You think she is prepared to lie publicly if she is going to lose a lot of money maintaining the truth.
So, in summary, you seem to see Fuller as a stupid, money-motivated liar. Correct?
IrishBill: So in summary you seem to think I’m the kind of guy that will allow you to willfully misrepresent me on my own blog. Take a month off you stupid fuck.
captcha : limits
…bout says it all really
Sunk? But you agree with me that Bennett probably paid a settlement. You are a very confused troll aren’t you.
IrishBill, I agree that you have a very confused line of thinking and an argument that has no merit or credibility
Yes I think that Bennett probably paid a settlement. In fact that was my point right from the start and as you have at no stage argued that you think Bennett didn’t make a payment then I’m not sure what your point is.
Perhaps you need a cup of tea and a lie down?
I circulated the weblink to wider family and friends overseas who have little background about the case and asked them to assess the Honourable Minister’s credibility just based on the body language and responses.
All the feedback received was unfavourable.
A couple of friends made the comment that it was like watching their ten-year old trying to talk out of a situation when something quite naughty had been done.
“Oh you poor dear” I knew you were floundering but didn’t realize you’d lost your way completely.
I think the words I used were “Proof” that she had paid a settlement and “Bullshitting I think you are” This would seem to imply that I disagreed with your argument and was of the opinion that she had not paid a settlement.
However I will make it clear just for you
I don’t believe Paula Bennett paid a settlement (Can I make it any clearer)
So now you don’t think there was a settlement? How on earth am I expected to debate with someone who is constantly changing their position?
constantly changing their position?
What on earth are you on?
Hmm, I think Im back to the quote
“Dumber then a bag of hammers”
or you could try
“about as sharp as a sack of wet mice”
or possibly
“only one oar in the water”"
If you’re going to come here to make nonsensical arguments and then throw insults around I think you’d be better off commenting over at Kiwiblog. You’ll feel more at home there I’m sure.
It’s good to see your spelling and punctuation has improved.
What we have here, it seems to me, is two opposing stories from two women, both with virtually zero credibility.
Which suggests that all the inferring in the world, in either direction, won’t help us get to the truth… and nor will the ill-tempered banning of conflicting opinions.
Surely a more valuable discussion to be having is about what, if any, mechanism exists to independently investigate the actions of the Minister (because, as Pascal’s bookie said earlier, “It’s always about the actions of the Minister. Always”) notwithstanding any private agreement as to confidentiality. And how to initiate such an investigation.
ON a related note, as the recipient of a taxpayer funded settlement following my unjustified dismissal from the NZ First Parliamentary Office, which included a ‘say nothing’ clause, it seems to me that once you’ve got your hands on the money you can pretty much say what you like… after all, what are they going to do, revictimise you by demanding it back?
both with zero credibility Rex.?
You should be one of the last people to cast aspersions on other peoples credibility
That’s rich, coming from an anoymous coward.
It would be nice if people remember the facts and course of events correctly. Let me help a little …
The women that Ms Bennett chose to put in the spotlight and let be vilified in public DID NOT give any personal financial information to any Labour Party MP. The only information they gave was how losing TIA would affect their ability to continue their learning.
At no time in any communication with MP’s, or with the media, did anyone concerned say that the DPB was NOT enough to live on. They only highlighted the impact losing the TIA would have on their ability to either undertake or continue their studies, as beneficiaries with children in their care.
The two women did not approach the media. They were known to the reporter of the original story (NZ Herald, Govt axe destroys dreams, 19.07.09) through the then newly formed lobby group Hand Up (formed 10.07.09), and asked to comment so that the issue of the cutting back of the TIA could be highlighted, using their individual experiences.
It was only after the Minister talked to the media about the two women specifically, that Natasha approached TV3 to try and defend herself against the ensuing onslaught of hatred towards her (NZ Herald, Bennett gets tough with outspoken solo mums, 27.07.09).
These are the facts. The full timeline of how the events unfolded is very clear, including who did and said what and when.
I can only hope that the Privacy Commissioner makes her ruling soon. After all, it has been almost 9 months. Time to give some closure to all involved and give focus back to the original issue … that the TIA was dropped quietly and quickly without putting in place an alternative that would mean those beneficiaries who could study be given the chance to do so.
Good to read the facts. Very relevant in this context. Thanks Sally Anne
Did Eddie say “sorry I messed up” yet? Easy to blame TV3 but that does not explain the witch hunt in the last 24 hours.
TV3 fucked up, but so did you Eddie, by not checking, just repeating
Fuck off Steve.
Personally, I don’t believe Ms Fullers retraction. She was probably pressured/bribed/bullied into it by Bennett and the National Party.
Billie, I fess up when I shoot my mouth off without checking FACTS.
I think the posters here should do the same don’t you?
TV3 bullshit gets repeated on The Standard by Eddie and then Eddie shoves it of to misinformation!!
Just say sorry Eddie. Simple as, and will do much more for your credibility than blaming others.
Ban me Bill, the truth is worth a ban
IrishBill: “fess up”? Who the fuck says “fess up”? Quit your crying and fuck off like you were told.
You must be fucking angry at John Key for his misrepresentations about tax cuts, GST rises, privatisation and the like, then Steve. I mean, all Eddie did was repeat what others had said, whereas JK was making shit up!
IB, please ban this MF.
Cry more Irish. Really don’t like being wrong over here eh.
anti-spam. communications: you should learn how to communicate better.