Comments on: Privacy Commissioner refers Bennett complaint

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:24:44 +0000

“…she will be making no public statements on the issue. Any enquiries should be directed to her legal representative Joanne (Wattie) Watson of Hamilton.”

I took this to refer only to enquiries, and not that Fuller was being actively represented in any potential Actions. Sounds like a good approach to me, prevents Fuller from being misquoted or saying anything inopportune, and the lawyer *should* be capable enough of laying enough of the issue on Paula Been-it’s doorstep.

By: the pinkpostman

the pinkpostman — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:56:49 +0000

Im sory to say freedom that this is what we on the political Left has to accept.I really have no idea how to overcome gthgis.Its been one of my concerns for years. I dobelieve however that we should use the local giveaways by sending” letters to the editor”. We must use every possible way to get the Left message across. N

By: freedom

freedom — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:25:39 +0000

two days and still not a whisper about this story on the stuff site,
(i don’t know if it has appeared in print as i cannot afford to get the daily paper)

but when an MP on a plane is overheard to criticise a child’s behaviour it took minutes for a full fledged media marathon to be up and running

By: Rex Widerstrom

Rex Widerstrom — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:32:41 +0000

Yes, I’m somewhat confused. Why does Ms Fuller, at this point, need Ms Watson? The Director’s role is, as I understand it, akin to that of a Director of Public Prosecutions – assessing the evidence and then taking a prosecution if he finds it has merit. Independent counsel would be necessary only if he refused. Or am I wrong?

It seems like a victim of a crime engaging a lawyer (albeit a pro bono one) when it’s the Crown’s job to prosecute. It sounds more like what she has is a PR consultant, and I don’t believe that’s a good look. It allows Fuller to be made the centre of attention and not Bennett, for one thing. Hopefully Ms Watson has the sense to be quiet and let the Director do his job, which is undoubtedly in Ms Fuller’s best interests at present, and not continue to engage the media, which palys to the interests of her employers, their political allies and the media itself.

By: Cnr Joe

Cnr Joe — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:02:19 +0000

she worked in some m.p’s office?

By: Lanthanide

Lanthanide — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:45:44 +0000

Did you know that will entitlements count as income for benefit purposes?

The aunt of an acquaintance had her ex-husband die (who had married again), and was told by the IRD to contest the will as a source of income. She refused, and the IRD cut her off in lieu of what they thought she would have received, had she contested the will. This is a second-hand story, so may not really be true, though.

By: In The Know

In The Know — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:19:52 +0000

Yes, I have it from the horse’s mouth.

By: JAS

JAS — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:11:32 +0000

Do you really believe that Natasha Fuller should have to suffer this without representation? Bennett has legal advisors (and many other advisors) so why should Fuller not have the playing field levelled slightly.

By: the pinkpostman

the pinkpostman — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:05:10 +0000

As an orphan bought up by a widowed aunt with a daughter in the 1930s London with a Tory government that gave little if any help to such families Im disgusted at this joke of a welfare minister.This ghastly charlatan who used the Social- Democratic laws to benifit herself then crushes others who are in need of help. I hope she is charged and sacked .She is the very worst type of Tory , a working class traitor .The sooner she is gone the better for us all.However its very unlikely that the other pretender to the working class will take any action against her,

By: jen

jen — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 02:11:49 +0000

If the Director of Office of Human Rights Proceedings decides that the case has sufficient merit, he can choose to represent Ms Fuller himself. He will look at the case with “fresh eyes” as the privacy commissioner says and made a decision as to whether it warrants recieving the assistance of the Office. Even if he decided it was not meritorious and did not represent her Ms Fuller could still pusue her case the Human Rights Reviw Tribunal using her own representation.

By: The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:41:46 +0000

I wouldn’t have thought so, L., as any award would not be income (ie. subject to tax), so should not have any bearing on her benefit. But, in this Brave New World of doublespeak, who knows?

It also occurs to me that the award could be channelled into a trust rather than being paid directly to her. Whatever happens, this is a very. very bad look for a very, very bad minister. Mind you, it won’t cost her personally, now that we have the Nick Smith precedent. It’ll be us mugs footing the bill.

By: pollywog

pollywog — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:21:49 +0000

Fair enough, but now i’m wondering, if, in the course of getting chased through parliament an MP suffers an injury by falling down some stairs…Where does the law stand ?

Would that be grounds for a law suit against the media ?

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:52:16 +0000

Like I said.

By: Robert Guyton

Robert Guyton — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:50:44 +0000

If she keeps chewing like that she’ll have no lips left.

By: tsmithfield

tsmithfield — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:49:00 +0000

Just pointing out the political realities that I am sure you are well aware of. There likely will be situations in the future where the boot will be on the other foot. Just so happens at the moment the Nats are on the winning side of this stuff.