After all the fuss last year about free speech, why are you not taking up arms over this attack on democracy?

About legal confidentiality, seems to me that’s complicated. In general I would, like you and ‘Sod, prefer all processes to be open. But it’s apparent that in many cases that would make it hard for justice to be done, sometimes confidentiality really is required. So it’s messy.

But in politics, let’s have it open. I take it we are agreed that National / APN silencing a journalist is intolerable. I take it we are agreed that all parties should publicly publish their accounts (as the Labour party does). I take it we are agreed that National should be as open about it’s relationship with its donors as Labour is about Owen Glenn. I take it that we are agreed that state funding of political parties is the most open system of all, so that no one gets to buy any kind of influence, and every last cent is publicly accounted for. Yes, Burt, let’s have it open! Are we agreed?

Did you have anything substantive to contribute to the topic of the thread, or was this just a drive-by ranting?

On topic though Key clearly said that hw wants wages to drop. The clarification doesn’t clarify anything.

From his comments it is clear that he does not think wage earners should be getting nominal increases to account for inflation. Given that we are entering into a period of global inflation this matters.

He says that the ONLY reason for wage increases is productivity growth. Fair enough if that what he thinks, but it does mean that he expects wage earners to pay the cost of inflation. Inflation that for the most part is being driven by the responses to the financial crises caused by Key’s former colleagues in the international banking bazaar. This amounts to drops in real wages, which as far as I can tell is why he said as much.

It’s not a popular course, so he’s had the paper make this murky ‘clarification’ about ‘impressions’.

You said you agree with the DHB stuff but you told lies about the injunction. The board (excluding Hausmann) wanted the final report blocked as they considered it didn’t represent the situation. Helathcare NZ (Hausmann) and the health ministry wanted the draft report blocked.

This is the story – two sides that under your reasoning get wound into “all parties agree”.

Perhaps you could answer this simple question to clarify;

Should the press be muzzled from reporting how public money has been spend?

One more question;

Do you think the DHB should pay for Hausmann’s legal bill defending the conflict of interest debacle, which was apparently easy to manage according to King.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4430023a6045.html

I’m still waiting for Steve P. and the sprout to confirm if they support lifting gagging orders as a principal issue or just when it suits their agenda.

In the interim I’m having some fun laughing at you guys making dicks of yourselves. How about you? Do you support muzzling the press or don’t you?

Steve was quite clear about it:

If you want this all out in the clear, as I do, you should be asking why APN has the gagging order in place.

But he’s gone all silent about it now – I wonder why? Some people really should think thru the stuff they post eh, it would save them showing themselves up as being myopic.

Oh, can you clarify how I’m being partisan about this – I said I don’t support either gagging – which is something nobody else seems prepared to say.

The sycophant’s on this blog know all about accountability – as long as it’s not accountability involving the govt who promised a new standard of openness and accountability.

You guys are a laugh a minute – watching you guys contort yourselves and show how little principle you have is hilarious.

CAPTCHA: Extortion Jordan – well he is wanting to be a Labour party MP – so it’s only a matter of time I guess – but it’s OK he will say “move on” and the standard won’t mention it.

Is that as opposed to the speeding fiasco in South Canterbury?

See if you can spell “sychphant”, Sod.

The news at APN has stopped being of real value and is now just a commodity like the advertisments, just there at the whim of the Corporate business.
The editor may as well be replaced by Googles algorithims, which the CEO tuns off and on till the spaces between the ads are filled….

No, not at all. Transparency. It’s not just something you believe in when it suits, it’s a principal. This point seems to be lost here on the standard, how about with you?