Blood sport

48 comments on “Blood sport ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   28 March 2012 at 8:38 am

   So, am I right in concluding that all the people who received the email have stated they didn’t leak it to the media? If so, then someone is lying, either about linking the email to the media directly or giving/sending a copy to someone else.

   Will the liar be able to not blink under pressure?
2. mickysavage 2

   28 March 2012 at 9:02 am

   I understand that ACC has already done a sweep of its email system and confirmed that neither Judge nor Stewart forwarded Boag’s email.  Collins should have a sweep done on her office’s system so that the same amount of certainty can be achieved.
   • Pete George 2.1

     28 March 2012 at 9:11 am

     No certainty is possible. There are many ways of copying/forwarding emails with varying degrees of dectectability.

     For example, you could take a picture of an email that’s onscreen and send via personal cellphone.
     • mickysavage 2.1.1

       28 March 2012 at 9:12 am

       Surely Petey you should rule out that which you can rule out.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.2

       28 March 2012 at 9:49 am

       For example, you could take a picture of an email that’s onscreen and send via personal cellphone.

       As if mobile phone messages aren’t stored and can’t be checked….
       • Reality Bytes 2.1.2.1

         29 March 2012 at 6:26 pm

         lol so true. A digital camera with SD storage only (which you then remove and hide) would make more sense. Pete has a fair point, but ironically his suggestion would be just as dangerous as email. Funny as the irony is, I think many people struggle with this IT security stuff, and to be fair Pete was half-way there. Heck look at the fiasco by our elected officials trying to show off their understanding of the sky-net law.

         All the more reason I don’t think this government will make it to three years. Someone somewhere doing something naughty is BOUND to stuff up with IT security and get in the shit. I mean we’re barely into the first year and already we have a shitstorm brewing. There’s plenty of incidents like this occurring all the time by supposed intelligence experts in other countries. And I seriously doubt our politicians are as savvy as the cyber-crime unit in UK etc.
     • Rosemary 2.1.3

       28 March 2012 at 3:58 pm

       Wormtongue – your wisdom is just overpowering.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.2

     28 March 2012 at 9:12 am

     If the only assurance Key has got out of Collins was that it “didn’t come from her office” that logically begs the question “so where did you send it from?” The fact that he asked her twice speaks volumes.
     • Pascal's bookie 2.2.1

       28 March 2012 at 9:23 am

       Raises the queston bro, raises.

       You did beg the question that she sent it though, by way of an example 😉
       • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.1.1

         28 March 2012 at 11:10 am

         +1

         Begging the question is when you make an argument for something that assumes an unproven premise that would validate your argument.
         • Jasper 2.2.1.1.1

           28 March 2012 at 11:17 am

           [Deleted. While Matt posts under his real name… I’m not letting you do that…RL]
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.2.1.2

         28 March 2012 at 11:15 am

         A learning moment – thanks 🙂
         • Rosemary 2.2.1.2.1

           28 March 2012 at 4:54 pm

           You’re right in this case, Kotahi Tane Huna, to say “begs the question”. Collins said the email wasn’t sent from her office, so, the question begged is where did Collins send it from? You’re right to say this.

           “Begging the question is when you make an argument for something that assumes an unproven premise that would validate your argument.”

           Collins’ argument is that she nor her staff were responsible for sending the email full-stop – this is what she wants people to believe. But she bases her position on the unproven premise that she or her staff did not send the email from anywhere else i.e. she leads people to believe that when she says “office” she means people, not premises. The assumption that is unproved is that she or her staff did not send the email from premises other than her office. So, you are right to say “this begs the question where did Collins send the email from?” You and MW are both right.

           I don’t think Collins going down over this could ever be beaten by anything else that could possibly happen to the Nactoids between now and the next election. Nothing could get close. It would be pure art.
   • deuto 2.3

     28 March 2012 at 10:05 am

     Collins’ performance in question time yesterday was interesting and worth watching – very uptight.

     In answering Grant Robertson’s supplementary questions under Question2, Collins stated that she was “100% certain, absolutely” that the leak did not come from her office and that only she and one staff member had seen it. The staff member sent it to the ACC chair and ceo only as directed by Collins. http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/12049

     In relation to Boag’s latest (link in post above), in answering Andrew Little’s later questions (Question 9) Collins also now appears to have tried to preempt Boag’s contention that the email was for the Minister only by stating that anyone who sent communications to the Minister on ACC could expect that the communication would be sent to ACC … that is what Ministers do, or words to that effect in her response to Little’s first supplementary question. http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/12056

     She certainly likes to live dangerously!

     .
     • deuto 2.3.1

       28 March 2012 at 12:25 pm

       Question time today should also be interesting with Mallard’s question 4 –

       “Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for ACC: Does she stand by her answers to all supplementary questions to Oral Questions No. 2 and No. 9 yesterday”.

       Does he have something up his sleeve? Just hope he doesn’t blow it. I was impressed with Robertson’s handling of the issue yesterday and also Little’s. Clear and to the point questions and well-manouvered in the supplementaries.
       • ianmac 2.3.1.1

         28 March 2012 at 3:18 pm

         I think Trevor’s strategy was to get some very careful questions and the answers from Judith, on the record. If at a later date information comes to hand that disputes Judith’s answers, then she might be in trouble. Of course Trevor might have some info which makes it worthwhile to develop this line. Tomorrow?
   • Ross 2.4

     28 March 2012 at 12:00 pm

     Who says the info was sent in the form of an email…it could have been done verbally with no record of who supplied the info.
     • Jasper 2.4.1

       28 March 2012 at 12:13 pm

       [deleted]

       [lprent: We’re interested in your opinions and we’re not interested in being a cut’n’paste repository for opinion already up on other sites as is explained in the policy. If you want people to read something, write something about it, put in one or more smallish quotes making it clear with quote, blockquotes, or italics what is their text, and put in a link. The idea is that what you say will be sufficient to raise other readers interest and draw them to the original post. It is what hyperlinks were invented for.

       Of course that does mean that you have to become more than a paste tool and have to think about how to entice people to look at something without simply being a blunt instrument and dumping it into their bandwidth. But don’t worry, the brain exercise will do you good and may even help you with your other personal issues.

       Your comment it appeared to be a complete dump of one of Whale’s posts and I couldn’t distinguish what if any of your own comment you’d left. So the whole thing got deleted. ]
       
       • Jasper 2.4.1.1

         28 March 2012 at 12:53 pm

         Yeah well numbnuts asked the question so if you even bothered to consider the fact that I was only trying to inform him of what the emails were … therefore it was as you say a cut in paste. Fuck if you want to control information maybe you should join the Nact’s!

         [lprent: I can’t see much context in the moderation screen, and I don’t jump out to look at context when a comment is a clear violation. But exactly the same criteria apply regardless if it was for someone else – we don’t want too much cut’n’paste on the site. So use a link. It is the purpose for which they were invented. If you can’t use a link for some reason then put that at the top of comment so moderators don’t kill it out of hand.

         We don’t want to “control information”. We don’t want duplicated garbage dropped all over our site by lazy buggers. So stop wasting my time being a puerile idiot trying to tell me how to run our site. Just avoid doing things that cause me to expend effort on you. ]
          
       • Drongo 2.4.1.2

         28 March 2012 at 4:17 pm

         Iprent – Do mean like what james 111 did here with one of Odgers’ more nastier pieces of poo? Complete cut and paste, not quotes, said it as if it were his:

         http://thestandard.org.nz/resignation-watch-tariana-turia/comment-page-1/#comment-434159

         http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2011/06/hateful-cathy-odgers-as-act-candidate.html

         http://thestandard.org.nz/resignation-watch-tariana-turia/comment-page-1/#comment-434287
3. Blue 3

   28 March 2012 at 9:14 am

   I think Crusher is confident that she covered her tracks well enough that the email will never be traced back to her even if there is an enquiry.

   She likes to live dangerously, if that is the case. John Key had better hope she knows what she’s doing. At the moment it seems she’s better at crushing ministerial careers than cars.
   • rosy 3.1

     28 March 2012 at 9:24 am

     Boag is also saying she expected the email to be seen by Collins only. Not to be forwarded – even asked if it would be secure before she sent it.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 3.2

     28 March 2012 at 9:38 am

     Its simple the email was PRINTED and passed on to the PMs office who coordinate this sort of thing. One of Keys media advisors then passed it onto a tame journalist.
     All printed , nothing emailed so it cant be traced.
     This is what the PMs office do . They run these sort of media disinformation campaigns.

     “A totally separate body, the Office of the Prime Minister, also advises the Prime Minister: it is the primary point of responsibility for managing political issues and relationships with other political parties and for providing administrative and media support

     The ministers office only do factual stuff. ie today there is story about school kids sprained ankles and ACC. That would have been organised by Collins and her crew.
     • NickS 3.2.1

       28 March 2012 at 1:56 pm

       Actually, it can be traced. Printers leave ink fingerprints on stuff printed from them, along with various accidental indicators, and then there’s human fingerprints.
   • NickS 3.3

     28 March 2012 at 2:03 pm

     Unless she used an anonymous remailer, tor or a dodgy eastern EU/Russian proxy service, it’s not that hard to trace, it just requires court subpoenas for IP address to be sent to the relevant companies.
   • Rosemary 3.4

     28 March 2012 at 5:04 pm

     Give it time. Collins surely must have sent the email. I have a good feeling about this.
4. Bored 4

   28 March 2012 at 9:17 am

   Its all very squalid over on the Right side of the House (I could say currently but it seems the normal state of play)…where the Feck has Shearer been on this little fiasco?
   • Pascal's bookie 4.1

     28 March 2012 at 9:22 am

     I’m glad he’s staying out of it.

     Goff would have been in like flynn, at the speculatin stage, and distracting the discourse.

     Better to let 2nd and 3rd tier types hand out the shovels. Doesn’t matter if they get things wrong, the focus will stay on the minister.
     • Pete George 4.1.1

       28 March 2012 at 9:33 am

       I agree, Shearer is better keeping out of it.

       And the 2nd and 3rd tier types would be better to not overplay their hands, but they probably will. The number of calls for resignations far exceeds the number of actual resignations, the “wall of sound” approach seems to be favoured over picking the important fights.

       Governments mostly self destruct in their own time.
       • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1

         28 March 2012 at 9:52 am

         I view it to be something more like criminal prosecutions. They don’t always result in a guilty verdict. That doesn’t mean the case wasn’t worth taking. We learn something from a not guilty verdict.

         Oppositions are supposed to hold the government to account. That means going after them hard when it looks like something is wrong, if there is nothing wrong, that will be brought to light.

         If the opposition only goes hard when they know for sure that something bad has happened, then much that is bad will be overlooked, and never found out.
5. Pascal's bookie 5

   28 March 2012 at 9:20 am

   I’m glad Collins invited everyone to speculate.

   Maybe those crack Labour party cyber-ninjas that STOLE @DRBRASH’s EMAILS!!ELEVENTYFUCK!! did it.

   Also

   Remember when McCully was busted using his personal email systems for work related stuff?

   Yeah, you do.
   • Carol 5.1

     28 March 2012 at 9:22 am

     The only thing I’m speculating on now is how long before Collins resigns from cabinet?
   • Jasper 5.2

     28 March 2012 at 9:55 am

     Hey numbnuts .. Muzza said the Russians had done it!
6. Jim Nald 6

   28 March 2012 at 9:24 am

   oh dear oh dear oh dear ….. reckon that behind the scenes, the question will swiftly shift from ‘whether’ or ‘who’ to ‘how’

   looks like this could be material for a dvd on national’s hollow women
7. Jasper 7

   28 March 2012 at 9:32 am

   Haha! This is great! Old enemies going into battle, Crusher versus Boag(an)! Boagan’s feeling a bit cocky & she’s trying to clean out the old school conservatives, Blinglish, BrownLee, Collins, Muzza, Smith, Williamson ect …. Bad blood going back years and if this plays out … with a bit of luck it will be the catalyst to destroy this government! The funny thing is PinoKeyo doesn’t have a f%$k’n clue how to control people in his cabinet & party that don’t support him! With the number of f^%k ups so far this year and a stagnant economy, high unemployment, 153,000 people have left the country since the Nact’s have being in government, gifting Fletchers $9Billion+ to build 70 temporary houses in Christchurch, giving bucket loads of cash to prop up Corporate Welfare in the building of prisons at $280Million+ a pop as well as the service contracts to SERCO, Spotless, Fletchers and 10’s of millions to consultants to stitch up these deals …. one scandal after another, Canterbury Finance $1.8Billion for less than $380M return, and Blinglish being caught out offering to sell SOE’s to Asian investors for 20% less than it is being offered to New Zealanders! This kind of behaviour demonstrates the incompetence of PinoKeyo & his merry band of idiots in his government which is more likely to humiliate & cause major embarrassment to the Maori party & Dunne which can give cause for the to consider them jump ship when they see the Nact coalition starting to sink! Banksey’s due to have a visit to court for his dodgy dealings at Hujlich Fund … being a director & signing off a dodgy prospectus! I’m looking forward to new elections 2013!!
   • starlight 7.1

     28 March 2012 at 11:13 am

     Not a pretty fiscally responsible picture, english still claims $900 pw accomodation allowance for his ‘home’ in dipton,when it is in a trust,english also being told by the treasury that he wasnt acting in accordance to the retail deposit scheme in dealing with the scf ,so english changed the rules and conditions,
     terms of the retail deposit scheme,the rest is history.
     All this information can be found on treasury and the national party internet site.
8. muzza 8

   28 March 2012 at 9:52 am

   These people are running our farken country…It if was not serious, it would be very bleeden funny!
9. tsmithfield 9

   28 March 2012 at 10:04 am

   I think the assumption that only a limited number of people has access to the e-mail is not neccessarilly correct.

   I assume that Boag would have CC’d anything she had sent back to Fuller. Fuller, by her own admission was firing off e-mails to anyone she thought could help. Who knows how many e-mails she sent away, and whether that was limited to the ACC and the government. Therefore, it is quite possible that the e-mail from Boag could have ended up in the possession of considerably more people than is being considered here.
   • deuto 9.1

     28 March 2012 at 10:23 am

     TS – I think you mean “Pullar” not “Fuller”.

     Natasha Fuller is one of the beneficiaries whose details were leaked by Minister Bennett and her case is still pending for possible legal action!

     LOL
     • tsmithfield 9.1.1

       28 March 2012 at 10:46 am

       Yeah. Thanks for the correction.
10. starlight 10

    28 March 2012 at 11:05 am

    All of this is an example of ‘shtrong,shtable govment’ ‘yeh right’
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    28 March 2012 at 12:22 pm

    “When you can’t send a communication to a Government minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached, that’s very, very dangerous.”

    All communication with a government minister should, of course, be public as it allows us to hold our servants to account.
12. Ross 12

    28 March 2012 at 1:02 pm

    It’s pretty obvious that Collins can’t stand Boag, with the former saying:

    “The fact is it [the email] also came from Ms Boag, so there are possibilities.”

    Seems as if Collins is trying to defame Boag.
13. felix 13

    28 March 2012 at 1:03 pm

    I see John Judge has now denied it.

    The plot thickens.
14. Treetop 14

    28 March 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Why did Boag email Collins?

    1. Because ACC made derogatory comments about Pullar’s 1 December 2011 ACC meeting.
    2. Because Smith had not adhered to cabinet rules writing 2 – 4 letters.
    3. Because of Boag and Puller knowing about 6752 breaches of Privacy and that Pullar had not destroyed the spread sheet.
    4. Boag wanted Collins to go to ACC.

    Interesting that Boag wanted to know if the email link was secure but stupid of Boag as she must have known that Collins would go to ACC.

    Did Boag think that the matter could be handled internally/covertly between Collins and ACC?
    If she did, Boag has the morals of an alley cat.

    Interesting that the 1 December 2011 ACC meeting was about two weeks after a general election.
    • Ross 14.1

      28 March 2012 at 2:12 pm

      Well, Collins is the Minister of ACC. Boag may have reasoned that Collins couldn’t deny she was aware of the problem with Pullar, a denial which Collins may have been able to make had not Boag informed her.
    • Treetop 14.2

      28 March 2012 at 6:14 pm

      Meant to say about a week after the general election.
15. Ross 15

    28 March 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Judith Collins apparently printed out a copy of the email. Why she would do that God only knows.

    http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8442683/acc-minister-printed-leaked-email

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS