Collins rates her reputation worthless

25 comments on “Collins rates her reputation worthless ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ghostwhowalksnz 1

   31 May 2012 at 8:45 am

   So Collins has put a ‘buy now ‘ price on her reputation to speed up the court case ?

   Whereas previously she had said she had ‘valued her reputation’ , it seems now that its not worth much at all..
   • Anne 1.1

     31 May 2012 at 11:20 am

     She values her reputation alright. She’s been told she hasn’t got a show in hell of winning, so she’s trying to wriggle out of it bit by bit.

     It doesn’t look like Little and Mallard are going to let her get away with it and that gives me much pleasure. IMO she’s a thoroughly nasty woman.
   • bbfloyd 1.2

     31 May 2012 at 11:43 am

     why she would value the reputation she has is beyond me….. i wouldn’t want people thinking of me like they regard her…
2. Rich 2

   31 May 2012 at 10:51 am

   One rather hopes she might still Aitken or Archer herself.
3. tc 3

   31 May 2012 at 12:26 pm

   The whole issue shows the lack of leadership within NACT beyond clinging onto this term to flog off the SOE silverware etc.

   Any half decent leader would’ve had her pull her head in and get on with the Hollowman agenda as your reward is coming later on so toe the line JC.
4. Fortran 4

   31 May 2012 at 1:01 pm

   Collins does not actually have to prove anything.
   She does not even have to appear in the court.
   Trevor and Andrew have to prove “their” case with evidence, not the other way round.
   • Te Reo Putake 4.1

     31 May 2012 at 1:23 pm

     Wrongitty wrong wrong wrong. The plaintiff still has to put their case as to why they think there has been defamation, though this backdown limits it to that bit alone, taking away the trickier bit of having to show that damage has occurred.
      
     And I reckon Collins is still going to be in court; dollars to donuts she’s going to be called as a witness by the defence, just because its going to fun watching her squirm.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.2

     31 May 2012 at 1:23 pm

     Doesn’t she have to show that the contempt in which she is held doesn’t exceed what little reputation she may ever have had among Tory sycophants?
   • Deano 4.3

     31 May 2012 at 2:21 pm

     she’s the one alleging defamation, she has to prove that, prima facie, she was defamed. That’s the law. Bother to read it.

     In your fuckwit world, I could sue you now and sit back while you spend tens of thousands ‘proving’ that you didn’t defame me. That would allow me to bankrupt you just by suing you repeatedly. That would be fucken stupid.
   • Hillary 4.4

     31 May 2012 at 5:05 pm

     Yes I understand she does – she has to prove malice by Mallard and Little if they choose to stand behind ‘qualified privilege’ & she wants to overcome their defence.

     The saying…..’Pride cometh before the fall’ is very relevant here…..where pride is very close related to superiority…

     Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
     Proverbs 18:12 Before his downfall a man’s heart is proud, but humility comes before honor.
     Proverbs 29:23 A man’s pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.

     Anyone facing certain destruction, the first thing to go is pride.

     A “haughty spirit” comes before a fall.

     Anyway it’s fascinating to watch Collins self destruct from her own stupidity.
5. Sam Hall 5

   31 May 2012 at 1:12 pm

   MATERNAL AUTHORITARIAN “parenting” styles generally lead to harmful and unhappy outcomes for dependents.
6. Pete George 6

   31 May 2012 at 2:01 pm

   No court is going to endorse the kind of chilling effect on political discourse that a win for Collins would create.

   The court will rule on law, not the fears of a few speculative smearers.

   It would effectively mean that you couldn’t say anything critical of a minister’s actions without risk of being sued and all the cost that entails.

   It shouldn’t mean that, but rather that people should have reasonable grounds for accusations (or criticisms) and be able to back them up with facts. As they should anyway.
   • Deano 6.1

     31 May 2012 at 2:18 pm

     And , Pete you dork, the court will, in deciding what the law is, be considering the possibility of a chilling effect on legitimate free speech of defining defamation too widely.

     This is a basic and well-understood legal problem – balancing the right to free speech with the right not to be defamed – and the court will be considering it.

     moron.

     IrishBill: You were doing well up until that last word. Try to be a bit more civil.
     • bbfloyd 6.1.1

       31 May 2012 at 3:03 pm

       take no notice of him deano… he will never get just how out of touch he is with basic realities, as the rest of us have to live with….so he just keeps braying the same song over and over again…..
       • North 6.1.1.1

         31 May 2012 at 6:08 pm

         I’ve never come across anyone who’s more adept than Pete George at repeatedly and tediously saying nothing, absolutely nothing, in his studied search for the persona of the considered and reasonable man. Much like his leader.

         For all money he puts me in mind of that insufferable, stuffy old fool/snob Captain Mainwaring of “Dad’s Army” fame. Endless hollow mouthing, offered up SO portentously. Much like his leader.
     • BevanJS 6.1.2

       1 June 2012 at 6:42 am

       Deano was just signing off his comment wasn’t he? 🙂

       Bevan.
   • tracey 6.2

     31 May 2012 at 5:26 pm

     part of the law they will consider is public interest so yes the impactvofxafinding for collins on discourse will be
   • tracey 6.3

     31 May 2012 at 5:36 pm

     part of the law they will consider is public interest so yes the impact of a finding for collins on discourse will be considered.

     presumably she is happy for her reputation to be under zcrutiny cos court has to decide what her perceived reputation to thecpublic is and if theyvthink she is a tough nut or hard wldcthiscdiminish that andcthen there is the general distrust of politicians issue
   • Murray Olsen 6.4

     31 May 2012 at 8:09 pm

     Peter George, why don’t you just go back to WhaleSpew and their prison rape fantasies? On the subject of this thread, I agree with Collins that her reputation is worthless. Possibly the only thing I’d agree with her on.
   • North 6.5

     31 May 2012 at 9:17 pm

     “Criticisms” are NEVER actionable you idiot. Talk about what you know about. Which means PG you’re more or less mute.
7. lprent 7

   31 May 2012 at 3:19 pm

   Added a link to the post as I hadn’t spent the time watching the news…
8. North 8

   31 May 2012 at 9:11 pm

   What a hoot, Ms Nuclear Nasty Bitch Collins (she’s seriously disliked on her own side for the piece of not very intelligent, unconscionably self-promoting, imperious thing she is), well now all she wants is a declaration, and costs.

   Wow ! Even her sabre no longer rattles. She’s a joke. Enjoyed Mallard’s comment that her revision of the value of her reputation is “strangely appropriate”.

   That’s what you get for being an arrogant arsehole with much too big a view of yourself.
9. Hillary 9

   31 May 2012 at 9:22 pm

   Collins seems to forget most Judges actually back the Labour party.
   • Pete George 9.1

     1 June 2012 at 6:45 am

     How do you know that Hillary?
10. Treetop 10

    1 June 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Is the Collin’s sideshow going to hold up the Pullar case?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS