DJ Key broke the law

43 comments on “DJ Key broke the law ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kaplan 1

   9 February 2012 at 8:29 am

   Will the Nats have to account for this in their election costs now?
   An hour long radio advert can’t be cheap.

   Maybe zero interest on a forty odd million loan covers it…
   • burt 1.1

     9 February 2012 at 11:11 am

     No, all they do now is retrospectively validate themselves – naturally supported by the same people who supported such self serving antics when Labour did it !

     Parliament know better than anyone what the intent of the law was and they know they didn’t breach the intent…. no guilt mind, no guity hands…..

     Keep up…
     • bbfloyd 1.1.1

       9 February 2012 at 12:19 pm

       so burty… when you’ve finished working yourself into a froth over your hero being exposed for the self serving, cynical recipient of the corrupt old boys network that has utterly highjacked our airwaves….. would you care to exercise that melon of yours , and give at least ONE valid example of your claims?

       i would hate to think of you as just another halfwit without the maturity to be able to face reality with any kind of dignity….

       come on little berty,, SHOW US THE MONEY!!!
2. Carol 2

   9 February 2012 at 8:36 am

   It’s the broadcaster that is being referred to the police for breaking the law, not the PM. How so? Surely the PM was complicit? And does it come out of their election budget?
   • Graeme Edgeler 2.1

     9 February 2012 at 8:42 am

     The Commission generally only ever refers events or ads, not people. The people bit is usually up to the Police.

     That said, the reason the broadcaster might have been referred is that it is they whom the Broadcasting Act makes liable for things like this.
   • mickysavage 2.2

     9 February 2012 at 8:48 am

     I hope the police consider the possibility of Key being a party to the offence.  This would create some interesting legal issues.
     • Inventory2 2.2.1

       9 February 2012 at 8:51 am

       As it would with every Labour Party breach currently under investigation by the Police micky. Be careful what you wish for 🙂
       • mickysavage 2.2.1.1

         9 February 2012 at 9:13 am

         I don’t follow I2. 
          
         A party to an offence includes those who does an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence, or abets any person in the commission of the offence, or incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence. 
          
         It could be argued that by Key agreeing to do the show and by showing up aided Radio Live to breach the Broadcasting Act by allowing them to broadcast an election programme in breach of section 80 of the Act.
         • aerobubble 2.2.1.1.1

           9 February 2012 at 3:46 pm

           worse, it plays to those that think teagate was a set up to make Key look like a victim of MSM rather than as now seems a user of MSM influence illegally.
   • Blue 2.3

     9 February 2012 at 9:23 am

     The broadcaster should be the one getting in hot water for this. The PM did what any reasonable politician would do when offered an hour’s free advertising on a popular radio station right before the election.

     Radio Live did something fucking stupid and arrogant and they deserve everything they get over this one.
     • Hanswurst 2.3.1

       9 February 2012 at 9:36 am

       That makes little sense. Taking that to its logical extreme, any reasonable PM would acquiesce to the leader of the opposition being thrown under a bus, and only the direct perpetrator should be prosecuted.
   • Fortran 2.4

     9 February 2012 at 3:16 pm

     Carol
     Nothing to do with Nats budget.
     It is Radio Live in the gun.
   • the pink postman 2.5

     9 February 2012 at 3:24 pm

     Well Carol one thing is sure if this had been Labour all hell would have broken out. Herald headlines and the electoral commision whacking Labour a large fine.Remember how Labour had to pay out over the Helen Clark Pledge cards .It nearly broke Labour and in fact they have still not recovered financially yet. There is no doubt the Tories have many friends in high places, who help out when needed.
     • burt 2.5.1

       9 February 2012 at 5:13 pm

       Can you please clarify what **fine** you think Labour paid over the pledge card debacle.

       A fine… imposed in a court…. for the pledge card rort…. what planet are you living on ?
3. Kaplan 3

   9 February 2012 at 8:47 am

   Prime Minister John Key’s slot on talkback station RadioLive is raising eyebrows over a multi-million dollar loan.
   Key: “We do our very best to make sure that we observe any Electoral Law that’s in place and we believe we’ve done that,” he said.
   Their “very best” wasn’t good enough. Enough said.
4. Blighty 4

   9 February 2012 at 9:06 am

   I wonder if the police will react as quickly and with as much manpower to this as they did to Key’s tea-tapes complaint.
   • Ianupnorth 4.1

     9 February 2012 at 9:16 am

     mate you’re dreamin’……
   • Graeme Edgeler 4.2

     9 February 2012 at 10:16 am

     Not likely. It’s not imprisonable, so they can’t get search warrants.
   • Vicky32 4.3

     9 February 2012 at 4:47 pm

     I wonder if the police will react as quickly and with as much manpower to this as they did to Key’s tea-tapes complaint.

     Sadly, there’s not a chance of that… My thought when I heard the news this morning was “too late!” It almost doesn’t matter now, as Joe and Josephine Everage will say… 🙁

      
5. CnrJoe 5

   9 February 2012 at 9:11 am

   Surely young master key was just following orders? C&T say jump he says how long?
6. Ianupnorth 6

   9 February 2012 at 9:15 am

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10784346, surely not leaked?
7. Lanthanide 7

   9 February 2012 at 9:21 am

   The title to this post is clearly wrong in two ways:

   1. The commission has referred Radio Live to the police, not Key.
   2. It is up to the police to decide if Radio Live broke the law. No such decision has yet been made.
   • Hanswurst 7.1

     9 February 2012 at 9:42 am

     I think the “DJ Key” in the title is supposed to refer to the phenomenon, rather than the man, and the “broke the law” bit is perfectly reasonable, althogh it should probably have been attributed (either to the Herald or to the commission). Dunno whether I’d be too concerned about the attribution, though, since it’s just a short post on a blog referencing a news website, not a journal/newspaper article or a doctoral thesis.
     • Lanthanide 7.1.1

       9 February 2012 at 9:57 am

       I figured someone would reply with that.

       What if the headline said “Hospital cleaner Janice broke the law”. Would you think “oh yes, it was Janice that broke the law” or would you think “oh yes, clearly it was the hospital employing her as a cleaner that broke the law”.

       In the specific case of “DJ Key” where we know DJing is not his primary job (we hope?) it is not quite the same, but the point remains saying “XXX YYY broke the law” where YYY is the person’s name, the normal way to read such a statement is that the person named YYY broke the law.
       • Hanswurst 7.1.1.1

         9 February 2012 at 10:34 am

         Nah, that’s really stretching it. DJ Key is not just a job description, it’s a reference to an incident that is well known by most who frequent this site and anyone who follows NZ current affairs. It’s not so much like saying “hospital cleaner Janice” as it is like saying “Doctor House” or “Inspector Morse”.
   • Lanthanide 7.2

     9 February 2012 at 10:17 am

     I must correct #2 here:

     The commission decided that the show broke the act, and therefore broke the law, so referred it to police. It is up to the police to decide whether to seek conviction or not. But regardless of what action the police take, the commission have decided that the law was broken.
8. Tiger Mountain 8

   9 February 2012 at 9:28 am

   Technicalities Lanth, ShonKey pushed his luck with that broadcast in the first instance, it takes two to wind up the EC, a media outlet and a mug at the mike.
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     9 February 2012 at 9:36 am

     I believe it veers into libel territory, actually, rather than just being a “technicality”.
     • Ross 8.1.1

       9 February 2012 at 10:20 am

       I tend to agree.

       A number of MPs have been referred to the police but I’m not aware Key is one of them.

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10764687
     • Pascal's bookie 8.1.2

       9 February 2012 at 10:21 am

       Jeez Lanth.

       I wouild love to see *that* tested in court.

       The headline, if you squint, could be read as saying that Key is liable somehow. Such an interpretation wouldn’t survive reading the first sentence of the post however.

       And if we are being all nit picky, it is not ‘up to the police to decide if RadioLive broke the law’.
9. Ross 9

   9 February 2012 at 10:15 am

   > And Key’s reputation takes another hit.

   To be fair, he didn’t have much of a reputation to begin with.
10. Kotahi Tane Huna 10

    9 February 2012 at 10:47 am

    Well I can find you a lawyer who will give you another opinion. They’re just like academics you know.
11. james111 11

    9 February 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Wow riverting heart stopping news. Your headline says JK broke the law so he will be charged then right?
    How ever the news says Media works broke the law and will be charged. Just wondering who is right the News or The Standard with a political axe to grind. Headlines should at least be factual.
    • Ed 11.1

      9 February 2012 at 1:01 pm

      I took it that Zetetic was not referring to DJ Key as a person, but to the National Party of which John Key is the ‘symbolic’ head. As Kaplan in #1 identified, if it is an election advertisement then a deemed commercial cost will need to be included in National Party election costs – and is likely to bring them over campaign spending limits – that is breaking the law. Whether he also broke the law personally I do not know, but I suspect it is possible – especially if the he or his advisers assured RadioLive that it was legal.
    • Inventory2 11.2

      9 February 2012 at 1:37 pm

      No-one has said that anyone will be charged yet james111. The police have a long list of cases referred to them by the Electoral Commission; allegations against pretty much every party in the House. To the best of my knowledge, no decisions have yet been announced, and the police have previously shown a reluctance to prosecute.
    • Ianupnorth 11.3

      9 February 2012 at 2:32 pm

      I see troll and run is back!
      • tsmithfield 11.3.1

        9 February 2012 at 2:42 pm

        The comment you just made meets the definition of trolling. So, don’t be a hypocrite.
12. tsmithfield 12

    9 February 2012 at 1:36 pm

    “I took it that Zetetic was not referring to DJ Key as a person, but to the National Party of which John Key is the ‘symbolic’ head. As Kaplan in #1 identified, if it is an election advertisement then a deemed commercial cost will need to be included in National Party election costs – and is likely to bring them over campaign spending limits – that is breaking the law”

    Ed, that is a real stretch. It shouldn’t require esp to work this out. If that is what Zetetic meant, he should have plainly said it.

    Looking at the article, it seems to me that it plainly says that it was Media Works that was deemed to have broken the law, not John Key. A few days ago a right wing poster was banned for not having quoted in full context from an article, and therefore was deemed to have been misleading. Therefore, surely, attributing something to an article that is not even there must be even more misleading. I will leave it for others to decide if that is the case with Zetetic’s article.

    However, perhaps a moderator might be able to clarify this issue so we know the rules in this respect and if the same rules apply to authors to “The Standard”.
    • Lanthanide 12.1

      9 February 2012 at 2:12 pm

      I think the title is misleading and wrong. PB at 8.1.2 thinks this doesn’t matter because the first sentence makes it clear that it’s Radio Live that’s the baddie, not Key. IMO that doesn’t make it ok – the headline is still wrong.

      I have a little idea that I sometimes like to follow: when it’s just as easy to be right as it is to be wrong, why choose to be wrong when you could simply be right?
      • tsmithfield 12.1.1

        9 February 2012 at 2:30 pm

        I agree.

        I am just discussing this in a general sense here, because I don’t want to be banned for attacking the author.

        In my opinion it is fair enough to use aliases. However, that shouldn’t entitle people to publish things that could potentially be considered defamatory. Someone with better knowledge of legals could correct me on this. However, my understanding is that a headline that conflicts with the evidence could well be defamatory because it is attempting to create an impression that is not supported by the evidence.

        I don’t know how far that the law can reach so far as uncovering identities behind aliases, or whether the owner of a media organisation or blog could be held accountable for views expressed on their site. However, I would be very cautious about publishing material that could potentially be defamatory.
    • Draco T Bastard 12.2

      9 February 2012 at 3:12 pm

      I’m going to have to agree. The headline is misleading. Perhaps a change to:

      Key’s role as DJ broke the law
      • tsmithfield 12.2.1

        9 February 2012 at 3:18 pm

        “Key’s role as DJ broke the law”

        I couldn’t disagree with that as a headline.
13. Irascible 13

    9 February 2012 at 3:01 pm

    I understand that KeY was advised that the DJ job was marginal if not outside the electoral law before he went into the booth to declare that he was now in a “politics free” zone and that he was no longer living in the persona of J.KeY PM of NZ and owner of the NACTional party but as JKeY talk back jock on RadioLive.
    This was, of course, an Hawaiian whitewash coming from a dinnamik shituashun in a relaxed individual which didn’t disguise the reality… the talk back & his position as the host-jock was against the electoral law.
    Anyone, with half a brain, would’ve taken the advice about the electoal act and said no way am I going to violate the act and left the show to a more” responsible host” like ex NACTional candidate Henry or Laws.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS