Key withdraws promise to resign

Written By: - Date published: 12:03 pm, March 10th, 2015 - 102 comments
Categories: accountability, john key, Spying - Tags: , , , ,

key-resign

PM won’t give assurance NZers not caught in eavesdropping

Key says he won’t quit if mass collection of Kiwis’ communications proved

NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER RETRACTS VOW TO RESIGN IF MASS SURVEILLANCE IS SHOWN

key-resign-no

102 comments on “Key withdraws promise to resign ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Al 1
    10 March 2015 at 12:15 pm

    More truth from Mr Key’s mouth – does he actually have any credibility at all – well judging by the election results he does. National voters are so gullible or do they not mind a corrupt and deceitful leader and government? It appears the answer is yes to both assertions.

  2. Stuff the Politicians 2
    10 March 2015 at 12:53 pm

    No worries J Key.

    The points against you are stacking up by the day.
    You will not need to worry about resigning because you will be tossed out on your ear and the sooner the better.

  3. saveNZ 3
    10 March 2015 at 12:55 pm

    He really is a puppet of the US.

    • Murray Rawshark 3.1
      10 March 2015 at 8:16 pm

      I’ve seen claims that he’s a US citizen. Wouldn’t surprise me. Can an alien buy property in Hawaii? If he is a US citizen, he would have sworn allegiance to bald eagles, American exceptionalism, and apple pie. This could conflict with his swearing in as PM. Maybe he crossed his fingers behind his back?

  4. Anne 4
    10 March 2015 at 12:55 pm

    National voters are gullible because they have covered their eyes and blocked their ears. They are in denial because the don’t want to have to face the truth.

    They are the ‘purely’ political version of Climate Change deniers.

    • Unicus 4.1
      10 March 2015 at 1:20 pm

      Just like year one kids defying Mum – eyes closed – hands over ears – shouting bla -bla-bla-bla !

    • Tracey 4.2
      10 March 2015 at 4:07 pm

      He has made them look foolish, so instead of changing their minds they convince themselves they have not been made fools…

    • Amanda Atkinson 4.3
      10 March 2015 at 4:15 pm

      I don’t think it’s helpful to assume you have superior intelligence to someone who has voted differently to you. Extreme left and right voters both believe they have superior intelligence to those less enlightened (vote differently to them). Get over yourself.

      • Tracey 4.3.1
        10 March 2015 at 4:19 pm

        Do you think National voters of the last few years just don’t value honesty Amanda? (genuine question).

        • Amanda Atkinson 4.3.1.1
          10 March 2015 at 4:29 pm

          Doesn’t matter. Claiming superior intelligence is just pure arrogance. Claim the moral high ground, sure. But assuming you have higher level of intelligence to someone who has a different political view, is just silly. Both extremes of the political spectrum as bad as each other for this.

          • Tracey 4.3.1.1.1
            10 March 2015 at 4:31 pm

            it doesn’t matter if they are gullible? If they are not gullible, then one alternative is they don’t value honesty, so find it irrelevant whether Key is honest or not.

          • Colonial Rawshark 4.3.1.1.2
            10 March 2015 at 4:35 pm

            Amanda – the “claiming superior intelligence” assertion is yours alone and it is inaccurate. Anne was talking about gullibility. Don’t mix the concepts up. Every propagandist knows that smart people and educated people are just as gullible as everyone else, and history shows that is so.

            • Tracey 4.3.1.1.2.1
              10 March 2015 at 4:39 pm

              some research suggests they are most gullible, in relation to propaganda, and great conduits cos they can’t wait to pass it on (see Jaques Ellul).

            • Bill 4.3.1.1.2.2
              10 March 2015 at 4:39 pm

              Although, to be fair CV, that fucking annoyingly stupid assertion is made on a fairly regular basis by some here. Just saying…

            • Amanda Atkinson 4.3.1.1.2.3
              10 March 2015 at 4:43 pm

              Assuming gullibility is an assumption that someone does not have the intelligence to see through the smoke and mirrors, when you can see through it. You are playing with words.

              • Grant …
                10 March 2015 at 4:53 pm

                Are you really trying to argue that intelligent people can’t be naive?

                • Amanda Atkinson …
                  10 March 2015 at 5:04 pm

                  Oh Grant don’t be so silly, you can clearly (very) see that is not my point. The author is assuming that half our fellow Kiwis are gullible, and less intelligent than the author, just because they voted for the Nat’s. That’s a pretty big assumption. That’s all my point is.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    10 March 2015 at 5:23 pm

                    People voting for the NATs is commonly about their class interests and about their financial interests, and plenty of intelligent educated people choose to ride that caboose.

                    The Left has to accept that its been doing a pretty shite job of letting people know where their best interests correctly understood actually lie.

                    Assuming gullibility is an assumption that someone does not have the intelligence to see through the smoke and mirrors

                    Again, that’s not how propaganda works. Intelligent people who keep up with the news every day are just as, or even more, susceptible to propaganda.

                  • Grant …
                    10 March 2015 at 7:56 pm

                    You’re the only one here who is insisting on equating gullibility (naivety) and intelligence whilst being too silly to realise that you are conflating two separate concepts.

              • Anne …
                10 March 2015 at 7:50 pm

                Actually I was replying to AI who said @ 1:

                National voters are so gullible or do they not mind a corrupt and deceitful leader and government? It appears the answer is yes to both assertions.

                You must not take these things to heart sweetie. We can see you are upset that your beloved leader is in a spot of bother but that’s politics. (sarc)

        • Amanda Atkinson 4.3.1.2
          10 March 2015 at 4:40 pm

          You assume they are gullible. Pure arrogance. Same as Slater’s mob. Thankfully most Kiwis are in the middle and do not value other Kiwis more or less (or make assumptions about their intelligence) according to their vote. Good grief.

          • greywarshark 4.3.1.2.1
            10 March 2015 at 6:10 pm

            Amanda Atkinson
            And you can make a sweeping statement on behalf of all of a measurable and observable class that you consider you belong to? ‘Most Kiwis..do not value others….according to their vote.’ Very confident you are. That amount of assumption indicates the extent of your ignorance. The feelings of distaste expressed by many of The Smug about the Green Party is a good yardstick.

            Good grief, there are a lot of unthinking numpties out there if you do represent the vast majority. (Another generalisation to call out your one!)
            edited

          • Grace Miller 4.3.1.2.2
            11 March 2015 at 8:49 am

            Zip it, sweetie, the grownups are trying to talk 😉

      • Anne 4.3.2
        10 March 2015 at 7:32 pm

        What the hell is this silly Amanda talking about? 😛

        Got a right wee bee in her bonnet hasn’t she…

  5. BLiP 5
    10 March 2015 at 12:58 pm

    ‘

    Sure, John Key said he would resign if there was “mass surveillance” – but what’s going on at the GCSB is “mass collection”. No need to worry your little heads about these things, Daddy State is making sure everything is legal. Now, go back to sleep.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1503/S00076/john-key-on-mass-collection-versus-mass-surveillance.htm

  6. Colonial Rawshark 6
    10 March 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Great material to attack Key with, but the reality is that there is a whole security and surveillance establishment behind him for which he is only the (temporary) front man for.

    • felix 6.1
      10 March 2015 at 1:12 pm

      Yeah, but it wasn’t the whole security and surveillance establishment that promised to resign.

    • infused 6.2
      10 March 2015 at 2:03 pm

      Not really. This would happen under any govt. You won’t see Little attack the spying stuff. you will see him attack Key.

      • felix 6.2.1
        10 March 2015 at 4:31 pm

        Key promised there was no mass surveillance of NZers and promised to resign if there was.

        Turns out there is, according to the bloke who used to run it.

        Key is yet to announce his resignation.

        How do you figure that “would happen under any govt”? Any govt stupid enough to put Key in charge of the spies I suppose.

        • Tracey 6.2.1.1
          10 March 2015 at 4:41 pm

          Labour, apparently also promised to resign if there was mass surveillance of NZers… infused just forgot to link to it.

  7. emergency mike 7
    10 March 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Like any good sociopath, Key understands that promises are just words that you say in a given moment to get what you want. These words are not real things, they can’t hurt you. Amazingly, people seem to believe these words, and you get what you want. If someone tries to hold you to that promise later, you can just find a way to BS your way out of it.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      10 March 2015 at 1:29 pm

      +1

      • greywarshark 7.1.1
        10 March 2015 at 1:48 pm

        +111

        • greywarshark 7.1.1.1
          10 March 2015 at 2:05 pm

          +111
          Reminds me much of that Paul Simon song line –
          ‘A pocketful of mumbles, Such are promises.’

          It’s from The Boxer:
          I am just a poor boy.
          Though my story’s seldom told,
          I have squandered my resistance
          For a pocketful of mumbles,
          Such are promises
          All lies and jest
          Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
          And disregards the rest.
          The Boxer” is a folk rock ballad written by Paul Simon in 1968 and first recorded by Simon & Garfunkel. http://genius.com/2435496/

          Cover from Mumford & Sons

  8. Draco T Bastard 8
    10 March 2015 at 1:28 pm

    What’s the chances that National would be able to hold on to Helensville if he resigns? Considering the way that Northland is going I’d say very, very slim which means that this government would collapse and there’s no way that National or Key would let that happen if they can help it.

  9. Bea Brown 9
    10 March 2015 at 1:48 pm

    I much prefer Andrew Little’s honesty and directness when he says on TV, “I don’t have to be upfront with the Northland voters”.
    Now there’s a politician we can trust!

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      10 March 2015 at 1:52 pm

      😆

      …but but but but but but Lllllaaaaabbbbbooooouuuuurrrrrr!

      Personal responsibility is a right wing lie: whenever they’re called upon to own anything they start whining.

      • Redbaiter 9.1.1
        10 March 2015 at 2:17 pm

        That is actually quite delusional.

        A true right winger would have halved govt spending and reduced debt.

        Key has taken the National Party way into Labour territory. He has increased govt spending and he has increased debt.

        Given this clear fact, how could anyone describe Key as “right wing”?

        Sure Key bends the truth, but its not becasue he is right wing. He isn’t. He’s actually far left on any real political spectrum (IOW not confined to 25% of the left hand end.)

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1
          10 March 2015 at 2:18 pm

          Another liar: Labour always decreases government debt.

          • Redbaiter 9.1.1.1.1
            10 March 2015 at 3:05 pm

            A comment that does not address the point of Labour/ National sameness and makes a cowardly allegation that is only designed to smear.

            Why in most cases its pointless trying to debate anything rationally with leftists.

            • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1.1.1
              10 March 2015 at 3:09 pm

              “A comment that does not address the point of Labour/ National sameness”

              It did, by refuting your claim.

              You said National has gone into Labour territory, and your example was because they increased government debt.

              Your example is flawed, because Labour reduce government debt.

              In other words, National is doing exactly what they always do, and are right wing.

              “and makes a cowardly allegation that is only designed to smear.”

              No, that was you, by claiming Labour increase government debt, when they don’t.

              “Why in most cases its pointless trying to debate anything rationally with leftists.”

              Yes, because you make things up, don’t believe in reality and accuse everyone else of doing what you’ve just done. I can see how that would make it difficult to debate with others.

            • adam 9.1.1.1.1.2
              10 March 2015 at 9:39 pm

              That’s because you almost always descended into personal abuse Redbater. It’s best to slap you and yours in the side of the head first – as disingenuous, is normal for you and your ilk.

          • alwyn 9.1.1.1.2
            10 March 2015 at 5:18 pm

            You really do get carried away when you make a claim don’t you?

            Remember about a month ago when you claimed that unemployment under HC was the lowest it had ever been in New Zealand’s history?
            http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-03022015/#comment-962084

            You’ve done it again. Have a quick look at New Zealand Government debt at the end of 1972 and at the end of 1975. Google will find you the numbers.
            It rose spectacularly didn’t it?
            Or go back to the source and look at the figures for 1935 and 1949. Lot more isn’t it?
            Why don’t you qualify your claims. Finding counter-examples to your claims is like catching fish in a barrel.

            • lprent 9.1.1.1.2.1
              10 March 2015 at 7:19 pm

              You should look at that against the unemployed figures?

              There was a rather expensive war in 1939. And another one in 1973.

              And didn’t the debt keep rising after 1975? How do you account for that?

              • alwyn …
                11 March 2015 at 9:41 am

                Of course. That’s why I chose them. I was pretty sure they would qualify as having increased, they were easy to check, and you will note I am not blaming the then Governments for any of it.

                I was only commenting on “One Anonymous Bloke” who is incredibly quick to throw the epithet “liar” at people who says things he doesn’t approve of and then indulges in hyperbole himself.

                Why doesn’t he stick to things that are right, or at least arguable, instead of making wild extrapolations to his claims and which are so easily disproved by the facts?

          • Colonial Rawshark 9.1.1.1.3
            10 March 2015 at 5:27 pm

            Another liar: Labour always decreases government debt.

            Yep. National spend up big on their supporters, Labour goes stingy on theirs.

            And we wonder why the NATs keep winning.

          • Murray Rawshark 9.1.1.1.4
            10 March 2015 at 10:04 pm

            Labour is hardly left wing.

        • Tracey 9.1.1.2
          10 March 2015 at 4:10 pm

          “into Labour territory. He has increased govt spending and he has increased debt. ”

          Proof that the last Labour government increased govt spending and debt from 1999?

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.3
          10 March 2015 at 5:18 pm

          A true right winger would have halved govt spending and reduced debt.

          Now that is truly delusional. Everything that the right-whingers have tried has always resulted in higher government spending and higher government debt. Probably has something to do with paying their mates out with taxpayers money.

    • freedom 9.2
      10 March 2015 at 1:57 pm

      I missed whatever interview that was from, would you mind supplying a link please Bea?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1
        10 March 2015 at 2:11 pm

        She’s lying. It’s all part of her dishonest lip service to personal responsibility.

    • Bill 9.3
      10 March 2015 at 3:14 pm

      Context.

      Tova O’Brien: You’re speaking in nods and winks, why aren’t you just being up front with Northland voters?
      Andrew Little: I don’t have to be upfront with the Northland voters, they are capable of making that decision themselves.

      Well done OAB and Framu for throwing a heap of oxygen on some shit and, through the making of a baseless allegation, ensuring that the added oxygen got fanned.

      See, this is what pisses me off. You made a baseless allegation that I’d to waste my fucking time checking on, seeing as how blatant lying would bring a ban on down. Not impressed with either of you.

  10. emergency mike 10
    10 March 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Worth listening to the Espiner interview. Asks: “Do NZers have a right to know if the govt is collecting their digital info?” answer: “In general, no.”

    Key seemed unable to grasp that Espiner seemed to be asking him about a fundamental ‘right to know’, but Key was rather only interested in describing the GCSB’s legal limits. Thus Espiner kept trying to get a straight answer for the NZ people, and Key kept on sounding like a lawyer representing the defence of the GCSB.

    Well done Espiner for pushing the point, 10mins of Key saying he can’t answer a simple question because he can’t be expected to know what other people mean when they use words.

  11. Bea Brown 11
    10 March 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Last night on the news – I can’t remember if TV1 or TV3 but he definitely said it and I thought at last we have a leader who is honest.

  12. Bea Brown 12
    10 March 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Watch TV3 News on Demand last night – interview with Tova.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1
      10 March 2015 at 2:34 pm

      I did. You’re lying. Like you always do.

      • Bill 12.1.1
        10 March 2015 at 3:03 pm

        No OAB, she isn’t lying. Andrew Little uttered those precise words as a segment of a sentence in that interview at about the 2 min mark.

        Now you can argue over context and intent etc, but how about you desist with that particular accusation now? ta.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1
          10 March 2015 at 3:12 pm

          I’m arguing about context and intent. Quote mining is lying.

          “I apologise for being a man…”

          “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

          Is Bea reporting Little’s intent honestly? If you say so.

          [There wasn’t a word on context or intent in any of your previous comments. All you did was make a blunt accusation. Repeatedly. Somebody in your shoes at this moment might reflect on the wisdom (or lack of) in pursuing this exchange in any way, shape or form given that I’ve already stated I’m pissed off with the time wasting occasioned by your nonsense.] – Bill

          • veutoviper 12.1.1.1.1
            10 March 2015 at 3:30 pm

            I have just relistened to that video – and Little does use those words at about 2 minutes BUT in the context of repeatedly telling Tova that Northland voters are capable of making up their own minds, and sending a message to National etc.

            IMO Bea B was being disingenuous in taking them out of context going on her previous form here (and in the Herald opinion comments) – unless she has had a road to Damascus experience which I somehow think is unlikely.

            SNAP – Sabine has quoted the context much more clearly/fully below.

            • Bill 12.1.1.1.1.1
              10 March 2015 at 3:53 pm

              She was being disingenuous.

              And Sabine has offered context but through equally bad quoting (if she’s quoting from the two minute mark). That part of the interview is what I wrote above. (Added in the entire answer up to the next question here)

              Tova O’Brien: You’re speaking in nods and winks, why aren’t you just being up front with Northland voters?

              Andrew Little: I don’t have to be upfront with the Northland voters, they are capable of making that decision themselves and they’ll make that decision. They know what the issues are and if they decide that they’ve had enough of being neglected by National MPs and National Governments then they’ll vote accordingly on the 28th of March”

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                10 March 2015 at 5:29 pm

                that first sentence is not really a well crafted thing to start off with to a reporter eh.

    • framu 12.2
      10 March 2015 at 2:51 pm

      then link it liar

      • Bill 12.2.1
        10 March 2015 at 3:05 pm

        OAB has provided the link at 12.1.

        All of you. Cut the ‘liar’ crap.

        • Sabine 12.2.1.1
          10 March 2015 at 3:23 pm

          Actually Bea is lying in her interpretation of what Andrew Little said.

          the reporter asked Andrew Little repeatedly if he wants to instruct Northland voters to vote for Winston Peters. (i don’t think this stenograpgher from TV3 had any other question prepared)

          and Andrew Little repeatedly said: The Northland voters are capable of making up their own mind, and if they are over being neglected by National they will vote accordingly. (i did like his eyeroll….a very patient man he is)

          Reporter than asks: why are you not upfront with the Northland Voters

          Andrew Little: I don’t have to be upfront with the northland voters as I don’t get to vote in the election. It is up to the Northland voters to make up their mind, look at the issues, listen to the candidates and if they want to send a message to National that they had enough of neglect and disregard they vote accordingly.

          So in fact he is saying, that he believes that Northland voters are able to send the national candidate home packing, by NOT VOTING FOR NATIONAL.

          the bit where Andrew just said he does not have to be upfront – Full stop ….is only in Bea’s head.

          In fact this whole interview is a disgrace. This was not about the Northland election, about the reasons for the Northland by election, about the cost of the Northland by election to the Tax payer, about the disruption to government cause by the hubris of this national government running a candidate they knew could end up in prison, but about Andrew Little NOT endorsing Winston Peters.

          Better trolls please, these are not fun, not witty, and have poops for brains.

          • Bill 12.2.1.1.1
            10 March 2015 at 3:32 pm

            Yes Sabine, Bea is twisting the intent and should definitely have inserted the customary three dots at the end of the segment she pasted to indicate it was a partially quoted sentence. She’s not the only one who quotes like a monkey around these parts though 😉

            But anyway, neither OAB or Framu accused anyone of twisting context or any such like. They simply stated boldly that the person was lying when they claimed Andrew Little had uttered those words.

            Anyway. I don’t know why Labour haven’t run with something along the lines that voting Labour and not voting National are not necessarily two of the same thing. Might have been less open to ‘Gotcha’ type questioning?

            • Sabine 12.2.1.1.1.1
              10 March 2015 at 3:42 pm

              No she is not twisting anything. What she said is clear. Anyone who reads this comment and does not know about the interview would believe that Andrew Little just said: I don’t have to be upfront with Voters.

              That statement of hers was a lie. simple as that. The intent was to promote a false hood. Also called a lie.

              Labour has not reason to say anything more than what Little said.
              A. We have a candidate, her name is Jean Willow Prime, she knows the issues, she is qualified, she is campaigning, she is talking to the voters, she is doing her thing with the support of the Labour Party and volunteers.

              B. The Northland voters knows the issues, they can speak to the candidates, they can make up their own mind and vote accordingly. If they want to send a Message to National about neglect and the likes, they can send a Message by NOT VOTING FOR NATIONAL>

              Now i know how Natbots can have a sad over Point B: DO NOT VOTE FOR NATIONAL…..but answer me this. Why on earth did National run a candidate that being investigated by the police. did they really think that it would not matter, and that Mike Sabin would just get to stay MP and all would be pink n glitter?

              This is not about Labour and Andrew Little, this is about the ineptitude of the National Party, their atrocious choice of candidates for MP, and their squandering of our taxpayers money on by elections a few weeks after a general election.

              Anyways, Bill/Bea I am bored with you know. Better Natbots please.

              [ You’re free to be bored for a week for insinuating that I’m a ‘Natbot’. Goodbye] – Bill

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                10 March 2015 at 6:48 pm

                her name is Jean Willow Prime

                I appreciate Sabine will not be able to reply to this, but gosh I have to 🙄 at the number of people who want to attack Little’s behaviour in Northland but can’t even get the candidate’s name right.

              • Anne …
                10 March 2015 at 8:14 pm

                I saw that interview and came to a similar conclusion Sabine. Tova O’Brien was angling to get Little to say something that could then be misrepresented and used against him. That is why she persisted with the same question over and over again – albeit from slightly different angles. She’s been having “gotcha” lessons from her political editor, Patrick Gower.

                BB is an unpleasant – as opposed to the less unpleasant – NAct trole. What do you get in return for your efforts here Bea?

        • framu 12.2.1.2
          10 March 2015 at 3:28 pm

          kind of trying to get Bea Brown to do the work there bill – if a person with a history of certain behaviour refuses to provide their own link why should we believe them?

          and how are we to know that the link OAB put up is the same thing BB is referring to?

          as people have established its not an outright lie – then sure – i’ll stop using the word. But to date Bea Brown still hasnt proven themselves in any way on this one and its taken others doing the work for them.

          So we just let people make claims without back up now?

          • Bill 12.2.1.2.1
            10 March 2015 at 3:36 pm

            Choosing to simply not believe what somebody is saying is different to accusing them of lying.

            So we just let people make claims without back up now?

            Pot. Kettle. Do you think I should sanction you for making something up that was subsequently disproven?

            OAB provided the link that proved Bea wasn’t lying. And yet…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.2.1.1
              10 March 2015 at 3:38 pm

              Yeah, it was my bad: I actually watched the interview and still missed the reference Bea & Bill spotted.

              Apologies to all concerned, apart from Bea, who deserves it for quote mining.

            • Sabine 12.2.1.2.1.2
              10 March 2015 at 3:49 pm

              In her misquote, selective reporting and cherrypicking of the quote she was lying. She was implying that A. Little said something he did not.

              [See next comment up] – Bill

            • framu 12.2.1.2.1.3
              10 March 2015 at 4:01 pm

              well apologies bill and others (thats an honest one)

              i was trying to prod someone who usually never backs up anything they say, even when you ask nicely

              and now that its been pointed out, i acknowledged and desisted – as soon as it was pointed out.

  13. Bea Brown 13
    10 March 2015 at 3:30 pm

    But he did say it and our household cheered at the honesty from a politician. And I didn’t interpret it at all just repeated what he said.
    However, I guess there’ll be no more misquoting or selective reporting or cherry-picking from anyone else from now on including statements from the Government.
    And I expect it’s always easier to shout Liar but most of us got over that at primary school.

    • Sabine 13.1
      10 March 2015 at 3:45 pm

      If you don’t want to be called a liar, you could/should

      a. add link to your comment
      b. type out full quote

      the only one that misquoted, selectively reported and cherry picked quotes from an interview that was over 5 minutes long and only consisted of two questions was you.

      simple as that. You got called out. Poor you.

      [See above comment] – Bill

    • Tracey 13.2
      10 March 2015 at 4:17 pm

      As your household cheered at honesty from a politician, none of them voted National in 2011 or 2014 or their support parties, right Bea?

      This thread is about John Key lying. How about your comments on that?

  14. Amanda Atkinson 14
    10 March 2015 at 4:23 pm

    Perfect timing for the Food Terrorism threat to the dairy industry. Now Key can say, that’s why we need mass surveillance, look at what nut jobs we have amongst us, these terrorists will kill babies in China by putting 1080 poison in the baby powder. Is this a jack up by John Key to justify mass surveillance? I wonder who will be the first nutter to claim that?

    • Tracey 14.1
      10 March 2015 at 4:32 pm

      So, what do you think about Key’s apparent u-turn on resigning over mass surveillance? Did he lie or not?

    • felix 14.2
      10 March 2015 at 5:13 pm

      How is the threat “perfect timing” though when it’s three months old?

      It’s only the release of the information that appears conveniently timed.

  15. fisiani 15
    10 March 2015 at 4:57 pm

    Who cares about the foreign intelligence service doing foreign intelligence? This is hardly news.
    Why quote Honest John Key out of context? Oh that’s right, trying to bag John Key. It has not worked. Still think it will resonate with the public? Keep trying – it merely shows how good he is. I suppose it cheers up the radicals. Self righteous twats.

    • felix 15.1
      10 March 2015 at 5:20 pm

      Mass collection of thousands of NZers’ communications by a NZ agency is not “foreign intelligence” work, fizzy, it’s domestic spying.

  17. Ecosse_Maidy 17
    10 March 2015 at 7:26 pm

    Genralissimo Keys withdraws promise to resign if GCSB/Gestapo found guilty of mass surveilance?
    Why are we surprised at this? Why is this news?

    This is what he does and Kiwis have been conditioned to accept, shut eyes, fingers in ears and told to concentrate over there on 1080 or Brave Men & Women sent to Iraq to please his Golf Buddie or Fruit Flies being give contracts to build Bridges….

    Don’t Look Here! Look Over There People!

    Also It Wasn’t Me, I Didn’t Do It!

  18. John 18
    11 March 2015 at 10:35 am

    Surveillance, by it’s very definition, is a “close watch” on someone.

    When someone is being surveilled, there is normally a whole team doing it. So by it’s very definition, mass surveillance is virtually impossible.

    If you call data sieving mass surveillance, then you’d also have to say facebook, google, apple, twitter, amazon, ebay, trademe, tripadvisor, booking ,com, and almost every major website on the internet is conducting mass surveillance.

    • Murray Rawshark 18.1
      11 March 2015 at 5:50 pm

      I’d say collecting all your communications is a pretty close watch. As for your rubbish about a team, this just means that Key won’t be happy until 80% of us are spies, watching the other 20%.

      Now run away and help Osborne in Northland. He needs it.

      • John 18.1.1
        11 March 2015 at 11:29 pm

        My computer and phone also have all my communications. They’re not carrying out surveillance on me – for that to happen a someone needs to actually have a close look at them.

        And spark and google also have all my communications.

        That doesn’t mean they’re carrying out survellance either, even though I’d bet they’ve found had a significantly deeper look into my communications than the government ever has.

        Even by using news websites like TV3, you agree to allow software to be installed on your computer to track what websites you visit.

        • Murray Rawshark 18.1.1.1
          12 March 2015 at 12:12 am

          No I don’t. I block tracking. I can choose which sites I access and how much I use a cellphone. I can’t choose what the government does and I don’t trust them to make good decisions. As a responsible adult, I like making my own. No dominatrix state for me, thank you very much.

          Osborne still needs your help. He’ll need it even more after the 18th.

  19. John 19
    12 March 2015 at 12:49 am

    Just by visiting sites like TV3 you are agreeing to let them use browser fingerprinting which can track what sites you look at, regardless of whether you are blocking tracking , have cookies turned off etc.

    And just by having you cellphone turned on, your provider can track where you are.

    • McFlock 19.1
      12 March 2015 at 12:56 am

      That’s nice.
      Remember when the biggest worry people had with the government was lightbulbs or how fast a car was going? Rather than illegal mass surveillance by a government department that seems to largely work for a foreign government?

      • John 19.1.1
        12 March 2015 at 1:11 am

        If that’s a huge worry to you, then you’re either a crook who deserves to get caught, or paranoid.

        Like most people, I don’t really care, and find it amusing that some people try to make as big a deal as possible out of something that has such inconsequential effect on our daily lives.

        On my list of things to be worried about, being surveilled by the govt comes in somewhere just below worrying about what colour my next tooth brush will be.