Kiwiblog’s Dunne deal – breaking the law or breaking the rules?

21 comments on “Kiwiblog’s Dunne deal – breaking the law or breaking the rules? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. karol 1

   2 October 2013 at 6:06 pm

   Yep. Looks like desperation & very sloppy. Mark Textor must be on holiday.
2. Rich 2

   2 October 2013 at 6:40 pm

   Your tax dollars at work keeping Farrar’s blog going, as well.
3. vto 3

   2 October 2013 at 9:37 pm

   Peter Dunne and David Farrar would make a great couple, sort of like The Odd Couple.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1

     3 October 2013 at 8:43 am

     Do you know why one of the guys was called Felix Unger ?

     Thats because in the 1950s stage show where the Odd Couple debuted one scene required the letters F U. Which was as naughty as you could get back then.

     Ohh the audience laughed for a few minutes at the joke. !
4. the pigman 4

   3 October 2013 at 1:01 am

   Now I’m wondering how much of UF’s parliamentary funds go towards the sterling promotional services provided by Messr. Pete George…
   • Pete George 4.1

     3 October 2013 at 6:36 am

     I need a right of reply here.

     I have never received parliamentary funds for anything.

     I have never received funds from any political organisation.

     I have never received financial assistance from UnitedFuture. To the contrary, party involvement has cost me, including all online costs, travel and accommodation.

     All of my political and online activities have been self funded apart from very modest membership fees and donations received in 2011 when I floated a new party proposal.

     My current election campaign in Dunedin (standing for mayor and for council) is totally self funded.

     Political activities cost me significant time and (my own) money. That is my choice. I owe no favours to anyone and am owned by no one.

     I don’t intend to return to commenting here for reasons already stated. If anyone responds to this statement with counter claims, insinuations or doubts they should be regarded as totally unfounded and mischievous.

     I presume speculation as per ‘the pigman’ would be frowned on here if it was directed at authors or commenters at The Standard.

     [lprent: Yes it would. But that is only for comments about authors and this site on this site. It is a specific policy to make this home site comfortable for our authors without the petty harassment by fools attacking us personally rather than the ideas in posts, or trying to tell us how we should run our site. Since we have no control over other sites (like your Standard obsessed whining), we don’t presume to tell other sites to do the same. Nor do we restrict comments about other sites and authors on this site outside of the legal restrictions. ]
     • Ramsay 4.1.1

       3 October 2013 at 5:25 pm

       One question: how come UF didn’t run it’s advertorial on the well-known and heavily read blog “Your NZ”?
     • the pigman 4.1.2

       10 October 2013 at 9:51 pm

       🙄

       Good luck with your mayoral campaign, Pete.
       • McFlock 4.1.2.1

         10 October 2013 at 9:58 pm

         lol
5. George D 5

   3 October 2013 at 9:03 am

   Well, it’s incumbent on someone to lay a complaint over this breach then, if it is as serious as alleged (it probably is, but let’s ask Graeme Edgeler just in case…)
6. Disraeli Gladstone 6

   3 October 2013 at 10:00 am

   It’s not a breach of law. Well, it could be argued as breaching s 3 of the Electoral Act and it might be better to have put a statement there, but it’s very unlikely that it actually is a breach. Graeme Edgeler seems to agree.

   Hatchet job, really, Mike. Poor form. Once again, I implore the left to raise the current tone of the debate onto policy issues and not have an obsession on right-wing bloggers.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     3 October 2013 at 10:09 am

     So I don’t understand – in your first paragraph you say that it could be argued that there was a breach of electoral law…then you say that it’s an obsession with right wing bloggers?

     Then you say it’s a “hatchet job” despite Mike being pretty clear on his rationale, and you being completely unclear on yours.

     Please, don’t try and “raise the tone”, just make an effort at an actual argument the next time.
     • Disraeli Gladstone 6.1.1

       3 October 2013 at 11:04 am

       “but it’s very unlikely that it actually is a breach”.

       It’s right there in my post. I acknowledge that there’s a chance of it being a breach, because this is the law, there’s always room for legal interpretation. But I think the likelihood of this being a breach is very low and I don’t think we don’t need full blogposts on something that is at best a slim chance of legal creativity on an issue that is hardly of pressing importance.

       The ad was not about voting. It was about a single issue, seeking feedback on a certain policy. As Edgeler has said on Twitter, and he’s probably far more versed in electoral law than me, not all uses of party logos count as election ads and therefore the banner is fine. The post, while closer to the line, is still most likely to be fine because it is not about voting but about a specific policy and gaining feedback responses to it.

       In the end, Mike’s argument falls down because it’s not actually an “electoral advertisement” according to the proper definitions.

       I also called it a hatchet job due to the frankly ridiculous use of the word “plagiarised”, which makes it seem like Farrar has just copied the post without permission when in reality he has been paid as an advertisement to post it. Which is obviously not plagiarism.

       And now we’ve spent five minutes discussing something that isn’t worthy of discussion instead of something else like National’s complete disregard for the Commerce Commission over Chorus.

       Yay?
       • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1

         3 October 2013 at 11:55 am

         No one is forcing you to discuss things d, so if you choose to do so, then whinging about having ‘wasted your time’ is pretty pathetic.

         Secondly, the post is listed as being posted by DPF. The only indication that it isn’t written by dpf is in the tags. there is one tag for ‘paid advert’ and a couple of others.

         Itw ould be better for dpf to post ads with paid ad as the by-line, and not tag them at all.

         the plagiarism claim is at least as plausible as paintergate being ‘forgery’. He posted it under his name. #OMGScandal.
       • wtl 6.1.1.2

         3 October 2013 at 11:57 am

         Meh, complaining that a blog post is “hardly of pressing importance”? What next? Complaining that there are too many cat videos on the internet?

         Hint: If a blogpost isn’t worth discussing, the solution is simple – don’t discuss it.
         • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.2.1

           3 October 2013 at 1:34 pm

           Complaining that there are too many cat videos on the internet?

           Well, now you mention it, the internet is a scary place as many are reminiscent of David Cunliffe…
   • Mike Smith 6.2

     3 October 2013 at 11:07 am

     Disraeli could you please cite the reference for Graeme Edgeler’s agreement that it is not a breach of Section 3? I don’t seem to be able to find it.
     • Disraeli Gladstone 6.2.1

       3 October 2013 at 11:25 am

       On his twitter. He tweeted about it a few hours ago when talking with Clint Smith about it.

       https://twitter.com/GraemeEdgeler/status/385495361080410112
       • Mike Smith 6.2.1.1

         3 October 2013 at 4:56 pm

         Thank you for that Disraeli. The relevant passage in Graeme Edgeler’s twitter seems to be this:
         “it’s an ad encouraging feedback on a policy, while somewhat selling that policy, it’s not about voting.”

         The Electoral Commission guidelines http://www.elections.org.nz/guidance-mps-election-advertising-rules/definition-election-advertisement
         are clear that in the definition of an election advertisement in Section 3A the encouragement or persuasion to vote by reference to views held can be direct or indirect. It is an objective test which depends on context.

         Saying that Farrar’s post is “somewhat selling the policy” so closely identified with Peter Dunne and United Future (to the point of it being part of their confidence and supply agreement with National) but it is “not about voting” seems more subjective than objective to me.
         • Ramsay 6.2.1.1.1

           3 October 2013 at 6:02 pm

           So will you lay a complaint?
7. Sable 7

   3 October 2013 at 8:22 pm

   So United F**KW*TS is trying to dig itself out of the ordure by trying to push a policy of yet more social inequality and injustice. If it wasn’t for the damage Dung is doing and stands to do it would be positively funny…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS