Open mike 07/06/2019

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, June 7th, 2019 - 293 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

293 comments on “Open mike 07/06/2019”

  1. A 1

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018698405/australian-whistleblowers-under-attack-through-the-media

    This is why all news media need something like SecureDrop (which incidentally has been offline a month now).

  2. WeTheBleeple 2

    To help the planet I suggest we all get messy drunk and skip work.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113255678/hungover-workers-costing-nz-businesses-more-than-165b-a-year

    While reducing productivity by 1.65B a year will not stop global warming, it's a start. To be free of this silly growth model we should get plastered about 100 times more than we do now.

    If we all got completely wankered on a daily basis there'd be no more driving and a massive uptake in public transport. This would be a solid kick in the nuts for the oil industry, and their oily salespeople.

    Some of the population would have to remain sober enough to make the booze and drive for the rest of us – at least till driverless cars. I suggest Destiny church finally has a Destiny. Mash those grapes with wrath Brian!

    Alcoholism has had a bad rap in the past and people have been known to use it to avoid their problems. Getting pissed for the planet eliminates this negative aspect of drinking by lending righteous purpose to being inebriated.

    Should this plan fail and the world turns to shit anyway, we'll be too drunk to care. Thus the plan is foolproof.

    *The author acknowledges a conflict of interest as the drunker you are the funnier he gets.

     

    • Adrian 2.1

      Brilliant ! I’m working on it as we speak.

      • greywarshark 2.1.1

        Very funny WtB.   Your brilliance grows.    Lateral thinking, we have been taught we should be very straight and upright and look where it has got most of us.   So falling laterally to one side or the other, drunk or sober, may be the change to make to enable us to go on trying to improve human life, and finally just anaethitise? ourselves.    Going mad is the ultimate removal of self from stress, but liquor might be quicker.  The liquor barons will be so happy as the ship sinks.

      • Cinny 2.1.2

        Good for you Adrian.

        I work with a functioning alcoholic, he is embarrassing and we are constantly picking up his slack and correcting his mistakes.  It's a friggin nightmare.

        We are trying to get rid of him, so went to the chemist to see if they sell alcohol breath tester quits… nope.  They have a multitude of drug testing kits, but nada for alcohol.  It's a nightmare for my boss, as said person is constantly threatening him, 'if you fire me I'm going to the courts and the newspapers'.  Awesome huh?

        Super happy this info is being published and raised in the media today.

        Alcohol the national party drug of choice, normalised in your supermarket, wine sample anyone? 

        • Rosemary McDonald 2.1.2.1

          Slip him a mickey?  https://www.drugs.com/antabuse.html

          Back when, working in a drug and alcohol rehab unit, we occasionally deployed said drug (with informed consent of the taker of coursewink) with great effect.

          Made the recalcitrant feel so absolutely ratshit….

          Unfortunately, the lightbulb has to want to change.

          Seriously, an awful situation for co workers and I really feel for you.

          The only thing I can suggest is an 'intervention'…but if it fails and makes the drinker's continued employment untenable then cue 'constructive dismissal'.  I would imagine such a claim in the employment court might have weak legs if all or most of the co workers were willing to give evidence of what an awful environment the person created.

          Good luck.

          • WeTheBleeple 2.1.2.1.1

            Yeah that's fucken poisoning people and assuming you have the right. I hope you've stopped doing it.

        • McFlock 2.1.2.2

          Pedantically, it sounds like he's not very high-functioning at all.

          Basically you're down to documenting his errors and his threats. Does he drive to or from work? Cops might be interested.

          Jaycar sell alcohol breath testers. How ethical or full of liability they might be in an employment situation is a complex legal issue that your boss might want to check out with a lawyer before doing anything. Better before than after. But the other option is rather than the disciplinary thing, he's gotta know the situation isn't sustainable. Maybe the boss can offer him time off to get straight rather than the drinker just wait until everything comes to a head?

          Again, it would pay for your boss to see a lawyer first – there are processes to follow, and surprise breath tests would be a personal grievance before the machine beeped.

           

          • Cinny 2.1.2.2.1

            Jaycar.. fantastic thank you so much for that info.  Yay!!!

            Boss has been to the lawyer apparently it would play out for months in the employment court.

            Said person has been pretty good of late, we've employed a part-timer to pick up his slack and cut down on his hours.  We just want him to retire gracefully, but his income combined with the pension makes for extra money for drinking, so he dosen't want to give that up.

            Nope, dosen't drive to work, the boss kindly picks him up and drops him off, said person is 66 yrs old and uses a mobility scooter.

            My awesome boss has bent over backwards for him.  Hooked him up with AA and everything.

            Said person has cirrhosis of the liver.  I've even been to the Dr's with him as a support person. 

            No contract, is part of the problem, said person has been there for almost 2 decades now.  Last time he came to work after a bender we sent him to the Dr's for medical clearance to work.  Guess what…. Dr said he was just fine.  Shocking really he reeked of booze that day and it was blindly obvious he was not fine.

            It's a work in progress that one and it's really sad for all involved.  Said persons family lives up north and am pretty sure they have no idea that their dad is dying from his liver disease.  It's really sad.  Said person has a good kind heart, but alcohol changes that rather quickly.

        • WeTheBleeple 2.1.2.3

          I figured someone would come and get on their high horse about this satire. 

          Alcoholism is no laughing matter!

          Got a booze joke got me nominated for joke of the year. Not sharing it may identify me.

          Many laughters. Cos I've been there. My next set takes on metoo, special needs, and climate change. Been there too.

          How we laughed!

          • Cinny 2.1.2.3.1

            Lmao, I'm not anti booze, I'm just anti arseholes, often the two are linked.

            No high horse, just reality, I do appreciate the satire but then again those stat's were stunning.  It's a really emotive subject, as soon as anti booze stat's come out everyone is so defensive of their drug of choice it's nuts.

            Personally not into boozing, I just haven't got the time or energy to waste on hangovers anymore.  I do get pissed off with parents who yell and scream at their kids when they are hung over, and that kind of behaviour is all too common, possibly a cause of family violence.  The strange thing is as soon as one mentions they aren't into drinking they get labelled as an alcoholic or having a drinking problem it's messed up.

            Does do my head in re normalisation… was given a very nice bottle of wine the other week as a thank you for judging a competition which was really thoughtful… but I was thinking.. dang that's a normal present…. not my drug of choice lolololz.

            • WeTheBleeple 2.1.2.3.1.1

              Yeah I was being overly sensitive I realised after posting (again).

              I'm penning a story about a drunk I knew lately, might share it with the Standard. It's pretty damn dark though, who he was, why he was a drunk, how he died… no redemption in it at all.

              Got a lot of stories from the streets, the Aussie one where I am taught how to survive on the streets by an old Aboriginal… gold.

              • Cinny

                Hugs, I really look forward to hearing more about it 🙂

                I was being over sensitive too WTB, this issue at work is a nightmare and I feel so sorry for my boss and the boozer as well as my work colleagues.

                It's interesting because in a corporate environment with a fully stocked liquor cabinet in the board room, ones job was to replenish it on a weekly basis, lolz replenish the bottles of gin and rum that would disappear on a Friday without a glass insight.  Don't forget to replenish the general managers personal liquor cabinet in his office too….. when a person drinks rum and water in a coffee cup it's easily mistaken for the black coffee he sometimes requests…. He was always good to me, but I would avoid him at work parties, he was too friendly for my liking in that instance.

                Compared to a small businesses where wages aren't as high and the drunk is probably binging due to the windfall of a pension combined with a wage.  And as a result the hangovers are more fierce and so is the attitude.

                Is that inequality rearing it's ugly head again I wonder?

                It's sooo freakin complex.  Yay for the wellbeing budget, there is hope and the narrative is being raised.  Awesome.

                Interesting discussion on The Nation this morning about the alcohol findings.

                https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2019/06/no-evidence-alcohol-industry-s-school-programme-works.html

        • WeTheBleeple 2.1.2.4

          I'd record his antics, but I think that's illegal?

          Get witnesses.

        • SHG 2.1.2.5

          I work with a functioning alcoholic, he is embarrassing and we are constantly picking up his slack and correcting his mistakes.  It's a friggin nightmare.

          We are trying to get rid of him, so went to the chemist to see if they sell alcohol breath tester quits… nope.  They have a multitude of drug testing kits, but nada for alcohol.  It's a nightmare for my boss, as said person is constantly threatening… 'if you fire me I'm going to the courts and the newspapers'.  Awesome huh?

          Hi Grant, welcome to The Standard 

        • Naki man 2.1.2.6

          Cinny  you can't blame the National party for your drunkin bum of a workmate.

          If you damage a vehicle or property or do something stupid at my workplace you will be tested for drugs and alcohol. People who fail the test get help to get clean but they will be tested again and one more failed test and your down the road.

          Your boss needs to show some leadership.

          • Cinny 2.1.2.6.1

            But I can and will blame the nat's for allowing alcohol in supermarkets and lowering the drinking age.  Both of which has done nothing to improve kiwi drinking culture.  Must be a nightmare of temptation for an alcoholic to do their groceries.

            We've explored going down the OSH track… but without proof it's difficult.  Will let the boss know where to get the breath testing kit from and take it from there.

            • alwyn 2.1.2.6.1.1

              Alcohol was allowed to be sold in Supermarkets when the Sale of Liquor Act was passed in 1989. Do you really need me to explain to you which Party was in power at that time? Hint. It wasn't National.

              https://teara.govt.nz/en/liquor-laws

              • Cinny

                My bad Alwyn, I'll fix that…

                I blame national for increasing the availability of alcohol in supermarkets by allowing beer to be purchased as well as wine.

            • Andre 2.1.2.6.1.2

              To be pedantic, wine was allowed to be sold in supermarkets starting in 1989 by the first ACT government fourth Labour government. The Nats just added beer to that in 1999.

          • WeTheBleeple 2.1.2.6.2

            That's fantastic that they support a second chance for workers. Progressive even.

    • mauī 2.2

      So model our towns and cities as sort of 21st century versions of lawless Russell in the Bay of Islands?

    • vto 2.3

      The ethanol will kill you before the planet will

      • WeTheBleeple 2.3.1

        I'm not so sure it will. We could supplement vitamin B to help our livers process, and use a timer/shot method for sleep cycles to keep the levels of alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase at maximum.

        It took a decade on my last decent drinking jag before my liver left me for another man. With the above sound scientific advise I estimate a global binge might last at least twelve years, the window many reporters give for mitigating climate change.

        We must do what we can.

        Good man Adrian, the country needs more patriots like you.

        • Robert Guyton 2.3.1.1

          But WTB, the world needs Holy Men & Women if we are to have any hope at all; ("holy" being a state outside of religion). Alcohol is a spirit in it's own right and nestling in with it will provide comfort, but prevent your further development towards holiness; alcohol is a ceiling through which you cannot pass unless you abandon it.

          Tongue in cheek, or not?

          smiley

          • WeTheBleeple 2.3.1.1.1

            If you drink enough the ceiling becomes irrelevant

            'And my cigar has gone now

            just a pile of dust

            lying dead, kissing carpet'

            That drunk!

            • alwyn 2.3.1.1.1.1

              You sound as if you go along with this dictum.

              “He is not drunk, who from the floor, Can rise again and drink some more; But he is drunk who prostrate lies, And cannot drink, and cannot rise”

              I think I prefer Churchill's reputed response to (I think) Bessie Braddock.

              "I may be drunk, but in the morning I‘ll be sober and you‘ll still be ugly."

              • WeTheBleeple

                I love it. Who is the poet? I used to seek out the more inebriated poets probably as I related, but some… the poetry had been drinking too. angel

                Hmm, old alcohol poem…

                If I lay down and die

                will you come pick me up

                be my angel of mercy

                in an old pick-up truck

                If I sit here and cry

                will you come wipe my tears

                be my nightingale Florence

                with six bottles of beer

                I can't stand on my own

                down these dog-ridden streets

                will you be standing there

                with a smile so sweet

                If I bleed will you come

                bandage sorrow and strife

                I will love you then cut you

                with the edge of my life.

        • Cinny 2.3.1.2

          Wonder how much it costs our health system?
          https://www.medicinenet.com/cirrhosis/article.htm

        • Bruce 2.3.1.3

          So can i assume you've meet the most wonderful man in medicine ? Ed

    • Gosman 2.4

      Why is it a silly growth model?

      • WeTheBleeple 2.4.1

        You really don't understand the growth model in a finite planet problem yet? How GDP is expected to grow to pay bankers interest…

        No hope for you mate. Cooked.

        Enjoy your trappings of wealth while you can.

      • vto 2.4.2

        Better question gosman, is why do we need 'growth'?

    • Sacha 2.5

      "Mash those grapes with wrath Brian!"

      Outstanding.

    • Brigid 2.6

      Do we have to consume alcohol? Can we imbibe in our drug of choice?

      If so, I'm in.

      • WeTheBleeple 2.6.1

        Shhh. I'll just be pretending to be pissed, and have the odd cone. The point is to be inebriated so that one is incapable of working for THE MAN or even driving to work, thus tanking CO2 burning activities.

        I get liquored about once a year now festival time, thoroughly enjoy it, no desire for more. Am cautiously optimistic I can tour again without too many issues. Got support everywhere should I need it.

        I'm'a put my foot down on hard drugs. No!

        P, PCP, GBH, K

        But at least they're learning to read.

        • Brigid 2.6.1.1

          Speaking of drugs, did you know Douglas Pharmaceuticals are doing a low dose Ketamine trial on it's effectiveness on depression?

          The results should be interesting.

          • WeTheBleeple 2.6.1.1.1

            No I didn't. I was looking at the above joke wondering how much ignorance I was displaying… Nothing worse than comics who've not done drugs doing drug routines – it's like listening to Bridges talk about women's rights.

            Replace the K for H it will work as a joke without the poor understanding.

            I have friends who dabble and they were saying it's like an express train to alternate realities. Many drugs that do similar things have proven long term clinical efficacy for psychologically pigeonholed ailments, and so I figured it has potential, and so I questioned my joke…

            Their description of being 'stuck in a K-hole' – kinda like a loop track, is also very similar to high dose LSD. Yuk!

            Sounded very interesting but I'm too old to put the system through such a shock. Haven't even had any fungi for a decade. That's something most persons getting their drug information from national party dog-bytes don't understand, a lot of drugs are self-regulating.

            It's the bad'n's we should throw police resources at. And health resources!

            Many promising studies I just wish we'd stop giving drug companies 'rights' to indigenous knowledge.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 2.7

  3. Sacha 3

    Ah, is this the information that was not in public view but which some righties have been alluding to recently? Paywalled, so this is just the first part: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12238049

    GCSB tried to stop Treasury boss Gabriel Makhlouf from saying website, Budget had been 'hacked'

    Political reporter Derek Cheng has uncovered new details of the hours leading up to Treasury boss Gabriel Makhlouf's claims that his department's website had been hacked for Budget details.

    The Government's spy agency made urgent calls to the Beehive before Makhlouf's public statement – we reveal today what they told at least one senior Government Minister.

     

    • Chris T 3.1

      Robertson would have been told as well.

      The whole "hacked" thing was an arse covering exercise which has come back to bite them in the bum.

      • Shadrach 3.1.1

        As I've previously said, either Robertson knew this wasn't a hack or he didn't.

        If he knew, he should be sacked.  If he didn't, Makhlouf should be sacked.  It really is that simple.

        • Sacha 3.1.1.1

          One of them is already halfway out the door.

          • Shadrach 3.1.1.1.1

            Not good enough.  If he mislead Robertson, he should be sacked.  No excuses.

        • mikesh 3.1.1.2

          Sacking Robertson just because he knew and went along with it would seem excessive.

          • Shadrach 3.1.1.2.1

            If Robertson knew it wasn't a hack, then he knowingly mislead the public to cover up incompetence within a department he has responsibility for.  That is a sackable offence IMHO.

            • Incognito 3.1.1.2.1.1

              "The secretary of the Treasury came to my office and said there had been 2000 attempts to hack – his word – into the Treasury system. I'm going to take that very seriously. What we learn in hindsight will come through in the [State Services Commission] inquiry."

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113307614/robertson-clarifies-knowledge-of-the-hack-at-business-postbudget-briefing

              • Shadrach

                Yes, we know that is what Robertson 'claimed'.  So, assuming he is telling the truth, why hasn't Makhlouf been sacked for misleading him?

                • McFlock

                  Because pre-empting the outcome of an investigation would be pretty fucking stupid from an employment perspective, even if there was any misconduct by either minister or civil servant.

                  • Shadrach

                    It wouldn't be preempting the investigation.  What Makhlouf told Robertson and when can be ascertained without recourse to the investigation.

                    • McFlock

                      Of course it would. SSC has launched an investigation into exactly this issue: did the treeasury sec'y mislead the minister. Firing the dude before the resolution of that investigation would be the employer launching an investigation and then firing the employee before the investigation was resolved. 

                       

                       

                    • Shadrach

                      Not at all.  If there is evidence he lied, then he can be fired.  The investigation does not have to be complete.

                    • McFlock

                      Well, if there's evidence of misconduct, before taking disciplinary action the employer needs to then get the employee's explanation for it and also confirm the veracity of the initial evidence, then assess the level of misconduct that was actually committed at the time based on the information and advice available to each actor as they made the actions which is the bulk of a fucking investigation.

                       

                    • Shadrach

                      Have you ever actually been engaged in the process?  Clearly not.  This is a senior civil servant who has potentially mislead a Minster of the Crown.  The truth of that particular matter could, and should, be established very quickly.

                    • McFlock

                      lol

                      Then there is the matter of whether he knew he was misleading or had he been misled himself? What did the web techs describe it as? Was anyone else there who can corroborate that? Where was it on the timeline? how clearly was it expressed? Is there disagreement as to what was said – who is more accurate?

                      Totes gone by lunchtime /sarc

                    • Shadrach

                      "Then there is the matter of whether he knew he was misleading or had he been misled himself? What did the web techs describe it as? Was anyone else there who can corroborate that? Where was it on the timeline? how clearly was it expressed? Is there disagreement as to what was said – who is more accurate? "

                      All relatively easy to navigate.  If Mahklouf was mislead, he will be able to present the advice he was given.  He will be able to present what the web-tech's advised him, the timing of that advice etc etc.  It really isn't that difficult.  Unless you want it to be, and therein, I suspect, lies the truth.

                      "There was no hack. Treasury's secret budget documents were able to be accessed by the National Party with a simple search.  But we've ended up with an inquiry that seems designed to shut down questions, and a Government that looks embroiled in its own dirty politics scandal.  Labour's danger is it starts to wash up against "brand Jacinda', which is supposed to be above all this.  Why do politicians never seem to learn that the cover up is almost always worse than the crime?"

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/113333846/farewell-speeches-for-outgoing-treasury-boss-likely-to-be-short

                    • RedLogix

                      The ever reliable National Party devotee Tracey Watkins needs to look up a simple definition:

                      To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization

                      https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hack

                      Was National authorized to access an embargoed Budget on the Treasury computers? Yes or No?

                    • McFlock

                      All relatively easy to navigate. 

                      Indeed. But time-consuming.  And the bulk if not entirety of any investigation. So pre-empting an investigation means skipping some of those questions, which brings the fairness of the disciplinary process into question.

                      And the Treasury Sec'y isn't some minimum-wage peon for you tories to discard. Fuck up the process with him, there might be a Hawkesby-level finding in the courts.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Was National authorized to access an embargoed Budget on the Treasury computers? "

                      You really don't get this, do you?  The material was on a public website.  Not someone's computers.  You do know the difference, eh?

                    • Incognito []

                      You really don’t get this, do you?

                      EMBARGO: Contents not for communication in any form before 2:00pm on Thursday 30 May 2019

                    • Shadrach

                      "Indeed. But time-consuming."

                      Not necessarily.  In fact in the case of allegations of dishonesty, it is in the employees best interests to have matters expedited.  The simple fact is either Makhlouf mislead the Minster or he didn't.  That could be ascertained in a matter of hours.  The only reason for a protracted investigation is to cover someones arse, or put buy time to get stories straight.

                      "The butt-covering hit a new low last week with the revelation that GCSB bosses phoned their minister, Andrew Little, in a panic when they realised Makhlouf was blaming the Treasury budget breach on hackers.  It seems the phone call came too late to stop Makhlouf and Robertson's office issuing press releases about the "hack" that wasn't.  But there can only have been one purpose in leaking details of that phone call – to hang Makhlouf out to dry.  The higher the stakes, the dirtier and more desperate the tactics look."

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/113333846/farewell-speeches-for-outgoing-treasury-boss-likely-to-be-short

                       

                    • Shadrach

                      "Contents not for communication in any form before 2:00pm on Thursday 30 May 2019 "

                      Treasury broke that when they published the details on a PUBLIC website.

                    • Incognito []

                      Nope, they didn’t publish it. Being accessible is not the same as publishing. In any case, it doesn’t trump the EMBARGO. In other words, anybody who had access to it, authorised or non-authorised, had to adhere to the EMBARGO.

                      You have never seen those confidentiality disclaimers at the bottom of confidential e-mails, for example? If it is not yours, you should not treat it as yours. However, National did. They accessed and took the information and shared it with the media. It was not theirs to take in the first place and it was under EMBARGO so it was not theirs to share. National was wrong, twice.

                      It is a separate matter that Treasury screwed up. It is a separate matter again how Treasury and Ministers handled the fallout. It all started with National committing two acts to which they were not authorised.

                      You are defending the indefensible.

                    • RedLogix

                      The material was on a public website. Not someone’s computers.

                      A website is little more than a collection of linked files on a computer configured to be a web server.

                      Treasury broke that when they published the details on a PUBLIC website.

                      Bullshit. The cloned site was never published. It was never available to be browsed with hyperlinks as a normal public site would be. Bridges had to use the local search tool to obtain disconnected fragments of it. This is what he demonstrated in the video he conveniently made committing a crime hacking a govt computer.

                      But even that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how National obtained it, it doesn't matter if a fucking stork delivered it squalling and shitting on Bridges desk … the embargo remained in force.  And Bridges knowingly breached it.

                    • McFlock

                      Not necessarily.  In fact in the case of allegations of dishonesty, it is in the employees best interests to have matters expedited.  The simple fact is either Makhlouf mislead the Minster or he didn't.  That could be ascertained in a matter of hours. 

                      Lol

                      You really are full of shit.

                       

                    • Shadrach

                      "A website is little more than a collection of linked files on a computer configured to be a web server."

                      A website is, or can be, far more than that.  But what it isn't, is 'someone's computers'.

                      "The cloned site was never published."

                      The budget material was published to a publicly viewable site.  You're getting confused by your attempts to sound knowledgeable.

                      "Bridges had to use the local search tool to obtain disconnected fragments of it."

                      You've just shot yourself in the foot.  That any of the material was available via a public search tool should have been enough to make you stop there.

                      "It doesn't matter how National obtained it, it doesn't matter if a fucking stork delivered it squalling and shitting on Bridges desk … the embargo remained in force."

                      Nope.  The information was then in the public domain.  The media published it.

                    • Incognito []

                      Nope. The information was then in the public domain. The media published it.

                      Indeed, they did. The information- and scandal-starved media couldn’t resist. After National peeled off the EMBARGO label, of course.

                      All leads lead to Simon Bridges and National, I’m afraid.

                      I do admire you for trying to push shit uphill but at the end of the day, it is what it is.

                    • Shadrach

                      "https://www.employment.govt.nz/resolving-problems/steps-to-resolve/disciplinary-action/disciplinary-process/"

                      Did you actually read the material you linked to?  That process (and by the way this is potentially an allegation of Serious Misconduct, which is likely to involve summary dismissal, not a disciplinary process) can be completed very quickly.  In this case, I'm confident an 'innocent' public servant being publicly smeared would want any investigation expedited.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Nope, they didn’t publish it."

                      Yep they did.  That's how it got there.  It may have been inadvertent, but there it was.

                      "In any case, it doesn’t trump the EMBARGO."

                      Yep, it does.  They broke their own embargo.  If you don't like it, lay a complaint against all of the media outlets that published the material.  Go on, put your money where you mouth is.

                      "…had to adhere to the EMBARGO."

                      Says who?

                      "However, National did."

                      And there we have it.  You simply have sour grapes because National did it.  I don't give a rats who did it.  What we have is an incompetent government department, accusations of a senior civil servant misleading the Minister, allegations of government Minsters involved themselves in butt covering, and possibly even misleading the PM and the public.  And you're worried about tye definition of a hack!

                    • Incognito []

                      It would never have reached the media and the public before the embargo if National had not hacked it. National and Bridges breached the embargo. Says who? The owner of the material that was accessed, taken, and shared without authorised permission of the rightful owner of the material.

                      Nope, no sour grapes, purely principle. Starting to feel weak in the knees? You have nothing on me so please stick to the topic of discussion. You’re sinking deeper into the hole you’re digging but the only way out is to stop digging and not to start attacking people who’ve been telling you that National was very wrong with initiating Budgetgate.

                    • McFlock

                      I especially read the bits where there were several steps involving giving the employee and their representative reasonable time (multiple days in each step) to respond to decisions and information in the previous steps, all following the initial investigation, which in itself will take a while to do properly.

                      And you were calling for people to be fired within how many working days?

                      You're a joke.

                    • Shadrach

                      "After National peeled off the EMBARGO label, of course. "

                      Information published on a public website can hardly be still considered embargoed.

                    • Shadrach

                      "It would never have reached the media and the public before the embargo if National had not hacked it. "

                      And there it is again.  Sour grapes.  Accessing material published to a public website is not hacking.

                    • Shadrach

                      "I especially read the bits where there were several steps…"

                      This is an alleged dishonesty accusation aimed at one of the country's most senior civil servants.  It could have been resolved over a very short period of time.  And if Makhlouf is being fitted up, it would be in his best interests.

                    • RedLogix

                      This discussion can be closed off very quickly. The owner of the documents, ie Treasury, did not intend for the embargo to be lifted before Budget day.  And it is clear that Treasury did not intend anyone outside of a small group of authorised people to have access to it either. Two separate concepts. 

                      There were people within Treasury who had legitimate authorised access to it, but none of them were entitled to break the embargo and would have been terminated immediately for doing so.

                      Access does not imply the right to break the embargo.

                      Even less so if the access is unintentional, unauthorised and criminal in nature. The law is quite clear on this, if you do not have authority to access a file on a computer, and this includes any website, then you are committing a crime. Bridges will be eventually nailed for this.

                      Access does not imply the right to take, copy or use for any purpose.

                      Public websites get around this by implication. The home page is in the open and you can navigate using hyperlinks around the pages and files the owner intends you to access. If however you access any page or file that the owner does NOT intend you to access … by any means whatsoever … then you are committing a crime.

                      In this instance it is obvious by the embargoed nature of a Budget that the owner did not intend or authorise public access. Bridges of all people cannot claim ignorance of this because he himself filmed himself committing his crime and then boasted of how he had ‘leaked’ the Budget.

                    • Shadrach

                      "In this instance it is obvious by the embargoed nature of a Budget that the owner did not intend or authorise public access."

                      That is irrelevant.  Material from the budget was posted on a public website and was therefore publicly available.  They broke their own embargo.

                      You've claimed Treasury didn't publish the material, you've tried to claim the material was on someones computers, you've been all over the place, but at the depth of this is the simple reality that we have a right to know about the incompetence that led to this, and the truth of the possible indiscretions of civil servants and our political leaders.  Eventually we will know.

                    • RedLogix

                      Bridges failed on three counts, each one of which convicts him:

                      1. He was accessing part of a Treasury website that was obviously not intended to be public. By the fact that it could not be navigated normally and that multiple searches had to be made to obtain fragments of it. 

                      2. Having access to the files does not imply authorisation to take, copy or use them in any manner. The very nature of the documents in question implies confidentiality. 

                      3. No-one, with authorised access or not, was permitted to breach the embargo.  Not even the Treasury Sec could to that, the embargo is lifted only when the Minister presents it on Budget Day. 

                      If you had an employee who treated your own internal, confidential documents in the same manner you would fire him instantly. 

                      As for the IT mistake that led to this. It will turn out to be an oversight, someone forgot that the local search tool would automatically index the new cloned site and needed to be configured to ignore it. Building websites isn’t a high level task these days; it was probably contracted out and the work performed by some generic dude/dudette who will get their arse kicked. It would be appropriate for the person responsible for Treasury IT to walk.

                    • Shadrach

                      “1. He was accessing part of a Treasury website that was obviously not intended to be public.”

                      You don’t know ‘He’ accessed anything.  He may simply have been the recipient of the material.  A bit like Nicky Hager.

                      “By the fact that it could not be navigated normally and that multiple searches had to be made to obtain fragments of it.”

                      “2. Having access to the files does not imply authorisation to take, copy or use them in any manner. The very nature of the documents in question implies confidentiality.”

                      So?  All sorts of information that could be considered confidential is accessed and used, perfectly legally.

                      “3. No-one, with authorised access or not, was permitted to breach the embargo.  Not even the Treasury Sec could to that, the embargo is lifted only when the Minister presents it on Budget Day.”

                      You’re placing far too much faith in the idea of an embargo.  The Minster himself releases information from the budget before it is presented.

                      “If you had an employee who treated your own internal, confidential documents in the same manner you would fire him instantly.”

                      An employee would have access by virtue of being an employee.  The media had access by virtue of incompetence by the public service.  We are entitled to know that, and whatever other dirty politics followed.

                      “It would be appropriate for the person responsible for Treasury IT to walk.”

                      What would be appropriate would be for the truth to come out about what happened now.  That means the PM getting off her arse and doing what Helen Clark would have done – knock some heads together, find out the truth and then deal with the sackings.

                    • RedLogix

                      He may simply have been the recipient of the material.

                      Given that he is on video demonstrating how it was done, this is a very frail defense. Besides receiving the material is just as culpable as obtaining it. Nor is Bridges a journalist, nor is there the slightest hint of a public interest defense that he was revealing any wrong-doing.

                      An employee would have access by virtue of being an employee. 

                      Which is exactly what I said, authorised access. But if the idea of an embargo is to mean anything at all … that employee is absolutely not entitled to make the documents public. I realise you understand this, I'm only typing it out to make your mendacity plainly visible

                      You’re placing far too much faith in the idea of an embargo.  The Minster himself releases information from the budget before it is presented.

                      Precisely. The Minister and only the Minister has this discretion and authority. No-one else.

                      What would be appropriate would be for the truth to come out about what happened now.

                      Well here it is; Bridges knows he isn't going to last until the next election and performed this petty, pointless, spiteful little stunt because he's only in it now to cause as much disruption as possible until he goes. Paving the way for the odious Collins to look reasonable by comparison.

                    • Shadrach

                      “Given that he is on video demonstrating how it was done…”

                      Just shows he has been shown how to access the material.

                      “Nor is Bridges a journalist…”

                      Ah, the old ‘Hager is a journalist’ defence.  Bridges is in possession of material from a wbsite that was in the public domain.  Hager was in possession of stolen personal emails.

                      “But if the idea of an embargo is to mean anything at all …”

                      It doesn’t.  It is an agreement between, in this case, Treasury and journalists.

                      “…that employee is absolutely not entitled to make the documents public.”

                      But that has nothing to do with this case.  Which was my point.

                      “Precisely. The Minister and only the Minister has this discretion and authority. No-one else.”

                      Rubbish.  If the material is placed on a publicly accessible website, any so called ‘embargo’ has already been broken.

                      “Well here it is; Bridges knows he isn't going to last until the next election and performed this petty, pointless, spiteful little stunt because he's only in it now to cause as much disruption as possible until he goes. Paving the way for the odious Collins to look reasonable by comparison.”

                      Oh you may be right.  But that doesn’t get away from your obvious sour grapes that Bridges trumped Robertson’s big moment, highlighted incompetence in the public service, and has potentially brought into the public eye some dirty politics, Labour style.

                    • McFlock

                      This is an alleged dishonesty accusation aimed at one of the country's most senior civil servants.  It could have been resolved over a very short period of time.  And if Makhlouf is being fitted up, it would be in his best interests.

                      No, it's an investigation into confused messages and the management thereof. Due process should be followed calmly and methodically to assess whether there were any performance issue at all. And if there are irregularities in any investigation, it's actually in his best interest to follow the process.

                       

                    • RedLogix

                      Just shows he has been shown how to access the material.

                      Or how he did it himself. Any competent prosecution would use it as evidence of means and opportunity.

                      But that has nothing to do with this case

                      Bullshit. If Treasury employees with clear access and authorisation are not permitted to make the Budget public, then logically no-one else is either. Has everything to do with it.

                      If the material is placed on a publicly accessible website, any so called ‘embargo’ has already been broken.

                      It was never on a public website. The very manner of the non-standard way it had to be accessed was proof of that, and the undeniably confidential nature of the documents. An unintentional lapse in security is absolutely not the same as intentionally publishing something. Bridges knew this by describing what he did as a 'leak'.

                      If you park your car in a public place and inadvertently leave the keys in it, this does not mean anyone is permitted to get in it and use it. There is no difference between these cases. 

                      It is an agreement between, in this case, Treasury and journalists.

                      You may want to review the terms and conditions around it. In particular:

                      These rules apply to all analysts, journalists, camera crew, technicians and anyone attending the Lock-up who is not a staff member of the Treasury. Compliance with the rules will be monitored and is taken seriously. Any individual or organisation that breaches the embargo rules may be refused permission to attend future Lock-ups hosted by the Treasury.

                      https://treasury.govt.nz/events/registrations-open-attend-budget-2018-lock

                      These terms limit themselves to the specific event of the Lock Up on the day of the Budget as would be relevant to anyone attending the event, it is clear this is nothing in the nature of a 'voluntary agreement'.  If you want access prior to 2:00pm Budget Day, you abide by these rules. 

                      And don't even try to argue that somehow the Budget is only under these restrictions for the few hours from 10:30am to 2:00pm of the lockup. Bottom line it's a confidential document and no-one, except the Minister or designated person, is permitted to breach that confidentiality in any manner whatsoever.

                      As I pointed out the other day, Bridges has now made it clear that no govt department can ever trust him with any future confidential information. He openly stated that he is justified in using any government information to suit his political purposes. No document stamped Secret or Confidential can be entrusted with him.

                      Moreover once he has breached that secrecy he will then turn around and sack the Departmental Head for failing to keep that information secure from him.

                      He has also destroyed any moral authority in the event there is future 'leak' of information he doesn't like. He can never be PM.

                    • Shadrach

                      "…it's an investigation into confused messages and the management thereof. "

                      The ‘investigation’ that is now taking place is secondary. It is likely to be little more than a butt covering exercise.  The core issue is what actually happened, who said what to whom.  That could have been ascertained by can be ascertained very quickly, and action taken.

                    • Shadrach

                      Or how he did it himself.”

                      For which you have no evidence.  You don’t even have credible source that has claimed Bridges did this himself.

                      “If Treasury employees with clear access and authorisation are not permitted to make the Budget public, then logically no-one else is either. Has everything to do with it.”

                      And so again you clearly show you have no idea.  The reason this has nothing to do with it is revealed in your own words.  Treasury employees are bound by the confidentiality clauses in their employment agreements.  I am not.  Nor are you.  Nor is the media.

                      “It was never on a public website.”

                      We’ve been here before.  Keeping on denying the obvious doesn’t make you any nearer the truth.  The Treasury website is public.  The treasury websites search facility is public.

                      “If you park your car in a public place and inadvertently leave the keys in it, this does not mean anyone is permitted to get in it and use it. There is no difference between these cases.”

                      You can’t be serious.  Someone taking my car is committing theft.  If you really think anyone stole the material, take a private prosecution.  Go on.

                      “ Any individual or organisation that breaches the embargo rules may be refused permission to attend future Lock-ups hosted by the Treasury. “

                      Yes, thanks for making my point.  The ‘punishment’ is so lame there is obviously little or no seriousness around any breach of the embargo.  No law was broken, no contract broken.

                      “Bottom line it's a confidential document…”

                      I repeat – so what? The emails Nicky hager published were confidential. Did you condemn him for publishing them?

                      All you seem to have is a rant at Bridges.  I don’t give a rats about Bridges.  What I care about is that we have incompetence in the public service, and possibly some pretty dodgy activities by cabinet ministers.

                    • McFlock

                      The ‘investigation’ that is now taking place is secondary. It is likely to be little more than a butt covering exercise.  The core issue is what actually happened, who said what to whom.  That could have been ascertained by can be ascertained very quickly, and action taken.

                      Not in an employment relationship. And if it's a butt-covering exercise, it behoves the employee to be carefully represented in the investigation. Which takes time.

                      Basically, you're demanding that a likely beat-up be resolved in such a way that it almost guarantees a constructive dismissal and damages case that you can then beat-up. Nice try, but the government won't fall for it.

                       

                    • Shadrach

                      "Not in an employment relationship. "

                      Yes, in an employment relationship.

                    • McFlock

                      Not according to the government body that advises employers on how to fairly resolve employment matters, as I linked to before.

                      Whereas you have… your assertions, and that's it. I think I'll go with the government suggestions rather than your onanistic declamations.

                    • RedLogix

                      For which you have no evidence.  You don’t even have credible source that has claimed Bridges did this himself.

                      The video is plain undeniable evidence that Bridges received the documents and knew they had been stolen.  He may have even stolen them himself and you have zero evidence he did not.

                      He had motive, means and opportunity. Guilty.

                      Treasury employees are bound by the confidentiality clauses in their employment agreements.  I am not.  Nor are you.  Nor is the media.

                      The confidentiality clauses, or 'non-disclosure agreements' you refer to would cover a wide range of generic business, employee and management information Treasury employees might be privvy to. These are very commonplace in all sorts of workplaces. 

                      Separate to this is the classification of some specific types of  information as  confidential in their own right. The Budget is one of the more important govt documents that is confidential; it is an attribute inherent to the document that no-one but the Minister has the authority to alter. And no-one but authorised individuals are permitted to access it prior to it's release at 2:00pm Budget Day.

                      Confusing non-disclosure agreements, with confidential information is a transparent trick. Didn't work.

                      If you really think anyone stole the material, take a private prosecution.

                      I hope someone does. It is absolutely clear that the inadvertent security lapse is not the same thing as an intentional publishing into the public domain. The files were stolen. Open and shut case.

                      The emails Nicky hager published were confidential. Did you condemn him for publishing them?

                      Again you deliberately pretend you don't understand the difference. Journalists are specifically allowed under law to protect their sources. And even then they are required to show that in making otherwise private or confidential information public that they are exposing an element of 'wrong doing' that is in the public interest.  Whistleblowers are also supposed to be protected in a similar manner. 

                      The reason for this exception is obvious, without it all manner of corruption and malevolence could be covered up simply by claiming the evidence for it is 'confidential'. 

                      I don’t give a rats about Bridges. 

                      Yes you do. How many comments defending him so far?

                      What I care about is that we have incompetence in the public service, and possibly some pretty dodgy activities by cabinet ministers.

                      We've covered this off; technically the security lapse was an unfortunate oversight by some mid level techie. It would have had no consequence except Bridges maliciously exploited it to embarrass the govt. The end result is some poor bastards who just go to work for a living are going to be crucified and some management head will have to roll to appease vexatious people like you. They almost certainly don't deserve it, the punishment will be completely out of proportion to a small config error, a mistake that is trivial to rectify and will almost certainly never happen again.

                      By contrast Bridges has shown himself to be untrustworthy, malicious and a monumental hypocrite. Worse still his Party continue to have confidence in him. We can fix the Bridges problem eventually, we seem to be stuck with National.

                      And as for the ‘lame punishment’ for breaching embargo; probably in an earlier era when no-one imagined the Leader of the Opposition would be so venal as to leak the Budget, it was considered an adequate if symbolic sanction. Chances are it will be beefed up in the light of this betrayal of trust.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Not according to the government body that advises employers on how to fairly resolve employment matters, as I linked to before. "

                      What you linked to was a disciplinary process.  Catch up, McFlock.  Or get some experience of what happens in the real world.

                    • Shadrach

                       “The video is plain undeniable evidence that Bridges received the documents…”

                      …but no evidence whatsoever that it was him that accessed them initially. And that is what you claimed (/open-mike-07-06-2019/#comment-1626525). You seem to change your story quite frequently.

                      “…and knew they had been stolen.”

                      They weren’t stolen.  Nothing was stolen.  They were accessed on a public website.

                      “He had motive, means and opportunity. Guilty.”

                      Of being given material from a public website.

                      “And no-one but authorised individuals are permitted to access it prior to it's release at 2:00pm Budget Day.”

                      So you claim.  But you have provided nothing to support that claim.  And it is irrelevant anyway.  Treasury granted access when they published material on a public website.

                      “The files were stolen. Open and shut case.”

                      Nothing was stolen.  These were web pages on a web site.  Your still stuck in the wrong terminology.

                      “Journalists are specifically allowed under law to protect their sources.”

                      But he didn’t have to publish the material, did he?  But he did.  And so are you going to be consistent and condemn him?  No I bet not.

                      Yes you do. How many comments defending him so far?

                      I'm not defending anyone.  I'm refuting the ill-infomred bs that you and others are spreading about.

                      “It would have had no consequence except Bridges maliciously exploited it to embarrass the govt.”

                      There it is again.  Sour grapes.  Was Hager ‘malicious’ for publishing stolen emails?

                    • RedLogix

                      Nothing was stolen.

                      Again wrong. Treasury, the owner of the Budget documents did NOT intend for them to be available to the public before Budget day. Regardless of any unintended security lapses … anyone who accesses them without explicit authorisation has by definition stolen them.  Just like stealing a car.

                      You simply cannot wriggle around that.

                      Also as an automation engineer I have some reasonable familiarity with how websites work and it's obvious to me you don't. When you walk into an industrial control room, all of those screens the operators are using are usually based on some form of web technology. Only ours are never exposed to the internet.

                      Was Hager ‘malicious’ for publishing stolen emails?

                      Again you persist in pretending you don't understand a well-known concept like 'public interest defense' when it's plain that you do. 

                      https://www.chapmantripp.com/news/new-public-interest-defence-to-defamation-claims

                    • Shadrach

                      “Again wrong. Treasury, the owner of the Budget documents did NOT intend for them to be available to the public before Budget day. Regardless of any unintended security lapses … anyone who accesses them without explicit authorisation has by definition stolen them.  Just like stealing a car.”

                      Nothing like stealing a car.  When a car is stolen the owner loses possession and use of that car.  No such thing happened.  What happened was that someone took a photo of the car, without the owners permission, and showed it to some other people.

                      “Also as an automation engineer…”

                      Oh here we go.

                       “Again you persist in pretending you don't understand a well-known concept like 'public interest defense' when it's plain that you do.”

                      I understand it well.  But I’m throwing your hypocrisy back in your face.  That public interest defence allowed Hager to use stolen (and btw personal) communications that he had no authority from the owner to use.  Yet you object to someone using legally accessed material from a public website!  The hypocrisy burns.

                    • RedLogix

                      When a car is stolen the owner loses possession and use of that car.

                      The reason why an owner values the car is because only one person can use it at a time, when a thief takes it, the owner cannot use it. The reason why Treasury as the owner of the Budget values the information in the it is different, the confidentiality of the information in it is highly valuable to them until it is released. Copying the Budget and making it public prematurely is considered a serious detriment by Treasury.

                      For a right winger you have a very floppy sense of property rights; it's not the thief who determines the value of property, it is the owner. As the owner it is Treasury's view of the matter which counts. Not yours or Simon Bridge's.

                      Yet you object to someone using legally accessed material from a public website!

                      It was not ‘legally accessed’. Even Bridges called it a ‘leak’. He knew damn well he had no authority to access it and it was stolen.

                    • Shadrach

                      “The reason why Treasury as the owner of the Budget values the information in the it is different, the confidentiality of the information in it is highly valuable to them until it is released. Copying the Budget and making it public prematurely is considered a serious detriment by Treasury.”

                      Yes, but that’s their problem.  That doesn’t equate to the material having been stolen.  Again, you are flapping all over the place.

                      “It was not ‘legally accessed’. Even Bridges called it a ‘leak’. He knew damn well he had no authority to access it and it was stolen.”

                      Well it wasn’t a ‘leak’ in the sense of someone issuing the material in a clandestine way. It was incompetence. And certainly not theft. If someone leaves a car on a public road and I take photos of it, I am not stealing the car, even if the owner doesn’t want me to take the photos.  The person who accessed the material accessed it legally.

                    • RedLogix

                      The value of a car is not tied up in whether or not someone takes a photo of it. Few reasonable people would care if you took a photo, but they would care if you hopped in it and drove off in it without permission. 

                      The value of the information to the owner of the Budget is different, it lies with it's confidentiality prior to it's release. Stealing that is a significant detriment to them. Information may have different attributes to physical objects, but both have real value to their owners and both are subject to laws around theft and unauthorised access. 

                      There is no evidence that the Minister or designated person authorised the Treasury web maintenance team to prematurely publish the 2019 Budget. Therefore any access remained unauthorised regardless of any security lapse.

                      It was incompetence.

                      You keep blithering on about 'incompetence'. As someone who has spent decades of my life building software in real time environments I'm vividly aware of how hard it is to write or configure large systems without mistakes. No-one does it perfectly the first time, not even the most competent developers. We deal with this by testing either offline in simulation, or in my world we usually finish up doing the last of it in real time on real machines. Highly stressful. But testing is both time consuming and expensive, and with a dynamic document like the Budget, time was almost certainly short. Hindsight being a wonderful thing of course it's clear that more resource could have been put into testing, but that's always easy to say.

                      Ultimately because of Bridges vile behaviour here, some poor sods in the IT team are going to be pineappled over what was the kind of trivial oversight that so easily happens when you're working under pressure.

                      This has gotten too easy and I’m getting bored with it now. Bye.

                    • Shadrach

                      “The value of a car is not tied up in whether or not someone takes a photo of it.”

                      You’re arguing that the value of the treasury material is set by Treasury (“The reason why Treasury as the owner of the Budget values the information…”).  Following that logic, the value of a photo of a persons car can be set by that person.

                      “The value of the information to the owner of the Budget is different, it lies with it's confidentiality prior to it's release.”

                      No, not at all.  The information contained within a budget is generally well signalled in advance, often announced in some detail.  But even that really doesn’t matter.  The material was put up on a public website by the Treasury themselves.

                      “Stealing that is a significant detriment to them.”

                      No-one stole anything.

                      “There is no evidence that the Minister or designated person authorised the Treasury web maintenance team to prematurely publish the 2019 Budget. Therefore any access remained unauthorised regardless of any security lapse.”

                      The car owner didn’t authorise the photo of their car, and yet it can be published. You’re just making up stuff without any justification.

                      “As someone who has spent decades of my life building software in real time environments I'm vividly aware of how hard it is to write or configure large systems without mistakes.”

                      So publishing what you regard as sensitive information on a public website is a ‘mistake’?

                      “Ultimately because of Bridges vile behaviour here, some poor sods in the IT team are going to be pineappled over what was the kind of trivial oversight that so easily happens when you're working under pressure.”

                      ‘Pineappled’?  So you see no value in accountability?

                • Incognito

                  See 3.1.1.3.1.1.

                  Being wrong is not the same as wilfully and knowingly (deliberately) misleading, is it?

                  If I ring the cops that more than 300 of my sheep have been stolen and then later I find out I miscounted I won’t get done for wasting Police time, will I? OTOH, if I was pranking the cops they should charge me.

        • Muttonbird 3.1.1.3

          It was a hack, lol.

            • Incognito 3.1.1.3.1.1

              It is very understandable that Makhlouf was hacked off about being hacked 2,000 times just days before the crowning moment of his career in NZ. He’s originally from the UK, I believe, where they may have a different meaning of the word “hack”. Technically, it may not have been a ‘hack’ but effectively it was a ‘hack’.

              I can just imagine what the Police said to Gabriel: Yeah, nah, Pete from GCSB says your PC is free of viruses and you should install Windows updates. So, sorry mate, we can’t help you, but please rate our services to your boss and say Hi to Greg and tell him we miss him dearly. TTFN.

              • Shadrach

                He wasn't hacked 2,000 times.  The nearest you have to that is Treasury's claim that there were 2,000 attempts (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235276) – and that's been called out.

                • Anne

                  Ok. Chris Bishop and co. tried 2000 times to hack him. Does that suit you troll? Nah, didn't think it would, but to be honest none of us care a damm whether it suits you or not.

                  • Morrissey

                    Anne, don't waste your time. This fellow can keep insisting white is black and vice versa forever. You're a serious person; he is not.

                    • Shadrach

                      Yes I am.  I sat back for some days and watched the claims being made, with a sneaky suspicion some of those posting here were going to look like fools.  Well they have, and now I’m calling bs on those claims.

                    • Incognito []

                      What claims are you talking about now? That National accessed the Treasury system multiple times and then publicised material that was not theirs to publish? That they acted entirely appropriately? That that had not done anything illegal?

                      To be wrong is not looking foolish. To be foolish is to think you can’t be wrong. I (may) fall in the first category but you seem to fit more into the second.

                    • Shadrach

                      "That National accessed the Treasury system multiple times…"

                      The claim was 2,000 times.  I've challenged several people here to verify that claim.  So far no-one has.

                      "…and then publicised material that was not theirs to publish?"

                      Publishing material that one doesn't own is commonplace. 

                      "That that had not done anything illegal?"

                      Well what did they do that was illegal?  And when are you commencing the prosecution?

                      "To be wrong is not looking foolish."

                      It is when the claims are made for no other reason than a false notion of superiority.

                    • Incognito []

                      Multiple times works for me. I f others want to make more exact claims, fine by me too. The ‘judge’ can strike out 500 or so and leave 1,500 standing. Happy now?

                      Publishing material that one doesn’t own is commonplace.

                      Non-sensical statement but in any case, there is a word for it.

                      If I or somebody else don’t prosecute it is by (your) definition legal? They took data that was not theirs and published it without permission of the rightful owner.

                      You mean moral or general superiority? I don’t give a toss either way but I do like to push back on shitty narratives when I see them.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Multiple times works for me."

                      Ok, so not 2,000 times then.  In fact you have no idea how many times, and as far as the material the nats accessed it wasn't a hack.  So basically your claims were bs from the outset.

                      "Non-sensical statement but in any case, there is a word for it."

                      What is non-sensical about it?

                      "They took data that was not theirs and published it without permission of the rightful owner."

                      They didn't 'take' anything.  They accessed publicly available material on a public website.  That material was not a citizen's private information, in fact not all of it was even from the 2019 budget.

                      Your claims are classic examples of the type of bs that some have posted here from the outset.

                  • Shadrach

                    How do you know that? How do you know “Chris Bishop and co. tried 2000 times to hack him”? I’ve challenged this claim before, and no-one has been able to support it.

                • Incognito

                  You continue to miss the point. It is not about what you think, it is about what Makhlouf thought at the time. He thought it was a hack, in his mind, whatever that meant to him.

                  A Treasury staff member described the incident to an NCSC responder and asked if it was a matter for the NCSC or police, the spokeswoman said.

                  "Given the incident did not involve a compromise of the Treasury computer network and was therefore not the type of incident the NCSC would normally respond to it was recommended that the matter be referred to police for their assessment."

                  https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/113161208/gcsbs-cyber-security-centre-told-treasury-its-computer-network-was-not-compromised

                  Unless that “Treasury staff member” is/was Gabriel Makhlouf, we can assume that Makhlouf did not directly talk with the NCSC responder.

                  • Shadrach

                    "He thought it was a hack, in his mind, whatever that meant to him. "

                    So you're a mind reader now?  You have no idea what he 'thought'.  He could have made that claim to cover his highly exposed ass.

                    • Incognito

                      No, I read his actions. You shall know them by their fruits. And I used Occam’s razor. He said it was “a hack” and assuming he said what he meant and he meant what he said we can also assume he believed it was “a hack” and that, in fact, he was thinking it was “a hack”. He even went to the Police with it. Because unauthorised access of information had taken place. In other words, Treasury had been “hacked”, according to Makhlouf.

                      Your scenario sounds more like: I screwed up so I am going to screw up even more hoping that nobody will notice before I hop on the plane to Ireland. Yeah, right!

                    • Shadrach

                      "No, I read his actions."

                      Which, if Robertson is to be believed, involved misleading both the Minister and the public.

                      "And I used Occam’s razor. He said it was “a hack” and assuming he said what he meant and he meant what he said we can also assume he believed it was “a hack” and that, in fact, he was thinking it was “a hack”."

                      Except he was told it wasn't.  And it wasn't.

                      "He even went to the Police with it. Because unauthorised access of information had taken place. "

                      Publicly available information.  Which is why the police laughed in his face.

                      "Your scenario sounds more like: I screwed up so I am going to screw up even more hoping that nobody will notice before I hop on the plane to Ireland. Yeah, right!"

                      You're assuming Robertson had no part in covering up the screw up.  We don't know that yet.

    • Shadrach 3.2

      That was in the public domain at least two days ago (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113210553/pm-holding-judgement-on-treasury-boss-over-bungled-budget-for-investigation).

      And the idea that Treasury was 'hacked' was being brought into question from the outset:

      https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/05/cyber-experts-not-convinced-treasury-was-hacked.html

      Also, the Herald are running a piece from last night about a meeting last Tuesday night, and how a 'senior member of the government' knew about the GCSB advice.

      • Sacha 3.2.1

        We know that Treasury were told it was not a breach that fitted within GCSB's remit, and to take it to police. However the only other relevant content in that Stuff story is an allegation by the opposition:

        Treasury's use of the word "hack" in a public statement – despite receiving advice that there was none – sent the media into a spin with multiple agencies filing formal questions to the GCSB over whether a critical Government department may have been the subject of an offshore cyber attack or worse. 

        [SSC boss] Hughes later confirmed he was considering claims by National that Treasury and the Government were "sitting on a lie" for 36 hours before coming clean, but he did not go so far as to confirm it was the subject of an investigation.

        • Shadrach 3.2.1.1

          We also know the Police laughed the complaint off within hours.

          • Sacha 3.2.1.1.1

            The police do not have a great history prosecuting offences involving political parties.

            • Anne 3.2.1.1.1.1

              The police have an abysmal record when it comes to prosecuting political parties and /or influential political persons when they had committed an unlawful offence (see Cameron Slater) but quite happy to harass and intimidate the whistle-blower for bringing those offences to the attention of the public (Nicky Hager). 

               

              • Sacha

                I would love to see an investigation of Slater's connections with senior police managers (including those who initiated the raid on Hager). #corruption.

                • Anne

                  #corruption alright.

                  It should also be remembered that a former SIS director supplied Cameron Slater with a top secret document on Phil Goff and some of the content turned out to be wrong. That director was due to retire shortly after it happened and he took the brunt of the criticism.

                  I suspect he was actually railroaded by someone senior in the John Key govt. to supply the information to Slater. It occurred at the height of Slater's influence with that government and certain pollies within it.

                  One can only speculate who that 'someone senior’ was…..  👿

            • Shadrach 3.2.1.1.1.2

              It isn't only that they didn't prosecute.  They specifically said that there was no hack.

              http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1905/S00448/budget-leak-no-treasury-hack-say-police.htm

        • Incognito 3.2.1.2

          The only people who knew for sure that Treasury and the Government were "sitting on a lie" were the people who accessed the website 2,000 times over 48 hours.

          The same people who let Treasury and the Government squirm until the Morning of Budget Day when they finally decided to come clean and show how it was done.

          Who was "sitting on a lie" again?

          Is it possible that Treasury needed time to check the 2,000 times of access to find out what exactly was accessed? Is it possible that there were so panicked and paranoid that they left no stone unturned to make sure no other surprises were lurking somewhere?

          It wasn’t in National’s script that Treasury would run to the Police. If you play with fire, you’ll get burned.

          Lastly, why are we finding out through the media what GCSB did and whom they called? Is there a leaker in the GCSB too? I thought John Key’s old mate had left the GCSB …

          There is something really odd about Budgetgate.

          • Shadrach 3.2.1.2.1

            "Who was "sitting on a lie" again? "

            Well go on, tell us.  Who are these people who "accessed the website 2,000 times over 48 hours"?  You see I call bollocks on that claim.  The 2,000 'hacks' claim came from Treasury (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235276), and yet that was questioned very early on (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/05/cyber-experts-not-convinced-treasury-was-hacked.html), and we now know that there was no hack, and no unlawful activity (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113109311/no-further-police-action-on-budget-leaks).

            • McFlock 3.2.1.2.1.1

              That McCready chap still about? He demonstrated once or twice that the cops weren't all that good at guessing where no crime had been committed.

              • Shadrach

                Hey I understand what you're saying, but this hasn't been challenged as yet, and it won't be.

            • Incognito 3.2.1.2.1.2

              I can’t remember their names, or maybe they have name suppression already, but their ‘ringleader’ gave a video demonstration to the media not so long ago IIRC. I also believe he said that it was his duty to access, take the data, and use it for his own benefit. He denied it was a “hack” but he sat on the lie all that time and let others squirm and that included Treasury, GCSB, the Government, the New Zealand Police, the media, and ultimately the New Zealand public. Yet one or two people are being hounded about the exact meaning of the word “hack”!? They didn’t access somebody else’s data 2,000 times, did they now?

              • Shadrach

                So basically you made a wild claim about someone who you can't name doing something you have no evidence of and making statements you can't remember.

                • McFlock

                  And yet incognito still seems more honest and reliable than you.

                • Incognito

                  Actually, I was doing my John Key impression. It worked for him.

                  • Shadrach

                    So you admit you "made a wild claim about someone who you can't name doing something you have no evidence of and making statements you can't remember".  That would at least be consistent with what others have posted here.

                    • Incognito

                      Neither irony nor sarcasm are your strong points, it seems. Next time I’ll remember to add the sarc tag or a smilie.

                    • McFlock

                      Irony or sarcasm?

                      Shit, after a couple of days shadders loses the ability to understand basic english, lol

                    • Shadrach

                      Oh I can identify irony and sarcasm very well.  I also know when it is being used to avoid being held accountable for making ridiculous claims.

      • Sacha 3.2.2

        Also, the Herald are running a piece from last night about a meeting last Tuesday night, and how a 'senior member of the government' knew about the GCSB advice.

        You mean Hooton's (paywalled) opinion column? I may need more evidence than his reckons.

    • mpledger 3.3

      The definition* of "hack" is "gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer" 

      That's surely what National did – they accessed govt documents that they knew they were not authorised to access – just because they found it simple to do (although time consuming and tedious) doesn't make it any less a hack.

      (a google search on "definition of hack")

      • Sacha 3.3.1

        Let's not get distracted again by the semantics. Had days of that already.

        • greywarshark 3.3.1.1

          But interesting to return and look at the basics of what 'hack' actually means so that meaning in the imbroglio doesn't get lost in the conflation.

          • Sacha 3.3.1.1.1

            It does not help untangle the discourse.

            No actually, that’s not true. It does, but not usefully until the right people convey it to the public. Could be that they know it’s not resonating much? #thorndonbubble

        • Muttonbird 3.3.1.2

          I'd say what constitutes a hack is central to the whole rancid, right-wing barrow-push we are seeing at the moment.

          It's amusing people are hanging their hat on what the GCSB said as if it were gospel. 😂 

          • McFlock 3.3.1.2.1

            "Hack" is as nebulous as "cold" vs "sniffle".

            Hacking isn't illegal. What was referred to the police was

            249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose

            (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—

            (a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration;

            They weren't genuinely searching for the documents, they were exploiting the misconfigured search cache. Whether that's "hacking" is irrelevant to the Crimes Act.

            • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.2.1.1

              Yes, this whole "they said hacked when it wasn't hacking" schtick is just tiresome. Sure, Makhlouf and Robertson shouldn't have used a slang term with indeterminate meaning in official statements, but that's a pretty trivial offence compared to National carrying out a data breach of a government agency. The thing that needs investigating is whether that data breach meets the definition of "Accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose."

              • greywarshark

                Thanks psycho Milt and McFlock  It is good to read the details put in context – refreshing not to have all this faux outrage and mixed emotions coming from journalists who should know better. Hah.

              • Shadrach

                They accessed a website.  Via a public search function.  They didn't access a computer system, and there was nothing dishonest about it.

                • RedLogix

                  They accessed a non-public website via a search function that inadvertently exposed fragments of it. The distinction is important because the 'cloned 2019' site was obviously not intended to be public. Everyone knows the documents are embargoed, there is zero possibility of implicit authorisation to access.

                  The fact that it could be partially accessed via a public search function is simply not relevant. If I accessed a safe because someone had been silly enough to leave a key or combination lying around, it still does not imply I had a right to access the contents. 

                  Far more important is the simple fact that once Bridges had discovered this simple vulnerability he was under a moral obligation to report it to the Treasury in order they could fix it. Instead he used the information for a petty, pointless and ultimately spiteful political purpose.

                  And given this is the guy who squealed loudly about his own expenses being leaked just a few months earlier … a monumental hypocrite to boot.

                  • Shadrach

                    The website used to access the information was Treasury's own website.  A public website.  With a search function that gave up the material.  The rest of your comment is just sour grapes.  Labour would have done exactly the same thing.

                    • McFlock

                      You really are a moral vacuum, convinced everyone else is just as amoral as you.

                      Labour would NOT have done the same thing. Labour would have followed the CERT guidelines and basic decency. Only tories spend hours or days hacking websites to exploit vulnerabilities, then boast about how much they know to which they shouldn't have access (and overstating what they actually have).

                      And then nobody ever charges them for unauthorised access of a system, even though that's the entire point of their boasts and occasional youtube videos.

                    • Stuart Munro.

                      "Labour would have done exactly the same thing."

                      If you were not lying your arse off, you would now substantiate that allegation with an example of Labour doing just that during the Key Kleptocracy.

                      Off you go – we'll wait.

                    • RedLogix

                       A public website. 

                      Bullshit. A website that contains embargoed, confidential information is by definition not public. 

                    • Shadrach

                      "Labour would NOT have done the same thing. "

                      Bollocks.  Labour are as dirty as any others.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Off you go – we'll wait."

                      You'll have to find an example of an event similar to this one.

                    • Shadrach

                      "A website that contains embargoed, confidential information is by definition not public. "

                      Wrong.  The information was there by accident/incompetence.  The website is very public.

                    • Stuart Munro.

                      "You'll have to find an example of an event similar to this one."

                      The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim – that's you buster.

                      Put up or shut up.

                    • Shadrach

                      "The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim – that's you buster. "

                      You missed my point.  You asked me to "substantiate that allegation with an example of Labour doing just that during the Key Kleptocracy."  To do that, you'll need to come up with a similar situation, one in which a government department acted with such incompetence that it allowed information to be out out there before they should have, and where Labour got hold of that information.

                    • RedLogix

                      Again bullshit. The website was never public in the normal fashion that would imply authorisation to access. It could only be accessed through a local search function that clearly, obviously gave unintended access to documents that are explicitly embargoed and confidential.

                      An embargoed Budget is NOT public domain material … by definition. There is NO implied authorisation to access no matter how easy it was to do so.

                      And regardless Bridges cannot at the same time claim his personal expenses were private, while the Budget is somehow not. There is no escaping or ignoring the now proven fact he is a lying hypocrite. 

                    • Shadrach

                      I believe Labour would have done the same thing because I don't live in the same 'holier than thou' world some on the left seem to inhabit.  I watch and observe the political process, and see the dirty side of every party.  And the left do it just as well as the right.

                    • Shadrach

                      "The website was never public in the normal fashion that would imply authorisation to access. "

                      You have no idea what you're talking about.  The website is a publicly accessible domain.  The search/enquiry facility is a publicly accessible part of that publicly accessible domain. Didn’t you watch the video?

                    • RedLogix

                      Yes I did watch it. The law does not specify any minimum threshold of difficulty when it defines 'unauthorised access'. No matter how easy it was to find via the search function, it was clearly and obviously not public domain material.

                      It's exactly the same as a peeping tom claiming that it's perfectly ok because the victim made it easy by leaving a curtain slightly ajar. Or a thief claiming there is no dishonesty in taking your car because you were silly enough to leave the keys in the ignition.

                    • Shadrach

                      " it was clearly and obviously not public domain material. "

                      You didn't say 'public domain material'.  You said "They accessed a non-public website via a search function that inadvertently exposed fragments of it."  A non-public website.  Now you are back-tracking.  Whether the information was public domain or not, it was on a public website.  Incompetence or not, there it was.

                    • RedLogix

                      No backtrack at all. In order to be able to publish the new Budget in a timely fashion a second cloned copy of the Treasury website is made, and the updates for the 2019 Budget are added in some days in advance. When the embargo is lifted it's it’s then quick and easy to swap the old site for the new one.

                      Until then however the new cloned copy containing the embargoed Budget is by definition private. There is no implied access, or 'right of claim' to the new site until then.

                      The fact that it could be inadvertently accessed via a local search engine that had been configured prematurely to index the new site still does not imply authorisation to access. Unless of course you are going to argue that Bridges somehow didn't know that he was supposed to keep his grubby mitts off them.

                    • Shadrach

                      “No backtrack at all.”

                      Yep, and a big one.

                      “They accessed a non-public website via a search function” /open-mike-07-06-2019/#comment-1625911

                      “A website that contains embargoed, confidential information is by definition not public.” /open-mike-07-06-2019/#comment-1625940

                      …and then you changed your story…

                      “An embargoed Budget is NOT public domain material…”  /open-mike-07-06-2019/#comment-1625962

                      “Until then however the new cloned copy containing the embargoed Budget is by definition private.”

                      No it isn’t.  It may be confidential, but it is publicly accessible.

                      “The fact that it could be inadvertently accessed via a local search engine that had been configured prematurely to index the new site…”

                      How do you know that?

                    • RedLogix

                      Nah … blatant deflection. The Budget is an embargoed, confidential and private document until the Minister releases it. Do you disagree with this?

                      And are you saying that Bridges did not know it?

                    • Incognito

                      The information was not theirs to take and it does not matter how, where, or when they got access to it. It is not like ‘finders keepers’. The fact that the information was taken during multiple access attempts shows it was not an accident but a deliberate pre-meditated campaign.

                      What would Labour have done? Are you now halfway admitting that it was the wrong thing to do?

                    • Shadrach

                      You backtracked.  Just admit it.

                      "The Budget is an embargoed, confidential and private document until the Minister releases it."

                      The Minister released budget contents well before budget day, as have most Finance Ministers of recent times.  The faux moral indignation you're expressing at Bridges exposing Treasury incompetence and possibly dishonesty at high levels of the beehive, is hilarious.

                    • Shadrach

                      "The information was not theirs to take…"

                      You really are living in the 19th century.  The information was not 'taken', it was accessed.  And it was accessed because it was publicly available on a public website.

                    • Incognito []

                      It was taken and shared with the media in a most selective way. It was unauthorised access and sharing. I know it sounds paradoxical but data and information can be taken without being deleted or leaving a gaping hole in or on the hard disk.

                      Edit: sarc tag added for clarity.

                    • Stuart Munro.

                      You don't have a point Shadders, you just want to lie and lie and lie.

                      It's very hard I guess for lazy dishonest and ignorant fucks like you to understand quite how offensive your lies are.

                      In previous times, knuckledragging morons like you might have run across a little thing called Occam's Razor. You might have heard the modern version – the simplest explanation is to be preferred – but you'd miss the guidance implicit in the original phrasing: Principals are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.

                      At the time of coinage, these extraneous principals were God or The Devil, and it had been determined through arduous experience that they (like yourself) contributed nothing to arguments except to prolong them.

                      In your case the extraneous principal is Labour – about whom you make a near infinite number of unlikely, odious and unsupported assertions. There is nothing in anything you have written to bring Labour into the discussion of the guilt of Gnat MPs and their agents. Labour are not a principal in the transaction, and thus ‘Labour did it too’ or your even lamer “Labour would have done it too’ are fatally flawed.

                      I've asked you nicely twice, now, kindly provide some evidence to support your asinine slander, or FUCK OFF.

                    • Shadrach

                      "You don't have a point Shadders…"

                      Actually I do.  And for those with more intellect than you, here it is.

                      Someone managed to access budget 2019 material on a public website using a publicly available search facility.

                      Numerous unsubstantiated (and just plain false) claims have been made about how that happened.

                      The Minister of Finance was either mislead by the head of Treasury, or he himself mislead the PM and the people of NZ.

                      Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

                    • Incognito []

                      Someone managed to access budget 2019 material on a public website using a publicly available search facility. [my bold]

                      How quaint. Have you forgotten their name(s) already?

                      Please tell us, was the access authorised?

                      Was the subsequent sharing of the accessed material with the media authorised?

                      Do you believe it actually did never happen?

                      I claim 2 + 2 = 5. You would say: See! I knew it! Both Makhlouf and Robertson must resign forthwith. And Little too.

                      Edit: 🙂 added for clarity.

                    • Stuart Munro.

                      Wriggle though you may, you have failed to substantiate your assertion that Labour would have done the some thing.

                      We realize you’re just a time-wasting shit-poster without a shred of content on your best day.

                      But on the off chance some casual reader runs across your tirade of fatuous and untenable bullshit let it be quite clear:

                      Shadrach is lying, and he is lying because he has no argument, as always.

                    • Shadrach

                      “Have you forgotten their name(s) already?”

                      Are you telling us you know their name(s)?

                       

                      “Please tell us, was the access authorised?”

                      Any access to a public website is authorised.

                       

                      “Was the subsequent sharing of the accessed material with the media authorised?”

                      The material was accessed from a public website.

                       

                      You really have no idea.

                    • Shadrach

                      "It was taken…"

                      It wasn't taken.  It was accessed.

                      "…and shared with the media in a most selective way."

                      So?

                      "It was unauthorised access and sharing."

                      The material was accessed from a public website.  No authorisation was required.

                      "I know it sounds paradoxical but data and information can be taken without being deleted or leaving a gaping hole in or on the hard disk. "

                      You mean 'accessed'.

                    • Shadrach

                      "Wriggle though you may, you have failed to substantiate your assertion that Labour would have done the some thing. "

                      I haven't tried to substantiate it.  It is an assertion.  You argued they wouldn't have, and that is your assertion.  But your adding a personal tirade to each of your posts tends to suggest you are imbalanced, so i'll leave other readers to make up their minds.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      I know it's ill-mannered to yawn in public, but we all need a lung-full of oxygen at this point. 

      • grantoc 3.3.2

        Treasury placed the information on its public web site. In so doing they made it available to the public – including the Nats. By placing it on their publicly accessed website, they authorised its access (even if inadvertently).

        So it wasn't a hack.

        It would be a extremely smart lawyer to persuade any court otherwise.

         

        • McFlock 3.3.2.1

          …because "hacking" is a legal term, now?

        • Bruce 3.3.2.2

          neither was it a leak as claimed by a beaming simon, intimating that some of  the left mp's were as rotten as his own.

        • I feel love 3.3.2.3

          itSo if your lawyer or bank or medical centre had an IT person who made a mistake leaving an obscure weakness in the system allowing some nosy no moral thief to come and grab all your personal data then coolio? I mean it's all publicly available by definition, unless you pull the cable out. 

        • RedLogix 3.3.2.4

           By placing it on their publicly accessed website, they authorised its access (even if inadvertently).

          If I leave the keys in my car (even if inadvertently) have I given everyone an implied right to take it?

          The definition of a 'hack' does not include any minimum threshold of technical difficulty. If you are not supposed to be there, then it's a hack. It's that simple.

          • Incognito 3.3.2.4.1

            Yes, it is that simple but because of the implications for their tribe, it is not only not that simple but in fact completely wrong. People bend the truth to suit them and (still) think it is the truth 😉

      • Anne 3.3.3

        The definition* of "hack" is "gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer" 

        Here’s Lyndon Hood’s take on a "hack". A good read and amusing to boot:

        http://werewolf.co.nz/2019/06/from-the-hood-jhackuse/

  4. Ed1 4

    https://www.theunderstatesmen.com/2019/06/03/the-2019-nz-budget-leak-what-actually-happened/

    Now I don't know that we will ever agree on a single definition of a "hack", but 2000 searches using specific headings doesn't seem like a "simple Google search' to me. Bridges initially wasn't prepared to disclose the source; when the public service found out that it was from within Parliamentary Services, and possibly even the computer that was used, he backtracked and admitted that it was his staff member who had done it; and on Morning Report he did not deny that there were 2000 searches. I am not aware of any previous suggestions that the person who gave Bridges the information was from within National – no-one knew how they had got it, but from memory Bridges did not refute a suggestion that it may have been leaked from Treasury. We now know that he did in fact get it from his own people, but what is more upsetting is that he handed out copies. Bridges should be outraged at his staff and himself for not following the rules National set in 2014, and apologise to the government for his dishonesty.

  5. Observer Tokoroa 5

    Does anyone know what a Sacha is ?

    It seems to be a Theft. Yet another Feminine Fraud – possibly

     

     

  6. The Chairman 6

    Teachers cancel next week's strike

  7. patricia bremner 7

    Ed1,  Bridges is a righteous fool.  He would never back down.  Fudging is a near as he would manage in that direction.

    This is absolute playbook for National.

    "Rules are not for us."

    "Tell it how you want it to be"

    "Muddy the waters as much as possible.

    "Swear black is white… often enough to get it repeated."

    "Trot out an attack line"  ( Incompetent / dirty politics.)

    "Make the target prove a negative."

    "Repeat I am not satisfied we have the truth".

    This is a pattern,  and I think Makhlouf may be part of it .
    A parting shot perhaps.???
    Turns out Treasury can’t count the money, possibly did not approve of the Wellbeing budget.
    I could be way off the mark, but we have been here before with National.

  8. The Chairman 8

    Nelsonians gathered for a Child Poverty Action Group's event about how the 2019 Budget would affect the region's most impoverished children.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/113234150/budget-is-focused-on-health-outcomes-but-falls-short-of-addressing-inequality

     

  9. soddenleaf 9

    Govt invades ABC. Rugby player thinks religious freedom is an out clause on contracts. Serious stuff. Over here, the opposition has another rant about a document released two days early, this time it wasn't even the real deal. Someone knockedup a close budget document to test systems, it was exposed to the public, and that's all that happened. Bridges can't argue that it's both a serious breach and that it wasn't hacked, that it was a serious document and that he can't name one item in it that breached exposed or did anything bad. 

     

    If you cry wolf does that mean… …your next rudgy contracts is going to be hard to sign. That as opposition leader the next document exposed early is going to put everyone to sleep. That govt won't find reporters to help it now they fear govt turning tail and scapegoarpting them, since we all know gov't has all the power.

  10. Ed1 10

    A while ago there were significant problems with Wellingtons bus services – multiple new comapnies, new bus routes, new depots, new bus hubs, missed buses, driver shortages etc, it was pointed out that the Regional Council had little choice but to make it all so complicated – they were required to allow competitive tendering for parts of the services, and had to go with the lowest price. The policies imposed on the Council ruled out "contracting in" and running an integrated service. The rules are here: https://www.transport.govt.nz/land/ptom/  and read to me as putting inflexible political dogma ahead of the more complex needs and wishes of communities. what I cannot understand is why this has not been changed. Efficiency is about more than just the initial contract price.

    I look at the situation with rubbish removal – there are at least three firms that pick up rubbish from my street – bring more large trucks than are necessary to wear out our roads, burn fuel and pollute the atmosphere. We complain about how rate have increased – they used to include this service which used to be provide by the Council. 

  11. vto 11

    This is a very real double-whammy problem https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/391437/owners-fear-losing-homes-because-of-cost-of-quake-strengthening 

    Having been through the Chch earthquakes, there is no argument that earthquake-prone buildings must be brought up to scratch, or demolished. I said at the time that Chch was dealing with it, that this would spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the country. It has done that. There has been years and years of warning …

    Some people are going to be caught out unfortunately. Just like all those commercial premises in every small town High Street in the country, with weak verandahs (killed many), weak old brick cladding (killed many, including in buses) and the like. These commercial owners have had warnings for even more many years. 

    When we Chch people walk through these towns like Invercargill, Dannevirke, Carterton, Gore, we freak with fear as we walk along looking up at the shit that is going to come down WHEN the next event happens. Which will be in our lifetimes..

    All those old commercial premises – low and dropping value, racing to zero, or even negative. Tough biccies – the warnings have been there for decades.

    All these old apartment buildings in Wellington. Same deal. Tough biccies – though politics may intervene to part-save them.

    It is a bad situation, but a very real situation. Now I am glad that in Chch we have a new earthquake-safe city that it is safe to walk around under. Every other town and city in the country? Not safe. People will unnecessarily die.

     

    • Gabby 11.1

      Well it's not necessary to die of hypothermia cos you're homeless or malnutrition because your parents' rent went through the roof veety.

      • vto 11.1.1

        Que?

        I think that is where the politics I mention above will likely come in, to help thos situations, though it is bound to be nominal rather than anything like full.

        Sorry people, I just get very annoyed when people cry about having to strengthen their buildings. It has been an issue for decades now. It was in Chch pre-eq's, but all the landlord crying meant it was delayed delayed delayed and then people got killed.

        Lovely afternoon now – might go for a drive in my old 20-ton truck with un-WOF'ed brakes…… can't afford to bring them up to scratch eh

        Would you do that gabs?

        • Gabby 11.1.1.1

          Aren't you living in your truck yet veety? Lucky fucker.

        • Sacha 11.1.1.2

          "Chch pre-eq's, but all the landlord crying meant it was delayed delayed delayed and then people got killed"

          Yes, people do seem to skip past that bit of history.

    • Rosemary McDonald 11.2

      It is a bad situation, but a very real situation. Now I am glad that in Chch we have a new earthquake-safe city that it is safe to walk around under. Every other town and city in the country? Not safe. People will unnecessarily die.

      I'm one of those non CHCH folk who cried 'FFS, demolish those old buildings already!' and would have seen those who demanded they be preserved for posterity because 'heritage', locked in the stocks.

      As for the rest of the country's old buildings….we vote…either nationally or locally…for those buildings we believe are vital taonga and we all contribute through taxes or rates to bring them up to standard.  Those buildings which are not considered worthy get demolished…and we (taxpayers) find some way of part compensation for the owners.

      Or something.  But don't just leave them as is until….

      • vto 11.2.1

        Yep. May as well replace all those old verandahs with a set of very large steak knives, pointing down and glinting, that will release on anything over magnitude 3.5

        That might make it more real for people walking underneath 

    • McFlock 11.3

      Depends on your definition of "old", I guess. Sometimes they're so old they were over-engineered.

      The quality of "new" is sometimes debatable.

      • Andre 11.3.1

        That one's still debatable. Statistics House isn't.

        • McFlock 11.3.1.1

          zouch that's fucked up. But you do that throughout a building and you'd save a truckload on cement…

          Or maybe they included the outside of the mold in the measurements, rather than the inside. Shades of CTV Building though.

        • greywarshark 11.3.1.2

          Looked up that Statistics House link and went further back.    How the panel could be so sanguine about corners cut considering all the instability likely in that location is a bit, well puzzling.    

          I did notice the name Iona Pannett that I have heard connected with trying to be a good active thinking Councillor:   Wellington City councillor Iona Pannett, who has the infrastructure portfolio, said there was no going back on where Wellington had been developed.   But information now available on quake risk and climate change meant more care needed to be taken with where was developed in the future, she said….

          I think her opinions and decisions would be worth listening to.

          On Statistics House, note the period in which it was built.   The Business 'Trust Us we Know what we are Doing' ascendance period.

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/100673681/statistics-house-built-on-known-hazard-area?rm=m

          A 2004 Wellington City Council land use consent for construction of the building shows the site was then designated a hazard – ground shaking – area….

          The hazard ratings of the Stats House area, and others around Wellington with the same designation, had not changed since the 1990s…

          The underlying geology and the potential seismic hazards at Statistics House were recognised and foundations were designed accordingly….

          A Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) report into the failure of the building found four causes –  flexible frames, floor construction, up to two minutes of significant shaking, and localised amplification of the shaking….

          "The site conditions were investigated and the geotechnical advice provided was generally in accordance with the standard of practice for this type of building at the time," the report said.... (My thought – was the standard for the building construction truly suitable for the shaky location?)

      • vto 11.3.2

        The only one/s like that in Chch McFlock were the old government type buildings, but even some of them collapsed (Provincial Chammbers, Arts Centre).

        The number of quality old buildings was so low to be immaterial. I love old buildings and old stuff in general, but no longer in these circumstances

        edit: the “new” one you mention is not dysfunctional due to age of build, it is dysfunctional due to human negligence.

        • McFlock 11.3.2.1

          One building I'm involved with got a fairly low rating based on a visual check, but the core samples ended up boosting the rating because turned out the brick covered a concrete core.

          And a church a friend is involved with is actually safer than a lot of new buildings, including the stone steeple (that did need an upgrade though).

          And a lot of them might collapse, but they don't pancake.

          • vto 11.3.2.1.1

            mmm, people like you make me nervous…

            The conc-core one: that sounds like luck.

            The other – churches back then were like government buildings in that they had the money to do that sort of thing. Which they did. Sometime. And not others.

            But you wouldn't know. And check the number of collapsed steeples that littered Christchurch in the months after – heap of them.

            And you know what else? People died in Chch from collapsed buildings and pancaked buildings. That is an odd distinguishment…

            Sorry, not on board

            • McFlock 11.3.2.1.1.1

              Well, I believe Knox, First, and a former church down the road have all been retrofitted to high standards. You can tell the ones with poor parishes that haven't: they're either on the market for absrdedly low prices, or are being scheduled for demolition.

              Similarly at least two historic pubs got gjutted and strengthened between leaseholders.

              People died from both types of building failure, yes. Almost two thirds from the pancaking of a single building.

              BTW, the core thing was luck for us, because it meant we wouldn’t need to relocate.

              • vto

                Sorry McFlock, my response above was a bit quick as I was flying out the door… many old buildings are brought well up to scratch, you're right. In fact, in Christchurch during the quakes, those old buildings which had been eq-strengthened before the quakes actually performed and if I recall correctly none collapsed or killed.

                Strengthening works.

                I got a bit confused with the posts picturing myself walking the streets of Gore again….shiver….

    • Sacha 11.4

      From that <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/391437/owners-fear-losing-homes-because-of-cost-of-quake-strengthening&quot; target="_blank">RNZ story</a>:

      The government has set aside $23 million for a suspensory loan scheme to help apartment owners or investors struggling to pay for the strengthening work.

      Ms Murphy said that was not enough."Some of them will be spending way more than they'll ever get back," she said. "If [the government's] imposing this burden, and they're not stopping it, we'll be pushing for compensation," Ms Murphy said.

      "For donations to charitable organisations you get 33 percent of your donation back, just like that, no questions asked. This is a public benefit, that sounds a good starting figure," she said.

      Not sure where the public benefit is in someone being able to continue living in their private dwelling. In any case, maybe govt can take an equity stake in such buildings and recover a share when they sell up? Seems fairer than a handout.

      • vto 11.4.1

        Sacha, the public interest claim arises from the fact that a lot of the reasoning for strengthening is protection of the public on the street below, and not so much on protection of the building's occupants.

        I don't buy this argument though and consider it of such weakness that its promotion will affect these people's crediblity and integrity. It should be abandoned.

        Regarding financial assistance, there is no way the government will compensate anything remotely close to full loss – imagine the precedent. Not just for earthquakes – there is sea level rise, and all manner of other things manifesting today. How can everybody in NZ compensate everyone in NZ? It aint logically possible… aint gonna happen. Prepare for losses.

      • greywarshark 11.4.2

        There is a public benefit in owners repairing their buildings to safe not shonky.   There is a reliable building then as part of the good housing stock figures that government can rely on as assets counted as part of the country's prosperity.

        The idea of an equity stake seems a good one.    It is time that the state took a hand in housing as with the State Advances Corporation that did so much to bring a growing  standard of prosperity at that time.   It would also have the result of people spending less on fripperies imported, and putting more time and money into an asset that would be a support for them, instead of paying rent to some leveraged smartarse.

      • Sacha 11.4.3

        @lprent I may have found a different twist on the editor converting characters, above. "

    • SPC 11.5

      Yeah na. The vulnerability is dependent on fault line location and the nature of the soil. Christchurch had both problems (and then also really bad piles) – so fairly unique. 

      • vto 11.5.1

        you are deadly dangerous fool with such clear ignorance.

        you sound like the Chch people who patted themselves on their own back after the first September quake "haven't we done well, our buildings have survived and nobody got killed." But then 6 months later – whammo – death and total destruction.

        people like you SPC are dangerous with your attitude. People lost their livesin the February quake n Chch because of that attitude after the September quake. Got killed because of it.

        One other ignorant aspect of your post is 'really bad piles'. Total crap. Direct from the source.

        And another ignorant aspect of your post is 'fault line location'. Nobody, i.e. nobody, knew of the faultline/s below Chch before these events. Similarly just last week it was discovered that the Akatore Fault just south of Dunedin had activated in ways that had previously been unknown.

        SPC your knowledge is zero, and your attitude is one that led directly to people being killed in Chch. 

        Wake yourself up or stay out of the debate – you're dangerous to others. As proved the last few years.

        • SPC 11.5.1.1

          Sounds a lot like the P homes to me.

          There was a lot of difference between P manufacture homes and personal use homes in terms of safety. Yet they were treated the same for awhile. 

          The same applies to risk around the country – no reputable insurance company would see earthquake risk the same around the country. They note where the earthquake fault-lines are and what the soil is like. 

          I won't respond to your personal attack on me –  "dangerous to others as proved"  wtf, just a really sad effort at trying to bully someone taking a different position to yourself. Try and be a better person… 

    • Sacha 12.1

      Auckland authorities have been trying to shut that hole down for many years – stymied by lack of action to create alternatives. Great chance for govt agencies to step up and show they mean business. Or to prove they do not.

      • WeTheBleeple 12.1.1

        Hell yeah fine the owner/s for the value of the property and take it off them. 

        • Sacha 12.1.1.1

          Proceeds of crime against humanity, prehaps. Still need to build enough decent replacement accommodation first to move the people into.

          • WeTheBleeple 12.1.1.1.1

            Take it off them, fix it up properly and tenants suited to it not families. Complex but, screw these people, horrid. $500 pw for a box and not even a stove or bathroom in it – bloody criminal whether it's legal or not.

            This is a perfect example of why the accommodation supplement is largely a handout to landlords.

            • Sacha 12.1.1.1.1.1

              It's beyond fixable. And yes, a perfect example. Owner has made millions warehousing the desperate and vulnerable.

        • greywarshark 12.1.1.2

          Aren't the owners committing crimes, a whole lot of them which require remediation?   They should be forced on the owners and the place taken by decree with him being paid a valuation on the low side but so he has no cause for complaint.     Then put some money into the place there. People already have a place so let them stay there but so they can manage better.   Twyford is all about jam tomorrow.    FGS get on with bread and butter today, especially with winter coming on.  

          Good oil heaters that are reasonably safe and warm up quickly would help plus a small fan heater well protected to spread some dry air around.   That could be first help, also cheap washers and dryers in the laundry so people can get their clothes clean and really dry and warm.

      • The Chairman 12.1.2

        Great chance for govt agencies to step up and show they mean business. Or to prove they do not.

        Indeed.

        The best Phil Twyford could come up with when questioned on the place was the Government is doing all it can to solve the housing crisis while admitting they should be investing more.

        • Sacha 12.1.2.1

          As a local MP in West Auckland he is well aware of that place's history.

      • SPC 12.1.3

        With Air B n B, (and maybe motels) this is no longer required for short term stay in an urban environment. 

        They can ban it for permanent residence on the grounds it does not meet new rental standards – and buy out the owners (land banking).

        But they need emergency housing options for those who cannot get into (afford or whatever) rentals first.  

        They could I suppose order a lot of factory built small homes or Bunnings flat pack (place temorarily elsewhere), demolish this place and then truck them in to this location. 

    • SPC 12.2

      It's simply standard holiday stay accommodation commonplace around the country – albeit mostly used only in summer. And judged on that basis it recently passed local council inspection. 

      I doubt it meets the new rental standards – for permanent accommodation. 

      Its (a little) better than a tent or caravan in someone's backyard, or in a garage. But they are there ($500 an all) because there is nowhere else they can get. 

      • The Chairman 12.2.1

        But they are there ($500 an all) because there is nowhere else they can get. 

        Indeed. Which points back at Government (past and present) not doing enough to address this growing need.

        Affordable, decent housing and decent incomes are two stables people require before a Government can seriously consider addressing other (and often interrelated) needs such as health/mental health, education, family violence, etc…

    • SPC 13.1

      Stuff published the story, without any retraction as far as I know. So TVNZ and Newshub had to step and let people know they were being lied to by print media. 

      I presume Stuff performance was motivated by the Dom Post's new sensitivity to COVERING conservative morality positions with RESPECT. How about they maintain STANDARDS.

  12. Exkiwiforces 14

    Found this rather interesting article on news.com.au, one considers the number CC events in the last six mths and the recent posts made by Bomber and old mate Trots over at the TDB. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/atmospheric-co2-soars-to-record-highs-graph-reveals-shocking-rise/news-story/a6582a349c3d88eaf0c2c9fa8897c596

    And this article from the ABC about the Cattle producers at of the Barkly region destocking a great rate atm because of the extreme dry conditions and the lack of rain during the wet season. The Darwin Darly Region where I live in, has had the worst wet season on record and atm we have had a large number of bush fires being fan by the dry winds coming of the desert already in and a round the Darwin rural area as there is no moisture in the ground atm due to the very wet season which is very unusual for this time of the yr.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-06-07/transporters-battle-destocking-emergency-on-barkly-stations/11184624

    • WeTheBleeple 14.1

      Heartbreaking. Another man made desert. The aboriginals know how to live on that land, time to start listening to them and ignore the farm advisers.

      Side article there talking about how unusual weather’s wreaking havoc on their sugar industry too.

      • greywarshark 14.1.1

        Don't include the Mulloon Naturals in the dreaded farm advisors.   I hope that huge numbers all over Australia are waking up to their advice.   Not world shattering except to rock-hard minds.

        • WeTheBleeple 14.1.1.1

          I told Stuff to investigate Mulloon Institute for their climate reporting. Hope they do.

  13. Sanctuary 15

    I assume the toxic middle class opionistas of the Guardian and Observer will now demand a second vote, a people's vote, in Peterborough…. 

  14. marty mars 16

    man I despise that wanker t.rump – so low, so petty, so ignorant.

    The Trump administration is canceling English classes, recreational programs and legal aid for unaccompanied minors staying in federal migrant shelters nationwide, saying the immigration influx at the southern border has created critical budget pressures.

    The Office of Refugee Resettlement has begun discontinuing the funding stream for activities — including soccer — that have been deemed “not directly necessary for the protection of life and safety, including education services, legal services, and recreation,” said Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Mark Weber.

    Federal officials have warned Congress that they are facing “a dramatic spike” in unaccompanied minors at the southern border and have asked Congress for $2.9 billion in emergency funding to expand shelters and care. The program could run out of money in late June, and the agency is legally obligated to direct funding to essential services, Weber said.

    … Children who arrive with or without a parent accounted for nearly 40 percent of U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehensions in May, the latest figures show.

    Link here

     

    • higherstandard 16.1

      Yep no argument that Trump is all of that.

      However the ongoing influx of immigrants at the border is also appalling – assuming the figures are correct in your link.

      What would we do if we had 1000 odd people arriving every month I wonder ?

      • greywarshark 16.1.1

        Watch out for the strobe lighting effect in this American Trash link – turn down sound.

        The advice I put up relates to the full American Trash link which i have replaced with the lyrics and a quieter background. Watch the other only if you can stand it.

      • McFlock 16.1.2

        Cut long term immigration by 12,000 a year to maintain current rates?

        lol

      • WeTheBleeple 16.1.3

        You mean one extra person per month per 327 000 Americans… I reckon they can cope.

  15. This is kind of a selfish request, in that I'm not that interested in going into all the ins and outs of it all (as reported), BUT

    Is anybody else utterly 'unspurprised' by all this:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/113131867/karori-murder-accused-named-as-joseph-william-borton

    ?

    Just curious.

    Oh, and btw, lest today's TS les actualites become tomorrow's fush'n'chup wrapper(s) – as they are here on TS just as they are in that dreadful MSM, let me also wish WtB the very best, both in his/her becoming a year older, and his/her stunning contributions.

    • greywarshark 17.1

      Don't get your point OWT.   Was it relating to the name suppression.   Sounds awful and extremely surprising in all its features to me.

      • OnceWasTim 17.1.1

        "Don't get your point OWT."

        No that's Ok @ grey it was more to do with a certain demographic being surprised about what happened  not being down to someone with a complexion that had a brown tinge to it. (some even seemed to be disappointed that their prejudices weren't confirmed)

        But as I say, not really interested in creating an internet scene in which the usual TS commentariat trolls pop up to justify it all.

        I was just wondering how many were surprised by it all. (Btw, I'm not AT ALL surprised by it all – some of my peers during youth, now ensconced with little Thai Dial-a-Brides, one even now banged up for murdering one of his conquests.  And worse still, seeing the complete fuckups they've produced as their offspring) 

        The more I think about things, lil 'ole Nu Zull is still quite an socially insecure little nayshun in someways that continues to live on myth and legend

    • WeTheBleeple 17.2

      Gosh darn now I'm all blushing. I still feel like a moron, you people make me better and teach me every day.

      That level of callousness still surprises me, though it shouldn’t.

  16. greywarshark 18

    Queenstown residents make sensible decision but its non-binding – will local government listen to people who aren't just making a protest vote but need tourists to recompense for using their place for their passing pleasures.

    Queenstown Lakes District residents vote in favour of a bed tax

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/391459/queenstown-lakes-district-residents-vote-in-favour-of-a-bed-tax

    If the plan is carried through, visitors would pay a 5 percent charge applied to the cost of all short-term accommodation, estimated to raise up to $40 million a year….

    Tourism Minister Kelvin Davis has said he would wait until the referendum results before making any commitments to a proposed visitor tax.

    If carried through, Queenstown Lakes District would be the second region to implement a regional visitor tax. Stewart Island has had one since 2013.

    • WeTheBleeple 18.1

      Depends how the extra resources get allocated. Good in theory, but councils have a way of sopping up income and producing bugger all for it.

       

  17. SPC 19

    The matter of how people have knowledge of what the GCSB told who and when, speaks to confidential information of the GCSB becoming known to National, Hooton and Herald journalists.

    Apparently it’s not only Treasury that cannot secure its confidential information.

    The question I would have for the GCSB, did they know that a National Party staffer’s computer in parliament was used to gather information from the Treasury site and yet did not inform anyone of this?

    This was Treasury’s confidential information.

  18. Morrissey 20

    "We always aim for the highest standards of accuracy in our reporting…"

    Exchange with BBC re News at Ten (13/5/19)

    British citizen and activist John Hilley watched as State Television repeated, for the umpteenth time, a nasty piece of British Government black propaganda. On May 14th, he contacted the Corporation….

    To BBC (14/5/19) 

    In this news report, presenter Huw Edwards stated with regard to the Julian Assange case: "He’s always denied the charges". As the BBC should very well know, Assange has never been charged with anything by the Swedish authorities. 

    Why was this entirely false statement made by the BBC? Isn't it a clear dereliction of the BBC's proclaimed duty to provide clear and accurate information? This statement has helped reinforce a very serious misconception around the Assange story. 

    Will the BBC be issuing an appropriate public correction on a forthcoming edition of News at Ten? 

    From BBC (05/6/19) 

    Dear Mr Hilley 

    Thank you for getting in touch about the BBC News at Ten broadcast 13 May, and please accept our apologies for the delay in our response. We appreciate you feel it was inaccurate for Huw Edwards to say that Julian Assange 'has always denied the charges' against him. 

    We always aim for the highest standards of accuracy in our reporting, and are grateful you've taken the time to raise this with us. As you've said, a more accurate phrasing of this would be that Assange denies the 'allegations' rather than 'charges'. 

    Our online articles using this wording have been amended: 

    After considering your point further we have amended the articles in question (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48335692 andhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48249486 and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-48255668/sweden-reopens-assange-rape-inquiry). 

    We have also added correction notes at the bottom which outline these changes. Your complaint about the News at Ten has been shared with the programme's editors, as well as senior staff across BBC News. 

    We hope you’ll find these changes satisfactory and thank you once again for getting in touch. 

    Kind regards 
    [..] 
    BBC Complaints Team 

    To BBC (6/6/19) 

    Dear [..] 

    Thanks for making these important online corrections. However, in full and fair redress to Mr Assange, and in the public interest, the same correction should be aired on News at Ten. I trust you can find a suitable opportunity to do so. 

    Kind regards 
    John Hilley 

    https://twitter.com/johnwhilley/status/1136531330622263296

    http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1559808280.html

  19. Adrian thornton 21

    Man I have never had RNZ amend any of their factual inaccuracies I have made them aware of, or had any of my complaints upheld, even though I have proven factual inaccuracies in their reporting…at lest BBC did amend their wording, which is something I guess.

  20. Jenny - How to Get there? 22

    Business as usual, corporate money flows in and decency flies out, and dirty tactics reign.

    It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that Joe Biden will lose to Donald Trump.

    Better that, than risk losing corporate sponsorship by openly confronting the climate crisis.

    https://truthout.org/articles/dnc-faces-outrage-as-it-announces-it-will-not-host-2020-debate-on-climate-crisis/

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago