Prosecuting Cunliffe

56 comments on “Prosecuting Cunliffe ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gobsmacked 1

   5 December 2013 at 3:12 pm

   Very good post by NRT. Especially on the broader issue – the police have been hopeless for years, get an independent body that cares about this stuff.

   Andrew Geddis makes a good point over at Pundit:

   “There’s the somewhat awkward fact that the Police are still sitting on top of a whole raft of complaints referred to them by the Electoral Commission following the 2011 election – including a number of people accused of using Twitter and Facebook to publish messages intended to affect how people vote. So if the Police were to move with alacrity to charge Cunliffe, this actually would be “unequal treatment” when compared to others who have committed similar actions.

   Please note that I’m not saying Cunliffe shouldn’t be charged here … I’m just saying that if he’s going to be treated like everyone else, he won’t be.”

   http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/cunliffes-folly

   For our swivel-eyed guests (“Cunlffe IS Banks!!!111!1”), the phrase “be careful what you wish for” springs to mind.
2. Papa Tuanuku 2

   5 December 2013 at 3:12 pm

   dammit, no-one on the left blogs seems to have picked up on the ongoing spying after the Tūhoe raids.
   • lprent 2.1

     5 December 2013 at 4:54 pm

     Write a guest post and/or send us a link. See the contact us.

     But my general assumption is that the police will observe, spy, and generally keep an eye on things. That is part of their job. The difficulty is when they act on the basis of some paranoias out of one of those centres for stupidity (like the police centre in Otahuhu) and who have a extremely limited understanding of what they are observing. They just get in the way of the political processes.

     Aaron Pascoe being a particularly good example of how to present yourself as a rather shallow idiot who managed to raise hysteria to action in Operation 8.
   • JK 2.2

     5 December 2013 at 5:08 pm

     Papa – I thought Maori TV news said they were unsure if the story about the ongoing spying after the Tuhoe raids was correct or not, and that they’d update it when they got more details. That was last night. Maybe tonights Maori TV news will have some more on that matter.
   • Idiot/Savant 2.3

     5 December 2013 at 9:33 pm

     Ahem.
     • Murray Olsen 2.3.1

       6 December 2013 at 12:43 am

       No surprises there, really. The question I’m interested in is how do we stop it? I can’t see any way except by getting rid of the police and the spooks, then starting again.
3. Tracey 3

   5 December 2013 at 3:14 pm

   I just dont get how many seasoned politicians dont seem to know the rules that govern their jobs. be it credit cards, House rules (Brownlee) or electioneering
   • Puckish Rogue 3.1

     5 December 2013 at 3:55 pm

     Maybe both National and Labour should get fined an equal and massive amount for the next breach so as to set an example to everyone?
4. Will@Welly 4

   5 December 2013 at 3:33 pm

   Great analysis. This is what needs to happen, Cunliffe pleads guilty, slap on the wrist for a silly mistake, Key gets to shut up. But Marshall has to go down as one of the most backward thinking leaders of the Policeforce in living history. His quote, early on in his stewardship, it’s a business, summed up his approach to law and order.
5. Penny Bright 5

   5 December 2013 at 4:09 pm

   I agree.

   A prosecution will help to sort out any ‘grey areas’ regarding ‘tweeting’, and the ensuing fuss will help remind politicians, particularly those who want to be Prime Minister, that they are not above the law and they can be still held to account.

   For the record, I don’t support any call for David Cunliffe to resign if convicted.

   The penalty is a $20,000 fine, not resignation.

   Let any mitigating circumstances be argued in Court, and this ‘bad thing be turned into a good thing’.

   Namely, make sure you are more familiar with electoral law, because, in my considered opinion, it isn’t a ‘good look’ when you are not.

   Penny Bright
6. Crunchtime 6

   5 December 2013 at 4:19 pm

   It needs to be clarified whether Cunliffe actually broke the rules.

   Tweeting isn’t a public activity. You have to be following Cunliffe already.

   I understand Cunliffe pulling the tweet right away because it is a grey area – potentially his followers re-tweet it and it becomes more of a “public” thing. But personally I don’t think he is actually on the wrong side of the law. Especially since it was online mere seconds before it was taken down again.
   • Sacha 6.1

     5 December 2013 at 7:20 pm

     “You have to be following Cunliffe already”

     Or someone you follow retweeted it. And you can look up anyone’s public timeline without even signing up for Twitter.
     • weka 6.1.1

       5 December 2013 at 10:33 pm

       “You have to be following Cunliffe already”

       Or someone can say, anywhere at all, “Cunliffe tweeted x,y,z”, and anyone with a computer can go and look at it. Sounds public to me.
7. Richard McGrath 7

   5 December 2013 at 4:49 pm

   Agree Cunliffe should man up and pay the fine. But let’s not pretend he didn’t know his Tweet was electioneering. He was explicitly warned not to by the Electoral Commission and chose to breach the rules. I’m sure he’s sorry.. that he was caught.

   [lprent: If you want to make an assertion of fact, then on this site it is advisable to link to a source. In this case I have no knowledge of an “explicit warning”. In fact I suspect that you are simply lying or at the very least inflating something to a bullshit level.

   If I see you do it again, then I’ll probably simply ban you for stupid behaviour. I’d suggest you read the policy. This is your warning. In the meantime, since you don’t appear to be responding to replies, you’re getting moderated until I see an acknowledgement you have seen, read , and understand this note ]
   • Te Reo Putake 7.1

     5 December 2013 at 4:56 pm

     “He was explicitly warned not to by the Electoral Commission and chose to breach the rules”

     Cite?

     “I’m sure he’s sorry.. that he was caught.”

     Er, caught by whom? He realised his own mistake and took the tweet down immediately. He then dobbed himself in. So, not ‘caught’ at all.
     • gobsmacked 7.1.1

       5 December 2013 at 5:05 pm

       No, TRP.

       Cunliffe knew exactly what he was doing (because corrupt!) and didn’t know what he was doing (because stupid!) at exactly the same time. Also, he knew that heaps of votes would be won in just a few seconds, that’s why he done it, and deleted it, and reported it!
       • Te Reo Putake 7.1.1.1

         5 December 2013 at 5:57 pm

         Cheers, gs, the scales have fallen from my eyes. Cunliffe must go! Free the Banks One!
         • Richard McGrath 7.1.1.1.1

           6 December 2013 at 12:55 am

           Nothing to do with Banksie, TRP, he is quite rightfully being prosecuted for his own alleged misdemeanours. But you’re right – Cunliffe must go (before a court).
           • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.1.1.1.1

             6 December 2013 at 8:41 am

             Try thinking for yourself for a change, Slater’s parrot.

             By reporting his tweet (having deleted it within seconds), Cunliffe put himself before the court. He was already there before you even read your lines.

             Please stop providing supporting evidence for Bright Minds And Dark Attitudes.
     • Richard McGrath 7.1.2

       6 December 2013 at 12:58 am

       Sorry, should have cited my comment, so here goes:

       http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Election-Day-Rules-for-Candidates.pdf
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2

     5 December 2013 at 5:02 pm

     Arrgghhh! The stupid! It burns!

     Cunliffe’s actions are the equivalent of John Banks saying “Kim, if I help you in the future it’s better no one knows about your donation”, and then immediately dobbing himself in to the Serious Fraud Office.
     • gobsmacked 7.2.1

       5 December 2013 at 5:13 pm

       It’s beautifully ironic that Richard McGrath criticises a guy who typed something and sent it without thinking … by himself typing something and sending it without thinking.

       Easily done, eh?
       • Dumrse 7.2.1.1

         5 December 2013 at 8:38 pm

         You and your mate NRT are the ironic dickheads in this thread.
         • gobsmacked 7.2.1.1.1

           5 December 2013 at 8:50 pm

           I’ll take it as a compliment, but how is NRT wrong?

           Which part of his post do you disagree with, and why?
       • Richard McGrath 7.2.1.2

         6 December 2013 at 12:57 am

         It *would* be ironic, if it wasn’t for Cunliffe having been warned not to post election-related comments on social media on election day.
         • gobsmacked 7.2.1.2.1

           6 December 2013 at 8:16 am

           Richard, your contention is that Cunliffe held these two opinions within seconds:

           1. “I am now going to deliberately break the rules. Heh Heh.”

           2. “I have just deliberately broken the rules, but have immediately changed my mind and wish I hadn’t.”

           That is absurd. What happened (just get out the razor and think it through) is that 1) Cunliffe acted without thinking about the rules, and then 2) thought about the rules – when it was too late. Some swearing may have been involved.

           Then you add – ignorantly, or dishonestly, I don’t know which – that he got “caught”. False.

           Of course his action was wrong, and he will have to face the consequences. But his right-wing critics – including Richard – are making it much easier for him, by implying his action was sinister, with malice aforethought.

           Which is stupid, like Cunliffe was (except he was stupid in seconds, you’re keeping it up over days). Hence the irony. Got it yet?
           • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.2.1.1

             6 December 2013 at 8:20 am

             Cunliffe knows the electoral rules around an E-Day very well (as he bloody well should having done it enough over the years).

             This was one of those basic *face palm* mistakes one makes early in the morning before you have your first coffee. Nothing more, nothing less.
             • gobsmacked …

               6 December 2013 at 8:32 am

               Exactly. And everyone understands that, it’s just that some pretend they don’t.
               • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                 6 December 2013 at 8:45 am

                 Never underestimate the stupidity of a true believer.
     • Murray Olsen 7.2.2

       6 December 2013 at 12:46 am

       Banks fully intended to do that, but he forgot.
   • JK 7.3

     5 December 2013 at 5:10 pm

     In my opinion, Its more likely a staffer or volunteer sent the tweet and DC himself is taking the blame for it.
     • alwyn 7.3.1

       6 December 2013 at 8:52 am

       Please don’t make remarks like that. I read it while I was sipping a cup of coffee and now I am going to have to clean the keyboard.
       It sounds as if you have never met a politician in your life. It is the staff members job to take the blame for the politician. Politicians never, ever, take the blame for something a staffer does. They may take the blame for something a more senior politician does but in politics taking responsibility for something only goes downward, it NEVER goes upward.
   • QoT 7.4

     5 December 2013 at 5:30 pm

     I’m sure he’s sorry.. that he was caught.

     Another blissfully ridiculous line of argument. I’m pretty sure David Cunliffe knows he has 6,000-odd Twitter followers. This isn’t a private email to Matthew Hooton we’re talking about.
     • Lloyd 7.4.1

       5 December 2013 at 9:48 pm

       How many of those 6,000 were eligible to vote in the Christchurch electorate? And how many of those were not already Labour supporters and were liable to be swayed by the message? I would suspect the message might have influenced one or two voters, somewhat less effective than voting material funded by those ‘anonymous’ voters.

       Has anyone looked at what the decision to prosecute Banks will do to funding of the next major election?
   • Dumrse 7.5

     5 December 2013 at 8:33 pm

     There’s none so blind ……… Others managed to publish a copy of the commissions letter warning of Election Day infringements.
     • Te Reo Putake 7.5.1

       5 December 2013 at 10:29 pm

       Was it sent to Cunliffe? If not, meh.
   • Lanthanide 7.6

     5 December 2013 at 8:47 pm

     Someone said, I believe on this site, that the Electoral Commission had sent a reminder to all candidates and parties on the day before the election, reminding them of the rules.
   • Richard McGrath 7.7

     6 December 2013 at 12:50 am

     Dear lprent

     I suggest you read this pdf document which appeared in he public domain nearly 3 days ago:

     http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Election-Day-Rules-for-Candidates.pdf

     I think it is fairly explicit about what can and can’t be done. I gather it was sent from Natalie McNaught, Senior Legal Adviser at the Electoral Commission at 9.14 a.m. on November 29 to representatives of the parties entered in the by-election.

     To quote: “On election day you must: … not post any new material on websites, which includes … social media such as Facebook and Twitter.”

     Oh, and by the way I have seen, read and understood your note.

     Cheers

     [lprent: Good. It isn’t my job to read media or electoral bulletins. I very much prefer reading code or books.

     But if *you* state something as fact and then rely upon it for your argument on this site then *you* are expected to link to something in support so that other people can judge if you have made a reasonable interpretation. Or say why you cannot link to it – for instance an offline book. Otherwise it is merely a opinion given by an gibbering idiot playing dress-up as an authority.

     My concern is that I wind up spending far too much time having to read juvenile squabbling about respective assertions of fantasy masquerading as fact. While such flame wars are often fun for participants, they make for bloody awful reading for everyone else.

     Consequently I view comments that assert facts without support as being those from trolls trying to incite flame wars and act accordingly. ]
   • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 7.8

     6 December 2013 at 2:00 am

     Explicit warning from the Electoral Commission to all parties before the byelection:

     http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o3HJoS0sFnQ/Up0LQnFvueI/AAAAAAAANYI/9dQ_A9t4H8I/s640/Electoral+Commission+29112013.png
     • Te Reo Putake 7.8.1

       6 December 2013 at 7:14 am

       Was it sent to Cunliffe? No? Then what’s your point?
     • Te Reo Putake 7.8.2

       6 December 2013 at 7:15 am

       Was it sent to Cunliffe? No? Then what’s your point?
   • Richard Down South 7.9

     6 December 2013 at 1:57 pm

     What fine? until hes found guilty, there is no fine… thats like someone saying you stole money and you deserve to pay the fines for doing so… there is a prima facie case here for him to be prosecuted, but only the courts can decide if he broke the law, or the police (if they decide theres not enough evidence)
8. Whatever next 8

   5 December 2013 at 7:09 pm

   Seems odd to me that we do not involve police when a secret document is released to media(Kitteridge report), yet we involve police when it is bl***dy obvious to the whole country what and by whom a breach was committed.
   What are the police supposed to investigate?
   Whereas I would like to have the police check we have secure government thanks very much
   • Ron 8.1

     5 December 2013 at 11:57 pm

     It is obvious what the police will do. First they will ask their good friends in the GCSB to search metadata for everything that Cunliffe has ever sent or received.
     Then the NSA can also be asked to do likewise because some of Cunliffe’s tweets may have gone outside NZ
     Then they will use their new powers to secretly tap all the computers/mobile phones even remotely connected to Labour (just in case) people that tweet such dangerous tweets could well be secretly working for some terrorist organisation.
     They will then wait until next year and publicly warn Cunliffe that he has committed a dreadful offence.
     Then all the information will be sent to Minister of Police and Crown Solicitor for comment.
     By then we will be up to election.

     Yup that seems to be the way that such offences are handled when committed by anyone that is not right wing
9. Thomas 9

   5 December 2013 at 7:11 pm

   It’s a stupid law, but it’s the law. If we want our electoral law to be respected, then it must have teeth.

   Repeal the silly parts of the law and create a body that can and will prosecute violations.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     5 December 2013 at 8:52 pm

     It’s not a stupid law at all.

     In Australia, you are allowed to electioneer on election day, but there’s a distance limit on how close you can do it to a polling place – I believe 50 metres or something like that. So around every polling place there’s a perimeter of party supporters campaigning for people to vote on their way to the booths.

     Seems very unseemly, to me.
     • alwyn 9.1.1

       6 December 2013 at 9:05 am

       When I lived in Australia, in the 1990s it was slightly different to that. Party people, wearing rosettes and so on, were not allowed to electioneer in the sense of telling you how to vote. They were allowed to offer you cards listing their party’s preferred method of voting but they weren’t allowed to speak about it.
       With the ridiculous length of some of the Australian ballot papers the might actually might have been useful.
       I always refused them, telling the people that I never voted because it just encouraged the bastards. This would set them off in stutters because, as they would point out, it was illegal not to vote. I would suggest that I didn’t care, let them prosecute me. Of course I never bothered to tell them that, not being a citizen of Australia, I wasn’t allowed to vote anyway.
       That is actually a very good idea. Why should we let non-citizens vote? Australians have another good rule. Their MPs must only be Australian citizens. Dual nationality is not allowed. (I know there is a slight exception for people born in a country that doesn’t allow you to renounce citizenship but the MP has to show they made every possible attempt to do so)
     • Tracey 9.1.2

       6 December 2013 at 11:01 am

       at least it reflects the reality, that it’s about backing the winning team… hence the supporters groups, do they sing cool songs like at the football?
10. North 10

    5 December 2013 at 9:08 pm

    Now we’re discussing how it should be handled. That’s OK.

    But mayoral, sorry, moral equivalency ? Banks and Cunliffe ? Get real…….

    To conflate the behaviours affirms deep emotional trauma or deep intellectual dysfunction. Or, in the absence of mutual exclusivity to wit the case of the Actoid, both.

    Oh let’s get down to tin-tacks – anti-social, selfish, entitled wankers do not like it up ’em.
11. adam 11

    6 December 2013 at 12:13 am

    Storm in a tea cup. I lived in Aussie for years and they electioneer on election day – and it makes bugger all difference. I never noticed it making anybody change there mind.
12. Tracey 12

    6 December 2013 at 5:45 am

    Have the names of all those who did similar things in 2011 been released? Lets put them with cunliffe in a room, live streaming while they get taught reading comprehension
    • alwyn 12.1

      6 December 2013 at 9:07 am

      For a fair number of them I suspect we would first have to teach them HOW to read, THEN we could teach them how to comprehend what they had read.
13. Delia 13

    6 December 2013 at 10:20 am

    I bet if Key did this, some anti Labour posters here would say. “Whining left wing, leave our John alone he is such a cutie on the cat walk, he is New Zealand’s saviour and all the tripe you starry eyed guys come out with.
    • RedRobin 13.1

      6 December 2013 at 10:52 am

      “I bet if Key did this, some anti Labour posters here would say. “Whining left wing, leave our John alone he is such a cutie on the cat walk, he is New Zealand’s saviour and all the tripe you starry eyed guys come out with.”- cite?

      More likely scenario is there would be “Democracy Under Attack” headlines.
      • Crunchtime 13.1.1

        6 December 2013 at 11:47 am

        My observation is that anything that Key does wrong results a headline saying what Key thinks about accusations against him. “Key not phased by whatever blah blah”
    • karol 13.2

      6 December 2013 at 11:47 am

      Does John key tweet directly with the public, or does he leave that up to his minions?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS