Unanswered questions

96 comments on “Unanswered questions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. toad 1

   29 March 2012 at 9:01 am

   Unlike Smith, Collins ain’t going to go quietly.

   ACC Minister Judith Collins says she’s taking defamation proceedings against two Labour MPs and a news organisation.

   http://www.3news.co.nz/Collins-launches-defamation-cases-over-ACC-scandal/tabid/1607/articleID/248463/Default.aspx#ixzz1qRYeRDeP
   • Enough is Enough 1.1

     29 March 2012 at 9:04 am

     It is a lousy attempt to shut down the debate and scare the media.

     Lange v Atkinson – nuff said
     • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1

       29 March 2012 at 10:08 am

       Totally different situation. One persons opinion on a minor side issue. That is Lange’s work ethic.

       The verdict should work against Collins, as she is a politician and the comments are ‘honest opinion’.
       Lange didnt win the case dont forget

       Cant see her getting a case before a judge here. But of course that is the point.
       This ploy is straight out of the playbook Keys close advisors used in the teatapes saga
       • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.1

         29 March 2012 at 10:11 am

         Well done Ghost, clap clap.

         That is my point. That is why I said nuff said. Her claim won’t see the light of day.
   • Pete George 1.2

     29 March 2012 at 9:23 am

     The Herald refers to “one media outlet”. She wouldn’t name it. Could be TV. Could be radio. Could be print. Or it could be online.
     • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1

       29 March 2012 at 9:30 am

       Again Pete. I’m not sure I follow what you are trying to say with this comment.

       It looks very much like your earlier comment on this matter where you refered to ‘a lawyer’.

       Some people might think you were making some sort of barbed point here and there, perhaps trying to shut down debate or what have you.

       Such thoughts would be easily dispelled if you could be a little more transparent.
       • mickysavage 1.2.1.1

         29 March 2012 at 9:48 am

         Yeah Petey
          
         Put up or shut up.
         • King Kong 1.2.1.1.1

           29 March 2012 at 9:55 am

           I have also heard a whisper that this site is being looked at for a suit to be taken.

           [lprent: It would amuse me. However I suspect that it isn’t likely. ]
           • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.1

             29 March 2012 at 10:00 am

             How is a website supposed to appear in court??? LOL
             • King Kong …

               29 March 2012 at 10:06 am

               Excellent point. Perhaps you might pass this defensive masterstroke onto Kim Dotcoms lawyers.
               • ghostwhowalksnz …

                 29 March 2012 at 10:11 am

                 Rubbish.
                 Dotcom is being charged on criminal offences which involve ‘business methods’.
                 No comparison
                 • King Kong …

                   29 March 2012 at 10:16 am

                   My apologies. I didn’t realise that charges around “business methods” were the only way you could get operators of websites into court.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   29 March 2012 at 10:16 am

                   A point too technical for KK to grasp it seems, since he drew the irrelevant parallel.
                   • ghostwhowalksnz …

                     29 March 2012 at 10:24 am

                     Not to worry, Stuff is reporting its Mallard, Little and Radio NZ

                     Its funny how a lot of people dont know anything about US law and Kim Dotcom charges. Maybe the criminal charges would be a clue ?
                   • infused …

                     29 March 2012 at 11:44 am

                     CV, you’re very naive if you don’t think this place could be bought before the courts.

                     Queue: LPENT.
                   • lprent []

                     29 March 2012 at 1:32 pm

                     🙂 Happy to oblige..

                     Of course it can. Anyone who wishes to create legal precedent and a legal opinion about blogs can pull the trust into a court. But the likelihood is that it isn’t a particularly productive or even legally viable proposition for a politician. The most likely reason would be to force some kind of disclosure rather than an actual intent to go to trial.

                     Of course disclosure is a two way street. There are lots of questions I’d like to ask most politicians with the court enforcing it. On the other hand I suspect that it’d be hard for anyone to figure out what is happening in this system without my active cooperation.
         • Pete George 1.2.1.1.2

           29 March 2012 at 10:02 am

           Funny you should say that Greg. Have you any evidence? You haven’t put up yet, have you.

           Is it just “quacks like a duck, must be working for Mallard”?
           • mickysavage 1.2.1.1.2.1

             29 March 2012 at 10:25 am

             All in good time Petey.
           • King Kong 1.2.1.1.2.2

             29 March 2012 at 1:41 pm

             lprent, just trying to get the gist of what you are implying. Are you saying that if the anonymous authors here get outed as a result of a court action you would out the right wing commentators on this site?

             [lprent: Read the policy section marked privacy. Is there any equivocation in that statement?

             And looking through the context, I can’t see where you could have gotten that from in anything that I have said. Please explain before I decide to ban you for putting words into my mouth. ]
             • King Kong …

               30 March 2012 at 1:08 pm

               If you didn’t change your post at any stage then neither can I. Very weird as I certainly saw something yesterday which inspired my reply and I wasn’t intentionally being facetious.
               
               [lprent: Not my post. And the only comment I have in that post above your one I can’t recall editing. I’m doing comments between compiles, tests, and thinking time which tend jump my attention around while writing. I sometimes come back to fix my errors – usually within the 8 minutes re-edit. ]
     • Rosemary 1.2.2

       29 March 2012 at 4:11 pm

       Yet another hopelessly irrelevant and uninsightful contribution from Wormtongue. How the hell does your wife cope?
2. BLiP 2

   29 March 2012 at 9:04 am

   Delish.

   Note to self: contact broker with instructions to go long on popcorn futures.
3. ghostwhowalksnz 3

   29 March 2012 at 9:06 am

   Printing the email is how Collins sent it to the PMs office who are the ones behind the smear campaign.

   Clever lady Bronwyn Pullar , she used tracking software to tell her when and where her email was being sent ( but Collins was a bit more wary and thus used the print button)
   ” Ms Pullar forwarded the email using computer software that allows her to track each time her email has been opened and who it is subsequently forwarded to.”
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6655745/ACC-worker-re-viewed-leaked-Smith-letter
   • toad 3.1

     29 March 2012 at 9:11 am

     Yeah, but what does it say about ACC’s ICT security that it allows someone to install malware on their system.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1

       29 March 2012 at 9:40 am

       Its not malware. You are just spouting the Oily Orcas lines. Outlook has feed back software which comes standard which will tell you when your email is opened by the recipient. Its that malware?
     • Lanthanide 3.1.2

       29 March 2012 at 9:43 am

       I’ve never heard of this email tracking software before either, but I found this after a quick google: http://www.didtheyreadit.com/

       Doesn’t require any malware on anyone’s computer, it simply relies on existing email protocols to generate a return email. This itself could be blocked if the firewall was deliberately set up to do so, but they say on their FAQ page that testing shows it works 98% of the time.

       Wikipedia has got a bit of an article on email tracking, I didn’t read it in detail but it seems a little light on the exact specifics of how it works in general.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.2.1

         29 March 2012 at 11:13 am

         This is the best description Ive seen .
         The “embedded code” is usually just a linked 1×1 pixel image, so when you open the e-mail on an e-mail client like Outlook, the image is “shown”, triggering the download of the image from the web server. The act of requesting the image reveals all sorts of information to the web server the request is made to.

         Its a bit like the ads on web sites. The email links to the server that has the image. They know some of your info from this and they pass it back to you.
         • Reality Bytes 3.1.2.1.1

           29 March 2012 at 11:48 am

           Pro-tip; a really simple way to block this behavior from certain ads/sources completely, is to add an entry to your “hosts” file and set the offending url to your own computers ip (127.0.0.1), then the ‘request’ to download the ad or pixel tracking image or whatever goes nowhere since it tries to download it from your own pc.

           I won’t go into exact details as it is a bit different depending on your OS, but it is fairly easy to do, a quick google on: using hosts file to block urls” or similar should give hundreds of articles explaining it.

           One benefit of this method is you don’t have to install any additional software, which could ironically have malware present anyway if not carefully chosen.
           • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.2.1.1.1

             29 March 2012 at 1:36 pm

             Thanks.
             I tried this a while back via a site which supplies a big list of sites to copy to your hosts file.
             Didn’t make any difference
             I had thought the use of this software is rife in government and was the cause of Mapp leaving politics so early.
             • Reality Bytes …

               29 March 2012 at 5:47 pm

               Possibly the list was out of date or not relevant to the sites you were visiting. You can inspect the page source (or even better use a tool like firebug – right click inspect element with firebug) to figure out where the ads are referring your browser to. I don’t block any ads here on The Standard as I appreciate it possibly helps fund the site, and they are sometimes of interest to me anyway, but other sites I frequent have swathes of irrelevant junk, that at the very least waste a lot of my bandwidth.
       • lprent 3.1.2.2

         29 March 2012 at 2:17 pm

         Wouldn’t rely on it. Every mail server I have set up, I have told it to strip the headers. Think of the extra loads on the systems.

         Just another redundant protocol as far as I am concerned.
         • Lanthanide 3.1.2.2.1

           29 March 2012 at 2:47 pm

           Yeah, I suspected the 98% was self-servingly high.

           But the tracking via images method pointed out by ghost is another possibility; not sure that that could tell you how long someone had been reading the email though, as the “didtheyreadit” site claims they can do.
     • mickysavage 3.1.3

       29 March 2012 at 9:46 am

       It could be a red herring too.

       There seem to be three relevant documents:

       1.  The Boag/Collins email.
       2.  The Smith/Pullar letter where he testified as to her medical condition.
       3.  The Smith/Lotu Iiga letter where he made some rather mundane comments. 

       The Herald article published on March 18 appears to refer only to the Boag/Collins email and not the other letters.   The reference to “the day before the story broke” is the day before the Smith/Pullar letter came to light.

       The question ought to be asked, did anyone in the Minister of ACC’s office access the letter before March 20 and if so when? 
4. Jimmie 4

   29 March 2012 at 9:07 am

   I think one answer Master Eddie is found in this stuff article:

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6655745/ACC-worker-re-viewed-leaked-Smith-letter

   Unfortunately an ex case manager with a bone to pick is a much more likely culprit than Ms Collins to have leaked the letter.

   Perhaps all the gnashing of teeth on yesterday’s thread was all for nought if it turns out that this case manager was the source for the media – but I guess the words ‘We were Wrong’ will never be a thread headline on this blog…….lol
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.1

     29 March 2012 at 9:10 am

     Or, the letter referred to in your story is a completely different letter to the email from Boag in question.
   • Tom Gould 4.2

     29 March 2012 at 9:14 am

     Typical Tory spray diversion, just like the fake defamation threat. Getting too close for comfort, clearly.
     • TT 4.2.1

       29 March 2012 at 9:26 am

       Spot on. The tories always get aggressive when they’re about to be found out. Collins days are numbered, and the dominos continue to fall. Andrew Little was right on the money when he says this crime goes right to the top of the NACT hierarchy. The PM is simply attempting to destroy ACC so it can be sold to the private sector, with most of the profits heading straight into the NACT ministers back pockets.
     • Anne 4.2.2

       29 March 2012 at 9:37 am

       @ Tom Gould
       My immediate reaction. Try to terrorise Mallard and co. and sections of the media. That might work for the media but it will only incite Mallard and Co. to dig further because they know they’re on to something!

       And I’ll make a prediction: part of the story will eventually lead to the PM’s department.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2.2.1

         29 March 2012 at 9:42 am

         You are right , these sort of things are done at the top level.
         The panic has set in now it hasnt gone away when Smith resigned and Key has to come back ….eventually from his holiday in France
     • ianmac 4.2.3

       29 March 2012 at 10:11 am

       Judith Collins is issuing a Defamation Case against 2 Labour MPs and a news org. See Toad at 1.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2.3.1

         29 March 2012 at 10:14 am

         Hasnt a hope of succeeding .

         Lange v Atkinson means you can have ‘honest opinions’ about politicians that would be defamatory.
   • toad 4.3

     29 March 2012 at 9:14 am

     Different letter/email, Jimmie. You are talking about the one Nick Smith wrote that cost him his job. The one in question in this post is the one Boag sent to Collins.
   • Dean 4.4

     29 March 2012 at 9:40 am

     you’ve confused two totally separate emails – the Smith email, which led to his resignation and the Boag email, which went to Collins and somehow ended up in the Herald’s hands.
5. Jimmie 5

   29 March 2012 at 9:18 am

   Oh and it mentions that Ms Pullar deliberately introduced malware into the ACC email system in order to keep tabs on who looked at her email – this is getting dirtier by the day and unfortunately Ms Pullar is not looking the injured saint she was trying to make herself out to be.

   Also with a $1 million payout form a private insurer I fail to see why the ‘left’ in general are sticking up for her – a classic rich prick if you ask me – not happy with that she wanted more from ACC and it appears would stoop to hacking and alleged indirect blackmail to get more.

   Heck gotta be a classic rick prick – the left should be knocking her for 6.

   [it is the right of ACC clients to privacy, not the scummy Pullar that its being defended. JH]
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     29 March 2012 at 9:45 am

     See my reply at 3.1.2, Jimmie, no malware is required for email tracking.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 5.2

     29 March 2012 at 9:51 am

     Its not ‘wanting more’ from ACC. Its getting the coverage she is entitled to ( and paid for). The ACC coverage seems to be more the rehab services
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.3

     29 March 2012 at 10:12 am

     Oh too funny Jimmie, your comment is another perfect example of the self-serving and vengeful way you lot do politics: it’s all about trying to run people down and character assassination, rather than the principles involved.

     A crime (breach of privacy) has been committed by someone high up in ACC, or high up in government, but you don’t want us looking there, do you?
6. Blue 6

   29 March 2012 at 9:39 am

   It seems perfectly obvious that Judith Collins did not use any means of electronic communication to get the information out there. She knows full well that doing so would be stupid because it’s completely traceable.

   Pullar’s email tracking software is useless in this case, as will be any forensic examination of computers.

   As long as Crusher is getting litigation-happy, will she sue Fran O’Sullivan for being the first to put in print that it was her who leaked Bronwyn Pullar’s name?

   Fran vs Crusher would be a fantastic battle.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 6.1

     29 March 2012 at 10:16 am

     There is still a fax ! She printed it remember and she has got this info out all ready .
     Fax machines have logs as well. Expect it to be erased by now.
     • McFlock 6.1.1

       29 March 2012 at 12:22 pm

       But of course fax machines would work through the enterprise PABX phone system, which would also have logs. And those logs would not be as easily erasable, given that they’re needed for inter-departmental accounting. So just look for the call from the fax line to whichever media company/idiot blogger broke the story.
7. Lanthanide 7

   29 March 2012 at 9:50 am

   iPredict now have contracts on this: https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=browse&cat=561
   • Anne 7.1

     29 March 2012 at 10:16 am

     ACC Official… running @ 51.7% probability.
     Beehive Staffer… @ 46.7%.
     Not a lot in it.

     Oh, that it could be so simple.
     I’ll wager a bet whoever was responsible was under instruction from someone else.
     • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1

       29 March 2012 at 11:33 am

       Beehive staffer now up to 63%.
       • Dv 7.1.1.1

         29 March 2012 at 11:50 am

         The movements on ipredict are interesting because ther are no controls on insider trading. In theory the leaker could buy a bunch and then confess.
8. tsmithfield 8

   29 March 2012 at 10:12 am

   I notice that Pullar herself being the source of the leak is at a reasonably healthy 28%.

   That was the point I made yesterday that no-one seemed to pick up on.

   What if Boag had cc’d her letter to Pullar, and Pullar had included it in her correspondence to someone else? There is already evidence that she has been very prolific and wide ranging in the people she was corresponding to. So it is quite possible it has got into someone elses hands that no-one here has even considered.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1

     29 March 2012 at 10:19 am

     Have you seen the volume, ONE share at a time maybe less than 10 all up. Its a penny dreadful
     • tsmithfield 8.1.1

       29 March 2012 at 10:34 am

       “Have you seen the volume, ONE share at a time maybe less than 10 all up. Its a penny dreadful”

       If there is such low certainty about this probability, then the current level will be quickly short-sold down to a single digit percentage I expect.
   • Craig Glen Eden 8.2

     29 March 2012 at 10:32 am

     John Keys pixies at the bottom of his garden tsmithfield strikes again? Next time you are in that garden can you ask them where are those 170,000 jobs Key and English go on about.
     • Hami Shearlie 8.2.1

       29 March 2012 at 5:10 pm

       You’ll find the 170,000 jobs at the end of the Nact rainbow along with the leprauchaun(played to great effect by Michael Woodhouse)!
9. Deb 9

   29 March 2012 at 10:32 am

   I would be very afraid had I cast aspersions on or remotely defamed Ms Collins. She may be many things, but legally stupid she is not
   • Frida 9.1

     29 March 2012 at 10:40 am

     @Deb ” legally stupid she is not”

     Actually, I’ve heard the opposite from lawyers who used to come up against her in practice. Thick as a plank are statements I’ve heard used frequently.
     • Deb 9.1.1

       29 March 2012 at 10:54 am

       As a former VP of the NZ Law Society and President of the ADLS, my money would be on Collins having more than just a passing knowledge of the NZ defamation laws.

       What about some examples of her being as “thick as a plank” rather than just alleged comments from alleged lawyers who have “come up against her”.
       • Frida 9.1.1.1

         29 March 2012 at 11:02 am

         @Deb, ever heard of the defamation defence “honest opinion”?! That’s what the statements made to me were. Okay?

         Equally, what’s your evidence that being VP of NZLS and President of ADLS makes her an expert in defamation law or, for that matter, particularly legally smart? In my experience, all those positions show is that the lawyer concerned is good at networking and schmoozing. No reflection on legal ability!

         As others have pointed out already, by running to the media this morning and threatening to sue, Collins has already shown she has less than a passing acquaintance with Lange v Atkinson.

         I stand by my origincal comments. This is blatant bullying of the ilk we have seen many times with this Government, and most blatantly demonstrated by the Ambrose fiasco.
         • Pete George 9.1.1.1.1

           29 March 2012 at 11:16 am

           “honest opinion”

           Yeah, right.
           • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1.1.1

             29 March 2012 at 11:31 am

             Good grief, Pete.

             You have become a parody of yourself.
             • McFlock …

               29 March 2012 at 12:28 pm

               careful pb – he might accuse you of being nasty!
       • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1.1.2

         29 March 2012 at 11:20 am

         Just goes to show she was a politician before getting into parliament. These sort of jobs prove she isnt the sharpest knife in the drawer.
         • lprent 9.1.1.2.1

           29 March 2012 at 1:44 pm

           Yep. A bit like how programmers like to try to ‘promote’ the people who aren’t that good away from their habits of screwing up code and into management where their ego and lack of ability causes less of a problem. There is nothing like cleaning up someone else’s poorly thought through constructions to start envisaging where they could be better employed.
           • RedLogix 9.1.1.2.1.1

             29 March 2012 at 10:26 pm

             Lynn,

             Thanks. I can directly apply that sage bit of advice in my own life right now.
             • lprent …

               29 March 2012 at 10:31 pm

               Yeah, they often work out well. Tech orientated is valuable to have around to keep the project running.
     • Inventory2 9.1.2

       29 March 2012 at 12:40 pm

       Comments from mickysavage perhaps? That’d be REALLY independant!
   • Pascal's bookie 9.2

     29 March 2012 at 10:50 am

     Defamation has a pretty high legal hurdle to jump WRT politicians in NZ.

     Her press release is from the government and signed as minister. I guess that means the taxpayer will be picking up the tab.

     I strongly suspect that the case will never go to court, and if it does, she will lose. In the meantime she will use the case as an excuse not to answer any questions.
   • Ross 9.3

     29 March 2012 at 12:47 pm

     Sorry to say, Deb, but you are wrong. If you wanted a lawyer, Collins would be the last person I’d approach. She doesn’t seem to know the law.

     http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=505
10. Sarah 10

    29 March 2012 at 10:40 am

    If Pullar was hacking by using a read receipt function on her emails, then everyone using the a read receipt function of Outlook would be considered to be hacking.

    This is laughable. We need more police to arrest every New Zealander using an email read notification system.
    • Deb 10.1

      29 March 2012 at 10:57 am

      Slightly more than a “read receipt”. A “read receipt” gives the reader the option not to respond to the sender. Pullar’s malware is very much more pernicious and invasive.
      • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1.1

        29 March 2012 at 11:16 am

        lol got a link to back that up? – and please don’t waste my time with Mr. Oil.

        But just to humour you for a moment, say that’s all true, how does it affect the fact that someone illegally copied Michelle Boag’s email to Collins?

        That’s what we need to know – who broke the law? Was it someone at ACC, or someone donkey deep in the National Party?
      • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1.2

        29 March 2012 at 11:16 am

        Rubbish
        “The “embedded code” is usually just a linked 1×1 pixel image, so when you open the e-mail on an e-mail client like Outlook, the image is “shown”, triggering the download of the image from the web server. The act of requesting the image reveals all sorts of information to the web server the request is made to.”

        Its not too different from a ‘cookie’
        And all those ads on websites do much the same thing.
        • Reality Bytes 10.1.2.1

          29 March 2012 at 12:02 pm

          All the more reason to have ‘download images’ off by default in your email client.
11. bad12 11

    29 March 2012 at 10:45 am

    There,s a debate inherent in the person(s) responsible for leaking, (a hard-copy),of Boag,s email to Crusher being under instructions from another or not,

    Our view is that Captain Panic Pants and able subordinates,Hansel and Gretel when it comes to matters of public perception and media management of such issues might just be telling Slippery whats going to happen and how He should publicly respond to Their media machinations….
    • ghostwhowalksnz 11.1

      29 March 2012 at 11:22 am

      Panic pants , yes . But Hansel & Gretel ? Im not in the loop on that one.
      • Jim Nald 11.1.1

        29 March 2012 at 11:38 am

        try this:
        http://thestandard.org.nz/keys-bunker-of-spin/
12. HelensYourAunty 12

    29 March 2012 at 12:16 pm

    EDDIE on Monday 26th March

    “Collins has imitated her fellow ministers by leaking Pullar’s private details in revenge.”

    Libel.
    • Frida 12.1

      29 March 2012 at 12:19 pm

      hmmm you clearly know what you’re talking about Aunty – NOT. There’s been no such thing as “libel” in NZ law for decades. Care to try and make your point again?

      Meantime, have a read of Lange v Atkinson.
13. Fortran 13

    29 March 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Looks as though an ACC staffer may be in this up to her armpits ?
    • Ross 13.1

      29 March 2012 at 12:49 pm

      The ACC staffer accessed a letter from Nick Smith, but that isn’t the issue here. It’s about the email from Boag to Collins.
      • Dean 13.1.1

        29 March 2012 at 2:58 pm

        do you think that righties like Fortran are genuinely so easily confused by the existence of multiple emails or they’re just trying to distract?
        • McFlock 13.1.1.1

          29 March 2012 at 3:10 pm

          50:50 is my bet – half are pretending to be that dumb, and the other half really are that dumb.
14. ianmac 14

    29 March 2012 at 3:24 pm

    I just went back to listen to National Radio interviews recorded this morning about the ACC leak. They are still available for downloading.
    The first was with Trevor Mallard:
    http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20120329-0721-labour_claims_judith_collins_is_the_source_of_acc_leak-048.mp3

    The second was a Reporters round-up with comments from Little and Mallard.
    http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20120329-0719-labour_says_collins_most_likely_the_source_of_acc_leak-048.mp3

    If they are comments subject to a Defamation case I’m damned if I can hear any defamation at all. Were there some other interviews?
    • ianmac 14.1

      29 March 2012 at 6:37 pm

      3 hours later 6:30pm and the broadcasts are still there.
15. bad12 15

    29 March 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Crusher Collins sure has dancing upon the head of a pin down to an art form, we have to wonder does She take lessons or does such a skill come naturally,

    The two pertinent questions here would still seem to reside in the 1 hard copy of the Boag email that Crusher has admitted to having caused to have been made???

    The question marks above are for obvious reasons as far as our genuine belief is garnered from media reports is that Crusher has stated that ”Her office” had made 1 hard copy of the Boag email,

    Question 1 has to be ”why the hard copy Crusher”???,unless of course the 9th floor has given the directive to one and all that They will handle EVERYTHING to do with Pullar and anything recieved by anyone was to go straight up to the 9th floor,

    Question 2 has to be (still),”who was the hard copy of the Boag email to Crusher given to, we believe Crusher when She says SHE never leaked the email (or its details) to the media,but, attempting to take the vows of silence this far into the saga is unacceptable as is the House Speaker allowing Her to not answer specific questions put to her about the printing and destination of that hard copy of the Boag email,

    Incidentally Slippery has reportedly expressed His 100% support for His Minister keeping it zipped,we wouldnt believe for a minute that thats coz She will be gone in seconds if She drops Him or the minions on the 9th floor in it…
16. QoT 16

    29 March 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Just to completely ignore the details of the case, I’m utterly fixated on why the hell people print emails at all … much less when they’re Cabinet Ministers. Wasn’t it meant to be Brash’s penchant for printing all his emails (or getting them printed for him) which led to The Hollow Men?
    • Anita 16.1

      29 March 2012 at 10:50 pm

      I see printed emails all the time. I even print some of them myself 🙂

      Most commonly I see emailed printed by PAs for senior managers and neatly filed – a folder for urgent, a folder for “by tomorrow”, a folder for signing, and so on. All the senior managers I know are perfectly capable of reading and replying to their emails online, but don’t spend that much time in front of their computers, so neatly organised printed emails combined with letters, memos etc for reading during quiet patches, between meetings, on flights, and so on. For me to have a GM’s PA print one of my emails and the attached letter and put it in a folder marked “urgent” is a completely reliable way of getting a signed letter dropped on my desk by the PA within a couple of hours.

      I also print emails occasionally, today I took two emails to a meeting – one contained the instructions for the conference call, the other was the two pages of bullet points we needed to discuss, and someone who couldn’t attend’s feedback for inclusion. I also have a stack of paper on my desk at the moment which is all the feedback I’ve had on a report I’m working on – including each email, each hand scribbled on copy, and my notes of discussions I’ve had. They’re all highlighted to show which points have been incorporated and which have been completely dealt with. If I’m incorporating eight lots of feedback on a single document I need to see each set of feedback side by side. They will live in that pile until the report is finally signed off.

      So, I can imagine two very simple and normal scenarios for how that email got printed.

      1) Collins was give a folder of miscellaneous ACC correspondence along with all her other things to read and deal with as she left the office. Between her office in Wellington, her home in Auckland, and the office in Wellington again she looked at each piece and wrote on it what should happen. So the email now exists in paper form with a note saying “forward to X and Y”. The person that acted on those instructions filed the printed email in a folder of ACC related correspondence in case they ever needed to check back.

      2) Collins met with one of her support staff for 30 minutes, the support staff member had printed out all the emails they couldn’t work out how to handle and brought copies of the letters in the same state. They went through the pile quickly, one by one, with Collins writing a note on each about how to handle it “accept invitation”, “forward to X”, “refer to Y”, “polite refusal”.After it had been handled it was filed along with the rest of the stuff.
      • QoT 16.1.1

        30 March 2012 at 10:48 pm

        Well that’s just fair and reasonable, then. But I still just wince at the thought of all that basically-untraceable paper lying around …
        • Anita 16.1.1.1

          31 March 2012 at 5:12 pm

          Some agencies use printers which allow tracing of printed material, but it’s uncommon. I have no idea if that is true in Minister’s offices.
          • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.1.1

            31 March 2012 at 5:16 pm

            Do you think that the forensics the PC is going to do will find out if other recpients printed it out?
            • Anita 16.1.1.1.1.1

              31 March 2012 at 5:33 pm

              It wouldn’t surprise me at all if some of the other known recipients printed it.

              What the PC’s forensics will find depends partly on how stupid or careless the leaker(s) were, how much access the PC has to their systems, how their systems were set up, and how good the investigators are. I’m betting that the leaker(s) weren’t stupid or careless enough to get caught.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS