What a jerk

Written By: - Date published: 7:41 am, March 27th, 2012 - 36 comments
Categories: brand key - Tags: ,

So let’s get this straight – the Prime Minister gets caught saying a few things he shouldn’t in a cafe so he brings the full weight of the state down on the freelance cameraman who caught said things on “tape”.

He then extorts a letter of apology out of that cameraman (presumably the word was “write this and the whole thing will go away”) and tries to use it to cover his arse politically by passing it to the media while claiming (falsely) that the actions of the cameraman were unlawful.

And now this PM is claiming he’s “turning the other cheek” (just like Jesus!)?

What a vile little jerk.

36 comments on “What a jerk ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. higherstandard 1
    27 March 2012 at 8:11 am

    Haven’t you got more important things to work yourself up about ?

    This is weird stuff from you IB.

    • bbfloyd 1.1
      27 March 2012 at 11:28 am

      right back at ya hs….. havn’t you got better things to do than make pointless comment on the internet?

      nothing “weird’ about johnny sparkles less than admirable personality…. not forgetting this creepy, twisted, lying money grubber is our PRIME MINISTER, and our representative on the world stage….

      i have to block that thought out or my stomach goes all queasy..

      • higherstandard 1.1.1
        27 March 2012 at 1:33 pm

        Not at all, I usually enjoy Bill’s posts but this reads like a Zetetic diatribe.

        • IrishBill 1.1.1.1
          27 March 2012 at 6:08 pm

          I was pissed off enough by the use of the police to bully Ambrose, the “turn the other cheek” comment pushed me to post. I expect people like Slater to bully and then hide behind victim rhetoric but for the PM to do it is vile.

  2. Kaplan 2
    27 March 2012 at 8:15 am

    Didn’t Ambrose seek a clarification on the privacy status only to be told that they wouldn’t rule on it when there was a potential criminal case pending.
    Can he pursue a judgement on the tapes legality now?
    I’d have thought he’d like to clear away the mud that Key and his cops have thrown around.

  3. Pascal's bookie 3
    27 March 2012 at 8:37 am

    Regarding the chilling effect of the way this has played out:

    Big story on the US campaign trail today is an open mike comment picked up between Obama and Medvedev ( http://bit.ly/GUjZ9X ).

    According to the warning given by the police, and by the principle Key says has been vindicated, reporting on this story would leave the media likely to face prosecution.

    • aerobubble 3.1
      27 March 2012 at 9:50 am

      Not the same. Key consented to have cameras rolling when he was having his self described private moment. A moment that was hustled onto the press without any notice that the public event was over for the moment. Could the PM lips be read? Yes. Did his staff have a duty to remove microphones if any where left? Unlike an open microphone in a public press conference.

      Look these politicians know there is a microphone there and know it will be recording, the expectation of privacy is lost. That’s not saying they don’t have privacy rights but they should get off the platform before expect privacy, and not demand as in the teapot case immediately compliance for privacy while shoving everyone out the door while sending the contradictory message that they can still film. Sorry, but you cannot choose to tell editors what they can publish and what they cannot just because you decide how jouralists should do their jobs.

      Journalist were invited, they weren’t explicit told, or had a chance, to decide to film but not record sound. Its simple contract law surely, if you at last moment decide they can film but not record sound then you have to provide a chance for reporters to have a due process chance of saying NO!

  4. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4
    27 March 2012 at 9:04 am

    Hasn’t won you over, Irishbill?

    Now, there’s a surprise.

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1
      27 March 2012 at 9:11 am

      You’re a pretty straight up chap Barrel.

      Do you reckon Key’s been a dick about this?

      • Pete George 4.1.1
        27 March 2012 at 9:19 am

        PB, do you reckon if you were a straight up chap you’d also be complaining about nastiness directed at politicians here?

        • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1
          27 March 2012 at 9:43 am

          I’m not complaining about nastiness Pete. I’m calling you a hypocrite.

          • Pete George 4.1.1.1.1
            27 March 2012 at 10:02 am

            And I’m calling you a hypocrite. You’re the one sustaining personal attacks.

            • felix 4.1.1.1.1.1
              27 March 2012 at 10:14 am

              But that’s not what hypocrisy means, Pete.

              For P’s b to be hypocritical in this instance, he’d have to be making personal attacks while insisting that others shouldn’t.

              And he’s not, so he ain’t.

              Whereas you are, so you is.

              • Pete George …
                27 March 2012 at 10:42 am

                “he’d have to be making personal attacks ”

                Which is what he’s been doing. He’s tried to explain around it by claiming that what I said was nasty, not that I was nasty, which you must admit is a bit contortionist.

                I don’t think PB is nasty, but his repeated attempts to label me as nasty sounds like a bit of nasty hypocrisy to me. But I doubt that will stop you trying to manoevre around a few phrases.

                • felix …
                  27 March 2012 at 10:50 am

                  Come on Pete, you’re not that thick. I know you read the whole sentence even though you only responded to the first half of it.

                  If the issue of hypocrisy was making attacks, he’d have to be doing that AND insisting that others shouldn’t.

                  That’s the definition of hypocrisy, Pete. And that’s what you’re doing.

            • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1.1.2
              27 March 2012 at 10:14 am

              Umm Pete, you are the one that lept into this thread attacking me.

              I’m not judging you for being nasty. I’m pointing out that you make nasty attacks. Thus, your regular attacks on people here for about nastiness are hypocritical.

              Perhaps you can explain, (on the other thread) how I am being a hypocrite.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2
          27 March 2012 at 10:05 am

          Nice little derail into an irrelevancy PG. Now, back to the actual topic of whether Key has been manipulative and a dick over his treatment of Ambrose.

          • tc 4.1.1.2.1
            27 March 2012 at 11:15 am

            ‘Nice little derail into an irrelevancy PG’
            Let a person do their job each to their own…what else has he got to do that carries value.

            • fender 4.1.1.2.1.1
              27 March 2012 at 4:54 pm

              PG is a staunch defender of Key as his other idol the Hair shares a sleeping bag with Mr DicKey.
              But I was shocked to read PG climb in to the woodwork teacher, maybe PG is a metalwork lover or maybe Gerry threw PG down the stairs once.

              • Pete George …
                27 March 2012 at 8:48 pm

                You’re mistaken or making things up, I’ve never been a staunch defender of Key.

                I’ve defended and supported and criticised him to a similar degree I defended and supported and criticised Helen Clark.

  5. ianmac 5
    27 March 2012 at 9:42 am

    “And now this PM is claiming he’s “turning the other cheek” (just like Jesus!)?”
    Weird. Was Key a victim here? Was he maligned? Did Key get his cheek slapped in order for him to turn the other cheek?
    No! It is Ambrose who is turning his cheek after being maligned and denigrated and it is he who has great difficulty in clearing in his name because there will be no court to test the “unlawfulness.”
    Shame on Mr Key and the item above in Stuff just makes Mr Key look fragile and somewhat pathetic..

  6. ianmac 6
    27 March 2012 at 9:47 am

    And Ambrose did not apologise. His letter showed regret about the fuss which ensued. (Of Key’s making.) And denied that the recording was deliberate. This was consistent throughout all previous statements and consistent with the position Ambrose would have taken if the case had gone to be tested in court.

    • aerobubble 6.1
      27 March 2012 at 9:54 am

      Yes, someone is saying that he on second thoughts would rather not have been caught between a weak livid editor boss who wanted to string out a distraction to let their boy Key win for the ratings and the win-win in being soft on Key, and the PM whose staff at the last moment decided to renegotiated the terms of the press conference that it was sudden a partial private moment where cameras could record lips moving.

      Sorry but we don’t have a free press when the press does standup for one of their own.

    • David H 6.2
      27 March 2012 at 1:09 pm

      What a pity he didn’t say “No lets take it to court” That would have put the cat among the pigeons. Personally I think Key should have been charged with wasting police time. And as for Banks he’s just a waste of space. But if you are in parliament, are you not supposed to do something, What has Banks done this term apart from slouch in his seat sneering at the opposition?

  7. muzza 7
    27 March 2012 at 10:04 am

    I suspect there is no shortage of jerks who have far too much affect on our lives.

    Key just happens to be the current front man!

    It certainly looks to be coming apart for him presently, the announcement while abroad illustrates this nicely!

  8. vto 8
    27 March 2012 at 11:19 am

    How can Key turn the other cheek when it wasn’t even his cheek that was slapped?

    If anyone is turning the other cheek it is ambrose.

    Piles and piles of horse shit. Key should bag it up and sell it out front of Parliament. 50c a bag.

    • Pascal's bookie 8.1
      27 March 2012 at 11:25 am

      Yeah, his stance is that he is turning the cheek to Ambrose’s outrageous behavior, after calling the cops on him, comparing him to a News of the World hack, and generally throwing his weight around.

      Very christ like of him.

  9. vto 9
    27 March 2012 at 11:28 am

    Stuff: “Bradley Ambrose penned a “letter of regret” to Mr Key, who agreed not to push for prosecution ”

    So, let’s get this as clear as possible …..

    The decision to prosecute is decided by John Key? Or is it independntly decided by Police? Or is it a Police decision, subject to how much “pushing” there is by John Key?

    Does anyone know how Police make decisions about prosecuting? Does it specifically allow for “pushing” by politicians?

    It is about as clear as mud. And as dangerous as quicksand. It looks like corruption, it sounds like corruption, so is it corruption? Are the Police compromised?

    I think we deserve to know the detailed answers ……..

  10. SHG 10
    27 March 2012 at 4:24 pm

    Key can turn the other cheek now because the whole affair achieved its intended purpose. It got him votes in an election which is now over, so why waste any more time even thinking about it?

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      27 March 2012 at 4:29 pm

      True, true.

      Key the currency trader has always known instinctively when there is no more yield left in a given position, at which point he dumps it and moves on.

    • ropata 10.2
      27 March 2012 at 10:35 pm

      The affair got Winston more votes in the election and J.honKey was so pissed off he needed a convenient scapegoat to blame for a fuckup of his own making. (i.e. making snide asinine comments to buttlicker Banks)

  11. Kotahi Tane Huna 11
    27 March 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Knee? Meet jerk.

    • vto 11.1
      27 March 2012 at 6:58 pm

      .
      true kotahi
      scurrilous mahi
      do not your master trust

      watch the acts
      eye the tacks
      dry power be the lust

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.