Price on Marshall - a sneaky journo from a NZ Sunday paper...

Image via CrunchBase


Price on Marshall...

Lawyer Steven Price writes:

I have been contacted by a student at Victoria University who said he was approached by the Sunday Star-Times’ Jonathan Marshall at university last week, on the hunt for information about the 18-year-old at the centre of the Darren Hughes incident.

He said Marshall asked him to go to a university office and pretend to be a long-lost friend of the 18-year-old and ask for his class timetable. The student refused, saying this was a “morally bankrupt” thing to do, and good on him.

If true that would represent a new low in an already tarnished journalistic career. Marshall's style of tabloid journalism is the sort we associate with UK red-tops like The Sun. It's a style I don't particularly like.

Price continues:

I note the Press Council’s principle on subterfuge states:

The use of deceit and subterfuge can only be condoned in cases when the information sought is in the public interest and cannot be obtained by any other means.

I don’t think there can be much doubt that Marshall was trying to use deceit and subterfuge here, even if he was enlisting someone else to do the actual dirty work. Was it, then, really in the public interest? And mightn’t there be other ways of getting this information?

Price also reports that Marshall has denied engaging in any such activity, and that Marshall's editor is backing him up to the hilt. So whose version of events is true?

And why is the SST editor so confident there has been no wrongdoing? Has he spoken to the person who made the allegation?

Or is he just reflexively protecting his prized asset? Just as he weekly defends Michael Laws for writing indefensible hate-filled dross because it helps to sell papers?

True or false? Not surprising some would suggest.

Related articles

• Marshall enjoying VCU's run to Final Four (mlb.mlb.com)
• Marshall may face fines, suspension (3news.co.nz)

John Key accused of backtracking over TPPA...

Image via Wikipedia
John Key accused of backtracking over TPPA...

Key Backtracks, Says Foreign Firms Can Sue NZ Government Under TPPA

In November last year, Prime Minister John Key described as "far-fetched" the idea that investors could sue the New Zealand government directly in a secret international tribunal to enforce rules in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

This week, US trade negotiator Barbara Wiesel said that was no longer New Zealand's position, according to TPPA critic Professor Jane Kelsey.

In response to questions about New Zealand and Australian positions during a briefing to civil society in Washington on 31st January Ms Wiesel said "New Zealand had retracted the Prime Minister's statement. It is not their position."

Under standard US terms for such agreements, investors can claim millions in compensation from governments on the grounds that new regulation has adversely affect their investment. Under a TPPA that would apply to investors from all participating countries, including our largest sources of investment, the US and Australia, Jane Kelsey said.

"In other words, the Key government is happy for pharmaceutical firms in the US, Australian banks or Singapore-based Brierley Investments to sue the New Zealand government for millions in compensation if they think new laws or policies are unfair or unreasonable or erode their profitability", said Professor Kelsey.

"We saw with the Hobbit, just a threat from a foreign investor is often enough to see a government cave. The leverage of Warners over our labour laws and taxpayer subsidies will pale into insignificance with a TPPA."

Professor Kelsey speculates on three explanations for the flip-flop.

"Either John Key did not know what his negotiators were proposing to do when he described investor-state enforcement as "far-fetched"; or he was lying to the New Zealand public; or he has buckled to pressure from the US, and possibly his own Minister and officials, to agree."

"This proposed bill of rights for foreign investors is even more frightening when government has announced assets sales and privatisation of ACC, policies which failed in the past and required the government to step back in."

"The Prime Minister needs to be upfront about the government's real position before the next round of negotiations begins in Chile on 14 February and explain why he is prepared to give foreign firms the legal power to override New Zealand's sovereignty and extract settlements of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars".

Acknowledgements: www.voxy.co.nz

Related articles

• Kiwis Demand: Talk TPPA turkey to us, Prime Minister (go.theregister.com)
• Jane Kelsey: Trading sovereignty for short-term advantage (nzherald.co.nz)
• Crowd protests at free trade talks (nzherald.co.nz)
• Jane Kelsey: Trading sovereignty for short-term advantage (indigenist.blogspot.com)
• Battery Powered Mobile Library a World First | Scoop News (scoop.co.nz)

WikiLeaks - New Zealand, the United States of America, the Iraq War and credibility...

Image via WikipediaWikiLeaks - New Zealand, the United States of America, the Iraq War and credibility...


Some more Wikileaks revelations: Was Fonterra the reason New Zealand sent troops to Iraq - troops for butter?

Leaks suggest that former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark - the current Number Three at the United Nations - changed her previous decision not to send troops to Iraq, because it was feared NZ would miss out on lucrative Oil for Food contracts.

The claim was made in an extraordinary cable labelling New Zealanders as either "first worlders" - pro-American - or "other worlders" - anyone anti-American or pro- New Zealand's nuclear -free legislation.

The cable revealed that embassy staff were briefed on Iraq by senior defence officials, who are not named and whose information is noted as being strictly protected.

"Senior MOD officials claimed it wasn't until Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, pointed out in a later Cabinet meeting that New Zealand's absence from Iraq might cost NZ dairy conglomerate Fonterra the lucrative dairy supply contract it enjoyed under the Oil for Food program, that PM Clark  found a face-saving compromise and sent combat engineers in a non-combat role to Basra, where they were embedded with the British forces.

Be that as it may, New Zealand's original decision not to send troops to Iraq was because the Iraq War was not a UN sanctioned military action. Later it was proven there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, one of the reasons for the US and its Coalition Of The Willing gave for being in Iraq.

I guess there is more to be written about New Zealand's decision, as there is about America's late involvement in two world wars, both of which had New Zealand involvement in day one of each.

It has been said also that the US had no interest at all in discussing a free trade agreement with New Zealand, but seemed annoyed that NZ was able to arrange one with China and other Asian countries.

And during that period even some American officials were uncertain whether NZ was a friendly nation or an ally. I thought the latter had been written in blood during  two world wars, and the Korean and Vietenam wars. This created some distrust of the US by NZ officials and people alike. This continues today with those with longer memories. Conflicting comments by Hillary Clinton causes some uncertainty too. Perhaps it is a very good thing that Barack Obama won the last presidential election, not her! I personally can distinguish between the American system and the friendly, generous  and genuine American people.

Just what other revelations are there for WikiLeaks to surprise us with?

http://huttriver.blog.co.uk

http://kiwiriverman.blogspot.com

Related articles

• Clark sent troops to Iraq over Fonterra - cables (nzherald.co.nz)
• WikiLeaks cable: Scene-setter for Helen Clark's US visit (nzherald.co.nz)
• US wanted military accords kept quiet (nzherald.co.nz)
• Iraq - WikiLeaks - More Damaging Revelations for the US [Zahir shamsery] (ecademy.com)
• WikiLeaks cable: NZ: Demarche on UNSCR 1718 delivered (nzherald.co.nz)
• WikiLeaks cable: CDR CENTCOM visit to New Zealand (nzherald.co.nz)

Image via Wikipedia

Read: Thinking’ – solutions to mass imprisonment.

Published: November 10, 2010

by David Clendon

 Share

Last night I spent Parliament’s dinner break at the launch of a new website, an initiative of the Robson Hanan Trust led by Kim Workman.
To quote from the introduction on the site:
“Rethinking Crime and Punishment” is a strategic initiative to increase public debate about the use of prison and alternative forms of punishment in New Zealand.
In the western world, New Zealand is second only to the United States in the rate at which it locks people up. Whatever your view of prison, we think there is a need for fresh thinking and a much wider public discussion.”
We are spending an awful lot of money on Corrections, to the extent that it fast becoming one of the largest single items on the country’s budget.
Most of it goes on building and maintaining prisons and keeping more people locked up for longer.  This is a really dumb way to spend money – wasteful of capital, wasteful of resources, and worst of all wasteful and destructive of human potential.
We in the Greens are believers in evidence-based decision making and practice, and this government often claims to be equally committed to an evidence based approach to policy.
Actions speak louder than words however, and their drive to spend more and more on containment and a hopelessly inadequate amount on rehabilitation, drug and alcohol treatment, reintegration services, and other real solutions, reflects their confusion.
‘Rethinking’ is a project committed to presenting well researched and clearly presented information that points to how we can keep people out of prison, make our communities safer and more equitable, save a great deal of money over time, and make a lot of peoples’ lives much better.
For anyone wanting to be better informed to advocate for change, or for those who think the current system is working but are willing to engage with evidence and arguments to the contrary, I encourage you to subscribe to the newsletter accessible on the website.
I hope our minister of finance has a look too.  He said in a speech recently:
 “The politicians’ task is to turn the objective of community safety into some high level outcomes, like reduced prison numbers, or reduced youth offending rates. The public service needs to think about the governance and accountability structure that can drive decisions to achieve these outcomes.
We have any amount of policy analysis and any amount of public support for success. But there is very little accumulated wisdom on what governance and accountability will deliver the desired policy result.”
I think that is a cop out.  There is any amount of information, research, analysis, and examples of how to achieve those ‘high level outcomes’, and a lot of it will appear on this new site.
What is missing is the political will, the courage to ignore the populist rantings of the ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ brigade, and to invest in some long term solutions rather than spending on short sighted responses that will continue to fail.
KR says: Gives you something to really think about, doesn't it? Have a good read!
Acknowledgements: David Clendon/ Frogblog

Related articles

• Imprisoned Fritzl gives interview (bbc.co.uk)
• Most California parolees back in prison in 3 years (sfgate.com)
• Active Uruguayan general imprisoned in 1974 murder (sfgate.com)
• 15 of the Greatest Prison Escapes (rawjustice.com)
• Active Uruguayan general imprisoned in 1974 murder (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Claims that chances of privatisation of state owned Kiwibank remain low...

Image via Wikipedia

Standard & Poor's assesses the chance of a privatisation of Kiwibank as low and is keeping its AA minus rating of the state-owned bank unchanged as a result.


But it said any change in ownership would trigger a review.



S&P said yesterday its ratings of the bank were unchanged despite speculation about possible privatisation and also the announcement of chief executive Sam Knowles' retirement.



"Our ratings continue to reflect our expectation that notwithstanding the recent discussion on possible privatisation of Kiwibank, the risk of privatisation remains low in the medium term," said the credit-rating agency.



"Nevertheless, in our less likely downside scenario, privatisation of the bank would be expected to put downward pressure on the ratings."



Kiwibank's rating rests on the guarantee from its wholly Government-owned parent, NZ Post.


If the Government wants to privatise Kiwibank it will happen in 2012.



- NZPA

Related articles by Zemanta

• Eurozone banks could be hit by £165bn writedowns, says ECB (telegraph.co.uk)
• Are We Ever Really Without Identity? (exponere.com)