NZ: who's in charge here?

All things Rugby
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by UncleFB »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:So after the police f**ked up with the GCSB, who in turn f**ked up.

The GCSB launched an enquirey and said they had both f**ked up

The green party think it wasn't a proper review as the GCSB are biased because they f**ked up.

So demands the police investigate who also f**ked up and somehow they are going to not be biased?

While we pay for it all

There is some seriously f**ked up logic in there somewhere
Wait, so it's the Greens that are at fault here? :shock:
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by slow wing »

He summarised his post well on the last line though tbf, UncleFB.
SecretAgentMan
Posts: 8737
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by SecretAgentMan »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:So after the police f**ked up with the GCSB, who in turn f**ked up.

The GCSB launched an enquirey and said they had both f**ked up

The green party think it wasn't a proper review as the GCSB are biased because they f**ked up.

So demands the police investigate who also f**ked up and somehow they are going to not be biased?

While we pay for it all

There is some seriously f**ked up logic in there somewhere
Yep, it all seems like a terrible waste of taxpayers' money. Maybe we should all just forgive and forget. I'm sure they've learnt their lesson.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:So after the police f**ked up with the GCSB, who in turn f**ked up.

The GCSB launched an enquirey and said they had both f**ked up

The green party think it wasn't a proper review as the GCSB are biased because they f**ked up.

So demands the police investigate who also f**ked up and somehow they are going to not be biased?

While we pay for it all

There is some seriously f**ked up logic in there somewhere

It's quite simple, TMAB, none of those enquires were criminal investigations, neither could they be called independent* and rigorous, nor do have any statutory authority as per a criminal or Commission of Enquiry has.

* Potentially, neither is the Police investigation, as they are a party to the actions, hence my call for a Commission.


BTW, ta for editing that thread the other day, mind, on reflection it could also be a genuinely useful place to discuss such things.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Ted. wrote:
The Mighty All Blacks wrote:So after the police f**ked up with the GCSB, who in turn f**ked up.

The GCSB launched an enquirey and said they had both f**ked up

The green party think it wasn't a proper review as the GCSB are biased because they f**ked up.

So demands the police investigate who also f**ked up and somehow they are going to not be biased?

While we pay for it all

There is some seriously f**ked up logic in there somewhere

It's quite simple, TMAB, none of those enquires were criminal investigations, neither could they be called independent* and rigorous, nor do have any statutory authority as per a criminal or Commission of Enquiry has.

* Potentially, neither is the Police investigation, as they are a party to the actions, hence my call for a Commission.


BTW, ta for editing that thread the other day, mind, on reflection it could also be a genuinely useful place to discuss such things.

But the last inquiry has already had them admit they f**ked up

So now they want one done by someone else who f**ked up

Is this one supposed to just show that the last inquiry was right when they said they f**ked up?

Or are they going to find they f**ked up slightly more than the last inquiry found they f**ked up?

No worries re the thread
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:
Ted. wrote:
The Mighty All Blacks wrote:So after the police f**ked up with the GCSB, who in turn f**ked up.

The GCSB launched an enquirey and said they had both f**ked up

The green party think it wasn't a proper review as the GCSB are biased because they f**ked up.

So demands the police investigate who also f**ked up and somehow they are going to not be biased?

While we pay for it all

There is some seriously f**ked up logic in there somewhere

It's quite simple, TMAB, none of those enquires were criminal investigations, neither could they be called independent* and rigorous, nor do have any statutory authority as per a criminal or Commission of Enquiry has.

* Potentially, neither is the Police investigation, as they are a party to the actions, hence my call for a Commission.


BTW, ta for editing that thread the other day, mind, on reflection it could also be a genuinely useful place to discuss such things.

But the last inquiry has already had them admit they f**ked up

So now they want one done by someone else who f**ked up

Is this one supposed to just show that the last inquiry was right when they said they f**ked up?

Or are they going to find they f**ked up slightly more than the last inquiry found they f**ked up?

No worries re the thread
So in that case, you would say there is a criminal case to answer, as what they did was illegal. Any criminal case, even if there is a confession and an intent to plead guilty, requires an investigation for the record.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Ted. wrote: So in that case, you would say there is a criminal case to answer, as what they did was illegal. Any criminal case, even if there is a confession and an intent to plead guilty, requires an investigation for the record.
The GCSB falls outside public disclosure.

They could probably have some internal thing (which they already have)

What do you actually want to see, someone get sacked?

You would never find out even if they did
User avatar
Altazuma
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Altazuma »

The police investigation has nothing to do with finding criminal liability.

It is about Russel Norman trying to keep this as a headlinef or as long as possible.

Fair dues. It is a waste of money but no more so than many other such stunts by politicians when they call for commissions for everything under the sun just so they can grandstand on an issue a little longer.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

Are you suggesting that there is no chance of criminal deeds being unearthed?
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Ted. wrote:Are you suggesting that there is no chance of criminal deeds being unearthed?
Pretty much, yes. Anything deemed to be operational or harmful to national security is blocked.

For reasons that are justified
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Shearer is going on about it now

Probably just pissed off the greens bet him to it
merlin the happy pig
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by merlin the happy pig »

Altazuma wrote:The police investigation has nothing to do with finding criminal liability.

It is about Russel Norman trying to keep this as a headlinef or as long as possible.

Fair dues. It is a waste of money but no more so than many other such stunts by politicians when they call for commissions for everything under the sun just so they can grandstand on an issue a little longer.
Unless of course it turns out that Mr Teflon himself gave them a nudge and told them to go ahead anyway because we really really would like a trade deal pretty please.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

merlin the happy pig wrote:
Altazuma wrote:The police investigation has nothing to do with finding criminal liability.

It is about Russel Norman trying to keep this as a headlinef or as long as possible.

Fair dues. It is a waste of money but no more so than many other such stunts by politicians when they call for commissions for everything under the sun just so they can grandstand on an issue a little longer.
Unless of course it turns out that Mr Teflon himself gave them a nudge and told them to go ahead anyway because we really really would like a trade deal pretty please.
They can't investigate ministerial level

You really find this secret service concept hard to grasp don't you
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

This is just about to get ugly again

Press release to follow
User avatar
Psychologist
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: AGM, Association for Bringing Down Statues

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Psychologist »

merlin the happy pig wrote:
Altazuma wrote:The police investigation has nothing to do with finding criminal liability.

It is about Russel Norman trying to keep this as a headlinef or as long as possible.

Fair dues. It is a waste of money but no more so than many other such stunts by politicians when they call for commissions for everything under the sun just so they can grandstand on an issue a little longer.
Unless of course it turns out that Mr Teflon himself gave them a nudge and told them to go ahead anyway because we really really would like a trade deal pretty please.
Even if this is 100% true, we will never find out about it.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Not as exciting as they made out on the radio
Dotcom spy review released

Prime Minister John Key was shown a picture of Kim Dotcom during a briefing he received from GCSB a month after the raid on the German internet tycoon's Coatesville home as an illustration of how the bureau cooperated with police.

Mr Key this morning released the results of a full review of GCSB files conducted by Director Ian Fletcher.

The review backed up Mr Key's statements that he had not been briefed by the GCSB on its role in the Dotcom matter, nor any issues of potential illegality, until Monday September 17.

However the review found that during a February 29 visit to the GCSB offices for a briefing on the broader capabilities of the bureau, and to meet the staff, Mr Key was shown an electronic slide presentation.

The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Mr Dotcom, the review found.

A paper prepared as talking points for the staff member conducting the presentation contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest "as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the Police'' the review noted.

The talking points paper was used by the staff member at the briefing, but neither that paper or a copy of the presentation was provided to the Prime Minister either at that time or subsequently.

There was no written record of that meeting kept.

In advising Mr Key of the talking points note and the electronic presentation, GCSB Director Ian Fletcher told the Prime Minister that he had no recollection of the Dotcom matter being raised at the meeting "but accepted the assurance of his staff that it was mentioned briefly, in the context of a much broader presentation''.

At no point was any reference made to questions about residency status, the review found.

A spokesman for Mr Key said the Prime Minister acknowledged the findings of the review and had made them public "at the earliest opportunity''.

"I have been clear from the outset that I received no briefing on the operation from GCSB prior to 17 September, and this review confirms that,'' Mr Key said in a statement.
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

You f**king idiot - the reason why I didn't include a quote box - was because I was struggling to us them with the new iPad - it's got a plastic screen cover - and often requires a lot of dicking around to quote - notice the other times this has happened - and I've used space as a definer .

I had another Wiki - quote a better one - but didn't post it - no realising you we're so fascinated - even hanging on every word I post.

You complete clown .

Sorry about missing your manfully demanded 10 min - deadline - but :lol:
Last edited by eugenius on Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

eugenius wrote:You f**king idiot - the reason why I didn't include a quote box - was because I'm struggling to us them with the new iPad - it's got a plastic screen cover - and often requires a lot of dicking around to quote - notice the other times this has happened - and I've used space as a definer .

I had another Wiki - quote a better one - but didn't post it - no realising you we're so fascinated - even hanging on every word I post.

You complete clown .


Don't talk bollocks
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

You f**king clown ... As if I write remotely in that style anyway !!!

Massive fail.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

eugenius wrote:You f**king clown ... As if I write remotely in that style anyway !!!

Massive fail.

Whatever Plagiarist
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

No one's buying mate ...
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

I fail to see how your excuses work Eug

Am I the only one to see through your thin venier

Taking the post as an example. It is sickening

The point is you nicked it

Piss poor really
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

And at the very least you know have a vague idea what social democracy means - if not a particularly well researched one .

Shall I post the other Wiki ?
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

No excuses required ...
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

eugenius wrote:And at the very least you know have a vague idea what social democracy means - if not a particularly well researched one .

Shall I post the other Wiki ?
Eug. You seem to be quite good at posting wikis

Is there any chance of actually saying your own opinion

An simple idea of what "you" think

Idiot. Proven
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

Inspite of you insisting again and again - that I don't ... I have in actual fact posted my opinion on many many occasions ....

The fact that I'm wary of throwing up something ill considered and ignorant about every subject - well put it down to the timdity of old age .

Let alone the fact that you had previously demanded a definition of Social Democracy - not just another f**king opinion.

Adolescence is such a curse sometimes isn't it ?

Chin up - it doesn't last forever ...
Last edited by eugenius on Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

I'm guessing the reason you don't post your real opinion because you don't have one?

Getting other peoples views is just sad

Bored with thinking about your own?

Now you actually saying your opinion would be a refreshing change
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

By Christ but you be thick ... :(
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

I'm guessing the reason you don't post your real opinion because you don't have one?

Getting other peoples views is just sad

Bored with thinking about your own?

Now you actually saying your opinion would be a refreshing change

It wasn't an opinion - but rather a rough historical definition .
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

You do know what that means - don't you ? :?
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

I'm only joking Eug

Chill out
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

Ohhhhhh joking ... :roll:
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

I've been telling you for the last three posts
eugenius

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by eugenius »

Riiiiiight - clever ...
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

eugenius wrote:Riiiiiight - clever ...

I have

Read the last three posts
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:
Ted. wrote:Are you suggesting that there is no chance of criminal deeds being unearthed?
Pretty much, yes. Anything deemed to be operational or harmful to national security is blocked.

For reasons that are justified

It requires a Ministerial signature to suppress the information, but there is still oversight.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

On a slightly different tangent:
New Zealand caught between tech superpowers

SIMON DAY
Last updated 05:00 10/10/2012

New Zealand is becoming caught between two world superpowers and their South Pacific aspirations, a leading security expert warns.

On one hand the government appears happy to heel to the call of American desires about the copyright concerns of Kim Dotcom, yet are prepared to accommodate Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications firm who has been flagged as a security risk and a copyright violator by the US.

Former intelligence consultant to the US Government, Paul Buchanan believes New Zealand is "straddling the emerging competition of Chinese and American diplomatic goals in the South Pacific."

"We are straddling the fence - a barbed wire fence - it's an uncomfortable position to be in."

The Pacific Rim is in the beginning phases of what is going to become much deeper strategic competition in the South Pacific, according to Buchanan.

Despite being a private company, Huawei is a projection of Chinese power in a communication industry the country has labelled a strategic priority, according to Buchanan.

"Huawei is staffed by Chinese intelligence services and the army and the lack of checks and balances on the Chinese regime has given rise to Western concerns that they serve as some form of front for Chinese intelligence."

Buchanan says New Zealand's choice to use Huawei communications will raise eyebrows with our intelligence partners, many who have flagged the Chinese firm for its security breaches.

"The entire security network that NZ is a part of have raised concerns," he said.

"We have chosen to ignore them. This is a dangerous place for such a small place."


If Huawei was to provide communications in New Zealand, this country could become a potential back door for cyber espionage in the international network, he said.

This could lead to New Zealand being excluded to international intelligence flows.

Buchanan says the latest concern emphasises New Zealand's growing appearance of amateurism in relation to security concerns.

"We have people in positions in the security apparatus who are a bit out of their depth when playing with the big boys."

"And you have one person who is clearly out of his depth," he said in reference to Prime Minister John Key.


New Zealand will eventually have to choose sides as the the ascending power of China overlaps the superpower of the US in the South Pacific, he said.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Amateur hour, eh! What an embarrassment these fawning clowns have turned out to be. These self serving twats who have inveigled their way in to our service, can't wait to suck on foreign big business and foreign governments in the hopes of ingratiating themselves to the detriment of New Zealand at large.
gros chien
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:38 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by gros chien »

Ted. wrote: Amateur hour, eh! What an embarrassment these fawning clowns have turned out to be. These self serving twats who have inveigled their way in to our service, can't wait to suck on foreign big business and foreign governments in the hopes of ingratiating themselves to the detriment of New Zealand at large.
oh, for the days of David Lange.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Yank in hating China getting bigger than them shocker
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17605
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

Do you think that is the point he is making and would it invalidate the subject re our amateur pollies and sleuths?
Post Reply