-
he reckons he has more recordings to release, so have to assume he has handed all the 'evidence' to the police, and if anything is illegal then he wont be allowed to release them.
Isnt there a privacy issue here, he has recorded Bridges without his knowledge, sure if the information obtained is illegal it is not such an issue, but if not illegal then he could be in trouble there as well as Paula claiming he may have filed electoral stuff wrong
-
This has been a crazy couple of days. Some great potential memes though
Really? Is this the best they can do?
Penny for Jude's thoughts .....
I almost expect her to do this next (and before anyone gets triggered I like Crusher, shes's a big step up from these retards)
-
Just listened to it. My HUGE question is....
Is that it? -
@chris-b said in NZ Politics:
@paekakboyz Haven't heard anything that seems to be breaking the law in that conversation by Bridges. He's pretty vague and non-committal about Ross outlining the options for receiving the money. At best I'd say there's something of a vague implication that Simon's wondering whether he can somehow get the money into a slush fund.
Mainly they come across as a pair of c*nts, which won't play well with a few of their MPs - and the Indian community among others!
Interesting to see though if National declared the $100k, or did it slip someones mind and they shift the blame onto some low ranking member of the party
-
@virgil Yeah - that's sort of where my thinking has got to.
Where has the $100K ended up? If it's in the central party account - or even if it's still in the Botany account - probably no problema.
But, if it's gone somewhere else, it's a bit sticky for Soimon.
Has that been clarified yet?
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
Isnt there a privacy issue here, he has recorded Bridges without his knowledge, sure if the information obtained is illegal it is not such an issue, but if not illegal then he could be in trouble there
He's OK so far, because he's a party to the conversation - and you don't have to tell the other person/people you're recording that they're being recorded.
Todd Barclay's problem was recording people when he wasn't a party to the conversation. Not allowed to do that.
-
@chris-b are you sure?
Pretty sure thats why when you call some of these corporates they tell you at the beginning of the call that they will be recording and why (usually training and auditing purposes) they will be recording.
-
@taniwharugby Pretty sure - but, I'm not a lawyer, so don't get your tape recorder out on my say-so!
See below, though...
"Under New Zealand law it's not illegal to record a conversation as long as one party in the conversation knows it's being recorded."
-
@chris-b guess the use of the recording is key too.
Point 2 of the Privacy Principles says to get it direct from teh person, so I guess he has that covered, but the next couple are where it gets cloudy - be open about what is to be done with it and how you obtain it.
One of the other principles is that if Simon wished to hear the recordings, he has to be given copies, which is tough I guess when you dont know there are any...
If he has more, he best just bloody release them cos if they are as rubbish as the first, he should be charged with wasting police time.
-
@taniwharugby No idea there were such privacy principles, but...
Organisations that aren't covered by the Privacy Act include:
Members of Parliament, when they are acting as MPs. It's up to Parliament or political parties to discipline MPs for breaches of privacy
Be pretty hard to nail JL on this basis.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
unless there is part of the conversation not released if it is to be investigated and part of a criminal proceeding?
If not, not sure WTF he thought he had in what I heard.
I was thinking that too, I already thought the soy boy was a dick so nothings changed there .
-
@jegga said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
unless there is part of the conversation not released if it is to be investigated and part of a criminal proceeding?
If not, not sure WTF he thought he had in what I heard.
I was thinking that too, I already thought the soy boy was a dick so nothings changed there .
I think Jami's objective is to humiliate Simon. He must realise he is falling into the abyss and wants company
-
He’s right about Maureen Pugh in one regard though
-
@jegga said in NZ Politics:
He’s right about Maureen Pugh in one regard though
I can't fault his assessment
-
@mokey said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby So again, in the words of Crusher, 'put up or shut up'. Either state specifically what he did, with some corroboration, or say nothing. Vague smear attempts in an attempt to pull a look! Squirrel! are pathetic and shitty. The leak facts are all that is necessary here.
I saw a junkie do a literal “look! Squirrel!” on Monday.
Was strangely satisfied by that, and also by your use of it as a term to confirm it's an actual thing... as I still do it every time I see one, despite living among the things for 10 years. -
@jegga said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
unless there is part of the conversation not released if it is to be investigated and part of a criminal proceeding?
If not, not sure WTF he thought he had in what I heard.
I was thinking that too, I already thought the soy boy was a dick so nothings changed there .
All the tapes show is that he talks shit about people when he is in private, like most of us. Perhaps he should double down and go full Trump?
NZ Politics