Comments on: Frog smells a rat

By: Sapient

Sapient — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:02:22 +0000

peter, the ‘i only date boys/girls who vote green’ stickers were produced by a group of five campus green groups, each of which payed for them with their own funds, each of which is an unregistered third party, not a part of the party body itself. and they as such do not require an authorisation line, although they have had since origionally printed an authorisation line, though it is the old cambridge street one.
Furthermore, right from the start the PDF files that were circulated to detirmine the content of the posters have had the authorisation line on them and the posters were printed with them, to the best of my knowledge there was not a pilot run from which these ‘blank’ ones could have come.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: peteremcc

peteremcc — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:03:56 +0000

Or Scenario D:

The greens printed off a load of posters and only found out afterwards that they needed to be authorised.

Recalled all the unauthorised posters and had new ones made, but missed these ones.

As Blair noted on his blog, the bottom of the posters line up with the bottom of the other posters, and the ratio of the height and width of the posters is consistent with standard paper sizes so it hasn’t been cut off at the bottom.

Its not like it wouldn’t be the first time it took the greens 6 months to realise they needed to authorise something… the green website, this blog, your big billboards, the ‘i only date x who vote green’ stickers (funny how they were authorised during re-orientation but not during orientation at the start of the year eh…)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: psycho_milt

psycho_milt — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:53:01 +0000

Er, yes, in retrospect I can’t think of a better use of my taxes than having a bunch of highly-paid civil servants investigating whether a couple of centimeters missing from the bottom of a poster is an offence or not. What a fool I’ve been!

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Mr Dennis

Mr Dennis — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:18:09 +0000

icehawk:
“Nor does this ruling mean that anyone can now get away with anything (as Mr Dennis claims) – one well-deserved ruling of “innocent�? does not mean that no-one can now be found guilty.”

No, but it shows that it can be done. Others may also feel it is worth the risk to try…

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: icehawk

icehawk — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:43:46 +0000

BP and The Optimist and psycho_milt and Mr Dennis:

What on earth are you talking about? You all suggest this is evidence that the law isn’t working.

But… this is a case where the law worked! Some prat tried to make it look like someone was offending when they weren’t, the appropriate process given in the law went into action and determined that there was no actual offending occuring! So this case doesn’t validate Farrar’s scaremongering at all: precisely the opposite.

Nor does this ruling mean that anyone can now get away with anything (as Mr Dennis claims) – one well-deserved ruling of “innocent” does not mean that no-one can now be found guilty.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: psycho_milt

psycho_milt — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:19:57 +0000

The whole thing seems like an excellent argument for not passing crap laws in the first place…

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Ari

Ari — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:42:40 +0000

BP- fact remains they weren’t the version as authorised by the Party, and there’s no good proof that they were knowingly displayed that way by the people who put up the posters. Generally we don’t hold people accountable for a crime unless there’s proof that they were actually responsible in some sense, and I don’t see how this is different.

Frankly, the implementation of the law has actually been very smooth compared to my expectations.

The Optimist- I don’t see anyone who seems to be supporting either this law or the Party in this post saying that the EFA is bad or inconvenient. As for why the Party didn’t vote against it- because although it doesn’t go far enough in some senses, uses an incredibly brute-force approach, requires a large amount of effort for parties to comply with, and favours Labour over National, the reforms were necessary for an open, fair, and accountable electoral process.

Phil- Those sorts of personal attacks are petty and unnecessary. Why bother with how he looks when what he says is distasteful enough already?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: phil u

phil u — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:13:57 +0000

mullholland is an act candidate..so obviously has ‘issues’..

(didyaknow his nickname is gimlet-eyes..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Patrick Starr

Patrick Starr — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:13:15 +0000

Or, maybe the Greens used environmentally friendly ink that simple washed off in the first rain fall?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: The Optimist

The Optimist — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:38:32 +0000

The problem may be with the law rather than the action. I know you guys probably don’t have a lot of time for David Farar, but he spent megabytes talking about exactly these sorts of problems with the law.

I can see why it would rankle that Mr Mulholland would choose the language he did, and that 3 news would broadcast it. However, I’ve seen enough of the comments on here about Act to know that there is no love lost between the two parties. Why get upset to find that the disrespect is mutual?

While your explanation sounds highly plausible to me, I think your hinted-at conspiracy theory is a bit much.

If it’s such a bad and inconvenient law, why didn’t the greens vote against it? Perhaps a clear statement that you want it repealed would be a smart move.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: big bro

big bro — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:33:34 +0000

You know who it was who did this don’t you…..

Thats right, those nasty and evil Exclusive Brethren

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: BluePeter

BluePeter — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:59:48 +0000

>>Provided no-one finds out who did it, the party is NOT AT FAULT.

More humour brought to you by the increasingly ludicrous EFA…..

Who voted for it again? Who told us *we* were wrong at the march on parliament?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Edge

Edge — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:53:49 +0000

Might I suggest a defamation proceeding, frog, or if Mr Field isn’t litigiously-inclined, a broadcasting standards complaint.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Mr Dennis

Mr Dennis — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:56:31 +0000

I have no idea who is guilty in this instance, and don’t really care. But whoever is at fault, the outcome has serious consequences.

Now, based on this judicial ruling, anyone can put up posters for any party without an authorisation statement (or, technically, do any advertising without an authorisation statement). Provided no-one finds out who did it, the party is NOT AT FAULT.

So any party can spend as much as they like on their campaigning, provided they don’t authorise it and claim no knowledge…

Doesn’t this ruling completely undermine the entire purpose of the law in the first place?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: BluePeter

BluePeter — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:43:22 +0000

But both posters appear to be cut off at the exact same level?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: greenfly

greenfly — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:36:59 +0000

Mulholland was being deceitful, barefaced. He didn’t chance upon those posters, did he.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: BluePeter

BluePeter — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:45:10 +0000

Hmmm…very hard to tell from that photo, but the poster next to it appears to cut off at the exact same point. Is that the bottom of the wall to which the poster is glued?

If so, then is it possible that whoever hung the poster may have cut off the excess as the poster was too big for the board?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: BluePeter

BluePeter — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:53:01 +0000

You guys voted for this law.

It was blindingly obvious people were going to run such interference campaigns. Kiwiblog was discussing this very probability, but was ignored.

Whatever next. I’m guessing people will run entire campaigns seemingly in support of party X, but actually run by supporters of party Y.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)