|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Ghostlight posted:I hope his $1mil+ parachute is enough to cushion him from the personal costs of being directly responsible for multiple people leaving their long-standing jobs. How do you even quantify the loss of nightline?
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
bring back ali ikram and his news rap roundups imho
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/303009/mediaworks-ceo-mark-weldon-resigns Embedded in the article: everyone hates Mark Weldon, apart from Rachel Glucina, who refers to him as "inspiring".
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
His outgoing legacy: a 24 hr reality tv channel whose founding principle was "Housewives watch that poo poo I guess". God speed you, poo poo emperor.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Apparently there will be six different versions of Real Housewives in the new channel lineup. Unreal.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
truther posted:Apparently there will be six different versions of Real Housewives in the new channel lineup. Kill all humans.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:And he's gone: Mark Weldon resigns as MediaWorks chief executive Does this mean Sam Hayes isn't gonna push us down the stairs?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:Kill all housewives.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Back to your regularly scheduled Politics talk, Key's Lawyer is causing him problems: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79453991/john-keys-lawyer-linked-to-sham-trust-involved-in-failed-auckland-property-development
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:Back to your regularly scheduled Politics talk, Key's Lawyer is causing him problems: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79453991/john-keys-lawyer-linked-to-sham-trust-involved-in-failed-auckland-property-development I like this bit from the Herald article. quote:When asked during cross-examination if he had concerns around setting up structures to allow a bankrupt to continue in business, Mr Whitney told the court: "No, not particularly. It's a common thing for people to do. It may not be morally as white as it could be but it's normal practice."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Good to see National's standards for ethics are the same as their ones for fresh water.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
And prison
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
This is the first time I've seen 'National', 'Standard' and 'Ethics' together in one sentence.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:Back to your regularly scheduled Politics talk, Key's Lawyer is causing him problems: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79453991/john-keys-lawyer-linked-to-sham-trust-involved-in-failed-auckland-property-development This is getting H-Fee levels of wtf. Imagine if every MP was accountable for the work that finance or legal professionals that work for them did for their other clients. Are all MPs with an investments/Kiwisaver with Milford now under the spotlight because of the poo poo that went on there that they actually had nothing to do with?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Key's lawyer's ethics is only an issue because Key used him as a get-of-free-jail card for the Panama Papers then refused to put the card on the bottom of the Community Chest on the basis that it was actually a really good card.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:This is getting H-Fee levels of wtf. Imagine if every MP was accountable for the work that finance or legal professionals that work for them did for their other clients. Are all MPs with an investments/Kiwisaver with Milford now under the spotlight because of the poo poo that went on there that they actually had nothing to do with? If it comes to light that your lawyer is basically a criminal and you stick with them then yes, it's damning, particularly if you're the PM. And yes I also expect MPs invested in Milford to drop their shares too if they can. It's important to hold politicians to high moral standards, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/29/turnbull-rejects-new-zealand-offer-to-take-150-refugees-from-detention What the flying gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/29/turnbull-rejects-new-zealand-offer-to-take-150-refugees-from-detention If they come here they could go to Australia in a few years as NZ citizens.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Given what Australia did to them, why would they want to?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
It's hard to justifiably blow up their parliament from here.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Where's puchu, surely this is where he comes in and tells us we just don't understand ratings and that Weldon hasn't done anything wrong, he's just responding to ratings?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Given what Australia did to them, why would they want to? They might have family there I guess, which makes it a somewhat valid argument if you're a backwards racist xenophobe
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
fong posted:Where's puchu, surely this is where he comes in and tells us we just don't understand ratings and that Weldon hasn't done anything wrong, he's just responding to ratings? Puchu just lost his job, and all his underlings are celebrating. Probably doesn't feel like posting tbh
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
TV3 used to market itself on great journalism
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
 친애하는 지도자
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
fong posted:If it comes to light that your lawyer is basically a criminal and you stick with them then yes, it's damning, particularly if you're the PM. And yes I also expect MPs invested in Milford to drop their shares too if they can. It's important to hold politicians to high moral standards, for obvious reasons. I'm not sure it works in reverse. I would have thought it's a bit unreasonable to expect MPs to be across their lawyer's entire client base and know what they're doing for each and every one of them - especially when they can't legally tell them even if they do ask. I think the real acid test will be if Key switches lawyers in four or five months (it will take time for him get soundings about who can manage his affairs and make sure they're squeaky clean. Then you'll know that something was up with the guy he deals with now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Key has been asked if he still has confidence in his lawyer and still thinks he acts in an ethical manner since this came to light. He replied and said that he did. Although I guess he would want to have a new one lined up before hinting the old one was about to go.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:
I don't even watch tv 3 or anything but holy loly this whole thing is hilarious. Some of the articles and editorials on the herald are great, just full take-downs and in-depth descriptions of some real corporate bullshit plus running Glucina's name through the mud again. Edit: It's also funny because most of the time the herald front page has me thinking 'don't care, don't care, no-one cares, what the gently caress?' as I scroll the front page. Today I actually clicked some links!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
The problem with Key's Lawyer is Key has said he "only works with people who are highly ethical" yet either a) he's throwing the lawyer under the bus to protect himself if the lawyer *didn't* misrepresent things or b) he has a lawyer who will play the "I spoke to the PM" card to get a quote unquote junior minister to do what he wants. Throw all of this into the mix of the Panama Papers and at the very least Key works with & trusts a lawyer who is pretty unethical and trying to manipulate the Government to make himself more money.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
You'd think Mike would have sprung for something better than Coronas and Peroni to celebrate Wheldon's departure.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:You'd think Mike would have sprung for something better than Coronas and Peroni to celebrate Wheldon's departure. Quantity over Quality?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:You'd think Mike would have sprung for something better than Coronas and Peroni to celebrate Wheldon's departure. They're of the age that consider that stuff Good Beer.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Key has been asked if he still has confidence in his lawyer and still thinks he acts in an ethical manner since this came to light. He replied and said that he did. According to NBR today Ken Whitney is no longer a lawyer. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/keys-lawyer-whitney-no-longer-lawyer-b-188627 (paywalled) quote:Key's lawyer, Whitney, no longer a practising lawyer
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
The proper legal term for an unemployed/legally qualified but not holding a practicing certificate 'lawyer' is an enrolled barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. Unless Mr Whitney has been struck off the roll that is what he would continue to be indefinitely. I am frustrated Mr Whitney is not opting to use this term as many people I know and myself who have been admitted were educated strongly to remember to not provide a misleading description and to actively distinguish ourselves from those with current practicing certificates. The entire point of insisting on a mouthy and ancient sounding 10 word title is to make it clear you are not currently paid-up to do the "real deal work" and not currently a "real lawyer". A foreigner would likely assume or believe that he has a practicing certificate but then again that isn't necessarily his issue. If you don't hold a practicing certificate then you aren't able to provide legal advice as it is legislatively defined and if he has been providing legal advice since February that is an issue. Jacobin fucked around with this message at 16:34 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
My homeless mate Dan was back in the Auckland CBD today  but I am glad he is okay 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Should've reported him to the cops so they can move him along out of sight as is good and proper.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Hah http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11636819 quote:The blogger who was infamously hacked and then exposed in Dirty Politics has himself admitted hiring someone to illegally access the computer files of opponents.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
How can you get diversion when he's already been convicted of crimes before? (Contempt of court over breaching name suppression, right?)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Oh yeah get a right wing weirdo to do work with and for children, that'll end well.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
You don't need a clean slate to get diversion. It's nice the lawyer said he shouldn't get name suppression because a hypothetical cooling of 'investors' is not "extreme hardship" and also, Your Honour, he's a hypocritical dick.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:52
|
|