Wednesday, July 29, 2009

When Will They Ever Learn?

Labour, that is.

Now their mastermind Charles Chauvel is to launch a complaint against Bruiser Bennett for breach of privacy.

Bravo. He will gain many many more votes for National in 2011. Labour really really don't seem to get 'reality.' But Granny Herald does. Their faceless editorialist gives Chauvel no chance of success.

You see, according to the privacy Commissioner, the test for implied consent is 'relevance.'

Here's what the Herald has to say about that.

"The crux of this issue is whether the information now released by Ms Bennett is relevant to their case, or merely an attempt to intimidate, as critics say. The two women claim genuine financial hardship is thwarting their prospects of escaping the benefit and building a career. The total amount they receive from the state must, therefore, be relevant."

Having shot themselves in the foot by bringing their two hapless friends' details to the house, Labour now proceeds to induce gangrene in the wounds by prolonging the media attention on this latest self induced fiasco. Funnily enough Old Yeller seems to have taken it upon herself to champion this particular cause, publicly allying herself with Smacker Bradford, arguably the biggest political villain in the mind of the public.

Crosby Textor could not have written a more successful script.


Psycho Milt said...

Bennett continues digging, producing this unintended hilarity:

Bennett ...said she authorised the release of the information because the women had been "selective" in what they had done. "It was important in the nature of fairness that people see the full story."


Bennett said she ... would not release information on her income as a beneficiary.

Really, it just doesn't come any richer than this...

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Bugger off Milt. Paula Bennett has not gone public complaining she is hard up because the evil gummint has cut out a benefit because that benefit has been replaced with an alternative, name interest free student loans.

If that's 'a bit rich' then you are a street beggar.

Redbaiter said...

This is typical Marxist bullshit and the so called right always fall for it. Sprung in a lie and deceit, the left come back with a counter allegation designed to draw attention away from their original mistake.

This is only a strategy. Sue Bradford doesn't care whether the government protects your privacy or not.

This stinking lying cowardly bitch went to Communist China to study, and came back, after living under the regime of the Generals who a few years later murdered thousands in Tienamin Square, saying what a wonderful expereince it was.

Never said a word about the suppression of democracy and rights. She loved living in a police state, and when she had the chance to criticise it, she instead sung its praises. A stinking odious hypocrite.

She won't come clean and tell you who she is. Sitting on her fat arse in parliament claiming to be a "Green" party member when she's redder than any damn watermelon has ever been.

She is liar who won't ever tell the voters what she really wants because she knows if she did that, she would never get elected.

She sits in parliament slowly seeping her poison into the sysytem while she pretends to be something she is not. And then this stinking lying deceitful charlatan has the damn gall to pretend to care about the principles here. What a farce.

That National give any degree of credibility to this bitch and her little poodle mate Chauvel is a measure of how fucken ineffective they are.

If they had been doing their damn job, and articulating a real counter argument to socialism, our parliament and the people of NZ would not ever have had to suffer the deceit of these charlatans frauds liars and fakes.

Anonymous said...

Well said Redbaiter. Nothing to add to your observation.

Mrs Danvers

KG said...

Yup, exactly Redbaiter. The Nats would be outing the backgrounds of these traitorous little assholes if they were serious--and if they didn't have their own dirty laundry to keep hidden.


Did anyone see Trevor Mallard's blog yesterday?
He constantly referred to Crosby Textor.
Your comment Adolf will get the lefties all excited.
Clevor Trevor will be having kittens.
He will have visions of you having the copy dictated to from Sydney.
But yes, the more we hear about this yarn, the more it will annoy people.
We see here two ungrateful greedy bitches.
I would love to earn $715 a week net of tax right now.
But I expect to be back there soon.

Psycho Milt said...

We see here two ungrateful greedy bitches.

I'm going to store that one up for when the next Labour govt is ransacking its ministries for personal info on people who speak up against its policies. It'll be dangerous, because the weight of the irony involved could prove fatal, but really it'll be a public service.

Orange said...

People are missing the point here. Whether we like the Privacy Act or not, all New Zealanders, including Ministers of the Crown, have to abide by it. Paula Bennett has breached the Act by releasing information for a purpose for which it was not intended which is a gross abuse of power.
There is a breach of IPP 11.

Principle 11 Limits on disclosure of personal information
An agency that holds personal information shall not disclose the information to a person or body or agency unless the agency believes, on reasonable grounds,—

(a) That the disclosure of the information is one of the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained or is directly related to the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained; or

(b) That the source of the information is a publicly available publication; or

(c) That the disclosure is to the individual concerned; or

(d) That the disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned; or

(e) That non-compliance is necessary—

(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or

(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or

(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or

(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or

Principle 11 paragraph (e)(iv) was amended, as from 3 September 1996, by section 3 Privacy Amendment Act 1996 (1996 No 142) by substituting the word “tribunal” for the word “Tribunal”.

(f) That the disclosure of the information is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to—

(i) Public health or public safety; or

(ii) The life or health of the individual concerned or another individual; or

(g) That the disclosure of the information is necessary to facilitate the sale or other disposition of a business as a going concern; or

(h) That the information—

(i) Is to be used in a form in which the individual concerned is not identified; or

(ii) Is to be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned; or

(i) That the disclosure of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54 of this Act.

Ms Bennett fails on all counts.

WAKE UP said...

Actually, I'm not sure from the reportage, or the commentary here, whether Bennett OR the two women are in breach of anything. More importantly, I don't care.

What I do care is that no-one said straight up, right at the beginning, that these taxpayer-supported whining gimme people have No Sense Of Reality, which remains the hallmark legacy of the Labour government, and was the very reason it was firmly booted out - so I'm saying it here.

Now, please SHUT UP.

Anonymous said...

Orange you loser:

(a) That the disclosure of the information is one of the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained or is directly related to the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained; or

Paula wins!! now fuck off you lefty

mawm said...

Who cares whether or not Paula breached their privacy (although they exposed themselves), this has been illuminating as to how much the ordinary citizens of New Zealand resent the bludgers living off the public teat.

Go National, you have our support, it is time to reform the welfare system.

Sus said...

"Go National, you have our support, it is time to reform the welfare system."

Good luck, mawm. My bet is that John Key will reform nothing.

He'll barely tinker.