Said news being that the law requiring cabinet ministers to respect people's privacy is apparently a matter of opinion.
This means that under the next Labour govt, anyone wanting to bleat about tax rates can expect to have their last few years' tax returns made public, "in order to provide ... information relevant to the public debate." Should be a laff riot.
Must be a prick for Judith Collins though - next time she gets up in front of ACC staff to tell them the importance of respecting their clients' privacy, who among those present will be able to restrain themselves from laughing in her face?
Repeal Prohibition, Again!
55 minutes ago
13 comments:
Of course it's a matter of opinion. All law is a matter of opinion until a particular case is taken to court and then it is subject to various levels of appeal.
In this particular case, the court of public opinion is well and truly on the side of the Minister. The lying bitch who complained was rorting a fortune off the tax payer.
"All law is a matter of opinion..."
Retarded much?
And no doubt the public won't have much sympathy for the tax dodgers who get their returns released under Labour - but I doubt right-wingers will be so chuffed about Ministers ignoring their legal obligation to protect people's privacy when that happens.
If tax dodgers bleat about high taxes then sure I have no problem with their tax returns being made public. This is about not giving a bullshit one sided story where relevant information is not disclosed that would demonstrate how bullshit the story is. You go public and only spin half the story then you should expect to cop it from your target who can give their side. Audi alterAm partem.
Sludge, everybody knows you are retarded but you didn't really have to confess publicly, on this blog, on this thread.
They have special places for people like you. Where you can carve clothes pegs out of timber scraps.
You oughta know. After all you're Adolt.
Palin going to be elected president this year, like you so confidently predicted?
Paula Bennett only revealed Natasha Fuller's details after Natasha Fuller made false statements about her benefits. If Natasha Fuller had not lied [technical term: means "deliberately made an untrue statement with the intention to deceive"] then she wouldn't have been exposed as a liar.
Apparently, such things are a matter of opinion. For example, an independent body charged with reaching decisions on such things might declare Natasha Fuller lied about the benefits she was receiving, but Fuller might write a letter back saying she didn't accept the finding. According to Paula Bennett, that settles it.
But Fuller did accept it so what's your point?
Sorry but I also missed your point psycho melt?
Well, some people do have a problem understanding abstract concepts. Here's the simple version:
1. Let go the matter of whether Fuller did actually lie or not, and assume GK is correct.
2. According to Paula Bennett, her breaching the Privacy Act didn't happen if she refuses to accept it happened.
3. By the same logic, Fuller's lie didn't happen if she refuses to accept it happened.
4. The point: you can't have it both ways.
And since we're simplifying things, a few further points:
1. The Privacy Act applies to a Minister regardless of our opinion on the merits of breaching a particular individual's privacy.
2. Judith Collins' declarations about a "zero tolerance" approach to breaches of privacy have just been made a laughing stock. Good result?
3. Before applauding Bennett for setting this precedent, consider the fact that sooner or later the left will be in power again. You might not find their uses of it so praiseworthy.
If the left use it to respond to someone who is only telling part of the story I have absolutely no problem whatsoever. If you are being dishonest that you need to be found out.
See above: the Privacy Act applies regardless of whether we personally think it should or not. Whether you mind someone breaking the law or not isn't relevant.
Post a Comment