National's Budget leak documents 2019

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › National's Budget leak documents 2019

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2248476 30-May-2019 13:44

sir1963:

As they say "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"

All you have done is prove even more so that he understood embargoes , confidential information, accessing information you are not entitled to, etc etc etc.

There is no weird fixation, nor am I a party shill, he has by his own actions demonstrated he has low moral and ethical standards.

Whatever you say.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2248477 30-May-2019 13:44

GV27:

sir1963:

Oh, because you said "But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this."

That seems to be a very authoritative assertion and I was wondering on what basis you could make such a statement.

My point was there's nothing in that article to back that up. Their headline makes that suggestion.

So you DON'T know if the "ignored advice" was right or wrong, nor do you know if he was given any advice at all. I would suggest then that the reporter did know and wrote accordingly.

I think your "point" was that you are a National Supporter and you are (poorly) defending your leader with fake news.

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2248482 30-May-2019 13:53

sir1963:

So you DON'T know if the "ignored advice" was right or wrong, nor do you know if he was given any advice at all. I would suggest then that the reporter did know and wrote accordingly.

Then they should have said that.

Sorry for thinking for myself about what I read and not just trying to win the contest for 'Angriest Dude on the Internet' at the drop of a hat.

I think you'll find TD and I disagree on many things but manage to actually have a discussion. You don't seem capable of that.

PS: I'm not a National supporter. I just don't believe you win arguments by making baseless accusations and being the loudest person in the room.

I'm not going to engage on this with you because I get the feeling it's a waste of time for both of us.

gzt

18714 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7854

Lifetime subscriber

#2248505 30-May-2019 14:31

Imo thanks to Simon Bridges - there is unprecedented interest in The Budget this year.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2248533 30-May-2019 15:24

GV27:

sir1963:

So you DON'T know if the "ignored advice" was right or wrong, nor do you know if he was given any advice at all. I would suggest then that the reporter did know and wrote accordingly.

Then they should have said that.

Sorry for thinking for myself about what I read and not just trying to win the contest for 'Angriest Dude on the Internet' at the drop of a hat.

I think you'll find TD and I disagree on many things but manage to actually have a discussion. You don't seem capable of that.

PS: I'm not a National supporter. I just don't believe you win arguments by making baseless accusations and being the loudest person in the room.

I'm not going to engage on this with you because I get the feeling it's a waste of time for both of us.

Funny, I see you as the political equivalent of an antivaxxer.

"I just don't believe you win arguments by making baseless accusations" says the man who made up fact about Bridges not getting advice, you had no information or first hand knowledge to make any such baseless assertion one way or the other , and there is zero evidence that the reporter made up anything, again if you have accurate knowledge to support this please present it , so there was no need for "Then they should have said that. " because that clearly intimates what they said was inaccurate, but you have no knowledge one way or the other again.

I will admit I have assumed the reporter has some integrity and has reported what they know accurately, and I have no reason to doubt that so far.

I have been accidentally sent some highly confidential material that I should not have, know what I did, I contacted the person who sent it and securely deleted it from my computer. I did NOT open it, nor read any part of it. Know why, because it was the right thing to do. I also give incorrect change back, hand in found items to the police and so on. Its on my experiences that I am judging Simon, and for someone running the country I find his morals and ethics severely lacking.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2248534 30-May-2019 15:24

gzt: Imo thanks to Simon Bridges - there is unprecedented interest in The Budget this year.

On that we can agree.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2248535 30-May-2019 15:25

gzt: Imo thanks to Simon Bridges - there is unprecedented interest in The Budget this year.

Yup for the first time in my life ever I actually watched the whole thing.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2248537 30-May-2019 15:38

sir1963:

"I just don't believe you win arguments by making baseless accusations" says the man who made up fact about Bridges not getting advice, you had no information or first hand knowledge to make any such baseless assertion one way or the other , and there is zero evidence that the reporter made up anything, again if you have accurate knowledge to support this please present it , so there was no need for "Then they should have said that. " because that clearly intimates what they said was inaccurate, but you have no knowledge one way or the other again.

I didn't say they 'made it up'. You are putting words in my mouth and then you have the balls to accuse me of making things up? Unreal.

I said what the headline was implying and what the article said are very different things. Others are running with the headline assertion.

It would not be the first time a headline sensationalised something that an article didn't back up. Heard of click-bait?

But sure, I'm a political anti-vaxxer or whatever other lazy equivalent you want to label me because you're incapable of reading the point I'm actually making.

And you seem to have appointed yourself arbiter of fact despite you having no more information than I am and apparently an inability to read.

Gotta love it. I'm out.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2248544 30-May-2019 15:53

GV27:

sir1963:

"I just don't believe you win arguments by making baseless accusations" says the man who made up fact about Bridges not getting advice, you had no information or first hand knowledge to make any such baseless assertion one way or the other , and there is zero evidence that the reporter made up anything, again if you have accurate knowledge to support this please present it , so there was no need for "Then they should have said that. " because that clearly intimates what they said was inaccurate, but you have no knowledge one way or the other again.

I didn't say they 'made it up'. You are putting words in my mouth and then you have the balls to accuse me of making things up? Unreal.

I said what the headline was implying and what the article said are very different things. Others are running with the headline assertion.

It would not be the first time a headline sensationalised something that an article didn't back up. Heard of click-bait?

But sure, I'm a political anti-vaxxer or whatever other lazy equivalent you want to label me because you're incapable of reading the point I'm actually making.

And you seem to have appointed yourself arbiter of fact despite you having no more information than I am and apparently an inability to read.

Gotta love it. I'm out.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/113111605/nationals-budget-leaks-go-against-security-agencys-advice-and-treasury-breach-was-unlawful-lawyers-say

The National Party went against the advice of a government agency by releasing sensitive Budget information accessed through a vulnerability in the Treasury's website.

and

But National's release of sensitive information two days out from the budget being delivered, goes against official recommendations. It was also still illegal, lawyers say.

and

If someone knew they did not have authority to access information on the internet but accessed it regardless, and continued to do that more than 2000 times, as Treasury claims, then that was against the law, he said.

"The circumstances of it are highly suspicious in terms of criminal activity," Geiringer said.

"If you're doing something you know you're not allowed to do then it doesn't matter how easy it is to do, it's against the law.""

It says it in the article multiple times National went against advice.

I will assume that Simon being a lawyer also understands the law.

I will assume that Simon also understand the protocols around budgets and their release and information pertaining to the budget.

And I am assuming the reporter "John Anthony" is reporting things accurately.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248551 30-May-2019 16:25

sir1963:

GV27:

sir1963:

Oh, because you said "But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this."

That seems to be a very authoritative assertion and I was wondering on what basis you could make such a statement.

My point was there's nothing in that article to back that up. Their headline makes that suggestion.

So you DON'T know if the "ignored advice" was right or wrong, nor do you know if he was given any advice at all. I would suggest then that the reporter did know and wrote accordingly.

I think your "point" was that you are a National Supporter and you are (poorly) defending your leader with fake news.

I think you need to chill out. The headline inferred he got told advice, the article inferred that he didn't get told verbally the other day but thats its a general advice to the lawmakers.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2248553 30-May-2019 16:28

tdgeek:

sir1963:

GV27:

sir1963:

Oh, because you said "But the 'ignored advice' angle is wrong because Bridges was not given advice that relates to this."

That seems to be a very authoritative assertion and I was wondering on what basis you could make such a statement.

My point was there's nothing in that article to back that up. Their headline makes that suggestion.

So you DON'T know if the "ignored advice" was right or wrong, nor do you know if he was given any advice at all. I would suggest then that the reporter did know and wrote accordingly.

I think your "point" was that you are a National Supporter and you are (poorly) defending your leader with fake news.

I think you need to chill out. The headline inferred he got told advice, the article inferred that he didn't get told verbally the other day but thats its a general advice to the lawmakers.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/113111605/nationals-budget-leaks-go-against-security-agencys-advice-and-treasury-breach-was-unlawful-lawyers-say

The headline, and twice in the article said he was given advice.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Bluntj

585 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#2248702 30-May-2019 19:28

sir1963:

GV27:

sir1963:

So you DON'T know if the "ignored advice" was right or wrong, nor do you know if he was given any advice at all. I would suggest then that the reporter did know and wrote accordingly.

Then they should have said that.

Sorry for thinking for myself about what I read and not just trying to win the contest for 'Angriest Dude on the Internet' at the drop of a hat.

I think you'll find TD and I disagree on many things but manage to actually have a discussion. You don't seem capable of that.

PS: I'm not a National supporter. I just don't believe you win arguments by making baseless accusations and being the loudest person in the room.

I'm not going to engage on this with you because I get the feeling it's a waste of time for both of us.

Funny, I see you as the political equivalent of an antivaxxer.

"I just don't believe you win arguments by making baseless accusations" says the man who made up fact about Bridges not getting advice, you had no information or first hand knowledge to make any such baseless assertion one way or the other , and there is zero evidence that the reporter made up anything, again if you have accurate knowledge to support this please present it , so there was no need for "Then they should have said that. " because that clearly intimates what they said was inaccurate, but you have no knowledge one way or the other again.

I will admit I have assumed the reporter has some integrity and has reported what they know accurately, and I have no reason to doubt that so far.

I have been accidentally sent some highly confidential material that I should not have, know what I did, I contacted the person who sent it and securely deleted it from my computer. I did NOT open it, nor read any part of it. Know why, because it was the right thing to do. I also give incorrect change back, hand in found items to the police and so on. Its on my experiences that I am judging Simon, and for someone running the country I find his morals and ethics severely lacking.

I believe your posts are beginning to verge on personal attacks which is against the rules here. Your posts are beginning to say more about you than than what you are attempting to say.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2248738 30-May-2019 20:59

Personally, I think the sooner Bridges disappears from the political scene, the better. He's petty, lacking in ideas, and comes across as a fool with a permanent toothache. His behaviour throughout this saga has been petty, childish and unbecoming of an imbecile, let along a supposedly intelligent "Leader" of the Opposition. The head of the Treasury should be summarily dismissed for misleading the public and breaching the state sector Code of Conduct for so obviously joining the fray in a manner that showed zero regard for facts and evidence. Grant Robertson also should resign for shamelessly insinuating that there was a criminal act when there was no evidence whatsoever. It's not good enough to say that he took the word of Treasury for it. As the accountable Minister, he had to verify the information for himself before he went out making strong accusations of highly unethical (at best) conduct or, at worst, conduct that was criminal in nature.

Bridges' conduct was petty and pathetic but there's no grounds to claim that he did anything highly unethical. Most of the materials viewable were only summaries/high-level stuff according to what I heard on RNZ this morning and his intention/behaviour throughout was just point scoring. It might be lame but it's not of the terrible, immoral nature that Robertson insinuated.

gzt

18714 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7854

Lifetime subscriber

#2249103 31-May-2019 13:45

dejadeadnz: Grant Robertson also should resign for shamelessly insinuating that there was a criminal act when there was no evidence whatsoever.

Personally I missed that part. I saw Robertson saying Treasury had referred an issue to the police. I have probably missed something here but it seemed appropriate to me at the time and the issue of National obtaining budget documents did not necessarily seem related to me.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11