Unfortunately, the egg is meeting our face. We received an e-mail on Monday from Green Party Communications Director Andrew Campbell assuring us that it was not the Greens who were employing people on a top-secret campaign. We accepted Andrew's word, and amended the post accordingly; our informant got it wrong, and has been given the cyber version of an uppercut!
We're not perfect, and sometimes we make mistakes. When we do, we take ownership of them, and this is one of those times. We apologise unreservedly to the Green Party for any embarrassment caused to them.
In the meantime Cameron Slater has been asking questions, because he too ran the story from our informant. After all, with all that confidentiality and intrigue, it had to be something interesting, right? And he's made an interesting discovery, which we'll leave for him to explain. This will doubtless interest the Green Party, so there might be a silver lining for them after all; such are the ironies of the blogosphere!
28 comments:
Nah mate,
it matters not that the watermelons were not involved in this issue.
Who can blame anyone for thinking they were?
The modus operandi fits like a glove.
I would check your informant KS, me thinks you have been fitted up, now that fits the watermalon style.
No, I'm not going to shoot the messenger Lofty. I should have checked further, but didn't, so I'll own the mistake. Them's the breaks...
Classy response KS, I’m sure you’ll learn from your mistake.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the lefty trolls that hang around here could learn from your example?
Quite so Budgieboy, and thanks for your kind remarks; will do wonders for my shattered self esteem!
Wo it was Peter Dunne's mates after all?
That'll teach you to run the National Party Research Unit's lines without doing any homework.
Yes; it'll teach me to be more careful Snow Angel. But sorry; it wasn't a "hot tip" from the Nats Research Unit, or even from Peter Dunne. Sorry to disappoint you.
So apparently someone with absolutely no clue at all fed it to you and you ran with it? Is there anything anti-Green that you would fact check before cutting and pasting do you think?
"Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the lefty trolls that hang around here could learn from your example?"
Oh we have learned from Keeping Stock's example, budgieboy!
We've learned that he's wrong about the Greens and that his opinions about them can be disregarded as worthless from now on.
It's a salutory lesson to all his readers.
The thing about this is that he's been used by the National Party as a proxy, and they've made a fool of him by giving him a story without fact checking. No skin off their nose, but now IV2 has no credibility. What's he going to do about it? How about outing your source? Whoever it is thinks that you're expendable. Perhaps you can show them they can't humiliate you like this. Or perhaps they can...
At the risk of repeating myself Gaius, my source is from outside the National Party or its staff. I take full responsibility, and have apologised. I would have thought that that showed more integrity and credibility than pretending it didn't happen.
Good on ya for fessing up, Keeping Stock.
Your credibility on the Greens is shot though.
Big apology, big stuff up by you.
Never to be forgotten.
Just some random dude then? Why would you trust them?
And you couldn't pretend it didn't happen, as the facts emerged elsewhere.
Not "some random dude" Gaius; a social media contact with whom I have had a number of conversations over a couple of years. And of course I "couldn't pretend it didn't happen", which is why I have apologised and front-footed it.
@ Peter - it's a learning experience, but the next time I get a tip-off about the Greens doing something dodgy (and I'm sure that there will be a next time!), I will be checking and double-checking!
(and I'm sure that there will be a next time!)
Next time? There wasn't a 'this time'!
You haven't learned a thing!
"Ought the Auditor-General be taking a look at the relationship between Engage NZ and the Green Party. Absolutely."
Wolf! Wolf!
Wolf!!!!!!
"And of course I "couldn't pretend it didn't happen", which is why I have apologised and front-footed it."
Really? So if you were the only one who knew it was crap you wouldn't have come clean. That's integrity for you.
When you point a finger, Keeping Stock, three fingers will point back at you!
Listen to these righteous tossers......gloat, gloat, gloat.
What about spending that play (oh sorry I mean taxpayers money) to engage poor old students to gather signatures for a faux petition?
None of you watermelons are in any position of high moral ground.
Including you RG!
Apology accepted, KS. :-)
And I also appreciated Cameron Slater's comment:
"Initially I thought the Greens were involved but they categorically denied any involvement and if you look at their history they are pretty up-front about their activism."
One of the most interesting sidelines bsprout was that on Sunday, none of the Green Party sympathisers who commented here tried to deny what had been alleged! Given that the Greens had done this previously, it seemed like a fair cop.
Nice to see though that you are a more gracious apology accepter than some of those who have gfelt compelled to comment today!
Snow Angel, Peter Brown, Gaius, Shona E., Keiran O., and I agree as one.
You have been caught out at last, and we,ourselves, and I finally get gloating rights, well gloating lefts actually.
We are sooooo clean.
And lignite isn't. Yes, what about the lignite, eh? I see you don't mention the lignite.
The only good thing about the lignite is it's going to get rid of some dirty dairying. What about the dirty dairying , eh? No mention of that either.
"One of the most interesting sidelines bsprout was that on Sunday, none of the Green Party sympathisers who commented here tried to deny what had been alleged! Given that the Greens had done this previously, it seemed like a fair cop."
Perhaps people thought that a devout Christian wouldn't go around spreading blatant lies. Everyone's learned a lesson.
I felt compelled to comment today and don't think much of your apology and that's because I watched as you belittled those treehuggers why said to you over and over, what you are saying is wrong Keeping Stock, yet you kept up your false accusations without considering their views, as is your way so giving you credit for owning up to your stupid fingetpointing? I don't think that's good enough and I know you'll be back into it as soon as you are able to dredge up some other crumb of what you believe to scandal. Your self tripping up was funny to watch. How about you pull your head in now and stick to the facts, not your whipped up fiction. It's funny too, how your supporters loved your position on the Green Scandal. Wonder how they feel now. Chumps!
And then there's this charming discussion from your great supporter and fellow Green-basher, Pete George:
"Pete George said...
Edward, this looks like stink politics. Greens used to have pride in their political ethics. Now they are gaming the system with the worst of them.
Or do you think that buying petition signatures - with taxpayer money - is democratic?
http://yournz.org/2012/09/02/money-offered-for-asset-petition-signatures/
September 2, 2012 8:05 AM
Keeping Stock said...
Dead right Pete; perception is everything, and the perception here is that the Greens not only have their snouts in the public trough, but also that they have gone to some lengths to hide their involvement.
Still, Edward doesn't see a problem with it, so it must all be ok.""
Dead right, Pete!
How about an apology from that blogger as well? Ele Luudman apologised for her foolish involvement - has Pete George any honour at all?
Whether Pete George apologises or not is entirely his business.
"One of the most interesting sidelines bsprout was that on Sunday, none of the Green Party sympathisers who commented here tried to deny what had been alleged! Given that the Greens had done this previously, it seemed like a fair cop."
It is just part of the Green Honesty thing, it seemed such a bizarre claim, however even if it didn't sound right how can you categorically deny something hasn't happened if you haven't had the ability to to confirm that. Also the Green's do employ outside people to do work, like BERL to run through the Asset sale figures or an advertising agency at election time. I actually had difficulty working out what you were accusing us of.
I guess there will always be disagreement about how parties spend money but I do know that the Greens are pretty tight with spending and there is generally pretty careful analysis around what is spent. Ethical considerations are always important too, as your party knows full well if you do something even slightly dodgy it generally gets found out. ;-)
I think it's fair to say that ALL parties know that bsprout. That's probably something we could agree on. However the spotlight will always be shining brighter on whoever governs.
As it should be if you hold the purse strings, which is why I get frustrated when the Government often refuses to provide evidence to justify spending or ignores advice from appointed advisorseratesMi. :-(
Post a Comment