An eclectic mix of some of the finer things in life - politics, sport, music, humour and God. Welcome!
Friday, October 12, 2012
Screenshot of the Day - 12 October 2012
Oh dear. Will Russel Norman be asking the Police to investigate this as well? If he does, the consequences might not be too flash for David Shearer, his chief press secretary, and one current and one former GCSB agent.
12 comments:
Mighty Kites
said...
So you like making up stories too? I guess it's become par for the course on the right
You wish it was a made-up story MK. By going public with information that was passed in in contravention to the GCSB Act, Shearer and Mold have become parties to the offending.
if I spread info from my work place, yes I also signed a confidentiality agreement, I would be gone by lunch-time .. is this not the case with our Spooks?
If the Police are investigating one offence by a staff member, and become aware of another treasonable activity by another then they would need to consider all breaches of the law they become aware of. They could not just isolate the offence reported by Norman.
So the spooks have just taken three days inspecting the hard drives for any official recordings of the “Cafeteria” conversation – now why would they have bothered to do that when they advised the PM at the time that there would not be any official recording of the address in the Cafeteria. Now that smells incredibly odd. Someone showing further economy with the truth …
This incident demonstrates once again how appalling the memories of certain right wing politicians are. Helicopter rides, birthday parties, fireworks displays, appeals for money, meetings with and briefings from spies. For goodness sake, the guy this is about is 6ft 8 and 200kgs, and no tory can ever remember anything about him. People with such poor powers of recall are really not fit for public office.
11: Prohibition on unauthorised disclosure of information
(1) A person who is or was an employee of the Bureau may not disclose or use any information gained by or conveyed to the person through the person’s connection with the Bureau except in the strict course of the person’s official duties or as authorised by the Minister.
(2) Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $2,000 who contravenes subsection (1).
To which I say ... nonsense. If an employee of the GCSB telling people "John Key gave a lunchtime talk to us at work and in the course of it mentioned Kim Dotcom's name" is a breach of this section, then telling people "at work today Bob wore a blue tie" also would be, as would telling people "we don't have plunger coffee at work, we have instant."
Because clearly the intent of this section isn't to prevent employees (current or former) from saying anything at all about their employment. Rather, it's intended to prevent such persons from talking about the secret stuff that they may come to learn through working at the Bureau, or that may prejudice the Bureau's ability to conduct its surveillance activities. Neither of which the disclosure that (1) the PM gave a talk to the staff at lunchtime, nor (2) in that talk he (allegedly) mentioned Kim Dotcom's name does. So while passing on information about what the Prime Minister (allegedly) said during lunch with them at the cafe may raise employment issues under the State Sector Act, it just isn't a criminal matter.
12 comments:
So you like making up stories too? I guess it's become par for the course on the right
You wish it was a made-up story MK. By going public with information that was passed in in contravention to the GCSB Act, Shearer and Mold have become parties to the offending.
For Red Russ to have any credibility & consistancy about him, he must demand an inquiry, no choice.
MK evidence of falsehood please.
I demand an inquiry on the leak from our super secret agency. If red Russ also demands it, I will be right behind him
By rights Wacky Russell should demand an inquiry into this one. Problem is, the "leaked" info would have to be true in order to prosecute someone.
The funniest thing? At this moment in time Shearer is sticking to his story and claiming he isn't leaking anything secret.
Don't troll with comments taken verbatim from another blog Lanky; or are you Red Rosa too?
if I spread info from my work place, yes I also signed a confidentiality agreement, I would be gone by lunch-time .. is this not the case with our Spooks?
If the Police are investigating one offence by a staff member, and become aware of another treasonable activity by another then they would need to consider all breaches of the law they become aware of. They could not just isolate the offence reported by Norman.
So the spooks have just taken three days inspecting the hard drives for any official recordings of the “Cafeteria” conversation – now why would they have bothered to do that when they advised the PM at the time that there would not be any official recording of the address in the Cafeteria. Now that smells incredibly odd. Someone showing further economy with the truth …
This incident demonstrates once again how appalling the memories of certain right wing politicians are. Helicopter rides, birthday parties, fireworks displays, appeals for money, meetings with and briefings from spies. For goodness sake, the guy this is about is 6ft 8 and 200kgs, and no tory can ever remember anything about him. People with such poor powers of recall are really not fit for public office.
"I....can't...recall"
11: Prohibition on unauthorised disclosure of information
(1) A person who is or was an employee of the Bureau may not disclose or use any information gained by or conveyed to the person through the person’s connection with the Bureau except in the strict course of the person’s official duties or as authorised by the Minister.
(2) Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $2,000 who contravenes subsection (1).
To which I say ... nonsense. If an employee of the GCSB telling people "John Key gave a lunchtime talk to us at work and in the course of it mentioned Kim Dotcom's name" is a breach of this section, then telling people "at work today Bob wore a blue tie" also would be, as would telling people "we don't have plunger coffee at work, we have instant."
Because clearly the intent of this section isn't to prevent employees (current or former) from saying anything at all about their employment. Rather, it's intended to prevent such persons from talking about the secret stuff that they may come to learn through working at the Bureau, or that may prejudice the Bureau's ability to conduct its surveillance activities. Neither of which the disclosure that (1) the PM gave a talk to the staff at lunchtime, nor (2) in that talk he (allegedly) mentioned Kim Dotcom's name does. So while passing on information about what the Prime Minister (allegedly) said during lunch with them at the cafe may raise employment issues under the State Sector Act, it just isn't a criminal matter.
Post a Comment